Whataboutism-ists At The MRC Accuse Others of Whataboutism Topic: Media Research Center
One standard rhetorical tactic the Media Research Center loves to engage in is whataboutism -- defecting from an allegation against an ally by claiming an opponent is doing the exact same thing. Its response to the devastating New Yorker story on Fox News is a goodexample of how this works.
So it's a bit funny to see the MRC accuse others of whataboutism. For some reason, it did this a lot regarding people taking about Msulim Rep. Ilhan Omar's statements critical of Israel.
Alex Christy complained that MSNBC guest Sam Stein noted that "many liberal Jews have many of the same problems with Benjamin Netanyahu that Omar does" then "moved to the real story: anti-Muslim behavior. 'This is not whataboutism, although it's going to come across that way, but there is and has to be a better understanding of the degree to which anti-Muslim behavior isn't just rhetorical, but it permeates our politics in ways people don't totally appreciate,' Stein declared." Christy added: "Perhaps, it sounds like whataboutism, because it is."
Curtis Houck similarly huffed that "Kirsten Powers became stricken with an embarrassing case of whataboutism" by "blasting President Trump and suggesting that criticism of Omar has been Islamophobic and sexist."
In another post, Houck didn't use the word but described whataboutism in practice by claiming that CNN's Erin Burnett "and two panelists spent over 10 minutes trying to muddy the waters on anti-Semitism, downplaying Minnesota Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s long history of anti-Semitic comments because the President’s Charlottesville comments and white supremacists are the ones worth denouncing (instead of both)." Houck then asserted that Burnett "smugly went after Trump as a raging hypocrite, implying he’s okay with anti-Semitism" -- even though Burnett provided examples of such that Houck didn't dispute.
As we've noted, Houck has previously tried to handwave Trump's anti-Semitic tendenciees by arguing that Trump "didn't know what he was doing" when he tweeted an image showing Hillary on a pile of cash with a Star of David shape reading, "Most corrupt candidate ever!"
NEW ARTICLE: Trump's Biggest ConWeb Fanboy Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah positively drools with admiration over every word that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth -- and even follows the nonreligious Trump's religious lead on not reciting a prayer. Read more >>
MRC Tired Of Hearing About Mosque Massacre, Demands Coverage of Dead Christians Instead Topic: Media Research Center
A mere four days after the mosque masscare in New Zealand, MRC Culture managing editor Matt Philbin had had enough. He was clearly tired of hearing about murdered Muslilms, and he wanted in on some of that massacre coverage action for his own religion.
That seems to explain the whataboutism in Philbin's March 19 piece demanding alleged atrocites commited by "Islamists" against Christians in Africa:
People in and out of media are having a useful discussion these days: Since it’s clear terrorists like the animals in Christchurch want recognition, what is the appropriate way to cover their outrages? How much information should be available about the murderers and their intentions?
When it comes to more routine outrages that happen across the Third World, the question for the media is simpler: Should we cover it at all? Most often, the answer is no. Certainly not if the perpetrators are Muslim and the victims Christian. But really, no combination of aggressor/aggrieved is of much interest to the media because, for all their one-worldly pretensions, they don’t much care about violence outside developed Western nations. ABC, CBS and NBC have all ignored the extreme violence against African Christians occurring in the last month.
Varying reports say that anywhere from 120 to 280 Christians have been slaughtered by Islamist militias in Nigeria since Feb. 9.
Philbin then slipped into MRC conspiracy mode, complaining that the media had insufficiently covered "violence against Christians in majority Muslim countries" and whining that "Islamist violence hasn’t disappeared, the networks have only gotten worse at covering it.
Philbin's point is all too obvious: Dead Christians are inherently more newsworthy than dead Muslims, and even more so when Muslims can be blamed for it.
WND Obsesses Over Muslim Congresswoman For Being Muslim Topic: WorldNetDaily
Rep. Ilhan Omar was alway going to be hated by WorldNetDaily for being a Muslim -- indeed, WND has been hating her since 2016, when she won state legislative race in Minnesota and Leo Hohmann ranted she was the face of "cultural jihad." But Omar's criticism of Jewish interests in politics, which came off as anti-Semitic, made that WND target on her back even bigger.
One of the things WND has decided to obsess about regarding Omar is the idea that she might have married her brother, a conspiracy theory to which WND has devoted no small amount of space:
Terrible lawyer Larry Klayman claimed in his Feb. 22 column that he is trying to get Omar deported because, among other reasons, "She has apparently, at a minimum, by way of marrying her brother so that he could ultimately become an American citizen, committed immigration fraud, for which, if demonstrably proven, she could be denaturalized as an American citizen herself and be deported back to Somalia or Kenya, from which she hails." He then laughably claims he has no "enmity aginst Ilhan Omar."
A March 7 article on Klayman's petition to deport Omar uncritically repeated his unsupported claim that Omar "married her own brother in a sham marriage constituting immigration fraud."
A March 14 article rehashes the claim as made by right-wing media outlets, though it does concede that "Omar vehemently denies the claim" and that any actual evidence presented so far is "circumstantial."
On March 22, WND touted that "U.S. and British officials have been informed that the man to whom Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., was married for eight years is her brother, according to a reporter who has investigated the claim." But even that reporter apparently -- from one of the above right-wing otuets -- isn't sure, admitting is work is being "vetted by lawyers." He did whine, however, that "Most of what I have published has been ignored" -- perhaps because he has offered nothing but "circumstantial" conspiracy theories?
Meanwhile, WND hasn't neglected good ol' Muslim-bashing in its attacks on Omar. James Zumwalt upped the hate in his March 13 column, claiming that Omar has gone through purportedly standard Muslim "indoctrination" to hate Jews:
Up until age 10, Omar enjoyed a pretty good life in Somalia – a Marxist-Leninist socialist state under the brutal dictator, Mohammad Siad Barre. Her family reaped rewards for supporting Barre and was only forced to flee in 1991 when he fell from power. Ironically, after her family supported an inhuman Somali dictator, Omar denies President Trump’s humanity.
Strangely, the congressional representative from Minnesota, born in a Muslim country unaffected by any ill effects of Jewish influence, somehow immigrated to the U.S. with a severe case of anti-Semitism. Concerned Democrats, although we will not see it happen simply because they are not, should research how this really occurred.
Omar’s anti-Semitism was not the result of any personal anti-Muslim experience suffered at the hands of Jews; it resulted from Islamic indoctrination demanding, like the Holocaust, their elimination. Anti-Semitism, taught to 70 generations of Muslims since Islam’s founding, continues with Omar’s. It is part of her Muslim DNA.
Pelosi needs to attend Friday prayers at a mosque. She would be hard-pressed to find one not promoting anti-Semitism. How many times have we heard imams in the U.S., confronted over making anti-Semitic statements, only to placate their critics of the moment?
Such indoctrination makes Omar’s defense by Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, rationalizing she be given leeway due to her Somalia upbringing, absurd. As a Jew, Schakowsky knows Omar’s anti-Semitism is an unabating hatred.
A March 14 column by Carole Hornsby Haynes attacked Omar and another Muslim in Congress, Rashida Tlaib, as un-American simply for being Muslim:
Did these two Muslims lie about upholding the Constitution? Can one be a devout Muslim and uphold the U.S. Constitution? Muslims are required to live under Shariah, which is deemed divine law and which does not permit them to live under any other legal system. Devout Muslims believe that the U.S. Constitution is just human law and is, therefore, inferior to the divine law of Shariah. How can a devout Muslim recite the Pledge of Allegiance – “one nation under God ” – when a Muslim is a citizen of international Islam required to live under Allah?
Either these women are ignorant of the implication of their pledges, or they are purposely lying. However, this action of lying or dissimulation – taqiyah – is not only condoned, but recommended to Muslims in the Quran. Therefore, a Muslim can and will lie without any compunction, if it is necessary to protect or further Islam.
Haynes concluded by ranting that Omar's political success "most certainly embolden more Muslims to seek political office. Beware, Americans. We may be closer to a Shariah state than we realize.
UPDATE: WND columnist Mychal Massie joined in the hatefest as well, declaring that Omar and Tlaib "make the Obama woman and Hillary Clinton look like playful characters from 'Sesame Street,'" adding, "Never in the history of America have elected representatives been so openly anti-America. They prove that Muslims have infiltrated our country with one goal in mind, and that is to conquer America from within." He further ranted:
It doesn’t matter if most Muslims are peace-loving. It matters that more than 300 million are committed to jihad and are satanically immutable.
America cannot afford to ignore the question of what happens as more and more Muslims like Omar and Tlaib get elected to every strata of government? What happens as more and more Muslims like Omar and Tlaib obtain powerful industry positions and are appointed to federal agencies and our courts? What happens as more Muslims like Omar and Tlaib become the heads of major universities and colleges? These questions must be examined.
Omar and Tlaib are proof that America has allowed this evil to metastasize, and if we’re to survive as a nation, we must exercise our right to vote to ensure these types aren’t elected. We must also exercise our constitutional right to have Omar and Tlaib removed from office.
CNSNews.com's favorite loopy right-wing Trump-fluffing rabbi, Aryeh Spero, is at it again -- and, of course, CNS was there to promote his latest stunt. Alex Madajian writes in a March 15 article:
Rabbi Aryeh Spero, along with numerous Christians and Jews, gathered at the Capitol Hill office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday to protest the apparent growing anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party and specifically the anti-Semitism of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).
Rabbi Spero is the leader of the National Conference of Jewish Affairs, which, the rabbi explained in an email to CNSNews.com, “speaks for the conservative and non-left leaning segments of American Jewry” and believes that “politically and socially conservative positions more accurately reflect the authentic view of historic Judaism, and is thus good for the Jewish people and good for America as well.”
At the protest, Rabbi Spero said that House Speaker Pelosi “failed us -- she had the chance to condemn [Rep.] Omar. She didn’t. She had a chance to condemn, stand alone by itself, anti-semitism. She didn’t. She failed us.”
Madajian served up his own softball question to Spero: "What would you say was [Rep. Omar’s] most egregious example of those anti-Semitic remarks?" Surprisingly, he did acknowledge there was another side to the story, noting that there were "half-a-dozen counter-protesters from Code Pink, though he claimed the group "supports Palestine over Israel."
Newsmax's Gizzi Joins ConWeb Lovefest for Hungarian Right-Winger Topic: Newsmax
CNSNews.com and WorldNetDaily are not the only ConWeb outlets enamored by Viktor Orban's right-wing authoritarian government in Hungary. Newsmax's John Gizzi joins the parade with a March 15 article gushing over the country's "robust — and revolutionary — pro-family agenda" with a softball interview with Katalin Novak, Orban's minister of familiy and youth. How gushy? The picture accompanying Gizzi's article is of him interviewing Novak in an opulent-looking room.
Gizzi uncritically repeated "uplifting statistics" about Hungary's policies, which center around giving tax breaks to Hungarian natives to have children: "since 2010, the number of marriages is up 43 percent, divorces have decreased 20 percent, and the number of abortions has decreased 25 percent." Hungary has a very high divorce rate, and it's not actually clear that Orban's policies are having any effect on that.
Gizzi also played down the anti-immigration stance Orban has pushed and which lies at the heart of the "pro-family" policy. He noted Swedish official Annika Strandhall's criticism of the policy as "reek[ing] of the 1930s" but let Novak spin it by claiming "it’s not about what she’s saying but protecting our position" when, in fact, Orban has explicitly stated that Hungary is doing this instead of permitting immigration. (Even the white nationalist website VDARE has touted Orban's policy).
Last November, Gizzi did a similar softball piece on Republican Rep. Steve King that downplayed his white nationalist sympathies.
MRC Defends Its 'Thomas the Tank Engine' Freakout Topic: Media Research Center
Remember the Media Research Center's freakout last year over the idea that the children's show "Thomas the Tank Engine" wanted to expand its audience by introducing trains from various cultural backgrounds? Well, the MRC still thinks that was a very smart take.
In a March 13 MRC post, Clay Waters complains that the New York Times attacked the National Rifle Association's TV operation for, among other things, having an even bigger freakout over "Thomas" by "portraying the show’s talking trains in Ku Klux Klan hoods." But Times writer Danny Hakim was ignoring relevant context, Waters huffed:
Hakim left out the context, which Newsbusters provided at the time. The show was being pressured by the social justice left into adding female characters and “friends” from other countries. Slate's Jessica Roake called the show Thomas the Imperialist Tank Engine and branded the series "sinister,” while New Yorker decried its "repressive, authoritarian soul." But hysterical overreaction over a kids’ show is acceptable from fellow liberal journalists. It’s only when the right takes part does it suddenly become worrisome[.]
Both of those articles were cited in the NewsBusters piece by Melissa Mullins. But the Slate piece dates from 2011, and the New Yorker ran in 2017. Two pieces over six years doen not a "pressure campaign" make, and neither Mullins nor Waters prove that they had any direct effect on the show's adjustments.
On the other hand, Waters does seem to be doing, however stealthily, what very few at the MRC have the guts to admit "hysterical overreaction" on the part of the NRA. Is he applying that to Mullins as well?
Waters took other potshots at the Times article as well, dismissively claiming that "Hakim rounded up anything he could toss at the gun-rights group" by reporting the highly relevant fact that NRA board members are questioning the multimillions the group paid to the ad firm that runs the NRA's TV operation, and he also played whataboutism by arguing that the channel's increasingly extremist content was no differnt in tone from "left-wing outlets."
WND Silent On How New Zealand Mosque Shooter Echoes WND's Anti-Muslim Rhetoric Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's first story on the perpetrator of the New Zealand mosque massacre frames him as being "obessed with neo-Nazi ideology" and waits until the 11th paragraph to note that the in the shooter's manifesto, "The alleged shooter explains he 'disliked' Muslims and called them 'invaders.'"
Of course, one does not have to believe one to believe the other. While WND stays away from neo-Nazi ideology, its archives are rife with references to Muslims as"invaders":
A 2013 review by Jim Fletcher of a book claiming a "stealth agenda by the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate our government and wider culture" is headlined "Muslim invaders already 'in the house.'"
A 2015 article by anti-Muslim reporter Leo Hohmann rants that "Austrians are arming themselves at record rates in an effort to defend their households against feared attacks from Muslim invaders.
Another 2015 article approvingly quoted anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller portraying Muslim migration into Europe as "clearly an invasion."
A 2015 column by Geller is headlined "Muslim 'refugee' invasion of Europe" and rants about "immigration jihad."
Another 2015 article by Hohmann complained about the number of green cards to "migrants from Muslim-majority countries" and citing this "Islamic 'invasion,' as some are calling it."
A 2016 article is headlined "Rise of patriotic populists challenges Muslim invasion."
A 2017 column by James Zumwalt cited a Belgian politician who called Muslim immigration "a 'Trojan Horse'-style invasion of Europe that, for the West, will prove to be 'the end of civilization.'"
A 2017 interview of Paul Nehlen (remember him?) and his film "Hiijrah: Radical Islam's global Invasion" under the headline "Muslims invade U.S. 'in the name of Allah'."
A 2017 column by Mason Weaver is headlined "Muslim invasion – and the crazy Europeans who invited them" and said of Muslims: "Did the Europeans really expect peace and prosperity from a culture that has not contributed anything to civilization except piracy, invasion, beheading and death?" Weaver later sneered: "So I will grab a bowl of popcorn and watch the reality show called the 'Muslim Invasion of Europe' and the crazy Europeans who invited them. Your children will be murdered, your freedoms will be controlled, your women will be assaulted and your culture will be destroyed."
That's not the only connection to the shooter that WND is hiding. Another article cited the shooter's manifesto to potray him as a "socialist" and "eco-fascist" -- ignoring the fact that the shooter also sought inspiration from the manifesto of Anders Breivik, who massacred 77 people in Norway in 2011 -- and whose manifesto references WND six times. (WND's first story mentioned the Breivik inspiration but not its connection to his manifesto.)
As we'vedocumented, the rhetoric of right-wing massacre perpetrators tends to echo hateful rhetoric published by WND. And it looks like WND is once again putting its head in the sand and refusing to take responsibility.
MRC Still Spinning Away Devastating Article On Fox News Topic: Media Research Center
We've detailed how the Media Research Center has been trying to deflect from Jane Mayer's devastating New Yorker article about Fox News and its uncomfortably close ties to the Trump administration by whining that it was written in the first place (not by challenging any of the reporting) and by playing whataboutism by claiming Fox is not different than "liberal media" who allegedly courted Democratic presidents. That spin never really stopped.
Curtis Houck was upset (note the "Ugh" in his headline) that the Democratic National Committee cited the story -- particularly its allegation that then-Fox News chief Roger Ailes fed questions to Trump prior to a candidate debate on the channel -- as a reason to deny Fox hosting any Democratic presidential candidate debate.Houck ranted that the story was a "rabidly anti-Fox hit job" and complained that CNN's Brian Stelter accurately opointed out that Fox News has regularly "dehumanized" Democrats. Houck complained that "chose not to offer a real defense for any of the straight-news anchors like Bret Baier, Bill Hemmer, Martha MacCallum, Chris Wallace, or even Shepherd Smith" -- despite the fact that the MRC regularlyattacksSmith for not being a rifght-wing, pro-Trump shill -- then went into whataboutism mode: "Earth to Brian: Have you seen your own show and what you say about conservatives and Republicans who aren’t bleeding-heart anti-Trumpers or CNN supporters?"
Tim Graham followed by highlighting a Politico piece critical of the DNC's decision, headlined "If You're Afraid of Shep Smith, You Probably Shouldn't Be President." But Graham showed how much he disregards the "news" side of Fox News by including in his item an unflattering photo of Smith primping before he goes on camera. Graham then went into whataboutism mode:
It's entirely understandable that politicians and political parties would want to protect their brands from a hostile journalistic interrogation. It's their right. That's why GOP voters have wanted to prevent partisan hacks like George Stephanopoulos or Brian Williams from moderating their debates. But liberals never seem to admit that Republicans have a tremendous competitive disadvantage here. They have two handfuls of hostile liberal networks that they cannot seriously avoid, while Democrats can easily avoid the outlying "media arm" of the GOP.
If Graham had bothered to demonstrate how those other networks behave exactly like Fox News under a Democratic president, he might have a point.
Randy Hall then highlighted a column by former Fox News talking head Erick Erickson in deflection mode, insisting that people are critical of Fox beause their ratings are good and downplaying the channel's obvious bias.
The MRC then touted the channel's own danage-control actions (while not identifying them as such). Nicholas Fondacaro featured Fox host Tucker Carlson's "scathing takedown of CNN for justifying the Democratic National Committee’s ban on allowing Fox News to host a Democratic debate,"then joining conservative-leaning media critic Joe Concha in a fit of whataboutism on how "CNN wasn’t the most trustworthy when it came to holding debates" claiming that thisshowed "why [Carlson's] colleagues were the bigger people." Fondacaro highlighted how Carlson said "We defend speech, even when it's unpopular, even when the person speaking has attacked us personally" -- a claim that was to be disproven just a few days later when Carslon attacked Media Matters for uncovering Carlson's vile rants on a shock jock's radio show several years ago. (Ironically, Fondacaro cheered Carlson's "unloading" and declared Media Matters to be a "a radical left-wing political organization." Does that mean we can call the MRC a "radical right-wing political organization"?)
Ryan Foley wrote up more damage control in a form of an interview between two Fox News employee, Bret Baier and Howard Kurtz, in which they plugged the channel's news division (of which they are ostensibly a part) and complained that the New Yorker article "a 'fig leaf' that the Democratic National Committee used as an excuse to prevent Fox News from hosting a debate." Foley -- and, we presume, Baier and Kurtz, since it doesn't appear in either of the clips Foley includes in his post -- failed to mention that reports that Ailes leaked debate questions to Trump, which were a key reason why the DNC dropped Fox as a debate host.
Foley also approvingly quoted Baier claiming that other media outlets suffer from"Fox Derangement Syndrome" -- as if the MRC itself wasn't a majorcarrierandvictim of CNN Derangement Syndrome.
Again, by the way, no MRC writer has ever disputed the accuracy of anything in the New Yorker article.
CNS Story on Shine Resignation Censors Fox News Link, Scandals Topic: CNSNews.com
Last year, we documented how CNSNews.com wrote a story on White House communications director Hope Hicks' resignation that read like it was written by Hicks herself -- chock full of congratulatory statements and completely censoring the scandals surrounding her, such as testifying before a House committee and the fact that her boyfriend, Rob Porter, had to resign his White House job after his history of spousal abuse was made public.
With the resignation of another White House communications director, the pattern is repeating. Melanie Arter -- who wrote the fluff piece on Hicks -- wrote this in a March 8 article:
White House Communications Director Bill Shine offered his resignation Friday to spend more time with his family and focus on the president’s re-election campaign.
In a statement Friday, Shine said, “Serving President Trump and this country has been the most rewarding experience of my entire life. To be a small part of all this President has done for the American people has truly been an honor. I’m looking forward to working on President Trump’s reelection campaign and spending more time with my family.”
Shine is expected to serve as senior advisor to Trump’s re-election campaign, the White House said.
Trump praised Shine for doing “an outstanding job” and said he looks forward to working with him on the 2020 presidential campaign.
“Bill Shine has done an outstanding job working for me and the Administration. We will miss him in the White House, but look forward to working together on the 2020 Presidential Campaign, where he will be totally involved. Thank you to Bill and his wonderful family!” Trump said in a statement.
Arter also included praise of Shine from White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
Missing, as before, was any mention of the scandals surrounding Shine. Arter did not mention that Shine is a former executive for Fox News, where he was accused of helping then-CEO Roger Ailes cover up allegations of sexual harassment against Ailes and trying to discredit the women who made those claim. Arter also failed to report claims that Shine was ousted because Trump was unhappy he was unable to improve the president's public image.
As far as Shine's purported desire to spend time with his family goes, Arter ignored that Shine's wife, Darla, used her Twitter account to spread false anti-vaccine claims.
This is the second Trump White House communications director to whom Arter has given a gushy send-off. It's almost as if Arter is trying to establish herself to the Trump White House as a friendly reporter so it might throw a scoop or access to a high-ranking administration official her way.
'Captain Marvel' Derangement At The MRC Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has spent a lot of time throwing hate at the new superhero movie "Captain Marvel," fretting that the film may too politicially correct for its right-wing sensibilities.
On March 4, Gabriel Hays cited an interview with star Brie Larson to claim the film examined "intersectional feminism" and was going to "flow down the PC sewer" with its "female-centric gaze." Hays went on to tout the "strong pre-release boycott of this film due to Larson’s PC pulpit."
Biased reviewer Christian Toto trashed "Captain Marvel" in a March 9 post that started off not by examining the film itself but by attacking Larson for having "railed against too many white male reporters, trumpeted the film’s feminist agenda and dictated which under-represented writers could pen her glossy magazine profiles." It's not until the sixth paragraph that Toto finally gets around to addressing the actual film, sniffing that it "suffers from anemic characters, lame comic relief and, worst of all, a talented actress who’s all wrong to play a superheroine."
But the MRC's narative must be served, and he bashes one character for deing "always around the corner, telling Vers she’s too hysterical to make an impact. How did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez not score a cameo?" He concludes by huffing that the film "cares far more about lecturing audiences than entertaining them."
Hays returned to spend a March 9 post being triggered that the film was promoted on the Twitter account of the late Stan Lee:
If your feminist superhero movie is losing in the court of public opinion and millions of dollars are on the line, how far would you go to save face? Well if you’re Marvel, I guess you might drag up the ghost of Stan Lee to do some last minute PR. An effective tactic? Er, maybe … ? Creepy and ghoulishly opportunistic? You betcha.
There’s plenty of buzz surrounding Marvel’s latest blockbuster film Captain Marvel, but it’s due less to excitement about the movie itself and more to the political comments made by the film’s creators and its star Brie Larson, who say it could be the “biggest feminist movie of all time." Needless to say, superhero fans are tired of hearing about how this movie appropriately tackles “intersectional feminism” and other progressive tropes, so many have taken online to push for a boycott.
Of course that means it’s time for Marvel to start overcompensating. Besides continuing to push a “woke” political agenda that many mainstream critics have been eating up (pre-release reviews are oh so positive at the moment), the company employed a social media seance and now Twitter users have to endure the horror of the deceased Stan Lee tweeting at them to go see a crappy girl power movie.
While Hays and Toto rooted for the film to be a bomb, they were surely disappointed that non-traggered fans didn't agree; "Captain Marvel" grossed a massive $153 million on its opening weekend.
But the MRC didn't back off. A March 15 item by Clay Waters bashed the New York Times for reporting on how the movie review site Rotten Tomatoes revamped its scoring system to discount pre-release attacks by trolls doing the same thing that Hays did by whining about the film being too PC. "The article was an amusing example of how avidly the ostensibly anti-capitalist left will defend a multi-billion dollar capitalist enterprise (Marvel Studios and its ongoing myriad-film superhero saga) when the right ('troll') enemies are lined up on the other side," Waters huffed.
WND Finds An AOC Conspiracy Theory To Embrace Topic: WorldNetDaily
As we've seen at CNSNews.com, Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lives rent-free in the heads of conservatives and right-wingers. That goes for WorldNetDaily as well, which found a conspiracy theory (of course) about AOC that it could embrace, promoting it in a March 11 article:
Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is a “puppet congresswoman,” and “the people controlling her are very dangerous.”
It sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, acknowledges actor, writer and political commentator Christopher Patrick Kohls.
But the first-hand evidence is there for anyone to see, he contends in a video produced under his Mr Reagan moniker.
“Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not really the congresswoman of New York’s 14th Congressional District,” he says provocatively as he opens the video. “She is essentially an actress. She’s merely playing the part of a New York congresswoman.”
Kohls explains that in 2017, a progressive group that formed in response to Trump’s election called the Justice Democrats held “auditions” for potential congressional candidates to run on their platform.
As evidence, he runs a clip from a Justice Democrats video.
“Back in 2016, we put out a call for nominations,” says the group’s executive director, Alexandra Rojas. “We got over 10,000 nominations. Out of those 10,000 nominations, we found Alexandria.”
Kohls comments: “A casting call. They had a casting call. They cast Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the role of congresswoman. And they did this so they could promote their own agenda.
As usual, WND can't be bothered to fact-check any of this hooey or reach out to AOC for a response.
That's a bad idea, since the theory that Ocasio-Cortez is a "puppet" for Justice Democrats collapses quickly when one discovers that she is also alleged to have been in control of the group in late 2017 and early 2018 and has since been de-listed from its leadership.
Of course, when has lack of truth ever stopped WND from embracing conspiracy theories before?
How Is CNS' Managing Editor Hating Transgenders Now? Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman pretty much despises the entire LGBT community. Let's take a look at his recent hate for transgenders.
In a Jan. 25 article, Chapman cheered how "Japan's Supreme Court ruled to uphold existing law that transgender persons who want their gender legally changed on official documents must be sterilized in order to prevent "problems" in parent-child relationships and protect society from "confusion" and "abrupt changes." He then disparagingly defined a transgender man as "a female pretending to be a male."
On March 6, Chapman had a fit about how "two members of Congress read the pro-transgender 'kids' book I Am Jazz on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives" -- so much of a fit that, as the article URL indicates, the original headline on Chapman's post called the book a "transgender propaganda book," before being later changed to "pro-transgender 'kids' book." In keeping with his theme of hatred, he disparagingly calls Jazz Jennings "a biological boy pretending to be a girl."
Chapman then took offense to the book's description of Jennings as being "born this way," huffing that "To date, there is no scientific evidence proving that transgender people are, as Lady Gaga sings, 'born this way.'" As evidence, he provides a link to a rant about "gender ideology" from the right-wing American College of Pediatricians.
Chapman, as he has before, then turned to discredited anti-gay psychiatrist Paul McHugh to assert that "transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is 'biologically impossible,' and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder." And, for reasons known only to him and God, he includes an image of a painting of the Second Continental Congress.
MRC Thinks CNN Tribute To Trebek's Pursuit Of Facts Is Veiled Attack on Trump Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves ot look for "liberal bias" in areas where it doesn't necessarily exist. Nicholas Fondacaro takes a shot in a March 6 post, assering that in a tribute to "Jeopardy!" host Alex Trebek's pancreatic cancer fight, "CNN’s Chris Cuomo had to throw in a dash of politics and veiled references to President Trump" instead of "just promoting Trebek’s fighting spirit and spreading awareness for a type of cancer that’s really hard to detect."
What did Cuomo say that Fondacaro found so offensive? He merely noted that "In a time of shallow beliefs and rampant truth abuse in our politics and beyond, every night [Trebek] makes facts first. We need him now more than ever." That's it. Despite the fact that Cuomo did not name Trump or any other politician, Fondacaro ranted "Seriously? Nnow, of all times?" and his CNN derangement kicked in:
Cuomo treats his show as a prosecutor’s argument and courtroom against President Trump. Seemingly every night, Cuomo uses his show to rail against the President with suggestions he’s tearing us apart and poisoning the dialogue with lies and misinformation. So, given that blatant history, it’s clear that Cuomo exploiting Trebek’s cancer diagnosis to score political points.
Fondacaro did eventually calm down enough to acknowledge that Cuomo "did take time to raise awareness" about pancreatic cancer. But perhaps he needs to lay off the caffeine or whatever it is they're drinking over there to fuel the kneejerk corporate hatred for all things CNN.
Pollster Thinks Criticism of America Is Anti-American Topic: Newsmax
Conservative pollsters John and Jim McLaughlin spend their March 4 Newsmax column framing any criticism of America as anti-American.
They summarize a poll they conducted for "our client United in Purpose for their 'You've Been Lied to!' campaign" -- but they don't describe the organization any further. As it turns out, United in Purposeis a data-mining organization with the goal of increasing turnout of evangelical Christian voters, but is best known for inadvertently making public information on millions of voters through failure to secure it. Its leader, Bill Dallas, spent time in prison for embezzlement. The United in Purpose website is curiously barren, having only a home page and contact page.
The McLaughlins wrote: "In our most recent national survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted between February 6 and 10, when we asked, 'Do you agree or disagree that America is the source of most of the world’s ills: political, economic and environmental?' 46 percent of all voters agreed and only 46 percent disagreed. It was a shocking result." They asserted that this was an "anti-American message."
The McLaughlins then declared that "Agreement that America is the source of most of the world’s ills is clearly a political message tied to party and ideology," with of course Democrats and liberals most like to hold that belief.
The pair demonstrated their bias further in another poll question asking who was to blame for "rising anti-Americanism," by including the choices of "media elites" and "Hollywood entertainment elites" -- derogatory right-wing terms for things they don't like. They would never describe, say, Fox News as "elites." They conclude with more biased posturing:
It is a political message that is driven by ideology and political beliefs and it is growing among younger voters. It’s clearly a message for the left to drive younger voters to their philosophy.
The vast majority of voters feel that anti-Americanism is on the rise, and they mostly blame partisan politicians and media entertainment elites for the rise of anti-Americanism. So while we agree Anti-Americanism is on the rise, as Americans, we can see it is clearly from germinating from the left within.
As if the McLaughlins aren't themselves trying to push an ideological message masquerading as purportedly neutral polling.