MRC Complains About Its Graphic Getting Fact-Checked Topic: Media Research Center
As much as it loves to attack fact-checkers, the Media Research Center can't stand it when its own claims get fact-checked. (That's why MRC employees have blocked or muted us on Twitter.) So when the Associated Press fact-checked a graphic the MRC posted on Facebook -- you know, the place where MRC content does phenomenally well despite all the purported censorship of right-wing views -- Kayla Sargent devoted an April 22 post to complaining about it, mainly that the AP busted the MRC for making overblown claims that lack context:
Facebook’s fact-checkers are covering for the left’s huge election power grab in H.R. 1. A far left AP fact-checker spent 850 words trying, and failing, to debunk a graphic about the bill.
AP News fact-checked a graphic from the Media Research Center on Facebook and claimed it was “missing context.” In reality, the AP fact-checker, far-left reporter Terrence Fraser, just didn’t like the language that the graphic used.
The first point that the graphic made was that H.R. 1 would “OVERRULE Voter ID laws in place in 36 states.” Fraser responded by saying that the bill would allow “voters to affirm their identity using only their signature, but the proposed legislation only applies in federal elections.” But, as The Daily Signal pointed out, “states obviously can’t enforce their voter ID requirements if federal law says they have to allow anyone who just signs a form to vote.”
Whether state Voter ID laws would, technically, remain on the books if H.R. 1 passes is irrelevant, particularly in states where a state election is held at the same time as a federal election.
Essentially, Fraser’s “fact-check” simply adds Democratic spin to the items in the social media post being reviewed. None of his points disproves any aspect of the post. The only way to avoid an opening for AP to claim the post is “missing context” would have been to include every one of the thousands words of the massive bill in the social media post, and even that likely wouldn’t have stopped AP from working with Facebook to discredit this post.
Ah, yes, "context" -- the thing the MRC loves to bust others for omitting butdenounces when it comes to fact-checks of itself and its friends. If a statement requires caveats to be accurate, it's not an accurate statement -- and because of that, the AP dispantled Sargent's assertion that the post wasn't "disproven."
As if whining about getting busted for context issues wasn't enough, Sargent personally attacked the fact-checker for purportedly being "far-left":
Fraser’s biased analysis of MRC’s graphic is typical for far-left “journalists.” His bio on AP’s own website said that he “has worked for VICE Media, The Marshall Project and ProPublica,” three very liberal organizations. The Marshall Project has published articles such as “How Biden Can Reverse Trump’s Death Penalty Expansion” and “Why Is It So Hard To Prosecute White Extremists?”
Another bio from the Ida B. Wells Scholar program said that Fraser’s dream job is “to write for The Nation or do documentary videos for The Intercept.” Two more leftist journalism operations.
By the same standard, Sargent and her MRC colleagues fail ther objectivity test for being so utterly partisan. But Sargent will never bring that little fact up while attacking the alleged "liberal bias" of others -- indeed, she wants you to think that the MRC is not biased at all, a laughable fantasy.
WND's Lively Melts Down Over Caitlyn Jenner Topic: WorldNetDaily
There comes a time in every season of moral decline when "slippery slope" arguments become moot, because all of the terrible things you predicted on the long downward slide have come true and you find yourself in the stinking swamp at the bottom of the hill, covered in mud and surrounded by rats and snakes.
That's where we Americans are today with the normalization of transgender insanity. And by insanity, I mean the old-school looney-tunes, climb-on-the-table-in-your-birthday-suit-and-declare-that-you're-Napoleon kind of crazy. The keeping up with the Kardashians attention-whore kind of crazy where absolutely anything can be rationalized if it keeps you in the public spotlight. The Bruce-Jenner-as-a-drag-queen-version-of Ronald-Reagan running for governor of California kind of crazy. That's the bottom of the slope, folks – here we are.
Transgenderism is both a mental health problem and a behavioral disorder. There is no healthy version of it. It is by definition pathological. (Bruce Jenner is no more a woman than "Worf" of "Star Trek" was a Klingon.) To hold otherwise is to reject self-evident reality that any rational human can confirm by observation of male and female bodies – so perfectly complementary in design and function it is as if they were created for the purpose of becoming "one flesh" for the bearing and raising of children in families. That is of course, what the Bible teaches, but as Paul notes in Romans 1, the creation itself teaches that truth so clearly that those who fail to recognize it – and the Creator Himself in His Creation – have NO EXCUSE!
Here at the bottom of the slippery slope where there is no deeper depth of moral insanity to warn against – only more of the same in ever more grotesque variations as transgenderism morphs into transhumanism – there is no excuse for the conservative movement to mollycoddle the "loser conservative" traitors who helped get us here by falling into line with the left. There is no benefit to compromising with the crazy people or trying to win their approval by virtue signaling. The level of insanity is beyond affecting with strategy or guile. It's like fighting the undead, now: They can't be reasoned with because they have lost connection with reality.
The only thing left to do is fight like the Host of Heaven for truth and righteousness – and there is no more important target to defeat in that process than the walking political disaster formerly known as Bruce Jenner. No "conservative" should be allowed to support this deeply disturbed fake woman without serious push-back from the rest of us. Can we finally say enough is enough?
Newsmax Host Embraces Dubious Kerry-Iran Story Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax TV host John Bachman wrote in an April 27 Newsmax column:
Let's talk about Climate Czar John Kerry and his friends.
Kerry appears to be a lot more comfortable with people like Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif than people like Donald Trump.
Kerry's now in a bit of trouble after a three-hour conversation between Zarif and an Iranian economist Leaked out to the press.
A recording of that conversation - reportedly includes Zarif saying Kerry told him about roughly 200 Israeli attacks on Iranian interests in Syria.
As we've documented, this story is highly dubious, since Israel attacking Iranian assets has been public knowledge for years and it's unclear when, exactly, this conversation took place, given that Zarif appears to mostly be whining about being out of the loop in Iranian affairs.
Bachman went on to rant about Kerry once calling the Vietnam War "the biggest nothing in history," but this story that Bachman has embraced despite its lack of veracity -- for no other apparent reason than to engage in some lazy Kerry-bashing -- would also seem to be right up there.Indeed, nothing has c ome from the story since, telling us there's nothing to see here.
Will Bachman apologize to his viewers for getting them worked up over a bogus story? Doubtful.
The MRC's Ridiculous 'Big Tech Report Card' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's war against "Big Tech" has always been a partisan exercise because conservatives need an additional enemy. Now it fancies itself high-tech schoolmarms now by issuing a "big tech report card" that suspiciously reflects the MRC's political agenda:
By almost any measure, the first three months of 2021 were the worst ever for online freedom. Amazon, Twitter, Apple, Google, Facebook, YouTube and others proved to the world that the Big Tech censorship of conservatives is a reality. And they did so in disturbing, authoritarian ways that highlight their unchecked power over information and our political process.
At least 10 separate tech platforms silenced then-sitting President of the United States Donald Trump over the speech he gave in Washington, D.C. the day of the Capitol riot. Both Google and Apple pulled Parler from their app stores. Amazon Web Services also cancelled its contract with Parler, shutting the burgeoning social media site down for more than five weeks. Google removed LifeSiteNews from its advertising programs, and YouTube shut down its channel. YouTube demonetized Steven Crowder’s channels. Amazon removed Ryan T. Anderson’s book examining transgender ideology, and it also removed a Clarence Thomas documentary while continuing to sell at least 270 hate items.
That consistent assault on free speech makes 2021 an ideal time to track the biases and failures of Big Tech. Starting with this quarter and going forward every three months, the Media Research Center’s Free Speech America operation will grade the top Big Tech companies, including social media, search media and others that form the backbone of our online lives.
This quarter, Big Tech earned a collective “F.” Every one of the Big Tech companies reviewed got an “F” in free speech. That’s simply appalling. The quarter began with unparalleled restriction of the president of the United States. It was unquestionably the low point for online freedom since the creation of the internet.
Did anyone expect anything else from the MRC? All the grades are subjective, of course, and even then, the number of D's and C's on the "report card" should have brought things down to something higher than a overall F rating -- but who cares about accurate math when the entire thing is a fabrication?
Of course, while the MRC is perfectly happy to rant about right-wingers getting suspended or banned from social media, it's much less enthusiastic about explaining why they happened -- which means the MRC is effectively defending Trump inciting the Capitol riot, Steven Crowder's homophobia, Parler users' violent threats and LifeSite's coronavirus conspiracy theories.
There was also no mention of private property rights. Twitter, Facebook, et al, are private companies who have the right to do with their platform as they choose and to enforce their terms of service. The MRC doesn't believe that the property rights other businesses have apply to social media firms.
Needless to say, the MRC would never subject right-wing-biased social media platforms to the same harsh treatment. Indeed, they refused to do so, copping out by claiming they're too new while also vociferiously defending Parler:
Because these platforms are so new, there was not much data on how these platforms will moderate content. Parler’s guidelines already explained that it does not allow certain kinds of speech, despite what the leftist narrative has pushed. It also outlined a community review system where a group of users who were trained on what is and is not acceptable must have a majority vote in order for content to be removed. Parler also instituted a point system, which it has been transparent about, that can ultimately lead to users being suspended or banned from the platform. It has not really been the “Wild West” that the leftist media would have you believe.
Given the newness of these alternative platforms, the new platforms were not evaluated in this report card. As more data become available on what sort of content these platforms are removing and how they are handling user complaints, the new platforms may be added to future report cards. New free speech oriented platforms that will be monitored include Parler, Gab, Rumble, MeWe, Clapper, Telegram, Locals and CloutHub.
Also needless to say, the MRC again failed to disclose the conflict of interest that chief Parler funder Rebekah Mercer is also the biggest single funder of the MRC.
So committed, however, is the MRC to this ridiculous, meaningless "report card" that after Facebook reaffirmed its suspension of Trump, Heather Moon wrote a May 6 post headlined "Facebook Oversight Board Confirms MRC Big Tech Report Card with Trump Decision." It complained about Facebook's alleged lack of transparency in suspending Trump; but the MRC used to have comment sections on its NewsBusters post in which posters were banned for less-than-transparent reasons (like, say, pointing out inaccuracies in posts or not reinforcing right-wing narratives).
Moon never admitted that Trump used social media to incite the Capitol rioit -- she's not getting paid to do that -- but she whined that the "international makeup" of the Facebook oversight board supposedly played a role in keeping Trump suspended, though she offered no evidence to back this up. It doesn't matter that Facebook has bent over backwards to accomodate conservatives -- or that the MRC itself touts how well its right-wing content does on Facebook -- the narrative must always be followed, truthful or not.
Fake News: WND Touts False Story Of Election Database Deletion Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh breathlessly wrote in a May 13 WorlNetDaily article under the headline "Maricopa bombshell!":
A letter from the president of the Arizona state Senate, which is conducting an audit of the 2020 presidential election results in Maricopa County, has a bombshell: County officials apparently erased an election database from a computer just before turning it over, under subpoena, for the audit.
"We have recently discovered that the entire 'Database' directory from the D drive of the machine 'EMSPrimary' has been deleted," the letter from Senate President Karen Fann to the Maricopa Board of Supervisors, and its chairman, Jack Sellers, notes.
This removes election related details that appear to have been covered by the subpoena. In addition, the main database for the Election Management System (EMS) Software, 'Results Tally and Reporting,' is not located anywhere on the EMSPrimary machine, even though all of the EMS Clients reference that machine as the location of the database," the letter says.
"This suggests that the main database for all election related data for the November 2020 General Election has been removed. Can you please advise as to why these folders were deleted, and whether there are any backups that may contain the deleted folders?"
None of that is true. As fact-checkers have pointed out, the Board of Supervisors denied any databases were delated, and indeed they never were -- a screw-up on the audit investigators' part simply hid them:
Snopes obtained a May 17 technical memo, prepared by the Maricopa County Elections Department in response to Fann’s letter and other speculation. In it, the department explained that, roughly speaking, those who received the server in question, on behalf of the state senate investigators, appear to have erred when using software to reconstruct those directories.
This in turn created the mistaken impression that the underlying databases and files had been deleted, when in fact they were merely inaccessible because of those errors. Backups of the original server still contained the databases and files in question, according to the Maricopa County Elections Department.
On May 18, after this fact check was originally published, one of the investigators tasked by the Senate with conducting the audit admitted that he had access to all the databases in question. At a special hearing on the audit, Ben Cotton, founder of CyFIR, told Republican state senators “I have access to that data,” and “I have the information I need from the recovery efforts of the data.”
As of this writing, WND has not corrected the article's false information -- suggesting that WND no longer cares about facts, though it sorta did fora time earlier this year.
CNS Joins MRC Parent In Criticizing Trump's Continued Facebook Suspension Topic: CNSNews.com
Since CNSNews.com is more and more just the Media Research Center's agenda in inverted-pyramid format, CNS followed in its parent's footsteps and attacked Facebook's decision to keep Donald Trump suspended from the platform in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
In CNS' first story on the continued suspension, Susan Jones curiously waited until the sixth paragraph to mention exactly why Trump was suspended: for offering "praise or support of people engaged in violence" and "creat[ing] an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible." That was followed by Craig Bannister supplying a bit of whoredom for his boss, uncritically quoting MRC chief Brent Bozell huffing that the suspension means Facebook "gets its first opportunity to interfere with the 2024 election.” Bannister waited until the fifth paragraph to mention why Trump was suspended.
Melanie Arter went into her usual stenography mode, uncritically quoting former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows decrying the continued suspension as "a sad day for America" during a Fox News interview. Neither Arter nor, apparently, Meadows mentioned the reason why Trump was suspended.
Bannister returned to tout Trump's rant against his continued suspension. This time, Bannisteromitted any mention of the reason why Trump was suspended;' instead, he promoted Trump's then-new blog "to voice his opinions regarding important, national issues."
Arter followed up with a compliation of how "Conservative groups condemned Facebook Oversight Board’s decision Wednesday to continue to block former President Donald Trump’s Facebook page and Instagram account as “un-American” and an “obscene” abuse of power, pointing out that if it treated liberals like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) the same way, people would be outraged." Arter did not mention the reason why Trump was suspended, but the uncritically quoted Jenny Beth Martin ranting that Facebook's "claim that President Trump’s rhetoric contains ‘a serious risk of violence’ is laughable."
Social media platforms “have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation and misinformation especially related to COVID-19, vaccinations and elections,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Wednesday in reaction to Facebook’s Oversight Board’s decision to continue to the suspension of former President Donald Trump’s Facebook page and Instagram account.
As CNSNews.com reported, the board decided “it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose the indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension” on Trump’s account.
Again, Arter failed to mention why Trump was suspended, even though it's the central issue.
On May 6, CNS published a commentary by Heritage Foundation president Kay Coles James attacking Facebook's decision to suspend Trump as "the wrong one, and one that all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, should be concerned about." She did not mention the incitement of violence that got Trump suspended in the first place.
The same day, Arter touted a Fox Business interview in which host Maria Bartiromo played whataboutism with Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell after calling for social media regulation to try and stop bullying and misinformation.
On May 7, Bannister promoted a (biased) Rasmussen poll in which "voters were asked about Facebook’s editorial decision to permanently ban Republican and Former President Donald Trump from its platform." Bannister offered no evidence that Rasmussen told readers that Trump was suspended for inciting and endorsing violence -- which, again, is central to the issue of his suspension.
MRC's Houck Extends War On Psaki (And Man-Crush On Doocy) To Media Profiles Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center writer Curtis Houck has repeatedly demonstrated his unhinged hatred of White House press secretary Jen Psaki, and his concurrent man-crush on Fox News repoter Peter Doocy for his near-daily hostile questioning of Psaki. That same wild bias surfaced again regarding media profiles of the two.
Houck devoted a May 5 post to ranting about a magazine profile of Paski that didn't hate her as much as he does:
On Wednesday, Washingtonian magazine came out with a nearly-2,220 word profile of White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki that could best be described as a slobbering love letter that hailed her as a fact-based saint who refuses to play to the cameras, plays and works well with reporters, and represented a break from the belligerence and back-talking of the Obama and Trump administrations.
And unsurprisingly, the piece treaded carefully on extended criticism and pushback on Psaki and her administration colleagues until paragraph 22 out of 30. But before that? Plenty of phrases and words like “competence porn,” “personality that exudes from the podium,” “pleasant,” “unflappable,” and “well-qualified.”
Doing her part to laud Psaki, Goldstein contrasted her “measured” and “warm” tone that asked reporters how their families were doing with Trump press secretaries being “Trumpites” having “gleefully performed belligerence on camera.”
“Psaki succeeds by arguably doing the impossible: Her face and voice beam out of our screens on a regular basis, and she rarely draws attention to herself,” she later added.
On this theme of warmness, this was also a lie. Psaki caused a kerfuffle when she mocked the Space Force (and refused to apologize), dismissed the lack of action from Vice President Harris on the border, laughed at Peter Doocy's phrasing of the border crisis, questioned Kristin Fisher’s humanity as a mother and person, and was angered by the notion that Biden contributed to “systemic racism.” We could go on.
Yes, Houck certainly could -- hating Psaki is his job, after all. The Space Force "kerfuffle" is something Houck helped manufacture for no other reason to have a reason to attack Psaki. He's certainly never to to acknowledge Paski's humanity. And, of course, nobody is allowed to ever be critical of his man-crush.
Houck even managed to take some time away from his anti-Psaki rage to work in a tribute to his man-crush:
Though falsely treated by leftists as a carnival barker worse than even Jim Acosta, Fox’s Peter Doocy showed himself to be a far better man than the actual characters like Acosta and Brian Karem that Trump spokespeople had to deal with when he told Goldstein that Psaki has run “a very low-blood-pressure briefing room.”
If only we call could aspire to that level of civility in the face of nonsense.
Reminder: Spewing hatred at Acosta because he dared to ask questions of the Trump adminstration was Houck's mainjob in the Trump years.
Which brings us to a May 7 post, in which Houck complained that a Politico profile of Doocy wasn't man-crushy enough and spent too much time (which is to say, any time) likening him to Acosta:
Christopher Cadelago’s feature “Is Fox’s Peter Doocy Just Asking Questions — Or Trolling the White House” led with the build-up to President Biden’s March 25 press conference and what ended up not being “a titanic collision between” Biden and Doocy as Biden chose not to call on him.
Cadelago described Doocy as someone who had “positioned himself as the chief foil to the administration in the press room” and developed a journalistic decorum that was “courteous, crisp, [and] oppositional” yet had offered “laconic yet spring-loaded questions” to Psaki in early briefings.
Adding that the news cycle “can be seen as a distillation, in a single reporter, of the challenge facing Fox in the Biden era,” Cadelago said that Doocy has become “a smooth yet aggressive, social media-savvy correspondent who might feel like a fresh face on TV, yet is indisputably of, by and for Fox.”
And in the world of the liberal media where Fox is the enemy, that’s almost always going to be seen as a bad thing.
Cadelago even compared Doocy to carnival barker Jim Acosta of CNN, but said Doocy “rarely raises his voice” “jump[ed] into loud, heated sparing matches.”
Later in the piece, he’d return to this implicit comparison, saying Doocy’s “relentless jousting with the Biden administration has drawn more criticism from the left and even from some journalists at other networks” with complaints that “his approach” has been “intentionally provocative, in service of his own image and the network’s, as Fox tries to make its oppositional stance clear.”
Conservative media Benedict Arnold and CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy was also predictably, insisting Doocy bears more resemblance to a divisive pundit than an actual journalist: “Doocy’s line of questioning fits neatly into the messaging pushed by Fox’s conservative newscasts and propagandistic primetime shows.”
Again, Doocy’s not someone who’d equate media criticism to death threats, meltdown over a period when briefs were audio-only or when he wasn't called on, stage a book signing, tweet a picture of himself looking at himself in the mirror, but that’s just us.
In response, a Fox News spokesperson told NewsBusters: “If you want to predict what CNN will cover, watch FOX News — it’s a good indicator of what their partisan activists will spend hours attempting to misconstrue for relevance and ratings.”
Actually, it is pretty much just you, Curt -- the fact that you can't let your rage against Acosta go appears to be some sort of mental issue. How does Houck know for sure that Doocy's not like Acosta? That's just wacky man-crushing. And why did Houck think he needed to get a comment from Fox News to respond to the Politico piece? It's almost as if the MRC is part of Fox News'PR department.
Houck concluded with one last bit of man-crushing:
Cadelago closed with an important tidbit that Doocy has largely stopped tweeting to better focus on his job and, not surprisingly “disputes the characterization of his job as one big troll.”
And perhaps most importantly, he makes clear that he’s not looking for his next break or job (even though Psaki’s tried and failed to help Resistance-types make Doocy look bad)[.]
Again, Houck doesn't know any of that. And when Doocy inevitably gets rewarded for his hostile questioning of Psaki with his own Fox News show, will he lash out at Doocy the way he did at Acosta when the same thing happened to him?
WorldNetDaily just can't stoppushingbogusclaims about the coronavirus pandemic and vaccines as "news" when it ought to be reporting facts to its readers. This happened again in a May 6 article by Art Moore:
Fox News host Tucker Carlson prompted a sharp reaction from critics Wednesday night after addressing the issue of how many people have died after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.
Carlson explainedhe is "completely in favor of vulnerable people taking vaccines" (The CDC profile is a person older than 70 with an average of 2.6 "comorbidities," such as diabetes and heart disease). But he argued that the vast majority of the population, with a survival rate of more than 99%, should have as much information as possible to make a risk assessment.
Between late December 2020 and April 23, a total of 3,362 people were reported to have died after receiving COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S., an average of 30 people every day, according to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, or VAERS.
VAERS is managed by the CDC and the FDA, Carlson noted, and "has received a lot of criticism over the years, some of it founded."
It's not unti lthe eighth paragraph that Moore finally gets around to mentioning that an actual doctor (which Carlson and Moore are not) pointed out that Carlson is wrong and that a fact-checker also discredited Carlson's claim -- adverse effects reported to VAERS do not constitute an established cause-and-effect, and that no death, let alone 3,362, has been found to be directly attributable to the vaccine. But Moore wants you to believe Carlson, not the experts:
However, Carlson pointed out in his segment that some critics have argued that VAERS undercounts vaccine injuries.
He cited a report submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services in 2010 concluding that "fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported" by the VAERS system.
"So what is the real number of people who apparently have been killed or injured by the vaccine?" Carlson asked. "Well, we don't know that number. Nobody does, and we’re not going to speculate about it.
"But it's clear that what is happening now, for whatever reason, is not even close to normal. It’s not even close to what we’ve seen in previous years with previous vaccines," he said.
Moore then called on Andrew Bostom further attacking thte VAERS system. But we've caught him falsely and maliciously blaming a measles oubreak on the entire Islam religion, so maybe his word shouldn't be trusted.
Moore then took then-candidate Kamala Harris out of context in trying to bolster Carlson's argument that getting the COVID vaccine should be a personal choice:
Last September, during the presidential campaign, a CNN reporter asked Kamala Harris whether she would be willing to take the coronavirus vaccine once it became available.
"Well, I think that's going to be an issue for all of us," she replied. "I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump."
A month later, at the vice presidential debate, Harris was more emphatic.
"If Donald Trump tells us we should take" the vaccine, she declared, "I'm not going to take it."
Actually, Harris went on to say that "If Dr. Fauci, the doctors, tell us that we should take it, I'll be the first in line to take it" -- thus making her argument that Trump could not be trusted given that he was dangling a vaccine as a ploy to get re-elected, not an argument about individual choice.
Such dishonest reporting -- not Big Tech conspiracies -- is the reason nobody trusts WND.
CNS Gets On Board With Anti-Cheney Narrative -- But Wasn't Quite Sold On Her Replacement Topic: CNSNews.com
Despite its Media Research Center parent's insistence that it wasn't news, CNSNews.com did, in fact, cover the story of Liz Cheney getting kicked out of House Repuiblican leadership for criticizing Donald Trump.
On May 7, Craig Bannister touted how "The union representing the nation’s border agents is endorsing Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) to replace Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) as chairwoman of the House Republican conference." Bannister didn't epxlain why CNS suddenly thinks it's OK for a labor union to speak out on partisan political issues, given its heavy anti-union record.
In a May 10 article, Susan Jones pushed criticism of Cheney from another GOP congressman and tried to make the case against her:
Cheney, the highest ranking woman in Republican leadership, does oppose the Biden agenda. But she disagrees with Banks and other Republicans on the future of the post-Trump Republican Party.
She infuriated her fellow Republicans when she voted to impeach Donald Trump for incitement of insurrection following the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Since then, she has called Trump's claim that the election was stolen a "big lie."
Cheney has made it clear she does not and will not have anything to do with Donald Trump, and unlike Banks and other Republican leaders, she rejects Trump’s influence on her party.
Jones did note that the congressman, Jim Banks, had to backpedal a bit from Trump's "Big Lie" about the election being stolen from him: "As for Cheney’s 'big lie' criticism of Trump, Banks on Sunday said, 'I've never said that the election was stolen. I've said I have very serious concerns with -- with how the election was conducted in last November because of COVID rules that loosened voter identification laws.'"
In a May 12 article, however, Jones was fully on board with the approved right-wing narrative and mad that the Cheney story drew attention from "activist media" (as if CNS is not "activist media"):
House Republicans say good riddance to Cheney, who voted in February to impeach Donald Trump, whom she accused of trying to steal the election and inciting insurrection. Many House Democrats used Cheney's own words to support their case for impeaching Trump a second time.
Meanwhile, the leftist, activist media is portraying Cheney as a hero, even a martyr to the anti-Trump crusade that still fills the airwaves and cable channels. For weeks, Democrats and the leftist media have showered Cheney with praise, using her to further split and weaken the Republican Party.
Cheney, defiant, delivered a not-so-subtle message to House Republicans leaders last month, when she was seen fist-bumping President Joe Biden on his way into the chamber to deliver a speech to a sparsely attended joint session of Congress.
In another article that day, Jones served up even more right-wing talking points:
As Congressional Democrats seek to consolidate their power by attempting to federalize elections, make D.C. a state, pack the Supreme Court and end the filibuster -- moves that would squelch Republicans for years to come -- it was surprising to hear a defense of the two-party system coming from liberal pundits on MSNBC this Wednesday morning.
The conversation revolved around the anticipated ouster of House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney, whom Democrats and media activists are hailing as a hero, a woman of true integrity, for her outspoken anti-Trump stance.
Jones also boosted the anti-Cheney narrative in a third article, quoting Republican Rep. Jim Jordan saying that "You can't have the Republican Conference chair reciting Democrat talking points, especially when gas prices are up 50 percent, there's a crisis on the border, and Democrats are trying to federalize election law and pack the United States Supreme Court."
Bannister, meanwhile, returned to uncritically repeat Trump's insults of Cheney as "a bitter, horrible human being." And an anonymously written article complained that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement calling Cheney "a leader of great courage, patriotism and integrity. ... those values are unwelcome in the Republican party."
While CNS ultimately fully embraced the dump-Cheney narrative, it wasn't thrilled at first about her replacement, Elise Stefanik. An anonymously written May 10 article noted that Stefanik "boasted on 'CBS This Morning' in 2018 that she was among the 10 percent of House members who were most bipartisan in their voting." And managing editor Michael W. Chapman grumbled in a May 14 article:
Although Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to oust Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wy.) from the GOP's No. 3 leadership post and replace her with Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), the ratings of Congress members by the American Conservative Union (ACU) show that Stefanik held a 44% rating.
In addition, the ACU ratings show several GOP women in the House hold far higher conservative ratings than both Stefanik and Cheney.
The ACU ratings, which are made by the organization's Center for Legislative Accountability, were started in 1971 and are considered the "gold standard" in showing how closely a lawmaker adheres to conservative principles.
An anonymous article that day portrayed Stefanik as a flip-flopper: Rep. Elise Stefanik (R.-N.Y.), who was elected on Friday to replace Rep. Liz Cheney (R.-Wyo.) as the chair of the House Republican Conference, voted for the pro-transgender Equality Act when it came up for a vote in 2019. ... When it came up for another vote this February, she voted against it."
But CNS seemed to finally approve of Stefanik by May 17, when an article by Melanie Arter featured her attacking Cheney as "looking backwards" when Republicans must look forward and perpetually attack President Biden and his supposedly "radical agenda."
NEW ARTICLE: Loving Levin -- And His Right-Wing Rants Topic: Media Research Center
Radio host Mark Levin can take comfort in knowing that his buddies at the Media Research Center will always have his back, amplifying his misplaced outrage and whitewashing his errors and falsehoods. Read more >>
MRC Predictably Pounces On One Month Of Bad Employment Numbers To Bash Biden Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loved to complain that the media was talking down the economy under President Trump -- but given the slightest opportunity, the MRC gleefully bad-mouthed the economy uner President Biden.
When the job growth numbers for April came in lower than expected, Joseph Vazquez rushed to blame Biden's economic policies (and not, you know, that people might be alittle leery about returning to work with the coronavirus pandemic still not completely under control) in a May 7 post:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics released a devastating report on job growth in April. It completely destroyed the media hype about the jobs growth under President Joe Biden. Their glowing job predictions were off by at least 734,000 jobs. Perhaps as much as 1,734,000 jobs.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that the U.S. economy added an embarrassing 266,000 jobs in April, and the unemployment rate ticked up to 6.1 percent. Fox Business host Charles Payne summed up the atrocious figures perfectly: “Congratulations President Biden - you have achieved the progressive utopia. At least 7.4 million job openings but only 266,000 people got a job last month.” Less than 4 percent of the approximate job openings were filled. The report came after multiple media outlets were heralding an expected April boom to the tune of — checks notes — 1 million jobs added.
On May 11, Vazquez gushed over Payne again -- he loves Payne despite the fact that Payne has been credibly accused of sexual harassment -- uncritically repeating Payne's attacks on unemployment benefits:
Fox Business host Charles Payne told the American people what many in the media wouldn’t dare say: Giving people money to not work doesn’t incentivize them to find a job.
Payne scorched the haphazard predictions by economists and the media that the U.S. economy would add 1 million new jobs in April. He called the predictions a massive “swing and a miss” during the May 7 edition of Making Money. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) clocked the increase in April at an embarrassing 266,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate ticked up to 6.1 percent. Payne lambasted how “the narrative this year is that America was going to go on this string of million job months as our jobs openings created a whole bunch of opportunity. And well, so far that’s not happening.” In Payne’s estimation, “[S]omething is obviously terribly wrong.”
Acutally, numerous studies have shown that unemployment benefits do not keep people from seeking work. But it's against MRC policy to tell the truth if that truth conflicts with a cherished right-wing narrative.
Mark Finkelstein sneered in a post the same day: "Joe Biden was all geared up to go out last week and boast about the one million jobs the economy had added in April. But then the actual numbers came out, and . . . psych! Only 266,000 new jobs, 73 percent fewer than Biden was planning to brag about!" He then complained that New York Times reporter Elizabeth Bumiller -- whom he called "PATHETIC" in the headline -- called the low number a "real fluke" and would likely be revised upward the next month, adding, "It's not unusual, in fact, for jobs reports to be revised. But Bumiller's reflexive suggestion that they were likely to be revised up was telling. Think she would have made the same suggestion if a Republican president had suffered such a disappointing jobs report?"
Scott Whitlock followed up in a May 13 post with the incredibly dumb headline "As Biden’s Economy TANKS, CBS Makes Excuses for Wretched Job Numbers":
With terrible new jobs numbers and rising inflation,CBS This Morningon Thursday made excuses for the Joe Biden economy, trying to find reasons not to blame the Democratic President. Reporter Ed O’Keefe explained that 11 Republican governors are pulling out of a program that raised unemployment checks by $300 a week.
O’Keefe conceded, “It comes as most recent job numbers were surprisingly low, just 266,000 jobs were added in April despite eight million job openings economists predicted the country would get at least a million jobs.”
But nothing in the segment – or the whole show on Thursday – about other economic factors, such as inflation.
Whitlock cited the biased and partisan right-wing National Review as evidence of allegedly surging inflation.
Vazquez huffed in a May 18 post that "A National Public Radio host tried to spin the atrocious April jobs report numbers by accusing GOP governors of pushing people to go back to work when jobs aren’t available. Fact-check: Millions of jobs were available." he then cited scandal-ridden right-wing economist Stephen Moore to claim that "Perhaps giving people free money is actually a really bad method to stimulate the economy."
On May 21, Vazquez got mad that The Hill accurately pointed out what he and the MRC were doing:
The Hill used the old “Republicans have pounced” cliché to turn attention away from the disastrous effects President Joe Biden’s agenda is having on the economy.
The liberal outlet May 20, whining that “Republicans have pounced on unexpectedly high inflation readings and a disappointing jobs report for April.” The Hillwhined that the GOP suggested the terrible economic data were “the products of an overzealous government response that could kneecap the economy.” The tweet also happened to be the verbatim text from the second paragraph of The Hill reporter Niv Elis’s pro-Biden spin story headlined: “Biden tries to navigate fits and starts of economic recovery.”
At no point did Vazquez dispute the accuracy of the reporter pointing that right-wingers were using the jobs numbers to attack Bide; in stead, he complained that Elis "characterized the terrible jobs numbers as 'the potential quirks of an economy reawakening from a pandemic-induced slumber.'" He also offered no evidence that The Hill is a "liberal outlet."
Meanwhile, the May employment numbers proved the those who pointed out the flukiness of April's numbers correct -- 559,000 jobs were created last month, and April's numbers were adjusted upward from 266,000 to 278,000. Vazquez, the MRC's main blogger on economic matters, has yet to devote a post to the much better May numbers -- presumably because there's nothing for him to pounce on.
Newsmax Columnist Trying To Gin Up Census Conspiracies Topic: Newsmax
The lasttime we checked in on Newsmax columnist Mark Schulte, he was spreading coronavirus conspiracy theories so wacky that Newsmax felt compelled to add a disclaimer to his columns that he is a "non-clinician." Perhaps Newsmax also needs to note that Schulte is also not a statistician, because he's now trying to develop conspiracy theories about census numbers.
In his April 29 column, Schulte declared that "Tallies for five heavily populated, Democratic-controlled states – New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan and New Jersey - are worthy of scrutiny for several reasons" -- which mainly come down to Schulte believing that the populations of those "dystopian" states have supposedly increased too much.He also pronounced the census statistics to be "egregiously flawed."
Schulte huffed further in his May 4 column (needless bolding and italics in original):
By contrast, the combined population of four heavily-populated, thriving Republican states —Texas, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina — leaped from 59,874,000 in 2010 to 68,241,000 in 2019. This is an 8,367,000 gain, or 14% over nine years, or 1.6% yearly.
But the Census Bureau is preposterously claiming that these Republican mega-states only increased by a combined microscopic 126,000residents between July 1, 2019 and April 1, 2020: from 68,241,000 to 68,367,000, ortwo-tenths of 1%.
This improbably feeble growth, over nine months, extrapolates to 168,000 for one year, or two-tenths of 1%.
To summarize: The 2020 Census tallies for the 50 states are not only suspiciously high for five Democratic-controlled mega-states, but also anomalously low for four Republican ones.
Schulte seems to be overlooking a couple things: First ,that the census is conducted only every 10 years, and that numbers in between those official census counts are just estimates, and second, Republican scare tactics may have led Hispanics to avoid census counts, leading to an apparent undercount in Republican-led states with a large Hispanic population.
Even though several Republican-led states are already getting additional congressional seats based on the preliminary census numbers, Schulte spent his May 12 column demanding even more:
But how does Texas, whose population soared by 4.04 million residents, receive only two more House seats?
And how does Florida, whose population jumped by 2.77 million, receive only one more seat?
Arizona is the third Republican mega-state that should have been awarded one more seat in the highly suspicious 2021 reapportionment. Between April 1, 2010, and July 1, 2019, its population soared by 887,000 residents: from 6,392,000 to 7,279,000, or 97,000 annually.
Calculating this 97,000-yearly increase for the nine months between July 1, 2019, and April 1, 2020, yields 73,000.
If we add these missing Arizonians, to the 7,279,000 counted in July 2019, the sum is 7,352,000, which if divided by 761,000, yields 9.7 seats, which rounds up to 10 seats, and not the allotted 9 seats.
However, the demographically-inept Census Bureau is reporting that Arizona’s population dropped by 120,000, from 7,279,000 to 7,159,000, between July 2019 and April 2020.
Again, Schulte is ignoring that between-census numbers are estimates and GOP scare tactics, showing that he's the one who's "demographically inept."
And on May 17, Schulte ranted that sparsely populated states have too much congressional represenatation:
But the nation's highest court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the colossal disparities in the number of residents per seat among the 50 states, which flagrantly discriminates against the mega-populated states.
Moreover, America's most populous states are already monumentally underrepresented by the constitutional mandate that every state has two seats in the U.S. Senate.
Wyoming, whose 578,000 residents are the nation's smallest population, has 289,000 per U.S. Senate seat. California, with 39,577,000 people, has 19,789,000 per Senate seat, or 68 times that of Wyoming.
Indeed, the 26 states with the smallest populations, which range from Wyoming's 578,000 to Louisiana's 4,661,000, have a total population of only 58 million, or just 17.5% of the nation's 331 million people.
Of course, if the proportion was more accurately reflective of the U.S. population, it's likely that Democrats would have more congressional representation. We presume Schulte doesn't actually want that.
Hannah Harrison, a writer for the right-wing American Family Association wrote a column published May 6 at CNSNews.com eulogizing activist Judith Reisman, who she claimed "fought against the left's darkness." Harrison particularly praised Reisman's attacks on sex researcher Alfred Kinsey:
Mrs. Reisman passed away in April, but she is a victor for so many reasons. She’s mainly remembered for her work against her number one foe, Alfred Kinsey. Kinsey was a “sexologist,” and his career was focused on studying sexual behavior in both men and women.
Kinsey’s goal was quite simple: Focus on sex and praise everything that comes with it. In 1948, Kinsey’s study, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male," spread like wildfire. Time magazine compared its selling to that of "Gone with the Wind." His goal was to glorify, praise, and normalize sex in every possible facet. However, his methods of research were unsettling to Mrs. Reisman, and she exposed him.
In her 1990s book, "Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud," Reisman exposed Kinsey for his greatest crime: the sexual abuse of young children. After his book had been released, Reisman discovered that sexual abuse was inflicted on 317 boys as young as two months and up to 15 years old as part of his testing methodology which was included in his research.
Two. Months. Old.
In 1948, sexologists were reportedly raping babies in the name of “science.” Can you imagine how much worse things are getting in today’s world? On digital screens everywhere, there is sex. Why? Because it sells, and people buy.
Actually, Reisman never proved any of that. As we documented, Reisman's assertions that Kinsey conducted sexual experiments on infants has been discredited by other researchers and the Kinsey Institite, which stated that Kinsey obtained his data from interviews, not direct experimentation. the data on the 317 young children, it turns out, came from a single pedophile who kept notes and was not paid.
Harrison also wrote: "She discovered the effects of 'erototoxins' otherwise known as the chemicals that flood the brain when pornography is viewed. Her studies proved that these toxins could rewire one’s brain and cause many negative issues related to sex and relationships." In fact, there's no evidence that "erototoxins" exist, much less that porography affects the brain in a uniquely harmful fashion.
Harrison didn't mention that Reisman has also blamed Jews for promoting abortion and likened homosexuals to Nazis. And in 2019 we caught Reisman using bogus statistics taken from a QAnon message board to tout President Trump as more aggressive on human trafficking than President Obama was.
But facts apparently aren't important to Harrison. The only thing that matters is that Reisman peddled a narrative she approves of.
WND's Cashill Trashes George Floyd, Defends His Killer Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill continues to be on the wrong side of history by deciding to defend a convicted murderer -- Derek Chauvin, the former police officer who was convicted of killing George Floyd.
Cashill started on his April 21 column by declaring: "While the clueless celebrate the possible lifetime imprisonment of a police officer whose trial was anything but fair, the leadership is bummed. Although the Derek Chauvin verdict came down on Hitler's birthday, radical honchos owe their unease to Josef Stalin." He then went on a long digression about the 1920s Sacco and Vanzetti case, then ranted that Chauvin's conviction eliminated something that liberals could have exploited:
"Guilty on all counts?" One can almost hear the more astute radicals saying in Minneapolis. "What good does Derek Chauvin do us in prison?" Even a lesser charge would have given them a license to riot.
While the angry young mill about in the streets not quite sure where to place their anger, the Democratic leadership blathers on about "systemic racism," indifferent to the fact that the left controls every system in America more influential than My Pillow.
Then too, the fact that a jury was quick to send a white police officer to prison, possibly for life, for the incidental death of a black career felon suggests that the "system" is not terribly supportive of its "racists."
As to the easily frightened right, including the more "responsible" conservative media, they exhausted their moral energy defending Dr. Seuss.
Of courrse, if Chauvin hadn't been convicted, Cashill would have anything to write about, proving there's two sides to his analogy.
In his May 5 column, Cashill found a random Texas doctor to attack the testimony of Martin Tobin, who said that Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck is what killed Floyd. The supposed real cause of Floyd's death, according to Cashill's doc, John Dunn -- who claims in Cashill's words to have "followed the case from the beginning, studied the videos and reviewed the autopsy report." -- was "cardiac arrhythmia during an episode of excited delirium" brought on by the drugs in Floyd's system. Cashill went on to huff:
If Dunn is right, the State of Minnesota convicted an innocent man of murder in the second degree. Without the asphyxia diagnosis, there is no murder case against Chauvin and his fellow officers.
Tobin did, however, put on a good show. To sell asphyxia as the cause of death, he had to. His assignment was made all the more difficult since the one man to examine Floyd's body, Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker, failed to notice any signs of asphyxia.
Tobin and the other physicians who testified for the State, Dunn argues, "are a classic example of science hijacked by politics – kind of like COVID, climate scares, the social sciences, most professional scientific work."
Dunn adds, "Politics dominates everything and that means racial politics for sure."
Cashill went on to trash Floyd -- not unlike the way he continuallytrashed Trayvon Martin, the black teenager killed by George Zimmerman -- in his May 19 column:
By canonizing Floyd and crucifying the Minneapolis cops, the world's woke have not just justified the epic destruction that followed in the wake of Floyd's demise. They have sanctified it.
The word "sanctify" barely does justice to the grotesque memorial pageantry surrounding Floyd's death. "We are all a part of George Floyd's legacy," gushed Vice President Kamala Harris, "and our job now is to honor it and to honor him."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stopped just shy of comparing the chronic felon to Jesus Christ. "Thank you, George Floyd, for sacrificing your life for justice," said Pelosi. "For being there to call out to your mom. How heartbreaking was that? And because of you … your name will always be synonymous with justice."
Up until May 25, 2020, Floyd's name was synonymous, at least in Minneapolis, not with justice, but with addiction and recidivism. In a sympathetic article on Floyd, the Washington Post conceded that he "was stopped by police or charged at least 19 times in his adult life."
Cashill wenty on to be annoyed that President Biden likened Floyd's death to the assassination of Martin Luther King:
"It was a murder in the full light of day," said President Biden of Floyd's death in a formal comment every word of which was a lie, "and it ripped the blinders off for the whole world to see the systemic racism … that is a stain [sic] our nation's soul."
Sorry about the demotion, Dr. King, if only we had some video.
Cashill does love to take the side of white men who kill black men.
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.