Caitlyn Jenner Is So Right-Wing, The Transphobic MRC Is Defending Her Topic: Media Research Center
It was just a couple years ago that the viciouslytransphobic Media Research Center hated Caitlyn Jenner so much that a post attacking her -- promoted under a headline insulting her as a "trannie" -- was deemed so offensive that it was deleted without explanation. Now that Jenner is running for California governor as a conservative Republican, the MRC has been forced to do the unthinkable: defend a transgender woman.
It started out dismissive of her chances, of course. In a April 7 post, Tierin-Rose Mandelburg complained that "It’s interesting that she thinks she is qualified for a role like governor. For crying out loud, she’s never had a place in the political sphere but her drive for transgender activism as a Republican is apparently enough credibility," adding, "But honestly, when are celebrities going to stay in their own lanes?" Did Mandelburg (or anyone else at the MRC) ever say that about Donald Trump?
But as Jenner's conservative leanings became more apparent, the MRC decided she was worthy of defense, as Veronica Hays did in an April 26 post:
A celebrity with no political expertise who is also a transgender woman running for California Governor? That’s a match made in heaven. But add in the inconvenient fact that she’s running as a Republican and this liberal fantasy is destroyed.
On Friday April 23, Caitlin Jenner, former Olympian and Kardashian stepfather, now trans woman, confirmed her run for Governor of California. The potential election of the first trans woman Governor of California should be a shining moment for the LGBTQ community, however Jenner’s conservative leanings immediately disqualified her from gaining their endorsement.
Funny how these heterosexual individuals have the gall to condescend to a trans woman and tell her what to do. Where is the moral outrage? Even worse is the hypocrisy of the LBGTQ community which prides itself on inclusivity, to disown one of their members for having forbidden political views. Truly, these people are deranged.
Um, doesn't the MRC condescend to non-conservatives and insist on telling them what to do?
In a May 1 post, Scott Whitlock complained that "The View" co-host Joy Behar "denounced the reality TV star as an inexperienced Trump stooge," adding that she also Jenner has got this "guy Brad Pascal [sic] running his campaign. ... I mean that guy was accused of using campaign funds to enrich himself." Whitlock didn't explain who Behar was referring to; perhaps that's because it was actually Brad Parscale, former manager of Donald Trump's re-election campaign, who has indeed been accused of pocketing millions of dollars from both Trump's campaign and the Republican National Committee. We can see why Whitlock wouldn't want to bring up that unpleasant history.
When Jenner strangely came out against transgender youths taking part in sports, she felt even more MRC love. Mysterious (and transphobic) sports blogger Jay Maxson complained on May 4 that a sports blogger declared that "Jenner is trash because the California gubernatorial hopeful says it’s unfair for boys to compete in girls’ sports." The same day, Curtis Houck lumped Jenner among "minorities who refuse to be pigeon-holed" when MSNBC's Joy Reid criticized her stance, then without a shred of irony attacked Reid as "someone whose entire show has existed to prime viewers to hate those on the opposite side the of spectrum and rage about how they are to blame for what ails the country." Houck might as well have been talking about himself.
On May 6, Veronica Hays gushed over Jenner and her right-wing views following a Fox News interview:
As if the Hollywood left didn’t have reason enough to hate Caitlyn Jenner, the former man, Olympian and reality star now running for California governor gave Sean Hannity an hour-long interview on Wednesday night.
In her first exclusive interview as gubernatorial candidate, the transwoman discussed her political stances on a wide range or topics; from immigration and covid restrictions to taxes and transgender persons in sports.
When asked directly to assess Trump, Biden and Kamala Harris, Jenner told Hannity that what she liked about the former president was that he was a “disrupter,” and that what Biden’s doing “scares me.”
Jenner was once considered a brave champion by the left after her transition but has since been ostracised by both her own LGBT community and other Hollywood elites for her past Republican affiliations and stance against biological males performing in women’s sports. Her interview with Hannity has revealed her conservative vision for California and will likely face the betrayal of liberal backlash once more, perhaps even more severely this time.
Hays returned on May 11 to complain not only that comedian Sarah Silvermancriticized Jenner on her stance on transgender athletes but that Yahoo News backed her up by pointing out that the bans "are backed by no real-world evidence, with Republican lawmakers unable to give examples of this issue outside their own heads." She concluded by whing, "Will any of the LGBT community stand up for Jenner? No." Weird, Hays and the rest of the MRC hates the LGBT community whever it stands up for anything. Two days later, Hays touted how right-wing commentator Dave Rubin "ripped into comedian Sarah Silverman on Tuesday for dragging Caitlyn Jenner during her podcast," adding, "The rest of intelligent society is likely to agree."
Of course, the MRC would be trashing Jenner the way it complains "the LGBT community" is trashing her if her political views were even remotely liberal.
WND Pushed Bogus Claim That 'Trump Drugs' Cut COVID Cases In India Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've documented how WorldNetDaily writer Art Moore has repeatedly promoted a biased study advocating thte use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, falsely claiming it was published in a medical journal that ultimately rejected it because of unsubstantiated claims. But that's not the only problem with one of the articles Moore used to push the bogus claim. Moore wrote in a May 17 article:
India has become the center of the novel coronavirus pandemic, but a drop in cases has coincided with the national health ministry's promotion of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine treatments.
The India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare updated its guidelines on April 28 for treating the asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms of COVID-19
Since then, the data show cases have plunged in some areas, reported a leading promoter in the United States of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19, Dr. Pierre Kory, the COVID blog reported.
On Monday, Indian officials announced the country's daily COVID-19 cases fell below 300,000 for the first time in 25 days.
In fact, as PolitiFact pointed out, there is no proven link between the decline in cases and use of vermectin and hydroxychloroquine:
Daily COVID-19 cases in India decreased in the days before May 17 — but only after a nearly vertical rise that started in April and peaked May 8. The Indian government has recommended limited use of the two drugs for COVID-19, but there is no evidence that their use led to the drop in cases.
Confirmed new COVID-19 cases in India declined in the days before the article was posted, based on a seven-day rolling average — but only after reaching a peak following a sharp increase that started in April.
The seven-day average of new daily cases was 319,497 on May 17, the date of the post, down from a peak of 391,232 on May 8, according to Our World in Data. The U.S. average was 32,036 on May 17.
Many experts caution that the Indian government’s official tallies of confirmed cases likely vastly underestimate the actual infection figures because testing remains limited and the volume of cases has crippled the health care system in some areas. So the actual extent of the decline is not clear.
Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are being widely used in India for COVID-19, according to news reports. But there is no evidence they led to the recent decline in confirmed cases, given the lack of clear scientific evidence that they are effective at all in prevention or treatment.
Nevertheless, Moore has clung to his coronavirus conspiracies. He asserted, without evidence to back it up, that "there are 219 peer-reviewed studies indicating the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. And 54 peer-reviewed studies show the effectiveness of ivermectin as treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19."
So in thrall is Moore to the propaganda he must believe as an employee of rabidly pro-Trump WND that the headline of his article laughably calls the medications "Trump drugs." It's actually kind of sad that he feels he must do that.
NEW ARTICLE: Curtis Houck's War On Jen Psaki (And Man-Crush On Peter Doocy) Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center writer flip-flops, turning his love for Kayleigh McEnany into seething hatred for the current White House press secretary -- and hatred of the "liberal media" into gushing over biased, hostile Fox News reporters like Doocy. Read more >>
Fake News: CNS Tries To Manaufacture Political Motivation For Mask Guidance Change Topic: CNSNews.com
Because its right-wing ideology makes it assume nefarious motives with everything the Biden administration does -- something it never did during the Trump administration -- CNSNews.com tried to manufacture a fake narrative about the Biden administration's abrupt reversal on mask policies last month, insisting that it was an attempt to distract from otherwise negative news in the country.
Susan Jones explicitly stated it in a May 14 article:
Joe Biden called Thursday a "great day" for fully vaccinated Americans who no longer need to wear a mask indoors or outdoors. The unvaccinated must still wear a mask, under the sudden new guidance from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Not only did Thursday's announcement distract from the multiple crises facing the White House (war in the Middle East, a gasoline supply disruption, rising inflation, a falling stock market, an overwhelmed southern border where babies are dropped alone in the desert) -- it also serves as incentive to boost vaccinations.
Jones offered no evidence to support her little conspiracy theory, which was even more explicitly pushed in the article's original headline, as revealed by the article's URL and another website that reposted it: "Poof! Suddenly, On a Mostly Bad-News Day, CDC Lifts Mask Mandate for the Vaccinated (Incentive to Get Shots, Says Fauci)." The headline was changed to the much more bland (and factually accurate) hed "CDC Lifts Mask Mandate for the Vaccinated; Fauci Says It May be an Incentive for People to Get Shots."
Melanie Arter pushed the unsubstantiated narrative later that day, though she did give Press Secretary Jen Psaki space to explain to hostile Fox News reporter Peter Doocy that wasn't the case:
The White House denied on Friday that politics was behind the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) decision to update its guidance on mask-wearing indoors for political reasons.
Fox News White House Correspondent Peter Doocy asked White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki what the big medical or scientific breakthrough was for the CDC to update its guidance on Thursday.
“I know that Dr. Walensky did an extensive number of interviews yesterday to answer exactly that question, but as we’ve talked in here quite a bit about, the CDC – not just Dr. Walensky, but her entire team of health and medical experts - are constantly reviewing the data to ensure that they can provide accurate and up-to-date guidance to the American people, so based on three factors as she talked about yesterday,” Psaki said.
“Vaccines work in the real world. We’ve seen a lot of studies done on that, including internally in the federal government. Vaccines stand up to the variants, which at various times has been a concern about the need to continue to mask even as you—after you’re vaccinated, and vaccinated people are less likely to transmit the virus. That’s how they came to the decision, and that’s what she conveyed yesterday when she announced the decision,” the press secretary said.
As an actual news operation reported, the the abruupt change set off "antagonists" of Biden -- like, you know, CNS -- and reported that their conspiracy theory wasn't true:
The abrupt timing of Walensky’s decision also smacked of politics to Biden’s antagonists, who noted that the president benefited from the announcement during a difficult week when many Americans queued up in gas lines, tensions in Israel flared and markets roiled amid inflation fears.
The White House vigorously denied any interference in the decision. Instead, administration officials said, part of the communications stumble arose from the White House’s hands-off policy toward the CDC as it seeks to restore public trust in the agency after it faced unprecedented political interference under the Trump administration.
“As they have done throughout the Biden administration, the CDC operates and makes decisions based on the science and data, free from political influence,” White House spokesman Chris Meagher said in a statement. “That is what they did in this case and that is what we believe they should continue to do.”
This account of the administration’s surprise mask reversal is based on interviews with more than 15 senior administration officials, outside advisers and health experts, some of whom requested anonymity to candidly discuss internal policy deliberations.
Needless to say, CNS hasn't told the actual truth about the policy change to its readers, nor has it admitted its conspiracy theory was false.
MRC Loves To Defend Fox News By Playing Whataboutism Topic: Media Research Center
Since the Media Research Center is the de facto PR division of Fox News, it not only praises the channel for reliably pushing right-wing talking points, it runs to the channel's defense whenever anyone in the "liberal media" criticizes it. But as it usually does, the MRC's "defenses" of Fox News are actual defenses at all -- it simply plays whataboutism.
In February, Tim Graham complained that a National Public Radio show criticized Fox News, but rather than actually respond to the criticism, Graham attacked the critics: "We like the hashtag #DefundNPR, but that means removing its taxpayer subsidies, which they always implausibly claim is some miniscule fraction like two percent. These NPR people want Fox 'radically ostracized.'" Forcing NPR to go out of business by cutting off funding because you disagree with opinions it airs is apparently not "radically ostracizing," according to Grtaham.
On Friday, CNN’s Brianna Keilar and her Republican-loathing colleague, Brian Stelter, took turns bashing their competitor, Fox News Channel, for the crime of allowing the expression of conservative thought. Abandoning even the pretense of being objective journalists, the two left-wing hosts condemned Fox executives and hosts for actually pledging to practice adversarial journalism and hold the new administration accountable.
Seemingly unaware that they work for one of the most liberal broadcast companies in the world, Stelter and Keilar audaciously derided Fox’s level of objectivity.
Of course, the MRC is highly biased, which by Newkirk's definition should disqualify it from critiquing non-right-wing media.
Scott Whitlock took another shot at Stelter -- who wrote a book on Fox News that the MRC predictably trashed -- in an April 19 post:
CNN’s Brian Stelter is obsessed with Fox News. He can’t stop talking about his news competitor and now the Reliable Sources host is turning to... an ex-Australian prime minister for proof of the network's terrible influence? Malcolm Turnbull was supposed to be a conservative. Yet, as the country's former Prime Minister, he veered left on abortion and other issues. Ultimately, he was removed by his own conservative party.
But he hates Fox News and that’s good enough for Stelter! On Sunday, the host touted him sliming Rupert Murdoch’s “market for crazy.”
He too offers no actual defense of Fox News, instead of whining that "Stelter’s obsession with trashing Fox News is like if Pepsi put out a press release to tell the world how awful Coke is." And isn't hating CNN a key requirement that makes one a good-enough MRC employee?
Anyone who offers even the most mild (and accurate) criticism of Fox News gets trashed as a "rabid Fox hater," as Nicholas Fondacaro did in an April 25 post that does no actual Fox defense but is filled with personal attacks on the critic:
Over the course of the Trump presidency, Baltimore Sun media critic David Zurawik had become steadily more and more unglued. Now, during an appearance on CNN’s so-called Reliable Sources on Sunday, Zurawik was teed up by fill-in host John Avlon to attack Fox News. And Zurawik didn’t disappoint, suggesting CNN’s heavyweight competitor was a “danger to democracy” and needed to be targeted by either federal government abuse of power, or by repeated smears from the rest of the liberal media.
“[W]hen we saw also in recent days Fox News host trying to double down on the big lie, but also change its definition. Laura Ingraham in particular, saying that the big lie is that the existence of systemic racism itself,” Avlon questioned the rabid Fox hater.
Brad Wilmouth also brought the whataboutism in a May 6 post:
On Tuesday's New Day, CNN's war on Fox News continued by bringing on liberal professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson and promoting her new study that conservative media like Fox and the Rush Limbaugh program were spreading unproven conspiracy theories about COVID-19 last spring.
But wait, that's weird -- one of these so-called conspiracy theories about the origins of the virus in Wuhan was recently promoted by New Day.
Jamieson's findings were perfectly pitched for the liberal media: conservative media are bad, while "Mainstream broadcast and print media usage correlated with higher levels of correct information and lower levels of misinformation."
Just like Wilmouth's whataboutism is perfectly pitched for right-wing outlets like Fox News?
On May 7, Kristine Marsh responded to "The View" criticizing Fox News with this blatant piece of whataboutism: "It’s always hilarious when the hosts of one of the most partisan and fact-free shows on television pompously lecture others about the importance of truth telling in the media." Again, by that same standard, the MRC has no business criticizing the media.
Wilmouth followed up with this slab of whataboutism on May 15:
On Friday's CNN Newsroom, weekend host Fareed Zakaria came on to promote his Sunday night special on Republicans titled A Radical Rebellion, and it quickly became another hit job on Fox News. Former Fox News host Alisyn Camerota dismissed them as "trying to pass themselves off as news," and Zakaria called it a "propaganda arm of the most extreme wing of the Republican party."
Zakaria claimed "It becomes impossible to deny the Republican Party today has been infected by a series of crazy conspiracy theories."
After co-host Victor Blackwell noted that 70 percent believe the election was "stolen" from President Donald Trump, Zakaria cited an online poll -- which outfits like Pew Research Center have argued are unreliable -- to allege irrational fears by Republicans over vaccines: "I think that it's that statistic -- it's the one I mentioned -- 40 percent believe that Bill Gates is trying to control them by implanting microchips in their brain....I think something like a third of Republicans still believe that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not the United States."
Not mentioned is that there has also been polling over the years suggesting that many Democrats have also believed in questionable conspiracy theories -- like the more than half of Democrats who believed President George W. Bush might have deliberately allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen to justify going to war.
If any news outfits act as partisan propaganda, CNN would have to be one that wears that label for the liberal side. CNN's New Day show -- which Camerota used to co-host until recently -- has misinformed viewers for years to the benefit of Democrats on a variety of issues ranging from abortion, gun control and illegal immigration, to the role of race in questionable cases of police violence.
That "online poll" that Wilmouth insisted was unreliable came from YouGov -- whose polls the MRChaspromoted when their results meshed with its agenda.
Graham served up even more whataboutism in a May 28 post:
New York Times media reporter Michael Grynbaum is projecting bad publicity into one cable-news network for narrowing the diversity of its opinions. Rick Santorum’s firing at CNN? Don’t be silly. The headline is “Fox News Intensifies Its Pro-Trump Politics as Dissenters Depart.”
Nobody at Fox is being fired after Twitter lobbying campaigns. Grynbaum sounded like former Times media reporter Brian Stelter: “Onscreen and off, in ways subtle and overt, Fox News has adapted to the post-Trump era by moving in a single direction: Trumpward.”
Now compare that to the Times story on Santorum getting canned, by breaking-news reporter Jesus Jimenez, The headline was “CNN Drops Rick Santorum After Dismissive Comments About Native Americans.”
That's nowhere close to “CNN Intensifies Its Pro-Biden Politics as Dissenters Are Fired.”
The same day, Marsh returned to grouse that "CNN anchor Jim Acosta hasn’t checked his pompous attitude at the door since leaving his role as White House correspondent. On Friday's New Day, Acosta came on for the sole purpose of trashing Trump supporters, the Republican party and CNN’s competitor Fox News as brainless extremists," insisting that "attacking Fox News and ignoring virtually all else to hype the GOP "civil war" has been CNN's pathetic agenda for quite some time.
That's how the MRC gives Fox News a pass, by lazily judging as a reaction to so-called "liberal media," not on its own.
CNS Parrots MRC Parent In Gloating Over Lower-Than-Expected Employment Growth Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's coverage of the April employment numbers didn't end with its skewed reporting on the numbers themselves. Like its Media Research Center parent, CNS pounced on the lower-than-expected job growth figures to push right-wing narratives about too-generous unemployment insurance supposedly discouraging people from getting jobs. A May 7 article by Melanie Arter highlighted how "Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Friday that the extra unemployment compensation funds were not a factor that made a difference in last month’s jobs numbers." Taht was followed by Craig Bannister gloating over how "liberal media" predictions of robust job growth didn't come to pass:
Confident that the Biden Administration’s policies would produce a robust jobs report for April, liberal media ran headlines and stories promising job growth numbers that proved to exceed reality by more than seven hundred thousand, and as much as 1.7 million.
As CNSNews.com reported, Friday’s U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report reveals that the unemployment rate increased slightly in April as the ranks of the unemployed grew by 102,000, with the month’s job growth failing to reach even half that of recent months:
A May 10 article by Susan Jones, meanwhile, again highlighted "the disappointing April jobs report" and noted that Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said "there is 'anecdotal evidence' but 'nothing in the data' to suggest that higher unemployment benefits, passed by Congress as part of COVID relief, are hurting the job market."
CNS also offered plenty of opinion on the subject:
A May 12 column by Tony Perkins complained that "The Democrats' COVID welfare -- a mix of generous unemployment benefits and stimulus checks -- is turning the country's workforce into a bunch of highly-paid couch potatoes" (never mind that both stimulus checks and higher unemployment benefits began under President Trump).
Pat Buchanan huffed in his May 14 column: "Workers might reasonably ask: Why go back to work when we can take the summer off, with full unemployment, plus $300 a week?"
David Limbaugh whined: "You don't increase productivity and jobs by injecting play money into the economy and continuing to pay unemployment benefits that disincentivize people from returning to work, a reality he cynically denies."
Stephen Moore complained: "President Joe Biden made the laughable observation that he saw "no measurable evidence" that the super generous unemployment program is a deterrent to working. He needs to get out more."
Craig Bannister grumbled that White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that "It’s not that federal subsidies to unemployment insurance benefits have made it more attractive for people to stay home than to return to work, it’s that other factors, such as the low pay being offered, are discouraging would-be workers."
Acutally, numerous studies have shown that unemployment benefits do not keep people from seeking work. But CNS never reported that perspective to its readers -- the right-wing narrative comes before the truth.
Newsmax Touts Disgraced Ex-Governor Running For Missouri Senate Topic: Newsmax
We've already noted how Newsmax columnist Bernard Kerik endorsed a fellow disgraced politician, Eric Greitens, for a Missouri Senate seat. Greitens, if you'll recall, was forced to resign as Missouri governor after allegations of an abusive sexual affair and campaign improprieties. But Newsmax has tried to rehabilitate Greitens during this campaign (ironically, not unlike the way it tried to rehabilitate Kerik after the improprieties that sent him to prison came to light).
Kerik also wrote a Feb. 26 column declaring Greitens had been "fully exonerated" (he wasn't) and that he "earned enemies by doing the right thing" (ask the woman with whom he was in an abusive relationship about that).
An April 12 article by Marisa Herman gushed that Greitens "sprang into action to help save the life of a man who collapsed near the Navy SEAL at Mar-a-Lago’s beach club," adding that "In July, he helped provide first aid to two men who were shot near St. Louis University." Herman curiously made no mention of the numerous scandals that cost him his job as governor.
An anonymously written April 19 article touted how "Kimberly Guilfoyle — the former prosecutor, Trump campaign adviser, and television personality — was tapped as national chair of former Missouri governor Eric Greitens’ newly launched Senate campaign." That was followed four days later by a column from Guilfoyle carrying the headline "Kimberly Guilfoyle Endorses Eric Greitens for Missouri Senate Seat" -- but didn't disclose until the very end that she works for his campaign. She spun Greitens' corruption by blaming "a crooked prosecutor, financed with PAC money by liberal billionaire George Soros," for trying to "tear down a man who was willing to expose the Missouri establishment and liberal mob."
Newsmax also gave Greitens space for a May 15 commentary in which he declared that "it was disgusting to see what happened to President Donald J. Trump during the 2020 elections" -- though he cited no evidence of fraud -- and praised the GOP-led audit of ballots in Arizona. He asserted that "in what appears to be a brazen attempt to undermine this audit, election officials deleted entire databases days before handing over computer drives. The files deleted include one labeled, “Results Tally and Reporting.” If there’s an explanation, let’s hear it. If not, there should be significant consequences for this obstruction." As we've documented, there is an explanation: audit investigators screwed up, and the databases were never deleted. Newsmax has yet to correct Greitens' work.
Surprisingly, the most balanced coverage of Greitens has come from Newsmax writer John Gizzi. In an April 2 article, Gizzi admitted that Greitens is "highly controversial." And in a May 24 article, Gizzi pointed out that Greitens has not been as "fully exonerated" as he claims, noting that the Missouri Ethics Commission required Greitens' campaign to pay a $178,000 fine for improprieties, qutoing a newspaper editorial noting that it's "an eye-popping dollar figure from a body more accustomed to levying penalties in the $100 range." Gizzi also got other opinions beyond Greitens regarding his abusive affair with a hairdresser:
Newsmax spoke to 3 Republican House Members who served on the committee. They stood by their report, saying that Greitens' criticism of the committee was groundless.
"The witness [the hairdresser] testified under oath," said a House member who requested anonymity. "Gov. Greitens never appeared before our committee to testify under oath."
That's an unusual break from the right-wing propaganda Newsmax is largely known for.
WND Contiues To Promote Ivermectin Study Rejected By Medical Journal Topic: WorldNetDaily
In February, we caught WorldNetDaily's Art Moore promoting a "new, peer-reviewed study finds that one of the cheap, widely available drugs that has been dismissed by the left, establishment media and many in the health establishment as a treatment for COVID-19 reduces infections, hospitalizations and deaths by about 75%," to be published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology. But a week after Moore's article appeared, the journal withdrew the article -- manufactured by a group called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, which was formed to push unapproved treatments like ivermectin -- before actual publication, stating that it contained unsubstantiated claims and violated the journal’s editorial policies.
Despite the fact that the study was never actually published, Moore has continued to falsely promote the study as "peer-reviewed" and published.
In a May 2 article, Moore largely copied-and-pasted from his original (and now false) Feb. 25 piece:
In February, a peer-reviewed study found that ivermectin – which has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures – reduces infections, hospitalizations and deaths by about 75%. In more than 30 trials around the world it caused "repeated, consistent, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes’ at all stages of the disease," according to the study published in the U.S. journal Frontiers of Pharmacology
The evidence is so strong, the researchers believe, the anti-parasitic drug should become a standard therapy everywhere, hastening global recovery.
"The data is overwhelming – we are in a pandemic, and this is an incredibly effective way to combat it. If we use ivermectin widely, our societies can open up," said study co-author Professor Paul Marik, director of emergency and pulmonary care at Eastern Virginia Medical School.
In February, a study published in the U.S. journal Frontiers of Pharmacology found ivermectin reduces COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations and deaths by about 75%. In more than 30 trials around the world, the drug causes "repeated, consistent, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes’ at all stages of the disease," according to the study.
The latest study was led by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, or FLCCC, a group of medical and scientific experts who are researching and promoting drugs such as ivermectin and hydroxycloroquine as an effective prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19.
"We did the work that the medical authorities failed to do, we conducted the most comprehensive review of the available data on ivermectin," said Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of the FLCCC.
"We applied the gold standard to qualify the data reviewed before concluding that ivermectin can end this pandemic."
Those quotes from Kory actually come from a FLCCC press release announcing publication of a version of its study in the American Journal of Therapeutics, which is where it landed after Frontiers in Pharmacology rejected it.
Moore was still repeating the false claim in a May 17 article:
In February, a peer-reviewed study found that invermectin reduces coronavirus infections, hospitalizations and deaths by about 75%.
Ivermectin, in more than 30 trials around the world, causes "repeated, consistent, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes’ at all stages of the disease," according to the study, which was published in the U.S. journal Frontiers of Pharmacology.
Moore's reporting has been factually inaccurate and dishonest. It's what we've come to expect from WND, but it's not what WND needs if it wants people to pay for its so-called reporting.
MRC Cheers Israeli Bombing Of AP Office In Gaza Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center hates (non-right-wing) journalists so much, it effectively roots for them to be hurt or killed. So it's no surprise that a May 16 MRC post by Nicholas Fondacaro defended Israel from blowing up offices in Gaza that contained offices for the Associated Press and other media organizations on the pretense that terrorist group Hamas also had offices there, by cheering then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for ordering the bombing:
In a Sunday appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called out The Associated Press for lying about the Saturday bombing of the building they willing shared with Hamas terrorists. He also schooled CBS fill-in moderator John Dickerson by noting the extra measures Israel took to reduce the number of civilian casualties in the areas they were targeting.
During the course of their interview, Dickerson seemed to scoff at the idea that Israel had proof that Hamas was using the media as human shields. Asking: “It’s inconceivable you would have talked to [President Biden] and not shared proof of Hamas in those buildings that housed the journalists. Did you share that with him?” Dickerson seemed uninterested in why Biden had not condemned the bombing.
Netanyahu noted that they passed the information along through the proper intelligence channels and then went after the AP for their lies suggesting they had only just escaped the building before it collapsed:
In fact, occupants of the building were given as little as 10 minutes to evacuate the building before it was blown up, which is not very much time at all and, thus, not the "lie" Netanyahu (and, by extension, Fondacaro) wants you to believe it is.
Fondacaro then declared that "Many have pointed out that there was no way that the AP didn’t know Hamas was using the same building as them; they would be very poor journalists otherwise or lying." He didn't identify who this "many" were or if any of them were not right-wing media-haters or MRC employees. Indeed, the Israeli government was forced to walk back a claim by an Israeli military official that AP and Hamas employees drank coffee together each morning, claiming he was only speaking figuratively.
Likewise, Fondacaro also huffed that "Dickerson wanted to see the 'smoking gun' proof that The Jerusalem Post had reported was shown to the United States" without offering evidence that everybody should trust Netanyahu's word on its face.
It's apparently easier for Fondacaro to believe that AP employees are terrorist sympathizers than human beings whose lives have inherent value even if they don't share his rigid right-wing ideology.
Fake News: WND Forced To Correct Another Bogus Election-Fraud Article Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily publishes a lot of falsehoods that it doesn't correct, so when it does issue a correction, that's meaningful -- and it indicates that it's a screw-up so bad that even the notoriouslyfact-averse WND can't let it stand. Bob Unruh -- one of WND's chiefmisinformers on election issues -- wrote in a May 12 article:
A lawyer fighting an election-fraud case in Antrim County, Michigan, has revealed that the voting machines there contained a software program that could have been used to manipulate vote totals.
In fact, lawyer Matthew DePerno said in a podcast interview that with the MySQL program installed on the machines, and them all being linked, someone with access could "do whatever you want."
DePerno, just a day earlier confirmed in a court hearing that there were 1,061 "phantom votes" in the county during the 2020 presidential election, because while a recount of ballots tallied 15,962, the Michigan secretary of state's database showed only 14,901 votes were cast.
His latest concerns were raised during an interview with JD Rucker at the NOQ Report.
Rucker said the bombshell that DePerno delivered was that all of the voting machines were connected to each other through an intranet, that itself was not connected to the internet. However, he said a laptop computer with access to the intranet and access to the internet was left on during the Election Night counting.
But this apparently isn't true. WND later added a correction, which it euphemistically called an "update with additional context":
UPDATED WITH ADDITIONAL CONTEXT, May 13, 2021, at 2:45 p.m. ET: A fact-check by LeadStories indicates some of the claims made by attorney Matthew DePerno in the story below are in dispute. At issue, according to LeadStories, are "the safeguards in place to protect against fraud, including hand counts and audits" and "explanations provided by election officials."
"Michigan uses paper ballots, which have been preserved, meaning the accuracy of voting machines can be verified. Since the 2020 election, the state completed more than 250 audits, including a hand-tally audit of all the votes cast for president in Antrim County. According to the Michigan secretary of state's office, 'every one of them confirmed the integrity and accuracy of the 2020 general election.'"
Publishing falsehoods that you have to correct -- and other falsehoods that are left uncorrected -- is not the way to instill trust in a "news" organization, WND.
Newsmax's Black Lashes Out At Liz Cheney, Likens Her To Brutus Topic: Newsmax
With his slobbering Trump sycophancy, Conrad Black apparently still thinks he needs to earn the pardon Donald trump gave him after committing fraud. So we have his May 18 Newsmax column, in which goes on an epic rant against Liz Cheney
The apparent suicide plunge of United States Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., appears to be the psychopathic backlash of NeverTrumpers who are starting to realize Donald Trump’s defeat in November and the allegations he was attempting to overturn the election by provoking an "insurrection" at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 do not bring back the Republican Party of the Bushes and McCain and Romney, as those families seem to imagine.
This is only the first shoe dropping.
It will soon be followed by the realization of the role the NeverTrumpers have played in shackling the country and the Western world to the unfolding disaster of the Biden presidency.
Like Brutus charging out of the Roman Senate on the Ides of March, 44 B.C., holding up two bloodied knives and expecting to be applauded after proudly shouting to a distracted group of observers that they had assassinated the tyrant, Cheney acknowledges she voted in support of the Trump administration over 90% of the time, but that her reverence for the rule of law requires her to oppose the "Big Lie."
This lie, she insists, is that there is some question about the legitimacy of the election result. She also holds that there can be no question that Trump attempted to launch a violent assault on the vital processes of the U.S. electoral process by inciting the invasion and vandalization of the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6.
Cheney endlessly repeats her faith in the rule of law as the justification for her mortal opposition to the president whom she claims to have voted for just six months ago.
This faith in law did not propel her to object to the lawless assault upon Trump by the authors of the Trump-Russia collusion fraud or the first spurious impeachment of him.
It's rather the last refuge of someone willfully sacrificing a congressional leadership position to be a useful idiot for the Democrats as they seek, through their iron-fisted control of the national political media, to maintain the Real Big Lie — namely, that the November election’s results have been carefully and impartially reviewed by the courts, and that the ex-president incited an insurrection on Jan. 6.
Since — as with Brutus, who shortly had to flee Rome never to return—the majority of Republican voters are not persuaded of the fairness of the election or the effective and dispositive performance of the judiciary, or the anti-Trump take on Jan. 6, Cheney is reduced to taking comfort from the efforts of the cheerleading choristers like Peggy Noonan, telling Cheney and Noonan’s readers that Trump really doesn’t represent many people and is fading quickly.
There isn’t much evidence of this and, in any case, it should not be counted upon in the face of Joe Biden’s crumbling regime.
Black went on to gush about the cultish status Trump current ly occupies in the Republican Party: "Long before serious consideration needs to be given to the next presidential nominee, however, Trump will flex his muscles in the midterm elections next year. He will demonstrate that he is the only person in the country for whom 50,000 Americans will stand outdoors in raw weather to wait for the chance to see and listen to him."
That's how the sycophantic Black earned his pardon.
In a new, animated recruitment ad, the U.S. Army presents the story of "Emma," a real soldier (Emma Malonelord), who was raised by lesbians, enjoyed a "fairly typical childhood," saw her two moms get married, and decided to join the Army to experience her "own adventures, my own challenge."
It is a recruitment ad with a pro-homosexual theme. It presents lesbian behavior, "gay marriage," and gay parenting as normal and patriotic.
The anonymous author -- a search of CNS' archive suggests it may have been written by the gay-athing managing editor Michael W. Chapman -- offered no evidence that those thins are not "normal and patriotic."
CNS was apparently so outraged by this ad (and eventually had received a crop of summer interns) that it published another anonymously written attack on this exact same ad on June 10:
The U.S. Army has produced an animated recruiting ad that depicts a same-sex marriage between two women and tells the story of how the daughter of this pair joined the Army.
The ad is part of a series of ads the Army is calling “The Calling.” On the GoArmy.com website, the Army says of these ads: “See how five young Americans made the most important decision of their lives, for reasons as diverse as they are.”
The ad featuring the animated same-sex wedding is about and narrated by Cpl. Emma Malonelord, who works as an “air defense enhanced early warning system operator.”
On its webpage about the ad, the Army says: “Raised by two supportive mothers, Emma felt lucky to have such powerful role models in her life. Inspired by their courage and conviction, she was determined to face challenges of her own and shatter stereotypes along the way.”
The latter article is less obviously judgmental, but it also doesn't explain why it obviously finds the ad offensive -- or why it exists at all, given that CNS had covered this exact same territory a month earlier. Did somebody forget about that earlier article? The CNS archive suggests that it may have been written by editor Terry Jeffrey, who's less overtly anti-LGBT than Chapman. The headline, however, complains that the ad "promotes lesbianism and same-sex marraige," so the anti-LGBT message still came through.
Still, it appears that someone at CNS felt so strongly that this ad must be denounced that two articles were devoted to bashing it. That's not "news" -- that's ideology-driven activism.
MRC Defends Vaccine Misinformation Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has previously defended right-wing anti-abortion site LifeSiteNews' troubles with Facebook by falsely framing a suspention of the website's page as an attack on conservatives -- its usual narrative -- when it was actually about LifeSite publishing deliberate misinformation about coronavirus. When Facebook banned LifeSiteNews for good, a May 7 post by Kayla Sargent hyped the bogus "censorship" narrative, though she did finally give notable placement to the misinformation stuff:
Facebook quietly unpublished a pro-life page as the tech world focused on former President Donald Trump. The platform’s Oversight Board had an upcoming decision on the former president’s Facebook suspension when LifeSiteNews lost its page.
The LifeSiteNews Facebook page was removed on May 4 in what appeared to be the platform’s latest attempt to silence any dissent about COVID-19 vaccines. A representative from LifeSiteNews told the Media Research Center in an email that Facebook had removed the page “for publishing this piece based on official government data.” The email included a link to an article titled “COVID Vaccines Can Be Deadly for Some.” The article explained: “[P]eople who have previously had COVID-19 will be at greater risk of adverse events if they receive Covid vaccination.” However, LifeSiteNews continued: “To be clear, this is a theory based on an understanding of immunology.”
LifeSiteNews has encountered Big Tech censorship before. “Much like when LifeSite was removed from YouTube, this comes with little surprise,” LifeSiteNews Marketing Director Rebekah Roberts said in a statement from the organization. “We have known this day was coming for months now.”
Sargent is hiding the nature of the misinformation that LifeSiteNews published. The article in question was republished from an apparently anti-vaccine website called The Dark Side of Vaccines and dishonestly used the government's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System to falsely link adverse effects reported to it as solid evidence that the vaccine is killing people.In fact, many of the adverse effects reported to VAERS are incidental, there is no actual evidence linking the vaccine to deaths, and anti-vaxxers are misusing VAERS to fearmonger about the COVID vaccine.
Still, she devoted a paragraph to letting LifeSIteNews defend its misinformation:
LifeSiteNews also claimed that its content was based on evidence. Roberts continued: “Our LifeSiteNews Facebook page has been removed simply because we have shared reports of doctors, nurses, expert researchers, and even the former Pfizer VP speaking out against the COVID shots. We’ve also been tagged for the numerous articles we have shared making the connection between the COVID shots, and really all vaccines, and aborted baby cell lines.”
Sargent later updated her post to quote Ilyse Hogue of "the pro-baby killing National Abortion Rights Action League Pro-Choice America" cheering the ban because LifeSiteNews "are primary purveyors of some of the most toxic disinformation out there." strangely, she didn't a more formal statement by NARAL, Media Matters, GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign noting that the groups had compiled "more than 100 posts that proved LifeSiteNews’ repeated violation of Facebook’s related policies" -- which means she would have to admit that violation of Facebook's terms of service, and not purported targeting of conservatives, is why LifeSiteNews got banned.
This isn't the only source of vaccine misinformation Sargent has defended. The day before, she cheered -- under the misleading headline "Fight for Free Speech" -- how anti-vaxxer group Children's Health Defense is suing Facebook over an "alleged First Amendment violation" of "censorship." Unilke with LifeSiteNews, though, Sargent actually calls CHD's misinformation what it is, noting that it "falsely claimed on its website that 'vaccines can and do cause injuries including autism and many other adverse health outcomes'" and has spread wacky conspiracy theories abaout 5G technology -- but one can presume that it was because she also got to highlight that the group "was established by its leftist president, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr." -- thus trying to link liberals to vaccine conspiracy theories.Sargent made s=no such statement about LifeSiteNews.
Nevertheless, Sargent went on to whine that "Facebook has the power to choose who can participate in debate in the public square." She failied to mention that if you spread lies and misinformation in a civilized society, as LifeSiteNews and CHD have done, you forfeit your right to take part in that debate.
And as long as the MRC is continuing to defend fringe misinformers, it's coming close to forfeiting that right as well.
WND Can't Quite Give Up On Election Conspiracy Lawyer Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've documented how WorldNetDaily loved lawyer Sidney Powell's uncorroborated claims and gushed over the "Kraken" lawsuit that was supposed to blow the election results wide open -- but soured on her after she withdrew that lawsuit in mid-January after facing actual and threatened defamation lawsuits from election tech companies like Dominion.
It took a while, but WND is learning to love Powell's conspiracy theories again. In a March 1 article, Bob Unruh touted a claim she made on an obscure podcast that there is "more than enough evidence in the public now to more than reverse the election in at least five states." Unruh then made this curious claim: "Powell had promised in the aftermath of the Nov. 3 election to 'release the Kraken,' with lawsuits that would blow up the claim that the vote count was legitimate. Her lawsuits were rejected on prodecural grounds, however, and her claims never got traction."
Wrong -- Unruh apparently missed WND's own report that Powell was the one who withdrew the "Kraken" lawsuit and was not "rejected on procedural grounds."
One of the lawyers who fought, without a lot of success, to have evidence of fraud in the 2020 presidential election reviewed by the courts in America has delivered a harsh verdict on the state of the nation under President Joe Biden.
Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor, worked on cases that, had they succeeded, would have been to the benefit of President Trump.
They argued various state election systems mishandled mailed ballots, absentee ballots and even suggested fraudulent ballots, with huge dumps of votes all for Biden sometimes appearing in the dark-of-the-night hours.
She was interviewed on The Talk of Pittsburgh radio, the Rose Unplugged show.
"The world is absolutely upside down because this country is upside down," she charged. "They're feeding lies to the American people very single day. Just the fact that they're saying Biden is president is a lie because we've still got to resolve the election issue."
Unruh didn't mention that Powell is the one who has effectively admitted feeding lies to the American people. In a response to the Dominion defamation lawsuit, Powell's lawyers argued that she should not have been trusted in spinning her conspiracy theories because "no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact."
Unruh again claimed that Powell's "lawsuits over the election were closed down," failing to mention that Powell was the one who withdrew at least one of those lawsuits.
Unruh lovestopeddle factually dubious reporting on the election -- even at a time when WND needs factually accurate reporting to pull itself of its ongoing financial black hole.
CNS Gives Discredited D'Souza A Platform Topic: CNSNews.com
Craig Bannister gives Dinesh D'Souza a plug in a May 4 CNSNews.com article:
Identity socialism has taken hold of America by dividing people based on identity groups and creating new classes of heroes and villains, conservative Author and Filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza explains in a PragerU video.
In his video titled “What Is Socialism?” D’Souza says that identity socialism promotes division by defining who is “in” and who is “out” in American society:
Identity socialism has employed a long-term strategy to perpetuate itself, D'Souza says. By turning radical students into radical professors who teach its ideology to impressionable students, Identity Marxism could permeate American society to the point that “Even big business, the hated capitalist class itself, would succumb”:
Bannister offered no balanced, opposing view to D'Souza -- which means he failed to tell readers that D'Souza has a well-documented history of being wrong on so many things, to the point that historian Kevin Kruse effectively has an unpaid part-time job debunking D'Souza's numerous falsehoods. Because he's hiding the truth about D'Souza, Bannister also doesn't explore how it reflects on PragerU to give a fabulist like D'Souza prominence as one of its so-called educators.
Bannister is acting as a PR person for D'Souza and PragerU -- not a journalist. That's not a good look for an organizaiton that insists on calling itself "news."