More Bad 'Media Research' From The MRC Topic: Media Research Center
Remember: The mission of the Media Research Center these day is to protect President Trump from media criticism. Another example of that is this bit of "media research" in a Feb. 28 post by Bill D'Agostino:
During national emergencies such as natural disasters or outbreaks of disease, the news media can serve as a valuable source of information for the public. Yet when it came to their coverage of the coronavirus on Thursday, CNN largely put their Trump-bashing agenda ahead of that important role.
MRC analysts identified 44 guest interviews on CNN between 6:00 am and 11:59 pm EST on February 27, 2020. Out of 136 questions that hosts asked about the epidemic, 82 (60%) invited guests – even medical specialists – to criticize the Trump administration’s handling of the epidemic. Questions asked of CNN-affiliated reporters and analysts were not included in this total.
Hosts often pressured guests who were reluctant to attack the administration.
It’s bad enough when Democrats and Republicans politicize national emergencies, but for the self-ordained Facts First Network to do the same is nothing short of outrageous. This isn’t what journalists are supposed to do during a national health crisis. How bad must the epidemic get for CNN to stop taking what even Democrats network have called “cheap shots?”
Absent from D'Agostino's alleged analysis -- as it is from pretty much all MRC "studies" -- is a list of those 136 questions and how they were classified so readers can judge for themselves how "negative" or "cheap" they are. D'Agostino repeated only two questions in his post.
D'Agostino also appears to have failed to consider context -- that Trump does, in fact, deserve criticism of his administration's response to the outbreak. Perhaps that's because the apparebnly official policy at the MRC is that Trump does nothing wrong and all criticism of him is "liberal."
The MRC's "media research" is hard to take seriously when it's so utterly biased.
Gay-Hating WND Columnist Hates Trump's Gay Acting DNI Topic: WorldNetDaily
If there's one thing we can count on from Scott Lively, it's that he'll hate gay people regardless of the politics. That means while conservative media has mostly forgotten that Richard Grenell, President Trump's new acting director of national intelligence, is gay and that they forced his resignation from his spokesman job for Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign over said gayness, Lively has not.
Thus, Lively ranted in his Feb. 21 WorldNetDaily column:
There comes a time in the evolution of the progressive agenda when true conservatives should stop using the "slippery slope" argument because the place we've degenerated to should be condemned as is. That's our situation today where the hero we're rallying behind to fight the progressive agenda has embraced one of its most insidious and destructive tenets. I'm talking about President Trump's appointment of open and unrepentant homosexual Richard Grenell to the position of acting director of national intelligence.
The insidious and destructive tenet of progressivism I'm referencing is "Sexual Orientation Theory" – a fake science invented by progressive political strategists for the purpose of normalizing LGBT lifestyles and de-normalizing the natural family. It has even less legitimacy than "climate change science."
Frankly, if Richard Grenell kept his sexual proclivities to himself and told people to mind their own business about his private life, I'd be more inclined to consider the "merit based" arguments for his nomination (though at first glance his resume falls far short of qualifying him for this position). But the minute he went public about his homosexual domestic partnership, he became a Marxist change agent, his very presence in public life an argument that a homosexual "orientation" is equivalent to normal sexuality. (Who in American history has ever wanted that goal? It wasn't the conservatives!)
When Grenell did that, he crossed the line from expecting reasonable tolerance from our genuinely magnanimous live-and-let-life society to demanding public acceptance. And in taking that step he also implicitly endorsed the progressive strategy of celebrating his "out" lifestyle as social progress, forcibly integrating it into society, and punishing those who object.
Let me be clear. I'm not saying that a homosexual can't be a conservative. I've known many. What I'm saying is that openly declaring oneself homosexual instead of keeping one's sexual issues private is a Marxist tactic for forcing social change, and whoever does that from inside the conservative movement is a Trojan Horse – an espionage agent – carrying the progressive agenda behind enemy lines even if they don't intend to be. The mainstreaming of sexual sub-cultures is NOT "progress" to anyone but "progressives."
Richard Grenell is a Trojan Horse. President Trump should not trust him and neither should we Deplorables.
Lively doubled down in his Feb. 24 column, declaring that "I'm been about as strong a Trump supporter as you can find," but that Trump showed he doesn't hate gays to Lively's satisfaction by appointing Grenell:
HOWEVER, the one issue that calls everything else into question is President Trump's apparent spiritual blindness on the question of homosexuality. Now I've mostly given him a pass on this issue over the past three years, rationalizing that he's just being politically savvy in a dangerous area of public policy that is (not accidentally) extremely emotionally inflammatory to the youngest generations of public school graduates and the most passionate of the street activists of the left. He's also been working diligently to peel away voters from all the constituencies of the Democratic Party, including the "gays," and I'm actually glad to see that many self-identified homosexuals are now pro-Trump.
My argument is not that he is being politically strategic, but that he is doing it in a way that unnecessarily serves the very Marxist agenda he's trying to defeat.
President Trump could easily maneuver the LGBT minefield without endorsing homosexuality itself. But he is purposefully approving it. On Feb. 21, in the build-up to his upcoming rally in India, he praised "Bollywood," its film industry, for releasing its first movie promoting homosexuality, retweeting a tweet about the production with the word "Great!" What is the message to the world when the president of the United States – a self-proclaimed Christian – applauds a morally conservative nation for abandoning its principles to celebrate homosexuality? What kind of mentality justifies the normalization of homosexuality to an entire nation's children as a political tactic? I feel nauseous just thinking about it.
Is this a partial payoff to openly homosexual Richard Grenell for his willingness to be the president's hatchet-man in the house-cleaning of the intelligence agencies? If so, it's a devil's bargain he never should have entered into.
Meanwhile, Lively is upset that Trump hasn't read his attacks on Grenell. something something sodomy:
Of course, President Trump probably never saw my article, but he shouldn't have had to, since my arguments should have been no-brainer, intuitive deductions by anyone with a genuine biblical worldview in the Trump inner circle. A simple policy pivot from an emphasis on decriminalization to an emphasis on ending violence against homosexuals would have sent just as powerful a message without endorsing the regressive leftist view that discouragement of sodomy through public policy is a bad thing. Discouraging the public health and morals menace of sodomy through law was an unassailable conservative policy position less than a quarter century ago in our country! Now we're supposed to flip 180 degrees and embrace Obama doctrine instead?
Lively then complained that Vice President Mike Pence, as "the highest-ranking Christian in the Trump administration," is apparently not teaching Trump how to hate gays, and he doubts that Trump is even "saved" (despite the fact he has never claimed to be and certainly acts otherwise to the contrary):
Every Christian sins in matters of personal conduct, and we have a remedy from God for that called confession and repentance. In contrast, taking public policy positions that directly contradict the clear instructions of God is a spiritual problem of a much higher magnitude. Every Christian leader with access to the president and an opportunity to do so has a duty to speak that truth to him.
His endorsement of homosexuality even raises the question of whether Donald Trump is actually saved. There are lots of "religious leftists" running around saying they're Christians based on belief in a non-biblical Jesus who condones and even approves what the Bible condemns. I argue that one can't be saved by belief in a false Christ. Which Jesus does the president put his faith in?
Whatever God will get him elected, but Lively will likely never concede that.
You Need To Calm Down: MRC Can't Stop Bashing Taylor Swift Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center isweirdlyobsessed with bashing Taylor Swift for the sin of having opinions it doesn't agree with (and refusing to hate LGBT people as much as it thinks she should). Since Swift refuses to conform to the MRC's right-wing agenda, she remains an MRC target.
In November, P.J. Gladnick mocked Elizabeth Warren for taking Swift's side against her former record company regarding control of the music she recorded for it -- and, of course, mocked Swift herself for committing the offense of being a "multi-millionaire" who wants to have a say in how the music she helped create is being used:
Justice for Taylor Swift!
Yeah, now that's a cause that your average working American can get behind. And it is also a cause taken up by presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren which has resulted in widespread mockery. Okay, the mockery hasn't quite reached the levels inspired by the reaction to her hyping of a DNA test last year that revealed that Warren is maybe 1/1024 Native American but it is up there.
Warren tweeted her support for Swift in the multi-millionaire's contractual dispute with other millionaires that we should somehow care about as reported by Variety on Saturday in, "Elizabeth Warren Backs Taylor Swift in Big Machine Battle."
There is a lot more of that in reply to Elizabeth Warren on Twitter so break out the popcorn and take a look for yourselves because the entertainment value is much greater than listening to Taylor Swift singing (or whining).
Gladnick apparently doesn't think that having control over what you create is something your average working American can understand.
In January, Swift's chief MRC bully, Gabriel Hays, melted down over the singer receiving an award from pro-LGBT organization GLAAD through exhibiting the gay-bashing the MRC is known for in once again complaining there are too many gay people on TV:
Although Taylor is less of a hero, and more so just another spoiled celebrity being paraded out by special interest groups in order to condescend to people who are reluctant to join progressive causes. She’s a leftwing android more or less. She promotes all the boilerplate gay lobby crap and bashes Donald Trump supporters as scary racists.
Swift made her abrupt shift left in 2018, when she blasted then Senate-candidate Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) for her conservative campaign. Taylor claimed her record “appalls and terrifies me.” In April 2019, Swift donated $113,000 to the Tennessee Equality Project, a legal group aggressive in pushing LGBTQ legislation in the state.
Though really, she’s just another one of the left’s anti-intellectual, propaganda mouthpieces that helps GLAAD bully people into submission. GLAAD has used its influence to put an over-representation of LGBTQ folks in TV/film entertainment and has successfully sicced the media on companies with traditional family values via an obnoxious and dishonest victimhood strategy.
Hays returned in a Feb. 28 post to sneer at Swift's new music video (and the song it's for):
The far left reboot of Taylor Swift is continuing her work of alienating conservatives and most other normal folks from her fanbase. The singer unveiled her music video for her misogyny-crushing anthem “The Man,” featuring her play-acting as a man and doing all the things your typical toxic white male gets away with that women can’t.
Like smoking cigars while manspreading on subway cars, or behaving like an arrogant jerk on a yacht with models? Well if your info comes from a Swift music video, these are the problems with guys these days.
Swift’s video for “The Man” premiered online on February 27, and of course it was a slick, polished production. Swift’s got the best entertainment people working for her, and their politics are predictable. “The Man” is a cheap feminist anthem about double standards.
Her lyrics for the song’s chorus sum up her views on sexism. She sings, “I'm so sick of running as fast as I can. Wondering if I'd get there quicker if I was a man. And I'm so sick of them coming at me again, 'cause if I was a man then I'd be the man.” Yes, so sad, and her $300 million doesn’t put her about 99% of most men on earth, but we digress.
Of course the music video makes her points even dumber than they were in writing.
Hays then unironically wrote: "Swift must see her product as more of a joke, because it’s too cartoony to be a political statement. " We wonder if Hays sees his product as a joke, because it's too cartoonishly hateful to be taken as legitimate criticism.
CNS even noted Fox News host Tucker Carlson's criticism of the Trump administration's failure to take the coronavirus crisis seriously. But it also gave space to Fox Business host Trish Regan's unhinged rant that coronavirus was "impeachment all over again."
Still, even the stories that initially present as balanced are full of pro-Trump bias. A March 12 article by Melanie Arter carries the benign headline "McCarthy on Coronavirus Legislation: ‘I Think We Can Get This Done in 24-48 Hours’," but it consists solely of Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy attacking Democratic proposals and failed to quote any Democratic response. And a March 10 article by Jones withthe headline "Rubio: 'There Could Be a Shortage of Critical Drugs in This County'" was actually a talking-point piece featuring the Republican senator pushing "the United States to take back the pharmaceutical production we 'gave away' to China."
The old CNS agenda staples continued: another attempt to make Joe Biden look goofy, in an anonymously written headlined "Joe Biden Advises Americans to Stop Hugging Each Other," and another rant from its favorite right-wing radio host, Mark Levin.Craig Bannister cheered capitalist profiteering in a March 13 post headlined "Enterprising Teen Sent Home, Gets Detention for Selling Squirts of Hand Sanitizer to Fellow Students."
CNS even touted writers trying to exploit the coronavirus outbreaks to advance their own agendas. Actor wife Sam Sorbo was given a column to rant that public education was a bad thing on par with coronavirus:
Caution is the better form of valor, and goodness knows we want our children to be safe, but we miss the bigger picture. Infecting the minds of our youth with what passes today for education but what clearly has morphed, over the years, into simple indoctrination, may have a worse effect than illness. There is, after all, the strong potential of recovery from illness, but the disease of liberalism — intolerance of the truth, and a reluctance to learn (all promoted in our government schools and institution of “higher learning”) — is much more threatening. It poisons its victims with dangerous assumptions about political correctness, unearned self-worth, and gender confusion, not to mention the academic confusion resultant from the coerced Common Core agenda.
Parents who demand protection for their children from the infection of the body may realize they can simultaneously guard them from the degradation of thought rampant in our schools and colleges. Home education should figure among their options, as homes are deemed safest by health authorities. My book can help explain how easy it is to educate your child in a truly safe environment.
There is already a virus in your local schools, and its deadlier than the coronavirus.
Sorbo will never admit that homeschooling involves at least as much indoctrination as she claims public education does.
And homophobic CNS managing editor did an article promoting a fellow homophobe:
Bishop E.W. Jackson, a Marine, Harvard Law graduate, and great-grandson of Virginia slaves, said that promoting homosexual behavior is destructive and constitutes a "violent attack" on the family, especially in the black community, which faces many "family formation" problems including the absence of many real fathers.
He added that, though it will spark criticism, the gay movement is "the homovirus for the family." It is not like the physical coronavirus, he said, but it is damaging in a "spiritual and psychological" sense and is "the last thing you need in a community that is beset by gangs, and drugs, and violence, much of which can be traced back to the absence of fathers in the home."
The news may change, but not CNS' bias in covering it.
The MRC's LGBT 'Agenda' Freakout Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center generally hates LGBT people and thinks the fact that they're allowed to be on TV is evidence of some sort of "agenda." A couple recent posts fed that "agenda" obsession.
A Feb. 18 post by Lindsey Kornick complained about a documentary about LGBT representation on TV, denigrating them as "depraved" people engaged in "perversions":
Apple TV has truly hit the peak of progressiveness, and there’s no turning back. The five-part documentary series Visible: Out on Television spells out the true agenda behind LGBTQ representation on television. Namely, the idea that “television is at its best” when it’s being used as a tool for the gay community.
All five parts, which premiered on February 14, lay out the history of LGBTQ representation on television. It begins with the first reference to homosexuality in McCarthy hearings from 1957 and moves to the present day with every major TV event in between those times. The premiere episode “The Dark Ages” dives into this record with their agenda front and center, summing up all the details and posturing we'll be hearing for over five hours. That includes the notion that television is only "at its best" with several LGBTQ characters.
Considering the second episode is literally called “Television as a Tool,” it’s safe to say that the goal is clearly indoctrination and normalization of LGBTQ lifestyles. Even in the documentary, there’s no hiding that many forms of gay representation became excuses for “liberal diatribes” to millions of viewers. There is even special attention given to the gay activist groups such as Act Up and GLAAD, noting that “using TV and the media was the whole game.” Referencing these groups alone removes all doubts of this being anything but political.
Seeing the scope of television move from simply placing gay characters on screen to openly celebrating every perverted thing they can do is jarring enough, but it gets worse. The show goes so far as to co-opt other characters from popular shows to simply act as gay representation for them. And here I thought liberals didn’t like appropriation.
CNN calls Visible: Out on Television “a reminder how far both TV and society have come.” In a way, I agree. It shows us how far television has fallen to blatant propaganda and depraved activists. And it’ll never be far enough for the progressives.
MRC chief Brent Bozell, meanwhile, used a Feb. 20 post -- presented as "a side on the website The Rift" -- to deny he's a homophobe while he demands that the Disney Channel ban all LGBT characters:
There should not be more homosexual characters in animated Disney movies and there should not be fewer. There should be none.
Nor should there be anti-homosexual characters. Nor Catholics or anti-Catholics, nor Jewish people or anti-Semites, nor climate change proponents or climate change deniers. Any character’s identity and back story that doesn’t propel a simple children’s tale reflects the preoccupation of adults.
This debate is not about presenting characters that are homosexual. This is about presenting characters as homosexuals. This is about promoting the gay lifestyle. But why do either?
Please, please: Don’t accuse me of being homophobic. That dog just won’t hunt. Most every adult watching Paul Lynde on Hollywood Squares, or David Hyde Pierce on Frasier, or Charles Nelson Reilly on Laugh-In knew the actor was gay… and no one cared. All were there as comedians who happened to be gay.
Victimology. I tire of it. I am a Roman Catholic. There are 51 million of us. We demand that Disney actively and only positively promote Catholic characters! 65% of Americans are Christians. Disney must have 65% of its characters portrayed as Christian role models!
Disney would never allow that. Disney won’t allow a single Catholic character in its animated films. I wonder if you can find a single Christian. That, you see, is the projection of an agenda.
So for Bozell, being gay is a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of thing? Because you know that if Lynde or Reilly had admitted on TV they were gay, he would be agitating to ban them from the airwaves.
Bozell then complained that Disney removed the "Siamese Cat Song" from its remake of "Lady and the Tramp" because of its perceived racism: "Did a single child anywhere on the face of Planet Earth ever listen to that song and find racist overtones? What about the song that followed, an Italian song about Italian food sung by two characters parodying Italians? Why is that still there? Out, out, OUT!"
Bozell conlcuded by huffing: "None of this has anything to do with entertaining kids and everything to do with indoctrinating them into leftwing ideology. Adding more LGBT characters to Disney movies just moves the company further from its purpose." Bozell's purpose, meanwhile, is to censor all traces of LGBT representation from the public airwaves, so his complaint about "indoctrinating" is wildly hypocritical -- and, yes, Brent, that's quite homophobic.
Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., is a pathetic hater whose greatest measurable achievement is serving 14 terms in Congress.
According to his Wikipedia page, his South Carolina congressional district includes nearly all of the mostly black precincts in and around Columbia and Charleston, as well as almost the entire rural region within South Carolina. In those areas he has successfully turned pimping hatred, skin color and an annual fish fry with white bread, into the viscous substance that lubricates his political flim-flam machine.
Clyburn calls President Trump a racist, and scorns the unqualified success his agenda has been for all Americans on every quantifiable level, and specifically for black Americans.
But Clyburn steadfastly supports and defends Joe Biden whose 1994 crime bill many argue led to mass imprisonment of black people. Clyburn calls President Trump anti-black, but he stolidly defends Biden's comments at a New York fundraiser, when he boasted about working with segregationists. Clyburn defended him even as other black Democrats condemned Biden for his remarks.
Clyburn's claim that the massive economic gain by blacks under President Trump somehow compares to slavery is the Erebusic rhetoric of a loser.
Some years ago during a BBC interview, Oprah Winfrey said, "Older white people who were born, bred, and marinated in prejudice and racism should die if racism is to disappear." Winfrey was inexcusably wrong to say that. It's not old white people who need to die; it's people like James Clyburn who must disappear, never to be heard from again, if the inculcating of blacks with pernicious acrimony is to end.
MRC Bashes CNN Writers For Attending Party With Katie Hill, Silent On Fox News Staffers Also Attending Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center tried to merge its abject hatred for CNN with its recentglee that Democratic Rep. Katie Hill was forced to resign from her seat in part because conservative websites published revenge porn of her in a March 2 post by Kristine Marsh:
CNN host Brian Stelter and his network go after Fox News, constantly, claiming their hosts and analysts are cronies working for President Trump. But Stelter has been caught in his own conflict of interest predicament.
The Reliable Sources host, along with two of his reporter colleagues, was seen at a party with disgraced former Democrat congresswoman, Katie Hill in New York over the weekend, according to Page Six. This, after Stelter has had Hill on his show and his network has worked overtime to try to rehabilitate the Democrat’s tarnished reputation.
Page Six’s Oli Coleman reportedSaturday that Stelter and CNN senior media reporters Oliver Darcy and Vicky Ward were seen attending a book signing party for the Daily Beast’s Lachlan Markey and Asawin Suebsaeng.
Last November, Stelter had Hill on his show so he could label her a victim of “right wing media smears” in a sympathetic interview where he asked her if it was “an out of body experience” to be “called names” by Fox News personalities.
Besides trying to rehab Hill’s reputation on Stelter’s show, CNN also tried to push Hill’s gender discrimination narrative with puff pieces defending her on their website.
Stelter’s attendance showcases just how involved the media is with the Democrat party.
Not only did Marsh did not bother to contact Stelter and Darcy for ar esponse, she failed to update her post to note that Darcy and Stelter did, in fact, respond to the accusation when her attack was similarly parroted by RedState (ironically, one of the conbservative websites that published the revenge porn on Hill). Both said they did not "party" with Hill -- Darcy said he didn't even see her at the book party -- and pointed out that staffers from Fox News were also at the party.
Whoops! No wonder there was no update -- the MRC is a criticism-free zone for Fox News (unless you were Shepard Smith), and acknowledging that Fox News staffers were also at this party would undermine the narrative.
Also note that Marsh refused to use the proper name of the Democratic Party, opting instead for the incorrect right-wing insult version "Democrat party." The MRC should explain to its readers why its stylebook demands that incorrect information be given to its readers.
CNS Columnist: Sanders Isn't A Real Jew, Like Trump Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com wasn't just attacking Bernie Sanders in its news articles -- it was also going after him in opinion pieces as well. One of the nastiest attacks came in a Feb. 25 column by David Rubin, who has written a book called "Trump and the Jews." And he basuically argues that Sanders isn't a real Jew because he's not as right-wing as Trump:
In 2016, Sanders largely avoided mention of his Jewishness. This time around, he’s been less elusive and even came out with a “Proud to Be Jewish” campaign video, in which he talks about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism and concludes that President Trump is responsible for the rise in anti-Semitic attacks in recent years, even though the most shocking rise in anti-Semitism has come from Bernie’s supporters like Rep. Ilhan Omar or Linda Sarsour on the far left, or in movements such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa.
A Jew who is really in touch with his heritage is proud to be a member of the people who provided the moral basis for Western Civilization in the form of the Ten Commandments and the Hebrew Bible. The concepts of honoring parents, of humility, of the Sabbath as a day of rest and family bonding - Those are the foundations for the same eternal values that many of the founders of the United States so deeply admired. Noteworthy is the rebirth of Israel as a sovereign nation again after two thousand years of exile from its homeland. These are all symbols of real Jewish pride. Yes, it’s important to know about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism, but it’s not a badge of pride for Jews, rather it’s a badge of shame for those who allowed such atrocities to happen.
As for Bernie’s charge that Donald Trump has fomented anti-Semitism, the truth is just the opposite. Unlike Bernie Sanders, President Trump’s actions have enabled genuine Jewish pride, not as campaign spin to get votes, but as a sincere show of love for the Jewish people. This has included his bold recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, followed by the important recognition of the strategic Golan Heights as part of sovereign Israel, as well as halting support for the Palestinian Authority until it stops funding terrorism, and finally, leading the fight against a nuclear Iran. All of these were courageous actions taken by Trump in close coordination with the Israeli government and were supported by most Israelis from right to left.
That being the case, why is it that a majority of Jewish Americans would support Senator Sanders, who says that most of Israel’s leaders are racist, against President Trump, who has made such strong efforts to strengthen ties between the United States and the Jewish State of Israel?
The sad truth is that those liberal/socialist Jews in America are as disconnected from their Judaism as is Bernie Sanders! We Jews in Israel, as well as the minority of religiously connected Jews in America, care deeply about Jewish survival and the future of our people. Our high marriage rate and large Jewish families reflect that. Bernie has done nothing in his personal or public life that would indicate to us that he shares those concerns.
There actually is a very sad, but relevant joke about the Jewishness of Bernie Sanders: What is the difference between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump? The answer? Donald Trump has Jewish grandchildren!
Sure, it’s just a joke, but it’s true. All of the research cited in my book, Trump and the Jews," indicates that among those American Jews who strongly identify as Jews, a clear majority strongly approve of President Trump’s job performance. The pattern is clear. The more positive the Jewish identity, the stronger the support for President Trump.
Jews who care about their Judaism, as well as Gentiles who care about Israel, would be wise to examine the facts on the ground. If Sanders continues his surge and, indeed, becomes the nominee, his Jewishness will certainly not be a reason to vote for him.
Rubin seems to have forgotten that Trump once tweeted an image showing Hillary on a pile of cash with a Star of David shape reading, "Most corrupt candidate ever!" which originated from a white nationalist, anti-Semitic Twitter account.
MRC Rediscovers Context To Attack Media, Defend Trump Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center demandscontext when reporting on President Trump (not so much for anyone else). So when Trump spoke ambiguously about coronavirus and hoaxes, the MRC was ON IT to insist that the president spoke perfectly.
Curtis Houck, in the middle of gushing over how Trump delivered a "SCORCHING CPAC Address" that was "a comedy routine for the ages," referenced, as he is apparently contractually obligated to, "the Trump-hating liberal media, which have been working to convince the public that the President views the coronavirus as “a hoax” when he used that term Friday to condemn the liberal spin about his response to the virus."
The MRC minions thus had their talking point marching orders. Nicholas Fondacaro huffed that an NBC host "continued to push the long-debunked accusation that President Trump called the deadly coronavirus (COVID-19) a 'hoax' at a Friday campaign rally in South Carolina," despite the fact that Trump himself said it only two days before and it hadn't been "long-debunked" by the MRC until Houck's post that appeared just an hour earlier. A few hours after that, Fondacaro complained that another NBC host "continued to spread the left-wing lie that Trump had called the virus a 'hoax'." And then a couple hours later, Fondacaro raged at CNN because "According to CNN Inside Politics host John King, one didn’t need to believe the fact that President Trump was describing the Democratic and media fearmongering of his administration’s handling of the coronavirus (COVID-19) as a 'hoax;' 'you can read this how you wish' and believe he said it about the virus."
Kyle Drennen then picked up the baton, huffing that "NBC News senior business correspondent Stephanie Ruhle keep pushing the now-debunked claim that President Trump labeled the coronavirus a 'hoax.' In reality, what Trump dismissed as a hoax were efforts by Democrats and liberal media to politicize the global health crisis." That was followed by Clay Waters grousing that the New York Times "left open the lie that Trump called the coronavirus a hoax."
Corinne Weaver touted how the Daily Caller's fact-checking operation rated the claim as false, but only grudging admitted in passing, through quoting someone else, that the Daily Caller is conservative. (The MRC then reprinted the Daily Caller's fact-check.) Tim Graham declared that "President Trump never called the coronavirus a 'hoax,'" then whined that Snopes wouldn't unambiously declare it false because Trump was in the middle of downplaying the severity of the coronavirus outbreak: "'Downplaying the severity of the outbreak' is not at all the same as calling coronavirus a 'hoax.'"
Waters returned to complain that Times columnist Paul Krugman "is spreading a lie above; Trump never said the coronavirus was a hoax." Aiden Jackson grumbled that Hillary Clinton "perpetuated the widely discredited 'hoax' falsehood." Mark Finkelstein went into full defense mode: "President Trump has not called coronavirus a hoax. To the contrary, the President has mobilized a team to combat the spread of the disease. And the administration is offering daily briefings on its efforts."
Alexander Hall recounted how "Donald Trump, Jr. retweeted multiple conservative commentators who were calling out Twitter for allowing a Biden campaign video which itself appears to be deceptively edited in that it claimed that Trump was calling the coronavirus a hoax," then complained that Hillary "pushed the fact-checked false liberal narrative that Trump had called the coronavirus a 'hoax.'"
By contrast, the MRC had no problem whatsoever taking President Obama's "you didn't build that" remark out of context to a highly dishonest extent.So, yeah, its complaint about coverage of Trump rings more than a little hollow.
CNS Floods The Zone on Schumer Remarks, Omits Context Topic: CNSNews.com
We've noted that CNSNews.com develops selelctive amnesia when reporting relevant details about conservatives but will flood the zone when it comes to negative news about non-conservatives. After cranking out eight stories about Nancy Pelosi ripping up her copy of President Trump's State of the Union address, CNS has done it again.
When Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer said at an abortion-rights rally while the Supreme Court was hearing a case on the issue that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh "have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price," CNS dutifully toed the Republican line by portraying Schumer's words as a threat against the lives of the justices and flooded the zone accordingly with the usual suspects for maximum right-wing outrage:
Five days later, CNS pulled its usual trick of sending interns out to pester congressment in a March 9 article by Bruce Truax in which he was forced to ask a Democratic senator what he thought of Schumer's remarks.
That's a total of 10 articles -- none of which note the fact that Schumer was simply repeating language that the justices themselves have used. As an actual news outlet (and Wonkette) pointed out, Kavanaugh attacked Democrats who opposed his nomination, claiming that they have "sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind."
Seems like relevant context, but CNS didn't tell its readers about it. Nor did it apparently report Kavanaugh's original remarks, let alone treat them as a threat.
By contrast, CNS published nothing about a threat by Republican Rep. Ken Buck in a video showing him holding an assault rifle and daring Joe Biden and Beto O'Rourke to take it away from him -- heavily implying he would shoot them dead if he did so.
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC's Climate-Teen Meltdown Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has spent months heaping hate and scorn on Greta Thunberg for her climate-change activism -- but it has all but censored the far-right leanings of Naomi Seibt, conservatives' answer to Thunberg. Read more >>
WND Keeps Up The Coronavirus Conspiracy Theories Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ever the conspiracy-monger, WorldNetDaily has pushed conspiracy theories about the coronavirus.
We already noted how WND repeated a Western Journal article blaming "leftist communities" for the coronavirus. WND also uncritically promoted the goofy-but-dangerous claim from Limbaugh that the coronavirus was no more serious than the common cold and likely "a ChiCom laboratory experiment that is in the process of being weaponized" and is being used by the media to attack President Trump.
WND had another conspiracy theory in a Feb. 25 article that uncritically quoted self-proclaimed China expert Steven Mosher pushing the bogus theory that the coronavirus was developed in a laboratory in Wuhan, China, and spread because "Some Chinese researchers are in the habit of selling their laboratory animals to street vendors after they have finished experimenting on them."
WND also repeated Republican Sen. Tom Cotton's similar claim that the coronavirus escaped from a Wuhan laboratory in a Feb. 1 article republished from the Western Journal. Actual experts have shut down Cotton's conspiracy theory.
WND then attacked a prominent federal health official -- not for any false claims she made, but because she's related to the wrong person. The Western Journal's Jack Davis huffed in a Feb. 28 article:
An intriguing connection related to one of America's top health officials at the center of the national discussion over the potential severity of the coronavirus in America has some wondering about a conspiracy, while others find only a coincidence.
Fears that the coronavirus will have devastating impacts beyond those already being registered around the globe have triggered a major Wall Street selloff. President Donald Trump has pushed back against the culture of panic.
But is there a political tinge to the pronouncements? Speculation that there could be rose after it was discovered that the health official making dire pronouncements about the impact of the coronavirus contrary to those offered by Trump is connected to another high-profile individual who was often at odds with the president -- former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Rosenstein, who played a role in the firing of former FBI Director James Comey, had a checkered relationship with Trump. In 2018,The New York Times linked Rosenstein to an internal administration plot to record Trump in secret and then invoke the 25th Amendment, under which a president can be removed for being unfit to perform his duties. Although Rosenstein denied the claim, the accusation cast a shadow over his final months as deputy attorney general.
During a hearing to be confirmed to that post, Rosenstein submitted written testimony saying that his sister was "Dr. Nancy Messonnier and that "she is the Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
This week, while the president was trying to reassure Americans that health officials were working to protect Americans, Messonnier was taking a different approach.
“It's not so much a question of if this will happen anymore, but more really a question of when it will happen,” she said, according to NPR, adding that a "significant disruption" to Americans' daily lives is possible.
"We are asking the American public to work with us to prepare with the expectation that this could be bad."
The combination of her recent comments and her family connection has led some commentators to voice a concern that Messonnier might be pushing the panic button harder than necessary for motives that had nothing to do with health.
Again, Davis never offers any evidence that Messoninier said anything false, only that she "might be pushing the panic button harder than necessary" -- and, one can argue that her fears about the spread of coronavirus have since been proven correct.
But don't expect Davis or WND to apologize for falsely smearing Messonnier -- that's not their style. They care nothing about the truth and everything about defending President Trump.
MRC Finally Finds A Journalist Whose Political Opinions It Approves Of Topic: NewsBusters
A key piece of the Media Research Center's anti-media narrative is attacking anyone in the media who says anything even vaguely "liberal." But whwen a member of the media not only spouts conservativism but uses that media platform to do so? That bias is totally cool.
Thus, a Feb. 13 NewsBusters post by Randy Hall expressed unbridled joy that a member of thte media crossed over into politics to take on an MRC nemesis:
Liberals in the media have cheered the far-left Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, focusing more on her celebrity status and less on her rabid socialism. Ocasio-Cortez won New York’s 14th congressional district in November of 2018 after a shock primary win over another Democrat.
While several people have expressed an interest in running against her in this year’s primary and general election, the most recent person to challenge that member of the liberal “Squad” is Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, a former anchor for the CNBC channel who is a registered Democrat and a descendant of Cuban immigrants.
According to an article posted on Tuesday by Fox News Channel reporter Sam Dorman, the challenger “has been a fierce critic of socialism and an advocate for free markets.”
That viewpoint was especially evident in her 2010 book entitled You Know I'm Right: More Prosperity, Less Government, where she called out both major political parties for ignoring "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" Americans like herself.
In the introduction to her book, Caruso-Cabrera noted that the “core principles of Reaganomics rejuvenated an unstable economy,” and “the Clinton-era policy successes took power away from the federal government and put money in our pockets.”
Hall didn't seem curious why Caruso-Cabrera was running as a Democrat despite sounding like a conservative Republican with her praise of Reaganomics and attacks on socialism. Turns out the district that Ocasio-Cortez hasn't voted Republican in decades and leans heavily Democratic.
Hall also didn't mention that Caruso-Cabrera is just one of 13 declared candidates -- eight Republican and five Democratic -- looking to unseat Ocasio-Cortez, or that AOC has a multimillion-dollar campaign coffer and popularity within her district that will make her difficult to beat.
But, hey, intellectual consistency and full reporting of facts aren't exactly hallmarks of the MRC machine, are they?
CNS Follows The Template, Smears Biden After Primary Wins Topic: CNSNews.com
As with Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders before him, CNSNews.com followed news of Joe Biden's recent Democratic primary election victories with personal attacks and smears, particularly focused on portraying him as mentally unstable.
CNS did note that Biden won big in South Carolina on Feb. 29, but tipped its eventual hostile and biased direction a couple days earlier with an article by Susan Jones highlighting a Biden statement that he would have President Trump "escorted out of the White House" if he refused to concede defeat if he lost re-election. Susan Jones sneered of the question asked of Biden at a CNN town hall: "Silly question? You be the judge."
After the South Carolina win, though, CNS started cherry-picking Biden with an emphasis on making him appear extreme and a little out of it:
Biden Promises to Cure Alzheimer’s Disease (originally headlined "Gaffe-Prone Biden Promises to Cure Alzheimer’s, After Seemingly Suffering Mental Lapse During Speech"; added thatBiden "has drawn scrutiny for his public mental lapses")
And since Bernie Sanders is still a viable candidate, CNS sent a few attacks his way as well. First up was an anonymously written item with the alarmist headline "Bernie Sanders: ‘Banning Abortion Will, Quite Literally, Kill Women’" (which, of course, the anonymous writer didn't dispute).
That was followed by a March 9 article by Jones attempting to paint Sanders as a hypocrite: "Sanders: Americans' Health Is 'Most Important,' But He's Not Ready to Cancel Rallies." But Jones censored that fact that CNN's Jake Tapper also referenced President Trump in his question to Sanders, as well as Biden, since all three are "older Americans" who face a higher risk from coronavirus.
MRC Loves It When Bernie Sanders Is Smeared As A Nazi Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center hates it when people like President Trump to a Nazi. But liken a liberal -- and a Jewish liberal at that -- to a Nazi? Totally cool!
Tim Graham devoted a Feb. 19 post not to criticizing right-wing radio host Mark Levin for an unhinged rant in which he asserted that Sen. Bernie Sanders has "deep-rooted anti-Semitism" and an "Islamo-Nazi mentality" -- that would presumably go against the apparent cross-promotion agreement Levin has with the MRC -- but, rather, to attacking the person who highlighted said rant. Graham portrayed the Mediaite article about Levin as some sort of revenge b ecause "Levin routinely mocks the Mediaite website and its owner, ABC legal analyst Dan Abrams" and defended Levin's bashing of what he claimed were Sanders' " top surrogate lieutenants," adding: "Surely, Levin meant Palestinian-American radical Linda Sarsour. Sanders is also endorsed by (and endorses) the Muslim freshman congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. These women all endorse the BDS (Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions) movement to destabilize the Israeli government.
Graham Then complained that the Mediaite writer "had a brief counter-argument: 'Bernie Sanders is Jewish.' He said nothing about Sanders and his surrogates, and their controversial statements. The whole article was four paragraphs and the brief attempt at rebuttal." So, like a typical MRC item, then?
Never mind that the MRC itself hasinvoked the Jewish faith of Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and the conversion to Judaism of his daughter Ivanka to defend Trump against claims of white nationalism or anti-Semitism.
Nowhere in his piece did Graham pass judgment on Levin's wacky "Islamo-Nazi" smear.
Meanwhile, in a Feb. 23 post, Nicholas Fondacaro highlighted then-MSNBC host Chris Matthews' claim that, in Fondacaro's words, "Sanders’ blitzkrieg through the first three states, and his increased momentum, reminded him of the fall of France to the Nazis and the call the French prime minister made to the U.K. to say 'it’s over' -- not to criticize Matthews for saying it, but to complain that the comment made Matthews "the latest target of the so-called Bernie Bros as they demanded MSNBC fire him for a comment he made about their dear leader." (Never mind that the bulk of MRC content these days is attacking people for comments made about its current dear leader.) Fondacaro never criticized Matthews for the comment itself.
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews offered a mea culpa to 2020 Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders Monday night, after comparing his win in Nevada to the Nazis taking France in World War II. But the Hardball host did not feel the need to apologize to President Trump, or his family, for comparing them to Mussolini, Hitler, Sadam Hussein, or a whole host of other despicable dictators.
Of course, no one in the media batted an eyelash at Matthews equating Trump or his family to murderous dictators or hoping they get killed off by communists or each other.
When Matthews did abruptly leave his show a few days after that, Fondacaro complained anew that Matthews "was on the receiving end of the wrath of the so-called Bernie Bros for comparing Sanders’s rise to the Nazis conquering France." Again, Fondacaro never expressed any offense at the comment itself.
Tim Graham regurgitated this non-criticism and whataboutism in his March 4 column, saying only that Matthews "reacted badly by comparing the Sanders victory in Nevada as somehow akin to the fall of France to the Nazis during World War II" and whining that "Matthews was never punished for comparing President Trump to Hitler, or Stalin, or Satan."
How weird that nobody at the MRC is batting an eyelash about people likening a Jewish politican to Nazis.