MRC Got Mad Media Covered Liz Cheney Controversy, Insisted It Wasn't News Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center hates it when the media focuses on issues that makes Republicans and conservatives look bad. Thus, it lashed out at coverage of Liz Cheney's status as a top Republican leader, desperate to change the subject.
In a May 6 post, perpetually angry MRC writer Nicholas Fondacaro ranted that "Republican flack-turned-Democrat" Kurt Bardella was a "loon" in part for bringing up the Cheney battle, "saying that Republicans are the ones who are “detrimental and dangerous” to the country for removing Cheney for, according to Bardella, the lone sin of “telling the truth about January 6th” and the 2020 election." He added: "Numerous people have debunked this claim, but facts aren’t exactly Bardella’s strong suit." The "numerous people" Fondacaro linked to were Federalist writer Mollie Hemingway making unsubstantiated claims about Cheney and a Politico article citing anonymous Republicans criticizing Cheney (huh, we thought the MRC hated anonymous sources).
Mark Finkelstein complained that MSNBC's Joe Scarborough lended his support to Cheney: "But with her harsh criticism of President Trump, and vote to impeach him, Cheney has made herself the darling of the liberal media. Witness the Washington Post offering her an op-ed spot yesterday to continue to blast Trump. So is Liz really indifferent to liberal love, or has she gone out of her way to cultivate it?"
On the latest NewsBusters Podcast, we tackle the ginned-up controversy over Rep. Liz Cheney, and how her crusading against Donald Trump looks like it will lead to a vote removing her from the House GOP leadership. Oh, how the media love this sticky wicket!
On Friday night's Don Lemon show, Brian Stelter touted how CNN and MSNBC have loaded more than 300 mentions apiece of Liz Cheney, while Fox News had less than 50. So which approach is better "news"?
The screen read “Fox propaganda in overtime turning Liz Cheney into a pariah.” Is Brian really so out of touch with conservatives that he doesn’t realize CNN and MSNBC and the rest are also turning Liz into a pariah? The more they celebrate Cheney as a Heroic Dissenter, the more the regular Republicans react against her.
In the podcast proper, Graham complained: "The question is this: Which one of these is more newsworthy? Which one's more the news channel? Does doing the story more make you a better news channel, or doing the story less make you a better news channel?... That shouldn't be how we define news." Graham seems to have forgotten how much the MRC praises Fox News for covering certain stories (that advance right-wing narratives) more than CNN or MSNBC. He then paranoaically whined: "It should be obvious that ther media and the Democrats -- the media-Democrat complex -- aren't really interested in figuring out "let's help the Republicans win.' The Cheney fight is their hope to split the party into warring factions and then dominate at the polls."
THe next day, Graham complained that a commentator noted that Cheney was being kicked out of GOP leadership "for no offense other than saying that Joe Biden won the election," retorting: "That's the official Democrat line on Cheney, and forget the reporters who've heard how Cheney's political operation "has been described as difficult, brittle, unresponsive and tone deaf," and that she's actually endangering the re-election of anti-Trump Republicans." LIke Fondacaro, Graham cited as evidence the anonymous source-ladenPolitico article.
(Graham also called the person who said that, "hardcore partisan Democrat lawyer" Mark Ellias, a "shyster" -- a slur for an unscrupulous or dishonest lawyer.GHraham offered no evidence that Elias committed any crimes or acts that would get him disbarred other than complaining that he was "the bagman who paid Fusion GPS for the phony-baloney Steele Dossier full of collusion delusion.")
On May 12, Scott Whitlock tried to embrace a CBS reporter's claim that he thought he could exploit:
CBS This Morning’s Major Garrett on Wednesday shocked his fellow journalists as he rejected the evolving liberal media narrative that Liz Cheney is the most important story on the planet. Garrett mocked this idea as the equivalent of caring about the third string quarterback on a JV high school football team. Now, he also used hyperbolic language, insisting that Cheney is “being stoned or burned at the stake.” But at least the CBS journalist underlined the obvious point: This story is a media creation.
[...]
Cheney will soon start a media tour blitz. But Garrett’s point is correct.
Of course, by that very loose definition, every news story is a "media creation."
Another post that same day, by Kristine Marsh, hammered further on the idea that Cheney is a non-story as decreed by conservatives:
View’ co-host Meghan McCain ruffled feathers on Wednesday’s show by bringing up a topic unrelated to GOP bashing. Her co-hosts were talking endlessly about Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney being ousted from her leadership role. It has been an obsessive topic from the liberal media the past two weeks to distract from troubles the Biden administration is facing, such as the historically bad border crisisthat continues to get worse.
Nearly seventeen minutes into the show and after one commercial break, the liberal co-hosts were still discussing Cheney, now salivating over the idea that Republicans like herself should break off to form a third party. But Meghan McCain shot down this notion, suggesting they discuss the gas shortage that is wrecking the East Coast, because that is something average Americans actually care about[.]
CNN-hating writer Curtis Houck lashed out again in a May 13 post:
When it comes to fulfilling basic journalistic duties, CNN long ago ditched them in favor of what Becket Adams called “the business of hyping meaningless, clickbait feuds” and the news version of “professional wrestling.”
On Wednesday, they further showed their unseriousness by spending nearly three times (2.72) times more time over a 12-hour period on Congresswoman Liz Cheney (R-WY) losing a role in House GOP leadership than the multiple economic crises facing the country, ranging from the Colonial pipeline hack to gasoline shortages to inflation to stagnant job growth.
[...]
Instead of displaying nuance or delivering a comprehensive look at the day’s news, CNN showed on Wednesday it has zero desire to do that as they’d rather play the role of liberal agitators condemning Americans who don’t support their political party.
Fox News devotes no small amount of coverage to clickbait feuds and pro wrestling-type coverage, but Houck (nor any other MRC employee) will never, ever call it out.
Ironically, a post by Kyle Drennen the same day complained that an NBC interview of Cheney didn't do enough pro-wrestling attacks on President Biden: " Despite Thursday’s Today show featuring an over 10-minute long interview with a sitting Republican member of Congress, only a paltry 29 seconds of the coverage focused on Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney’s criticism of current President Joe Biden. Instead, nearly all of the exchange was centered on co-host Savannah Guthrie urging the newly-ousted House GOP leader to attack her fellow Republicans and former President Trump." Drenne made sure to insert the MRC's anti-media narrative: "The leftist media have been eagerly using Republican Party disagreements to distract from a border crisis, bad jobs report, and gas lines across the country. Reporters like Guthrie are doing everything they can to give President Biden a pass and portray the GOP in chaos."
The front page of the May 13 Washington Times was sobering: “President Biden’s second 100 days are off to a woeful start, including a gas shortage for much of the East Coast, a surge of inflation, a slowdown in hiring despite a record number of job openings, renewed fighting in the Middle East and an unresolved border crisis.”
But the rest of the news media? They’re obsessing over how terrible (and terribly split) the Republicans are. One party is engaged in a “civil war,” and the other is forever portrayed as a placid pool of calm.
This is how you know the “news” today is whatever narrative the Biden-coddling “mainstream” media decide to adopt. They’re never going to sound like Ted Cruz, who says “Biden policies are failing across the board: economically, domestically and abroad.” They’re going to sound like humanoid robots programmed by Jen Psaki.
Graham failed to mention that the Washington Times is a right-wing, andti-Biden paper that is still run by Unification Church cultists, so maybe its news judgment shouldn't be presented as accurate and objective. And he and the rest of the MRC don't seem to understand that just because the right-wing powers-that-be have deemed an unflattering story not to be news doesn't mean that it actually isn't.
MRC's Lame Gotcha: WaPo Runs Horoscopes! Topic: Media Research Center
It took both Tierin-Rose Mandelburg and Gabriela Pariseau to crank out this April 22 Media Research Center attempt at a gotcha:
The Washington Post isn’t pro-science after all. The paper devoted the equivalent of at least 45 full newspaper pages in the past year to … astrology.
The newspaper staff apparently took the ‘60s hit to heart: “Sign, sign, Everywhere a sign.” The Post’s (Sagitarius) pages were a Cancer, and a Gemini and a Virgo and more.
The paper’s daily horoscopes from February 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021, wasted roughly 382 news columns, or about the page count of an entire daily newspaper with “life advice” based on a reader’s birthdate.
Astrology is the furthest thing from scientific fact, but that didn’t stop The Post (Sagitarius) from describing Republicans as “anti-science,” “science denialists” and having “contempt for science” more than 70 times in those months.
[...]
Horoscopes and astrology are an especially wacko brand of pseudoscience that ascribe spiritual powers to stars and planets. Astrologists claim that fiery gasses and space rocks control every human success, feeling, and romantic relationship.
Astrology is so scientific that scientists have repeatedly rejected its findings as junk. Britannica even admits astrology is “widely considered today to be diametrically opposed to the findings and theories of modern Western science.”
WaPo staffers and far lefties love to claim they “follow the science.” But ironically, as it turns out, they follow their horoscope instead.
[...]
Most (level headed) readers probably don’t put all their faith in The Washington Post’s daily horoscope reading, but that does not absolve the newspaper of its blatant hypocrisy. The Post indulges readers’ curiosity for pseudoscientific astro-crap while refusing to even acknowledge honest scientific questions from conservatives.
Instead, The Post (Sagitarius) had the audacity to call conservatives the anti-sciencers while devoting a WHOLE newspaper’s worth of space to astrological garbage.
Note that Mandelburg and Pariseau can't be bothered to correctly spell "Sagittarius," which tells you the level of seriousness and rigor that was put into this piece. Another sign: At no point do they prove that any employee of the Post follows the horoscopes the newspaper publishes, despite claiming that they "follow their horoscope." The duo also offer no evidence that horoscopes are for "far lefties," as they suggest. Many newspapers run horoscopes because they're popular, with readers regardless of their political persuasion.
Indeed, one of the biggest right-wing newspapers in the U.S., the New York Post, also runs horoscopes. But Mandelburg and Pariseau will never write an MRC gotcha piece saying the New York Post's promotion of, say, the Hunter Biden laptop story is discredited because the paper also publishes horoscopes.
This is just another reminder that the MRC's mission is partisan attacks, not "media research."
Mysterious MRC Sports Blogger Signs On To Anti-Transgender Athlete Narrative Topic: Media Research Center
Mysterious gay-bashing Media Research Center sports blogger Jay Maxson is anti-transgender too, to the point that the MRC pulled a post of his (or hers) mocking Caitlin Jenner. That post wasn't so offensive, though that the MRC fired Maxson as a blogger, however; Maxson's transphobia has continued unabated, particularly over the past few months.
Unsurprisingly, Maxson has signed onto the right-wing hysteria over transgender athletes:
A Feb. 8 post attacked "the jaded opinion of SBNation Outsports LGBTQ apologist Ken Schultz" for pointing out Republican senators' demogoguery on the issue, defending the senators as "two people who realize gender is immutable."
On Feb. 17, Maxson asserted that states banning transgender athletes were trying to "preserve the integrity of women’s sports," huffing: "Who’s really at risk of harm here? Confused boys and men? Or entire teams of girls and women trying to maintain a fair playing field against the intrusion of bigger, stronger males?"
A March 4 post attacked a sports blogger who "shrieked" about Sen. Rand Paul's hostile questioning of transgender Biden nominee Rachel Levine and "slammed Kentucky’s “second-worst senator” for calling transition surgery what it actually is: “genital mutilation," adding that the writer "faulted Republicans because only one percent of Americans are confused about their gender, but that miniscule number actually plays into the hands of those who oppose bending gender rules for such a tiny group. Especially when it only appeases the LGBT movement while putting women and girls at a disadvantage in sports."
Maxson complained in a March 12 post: "Doing the dirty work of LGBT pressure groups, 550 woke college athletes are demanding the NCAA pull postseason events out of states legislating for the integrity of women’s sports."
On March 15, Maxson denied that he and his fellow right-wingers are the aggressors in pushing anti-trans laws: "Sports associations and LGBT activists fired the first shot of a raging culture war battle by waving biological males into female games."
Maxson whined in a March 17 post on the idea that the NBA might pull its All-Star Game out of Utah over a possible anti-trans law there: "What's more contemptable: a league that cares about trans "women" competing in women's sports more than it does Chinese human rights abuses? Or a basketball team that wants all-star game revenue so bad it derails a state bill to protect the integrity of women's sports?" Maxson concluded by lamenting, "Utah’s trans bill eventually bit the dust. However, it certainly didn’t help the gender confused to have the powerful voice of an NBA team speak out against their best interests."
On March 18, Maxson attacked NBA legend Dwayne Wade for defending the rights of his transgender child: "Former NBA all-star Dwyane Wade is now scoring points in bunches for the LGBT movement. He’s also getting PC points for his trans child Zaya and playing shutdown defender against the state legislatures trying to level the playing field for female athletes." Maxson further whined: "Wade also scored LGBT points by taking his family to a Miami Pride event two years ago and by acting as a pronoun cop. "America's Dad" refers to Zaya with she/her pronouns."
In an April 14 post, Maxson bashed an "ultra-leftist" writer for "verbally bludgeoning hateful, ignorant conservative state lawmakers working to protect women’s sports. She accused them of trying to 'otherize' trans athletes and open a new front in the culture war, repeated LGBT talking points and urged the NCAA to hurt conservative states in the pocketbook." Maxson provided no evidence to support his claim thatthe writer is "ultra-leftist," nor did Maxson deny that transgender athletes are being "otherized."
On April 26, Maxson defended his fellow anti-trans activists at the right-wing Alliance Defending Freedom from criticism for "representing female plaintiffs against fake girls."
Maxson spent a May 17 post whining about the possibility of transgender athletes at the Olympics: "That trans athlete explosion the world has been bracing for, the one LGBT activists keep denying? Well, it’s here now. There may be as many as nine trans women (biological dudes) bursting onto the Olympic stage in Tokyo this summer, all of them threatening to take medals away from actual women," further sneering, "Welcome to the wide, wacky world of alphabet sports."
That was followed by a May 18 post heaping hate on a "hardcore leftist" USA Today sports writer (again, Maxson offers no evidence to support that claim) who defended transgender athletes, adding, "The USALGBT Today writer has no sympathy or concern whatsoever for the young girls and women victimized by the intrusion of males into their respective sports.
That's not all. In a March 17 post, Maxson -- despite having displayed no qualifications as a legitimate researcher -- attacked a piece in Scientific American by psychiatrist Andrew Turban that doesn't hate transgender athletes as much as he (or she) does:
It’s easy to tell when a psychiatrist is in the tank for transgenders in sports. First, he only addresses the underlying problem of psychological confusion very late in his LGBT-approved puff piece. Then, he slams lawmakers for trying to preserve the integrity of women’s sports and says trans girls should not have to "lie" about their gender and play on boys teams.
[...]
The reason boys want to compete as “girls” is because of pre-existing confusion in their gender identity. We did not see the boys Terry Miller or Andraya Yearwood emotionally damaged while they were breaking 17 state girls sprinting records in Connecticut[.]
[...]
Turban says girls win most of the competitions in female sports. Which is true because there aren’t hordes of cosmetic-and hormone-altered boys clamoring for acceptance on girls’ teams. But those who do so demonstrate clear and unfair physical advantages. He also mentions that Miller and Yearwood failed to win their sprint races immediately after Alliance Defending Freedom sued the state of Connecticut. Dubious timing! Each of the boxing bums of the week who lost to Mike Tyson in the first round also took a dive.
[...]
Turban advises lawmakers to work on more important things — “instead of manufacturing problems and ‘solutions’ that hurt the kids we are supposed to be protecting.”
Here's another suggestion. How about counselors actually work with young people to address their psychological struggles, instead of encouraging them to continue in their confusion and delusion.
In a May 6 post, Maxson went on a sneering tirade against another transgender athlete who might appear in the Olympics:
Pay no attention to the men walking off with the women’s sports trophies, say LGBT activists. It’s a non-issue, they insist. Despite their denials, the controversy will flare up to new heights this summer at the Olympics in Tokyo. There, Laurel Hubbard, of New Zealand, is expected to be the first transgender athlete in Olympic history.
Laurel was for most of his life known as Gavin. He’s been mopping up the competition in women’s weightlifting for a few years and is one of the favorites to medal in the Summer Olympics.
[...]
The realities of biology are such that no one can actually change their gender. To get around that inconvenient truth, international athletic federations merely require men to lower their testosterone levels in order to disrupt the competitive balance in women’s sports.
The realities of right-wing punditry at the MRC is that the official right-wing narrative must be maintained, and Maxson has definitely done what he (or she) has been told.
MRC Tries To Justify GOP Culture-War Issues Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Alex Christy began an April 30 post by complaining:
MSNBC and NBC journalists are gaslighting viewers into believing that toxic critical race theory, the ahistorical 1619 Project and other culture war issues are pretend problems in Republicans' imagination.
MSNBC's MTP Daily host Chuck Todd and political editor Carrie Dann spent Friday's show venting about Republican legislatures passing legislation against everything from election reform to critical race theory to The 1619 Project, to preserving the competitive integrity of women's sports. The liberal pair mocked these measures as dealing with problems that don't exist.
Christy went on to complain that West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice got caught in an interview with MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle being unable to provide an example "of a West Virginian transgender athlete attempting to get an unfair competitive advantage" that would have justified his signing of a state law that would ban transgender girls from taking part in sports. No evidence, no problem, Christy says: "Just because Justice could not provide an example from his state, doesn't mean the issue is made up. Athletes who have had these advantages have recently appeared on MSNBC.
Christy followed up by bashing Todd and his guest for pointing out the 1619 Project and critical race theory are issues only in the eyes of right-wingers trying to turn them into issues:
The problem with CRT is that is both a fallacious and cynical theory that leads to people of different races coming to view each other as their enemy, while the problem with The 1619 Project is that it has been debunked as politicized history by actual scholars.
This is basic stuff that MSNBC could learn if it were to venture out of its liberal bubble from time to time.
Christy provided no links to support either of those claims. Regarding the 1619 project, there was one overstated claim that was walked back a bit and which did not discredit the overall project (as if the way history is taught now has not been politicized).And critical race theory is not a term that teachers use, which makes it unclear what, exactly Christy is talking about, let alone objecting to.
But facts are not important to Christy -- advancing the right-wing narrative is. And at no point did Christy explain why any of these things are actual problems and not merely GOP culture-war hot buttons.
MRC Psaki-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch, Doocy-Philia Edition Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center writer Curtis Houck's man-crush on Fox News' Peter Doocy for asking hostile questions of White House press secretary Jen Psaki is getting downright embarassing. In a May 11 post headlined "Doocy Destroys Psaki Over COVID, Gas Shortages," Houck gushed:
Tuesday brought us a packed White House press briefing amid an East Coast gas shortage, fears of inflation, and ongoing crises on the border and with the coronavirus. So, it was only natural that Fox News’s Peter Doocy brought the heat with questions about the Biden administration denying there was a border crisis, energy regulations, and peddling fear about outdoor transmission.
[...]
Doocy took his shot on immigration with DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas leading off the briefing (alongside Granholm to talk about the pipeline), citing Fox News reporting along the border that “show[ed] humongous groups of dozens or hundreds of migrants walking right into the country” to wonder how that squared with his insistence that “the border is closed.”
Mayorkas didn’t flinch and insisted he “meant...precisely that” when he said “the border is closed.”
[...]
Doocy pivoted to the pandemic and concern the Biden CDC’s guidance has made it “harder...to convince people to get vaccines and to wear masks when they created this impression that up to 10 percent COVID transmission occurs outdoors, even though there's this New York Times report now where they say there's not a single documented COVID — COVID infection anywhere in the world from casual outdoor interactions.”
Psaki again tried to wiggle out of it, so Doocy was more direct in his follow-up in floating the notion that the Biden administration hasn’t been following the “science”[.]
Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy went into the weekend on a bang, hammering the Biden administration during Friday’s briefing about the sudden change no longer requiring vaccinated people to mask or socially distance indoors and outdoors. Specifically, he wondered what the “big breakthrough” was since President Biden had said in March that such a change was “Neanderthal thinking.”
Doocy first told Press Secretary Jen Psaki there’s been “a lot of questions about the timing of the CDC’s announcement yesterday,” so he first wanted to know whether anyone on Team Biden had the update done out of “political reasons.”
[...]
Doocy then read back the CDC’s own statistics showing “only 45.6 percent of U.S. adults have been fully vaccinated as of yesterday” with “[o]nly 58.9 percent of the adult population had — has at least one dose” and asked what happened to the administration’s push to have all American adults vaccinated first.
To underline this, Doocy cited Biden’s own words that many in the media were happy to trumpet: “[S]o what happened to President Biden saying in March that he thought lifting mask mandates before every adult American goes and gets a shot is Neanderthal thinking?”
This went on for a few minutes with Psaki going on and on about the Biden executive branch leading with scientists as their “North Star” (and not Biden, as some have claimed) and letting them make decisions.
It seems that Doocy, not Psaki, was the one "going on and on" in pushing his right-wing talking points, but Houck will never admit that.
Houck had to wait a few more days for his next Doocy-fluffing session on May 20:
Thursday featured the first White House press briefing in nearly a week (due to President Joe Biden’s travel schedule), and so Fox’s Peter Doocy made the most of it by grilling Press Secretary Jen Psaki over the origins of the coronavirus, the Biden administration allowing Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline to go through, and Middle East violence.
The FNC reporter wasn’t alone in asking the tough questions as CNN’s Kaitlan Collins joined in on Nord Stream 2, RCP’s Philip Wegmann asking about s-corporations, and the Daily Caller’s Shelby Talcott citing anti-Israel rhetoric from some of Biden’s fellow Democrats.
Doocy led off with COVID by wondering whether the administration has a response to claims from House Republicans that they have “significant circumstantial evidence” that the virus came from a lab. He also wondered if the White House would support increased pressure on the Chinese to allow for further investigations.
[...]
Doocy then switched to the Russian pipeline to Germany, telling her “there’s a lot of talk about Nord Stream and Keystone, and I’m just trying to help our — help people understand” how allowing the former wouldn’t “undermine U.S. climate leadership” like Biden did when he killed the former on environmental grounds.
Psaki hilariously claimed “we’re hardly letting any country or other countries build Nord Stream 2” and they had no option other than to “convey that we believe it’s a bad — a bad idea, a bad plan” because “[w]hen the President took office, 95 percent of this pipeline was built.”
Reacting to Psaki’s answer that amounted to little more than a shrug emoji, Doocy continued to press and focused on the lack of sanctions[.]
Houck might as well be writing Fox News press releases.
MRC Rushes To Santorum's Defense After Questionable Remarks Topic: Media Research Center
When right-wing CNN pundit Rick Santorum rather dumbly declared that "there isn't much Native American culture in American culture" and that there was "nothing here" before European settlers arrived, the first thing the Media Research Center did was, as usual, defend Santorum and attack anyone who dared to criticize him. Nicholas Fondacaro led the defense league insisting that Santorum was totally correct:
Following a long-winded shouting match between CNN Prime Time host Chris Cuomo and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) where the latter defended comments he made about the European and Judeo-Christian founding of America, CNN Tonight host Don Lemon lost his mind during the handoff. The irate CNNer was screaming about how Santorum was wrong and how, supposedly, “Europeans did not found this country” but “it was here” before them.
“I’m breathing heavy right now,” Lemon announced after Cuomo finished his pompous and self-righteous handoff smearing Republicans. Huffing and puffing like the Big Bad Wolf, Lemon recounted how he was sitting in his office and fuming at the TV:
[...]
Yes, Native Americans inhabited the North American continent before the arrival of Europeans, but it was NOT the United States of America. It was a series of smaller tribal nations. Yes, Europeans conquered the Native Americans, just like those tribes did to other tribes and other races had done to themselves and others. Conquest was a huge driver of human history. In fact, our species was suspected of having driven other intelligent primate species to extinction during our rise to the apex.
Santorum was right to say that it was the Judeo-Christian values and enlightened thinking that helped the Founders craft our current country. That's a fact. And the Native Americans did provide a measure of influence on the founders. Now, that doesn't mean people from non-European backgrounds are excluded from the American experience or discount the principle that all people are created equal.
Fondacaro concluded by asking, "Now, if what Santorum said was so 'wrong,' 'egregious and insulting,' why was he still on the CNN payroll?" Hold on to that thought, Nick.
Jeffrey Lord followed up in a May 8 post declaring that "This dust up isn’t about Native Americans. It is about race. In this case it’s really about the leftist media and race" and the "cancer of identity politics." In his May 15 column, Lord defended Santorum again, this time from websites calling for a boycott of CNN over his remarks, complaining they ignored that "Santorum was straightforward, said that he had “misspoke” and went on to clarify exactly that he “would never…. dismiss what we did to the Native Americans, far from it. The way we treated Native Americans was horrific.”
When CNN eventually did fire Santorum over his remarks, the MRC defended him on that too. Scott Whitlock huffed that "The political commentator apologized for his comments and said he misspoke, but that apparently wasn’t enough for the liberal news outlet," then played whataboutism: "Showcasing the hypocrisy of CNN, the network has REFUSED to punish star Chris Cuomo for the shocking revelation that he participated in strategy sessionsadvising his governor brother, Andrew Cuomo, on how to survive the multiple sexual abuse claims against him."
Fondacaro didn't return to his earlier statement that the fact Santorum wasn't immediately fired was evidence that he was right. Instead, he groused that CNN fired santorum "after he said some clumsy things about Native Americans and the origin of America’s system of government." He then groused further about CNN's alleged lack of conservative views, oblivious to the fact that his employer operates a "news" division tha's intolerant of liberal views.
Like a good right-winger, Santorum ran to Fox News to complain about his firing, touting how Santorum "appeared with Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity Monday night to discuss what happened. And according to Santorum, he had talked with liberals at CNN who were 'concerned' about the network’s adoption of 'cancel culture.'" And Tim Graham whined in his May 26 column:
The substance isn’t the real issue. It’s all about the purge. The only “Republicans” that CNN wants any more are Biden voters like Ana Navarro, who tweeted out video of LeBron James doing a Latin dance and claimed it “is the best thing I’ve seen all day. Except for the news Santorum [is] no longer with CNN.”
[...]
Anyone cheering the firing of Santorum better not come to the public square and decry how Americans “retreat to their silos” of one-sided news watching. Liberal journalists seem very comfortable building and reinforcing their one-sidedness, and regularly rain missiles on the conservative “silos,” even thought Fox News is more tolerant of liberals than CNN is tolerant of conservatives.
Graham offered no evidence of that last statement, and the fact that the first place Santorum ran to after his firing was Fox News tells us that getting fired may have been a career move for him.
CNN has an utterly perfect right to hire and fire whomever they want. I certainly never disputed that and Rick Santorum doesn’t either.
The real problem here is CNN pretending that we are not targeted because we are conservatives or Trump supporters.
[...]
But as the firing of Rick Santorum -- and, earlier, all the rest of we conservative CNNers -- illustrates, if nothing else it shows just how cowed CNN is by the left-wing mobs. Which is to say, CNN has a conservative problem.
Like Graham, Lord will never call out Fox News for lack of ideological diversity, or raise thte possibility that Santorum got himself fired to make himself relevant again in right-wing media circiles.
MRC's Houck Has A New Man-Crush: Greg Gutfeld Topic: Media Research Center
Peter Doocy is not the only Fox News employee Media Research Center writer Curtis Houck has a man-crush on. A Feb. 10 post by Houck is largely a rewritten Fox News press release about Greg Gutfeld was being given his own weeknight show, going on to add that "on perhaps an equally-important note, a Fox press release made clear that Gutfeld would remain a co-host of FNC’s hit show at 5:00 p.m. Eastern, The Five." When CNN's Brian Stelter accurately pointed out that, since Gutfeld's right-wing show would bump Shannon Bream's "news" show to a later larter, Fox News was "shifting further to the right," Houck huffed that "The knives came out immediately as ... Stelter took a personal dig at Bream that was roundly derided as demeaning and sexist if the networks were reversed."
When Gutfeld's show actually started in April, Houck gushed over his right-wing rants:
Making his move from to weeknights (after starting on overnights and then weekend evenings), Fox News Channel host Greg Gutfeld kicked off his new eponymous show on Monday with a barnburner of a monologue lampooning his competition on CNN, MSNBC, and the late-night comedy shows and denouncing the left for thriving on “making people hate each other.”
Before a studio audience, Gutfeld welcomed in his new audience by saying that he was “as giddy as Kamala Harris explaining kids in cages or Woody Allen hearing about kids in cages” and bidding a special hello to viewers from his former Saturday show and The Five.
He also made sure to make a quip about President Biden:“If you ended up here because you thought your TV was the microwave oven, it's good to see you, Mr. President. Your pizza will be warm in two minutes. And Hunter, he brought the extra cheese.”
Gabriel Hays then chimed in, demonstrating that the MRC and conservatives in general can dish it out but can't take it by raging at anyone who refused to be as effusive as Houck about Gutfeld's show and declare the guy a comedy genius:
If you’re Stephen Colbert or Jimmy Kimmel, you can spend hours of your late night show bashing Trump and you’re hilarious. But if you’re a conservative late night host making fun of Dems, they’ll call you “nasty and unappealing.”
But never forget, Samantha Bee can call Ivanka Trump a “c**t” and she’s an industry favorite.
Since Greg Gutfeld took the format for his Saturday evening talk show and repurposed it as a weeknight late night platform to compete with cable network late night shows, the bullies of the other side have been fuming. Hollywood outlet Variety, which carries water for all the trash that comes out of the mouths of political hacks like Colbert, made the most recent scathing attack in their official review of the show.
[...]
Ultimately, these hacks must just be jealous. Early ratings indicate that Gutfeld! is outperforming all but one of the major late night comedy show slots. Except for The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, the Fox News Channel late night program earned higher ratings than Jimmy Kimmel Live!, The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon,The Late Late Show with James Corden, Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, Late Night with Seth Meyers, and TBS' Conan. Keep trying with those negative reviews, guys!
Houck returned to gush some more on April 13: "Kicking off week two of his weekday show on Monday, Fox News Channel host Greg Gutfeld blasted CNN as hellbent on “elevat[ing]...heart rates by making people hate each other” with their latest virtue-signaling charade coming in the form of Brian Stelter, attacking Fox hosts for not posting selfies when getting the coronavirus vaccine."
No mention, of course, of Fox's own right-wing virtue-signaling. Instead, Houck cheered that "Gutfeld had been on a ratings tear, easily topping late-night cable comedy rivals Trevor Noah’s Daily Show and Conan O’Brien’s TBS program as well as cable competitors Don Lemon on CNN and Brian Williams on MSNBC."
On May 3, Houck exhibited even more of his usual hateful glee that Gutfeld 's show is doing well in the ratings (for a cable TV show, anyway):
On Sunday’s Reliable Sources, CNN charlatan Brian Stelter and longtime liberal media defender Bill Carter went to bay for the far-left tilt of network comedy shows while attacking right-leaning comedy as one of radicalization and vindictiveness.
In reality, the ratings have shown otherwise with FNC’s Gutfeld! fetching monster ratings that rivaled those on the broadcast networks while, speaking of new shows, CNN’s rebooted New Day has been flailing under poor ratings and spending its days treating conservatives like enemies of the people.
[...]
New Day and CNN are busy trying to get their viewers to be at the throats of people outside their political bubble, Gutfeld’s alternative has continued to thrive. Before too long, Stelter and friends will be calling for advertiser boycotts out of jealousy. And when it does happen, we’ll be there to cover it for you.
Houck and Gutfeld are also trying to get their audience to be at the throats of people outside their political bubble -- but Houck will never concede that truth.
MRC Revives False Narrative That Facebook Banned Trump For Calling For 'Peace' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has spent months misleading about Donald Trump's ban from social media outlets, falsely suggesting it was done because he called for peace after the Capitol riot -- deliberately hiding the fract that he was banned because he helped incite those riots by pushing bogus claims about election fraud. As Facebook's oversight board weighed whether to reinstate Trump, that false narrative surfaced again.
In a May 4 item prior to the board's announcement, Alexander Hall attacked the oversight board for have "damning affiliations" (read: they're not all right-wing activists like the MRC), adding "Facebook had suspended then-President Trump indefinitely, even as he called for peace amidst the U.S. Capitol riots." Gabriel Hays played the whataboutism cared in another post that day, complaining that "In light of the fact that a social media tribunal will decide on May 5 whether Trump can get his Facebook account back, it’s good to take note of all the famous people who should have had keys to their own accounts taken from them for promoting actual violence."
After the decision to keep Trump's account suspended, Kayla Sargent also made the false "peace" claim:
In a massive blow to free speech online, the Facebook Oversight Board decided to uphold the platform’s ban of former President Donald Trump. But with limits.
The Board “upheld” Facebook’s decision to ban Trump after more than three months of deliberation. The decision further solidified the Board’s role in strengthening Facebook’s censorship power. But it insisted that Facebook review the decision within six months.
[...]
Facebook decided to ban Trump following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, after he called for “peace.”
Sargent also attacked thte oversight board, claiming that "many of the Board’s members are radical leftists."
Hall returned with a post filled with right-wing Trump sycophants -- whom Hall wants you to think are merely "conservative leaders and free speech advocates" -- criticizing the "notoriously liberal" for upholding Trump's suspension, And, yes, he wrote again that Facebook had suspended then-President Trump indefinitely, even as he called for peace amidst the U.S. Capitol riots."
Alec Schemmel touted Trump's unsurprisingly negative reaction to his continued ban; surprisingly, he didn't invoke the "peace" claim, instead declaring Trump was suspended for "purportedly inciting the chaos at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 with his social media postings." Sargent served up another post on the decision, this time on "liberal tech journalists" -- read: not right-wing activists -- purportedly being "upset" over the continued ban, again asserting that "Facebook decided to ban Trump following the Jan. 6 riot in Washington D.C. after he called for 'peace.'"
And the MRC wonders why it's not taken more seriously.
UPDATE: The MRC also made a May 10 "explainer video" complaining that "Facebook's overwhelming global oversight board made an overwhelmingly American ruling and blocked the former president, at least for now," going on to whine further about the non-American and "leftist" nature of the board and huffing, "And these people get to influence American elections!"
Graham Buries The Lede In PolitiFact Attack: MRC Screwed Up Data In A Graphic Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center executive Tim Graham began an April 21 post by intoning:
PolitiFact is well known for hammering conservatives far harder than liberals. We have offered a series of snapshots of their pro-Democrat tilt. What happens when they attempt to flag a conservative group for falsehood...and then walk away? Let us speak from some of our own recent experience.
What followed was a tale that started with PolitiFact -- whom Graham hates with a passion -- contacting the MRC for substantiation of numbers it used in a graphic it posted on Facebook (which the MRC still insists is biased against conservatives despite all evidence to the contrary) attacking President Biden's claims about immigration. Weirdly, the person at the MRC who handled PolitiFact's request was not Graham or any of the researchers under his stead but, rather, the head of marketing, Ed Molchany.
Graham then rather vaguely wrote: "Then Molchany noticed that the chart needed an update, because it was an estimate. The Facebook page was updated." In other words: The MRC got a number wrong, and he's trying to soft-pedal it -- something he would never do if someone in the "liberal media" had done something similar.
PolitiFact ended up doing nothing further regarding the graphic, which set Graham off:
So what happened? Nothing! Kertscher and PolitiFact never posted a ruling that the MRC chart was acceptably truthful. It might have helped PolitiFact to show good faith after this exchange of facts. I contacted Kertscher for comment, and Kertscher said he forwarded to PolitiFact editor Angie Drobnic Holan. There has been no comment sent back.
Instead of ruling on our chart, on Monday, Kertscher posted a "fact check" that warned about a Facebook claim that the Bidens wanted to remove gender terms.
[...]
So when you see that the Democrats get the most True and Mostly True ratings on PolitiFact, it might just be because they won't give them to conservatives when their facts add up.
Graham didn't explain why PolitiFact should act in good faith -- despite not proving any lack of such -- when Graham and the MRC has never acted in good faith toward PolitiFact, seeing it only as just another target for his partisan right-wing agenda. Graham is the one who should be acting in good faith by not raging at PolitiFact over any perceived slight and not trying to make it a target of his wrath and assume "liberal bias" where none may actually exist.
Indeed, Graham should really be thanking PolitiFact -- after all, would it have fixed that incorrect number in its graphic if PolitiFact hadn't asked about it? And shouldn't Graham be grateful that PolitiFact didn't pounce on the MRC for that false number the way the MRC attacks mistakes in the "liberal media"?
Show good faith and you get good faith. Haven't you learned that yet, Tim? Why do you think you're exempt?
Parler Is Back -- And The MRC Still Won't Tell You It Shares A Funder Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center has aggressively promoted and deended the right-wing social media app Parler without telling its readers that its main funder, Rebekah Mercer, is also a major funder of the MRC. Now, Parler is trying to make a comeback after getting losing hosting and distribution following the Capitol riot -- some participants plotted the attempted insurrection on the app -- and the MRC is still hiding important information.
Because the MRC is hiding the basic information of shared funding, it must also hide behind-the-scenes turmoil at Parler. It had previously taken the side of current Parler management against co-founder John Matze, who had been ousted from the company in a power move by Mercer, in part because Matze wanted more robust moderation procedures and Mercer didn't.. Thus, the MRC will never tell you that Matze has sued Parler over his firing, claiming his 40 percent ownership stake in the company was stripped from him, and also noting that Mercer initially hid her involvement in Parler by using a holding company. Matze's lawsuit also claims that right-wing radio host Dan Bongino was brought in to Parler as a way to attract his right-wing followers to the platform -- but that Mercer has refused to do the paperwork to give Bongino the ownership stake he was promised (and claims he has).
That's not the only controversy. Parler's lawyers disclosed in a letter to a congressional committee that it wasn't the "free speech" platform the MRC insisted it was because it "has acted to remove incitement and threats of violence from its platform," the company worked with the FBI to investigate those violent threats.
But those facts don't matter -- and they certainly should not be spread around too much -- because the MRC has a bogus "censorship" narrative to push. Thus, we have dumb gotcha things like a March 24 post by Joseph Vazquez harrumphing that not only is the head of Amazon Web Services --where Parler was hosted until the fallout from the Capitol riot -- is in line to become Amazon CEO, his replacement at AWS had donated to Joe Biden's presidential campaign. "The fact that Amazon was willing to hire a blatant partisan to control its massive internet service apparatus is alarming given the Big Tech company’s disgusting history of censoring conservatives," Vazquez huffed, even though he could not possibly link the new CEO's donation to Biden to Parler's removal from AWS.
The next day, Casey Ryan served up revisionist history while writing about tech CEOs testifying to a congressional committee. After the Google CEO noted that it removed apps from its Google Play store "for inciting violence," Ryan declared, "Google removed the free speech platform Parler from its app store after Trump’s supporters began moving to the platform." Ryan then sounded like a Parler PR rep: "Up-and-coming free speech platform Parler gained greater exposure after social media giants, including Twitter, banned Trump. The free speech platform reportedly saw exponential growth following Big Tech’s actions. Twitter’s censorious moderation policies appeared to drive people away more than help attract new users."
After Apple CEO Tim Cook defended Parler's removal from its app store, Kayla Sargent tried to manufacture some outrage in an April 5 post:
Apple has, once again, reaffirmed its commitment to silence conservative voices and so-called “hate speech” on the company’s platforms.
Apple CEO Tim Cook appeared on Sway, a podcast hosted by far-left Recode co-founder and New York Times contributor Kara Swisher. The two defended Apple’s decision to remove Parler from its App Store and proceeded to at least operate under the pretense that Apple cares about privacy rights.
Cook called the App Store’s removal of Parler “a straightforward decision, because they were not adhering to the guidelines of the App Store,” according to the podcast transcript. Cook further specified: “You can’t be inciting violence or allow people to incite violence. You can’t allow hate speech and so forth. And they had moved from moderating to not being able to moderate.”
Apple and Google both removed Parler from their app stores following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Amazon then booted the platform from its web hosting services in a move that temporarily shut down Parler’s website.
Cook said that he wanted Parler to “put in the moderation that’s required to be on the store and come back, because I think having more social networks out there is better than having less.”
Neither Cook nor Swisher mentioned the fact that “[i]n court documents about the pro-Trump riots at the Capitol, Facebook is cited far more than any other social network,”according to Business Insider.
Sargent didn't mention the fact that Parler had been doing some moderation of content, even though it would have helped her case against Cook. Her claim that Facebook was cited more than Parler is just whataboutism to hide the fact that Parler was, in fact, used by rioters. Sargent also offered no evidence to back up her claim that Swisher is "far-left."
When Apple finally did allow Parler back into its app store, Sargent cheered on April 19 that it was "a win for free speech," then complained that "Apple still took the time to bash Parler when it could. Apple claimed that some posts on Parler 'encouraged violence, denigrated various ethnic groups, races and religions, glorified Nazism, and called for violence against specific people.' Apple also claimed that Parler’s 'moderation practices were clearly inadequate to protect users from this harmful and dangerous content.'"Sargent didn't dispute the factual accuracy of those claims, just complained that they were made.
Sargent then tried to slip through an admission that Parler wasn't as "free speech-oriented" as advertised int he mddie oftaking another shot at Apple amid more Facebook whataboutism: "In a blatant act of hypocrisy, Apple banned Parler following the riot, but did not ban Facebook, despite the fact that Facebook reportedly played an outsized role in fueling the riot. Parler claimed that it had warned the FBI 'more than fifty times' before the riot."
In an April 23 post, Alexander Hall tried to reframe the moderation issue: It's not "censorshi" if Parler does it, and it's only censorship when Apple is forcing them to do it:
Parler Interim CEO Mark Meckler explained in an interview that Parler’s app is returning to Apple’s App Store on the condition it comply with the platform’s rules. Mecklerr said that there will be alternate versions with different sets of rules.
Fox Business host Stuart Varney opened the interview with Meckler by inquiring: “I believe you've agreed to more aggressive patrolling of users' posts.” Meckler “push[ed] back very strongly,” claiming “we’re actually not doing content moderation at all, Stuart.” Meckler then admitted, however, that “what allowed us to get back on the App Store was that Apple requested that the version of the app … will have a particular kind of content censorship that is required by Apple.”
Meckler illustrated further "[The app] will censor content that is aimed at peoples’ inherent characteristics, immutable characteristics: race, gender, sexual orientation." Meckler went on to explain: "Apple doesn’t think people should be able to see that kind of content."
Parler does not appear happy with Apple’s requirements and has negotiated with the company to allow people to speak their minds freely. "We disagree vehemently," Meckler noted.
It appeared that Parler accessed outside the app, such as via computer or Android, would be entirely different: “If folks want to see that content, they’ll still be able to go to Parler.com and look at their account there and see that content. If people want to see that kinda stuff, it’s available on their Android app. But in order to get back on the App Store, Apple required that particular version of censorship on that particular app.”
Hall didn't explain why Meckler would not be "happy" with having to moderate content that attack people for their "immutable characteristics," or why such content is apparently crucial to Parler's operations. Hall ultimately conceded, however, that Parler does "censor" some content:
Meckler explained that Parler, aside from its Apple-compliant version, does not censor content unless it breaks the law:
“Unless it is considered illegal, if it is actual incitement to violence, then it is considered illegal, and obviously, we would have lawyers look at that. Anything that's illegal is not welcome on Parler. If it's protected by the First Amendment, it’s welcome on Parler, but we draw the line at illegal acts.”
No mention, of course, of the moderation battles inside Parler, Matze's firing, his lawsuit or even the name Rebekah Mercer (or that she also funds the MRC).
MRC Defends Tucker Carlson's Death-Threat-Inducing Attacks On Another Journalist Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves targeting journalist -- and it loves even more when Fox News' Tucker Carlson does so too, to the point that Carlson's viewers send the journalists death threats, as New York Times writer Taylor Lorenz has learned. Another target of both MRC and Carlson has been NBC tech reporter Brandy Zadrozny.
Last September, the MRC's Alex Christy complained that Zadrozny "trash[ed] Facebook for not being bossy enough with its stupider (i.e. conservative) consumers" by pointing out that its policy to stop election ads a week before the election was meaningless, huffing in response: "Nobody in this conversation acknowledged that candidates have been airing controversial ads on television for decades, and no one needed a moderator like Facebook to rule one side was airing 'disinformation.' That was hashed out by the opposing candidates."
NBC investigative reporter Brandy Zadrozny is one of the internet's most famous Cancel Vulture journalists ruining the lives of everyday Americans. She blasted Fox News and right-wing commentators in an interview with the Nieman Journalism Lab.
On Thursday, Zadrozny was introduced by Nieman Lab writer Brad Esposito in an interview as a “librarian turned reporter,” and she indeed has no qualms about nagging Americans to hush. While Zadrozny claimed that “[t]here’s so few monsters in the world,” she said she has “never felt so secure in my critique of a place” as calling Fox News “trash.” She mentioned “Fox” seven times during the interview.
One segment that oddly enraged her was when former Fox News host Eric Bolling used “doughnuts” to explain the crisis of America’s national deficit= under then-President Barack Obama. “That was actually an Eric Bolling segment that actually aired and I remember just screaming at the TV — like, we had all of these TVs, and I was like, nooooooooooo. So a lot of screaming.”
What apparently doesn’t outrage Zadrozny though? Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters, it seems.
Despite a history of reporting on extremism on social media platforms, Zadrozny only mentioned Antifa in the context of paranoia by certain “Facebook groups.” She also merely described Black Lives Matter protestors as people “saying the names of Black men and women who were killed for no reason.” Meanwhile, she described white counter demonstrators, who likely came to prevent the destruction of the local area, as an “army of white people [in fatigues] with huge guns everywhere.”
Esposito brought up the January 6 Capitol riot. Neither Esposito nor Zadrozny mentioned the Black Lives Matter riots that destroyed property in multiple cities including $500 million in damages in Minneapolis alone, according to Fox News. The two journalists also failed to mention the more recent Capitol attack where an aspiring Nation of Islam member reportedly attacked multiple police officers, resulting in the death of one officer and himself.
Hall didn't mention that Bolling's doughnut-deficit analogy did not reflect reality (or why he's a former Fox News host). Nor did Hall explain why he does not find the Capitol riot offensive. He then touted how the right-wing website Revolver News described Zadrozny as "The Woman In Charge of Doxxing and Destroying Trump Supporters" (no comment on the underhanded methods of the right-wing Project Veritas for comparison).
Then, it was Carlson's turn to target Zadrozny, citing the Revolver News report and having one of the writers of that story, Darren Beattie, on to talk about it. No mention that Beattie got fired from the Trump White House for hanging out with white nationalists.NBC responded by stating that Carlson's "smear" of Zadrozny "ha[s] shamefully encouraged harassment and worse."
After that the Washington Post did an article on how Carlson targets journalists, prompitng Tim Graham to complain:
Friday’s Washington Post splashed a big headline on the front of the Style section with a picture of number-one Fox News host Tucker Carlson and the words “The bully pundit: Fox News host Tucker Carlson often launches attacks on journalists. And once he’s off the air, the zealots who follow him start lobbing hate tweets and death threats.”
Radio host Chris Plante made fun on his Friday morning radio show with the obvious point: So it’s dangerous to launch attacks on journalists, but what is this story but a 43-paragraph attack on a journalist? Apparently, no Fox News host can be identified as a journalist. The Washington Post implies conservatives are propagandists, not journalists.
This is just the latest in a pile of stories campaigning for Carlson to be canceled by Fox.
Wait -- Graham thinks Carlson is a "journalist"? And that right-wingers like himself and Carlson are not propagandists? They both get paid quite well to push propaganda. And if Carlson is not an effective propagndist -- er, journalist, why is he and the MRC so concerned that Carlson is being held accountable for what he says and obsessing about what the Post is saying about him?
Graham then decided to wilidly read into the Post reproducing Fox News' defense of Carlson as "legitimate criticism": "They printed that like it was hate speech, like it was offensive. This is a common liberal-media tactic: disparaging conservative media criticism by saying it only encouraged violent Twitter trolls. CNN commonly claimed any attempt to criticize them or chant 'CNN sucks' at Trump rallies encouraged violence against journalists." Graham gets paid well to disparage any legitimate criticism of conservative media.
Graham then complained of the "threatened liberal journalists" listed in the article, including Zadrozny and Lorenz who got death threats as a result of Carlson's targeting, then whined: "So getting a Twitter death threat is serious, but a mob outside your home is just a 'boisterous protest'? Was it 'mostly peaceful'? His wife called the cops." Graham forgot the part about Carlson lying that his front door was damaged by the protesters, suggesting that calling the cops may have been an overreaction -- or was done so right-wing defenders like Graham could attack the protesters as more dangerous than they actually were.
Graham concluded by huffing: "The point of this article is that Fox News is a menacing threat, not a news network. It's as anti-Fox as a Brian Stelter rant at CNN."? Stelter, of course, is another MRC (and Fox News) target.
LIARS: MRC Pushes Facebook 'Censorship' Narrative -- While Bragging About How Popular Its Facebook Content Is Topic: Media Research Center
We'vedocumentedhow the Media Research Center's narrative that Facebook loves to "censor" conservatives and only conservatives is bogus, given how much Facebook has reached out to conservatives -- including Mark Zuckerberg having secret dinners with Brent Bozell -- in an attempt to stop the attacks. Indeed, the evidence that Facebook gives conservatives a more-than-fair shake continues to pile up:
Facebook posts from pages promoting content far-right screamer Alex Jonesand his Infowars operation urging a violent response in advance of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot (despite Jones himself being banned from Facebook) got more than a million interactions.
Facebook has been pushing content from right-winger Ben Shapiro on users who have previously shown no interest in him or related content despite his Daily Wire breaking Facebook rules by using purportedly unrelated pages to promote its content, reportedly out of fear Shapiro will whine about being "shadowbanned" if he faces any restrictions.
Yet the MRC's false narrative has continued, pushing every example of a conservative being "censored" (even if they are actually far-right extremists). A few recent examples:
But the MRC is lying to you about conservative "censorship." How do we know? Because not only does the MRC use Facebook, it brags about how well it's working. On April 6, the MRC sent out an email tellings its readers about how essential a tool Facebook is (overenthusiastic bold and colored type in original):
We have big news that brings immense insight to conservatives who believe in spreading the messages of freedom.
The news?
Last week, the MRC was second only to NewsMax for interactions on social media.
The insight? This information informs us that we’re having an effect INSIDE the arenas of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and more, and it will be wise to continue spreading the word on traditional social media—even as conservatives join great new alternatives.
A recent study by CrowdTangle, a social media analytics app that Facebook recently purchased, shows that the Media Research Center (which includes brands such as MRCTV, NewsBusters, and CNSNews) had 2.13 MILLION interactions last week alone!
This is a testament to the devotion, hard work, and principles of those who help gather all this important conservative information and who share it.
The information is spread through you, your family, your friends, your neighbors, co-workers, and clients. Hour after hour, day after day, the signal of freedom propagates across Big Tech, thanks to all who continue to maintain their voices on those sometimes difficult “social media” platforms.
[...]
As long as we can have this kind of impact within the lair of the left, we can win new friends, gain allies, and spread information to millions.
It’s fundamental. The MRC wants you to know how much we appreciate your principled efforts to defend freedom and truth. This news about the power of that impact offers us a key tactical reminder that we should not retreat into an echo chamber, but, instead, keep participating in the conversation!
Keep spreading the word, even in what we might think are hostile environments. Being present is half the battle. The other half is making sure your voice is heard.
Remember: “The MRC Effect” is clear. Your work, your news—your principles—are being seen.
Keep it up, and keep spreading the word—on ALL the platforms!
The email also includes a link to a video -- hosted on Facebook, natch -- that tells people howto keep MRC content in their Facebook newsfeed. Still, it laughably insisted, "we know that Facebook and other media platforms are censoring the right."
Lying to people to push a false narrative is clearly a key part of "the MRC effect."
MRC Defends Joe Rogan's Vaccine Misinformation Topic: Media Research Center
If podcaster Joe Rogan is not an actual right-winger, he's definitely right-wing-adjacent -- which is good enough for the Media Research Center. Last year, after Rogan moved his "massively popular" show to Spotify, the MRC's Alexander Hall highlighted criticism of him for the right-wing guests he has had, including Alex Jones, Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes and an anti-transgender author. But Hall also touted how Rogan interviewd more mainstream right-wingers like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. In Jnauary, Christian Toto gushed over Rogan's "refreshing take on Big Tech censorship," which basically came down to being opposed to banning Donald Trump from social media for his legacy of incitement. And in March, P.J. Gladnick defended Rogan from accusations of being a right-wing host -- hey, Bernie Sanders was once a guest!
So when Rogan started peddling misinformation about the coronavirus vaccine, the MRC rushed to his defense over this "hot take." Kayla Sargent wrote in an April 28 post:
Intellectual Dark Web member and podcast host Joe Rogan, once again, appears to have angered the left with recent comments on the COVID-19 vaccine in his podcast,The Joe Rogan Experience.
Some on the left, however, seemed to not only be displeased with Rogan’s COVID-19 commentary, but also with the fact that Spotify has not taken action in response to the episode. Spotify holds an exclusive contract with Rogan.
During the podcast, Rogan said: “I think, for the most part, it’s safe to get vaccinated. I do. I do. But if you’re like 21-years-old, and you say to me, ‘Should I get vaccinated?’ I’ll go ‘no.’” He continued: “If you're a healthy person, and you're exercising all the time, and you're young, and you’re eating well, like, I don't think you need to worry about this.”
Of course, the left panicked over the fact that Rogan dared to question the vaccine in any capacity.
Sargent went on to cite Dr. Anthony Fauci -- who is definitely not part of "the left" -- criticizing Rogan's advice.But Fauci wasn't alone: a group of doctors denounced Rogan's misinformation, pointing out that "Rogan demonstrates that he lacks a simple, fundamental understanding about how infectious diseases — including Covid-19 — spread," adding that "While scientists and doctors are generally more trusted, competing messages like Rogan's can be confusing and affect people's behaviors with regard to their health."
The MRC has yet to mention that Rogan later tried to clarify his misinformation, denying that he's an anti-vaxxer but still (falsely) insisting that young, health ypeople don't need the vaccine.
MRC Psaki-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck clearly thinks that Jen Psaki's White House press briefings are nothing more than an show for his amusement -- an opinion we're pretty sure he never offered about the press brieefings of his old crush, Kayleigh McEnany. Thus, we're treated to things like a May 4 post headlined "The Psaki Show Is Back":
The White House press briefing returned on Tuesday following a week-long hiatus and, with plenty to talk about, Fox News’s Kristin Fisher burst out of the gate and asked Press Secretary Jen Psaki whether teachers unions hold sway over CDC recommendations for school reopenings as well as what the White House thinks Americans should be allowed to do once vaccinated.
[...]
Though there hadn’t been an episode of the Psaki show in a week, it was the same old, same old with Psaki providing next to nothing [.]
If there's nothing of interest but the "same old, same old," why does Houck continue writing these posts? Because they're not about the actual content -- his goal is to trash Psaki at every opportunity and gush over the hostile questioning of right-wing Fox News reporters like Fisher and Peter Doocy.
Perhaps Houck took his own advice, for he didn't cover briefings for the next few days. His next post was on May 10, which began with a shot at Fisher suggesting that she's a traitor to the right-wing ideological cause by leaving Fox News for CNN -- which Houck hates with a psychotic passion -- but his man-crush Doocy was on the job in her stead to push right-wing talking points:
With Kristin Fisher having left to join the evil empire, Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy soldiered on during Monday’s briefing and found success in repeatedly questioning Press Secretary Jen Psaki over the fallout from Friday’s jobs report and whether increased unemployment benefits are keeping people from wanting to rejoin the labor force.
Doocy pointed to the fact that “employment only rose about 266,000 jobs in April out 7.4 million or so jobs openings” before asking whether the Biden administration knows “that people are just choosing not to apply for jobs because the extra unemployment benefits are so good.”
Psaki insisted Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and the rest of Team Biden had “looked at the data” and they insist things were going swimmingly with unemployment having nothing to do with the increased welfare state.
Instead, she blamed a lack of affordable childcare, “the need” for more employers to pay workers “a livable, working wage,” the number of vaccinations when the jobs numbers were put together, and yes, schools still being closed.
That would be stem from the preferences of the teachers unions, so if only that was a group the White House could have influence over and not the other way around.
Doocy came prepared for this kind of answer, so he shot back: “But Bank of America economists, who are cited in a Bloomberg story say, anybody making less than $32,000 a year is better off financially just taking unemployment so is the White House creating an incentive just to stay home?”
Psaki hit back that it’s not the belief of “the majority of economists, internally and externally of the White House” and instead defending the increased payouts due to the “very difficult economic downturn.”
Psaki's actually right, but the MRC is not paying Houck to say she's ever right about anything. His job is to push right-wing narratives regardless of their accuracy, bash Psaki and lionize Doocy.
MRC Serves As The Babylon Bee's PR Division Yet Again Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves to play defense for satire site Babylon Bee whenever anyone points out that right-wingers have a bad habit of promoting its articles as actual news (which says a lot about the "satire" it publishes that it's so unrecognizable as such to its target audience). It's also serving as the Bee's PR arm.
In an April 24 post, Autumn Johnson parroted the Bee's criticism of Facebook for having "penalized" a post "making fun of leftist rioters and looters," ominously adding, "This is not the first time that Facebook has targeted The Babylon Bee."
The Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon told Fox News he was considering taking legal action against The New York Times after it labeled the satirical news site “misinformation.”
Babylon Bee has an established history as a popular satirical website, and Dillon said the company was considering serious action: "We are contemplating and discussing with our counsel what the next move should be. Should we sue them or not? And that's an open question." Dillon suggested that the “misinformation” label could pose a serious threat to his website. “They put this stuff out there and if they can get it to stick, then then we have no platform remaining,” he said. “There's not going to be anybody who wants to host our stuff. ... It’s an effort to try and cancel us."
Dillon also claimed that liberals question whether The Babylon Bee’s content qualifies as satire: "These liberal media outlets and personalities have tried to create this narrative about us where we're not actually a satire site, but a disinformation site and where we're putting out fake news on purpose to mislead people.”
This is in regard to a Times article that the MRC's Clay Waters lashed out against in March. Both Pariseau and Dillon apparently forgot to mention the main issue: that right-wingers -- even Donald Trump and Ted Cruz -- tweet the alleged satire at the Babylon Bee as realnews.
The same day, Heather Moon attacked a study of who shares fake political news (turns out Republicans do, a lot), complaining that it listed the Bee as fake news: "Listing satire and comedy as 'fake news' is ludicrous." But if those Repubicans are sharing Bee articles as news, does that not make it fake news?
On April 29, the MRC posted an "explainer video" purporting to blame social media operations for the fact that the Bee's readership has trouble telling news and satire apart, and it includes a whopper fairly early: "The Bee's comedy is clear to literally everyone, except the censorship bigots who work for social media companies." As proven above, that is literally a lie. The rest of the video is just rehashes of the MRC's previous pro-Bee defense work. In short, it didn't explain much, since it completely censored the main point of contention.
The Media Research Center hates it when the media focuses on issues that makes Republicans and conservatives look bad. Thus, it lashed out at coverage of Liz Cheney's status as a top Republican leader, desperate to change the subject.
It took both Tierin-Rose Mandelburg and Gabriela Pariseau to crank out this April 22 Media Research Center 
Mysterious 
The Media Research Center's Alex Christy began an April 30 
Media Research Center writer Curtis Houck's man-crush on Fox News' Peter Doocy for asking hostile questions of White House press secretary Jen Psaki is getting downright embarassing. In a May 11 
When right-wing CNN pundit Rick Santorum 
Peter Doocy is not the only Fox News employee Media Research Center writer Curtis Houck 
The Media Research Center has 
Media Research Center executive Tim Graham began an April 21 
We've 
The Media Research Center loves targeting journalist -- and it loves even more when Fox News' Tucker Carlson does so too, to the point that Carlson's viewers send the journalists death threats, as New York Times writer 
If podcaster Joe Rogan is not an actual right-winger, he's definitely right-wing-adjacent -- which is good enough for the Media Research Center. Last year, after Rogan moved his "massively popular" show to Spotify, the MRC's Alexander Hall 
The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck clearly thinks that Jen Psaki's White House press briefings are nothing more than an show for his amusement -- an opinion we're pretty sure he never offered about the press brieefings of his old crush, Kayleigh McEnany. Thus, we're treated to things like a May 4 
The Media Research Center 
