Newsmax's Black Tries To Rewrite History of Capitol Riot Again Topic: Newsmax
The sheer amount of slobberingsycophancy Conrad Black feels he must do in an apparent effort to show Donald Trump that pardoning him for his financial crimes was worth it is amazing. In his June 2 Newsmax column, Black once again tries to justify the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and blame it on anyone else but Trump, as part of a rant against fellow conservative George Will because he likened the riot to 9/11:
On Jan. 6 of this year, some members of a crowd of over 200,000, attending an address by President Trump — who detailed the questionable aspects of the apparent result of the presidential election — marched on to the U.S. Capitol and some hundreds of them penetrated the building and caused relatively minor damage to it.
Five people died, but only one, a Trump supporter, died of unnatural causes — shot in the neck by a still unidentified Capitol Police officer.
There were many vivid photographs of the occasion including the spectacle of some of America’s leading legislators hiding under their desks wearing tinfoil protective gear.
In their desperation to represent the episode as an attempt by the outgoing president to incite an insurrection, (which requires taking over the armed forces, police, and media outlets as happens in countries that have coups d’état), the media falsely represented the death of one Capitol policeman as a result of having been beaten over the head by Trump supporters with a fire extinguisher, a complete fabrication.
Legislative buildings are attacked fairly often, as in Paris in 1934; smashing into some of the world’s most famous buildings with hijacked airliners has only happened once.
Trump did not incite anything, except a peaceful demonstration after a very questionable election result. None of the 18 lawsuits that directly challenged the constitutional or legal integrity of the vote or the vote-counting system were adjudicated.
Black seems to have forgotten that Trump also said, "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." But Black has some more history to rewrite:
The 2020 election, next to that of 1876 which was resolved by an agreement between the candidates after a partisan vote in a congressional commission, was the most dubious presidential result in American history.
The real issue here is that the Trump-haters, like George Will, want to charge Trump falsely with seeking an insurrection after losing an unexceptionable election, when he was merely expressing the anger of his partisans over a dubious vote-counting process, aggravated by the abdication of the judiciary from its constitutional co-equal role with the legislative and executive branches.
[...]
A man of Will’s influence has an ethical and professional obligation to avoid the willful propagation of defamatory nonsense. He said on the same program that for the first time in American history many members of Congress are afraid of their own voters.
They were elected because those same voters agreed with what they said: they all found Trump the preferable candidate.
Black then ventures into outright lying:
A presidential election result that was highly questionable, despite the frenzied efforts of an air-tight media pretense that all the late drops of unverifiable heavy Biden votes in a few key states were squeaky clean, and which the judicial system at every level refuses to judge for process reasons (a divided Wisconsin Supreme Court said the challenge in that state had to start at the lower courts and work up — impossible given those deadlines), naturally leaves the 75 million voters who supported the ostensibly losing candidate upset. That they would demonstrate is understandable, and when the speaker of the House and mayor of Washington refused the capitol police chief’s request for reinforcements, some hooliganism was predictable.
There were no "late drops of unverifiable heavy Biden votes in a few key states." Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House Black is trying to impugn without using her name, is not in charge of the Capitol police and. therefore, could not have blocked any request for reinforcments during the riot. And it was not DC Mayor Muriel Bowser who delayed deployment of National Guard troops to quell the riot, it was the Defense Department.
WND's Moore Peddles More Dubious COVID Claims Topic: WorldNetDaily
It seems that WorldNetDaily writer Art Moore justcan'tstop uncritically promoting dubious claims about coronavirus and its vaccines. For instance, he gushed in a May 17 article:
When Greg Abbott announced Texas would lift its mask mandate and other coronavirus restrictions, President Joe Biden chastised the Republican governor for his "Neanderthal thinking."
But just two months later, Abbott has been vindicated, announcing the state had no COVID-related deaths over the previous 24 hours.
Moore didn't mention that the listing of no COVID deaths on May 16 was a blip that was likely a function of that day being a Sunday, when statisticians tend to have the day off. By contrast, statistics show there were 37 deaths reported on May 15 and 34 on May 17. While the 7-day average for deaths has continued to go down, there have still been hundreds of COVID deaths in Texas since May 16.
Arguing for people who choose not to be vaccinated, a Johns Hopkins professor estimates that nearly half the country has natural immunity due to prior infection that protects them from COVID-19.
Dr. Marty Makary, in an interview Tuesday with "The Vince Coglianese Show" on WMAL in Washington, claimed the United States already has achieved the objective of herd immunity, combining the vaccinated with those who have been infected. He estimates 85% of the population is immune to the novel coronavirus.
"Please, ignore the CDC guidance," he said, calling it the slowest "most reactionary CDC in history."
But Makary is wrong about how many Americans supposedly have immunity from COVID-19. He had claimed in a February Wall Street Journal column that the U.S. would achieve herd immunity based on that "natural immunity" claim, but fact-checkers found the claim wasn't supported by the data.
Moore wrote in a May 31 article: "A citywide initiative in Mexico City to prescribe ivermectin to COVID-19 patients resulted in a plunge in hospitalizations and deaths, two studies found." But Moore cites only one study involving Mexico City, and he omits the facts that the study is based on a database analysis, not clinical study, and it was a preprint that had not been peer-reviewed.
Moore added, "Earlier this month, as WND reported, a significant decrease in cases in India coincided with the national health ministry's promotion of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine treatments." But as we documented, there was no proven link esdtablished between the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine in India and the decline of cases there.
Yet another study has supported former President Trump's suggestion that the common malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19.
Establishment media mocked Trump in April 2020 when he said hydroxychloroquine is a "powerful drug on malaria, and there are signs that it works on [the coronavirus], some very strong signs."
But the study does not claim that, and Moore gets the name of the combined drug wrong. In the study, hydroxychloroquine was paired with azithromycin, not zinc, and the combination did not increase survival rates "nearly three times." Depending on how the data is calculated, survival could increase by as much as 198 percent, which is not "nearly three times." Also, the study came from a preprint server, not a medical journal, meaning it has not been peer-reviewed; experts have noted that the study is an observational one, not a clinical one, and experts have questioned the study's design.
NEW ARTICLE: Unprofessional Jealousy Topic: Media Research Center
The Obamas are having financial and professional success after leaving the Oval Office, and Tim Graham and the rest of the Media Research Center simply can't deal with it. Read more >>
Chuck Norris Again Turns His WND Column Into A Paid Ad Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah gushed in his June 2 WorldNetDaily column:
I've known Chuck Norris for about 15 years. He's been a dear friend ever since I asked him, rather boldly, to be a columnist for WND. He's done everything I could ask and more – much more! Like promote himself as a WND columnist! I never dreamed that with a motion picture career, a television career, a martial arts career and a gonzo entertainment career like his he would ever do that. That's Chuck Norris. Now a young 81, he has given people who work with him his all.
And what's worst or better – I don't know which – he has a become a better columnist than ME. I don't know how he does it! He writes every week and has since the day he started. He has not disappointed.
He has with us in the best of times and the worst of times. He's a true friend.
And so is his wife, Gena, and his pastor, Todd DuBord.
Actually, as Farah almost certainly knows -- and as we noted a decade ago -- Norris doesn't actually write his columns; they are apparently ghostwritten by DuBord. We're not aware of Norris ever disputing that this is going on.
Then, Norris (well, DuBord) again used his column in a most unprofessional way: shilling for a company for which he's a paid spokesman. We've already documented how Norris has abused his column privilege by turning it into a blatant ad for a gold-selling firm (which WND apparently has no problem with, given how it also did an article on Norris becoming the company's paid spokesman). After spending a good part of his June 7 column ranting about the size of the national debt -- which somehow only President Biden got the blame for, even though his beloved Donald Trump increased federal debt by a whopping $7.8 trillion during his presidency -- it was time for his sales pitch:
It's high time for all Americans to quit waiting for federal or state governments to provide for your welfare, protection, relief and especially for permission to reboot your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It's time for Americans to quit hoping the feds will stabilize your money. It's not going to happen.
We need to protect what God has been good enough to give and to entrust to us: our faith, family, freedom and finances. I believe one of the best options for doing that is learning more and investing more in precious metals like gold and silver, as my wife, Gena, and I have been doing for 40 years. Through thick and thin, they've provided the financial backbone to our lives and livelihoods, and even brought us and our nonprofit mission, KickStart Kids, through some very tough times.
After researching a number of companies, we felt Goldco set the standard for integrity, the best advice and for helping Americans protect and grow their money. That's why I am proud to be an official spokesman for Goldco. In fact, Goldco is the only company I recommend for gold and silver.
Goldco's specialists can help you roll over or transfer assets from a 401(k), IRA, TSP, or pension account into a gold IRA. They work with mints around the world to source gold coins and bars and ensure that the gold you're buying is guaranteed to be 100% authentic. And they can even help you take a distribution in cash or gold.
The time for action and change is now! It's time for you to look beyond the dollar for your ongoing financial security and safety. Investing in precious metals is your way through and out of the next five years of inflation.
It's your life, future and finances. Take action now before it's too late. Contact a Goldco representative ASAP. At very least, go to their website and ask for the next edition of my FREE Goldco Church Norris Special Report and Bonus Newsletter. And tell them Chuck sent you!
Does Norris really need the money that badly that he feels he has to turn his column into someone else's paid ad? And does WND care so little about journalistic ethics that it lets Norris do that?
MRC's Double Standard On Corporate Whoring Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center writer Scott Whitlock is so filled with hate that he's absolutelyobsessed with smearing CBS employees as "WHORES" (his all-caps, not ours) because some CBS shows are used to promote other things under the ViacomCBS corporate umbrella -- despite the fact that the MRC does the exact same thing by using its own "news" division, CNSNews.com, to promote MRC interests.
Apparently unable to stop his irrational, insatiable hate, Whitlock ranted in a June 2 post under the headline "Corporate WHORES at CBS Bury Parent Company’s 4 BILLION Tax Dodge":
ViacomCBS is engaged in an elaborate, sketchy effort to hide, funnel and move around money in an apparently successful attempt at avoiding paying almost four billion in taxes. That’s according to a bombshell report in Tuesday’s print New York Times. Yet CBS News journalists, who have hammered other companies for not paying taxes, skipped reporting on the story Monday night and Tuesday morning.
[...]
Yet back in April, CBSNews.com fretted over companies not paying their fair share after Donald Trump cut corporate rates.
CBSNews.com writer Stephen Gandel whined, “Many of those same companies had together paid billions of dollars in annual taxes prior to Trump's presidency.” Also in April, CBS, as well as ABC and NBC, censored a study saying Joe Biden’s corporate tax hikes would cost one million jobs in two years. That probably won't impact ViacomCBS, what with the company's creative accounting.
[...]
Keep all of this in mind the next time the supposedly objective journalists at CBS News talk about objectivity and journalistic toughness.
Meanwhile, CNS has done more of its own whoring in the form of touting the words of leader Brent Bozell:
Additionally, CNS editor Terry Jeffrey wrote a fawning obituary of right-wing financier Foster Friess, refusing to disclose until the second-to-last paragraph that Friess was a major donor to the MRC.
That's whoredom at its finest. Yet Whitlock doesn't seem interested in admitting his employer is no different than CBS.
Money Talks: CNS Editor Writes Fawning Obituary For Major MRC Donor Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey spent a June 7 article writing a gushy obituary that started this way:
Foster Friess lived a life that exemplified the American ideal in both the trajectory he followed and the values he embraced.
He grew up in the small northern Wisconsin town of Rice Lake and attended the public high school there—where he played center on the basketball team, ran hurdles for the track team and starred in both sports.
At the same time, he was recognized as an honor student and named valedictorian of his class.
Through hard work and dedication, his father, who did not have the opportunity to go to college, and his mother, who did not even attend high school, taught him lessons at least as valuable as those he learned in school.
Jeffrey went on to tout how Friess met his future wife -- "who was, literally, a beauty queen" -- at college, then enlisted in the Army, then started an investment firm with "select" clients. Taht was followed by mor gushing over Friess' philanthropy efforts. but it wasn't until the final three paragraphs of this 32-paragraph article that Jeffrey revealed the reason why his article exists: first, the actual news angle that Friess died, and then, that he was a donor to his parent organization, the Media Research Center:
Friess, who was 81, died of bone marrow cancer in Scottsdale, Ariz., on May 27. He is survived by his wife Lynn—to whom he was married for almost 59 years—and by their four children--Traci, Stephen, Carrie and Michael--and by fifteen grandchildren.
“I knew Foster Friess for over 30 years,” said Media Research Center Founder and President Brent Bozell. “Few were more generous in their funding of the MRC and more generous in spirit to me personally. I am going to miss that giant, soft, goofy, profound soul.”
Foster Friess was a giver, not a taker—who constantly gave back to the communities, the country, and the causes that gave him and so many other Americans the opportunity to live fulfilling lives.
More importantly -- which Jeffrey didn't explicitly point out -- one of the things Friess gave was part of Jeffrey's sallary. Jeffrey didn't report how much money Freiss gave to the MRC, but he gave enough to be given "diamond" status at its 20th and 25th anniversary galas.
However much it was, it was clearly enough that the MRC felt the need to order one of its employees to write a fawning obit for him. Who says money doesn't talk?
MRC's Double Standard On Big Tech's Political Donations Topic: Media Research Center
In April, the Media Research Center started a campaign to get its fellow right-wing nonprofit organizations to get them to refuse donations from "big tech" companies, with chief Brent Bozell claiming that "Silicon Valley’s money is toxic and it’s poisoning our society. ... We must act together to end Silicon Valley’s corrupt grip over Washington and our public discourse.” In that letter, Bozell had praised the Heritage Foundation for having "turned down two six-figure contributions from Google and Facebook." The next month, the MRC praised Heritage again for officially signing Bozell's pledge "so long as the platforms suppress conservative viewpoints." That's a bogus argument, of course; the MRC has never proven that "big tech" companies "suppress" conservative viewpoints exclusively.
So it was a little strange to see a May 28 post by Autumn Johnson complaining that Facebook wasn't donating money to conservatives:
Facebook has decided to resume political donations — excluding conservative Republican members of Congress like Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Josh Hawley, Rep. Jim Jordan, and Rep. Steve Scalise.
The social media giant says it will no longer give donations to political candidates who voted against certifying the 2020 presidential election. The news comes after Google and Amazon announced that they would pause donations to these political candidates as well.
Facebook paused all political donations after the deadly riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
“As a result of our review, the FBPAC Board has decided to resume contributions, but not to any members of Congress who voted against certifying the 2020 election following the events at the Capitol on January 6,” Facebook Public Policy Director Brian Rice told employees. “While a contribution to a candidate for office does not mean that we agree with every policy or position that a candidate may espouse, we believe this decision is appropriate given the unprecedented events in January.”
If conservatives weren't supposed to take Facebook's money due to the MRC's arm-twisting, why is it now upset that Facebook won't donate to them anyway?
Johnson went on to tout how Republican Sen. Ted Cruz "announced that he will no longer accept donations from Facebook." But she didn't explicitly state that Cruz favored rejecting presidential election results from two states with the intent of throwing the election results into chaos.
Then, in a June 3 post listing this as an example of the "WORST Censorship" that month -- despite the fact no rational person thinks not giving a political donation to someone equates to "censorship" -- Casey Ryan complained further about this situation by suggesting that Trump's bogus attacks on the election were somehow legitimate:
Trump and elected officials had concerns regarding the integrity of the last election, but rather than at least listen to their concerns, Facebook is punishing them.
[...]
Politicians should not rely on Big Tech contributions considering that Silicon Valley has appeared to have no respect for the First Amendment. But Facebook has exposed its blatant bias by choosing to punish primarily Republican officials who were elected by the American people. Forbes reported that a majority of Republican voters “believe Trump’s claims that Biden’s win was due to widespread voter fraud.” Facebook has now planned to punish the politicians who share the concerns of their constituents over the integrity of last year’s election.
Ryan surely knows that no Trump- or Republican-promoted attack on the election has advanced in any court, or even that they have held up under the most cursory scrutiny. That means these Republicans weren't concerned about "election integrity" -- they were enabling a lie. No candidate who enables lies so egregious that they threaten to undermine American democracy deserves political support, and Ryan doesn't make the case for why they do.
MRC Sours On 'Nancy Drew' Reboot Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center liked the CW's "Nancy Drew" reboot at first -- but only because one episode pushed a right-wing talking point in passing. Dawn Slusher gushed in an April 1 post:
The CW’s ghostly drama Nancy Drew, (based on the beloved series of children’s books), featured a historical mystery Wednesday night, but real history was made when the show had the courage to admit the truth about the racist and eugenicist beginnings of abortion giant Planned Parenthood. And no, this is no April Fool’s joke, as hard as it is to believe!
Actually, all that happened wds that one character said that "Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood to support eugenics." Which is arguably true. What's less true is Slusher's assertion that racism was wrapped up in that. As we documented when the MRC launched a factually challenged smear campaign against her in 2015, there's no evidence that Sanger was particularly racist or that Planned Parenthood was founded based on racism.
Ah, but the bloom fell of the rose pretty quickly, if only because "Nancy Drew" wanted to reflect what was happening in the world instead of pushing right-wing talking poiints, and Slusher's viewing assignment turned into hate-watching. Thus, Slusher complained on May 6 that a new episode of the show focused on racism -- which the MRC absolutely hates -- prompting her to feel the need to lecture her narrow right-wing audience about how saintly the police supposedly are:
We’ve already seen Hollywood use fictional stories to paint the police as violent racists, but Wednesday’s episode of the CW’s Nancy Drew might take first place for the most over-the-top and racially divisive anti-police storyline. Not only were police vilified, but a few white suspects who aren’t officers were thrown in as evil participants who harassed an innocent black woman for good measure.
[...]
The line, "They all cry for their mothers," was an obvious reference to the George Floyd case, which was an outrage to most everyone and resulted in a guilty verdict for the officer. And, of course, they inserted Fraser’s desperate claim that Dolores was resisting arrest into the dialogue when it’s clear that Fraser was just an evil racist who took his hate out on an innocent black person.
The liberal lecture being that we can then assume the same is true for any officer in real life who ends up having to use deadly force on suspects who resist arrest. When in fact, most officers face a life-and-death split-second decision while doing their best to protect their community, and it has nothing to do with race whatsoever.
But as long as Hollywood and the left keep pushing these false narratives and make-believe stories, it’s only going to create further fear, division, and hate - the very things the left claims to be fighting against.
The following week, Slusher found another reason to be outraged at "Nancy Drew" -- not only did it discuss race again, there was a gay kiss:
Another week, another liberal racial episode of the CW’s Nancy Drew. This is obviously not the beloved character you may remember from the classic childhood series by Carolyn Keene. And, now, it looks like the show is going to help promote a spinoff with yet another liberalized version of a beloved childhood character from another book series - Victor Appleton’s Tom Swift.
Wednesday’s episode, “The Celestial Visitor,” introduced Tom (Tian Richards) at the start as he helps Nancy (Kennedy McMann) and the “Drew Crew” solve a mystery. Only, because it's 2021, this version of Tom Swift is black and gay.
[...]
Tom shares in the victimhood, too, telling Nancy he can’t come out to his father because he doesn’t want to be seen as “his gay disappointment.” In the end, though, Tom decides to send a strong message to his father by getting Nick, who is straight, to kiss him for a picture he ends up posting on his social media for his father to see.
[...]
Fingers crossed, prayers up, God willing, I would just like to watch television without a liberal lecture and not have anymore classic childhood characters politicized.
Of course, it's clear Slusher is the one who sees Tom Swift as a "gay disappointment." And these shows don't lecture nearly as much as she does.
The MRC's Latest Anti-Gay Targets: Plastic Bricks and Cereal Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Reserarch Center absolutelydespisesanyone who commits the offense of not being heterosexual. It has expanded that fight to inanimate objects like plastic bricks and cereals. Matt Philbin ranted in a May 20 post:
Having neutered the notoriously toxic masculinity of Mr. Potato Head, progressives are continuing their long march through the toy industry. Lefties intent on remaking the world in their image know their project depends on indoctrinating the young.
Thus, Lego has announced “‘Everyone is Awesome,’ its first LGBTQ-themed set,” according to USA Today’s Christine Fernando. Lego is launching the toys in “Pride Month” in June, which, as we know, is Ramadan for the leather speedo set.
Fernando explains, “The colors in the set are inspired by the rainbow flag, according to the statement.” And they probably don’t hurt when you step on them. But just the rainbow flag? Surely intersectionality demands the inclusion of other victim groups.
Yes, Philbin is mad at Legos, which should apparently always be considered heterosexual. On top of Philbin's bizarre sneering that anyone who's not heterosexual is part of "the leather speedo set," whatever that means, he went on to huff, "No doubt Lego will follow up with a Portland Public Library set where the purple drag queen can really strut his stuff. And with all those new letters in the alphabet soup, surely there will be many opportunities for follow-ons. (And, yes, the MRC also had a meltdown over the whole Mr. Potato Head thing.)
Alexa Moutevelis brought that same hateful, dismissive tone to a May 25 post raging at Kellogg's for offering an LGBTQ-themed cereal:
It's that time of year again - time for corporations to rainbow-up and start pandering to the LGBTQABCDEFG crew for “Pride Month” in June!
This year, Kellogg’s is partnering with GLAAD for a new “Together With Pride” cereal, which has already hit stores. This is an update from past gay cereal campaigns, which were only offered online. Now can you get woke messaging in your face in the grocery aisle!
The cereal is described as “berry-flavored, rainbow hearts dusted with edible glitter.” Gotta admit, that’s the gayest cereal I’ve ever heard of - way to play to stereotypes!
The box has all your favorite Kellogg’s cereal characters rallying around the bowl, including Tony the Tiger, Toucan Sam, and Snap, Crackle and Pop. A little Frosted Mini Wheat is pictured holding a rainbow flag with a triangle on it, which I had to look up. Apparently, the rainbow flag alone was not inclusive enoughand they had to add elements “to represent marginalised LGBT communities of colour” and transgenders.
[...]
Yeah, that’s what everyone wants in their breakfast – cereal with a side of social justice activism. Just another way they force feed their propaganda down people’s throats.
As if the MRC's anti-LGBT hate isn't propgandizing its readers to hate people different from them.
This isn't even Moutevelis' first time raging against cereal. In response to a similar 2019 campaign by Kellogg's, she huffed, "Have you ever eaten Froot Loops and thought, 'This cereal isn’t gay enough?' Do you seek a safe space to eat your Rice Krispies? Are you concerned that your Corn Flakes aren’t sufficiently woke? Well, now Kellogg’s has the solution!" She spat in her conclusion: "Equality and inclusion in a breakfast food – it's social justice cereal! I think I'm gonna lose my breakfast."
Moutevelis doesn't seem to realize that it's her toxic hate -- inculcated by the MRC, which pays her well to spew it -- that's making her ill.
MRC Repeatedly Attacks Actor It Also Dismisses As A 'C-Lister' Topic: Media Research Center
A May 28 Media Research Center post by Abigail Streetman dismissed actor Bradley Whitford -- whom she weas attacking for being "ignorant and Trump deranged," "twisting the truth and spewing left-wing propaganda all over social media" and making "several unhinged and false claims" in a TV appearance -- as a "C-lister." But, as with Bette Midler, the MRC sure does spend a lot of time focusing on this supposedly irrelevent "C-lister."
Whitford's actual sin here was to note that the Repubilcan Party "worships an insurrectionist" and calling Donald Trump a "disturbed sociopath." For all her hateful invective "twisting the truth" and making "false claims," the only evidence Streetman offers to counter Whitford is to huff, "I guess Whitford forgot that Trump specifically said “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” during the rally on January 6." But Streetman conveniently overlooks that Trump also said, "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
Whitford got another post devoted to him the next day, taken from the same TV appearance. Charlotte Hazard complained that "left-wing actor Bradley Whitford ranted to his fellow liberal that 'we cannot get anything done if we don't protect democracy and pass H.R.1.,' referring to federal legislation being pushed by Democrats to rig all future elections in their favor." Hazard then went on to receite right-wing talking points against the bill. Scott Whitlock cited Hazard's post in a post that same day in a roundup featuring how "those silly celebs were at it again this month, attacking their favorite conservative Republican targets."
That's three posts in two days highlighting the views of a supposedly irrelevant "C-lister."
The MRC also took offense to Whitford joining his fellow actors on the TV show "The West Wing" reuniting to encourage people to vote in the election. Lindsey Kornick whined in August that the reunion is "just what America doesn’t need," adding that "At this point, the only time The West Wing is brought up is for liberals to whine about the good old days with Democrats in charge." Gabriel Hays melted down in a September post: "The real vexing aspect of this stupid reunion special, besides you now trying to disassociate what may have been one of your favorite TV shows, from the pro-civil unrest, Trump Derangement Syndrome-suffering left, is that in between each of the episode’s acts, an annoying liberal will lecture you about voting."
Again: That's a lot of digital ink being spilled on someone who the MRC wants you to think is nothing but an irrelevant "C-lister."
Cancel-Culture Haters At The MRC Cheers Reporter Getting Fired For Old Tweets Topic: Media Research Center
As much as the Media Research Center whines about liberals allegedly imposing "cancel culture" on conservatives, it sure gets happy when the opposite happens. Tim Graham is quite happy in a May 22 post:
In his newsletter, Brian Stelter wrote “This case is getting a ton of attention among media types on Twitter.” Jeremy Barr of The Washington Post reported Emily Wilder, a brand-new staffer at The AP, was fired this week, evidently for "tweets of hers referencing her advocacy for the Palestinian people and opposition to the actions of the Israeli government."
Wilder said she was not told which of her social media posts had violated company policy, just that “I had showed clear bias.” A spokesperson confirmed that “she was dismissed for violations of AP’s social media policy during her time at AP.”
Graham then gets around to the cancel-cuture part:
On Monday, the Stanford College Republicans flagged a post that Wilder made in college, characterizing her as an “anti-Israel agitator” and criticizing the Associated Press for hiring her. At Stanford, she was an active member of the pro-Palestinian groups Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine. In the old post, Wilder described Sheldon Adelson, the late Las Vegas billionaire and staunch Jewish supporter of Israel, as a “naked mole rat-looking billionaire.” She also wrote an op-ed in the college paper when Ben Shapiro came to campus which proclaimed "There's no shortage of think pieces on why Ben Shapiro is a little turd."
That spurred critiques from FoxNews.com, The Federalist, and The Washington Free Beacon at a time when Israel and Hamas are a hot story...which then looks like conservatives got her fired, which probably drew the attention of Stelter's "media types on Twitter." For example: "Amazing how quickly a talented young reporter's career can be snuffed out by a Twitter mob that decided to feign outrage over some college tweets," tweeted the Washington Post "Fact Checker" Glenn Kessler.
Graham did not explain why neither Adelson nor Shapiro were those things -- he simply complained that they were said, which is not allowed under MRC rules unless you're a conservative. Graham then complained:
Let's agree. It is just strange for a liberal news service like AP to fire someone for "declaring their views...in any public forum" when just this week, AP's Jonathan Lemire was co-hosting the opinion show Morning Joe on MSNBC, trying to set up Michael Steele, suggesting Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell was engaged in a "cynical political play" to oppose an "independent" commission the January 6 riot.
No one got fired when AP's obituary of Rush Limbaugh began by declaring a view: "Rush Limbaugh, the talk radio host who ripped into liberals and laid waste to political correctness with a captivating brand of malice that made him one of the most powerful voices in politics," died, and although he said he was a harmless little fuzzball, he "often trafficked in lies and conspiracies with contempt for his opposition that often veered into cruelty."
AP book reviewer Hillel Italie can write a gushy, badly disguised press release for Hunter Biden's memoir of his druggy life, lamenting "unsubstantiated charges of corruption," and he didn't get fired.
First: Graham offers no evidence to counter Lemire's claim about McConnell or the accuraty of AP's opening about Limbaugh. Ssecond: Conservative reporters appear on opinion shows all the times, yet we don't recall Graham ever complaining about that. Third: The MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, publishes badly disguisedpress releaseson a regular basis and, again, Graham has not moved to stop it from doing so.
Then, on May 30, Clay Waters unironically complained that "The New York Times has a gross double standard on 'cancel culture,' or what it called 'digital shaming,'"because it did a story that focused on Wilder. Waters then played whataboutism in an apparent attempt to justify the right-wing cancel culture on Wilder: "Journalist Kevin Williamson’s move from conservative journal National Review to mainstream-liberal The Atlantic was squashed after his strongly held views against abortion were revealed. But Waters didn't mention that a key component of those "strongly held views" is that women who have an abortion be executed -- which the MRC tried to insist was a mainstream conservative viewpoint.
MRC Effectively Endorses Sketchy GOP-Led Ariz. Recount Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Mark Finkelstein has a complaint in a May 26 post:
Hey, if CNN's Chris Cuomo can advise his beleaguered brother Andrew on how to wriggle out of multiple scandals, why shouldn't a CNN reporter debate Republicans in the parking lot? And then be hailed as presidential timber?
On Wednesday morning's New Day, after a long clip was aired of CNN reporter Kyung Lah grilling Republican Karen Fann, president of the Arizona state senate, regarding the Maricopa County 2020 presidential election recount, a thrilled John Berman enthused:
Kyung Lah for president, right? I’ll chair that committee right now. That was a terrific interview."
And of course, without waiting for the results of the audit to come in, CNN repeatedly dismissed it in advance as "bogus" and "a sham." To CNN, it's "bogus" to suggest the election wasn't perfect....after CNN spent four years suggesting the Russians stole the election for Trump.
Whatever people might think of the recount, Fann kept her cool, and treated the CNN reporter as a debate opponent, which she absolutely was:
We think Finkelstein absolutely endorses the recount despite its amateurish and insecure nature, the dubious company running it, and the fact that even the Republican-controlled Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has denounced the recount. It also appears that Finkelstein forgot to read the Mueller report, which detailed how how the Russians worked to influence the 2016 presidential election for Trump's benefit. And he also left out the part where Berman said that Fann had ignored numerous interview request, making the parking-lot intervew necessary.
Finkelstein then added:
When Fann made the case for the transparency of the recount, pointing out that the entire process was being livestreamed, Kyung Lah interjected: "on OAN, with cameras controlled by OAN." When Fann asked if Kyung Lah didn't consider OAN a credible news source, she emphatically responded, "yes!" Pot meet kettle, anyone?
If Kyung Lah's presidential run doesn't work out, perhaps she can take over Brian Stelter's gig, devoting herself to trashing conservative media outlets.
Finkelstein didn't mention that an OAN reporter was helping to raise money to pay for the recount.The MRC has been completely silent about that clear breach of journalistic ethics, which Finkelstein would be trashing CNN for if, say, Lah had done it.
It's telling that Finkelstein is more upset by Lah's interview than OAN's major ethical breach -- and that he's effectively endorsing this highly sketchy audit.
Facebook 'Whisteblower' Touted By MRC Is A Proud Boys Fan Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Alexander Hall touted in a March 29 post:
Facebook whistleblower Cassandra Spencer wrote an exposé about the platform with damning claims of anti-conservative meddling.
The whistleblower who had contracted at Facebook had her life turned upside down after exposing Big Tech bias against conservatives at Facebook. Her tell-all book, “Impact: How I Went behind Enemy Lines in Our Struggle against the Far Left,'' made some devastating allegations.
“[A]fter a few weeks on the job in Texas, she said she noticed that some profiles and pages were secretly marked in a way that would reduce the reach of their live videos,” Fox News reported. “She said in the following weeks she saw a pattern, and she only noticed such flags on pages belonging to conservatives, not to any liberals. And that they were hidden from the account holders.”
Spencer then reportedly reached out to guerilla journalism outlet Project Veritas and began to wear a hidden camera. Facebook reportedly fired her shortly afterward.
Hall did admit that Facebook said Spencer lost her job because she chose "to perform a stunt for Project Veritas." But Hall didn't mention how far-right Spencer is. The New Republic wrote of Spencer's later role in Project Veritas "Gold Mine" project, in which operatives tried to embed themselves in the campaigns of Democratic candidates as moles during the 2020 election:
Cassandra Spencer, the Gold Mine operative who targeted the Warren and Sanders campaigns—and, based on an internal review of Biden staffers and volunteers, shadowed one of their campaign events just before the Iowa caucuses—called herself a “Proud Boys’ Girl” and retweeted Michelle Malkin saying “God Bless the #ProudBoys.” That means that, of Project Veritas’s four infiltrators, at least two declared support for the group.
that seems relevant, given the Proud Boys' role in the violent Jan. 6 Capitol riot. But Hall didn't think so.
Two days later, Kayla Sargent gushed that "Former Facebook employee Cassandra Spencer wrote an exposé that alleged anti-conservative bias within the company." But she too failed to mention taht Spencer is a Proud Boys fangirl.
The MRC has a bad habit of lionizing far-right extremists who purport to be whistleblowers against the "big tech" companies they hate.
CNS' Multi-Pronged War On Nancy Pelosi Topic: CNSNews.com
Just as it does for President Biden, CNSNews.com lovestocherry-pick things about Nancy Pelosi that it can write negative articles about. We've already noted CNS' obsession with attacking Pelosi over the Capitol riot she had nothing to do with, but there have been many other examples over the past several months.
In December, an anonymously written article pushed CNS' weird narrative that Pelosi is old and frail. Under thte headline "80-Year-Old Nancy Pelosi: ‘I Plan to Receive the Vaccine in the Next Few Days’," the anonymous writer stated that "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is 80 years old, announced today that she plans to receive the COVID-19 vaccine “in the next few days.” The article reproduced Pelosi's statement anbout receiving the vaccine, in which her age was not mentioned. The next month, Melanie Arter dutifully repeated attacks on Pelosi for "allowing Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) to vote for her as speaker in person less than a week after Moore announced testing positive for COVID-19." (That hypocritically contrasts with CNS' reverse mask-shaming months later.)
In March, another anonymous article used Pelosi to take a shot at Biden, noting that Pelosi "lauded President Joe Biden as an exemplary father while introducing his virtual appearance at a House Democratic caucus meeting on March 3—but forgot to mention Biden’s son, Hunter Biden."
Yet another anonymous article that month had the teasing clickbait article "Cuomo Kissed Pelosi and…" But the article's reailty was much more boring, consisting of said anonymous CNS employee being forced to scour the internet for pictures of Pelosi with Andrew Cuomo:
Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York has appeared in some videos and photographs kissing and/or hugging Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California.
One photo by Getty Images shows Pelosi and Cuomo at an event in New York where Cuomo kissed her on the cheek.
No explanation was given as to why the article exists, such as Pelosi having defended Cuomo at some point. The article didn't even mention that Cuomo was under fire for allegedly sexual harassing (for which, by the way, Pelosi hascriticized him, something the article also didn't mention).
In April, when Pelosi awkwardly thanked George Floyd “for sacrificing [his] life for justice" following the murder conviction of ex-police officer Derek Chauvin, CNS made it the lead story that day in an article by Patrick Goodenough.
That month, CNS also got mad that Pelosi marked Ramadan with a message stating that "Our vibrant, diverse Muslim communities are essential to the American fabric." No explanation was offered as to why CNS apparently found that statement so offensive.
A April 15 article by Craig Bannister tried to put words in Pelosi's mouth by repeatedly describing talk about expanding the Supreme Court as "court packing" even though Pelosi never used the term.On May 6, Bannister tried to manufacture outrage about Pelosi saying that Rep. Elise Stefanik was replacing Rep. Liz Cheney in House Republican leadership because "she’s more, shall we say, compliant" -- but failing topoint out that the reason Cheney was booted from House GOP leadershipw as because she failed to comply with pro-Trump colleagues by bringing up Donald Trump's corruption and his role in inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol riot (a narrative CNS enthusiastically embraced).
CNS even finds ways to take shots at Pelosi when reporting on inoccuous things that even the highly partisan CNS can't disagree with. For example, a March 8 article featured Pelosi's statement in support of International Women's Day under the headline "Pelosi: ‘We Choose to Challenge Those Who Commit Violence and Abuse Against Women’" -- but illustrated it with an old photo of Pelosi with former President Bill Clinton (who, for the record, has never been credibly accused of abusing or otherwise committing violence against women).
CNS' weird anti-Pelosi obsessions continued with devoting articles -- most of them anonymously written -- to seemingly every single statement she has made that could be seen as non-hateful to the LGBT community:
CNS is apparently so desperate for Pelosi-LGBT content that it has pulled its oldtrick of doing multiple articles on the exact same thing. On June 28, an anonymous CNS writer complained, under the headline "Pelosi: ‘Vulnerable Transgender Children Are Being Targeted by a Disturbing Wave of Hateful Legislation’":
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) put out a statement on Saturday to mark the sixth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Obergefell vs. Hodges decision—which declared there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage—and used the moment to draw attention to the state laws that are now being passed to deal with issues rising from transgenderism.
Then, on July 1 -- under the exact same headline -- came another anonymous critique of the exact same Pelosi statement, albeit slightly reworded from the earlier attack:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said in a statement marking the sixth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell vs. Hodges—which declared same-sex marriage a constitutional right--that state legislatures have recently passed a “wave of hateful legislation” relating to “transgender children.”
Are there no editors at CNS? Are they that lazy and unaware of what they publish? Or do they simply hate Pelosi, and transgenderpeople, that much?
MRC's Graham Whitewashes G. Gordon Liddy's Horribleness Upon His Death Topic: Media Research Center
Rush Limbaugh wasn't the only right-wing radio host the Media Research Center was morning this year (while studiously ignoring what a terrible person and whining about anyone who pointed out that fact). Tim Graham gushed and lamented in an April 4 post:
G. Gordon Liddy became a beloved conservative talk radio host for 20 years after serving time in prison for organizing a break-in of Democrat headquarters at the Watergate in 1972. His show would air in the mornings here in Washington on WJFK, and he would entertain by interviewing conservatives (including us at the MRC) and reading news stories and opinion pieces from the Washington Times. I warmly remember how we talked for nearly an hour in 1996 about my book Pattern of Deception.
When he died on Tuesday, we could guess that Liddy's obituary headlines would be more negative than say, communist dictator Fidel Castro's in 2016. We were not wrong.
After that "warm" remembrance, it was off to the whataboutism races, comparing Liddy to one of the few people who could be considered a worse human being, starting with a complaint that one headline called Liddy an "unrepentant burglar":
"Unrepentant burglar." Now does anyone think a liberal newspaper will lead its Bill Clinton obituary with "Unrepentant sexual harasser"? Or will those words lead the Al Franken obituary headline? Franken had a talk radio show for a while. No chance.
On April 1, New York Times headline in the paper was "G. Gordon Liddy, Watergate Scandal’s Remorseless Ringleader, Dies at 90."
In 2016, the New York Times headline read, “A Revolutionary Who Defied the U.S. and Held Cuba In His Thrall.” Anthony DePalma of the Times began by calling Castro a “fiery apostle of revolution” who “defied the United States for nearly half a century.”
The Washington Post headline for Castro was slightly more balanced: “Revolutionary remade Cuba: Dictator who defied U.S. was loathed, beloved.” But Kevin Sullivan and J.Y. Smith oozed that Castro was “a romantic figure in olive-drab fatigues and combat boots, chomping monstrous cigars through a bushy black beard,” who “became a spiritual beacon for the world’s political far left.”
The Post headline for Liddy was more restrained: "G. Gordon Liddy, undercover operative convicted in Watergate scandal, dies at 90." But a photo montage was headlined "G. Gordon Liddy, infamous operative in the Watergate break-in, dies at 90."
On the front of Friday's Style section, Post feature writer Dan Zak called Liddy a "super-klutz." He cracked "As with so many self-professed paragons of strategy and masculinity, the man who advertised himself routinely as 'virile, vigorous and potent' was most famous for underperforming. He was brilliant at scheming but lousy at pulling off schemes... Liddy may have died Tuesday at 90, but he lives on in any number of characters afflicting our politics with their theatrical machismo or numbskulled shenanigans."
This is comical, since Zak is best-known for exhaustively glorifying the "numbskulled shenanigans" of three radical pacifists who theatrically broke into the Oak Ridge nuclear lab and threw blood at the walls.
One could say that Graham oozed over Liddy.It should be noted that at no point does Graham dispute the accuracy of any of those less-than-flattering characterizations of Liddy, including that of "unrepentant burgler" -- he's simply complaining they were said at all. Graham also forgets that being an unrepentant burglar is pretty much the defining image of Liddy that most Americans have -- at least, the ones who aren't still sucking up to him because a radio hit with him 25 years ago went well.
And this isn't even the frist time this year the MRC tried to whitewash Liddy. In anuary, Scott Whitlock lashed out at MSNBC because a promo used images of Liddy and Oliver North alongside pictures of Nazis at the Nuremburg Trials in criticizing people who were "just following orders": "What, exactly, to Liddy and North have to do with the actual Nazis? That these two were following orders connected to their respective scandals makes them like... Nuremberg trial Nazis? And what does any of this have to do with 2021 Republicans?" Whitlock forgot that is a Liddy-Hitler connection beyond this: Liddy said in a 2004 interview that listening to Hitler on the radio "made me feel a strength inside I had never known before," adding that "Hitler's sheer animal confidence and power of will [entranced me]. He sent an electric current through my body." Liddy also chose his wife on eugenic grounds, "a tall, fair, powerfully built Teuton." And let's not forget that Liddy also gave his listeners advice on how to shoot federal agents.
The MRC tried to whitewash that too, of course. A 2013 post complaining that Robert Kennedy Jr. brought up Liddy's admiration of Hitler played the whataboutism card by claiming that John F. Kennedy "a soft spot for Der Fuhrer" according to his diaries. But that was deliberate cherry-picking; a full reading shows that nowhere in his diaries did JFK express sympathy for the Nazi cause.
The MRC has to group Liddy with the likes of Castro and Hitler to make him look not as terrible by comparison. Graham's fuzzy memories about how he "warmly remembers" Liddy as a "beloved conservative talk radio host" rings not only hollow but tone-deaf and desperate as well.
The sheer amount of slobbering sycophancy Conrad Black feels he must do in an apparent effort to show Donald Trump that pardoning him for his financial crimes was worth it is amazing. In his June 2 Newsmax column, Black once again tries to justify the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and blame it on anyone else but Trump, as part of a rant against fellow conservative George Will because he likened the riot to 9/11:
It seems that WorldNetDaily writer Art Moore 
Joseph Farah gushed in his June 2 WorldNetDaily 
Media Research Center writer Scott Whitlock is so filled with hate that he's 
CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey spent a June 7 
In April, the Media Research Center 
The Media Research Center liked the CW's "Nancy Drew" reboot at first -- but only because one episode pushed a right-wing talking point in passing. Dawn Slusher gushed in an April 1 
The Media Reserarch Center 
A May 28 Media Research Center 
As much as the Media Research Center whines about liberals allegedly imposing "cancel culture" on conservatives, it sure gets happy when the opposite happens. Tim Graham is quite happy in a May 22 
The Media Research Center's Mark Finkelstein has a complaint in a May 26 
The Media Research Center's Alexander Hall touted in a March 29 
Just as it does for President Biden, CNSNews.com 
Rush Limbaugh
