MRC Tries to Downplay Ginni Thomas' Far-Right Views Topic: Media Research Center
We've noted how the Media Research Center -- particularly Tim Graham -- likes to attack NRC host Chuck Todd's wife for working as a Democratic strategist and perhaps having some malign influence over Todd himself (or, at the very least, that Todd should be barred from covering politics due to his "conflict of interest"). Not only does the MRC not think that Fox News hosts with similar conflicts of interest are a problem, it's also giving a pass to the very political wife of a Supreme Court justice.
A Dec. 28 post by Brad Wilmouth complained that CNN held "a discussion of whether Ginni Thomas -- the wife of conservative U.S Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas -- is expressing too many "far-right" political views on venues like Facebook," citing unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud.Wilmouth offered nothing but whataboutism in response, attacking CNN for being "the network that makes entire documentaries lauding Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who certainly caused this kind of furor about partisan opinions when she harshly attacked Donald Trump, and CNN thinks she's just terrific."
Graham himself chimed in on Jan. 1, attacking a Washington Post writer who pointed out that Thomas "shared a Facebook post that bizarrely described California as a war zone, with illegal immigrants scaling walls and carjacking U.S. citizens," issued then deleted a post "proclaiming that teenage survivors of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting are 'dangerous to the survival of our nation' because of their gun-control activism," and the she "harangued Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for supposedly wiretapping Donald Trump — a baseless accusation indulged in only by conspiracy theorists." Graham tried to portray these attacks as mainstream views:
Without going deep into these accusations, we can inform [Post writer Dan] Zak: illegal immigrants do scale walls, and some do carjack citizens. Conservatives do believe liberal teenage Parkland survivors are trying to curtail the Second Amendment (and engage in a lot of "erroneous propaganda.") And we now know Paul Manafort was wiretapped, which means the feds probably wiretapped his conversations with Trump.
Graham then went into whataboutism mode by attacking the reporter for being "nakedly partisan."
After a group of activists led by Thomas met with President Trump, Clay Waters was upset that the New York Times described them as "hard-right" then, yes, played whataboutism: "The paper proved itself hypersensitive to supposed conflicts of interest among conservatives, though one wonders if reporters would be as aggrieved if a spouse of a liberal Justice met with a President Obama."
Waters was also upset that Thomas' far-right postings were described by the Times as "conspiracy theories," joining Graham in whitewash mode: "The paper didn’t offer any further details about those 'conspiracy theories,' but on the face of it there’s nothing particularly striking or shocking to suggest that left-wing Soros is working to help Democrats, or the possibility of pro-Democratic voter fraud."
Graham, along with MRC chief Brent Bozell, engaged in more whataboutism and deflection in their Jan. 29 column, further attacking that New York Times article by complaining that it claimed Thomas "is, well, extreme. And she's married to You-Know-Who." The attack continued: "Now try to imagine the Times writing in high dudgeon about Obama or Hillary Clinton meeting with people on 'the Democratic Party’s fringes.' For 8 years Obama entertained every leftist group imaginable. And yet the Times can’t find a 'fringe' on that side of the partisan aisle. On the same day they nearly fainted over Ginni Thomas, the Times gushed over hard-left Sen. Kamala Harris announcing a run for president in her hometown of Oakland, California."
Graham and Bozell then immediately attack Harris for being "hard left" and "on the left-wing fringes" for supporting Medicare for all and the Green New Deal. They do not explain how they determined these to be "fringe" views; instead, they're mad that the Times accurately described them as "currently popular among Democrats."
Notice that at no point do any of these MRC writers delve further into Thomas' views -- indeed Graham himself declared that he wouldn't be "going deep" into them. That suggests to us they know her views really are fringe, and that they don't want to give her critics ammunition by admitting that. Which, again, is the MRC putting its right-wing agenda ahead of the truth.
CNS Reporter Rushes to Defend Trump After 'Executive Time' Leak Topic: CNSNews.com
Not only does CNSNews.com serve as an echo chamber to support President Trump's pronouncements, it's also a source of kneejerk defenses of the president.
A good example of this is a Feb. 4 article by Susan Jones, who's so offended that somebody released Trump's private schedule -- which includes copious amounts of "executive time" -- that she turns it from a "news" item to an opinion piece defending Trump and attacking the leaker:
In another apparent attempt to undermine the Trump presidency, someone described as "a White House source" has leaked "nearly every day of President Trump's private schedule for the past 3 months to Axios' Alexi McCammond," Axios reported on Sunday.
The website published those daily schedules, which show that Trump "has spent around 60% of his scheduled time over the past 3 months in unstructured 'Executive Time.'"
The leak allowed cable news shows such as MSNBC's "Morning Joe" to "report" that "Barack Obama worked around the clock compared to Donald Trump."
According to host Joe Scarborough on Monday, "There are seniors playing shuffle board in Boca retirement communities who work more than the president of the United States right now."
This is not the first time someone in the Trump administration has tried to undermine the president.
We still do not know which "unnamed Trump administration official" wrote a New York Times op-ed last September, describing the president as “impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.” The editorial said insiders were "working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”
The leak to Axios may be part of that effort.
Jones also uncritically quotes borderline ludicrous (not to mention unsupported) statements by Trump aides: White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders' assertion that Trump is "the most productive President in modern history, and Trump personal secretary Madeleine Westerhout insisting that "This POTUS is working harder for the American people than anyone in recent history."
The article also includes a picture of "President Donald Trump at work in the Oval Office."
WND Gets Out-Conspiracied By CNS on Roger Stone Conspiracy Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's not often you see WorldNetDaily get outplayed by another ConWeb outlet on a conspiracy theory, but it has surpisingly happened.
We'vedetailed how CNSNews.com reporter Susan Jones has heartily embraced the conspiracy theory that CNN was tipped off to the arrest of Roger Stone on various charges through the Robert Muller investigation, presumably by Mueller himself. Jones gave copious space to those advancing the theory while giving short shrift to CNN pointing out that it wasn't that hard to figure out to reporters who have been following the Mueller investigation.
Even WND wasn't that enthusiastic about this particular conspiracy theory, even though editor Joseph Farah has ranted that Stone's arrest displayed "Gestapo police-state tactics" and rather unconvincingly tried to argue that he doesn't even know Stone. Its first report, coinciding with Jones' first report, was simply copied-and-pasted from far-right blog Gateway Pundit. WND didn't touch it again until Feb. 13, when Stone issued a court filing claiming -- according, again, to Gateway Pundit, to whom WND has apparently outsourced this conspiracy theory -- "the metadata on a draft copy of the indictment obtained by a CNN reporter and sent to Roger’s attorney after his arrest showed a save date of two days prior to the January 25th unsealing of the court documents following the Stone’s arrest."
But Stone's filing never proves the indictment was sent out before Stone's arrest, writes Buzzfeed News' Zoe Tillman who added: "Per today's filing, Stone was arrested at 6:06am. An email from Mueller's office to reporters, with a link to the indictment, went out a few minutes later (my email has it time-stamped 6:17am). Stone's filing has a text from a reporter to Stone's lawyer with that link at 6:22am." The noted "save date" two days before Stone's arrest has nothing to do with whether reporters got a copy before the arrest.
Mueller himself has since confirmed that he did not tip off CNN to Stone's impending arrest. Neither WND nor CNS have seen fit to report this devlopment so far.
MRC Decries One Nazi Comparison While Its 'News' Division Promotes Another Topic: Media Research Center
It's not a surprise that the Media Research Center never holds its own "news" division, CNSNews.com, to the same standards of behavior it demands from "liberal" media outlets. Here's yet another example.
A Jan. 27 NewsBusters post by Jack Coleman complains about "the juvenile comparison of American conservatives to Nazis," specifically targeting HBO host Bill Maher likening diehard Trump supporters to "Mrs. Goebbels in the bunker ... giving the cyanide to the children because she does not want to live in a world without national socialism."
(Coleman also bizarrely writes that "You'd think that Maher of all people would applaud conservatives and not mock them for their frequent warnings about socialism -- seeing how he's quite aware it also didn't work so well for Germany." He's apparently oblivious to the fact that Nazism was not socialism.)
The next day, CNS published a post by managing editor Michael W. Chapman touting celebrity musician Charlie Daniels' Nazi comparison that apparently has full MRC approval:
Commenting on the sweeping abortion-on-demand legislation that New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law on Jan. 22, country music legend and commentator Charlie Daniels said Cuomo was sanctioning "thousands of murders," had created "a new Aushwitz" dedicated to killing the innocent, and that "Satan is smiling."
"Watch the wrinkles on cuomo's face lengthen as the ramifications of the thousands of murders he has sanctioned come to bear on him," wrote Charlie Daniels in a Jan. 26 tweet.
"The NY legislature has created a new Auschwitz dedicated to the execution of a whole segment of defenseless citizens," he wrote.
"Satan is smiling," concluded Daniels.
Chapman then added his own editorial comment:
In total, the Nazis killed close to 19 million in their concentration camps.
Since the Surpeme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 -- no legislation was ever passed, it was a court decision -- more than 56 million babies have been killed by abortion. Every day, on average, 2,900 babies are aborted.
Satan truly is smiling.
A week later, CNS published a column by Daniels expanding on the Nazi comparison:
In the early stages of the second World War, Hitler, intent on totally exterminating the Jews, came up with a plan the Nazis code named the Final Solution.
The Buchenwald, Auschwitz, Dachau, Treblinka, concentration camps were set up to systematically import, incarcerate and exterminate the Jews of Europe.
There are those out there who will deny that the Holocaust ever happened, but I’m here to tell you that it did happen. I remember the newsreels from my early youth that showed bulldozers pushing thousands of naked, emaciated bodies of dead Jews into mass graves like so much garbage.
There were six million Jews murdered by the Nazis, in gas chambers, mass shootings and any other kind of monstrous methods of death these demonic animals could come up with.
Horrible right? Could never happen in the United States of America, right?
This past week, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York signed into law a bill that is every bit as evil, and just as satanically inspired, as Hitler’s Final Solution. It’s a bill that allows abortion up to the time the child comes through the birth canal.
If Nazi comparisons are juvenile and bad and Godwin-esque, why won't the MRC criticize all of them instead of publishing the ones it endorses?
CNS Still Giving Loopy Rabbi A Platform to Praise Trump Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's favorite loopy Trump-loving rabbi, Aryeh Spero, just can't stop fawning over the president. And CNS can't stop giving Spero a platform for it.
In a Jan. 10 column, Spero aped Trump campaign rhetoric that building a wall at thte Mexico border is "the moral thing to do," complete withj Trump-esque rant:
Many of our communities have suffered, especially in rural areas, by an overcapacity and demand stemming from illegal immigration. Hospitals, schools, clinics, and other vital institutions have closed to the detriment of our citizens who have depended upon these institutions. Contagious diseases have begun to crop up in many areas; and people not wealthy enough to have fences surrounding their homes and unable to afford private transportation services are the victims of these outbreaks. Compassion for these ordinary American citizens is what we need and what the wall offers.
And in a Feb. 6 column, Spero can't stop drooling over Trump's State of the Union address and alleged support for the Jews:
Last night’s State of the Union Address by President Trump will go down as one of the most historic, unifying, and visionary peacetime addresses to the nation. It was delivered with passion, precision, and expressed with heart, making us feel the country will be safe and will move forward under President Trump’s dynamic leadership.
No president has devoted more time to the scourge of anti-Semitism as did the President last evening when addressing survivors of the Holocaust, victims of the massacre at the Pittsburgh synagogue, and linking America’s history and identity with fighting anti-Semitism. The President did a masterful job because deep inside he believes in what he says, and because he loves America and its people.
CNS previously brought in Spero, in his role as spokesperson for the National Conference on Jewish Affairs -- which appears to exist mainly, if not solely, as a vehicle for Spero -- to ostentatiously praise Trump's response to the Pittsburgh syagogue massacre, though he didn't much beyond visiting the area and offer "heartfelt expressions of grief."
MRC: Soros Is A Jew You're Allowed To Hate Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center hates George Soros, and it wants you to hate him as much as he does -- to the point that it has absolved anyone who criticizes him of anti-Semitism.
After Democratic Rep. Ihlan Omar got into trouble with a remark about conservative politicians being controlled by Jewish money that many considered anti-Semitic, others pointed out that convervatives like to attack Soros and other liberal Jews for funding their preferred causes. That did not go down well at the MRC.
Curtis Houck complained that "numerous analysts and hosts have tried to assist Omar by muddying the waters, suggesting House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is also anti-Semitic for a tweet last year criticizing the left-wing views of Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and Tom Steyer." Houck added: "So criticizing the policies of specific individuals as radical is on par with suggesting money from Jewish people controls politicians? Yeah, no. Not the same."
Kyle Drennen huffed that some were taking "what was supposed to be a story about the anti-Semitism scandal swirling around Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar" and bring up McCarthy's comments, insisting that "In reality, McCarthy’s tweet simply criticized Soros for his left-wing influence over Democratic politics, in the exact same way that Democrats routinely attack the Koch brothers for donating to Republicans."
Alex Christy similarly got mad about the McCarthy parallel, sarcastically griping, "When Republicans warn about wealthy billionaires' influence on elections it is anti-Semitism, when Democrats do it, it is showing appropriate concern about money and lobbying in politics." Christy also complained that one cable news guest said that "Trump and Republicans have been peddling anti-Semitism through criticism of George Soros and 'globalists,' even seeming to imply that Trump's rhetoric had inspired the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, despite the fact that the shooter hated Trump." Actually, the shooter supported parts of Trump's political agenda, though he allegedly didn't vote for Trump.
Ryan Foley groused that CNN's Don Lemon "couldn't resist the urge to call House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy a hypocrite for knocking Omar despite the fact that he had accused 'Soros, Steyer, and Bloomberg,' three wealthy liberal Jews and Democratic donors, of trying to 'BUY this election.'"
Foley served up another defense of McCarthy, prlclaiming that he "offered a common sense explanation: it was election season and he was talking about Democrats and their big donors."
In what was a poorly mangled attempt to be the liberal and unfunny Seth Meyers, CNN’sThe Lead host Jake Tapper went on a rant Wednesday in which he pretended to throw fits at his control staff for not showing clips and tweets of anti-Semitic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN), but instead ones that painted the Trump administration and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) as not only hypocrites but anti-Semites.
So, in other words, Tapper’s four-minute-and-eight-second monologue seemed to muddy the waters and engage in what probably would be condemned on CNN as “whataboutism” if such a stunt was pulled on Fox News.
So what should have been an unequivocal condemnation of anti-Semitism, blasting Omar’s treatment of [CNN reporter Manu] Raju, or even how Omar has repeatedly shown an apprehension toward Jewish people (including Wednesday’s hearing with Elliot Abrams), Tapper tried to deflect attention toward the GOP as having a problem with anti-Semitism.
So, in other words, that’s whataboutism, which was amusing considering what Tapper tweeted on February 4, 2017 about the topic and comparisons that didn’t exactly line up. But Orange Man Bad, so that’s perfectly fine.
Of course, Houck would never be so gauche as to call out such whataboutism on Fox News for what it is in the way he's attacking Tapper.
Houck even went so far as to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in tweeting an anti-Semitic meme, baselessly ascribing ignorance to him:
Alas, Tapper continued on, asking producers to fetch more footage of Omar, but instead was given “a deleted Donald Trump retweet from 2016 as conservative Erick Erickson tweeted at the time: ‘A Star of David, a pile of cash, and suggestions of corruption. Donald Trump again plays to the white supremacists.’”
Yes, this was one of the more undeniably controversial things Trump did during the campaign, so let’s give Tapper the benefit of the doubt, even if one thinks Trump didn’t know what he was doing.
Even the MRC's semi-pro New York Times-hater, Clay Waters, got in on the action, complaining that a Times article "strained to turn the tables on Republicans" by bringing up McCarthy's statement.
It looks like a bunch of people at the MRC have forgotten how it has used anti-Semitic imagery by portraying Soros as a liberal puppetmaster. The MRC has never been held to account for that, and it has never apologized for using it, so it's walking on thin ice here in giving people a pass. The MRC also tried to whitewash unambiguous anti-Semitism against Soros, in the form of Roseanne Barr's false portrayal of him as a Nazi collaborator during World War II, as merely an "anti-Soros tweet."
WND Pushes Another Bogus Science-Related Petition Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've noted how WorldNetDaily has promoted a petition spearheaded by WND buddy Art Robinson that purports to have more than 31,000 scientists signing to a statement that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate" -- though few signees have a background in climatology and there's no apparent mechanism to verify signees' scientific qualifications.
More than 1,000 highly influential scientists from around the world have gone on record with their doubts about Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
They hail from institutions such as Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Tulane, Rice and Baylor, the National Academy of Sciences, the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, the British Museum and MIT’s Lincoln Library.
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life,” they say in a statement. “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
The scientists include the best in molecular biology, biochemistry, biology, entomology, computational quantum chemistry, microbiology, psychiatry and behavioral sciences, astrophysics, marine biology, cellular biology, physics and astronomy, math, physics, geology and anthropology, according to Evolution News, an online publication of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, which promotes the theory of intelligent design.
The Discovery Institute first published its “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” list in The New York Review of Books in 2001 to challenge “false” claims from PBS’ series “Evolution.”
The fact that this petition has been kicking around since 2001 is highly suggestive of the petition's dubious nature (Robinson's petition has been around since 1998).
But as an article by the National Center for Science Education details, the petition echoes the Robinson petition in other ways. Numerous signatories do not have backgrounds in evolutionary biology, and even Discovery Institute officials who signed it have Ph.Ds in philosophy, not science.
Further, the petition's wording has apparently changed over the years, de-emphasizing the link to the 2001 PBS program that inspired it, which according to the NCSE article falsely equated evolution with Darwinian evolution. Further, NCSE contacted some of the signatories and found that they "represent a diverse range of opinions about the role of natural selection in evolution." NCSE concludes: "Ironically, if one were to conduct a survey of scientists who accepted evolution, the size of that list would swamp by tens of thousands this list assembled by the Discovery Institute!"
Needless to say, WND has no interest in reporting that aspect.
CNS Skips A Controversy In Reporting on Trump Judicial Nominee Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com took an unusually high -- albeit highly selective -- interest in one Trump judicial nominee's Senate confirmation hearing.
Seemingly suggesting that the nominee wasn't far enough to the right, Melanie Arter wrote in a Feb. 6 article:
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals judicial nominee Neomi Rao told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday that “there’s an overwhelming scientific consensus that there is climate change” and that “human activity does contribute to climate change.”
When questioned on her personal beliefs about when human life begins, however, she said it would be inappropriate to answer because some cases relating to the issue could come before the court.
But another article the same day, by Emily Ward, seemed to come to Rao's defense by highlighting a religion-related question to her:
On Tuesday, while questioning judicial nominee Neomi Rao, who has been nominated by President Donald Trump to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) asked Rao whether she believed gay relationships “are a sin.” This drew criticism from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who pointed out that the Constitution prohibits religious tests of those seeking federal office.
Ward did concede there was a legitimate basis for Booker's question, noting that Rao had previously criticized a Supreme Court ruling that decriminalized same-sex relationships.
Ward followed up with a Feb. 13 article highlighting Republican criticism of questions to judges that "focused on the nominees’ religious beliefs," citing Booker's question to Rao as "only the most recent in a series of incidents in which Democrat senators have questioned nominees on their personal religious beliefs."
Strangely, none of these CNS articles cited a much bigger controversy involving Rao's beliefs: writings in college that seemed to argue that victims of date rape had it coming beause they drank too much. Rao apologized for those writings during the hearing -- something CNS didn't deem to be newsworthy.
WND's Brown Still Cynically Sticking With An Amoral President Topic: WorldNetDaily
We'vedocumented how WorleNetDaily columnist Michael Brown handwaves President Trump's amoral and immoral behavior because he keesp delivering the right-wing goods. And he does so again in a Jan. 28 column.
Brown again offers up a little faux caring about Trump's behavior, complete with italics: "Quite obviously, as an evangelical, I do not back the president’s every word or decision, especially when he waxes ugly and even vulgar." Then he enumerates concerns about "some of the potential Democratic presidential candidates"; he repeats some of the usual right-wing attacks then, being the anti-gay activist he is, offers special to Pete Buttigeg for being "the openly gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and if elected, would be the nation’s first gay president." He also singled out "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the new face of the Democratic Party," even though she is not only not running for president, she's not even eligible to do so in 2020.
But Brown's point here is to once again cynically justify supporting Trump:
If 2020 came down to any of these putative Democrat candidates vs. Trump, it would be a no-brainer for me. Trump would get my vote.
And then there is that six-letter word: courts.
Last week, a state judge in Iowa struck down the “fetal heartbeat” bill, which prevents abortions once the baby’s heartbeat can be detected.
As reported by a local news outlet, “Judge Michael Huppert found the law unconstitutional, concluding that the Iowa Supreme Court’s earlier decisions that affirm a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion would include the new law passed last year.”
We desperately need judges who will do away with the myth of “a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion” and will instead rule in favor of life.
Against this backdrop, it is critically important that Trump recently renominated 50 judges for federal positions, including two for San Francisco’s notoriously far-left 9th Circuit Court. And Trump’s list of 50 is filled with solid conservatives.
In contrast, can you imagine what kind of judges a far-left Democratic president would nominate?
In light of the positive transformation of the courts, I will gladly put up with the president’s divisive ways as much as I regret them. Again, the alternative leaves me no choice.
In an ideal world, we would have a president who was a shining example of Christlikeness, well-versed in the Scriptures and serving as the leader of all Americans, from all faiths and backgrounds. And perhaps that day will come, even in our lifetimes.
But right now, as the Democratic Party continues to lurch left, as the courts play a bigger and bigger role in our society, and as the secular media exposes its extreme bigotry and bias, I am reminded afresh of why I voted for Trump in 2016.
And that’s why, given similar choices in 2020, I would vote for him again.
MRC Invents A 'Sexist' Attack on Sarah Sanders Topic: Media Research Center
The headline on Rebecca Downs' Feb. 7 Media Research Center post blared, "'Big Bang Theory's Chuck Lorre Launches Ugly, Sexist Attack Against Sarah Sanders." In it, Downs asserted that Lorre "targeted White House Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, as well as her prayer life and her looks," further huffing: "It’s also been established that it’s sexist and wrong to go after women for their looks. Or is it only liberal women that this applies to?"
So what did Lorre say in his regular end-of-show vanity card? "God told me he hasn't spoken to Sarah Sanders since she was fourteen years old and praying for her skin to clear up. I have no reason to doubt Him."
Downs did not explain how making a joke about a teenage Sanders dealing with acne -- a common condition that afflicts both boys and girls of that age -- is "sexist." Perhaps because it is not, in fact, a "sexist" comment.
This is not the first time that the MRC has manufactured a "sexist" attack by someone against Sanders. Following Michelle Wolf's performance at last years White House Corresdpondents Dinner, it decided that Wolf's quip that Sanders "burns facts, and then she uses that ash to create a perfect smoky eye" was a personal attack on her looks and not a comment about her mendacity in defense of President Trump:
"That sure sounds like a slam on her appearance," P.J. Gladnick declared.
"Wolf made jokes at the expense of Sarah Sanders's looks," Scott Whitlock insisted.
Wolf made "personal attacks about [her] appearance,"the MRC uncritically quoted Fox News' Ed Henry as saying.
It seems that the MRC is trying to shut down discussion of Sanders' job performance by dismissing any criticism of her as "sexist."
NEW ARTICLE: Military-Grade Craziness Topic: WorldNetDaily
James G. Zumwalt squanders his name -- made illustrious by his family's military legacy -- to spread false claims, Islamophobia and conspiracy theories at WorldNetDaily. Read more >>
CNS similarly flooded the zone when Rep. Rashida Tlaib -- coincidentally, also a Muslim and a Democrat -- made her own controversial remark, posting multiple articles in a short amount of time and making sure to reference the remark in the headline.
But CNS' tone is much different when a Republican makes a controversial remark. When Republican Rep. Steve King made comments supportive of white nationalism, CNS waited four days to do its first story about it, published only one other article on it, never referenced the nature of the comments in the headline of any article, and gave copious space to King to rebut accusations.
That's what's called media bias. CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, should look into that sometime.
Seven Years Later, WND's Cashill Is Still Trashing Trayvon Martin Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Cashill just can't stop trashing a dead teen.
Cashill has been trashing Trayvon Martin -- portraying him as a thug in training despite the fact that he had never been arrested for anything -- and lionizing his killer, George Zimmerman, ever since Zimmerman killed Martin in an 2012 altercation. He wrote a book on the subject, then continued to defend Zimmerman even as his behavior caused further legal complications.
In his Feb. 6 WorldNetDaily column, Cashill took offense to people marking Martin's death, then launched on a lengthy speculation about what might have happened if Zimmerman had not shot Martin. He imagines that Martin beat Zimmerman into unconsciousness, if not to death, because he was "into drugs, fighting, sex, guns and playing 'gangsta,'"then portrayed Martin's father turning him in to authorities while blaming himself for breaking up marriages to Trayvon's mother and stepmother.
Cashill followed that with a pre-emtpive mourning of Zimmerman because he "volunteered to be neighborhood watch captain after a young mother a few doors down endured a home invasion," and is "an Hispanic civil rights activist and Obama supporter. He mentors black teens, and just a year ago he led a crusade to get justice for a black homeless man who had been beaten by a cop’s son." Cashill's imaginary police officer declares that Trayvon is "going to prison" for his crime.
Cashill also repeated a neighbor's claim that he allegedly saw Martin go down on Zimmerman "MMA style," but failed to note that the neighbor later walked back that claim and admitted he never actually saw any punches thrown.
Remember that Cashill is better known for pushing bogus conspiracy theories than for accurate reportage, and that tells you what you should believe about what he writes.
MRC Defends Sanders Claiming God Ordained Trump -- But Attacked Those Who Claimed God Ordained Obama Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Ryan Foley writes in a Feb. 1 post:
During Wednesday’s edition of Erin Burnett OutFront, the eponymous host and her panel reacted to White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders’s declaration that God “wanted Donald Trump to become President” during an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. Burnett seemed to think that God playing a role in the electoral politics of the United States posed a direct threat to democracy.
Burnett seemed shocked by Sanders’s statement, arguing that “it’s a big thing to say that God...whatever God may be, he, she, it...wanted Donald Trump to become President.” Burnett asked Scott Jennings, former advisor to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, “does that make you blanch at all or are you okay with that?” Jennings responded, “I find it quite likely that supporters of any politician who wins believe that it was God’s plan for that politician to win. So, no, I’m not surprised to hear someone saying that.”
Burnett proceeded to scoff at the idea that God would have anything to do with electoral politics in the United States: “I thought we live in a democracy, right? The will of the people and now you’re saying it’s the will of God. I don’t know, there’s something about it that seems quite jarring to me, frankly.” Jennings stressed that he believed in the will of the people while proclaiming that “I happen to believe in the will of God and that his will will be done on this Earth whether we like it or not.” Burnett still seemed to have a hard time wrapping her head around that idea, asking Jennings, “And you think that God cares who’s President of the United States?”
Needless to say, there's a double standard. The MRC was much less forgiving of the idea that God plays a role in the electoral politics of the United States when the result of his intervention was Barack Obama.
Lachlan Markay mockingly wrote in a 2009 post that musician Sting "told the Associated Press that he believes that Obama is a gift from Heaven, delivered to shepherd the befuddled masses to providence," further sneering that Sting's "audacious deification of the President" was "Hollywood sophistry at its best."
A 2008 post by Mark Finkelstein similarly mocked Spike Lee for saying something similar:
B.C. and A.D? Get with it, old man. History is henceforth divided into the eras of B.B. and A.B.—Before and After Barack. And George W. might have been "misunderestimated" as he engaged in "strategery." But that's so, like, yesterday. Barack Obama is "pre-deortained." By whom? Spike Lee stopped short of saying God's hand is at work. But he was clearly speaking in quasi-religious terms in discussing The One on today's Morning Joe.
Scott Whitlock huffed in a "This Week in Media Bias History" post that it was "sheer insanity" for Newsweek editor Evan Thomas to claim in 2009 that "Obama’s standing above the country... above the world. He’s sort of God." He then sneered, "You knew some journalist would say it."
Whitlock wasn't done sneering, writing this in another "This Week" post: "Liberal journalists don’t like conservatives bringing up religion and faith, but it’s apparently okay for them to insist God supports Democratic political goals. On December 4, 2013, then-MSNBC host Ed Schultz weighed in on how God feels about ObamaCare: 'I’ll tell you what I think God thinks of the Affordable Care Act. It’s a big "amen."'"
So it's "media bias"when someone invokes God for a Democrat, but mocking someone's sincere faith when that person invokes God for a Republican. Got it.
James Hirsen, who claims to be a lawyer, did a lawyerly job doing a little pro bono work for the National Enquirer in his Feb. 11 Newsmax column in attempting to insist that the apparent extortion attempt the Enquirer's parent, American Media Inc., is using against Amazon chief and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos really isn't extortion at all.
AMI threatened to publish compromising photos of Bezos if, as Hirsen tells it, "he did not publicly state that the tabloid’s reporting on his affair was not motivated by political concerns." But even as Hirsen admits, "David Pecker is the CEO of AMI, and he is known to be an associate and friend of President Donald Trump," and that Bezos "cited ways that the president and Pecker had cooperated in the past." It would seem, then, that AMI is demanding that Bezos state something that appears to be a lie.
He even concedes that the story "illustrates the hunger on the part of many in the mainstream press for anything that can be weaponized against the president and used to ratchet down his poll numbers" -- inadvertently acknowleging that it's legitimate for Bezos to breing up the Trump angle.
Hirsen insists that a "superficial read" is leading to claims of extortion. But, he adds, this is merely a business negotiation:
In analyzing this email, it is important to focus on the context within which both parties are seeking to settle a dispute.
In settlement negotiations, it is common practice for the parties to propose that each side will release the other from any potential claims. This is what was communicated through its legal counsel in the subject e-mail by AMI, along with a proposal that Bezos would agree to tell the public that AMI's coverage of Bezos was not politically motivated.
In return, AMI would agree not to publish the texts and photographs.
Outside of the settlement discussion context, criminal extortion would exist in a case such as this if money was demanded as payment for not making public an embarrassing secret. However, in this instance the key difference revolves around the settlement backdrop.
Why would the two sides be negotiating a settlement? It is clear that Bezos has been raising potential civil legal claims against AMI, while AMI has suggested that Bezos’s Washington Post planned to publish a false news story about AMI.
These cross assertions are arguably the basis for both parties to be pursuing a settlement of their respective claims. A settlement agreement would mutually release the claims of both parties.
Prosecutors would have an uphill battle in attempting to use these facts as a basis for a criminal extortion case. Additionally, the First Amendment creates further problems for the prosecution, since Bezos is a very well known influential public figure and a power player in Silicon Valley, Washington, D.C., and Hollywood.
Hirsen is incorrect in claiming that it's only extortion if money is involved. As Slate detailed, the federal extortion statute prohibits communication "containing any threat to injure the … reputation of the addressee" in order to extort "money or other thing of value." The statement of exoneration AMI is demanding from Bezos is clearly a thing of value, and the compromising photos it's threatening to print if it doesn't get that statement are clearly intended to injure Bezos' reputation.
(Hirsen curious doesn't mention that other prominent people have also been on the receiving end of AMI's sleazy tactics.)
Further, Hirsen does not supply any evidence that this was an actual "negotiation." If Bezos' telling is correct, AMI made demands of Bezos, and when he "didn’t react to the generalized threat with enough fear," it raised the ante by bringing up the compromising photos.
If this was really a First Amendment issue based solely on Bezos' newsworthiness as a "very well known influential public figure and a power player in Silicon Valley, Washington, D.C., and Hollywood," AMI would not need to negotiate with Bezos -- it would simply publish the photos. Every other legitimate news organization would do that.
Hirsen's column reads more like an audition as an attorney for AMI than a serious look at the legal issues involved here.