Terry Jeffrey Trump Deficit Blame Avoidance Watch Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com editor in chief has long hada problem calling out his favorite president for his role in increasing federal deficits. That hasn't changed in his most recent round of budget-related articles. He complained in a Nov. 27 article:
The federal debt has increased by $1,303,466.578.471.45 since last Thanksgiving, according to data released by the U.S. Treasury.
That is the largest Thanksgiving-to-Thanksgiving increase in the debt in nine years. The last time the debt increased more from Thanksgiving to Thanksgiving was in 2010, when it increased by $1,785,995,360,978.10.
It also equals approximately $10,137.48 per household in the United States.
Jeffrey struck a similar tone in a Dec. 11 article:
The federal government collected record total tax revenues of $470,706,000,000 in October and November, the first two months of fiscal 2020, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.
Despite collecting that record amount in taxes, however, the federal government still ran a deficit of $343,360,000,000 during October and November because it spent $814,012,000,000 in those two months.
That was the second-highest federal spending in the October-November period in the history of the United States. The only time the federal government spent more in the first two months of the fiscal year was in fiscal 2009 (October and November of 2008), when Congress enacted the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to bailout insolvent banks.
As is Jeffrey's pattern on these articles, the words "Trump" or "Republican" does not appear, and they are accompanied by photos that feature Democrats. The Nov. 27 article features the easily recognizable Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer with two unnamed people who do not look familiar; the Dec. 11 article features a picture of Pelosi with President Trump, whose face is not visible.
Weirdly, despite being such a budget hawk, Jeffrey has yet to write about the $1.4 trillion spending bill passed by not only a Democratic House but a Republican Senate and signed by Trump on Dec. 20.
MRC Also Feels Sadness That Chick-Fil-A Stopped Hating Gays Like The MRC Does Topic: Media Research Center
So invested was the Media Research Center in Chick-fil-A supporting anti-gay causes that when a newspaper noted that Kanye West gave a shout-out to the "notoriously anti-LGBTQ" fast food chain in his new Christian album, Alexa Moutevelis enthusiastically wrote, "Pardon me as I listen to Kanye’s new album while picking up Chick-fil-A on my way to the next pro-life rally."
But Chick-fil-A has changed its charitable giving strategy to de-emphasize anti-gay activism, the MRC -- along with WorldNetDaily and MRC "news" division CNSNews.com -- is having a major sad. Gabriel Hays was feeling particularly betrayed after all that conservatives have done to support the chain's gay-hating tendencies:
The fact that once-proud Christian establishment Chick-fil-A has just been scared off from donating to its Christian allies by the leftist mob feels like a betrayal and the end of an era. For the past seven years, the chain has championed conservative Christians and their values and now, by ditching their donations to Christian charities to appease a vocal 4 percent of the population, it’s clear they care more about their PC image than the Christians who stuck by them through thick and thin.
[...]
Conservatives and Christians immediately went to Chick-fil-A’s defense, slamming the media’s glaring double standards. Media Research Center’s Founder and President Brent Bozell led a conservative coalition for the Christian company, including other conservative groups like Family Research Council, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Susan B. Anthony List, among others. In a press release, Bozell claimed, “The media smeared anyone who lined up for a chicken sandwich as an anti-gay bigot instead of a proud Christian or free speech patriot.”
[...]
It’s clear that Chick-fil-A has flipped on what appeared to be rock-solid convictions and abandoned many of the conservatives who have bent over backward to protect it. The saddest aspect is that the chain is selling out the values of at least 35 percent of the population (conservative Americans) to appease the Christian-hating anger of a much smaller 4 percent (LGBT Americans) who, as we’ve seen, will never be satisfied.
Just because hating gays is popular among Christian conservatives doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Hays doesn't explain why people must do the allegedly popular thing even if it's wrong.
Two days later, Hays returned to rage that the Salvation Army was among the groups that Chick-fil-A would no longer fund, even though it "discriminates against no one" (though it has been linked to anti-gay sentiments): "The fact that Chick-fil-A’s move was clearly a response to its leftist media detractors — who have smeared it for giving to 'anti-LGBTQ' groups — also bolstered the Salvation Army’s image as a discriminatory group rather than a company that gives aid to all because of its overtly Christian message." But if the Salvation Army truly doesn't discriminate against gays, why is Hays defending it? If hating gays is as fundamental to Christianity as Hays insists, he should be angry with the group for its delcared non-discrimination policy, right?
Still, Hays lamented: "Sadly, Chick-fil-A’s been made to back away from its Christian image for the sake of thriving in the lefty dominated corporate world. And, you know, Chick-fil-A can sink its own ship if it wants, but the fact that it’s hanging the Salvation Army out to dry is a shame and pretty much proof that its Christian-ness isn’t such a priority anymore."
Conservatives were surprised when it was announced in November that Chick-fil-A was ending its philanthropic partnerships with the Salvation Army, The Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Paul Anderson Youth home, three organization repeatedly targeted by the left as being “anti-LGBT.” But the news that the chain gives to (among other objectionable groups) the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is simply stunning.
Philbin then invoked the bogeyman of Floyd Corkin's failed shooting attack on the Family Research Council to attack the SPLC, whom Philbin blames for the incident because Corkins claimed to have found the FRC on a list of hate groups on the SPLC's website: "SPLC is a progressive direct mail giant -- a lefty hate group that makes money screaming “Hate Group” at anyone to the right of People for the American Way. It trades in slander and fear, and in the case of FRC, it nearly got people killed."
But the basis for Philbin's post isn't true: It turns out that the SPLC donation was made by a volunteer for the company's charitable foundation, not by the foundation itself. No correction has been made to Philbin's post.
Hays, meanwhile, wasn't don't ranting, compelled to bring up Chick-fil-A in posts on other subjects. On Dec. 18, he huffed that the situation involving the Hallmark Channel's botched ban of a commercial featuring a same-sex couple "sounds like every ransom note sent to Chick-fil-A by LGBTQ groups before the chicken restaurant caved," adding that the chain was "forced to capitulate" to LGBT advocacy groups. On Dec. 20, he whined that advocacy group GLAAD "is just up to its ridiculous playground bullying. With the blessing of the media, it gets to strut around and bully folks like Hallmark and Chick-fil-A into doing its bidding, while crying about victimization."
Hays seems to be feeling particularly victimized that his safe space where he can bash and mock gays with impunity is being infringed upon.
It's time for all Americans and specifically blacks to ask: What have they got to lose in supporting President Trump? It's time for all Americans and specifically blacks to ask: Just what have Democrats done for them? President Trump has done the single-most important thing any American could ask of the president. He has created an economic environment the likes of which has never been seen, and specifically never been seen or enjoyed by blacks.
President Trump has restored dignity to working-class America, especially the black working class. His policies have resulted and are resulting in more jobs and higher-paying jobs. Democrats and President Obama, whom blacks were bullied and guilted into supporting, lied to America and specifically to blacks who felt they had to support him because of his skin color.
Unemployment for blacks and women were at historic highs under Obama. Under President Trump, in three years they are the lowest in history.
Obama never promised blacks and women dignity. He promised sodomite bathrooms and sex-change operations. Democrats vying for the nomination in 2020 are promising to give trillions of dollars in free benefits to illegal aliens and free abortions for black women.
MRC Ignores Context To Push Pro-Trump 'No Quid Pro Quo' Talking Point Topic: Media Research Center
As we know, the Media Research Center is not really about its stated purpose of trying to "create a media culture in America where truth and liberty flourish" -- it's all about serving as an adjunct to the Trump presidency and re-election campaign (possibly violating its nonprofit tax status in the process). As a result, the MRC is in no small part pro-Trump and pro-Republican talking points masquerading as "media research."
A good example of this is a Dec. 2 post by Nicholas Fondacaro:
In a recent interview with TIME magazine, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he never approached conversations with President Trump “from the position of a quid pro quo.” It was a declaration that poked a major hole in the left’s impeachment narrative, but the liberal broadcast networks would have none of it during their Monday evening newscasts. Two of them downplayed the comments and one just flat out refused to report them.
“Trump's strategy all along: deny he's done anything wrong and trash the process. Today, he argued the president of Ukraine backs him up,” scoffed ABC senior national correspondent Terry Moran on World News Tonight.
[...]
There was a similar song and dance on CBS Evening News with chief congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes. After another soundbite of Trump telling people to check out what Zelensky said, Cordes downplayed the quid pro quo balloon being popped:
Fondacaro pushed this same pro-Trump talking point in another post the same day:
Just as the liberal broadcast networks did Monday evening, CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta batted away an interview Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky did with TIME magazine, in which he stated he did not approach his conversation with President Trump “from the position of a quid pro quo.” Despite that fact, Acosta treated the development as some kind of unimportant statement Trump was “seizing on.”
“The President will be spending the week meeting with NATO leaders here in London. But he’s also latching onto comments made this week by the leader of Ukraine saying, that those comments really exonerate him in this impeachment process. But that's not really the case,” Acosta scoffed as he began his report.
For Fondacaro to embrace this pro-Trump narrative, however, he must focus only on that statement and deny the importance of other things Zelensky said in the Time interview. Here's the full statement from which Fondacaro (and Trump) cherry-picked that line:
Look, I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing. … I don’t want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying.
It seems clear that Zelensky was not denying a quid pro quo was made; rather, he said that he would never have accepted one and was upset that Trump was "blocking" aid to Ukraine.
Fondacaro did note Zelensky's "you can’t go blocking anything for us" statement -- he simply dismissed the fact that it undermined the "quid pro quo" statement. In the first post, Fondacaro huffed that an ABC reporter "interrupted a soundbite of Trump explaining what Zelensky said to contradict the President" in bringing up the "blocking" statement and that a CBS reporter also bringing it up meant that she "downplayed the quid pro quo balloon being popped." In the latter post, Fondacaro noted that "Acosta read from Zelensky’s statement" including the "blocking" remark while failing to acknowledge its importance.
Fondacaro also complained that "the liberal media and left will downplay, deflect, and ignore Zelensky’s comments" -- even though he was ignoring and downplaying critical context showing that Zelensky was not saying what he and Trump wanted him to say.
Ignoring inconvenient facts to forward a partisan political narrative isn't "media research" -- it's the work of a political campaign. Which makes Fondacaro a political activist, not a "news analyst."
CNSNews.com is such a loyal pro-Trump, pro-Republican talkingpointsstenographer on impeachment that it treated a Republican's senseless tantrum seriously. Susan Jones (of course) wrote in a Dec. 13 article:
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler postponed a planned impeachment vote late Thursday night, infuriating Republicans who were not consulted about the schedule change, and prompting ranking member Doug Collins to say, "This committee is more concerned about getting on TV in the morning than it was finishing its job tonight and letting the members go home."
A short time later, Collins spoke to reporters:
"I have just witnessed just the most bush-league stunt I've ever witnessed in my professional life," Collins said after Nadler abruptly ended the 14-hour impeachment debate late Thursday night, telling the committee to return at 10 a.m. on this Friday the 13th to vote.
"But in the midst of impeachment, the chairman just ambushed the entire committee, did not have any consultation with the ranking member and tell him we're going to have votes at 10:00 a.m. in the morning?" Collins said.
[...]
Collins said the American people "know it's all about these TV screens. It's all about getting at a president because they want the prime time hit.
“This is Speaker Pelosi and Adam Schiff and the others directing this committee -- I don't have a chairman anymore. I guess I just need to go straight to Ms. Pelosi and say, what TV hit does this committee need to do? Because this committee has lost all relevance. I'll see y'all tomorrow.”
Jones made no mention of the fact that Collins' tantrum was nonsensical because it has long been a Republican talking point that the impeachment process was moving too quickly. It was also hypocritical because Republicans were the ones who prolonged the hearing by offering numerous amendments. Collins' insistence that Democrats wanted to delay the vote for a "prime time hit" on television also fails the smell test since 10 a.m. is not TV "prime time."
One can also argue that delaying the vote short-circuited another possible GOP attack line over the timing of the vote; had it taken place after 11 p.m., Republicans could have argued that the lateness of the vote was more evidence the process was being rushed or being done as a quiet midnight vote designed to obscure the process from Americans.
Jones did quote Nadler saying that he wanted "members on both sides of the aisle to think about what’s happened over these last three days and to search their consciences before we have our final votes," but she did not point out that nothing Collins said was in response to Nadler's statement.
You'd think that such blatant stenography would eventually get embarrassing to Jones and CNS. Apparently not.
MRC's Hypocritical Attacks On Bloomberg News Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is needlessly inserting itself into the Democratic presidential campaign in a way that seems to push against its nonprofit tax designation that prohibits most partisan political activity.
The MRC has been incensed by Bloomberg News' decision not to investigate Michael Bloomberg, its owner and newly minted Democratic presidential candidate, or other Democratic candidates in order ot avoid a conflict of interest -- but will continue to report critically on President Trump. Jjoseph Vazquez complained that this comes "at the expense of the credibility" of Bloomberg News -- as if he or anyone else at the MRC cares about the outlet's credibility.
Nicholas Fondacaro declared that "Some might argue it was the weaponization of a media outlet for personal gain,"huffing: "For all the liberal smears against Fox News claiming they’re 'state-run media,' it has become clear that's exactly what Bloomberg News would become if former Mayor Michael Bloomberg wins in 2020."
Tim Graham and Brent Bozell predictably whined in their Nov. 27 column:
In reality, Bloomberg's journalists have been compromised ever since Bloomberg first ran for mayor of New York City in 2001. After 12 years as mayor, Bloomberg became a big-time sugar daddy to liberal activists pushing government crackdowns on fossil fuel production and gun ownership. How "objective" reporters could ethically navigate all of their owner's political activism seems impossible.
But let's face it: Back then, the rest of the "news" media never found this objectionable. Bloomberg News was branded in a business-news niche and, in that sphere, looked like a progressive influence, so they didn't care.
[...]
Journalists who perpetually lament Trump's destruction of "democratic norms" now face a candidate who's obliterating all the journalistic norms. This is an ethical test. Let's see how many will try to skip the class and hope it goes away.
The funny part here is that Bozell runs a "news" operation, CNSNews.com, that is not allowed to report critically on him or its parent organization. For instance, when Bozell was exposed in 2014 as simply slapping his name on columns that Graham ghost-wrote for years -- thus shaming him into adding Graham as a credited co-author -- CNS not only reported nothing about the controversy, it froze comments on a Bozell column after too many commenters pointed out the deception. Indeed, it seems one of CNS' main function is to repeat right-wing talking points generated by the MRC, seemingly demonstrating that it has no editorial independence at all. Which makes Bozell's concern about Bloomberg "obliterating ... journalistic norms" more than a little hypocritical.
Meanwhile, the MRC continued to exploit the story:
Jeffrey Lord ranted that "What Americans are witnessing at Bloomberg is up-front corruption. ... Bloomberg News will now be an in-kind campaign contribution — and not only to owner Michael Bloomberg but to every other candidate in the race for the Democratic nomination."
Fondacaro touted how the move "was almost universally panned, with the media beat Sunday shows on both CNN and Fox News criticizing the Bloomberg News.
Curtis Houck cheered how "the Trump campaign announced in a statement they would not be credentialing anyone from “Bloomberg News for rallies or other campaign events” due to the news outlet’s policy of banning their journalists from investigating founder Michael Bloomberg and his 2020 Democratic opponents but insisting they continue digging into President Donald Trump."
Graham complained that TV networks have not reported on "Bloomberg’s destruction of journalistic norms."
Houck served up a similar "the media isn't covering a story that advances the MRC's agenda" piece, grousing that "CBS News has refused to show on its morning or evening newscast 2020 Democratic Michael Bloomberg telling CBS This Morning co-host and Democratic friend Gayle King that Bloomberg News journalists need “to live with” the company policy that Bloomberg and primary opponents can’t be investigated but President Trump can."
None of ehse writers disclosed that the MRC does not allow its "news" division the same freedom it's demanding from Bloomberg.
The MRC then inserted itself into the story, as a Dec. 10 post (which was also translated into Spanish) announced:
On Monday, The Media Research Center (MRC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against Bloomberg LP, the owner of Bloomberg News, Michael Bloomberg and Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.
The complaint maintains that the policy adopted by Bloomberg News to omit investigating Mike Bloomberg and the other Democratic presidential candidates while continuing to investigate Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump potentially is an improper contribution to Bloomberg’s campaign under FEC regulations.
[...]
“Bloomberg News is making a mockery of legitimate journalism. They have consciously chosen to abandon their journalistic responsibilities in favor of what is politically convenient,” stated MRC President Brent Bozell.
“This is a public declaration that Bloomberg’s newsroom is adopting media bias as an official policy,” Bozell added.“This is not only categorically unethical, but potentially illegal, which is why we are calling for an investigation.”
Of course, Bozell's own "news" division actually does what Bozell is accusing Bloomberg News of: adopting media bias as an official policy and abandoning their journalistic responsibilities in favor of what is politically convenient. He'll never admit that, of course.
The press release also noted that "According to FEC law, the 'media exemption' that would normally exempt media organizations from federal campaign finance disclosure laws does not apply if 'the facility is owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate' should the organization fail to 'give reasonably equal coverage to all opposing candidates.'"
As we've noted, CNS does not give "reasonably equal coverage," attacking Democratic presidential candidates while cranking out pro-Trump stenography that even uncritically repeats his falsehoods. Does this violate FEC law? After all, the MRC is arguably choosing to operate as a "political committee" in apparent violation of its 501(c)(3) nonprofit tax status.
Almost as if proving our point, CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman published a rewritten version of the MRC press release the same day -- under the exact same headline as the press release -- instead of offering an indepenvent view of the issue. Chapman couldn't even be bothered to seek comment from Bloomberg News or the Bloomberg campaign.
CNS' Coverage of DOJ IG Report Filled With Bias, Ignored Key Finding Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's coverage of the release of ther report by the Justice Department's Inspector General Michael Horowitz into the origins of the investigation into Russian contacts with the Donald Trump presidential campaign focused almost entirely on charry-picked findings that fit the narrative of the pro-Trump, pro-Republican CNS.
CNS tried to pre-spin the report in a Dec. 3 article by Susan Jones in which Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham accused the "liberal media" of, yes, trying to pre-spin the report by reporting a leaked finding that the report concluded that the FBI had enough information to justify launching the investigation. Graham asserted that the media was "trying overtime to spin this thing, to diminish its effect, to downplay it," and that the real issue was the Steele dossier and that the FBI "pulled a fast one on the FISA court, quite frankly, misled and defrauded the FISA court. I think that's what you're going to find."
Having staked this out as a talking point, CNS followed that to the letter with its stories on the report's official release and the reaction to it:
The key finding that no political bias was found on the FBI's part in opening the investigation did not warrant a headline in any CNS article, though it was later mentioned in a couple of them.
CNS served up the following articles on Horowitz's Senate testimony about the report:
None of these articles featured questions or comments from a Democratic congress, and none noted that Horowitz found no political bias on the FBI's part in opening the investigation. It did, however, find the time and space to complain that CNN didn't cover Graham's opening statement, with Melanie Arter citing the Trump campaign and other right-wingers -- including disgraced sexual harasser Bill O'Reilly, whom Arter described on as a "former Fox News host" -- insisting that this was an example of "liberal bias" in the media.
MRC Is Unhappy That Hallmark Channel Reversed Ad Featuring Same-Sex Couple Topic: Media Research Center
At first, the Media Research Center was happy that the Hallmark Channel banned an ad featuring a same-sex couple. In a Dec. 15 post, Alexa Moutevelis touted how the right-wing anti-gay group One Million Moms demanded that the channel "stop airing LGBTQ ads and to never air LGBTQ-themed Christmas movies," praising the channel's initial decision to drop the ads as a blow for "preservation of sexual morality."
But Moutevelis had to do an update lamenting that "Hallmark folded already" and reversed the ad ban.
Hallmark’s reversal on pulling Zola’s “lesbian” wedding ad sent another shockwave through the media world Sunday night after it had just been whipped up into a frenzy. CBS, ABC and NBC’s Monday morning shows all featured news on the “controversial” redecision, though unsurprisingly they leaned almost exclusively on LGBTQ talking points from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD.)
As he has before, Hays went on to attack GLAAD leader Sarah Kate Ellis as "the woman who insists that TV shows need 20% LGBTQ representation by 2025, even though only 4% of the population is LGBTQ. Wouldn’t it seem that her ideas on representation are a little skewed?" Not as skewed as Hays, who clearly believes that non-heterosexuals should be forbidden from appearing on TV at all.
Hays also whined that those who support the channel's reversal of the ad ban "are under the false impression that the difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships is merely superficial, so this entire debacle is touted as a win for human decency. Though we know it’s just another media-sanctioned rebuke against conservatives."
This was followed by another Hays post ranting about the mere idea that a Hallmark Christmas movie could feature a same-sex couple:
The pro-LGBTQ media is now giving advice to the Hallmark Channel on how best to redress offending gays after the network reversed theirdecision to pull a lesbian adlast week. Of course, it came as no surprise that entertainment outlet Indiewire insisted that Hallmark make a gay movie to prove where its loyalty really lies.
You’ve already bent the knee, Hallmark, but you’re going to have to kiss the rainbow ring.
[...]
For conservatives, particularly One Million Moms — the conservative group that encouraged Hallmark to pull the Zola ad featuring a lesbian wedding — this adds insult to injury. On top of Hallmark distancing from conservatives, and apologizing and expressing desire for more gay ads after LGBTQ backlash, the media jumped on One Million Moms and other “anti-LGBTQ” groups, tarring and feathering them with smears like the SPLC’s infamous “Hate Group” label. Indiewire’s advice is again asking the once apolitical channel to continue thumbing its nose at conservatives.
Hays also invoked the anti-gay MRC talking point du jour that GLAAD "represents a measly 4 percent of the population, but demands 20 percent of TV characters be LGBTQ by 2025, for the sake of 'inclusivity.'"
And, of course, Tim Graham and Brent Bozell had to rant about it in their Dec. 24 column dismissing the Hallmark controversy as a media-manufactured "outrage of interest" (complettely omitting that it was a right-wing anti-gay group that started it):
This time it was the Hallmark Channel, perhaps the last "safe zone" for families honoring Christmas. The LGBT fascists declared war on the network after it failed to air an ad during their usual holiday fare for the wedding website Zola that featured lesbians kissing. The networks were completely in sync with their allies in the gay community. The Hallmark surrender came quickly, and everyone cheered.
So to sum up: turning Jesus into a gay druggie is not an outrage. Sparing a family audience from a lesbian kiss is an outrage. No wonder they're upset when a Supreme Court justice says "Merry Christmas."
The duo didn't explain why anyone has to be "spared" from a "lesbian kiss."
What LGBT Stuff Is The MRC Freaking Out About Now? Topic: Media Research Center
There's been so much anti-LGBT stuff at the Media Research Center lately that we've had to split up the transgender, drag queen and nonbinary stuff. But don't worry -- the MRC is making sure to freak out about the regular ol' gay stuff too.
Freakouts over gay penguins are a right-wing thing, and Elise Ehrhard added to the canon in a post complaining that a Netflix show "pushes the “gay penguin” myth," insisting that "penguins are not gay. They are just lonely." She further whined: "Penguins are gay and they are supposedly all going to die from climate change anyway. Brave New World was saner."
Gabriel Hays whined that there are too many gays on TV and that GLAAD wants to see 20 percent LGBTQ representation:
Congratulations to GLAAD. A group that claims to speak for four percent of the population has already reached its 2020 goal of bullying Hollywood into over-representing gays on TV. In fact, according to the organization’s “Where We Are On TV” report, gay characters are at an “ all-time high.” The group boasts “10 percent LGBTQ inclusion among broadcast series regular characters on primetime scripted series,” with all LGBT series regulars comprising 10.2 percent of network characters.
Well done. Now how about taking a breather — bask in the accomplishment for a minute and … Nope.
[...]
Again, there is no dearth of LGBTQ representation, but an overabundance. Just four percent of the American population is LGBTQ (some even report that it’s less,), but they’ve long been over-represented in lefty Hollywood. Make-believe numbers have real-life implications, though. A 2011 Gallup poll reported that Americans were convinced that gays made up 25 percent of the population.
Is that inflated perception any wonder when GLAAD’s on track to quintuple the actual population on screen? And what if Hollywood makes 20 percent of its fictional characters gay? We’ll start presuming every other person’s LGBT? And if we start questioning that, they’ll still be insisting that we’re oppressing their exposure and hindering their freedom of expression.
Ehrhard returned to rant about a commercial for a car that isn't even sold in the U.S.:
It is 2019 which means that all childhood innocence must be sexualized and weaponized for the LGBT movement. Introducing the latest entry in this slow-burn of Western Civilization: a viral car commercial.
The new ad for the Renault Clio in the UK, released on November 7 and titled “30 Years in the Making,” begins with a sweet childhood friendship between two girls. The friendship becomes more…intimate…as the girls grow-up. The children give each other mix tapes, run along the beach and hug. Their girlish hug transitions into a more romantic adolescent embrace. The two burgeoning women eventually make-out in the rain. Their lesbian relationship ends in a “marriage” with a fatherless little girl in the back seat of the Renault. Interestingly, the ad chose not to sexualize two boys to generate sales.
Ehrhard managed to leap to this to huff that "No one dares probe why lesbian relationship have shockingly high rates of domestic violence or the tragic physical consequences of sodomy in the lives of gay men.
Dawn Slusher was mad that CW’s teen drama "All American" commited the offense of having "featured a song that preached tolerance for gays being “who they are” while subtly showing disdain for God and the Bible." She defends Christians hating "homosexuality" by denying there's any hate there:
We can see homosexuality as a sin and still love gay people. A true Christian who follows the Bible also follows God’s Word about putting others above ourselves and loving our neighbors as we love ourselves. That includes all sinners. A true Christian doesn’t believe they’re any better or above someone else just because they sin differently.
You can stay or you can leave, but this is us. And we’re not changing who we are for anyone or anything, either.
Yet the MRC doesn't obsess over the immorality of President Trump the way it obsesses over the existence of gay people in the media. There seems to be a double standard to Slusher's version of Christian love.
CNS Shows Its Anti-Gay Bias In Hallmark Channel Ad Controversy Topic: CNSNews.com
Let's examine the subtle bias in the way CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman wrote this Dec. 16 article:
Hallmark Channel Submits to LGBTQ Pressure, Plans to Reinstate Gay Ads
The Hallmark Channel, which prides itself on airing family-friendly programs, caved to pressure from LGBTQ activists and said it plans to reinstate commercials on its channel that celebrate homosexuality, specifically a lesbian wedding where the two women passionately kiss during the ad.
The ad, part of six -- four gay-themed and two heterosexual -- was created by Zola.com, a wedding planning company. After the first lesbian-wedding ad was aired last week, the conservative group One Million Moms complained, and Crown Media, which owns Hallmark, decided to pull the commercial.
However, that sparked a backlash by some prominent homosexuals and LGBTQ activist groups over the weekend and Hallmark subsequently announced it was reversing its "wrong decision" and would seek to reinstate the ads after it consulted with Zola.com.
Note how Chapman describes One Million Moms as a "conservative group" merely "complained" about the ads, while those who reacted to the commercials being pulled are "activists" to whom Hallmark "caved" and "submit[ted]. One Million Moms is an activist group, and Hallmark certainly caved to it by pulling the commercials -- but Chapman would never describe these events that way.
Chapman also invokes his intense anti-gay hate by huffing that the commercials "celebrate homosexuality," not mentioning the fact that something like 99 percent of Hallmark Channel's holiday romance-laden programming can be described as celebrating heterosexuality. He further complained that advocacy group GLAAD "seeks to normalize homosexuality through the media" -- while, of course, Chapman is seeking to normalize anti-LGBT hatred through the media operation he runs.
Chapman further grumbled: "People supportive of Zola and the LGBTQ agenda tweeted using the hashtag #boycotthallmark, as did people supportive of real marriage between one man and one woman for life." Chapman has previously denied that gay marriage is "real marriage." And, again, he portray only LGBT supporters as having an "agenda." He also brought out the scare quotes to describe Ellen DeGeneres as "a 'married' lesbian," and did so again to describe GLAAD presient Sarah Kate Ellis.
Such blatant bias makes it hard for people to consider CNS a serious, legitimate news source. Too bad Chapman doesn't see that.
The MRC's Gender-Neutral and Nonbinary Freakouts Topic: Media Research Center
In addition to hating transgenders and drag queens, the Media Research Center has serious issues with anything or anyone considered to be nonbinary or gender-neutral. We've already noted its freakout over a nonbinary villain in the new "She-Ra" cartoon, and there's more where that came from.
Sadi Martin complained that an episode of the CBS series "All Rise" "reeked of political correctness and liberal bias, focusing on non-binary identification," going on to whine: "All Rise is trying to take everything and make it out to be about feelings, rather than logic and justice, and now they have taken the law, which while it is open to some interpretation, is not 'binary' as [defense attorney] Emily claims, in a desperate attempt to relate the law to her client, but is ordered and rational."
Following up on an earlier freakout over gender-neutral Barbie dolls that he called "plastic monstrosities" that mean "now your son can occupy the budding years of his childhood fantasizing about what it’s like being some androgynous weirdo," Gabriel Hays complained about an op-ed that, in his description, made the argument that gender-neutral dolls are "not woke enough," prompting Gabriel to go into full mocking sneer mode about people he personally despises: "But then again, how does one represent mental illness in a plastic doll?"Hays also had a major meltdown over Merriam-Webster choosing "they" as its word of the year:
Wonderful. The folks behind the leading English dictionary are now complicit in the left’s vendetta against biology, naming “they” as 2019’s “Word of the Year” and explaining that this achievement is very much based on the word’s newfound gender-neutral usage.
[...]
With a quick Google search, anyone can see the travesty for themselves. The definition of what used to be a simple third-person pronoun has a second official meaning: they can also be “used to refer to one person whose gender identity is nonbinary.” Well there you have it, folks. The lefty lunacy of “they/them” has been codified.
So, why did Merriam-Webster feel confident enough to buy into this mental illness? Well, because progressive lawmakers, agenda-driven psychologists and Hollywood wack jobs have been employing the term, of course. Merriam-Webster defended the pronoun’s “Word of the Year” status because Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), for instance, “revealed in April during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Equality Act that her child is gender-nonconforming and uses they.”
In any other society, Jayapal’s actions may be seen as child abuse, but in our PC wasteland it’s just a new parenting style you can look up in your current dictionary.
Only at the MRC could speaking a word in a way it doesn't like be seen as "child abuse."
NEW ARTICLE -- CNS On Impeachment, Part 2: Copy and Paste Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com loves to repeat the same pro-Trump talking points in stories on impeachment -- even doing stories days apart that featuring Trump's GOP defenders saying the same exact thing. Read more >>
MRC Gives Film's False Defamation of Journalist A Pass Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves the new Clint Eastwood film about Richard Jewell, the security guard who was initially suspected -- wrongly, as it turned out -- of involvement in the bombing at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, in no small part because it fits the MRC's anti-media narrative.
Right-wing film critic Christian Toto was given space at the MRC to hype it: an October post a month and a half before the film's release hyped Eastwood's alleged courage it making a film that was "casting a critical eye on reporters, and a Nov. 23 post gushed at how the film "savages the mainstream press." Meanwhile, in a Dec. 5 post, P.J. Gladnick mocked a writer who pointed out that the film plays into Trump's (and the MRC's) anti-media talking points. Tim Graham and Brent Bozell also cheered the film and invoked it to push bogus "fake news" attacks on the media.
But Eastwood's film has fake news too: Without evidence, it pushes the inflammatory idea that a reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Kathy Scruggs, slept with an FBI agent in exchange for information.And the MRC is defending the lie.
Kristine Marsh did so with a bit of whataboutism in a Dec. 10 post: "The idea that reporters have traded sexual favors with sources to get information is not a wild conspiracy theory. There have been a number of cases just this year where female reporters from The New York Times, CNBC and MSNBC have been implicated in reporting on classified information they received from the government officials they were in relationships with." But Marsh didn't address the fact that there's absolutely no evidence that Scruggs ever did so.
Gladnick got mad at the Journal-Constitution for demanding that the movie carry a disclaimer pointing out that things in the film are not accurate, including the portrayal of Scruggs, giving a "dramatic license" pass the MRC wouldn't grant if the character in question had been a conservative:
Dramatic license? What a novelty. Has that ever been done before...except in just about every historical or biographical film of the past, or present? Like the composite character played by Margot Robbie in the anti-Fox News movie Bombshell?
[...]
Since [film character] Tom Shaw is a composite FBI character, would it actually make the Atlanta Journal Constitution feel better if there were a prominent disclaimer in the movie that says something like, "The reporter did not have implied sexual relations with a composite FBI character"?
Of course, that could make things worse for the newspaper by causing viewers to burst out laughing at their expense. The real life Richard Jewell who had to live through the hell of an allegation, promoted by theAJC, that he was a suspect in the Centennial Olympic Park bombing even though it quickly became apparent that was false.
Gladnick was also mad that the Journal-Constitution won the defamation lawsuit Jewell had filed against it.
Clay Waters also gave a dramatic-license pass to Eastwood by noting that a New York Times reporter "admits the movie “follows the standard practice for movies based on real-life events by taking liberties with certain facts....” Then he lets a source, Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute, throw in ageist insults against Eastwood." Hew then huffed that "in 2016 the paper sneered at those who would fact-check films based on true stories."
On Dec. 16, Alexa Moutevelis touted how the film's attack on the media is "in favor of the right." She mentioned that the film told a "lie" about Scruggs -- then never discussed it again, again crowing that Eastwood "justifiably knocks the media."
Apparently, the MRC is totally cool with false smears as long as it's people they despise -- in this case, any journalist who's not a right-wing sycophant -- being smeared.
WND Is Also Sad Chick-fil-A Stopped Hating Gays As Much As WND Does Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've noted how CNSNews.com got sad that Chick-fil-A changed its charitable donation strategy to de-emphasize groups that support anti-LGBT causes. The anti-gay columnists at WorldNetDaily has also been feeling that sadness.
Professional gay-hater Scott Lively declared that "Christians are reeling from the stunning betrayal of Chick-fil-A last week, but I called it in 2014." After complaining that right-wingers have "been duped by the progressives into playing a game of [liberals'] invention we are absolutely guaranteed to lose," he huffed further:
Chick-fil-A is the latest case in point, proving there is no safe haven from Marxist aggression even in private Christian companies (or private associations like the Boy Scouts).
It is logically impossible to win a debate when you adopt the other side's presuppositions, because premises dictate conclusions with mathematical certainty. When we unwittingly self-identify as "conservatives" and grant that our opponents are "progressives" we literally ensure their progress toward their goal by limiting our influence to the speed at which their "progress" occurs.
Michael Brown begged Chick-fil-A to change its mind:
Please do not cave in to LGBT activists and their allies. Please do not capitulate to the pressure of the radical left. Please do not throw the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) and the Salvation Army under the bus. Please reverse your decision to no longer fund these important Christian organizations.
Do you remember when millions of Christians stood with you when the radical left called for a boycott of your fine company? Do you remember when they turned the boycott into a "buycott"?
These same Christians are scratching their heads today. They are wondering why the company they love so much now feels the need to satisfy the demands of people who despise many of the common values we hold dear.
[...]
You choose to stand with those who celebrate two-women "marrying" and against those who say that kids deserve a mom and a dad?
You stand with those who advocate for males who identify as females competing in women's sports and against those who care about women's rights?
You stand with those who block you from opening new restaurants on college campuses and stand against those who have enjoyed your food and services for decades?
Jerry Newcombe, meanwhile, complained that the Salvation Army, which is one of the groups Chick-fil-A has stopped funding, is suffering from "mislabeling," adding, "To think of the Salvation Army – which does so much good work for people of every race, creed, color, sexual-orientation, whatever – as somehow anti-gay is preposterous." In fact, the Salvation Army has been linked to anti-gay activities in the past. Then Newcombe defended the idea that the Salvation Army is anti-gay:
By what criterion is the Salvation Army an anti-gay hate group? Because they do not let practicing, unrepentant homosexuals become leaders? Should GLAAD or other radical LGBTQ groups be forced, against their will, to have as leaders those who oppose their lifestyle?
What if someone tried to force one of these LBGTQ groups to hire as a leader someone like Omar Mateen, a true anti-gay (and anti-Christian) hater, who shot up and killed dozens of homosexuals and lesbians at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
Newcombe concluded by huffing: "Shame on those who would slander the Salvation Army as a 'hate group.' Talk about 'fake news.'" So hating gays is not "hate"?
MRC's Double Standard On Surprise Presidential Military Visits Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Alex Christy grumbled in a Nov. 29 post:
Surprise presidential visits to war zones to spend time with the troops during Thanksgiving or other holidays have become a bipartisan tradition that everyone can support. While most view such visits as a way to honor the troops and express amazement at the amount of planning and secrecy that goes into such trips, MSNBC Live host Stephanie Ruhle took Friday to call Trump's Thanksgiving visit to Afghanistan a "photo-op" and wonder that if he will plan more foreign visits as part of a strategy to counter impeachment.
Ruhle theorized that the trip was about the imagery of the presidency, "The imagery of the president standing there with troops behind him, the President literally, maybe he’s watching, tweeted a bunch of photos from the trip. That's a big win for him."
She then asked Washington Post White House correspondent Anne Gearan, "Given the impeachment battle is going on, the president is under attack in all sorts of ways, are we going to see more overseas trips that give him these kind of photo-op scenarios?"
If you know anything about the MRC, you will not be surprised to learn that it dismissed a surprise military visit by a Democratic president as a stunt and did not view it as "a bipartisan tradition that everyone can support."
When President Obama paid a visit to Afghanistan on Memorial Day weekend in 2014, the MRC was angry that it was being reported on positively. Geoffrey Dickens suggested the visit was done as a distraction from "the VA scandal":
At the time when the country is remembering the ultimate sacrifice veterans have given this country ABC’s (World News) evening and (Good Morning America) morning shows didn’t devote a second to the VA scandal over this Memorial Day weekend. However, those shows did spend time on President Barack Obama receiving “cheers” during his surprise visit to Afghanistan.
[...]
On Sunday’s World News ABC’s David Muir reported on “that surprise this Sunday from President Obama, his visit to Afghanistan and our troops this Memorial Day weekend.” Muir, teasing a Muhammad Lila report, continued: “The commander-in-chief received with cheers in that hangar at Bagram Airfield. And while there, he talked about how grateful Americans are back home for their service and about what should happen when those vets come home.”
Receiving top-notch medical care was not mentioned as something that “should happen when those vets come home” in the ensuing Lila piece.
Eight months before the 2006 midterm election, President Bush made a “surprise” visit to Afghanistan. On the March 1, 2006 edition of the Today show, hosts Katie Couric and Matt Lauer made sure to paint Bush’s visit as a publicity stunt due to his approval rating being at an “all-time low” and the controversy surrounding a bid by a United Arab Emirates-based company to run operations at various U.S. seaports. Couric touted it as an “important symbol.” Kelly O’Donnell cited the visit with all its baggage as a “difficult stretch for the president.”
At the time, the network insisted their viewers be absolutely clear about the president’s approval rating and scandals bedeviling his administration back at home. Not only that, Today's coverage included a guest who argued that it was simply impossible to “divorce how the war is going with the perception of how President Bush is doing as president.”
Fast-forward to 2014 with the barrage of scandals haunting President Obama including Benghazi, the IRS, continuing Obamacare woes, and of course most recently, the VA scandal. President Obama has had lower approval ratings but he is not incredibly popular and his party stands to face a drubbing in the November midterms. Yet the treatment by Today was wildly different.
[...]
The message was clear: President Obama is trying his darndest and ultimately it's not his fault that the VA is in such shambles. He's really trying his best to fix the "systemic" problem, after all. All that was missing was Juan Williams joining in to exclaim that the trip shows the president’s going “overboard” in his support for our troops!
What a difference eight years and a Democratic commander-in-chief makes when it comes to reporting.
If it weren't for double standards, the MRC wouldn't have any standards at all.
CNSNews.com editor in chief has long had a problem calling out his favorite president for his role in increasing federal deficits. That hasn't changed in his most recent round of budget-related articles. He complained in a Nov. 27 article:
So invested was the Media Research Center in Chick-fil-A supporting anti-gay causes that when a newspaper noted that Kanye West gave a shout-out to the "notoriously anti-LGBTQ" fast food chain in his new Christian album, Alexa Moutevelis 
It's time for all Americans and specifically blacks to ask: What have they got to lose in supporting President Trump? It's time for all Americans and specifically blacks to ask: Just what have Democrats done for them? President Trump has done the single-most important thing any American could ask of the president. He has created an economic environment the likes of which has never been seen, and specifically never been seen or enjoyed by blacks.
As we know, the Media Research Center is not really about its stated purpose of trying to "create a media culture in America where truth and liberty flourish" -- it's all about serving as an adjunct to the Trump presidency and re-election campaign (possibly violating its nonprofit tax status in the process). As a result, the MRC is in no small part pro-Trump and pro-Republican talking points masquerading as "media research."
CNSNews.com is such a loyal pro-Trump, pro-Republican 
The Media Research Center is needlessly inserting itself into the Democratic presidential campaign in a way that seems to push against its nonprofit tax designation that prohibits most partisan political activity.
CNSNews.com's coverage of the release of ther report by the Justice Department's Inspector General Michael Horowitz into the origins of the investigation into Russian contacts with the Donald Trump presidential campaign focused almost entirely on charry-picked findings that fit the narrative of the pro-Trump, pro-Republican CNS.
At first, the Media Research Center was happy that the Hallmark Channel banned an ad featuring a same-sex couple. In a Dec. 15 
There's been so much anti-LGBT stuff at the Media Research Center lately that we've had to split up the 
Let's examine the subtle bias in the way CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman wrote this Dec. 16 
In addition to hating transgenders and drag queens, the Media Research Center has serious issues with anything or anyone considered to be nonbinary or gender-neutral. We've already 
The Media Research Center loves the new Clint Eastwood film about Richard Jewell, the security guard who was initially suspected -- wrongly, as it turned out -- of involvement in the bombing at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, in no small part because it fits the MRC's anti-media narrative. 
The Media Research Center's Alex Christy grumbled in a Nov. 29 
