MRC Endorses Incomplete Report Because It Claims To Exonerate Trump
Topic: Media Research Center

Nicholas Fondacaro tried to push the ol' "fake news" narrative on a new report in a June 9 post:

On Wednesday, NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt flaunted just how much he felt “fairness is overrated,” when he had his program censor an Inspector General report that busted a fake news narrative. About a year ago, the liberal media accused then-President Trump of having Lafayette Park cleared of Black Lives Matter protesters for a photo-op in front of St. John’s Church.

CBS Evening News calling it “vindication for the Trump administration.” But NBC was more interested in trying to get viewers deals for hot summer sales on bathing suits, lipstick, and other frivolous items. The network was also fascinated with a group of elephants migrating across China.

Fondacaro went on to claim that "the report had corroborated what Attorney General Bill Barr was saying at the time in defense of the action" and complained that a reporter "didn’t want to give the former President credit for what he was saying."

First, Fondacaro is taking Holt's statement out of context. Second, he has forgotten that Trump has been caught in so many lies there's no reason to take anything he says at face value. The original story was not "fake news" because 1) the timeline made it plausible, 2) no proof was offered that anyone in the media knew that story was false but reported it anyway, 3) Trump is a liar whose word can't be trusted, and 4) the Trump White House offered no credible evidence to disprove the story.

Fondadcaro is also giving way too much credit to that report because it can be wedged into the MRC's pro-Trump, anti-media narrative, ignoring the investigation's many holes. As Washington Post columnist Radley Balko pointed out, the inspector general didn't interview Trump, Barr or anyone else from the White House, the journalists and protesters who were there, or the Secret Service or any of the law enforcement agencies involved that day (let alone try to answer such questions as why personnel from the Bureau of Prisons were there). The report only looked into why Lafayette Square was cleared, not how.There's also plenty of evidence about Trump's authoritarian nature that supports the narrative that the square was cleared for his photo-op.

Despite all those reasons to treat the IG's report with skepticism, Brad Wilmouth still complained on June 14 that people were being skeptical:

CNN journalists are so bitten by Trump Derangement Syndrome that the release of an inspector general's report disproving the liberal media's anti-Trump narrative on the clearing of Lafayette Park has had them struggling to salvage their anti-Trump theories.

After last week's report by the U.S. Department of the Interior  found tha President Donald Trump did not order that protesters be forcibly removed so he could stage a photo-op last June, CNN's Jim Acosta joined Thursday's New Day to react with skepticism, with Acosta suggesting that the inspector general was trying to get a job working for Trump.

Meanwhile, Wilmouth sounds like he's trying to get a job working for Trump by attempting to justify ther square-clearling crackdown by declaring that "a large number of officers were injured in the Lafayette Park area in the first week of protests, which was more than the number injured in the January 6 Capitol riots." Wilmouth didn't mention that Lafayette Square protesters got nowhere near the White House , while the Jan. 6 rioters actually broke into the Capitol.

As we see yet again, facts don't matter at the MRC -- only the narrative does.

MRC Desperately Trying To Blame High Gas Prices On Biden
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Joseph Vazquez thought he had a big ol' gotcha for a May 27 post:

The Associated Press (AP) tried to run cover for President Joe Biden by gaslighting readers on his role in rising gas prices.

AP ran another one of its useless “fact-checks” headlined, “AP FACT CHECK: House GOP falsely blames Biden for gas prices.” The piece railed that “Biden's policies aren't behind the price increases.” It continued: “Gas prices are up because of a rapid and unexpected bounce-back in demand, and because of lingering problems from the forced shutdown early this month of the Colonial Pipeline, which provides 45% of the fuel consumed on the East Coast.” It’s too bad for AP then that Fox Business ran an April story, headlined “Biden's energy plan contributing to gas price increases: GasBuddy analyst.” [Emphasis added.]

The irony is that AP cited GasBuddy Head of Petroleum Analysis Patrick De Haan, to summarize how the Colonial Pipeline outage led to “more than 6,000 stations [running] out” of gas. That’s the same De Haan who Fox Business said labeled the Biden administration as a contributor “to the increase in gas prices.” Of course, AP ignored the Fox Business story.

But Fox Business quoted de Haan only as saying that "the Biden administration is not anywhere near as friendly with the oil and gas sector" as the Trump administration and that "motorists are going to be feeling the consequences of such a policy." He cited no specific Biden policy directly causing increases in gas prices at that specific point, and he also pointed out -- like AP did -- that demand was increasing, which also helps increase prices.

Vazquez also bizarrely argued that Biden deserved blame for gas price incrases because of ... coronavirus stimulus checks:

But AP continued its misdirection. The outlet had the audacity to say that prices can also be attributed to how “[s]timulus payments to American households, including $1,400 checks that were distributed in March, have helped Americans ramp up spending.” First, who exactly does AP think was behind the $1,400 free lunch stimulus payments? Also, CNN previously published a story in April headlined, “All that stimulus is sending inflation higher.” CNN said that the “biggest driver” behind the spike in the U.S. Producer Price Index — “which measures sale prices for goods and services” — was “a sharp 8.8% jump in gasoline prices.” [Emphasis added.]

Perhaps Biden redistributing money that spikes demand while companies are struggling to keep pace is a viable culprit behind rising gas prices. Not according to AP’s gaslighting.

Apparently, creating demand to boos the economy is a bad thing for Vazquez -- whose employer received as much as $2 million in redistributed stimulus money.

Vazquez tried to push this dubous narrative again in a July 13 post complaining that CNN also pointed out that gas prices are largely out of any president's control:

CNN’s knee-jerk reaction to spiking gas prices was to protect President Joe Biden, and Twitter users jumped all over the outlet for it.

CNN Business published a ridiculous story headlined, “Gas prices are above $3. Biden doesn’t have a magic wand to fix that.” CNN Business Lead Writer Matt Egan patronized readers by saying, “President Joe Biden is being attacked for $3 gasoline. But the truth is the White House isn’t to blame for high gas prices – and has few options to lower them.” The CNN Business tweet of Egan’s pro-Biden propaganda was heavily ratioed.

Did Egan forget that GasBuddy Head of Petroleum Analysis Patrick De Haan argued in April that Biden’s energy plan was contributing to rising gas prices? Also, Egan’s employer previously published a story in April headlined, “All that stimulus is sending inflation higher.” CNN said in the April story that the “biggest driver” behind the spike in the U.S. Producer Price Index — “which measures sale prices for goods and services” — was “a sharp 8.8% jump in gasoline prices.”

Vazquez didn't offer any facts to contradict any of the reporting in the CNN story, and he didn't acknowledge that the "Twitter users" who ratioed the CNN tweet are all right-wing activists and personalities who, like Vazquez, have an anti-Biden agenda.

As an actual fact-checker pointed out: That's not how it works, folks.

By contrast, when some tried to blame Trump for a crash in oil prices at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, Vazquez complained that a reporter was "exploiting" the crisis to "get an amateurish zinger at the president." Kinda like what Vazquez is trying to do to Biden?

MRC Is Angry That Lingerie Is Getting Less Slutty
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center is concerned that women's lingerie isn't slutty enough. Veronica Hays expressed her concern in a June 17 post:

The Golden Age of Victoria’s Secret and the “Angels” has come to an end. Women everywhere will be excited to learn that the likes of lesbian Megan Rapinoe and a transgender woman are the brand’s new image. And if you don’t think that's sexy, you’re a bigot.

Victoria’s Secret has been in decline for some time now. Poor business management, scandalous associations between the owner Les Wexner and the late pedophile Jeffery Epstein, changing sensibilities with the toxic #Metoo movement, and a global pandemic the corporate giant has been faced with a plethora of internal and external issues.

Now, in their darkest hour, Victoria’s Secret is desperately grasping at a complete brand turn-around. Inclusivity is Victoria’s Secret do-or-die strategy. The classic allure, style, and femininity of their products are likely to be sacrificed in this endeavor. The iconic Victoria’s Secret Angels are now considered out of vogue, backwards, and unappealing to women’s modern feminist sensibilities.

[...]

Apparently Megan Rapinoe, the World Cup Soccer Champion and rabid leftist is what women want. The soccer star will be joined by actress Priyanka Chopra Jonas, Sudanese-Australian model Adut Akech, freestyle skier Eileen Gu, Brazilian transgender model Valentina Sampaio, plus-size model Paloma Elesser, and journalist Amanda de Cadenet in this rebrand attempt. Selecting a transwoman (a fake woman) to represent feminine beauty is deeply insulting to women everywhere.

Thank the Lord and His great mercies though, as none of these characters will actually model lingerie. Rather, they comprise Victoria’s Secret’s new initiative called “The VS Collective” -- “leading icons” and changemakers” to “shape the future of the brand.”

Remember, the MRC absolutely despises Rapinoe for committing the offenses of not being heterosexual and for having criticized Donald Trump. And we all know how much the MRC hates transgender people.

Hays was bizarrely amused by a fellow hateful right-winger claiming thet Victoria's Secret was targeting "the ugly commie demographic," then concluded by whining, "Usually, the saying goes 'go woke, go broke,' but in this case, Victoria’s Secret is broke and now going woke as if that is the best strategy towards renewing its success."

Interestingly, this isn't the only instance of Hays complaining about a disturbing lack of sluttiness in lingerie. She attacked a brand that isn't even sold in America in a June 23 post:

Ladies, is your underwear down with the struggle? Err, we mean, does your intimate apparel broadcast your politics? Err ...

British retail giant Marks & Spencer is honoring the memory of BLM Martyr George Floyd by adding five new shades to its collection of neutral or nude-colored underwear. This “inclusive” range is inspired by the “global conversation on racial inequality” prompted by the tragic death of Floyd while in police custody.

M&S is adding darker shades to the collection bearing gemstone names like Topaz, Amber, and Rich Quartz, adding further significance to “things that are special and precious.” Up to this point, the collection has focused too much on paler complexions.

Yes, a white woman is complaining that women's lingerie is being made in colors that reflect non-white people. She referenced her Victoria's Secret post, then sneered, "Let’s hope it backfires for both."

MRC's Houck Buries Doocy's Screw-Up
Topic: Media Research Center

Curtis Houck hates President Biden so much that it's apparently worse than his abject loathing for CNN, upon which he's been waging a petulant war against for years. So much so, in fact, that he actually defended a CNN reporter from Biden in a June 16 post:

Closing out his week-long European trip and Wednesday’s Geneva summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Joe Biden snapped at CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on Wednesday for simply wondering “why” he’s “so confident [Putin will] change his behavior.” 

Not to be left out, Biden also tussled with Fox’s Peter Doocy over China when he, like Collins, interjected once Biden worked through his list of six pre-approved reporters.

With Biden talking off-stage and his suit coat in hand, Collins shouted: “Why are you so confident he’ll change his behavior, President Biden?”

Biden suddenly became inflamed and yelled: “I’m not confident he’ll change his behavior. What the hell? What do you do all the time? When did I say I was confident?”

Undeterred, Collins added that she was alluding to Biden’s claim that he’ll need “six months” in order “to determine” whether Russia has improved its behavior, but that wasn’t enough for the President.

It wasn't until the 11th paragraph of his item that Houck got back to his man-crush, Doocy, and this is all he wrote about it:

Doocy was another one of the four reporters that grabbed Biden’s attention after he finished going through his staff’s pre-approved list and, once he did, he brought up the importance of standing up to China (click “expand”):

Because Houck buried the transcript in an expansion box, it takes some work to find out that Doocy rather stupidly asked Biden if he would talk to Chinese leader Xi Jinping "old friend to old friend," to which Biden retorted, "Let’s get something straight. We know each other well. We’re not old friends. It’s just pure business." Houck clearly knows Doocy screwed up because he buried this exchange so far in his item.

Instead, Houck whined that other reporters were "were given preapproval to ask the elderly Biden relatively benign and/or unobjectionable questions." Did Houck ever call Trump "elderly" though he's only a few years younger than Biden? Not that we know of.

But then, Houck is such a Doocy fanboy that he'll never admit he does anything wrong, as we saw in his defense of Doocy against a profile that didn't fawn over the reporter the way he would.

Meanwhile, when Biden took additional questions from reporters later on in his Geneva trip, Kyle Drennen claimed that Biden "bitterly complained that they weren’t being supportive enough of his foreign policy agenda," adding, "According to Biden, the leftist media are not sycophantic enough for his liking." Biden never said that, of cousre -- that's Drennen's active, and biased, imagination kicking in. And it's telling of Drennen's (and the MRC's) extreme bias that he thinks any media outlet not as right-wing as Fox News is "leftist."

How Is The MRC Hating LGBT People On TV Now?
Topic: Media Research Center

The rampantly homophobic Media Research Center reliably melts down anytime the non-right-wing media refuses to hate LGBT people the way it does. Let's look at how it's been doing that lately, shall we?

Veronica Hays lashed out at Nickelodeon in a June 4 item:

Just in case kids haven’t gotten the message that gender confusion is cool, Nickelodeon is offering yet more LGBTQRX (and sometimes Y) propaganda for juveniles.

A new episode of the live-action series Danger Force will feature the first-ever transgender character and actor in Nickelodeon’s history. Sasha A. Cohen, a 13 year-old transgender boy, in reality, a biological female, was handpicked by the show’s creator Michael D. Cohen (no relation) to accomplish this groundbreaking moment in TV history.

The young transgender caught Cohen’s attention as one of the applicants for his Trans Youth Acting Challenge meant to help trans and binary youth excel in the entertainment industry. (And to promote the Trans agenda to teens.)

[...]

The poor girl-turned-boy is being used as a prop to further promote a system of insidious lies surrounding biological sex that manifests itself in the destruction of otherwise normal children.

Meanwhile, Hays clearly wants to destroy transgender people by keeping them from holding jobs and to make the world hostile (if not violent) to them.

Dawn Slusher did some hate-watching on June 7:

Does the "+" in Disney+ stand for LGBTQ+? If we go by Disney+'s brief history of constantly inserting the LGBTQ agenda into its many shows, the answer would likely be yes. And now the streaming service has featured a lesbian kiss among underage girls (possibly its first) in its “family” sports drama Big Shot that has a target audience as young as age 8. We've sadly come a long way from innocent Mickey Mouse cartoons.

There have been hints of Disney’s agenda in the other “family” shows I watch on their streaming service, such as The Mighty Ducks: Game Changers in which one young character let everyone know he has two moms in almost every episode. But when they actually depict a physical, lesbian kiss between two minor girls for an eight-year-old audience, that’s definitely going too far.

Slusher didn't explain what this supposed "LGBTQ agenda" is.

Gabriel Hays, meanwhile, was mad that Fox Broadcasting, unlike its news division, doesn't hate LGBT people:

Pride month seems to be more like an obsession than a celebration this year with every media outlet, including those devoted to kids’ programming, pandering to the vegetable soup community.

The FOX TV network is the latest  to go all in on the pro-gay programming, releasing very flamboyant advertisements for Pride Month teasing the gayest moments of recent and upcoming seasons over some “rainbow-themed” original music.

FOX TV hit the Pride Month ground running, featuring an ad on June 1st dedicated to the festivities. FOX posted the ad to its Twitter account with the caption, “Happy Pride Month! Join me and my FOX Fam in celebrating the LGBTQIA+ community and achievements. #TVForAll.” 

Oh interesting. Know that “LGBTQIA+” stands for “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual/Aromantic/Agender,” so yeah FOX TV is not just about tolerance for different sexual persuasions, it’s about promoting the reality-denying transgender/non-binary/genderfluid tenets pushed by the extreme radical left.

Basically the floodgates have been opened, and huge mainstream channels like FOX are now down with whatever the LGBTQIA+ activists say they need to be down with. Will they be marketing to kids with cartoons promoting puberty blockers next?

Hays also referenced the "LGBTQ agenda," but like Slusher didn't explain what it supposedly is. Does it stop being a threat that scares the MRC's readers if it's explained?

On June 21, Eiise Ehrhard fretted about what is apparently an even bigger threat than the "LGBTQ agenda," -- the "LGBTQIA agenda" -- as she complained about a show on Hulu: "No doubt in the ideal radical activist LGBTQIA world, Christian rituals and theology would be replaced by the almost ritualistic celebration of homosexual activity that accompanies gay pride month, often without any regard for children present." Unspoken by Ehrhard: In the radical right-wing homophobic world she clearly wants, LGBT people would be suppressed, if not punished for their behavior.

And even though the MRC has no audience in Australia, Veronica Hays hates LGBT people enough to spend a June 22 post complaining about a show Down Under that failed to hate them:

Pay no attention to what you have down under, kids, gender is fluid! Australian public broadcaster ABC, funded by Aussie taxpayers is culpable for the latest instance of the LGBTQ’s targeting and indoctrination of children. 

Courtney Act, a drag queen made famous by RuPaul’s Drag Race, guest stars alongside elementary school children for a segment called “Little Kids, Big Talk.” The five-minute long video was posted to the ABC Kids Community Facebook page. The flamboyant man dressed as a woman engages in a back and forth with little children about “gender fluidity” and other nonsense such as pronouns and cross dressing.

Some parents let their child hang around with a mentally ill man, and allowed a video of it, which was posted on Friday, to reach 900,000 viewers so far.

[...]

It's not “teaching tolerance,” it is abuse. If anything, children should be taught the harms of distorting true femininity and masculinity. It is more appropriate that we instill within them a holy fear of such immorality and unnatural behavior. Only then can there be a renewal within this increasingly decaying society.

Hays offered no evidence to support her assertion that drag queens are "mentally ill." And it's more than abundantly clear that she wants children to be taught to think they are -- and to hate them for it.

MRC Psaki-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch, Guest Writer Edition
Topic: Media Research Center

Curtis Houck took a break from his biased reviews of Jen Psaki's White House press briefings in mid-June, so we were spared his usual sanctimoniousness. But not entiresly, since Scott Whitlock pinch-hit for a couple days. on June 22, Whitlock pretended to read the minds of reporters to make the headline claim that "SULKING White House Press Whine About Implosion of Voting Bill, Nasty Red States":

The radical attempt by Democrats to nationalize voting across the country appears to going down to defeat on Tuesday. So at the White House press briefing, the assembled partisan press whined that the administration didn’t do more to save the legislation.

ABC’s Cecilia Vega spoke directly for Democrats, telling Press Secretary Jen Psaki the difficulty is with red state Republicans: “But the problem, as Democrats at least see it, is not problems in blue states, state legislatures. It's Republican-controlled states where many of these decisions are already being made. So what leverage do you actually have? And what realistically do you think you can accomplish in some of these red states?”

Talk about a Democratic cheerleader.

No, Scott: A reporter repeating what a person's or group's viewpoint is on an issue does not equal endorsement of that viewpoint. That's just laziness on Whitlock's part.

The next day, Whitlock echoed Houck's man-crush on Fox News reporter Peter Doocy:

Finally, it was announced by the White House on Wednesday that Kamala Harris would be, at long last, visiting the border on Friday. And while many journalists and media outlets have downplayed the unfolding disaster there, Fox’s Peter Doocy called out the cynical decision to send the Vice President there. 

At Wednesday’s White House briefing, Doocy demanded, “So about today's announcement. Why is the Vice President visiting the border this week when earlier this month, she dismissed a trip like that, saying it would be ‘a grand gesture.’”

Houck was back the following week, meaning the Doocy man-crush could resume in full. Stay tuned.

MRC Melts Down Over Racist History of Birdwatching Being Exposed
Topic: Media Research Center

How much of a snowflake is Matt Philbin, the Media Research Center managing editor for culture? We've already seen him freak out over plastic bricks refusing to hate LGBT people as much as he does. In a June 7 post, he has a total meltdown over exposure of some of the racist history of birdwatching and the people some birds are named after, a screed that includes a bizarre, fact-free fantasia of how conservatives actually think newspapers work:

Washington Post Editor: “We’re not stirring enough woke outrage. Who haven’t we smeared as racist yet?”

Washington Post Editorial Flunky: “Ornithologists.”

Washington Post Editor: “Genius! Get me 2,000 words on bird bigots.”

You don’t think that’s how decision-making is done at The Post? Well how else do you explain “The Racist Legacy Many Birds Carry?” It’s a long June 3 piece by Darryl Fears that tackles “The birding community’s … difficult debate about the names of species connected to enslavers, supremacists and grave robbers.”

So they’re havin’ a go at the birds now. The problem seems to be that birdwatching isn’t immune to wokeness and the deeply stupid pieties that come with it. Therefore ornithologists may need “to change as many as 150 eponyms, names of birds that honor people with connections to slavery and supremacy.”

Fear wrote: “Even John James Audubon’s name is fraught in a nation embroiled in a racial reckoning.” It seems the great bird artist and cataloger owned slaves and didn't think much of emancipation. “Some of his behavior is so shameful that the 116-year-old National Audubon Society — the country’s premier bird conservation group, with 500 local chapters — hasn’t ruled out changing its name.”

[...]

How about you leave it packed and go back to watching birds? It’s an option. Maybe it’s all the public hand-wringing that’s making the legacy painful for black, indigenous, etc. Maybe those people just want to see a belted kingfisher or an American yellow warbler. Maybe they’re healthy, well-adjusted individuals who understand that, however odious Audubon’s views on slaver are, his contributions to the science and study of birds is worthy of acknowledgement.

[...]

Fears quoted J. Drew Lanham, “a Black ornithologist and professor at Clemson University in South Carolina”: “Conservation has been driven by white patriarchy,” this whole idea of calling something a wilderness after you move people off it or exterminate them and that you get to take ownership.”

There you have the issue, such as it is, in a nutshell: resentment. The crimes of Audubon et al don’t matter. Wokies are simply angry they have to use names they (or people that look like them) didn’t come up with. They hate that history has ordered the world a certain way and they harbor the jacobin dream of starting over from Year Zero. 

Birdwatching is now a profoundly political act. Bird-brained? You bet.

Thoush not as bird-brained as Philbin's utterly serious belief that racist birdwatchers are too important to be held accountable for their racism -- or that racists shouldn't be head accountable, period, simply because they're long dead and must continue to be honored no matter what.

NEW ARTICLE: The MRC's Psaki-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Parade Marches On
Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center writer Curtis Houck spent the month of March sticking to his template: trashing White House press secretary Jen Psaki while cheering Fox News' Peter Doocy and other hostile right-wing reporters. Read more >>

MRC Cries Again When It Gets Fact-Checked
Topic: Media Research Center

As we've documented, the Media Resarch Center loves to lash out at fact-checkers, but it can't deal with its own content getting fact-checked. Kayla Sargent served up the whining in a June 14 post:

Facebook has slapped an unfair fact-check label on yet another post from the Media Research Center. 

Facebook fact-checker Health Feedback fact-checked a video from MRCTV Managing Editor Brittany Hughes for “Partly False Information.” Health Feedback particularly took issue with a statement made by Hughes concerning comments by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Health Feedback claimed that “The claim that Fauci knew ‘masks don’t work’ commonly referred to his response to Sylvia Burwell, a former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, sent on 5 February 2020.

Facebook slapped a label on the MRCTV video that stated: “Partly False Information: The same information was checked in another post by independent fact-checkers.”

In an email to the Media Research Center, Health Feedback called Hughes’ characterization of Fauci’s statement “inaccurate.” It claimed: “The spread of viruses can be reduced by masks in two ways: one is by protecting the wearer from other people’s infectious material; the other is by protecting other people from an infected person’s respiratory droplets, also known as source control. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends mask-wearing primarily as a means of source control.”

Fauci’s comments about masks originated in a collection of thousands of his emails that were released via a Freedom of Information Act request. Fauci said: “Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection.”

At no point did Sargent explain what, exactly, was "unfair" about Health Feedback's ruling -- but also notice that she didn't directly quote what Hughes said that got her in trouble with the fact-checker. Here's what Hughes ranted:

Meanwhile, [Fauci] was busy covering his own butt in telling the public that [coronavirus] originated naturally, all while telling them to smother themselves with face masks that he was also telling his own co-workers didn't actually work. Now, we learned all this from a giant email dump that's come out while the administration is busy trying to bribe half the country to get a vaccine that millions of people have already decided they don't want to get. Why? Well, see, billy goats don't like being bossed ardound by little narcissistic trolls who think the run the universse, and the American people are really sick of being lied to.

Sargent also failed to tell what, exactly, Health Feedback said about the claim that Fauci was lying about the effectiveness of masks:

It is important to note that Fauci’s statements above are consistent with mask-wearing guidance at that point in time, when masks weren’t recommended for the general public. This was because health authorities were concerned about a potential shortage of masks, which are needed to protect healthcare workers at high risk of contracting the disease.

But in early April 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reversed its stance on community mask use, after scientists discovered that seemingly healthy people could spread the virus.

In keeping with the change in guidance spurred by the emergence of new scientific evidence, Fauci has since encouraged mask-wearing numerous times in the media (see here,here, and here), as Reuters pointed out in their fact-check.

In other words: Hughes is attacking Fauci for old guidance that evolved as new facts about COVID were uncovered. She's mad he changed his mind as the situation changed. So, yes, there's nothing unfair about this fact-check -- it's well deserved.

Because Sargent doesn't have a case, she decided to attack Facebook and its fact-checkers, rehashing old talking points:

Facebook clearly has not learned its lesson from censoring information about COVID-19. Early in the pandemic, Facebook and its “fraudulent” fact-checker program censored claims that COVID-19 was manufactured in a laboratory in Wuhan, China. However, the platform later reversed course and confirmed that it would no longer censor the Wuhan laboratory theory in light of new information. “In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made from our apps,” a Facebook spokesperson told MRC Free Speech America in a statement. 

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell said in a tweet: “Facebook, which claims to be fighting ‘misinformation’ essentially admitted today that THEY have been spreading misinformation for over a year. Yet another reason to remove the protections Facebook and others receive from section 230.”  

Facebook’s fact-checkers are all part of the liberal Poynter Institute's International Fact Checking Network, which received $1.3 million from liberal billionaires George Soros and Pierre Omidyar. Facebook’s fact-checkers must be approved by the Poynter Institute[.]

Hughes is not known for her honesty. We caught her a few years back making a Fox News appearance in which she hyped a claim that illegal immigrants committed a crime, but she refused to apologize when the claim turned out to be false.

Did The MRC Inflame Anti-CRT Emotions At School Board Meeting?
Topic: Media Research Center

In a June 20 post, the Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro asserted that NBC's Chuck Todd "tried to lie to viewers by claiming that parental opposition and outrage to Critical Race Theory was “manufactured at Fox [News]," claiming that the claim was "even more obviously untrue" because Todd had on a reporter who "had covered the 'dozens and dozens and dozens of parents' that turned out the Loudon Country school board meeting in Virginia to speak out against the racism inherent in Critical Race Theory."

Well, Todd's not completely right, just not in the way that Fondacaro wants you to think. Not only is anti-CRT outrage manufactured by Fox News, it's also manufactured by the MRC.

On JUne 22, the day of a Loudon County school board meeing, the MRC sent out an email to subscribers declaring that the "MRC will be at the Loudoun County school board meeting today as teachers and parents fight Critical Race Theory, 'Trans' In Any Bathroom, and 'Genderless Pronouns' In Loudoun County, Virginia Schools." The email went on to rant (random bolding in original):

On Tuesday, June 22, staff from the Media Research Center (MRC) will be on hand to cover the incendiary Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) Board meeting, in Ashburn, VA, as concerned parents, teachers, and students fight the leftist agenda to cement Critical Race Theory, the admission of “trans” students into any bathroom or locker room, and the banning of “gendered speech” in all district schools.

[...]

The LCSB meeting begins at 4pm ET, and its agenda includes “adoption of Policy 8040” as well as discussion of the bathroom/locker-room policy, and word is spreading that this will be a powerful moment for the kids, parents, teachers, and ALL taxpayers forced to pay for the increasingly progressive agenda being pushed by the bureaucracy.

As an MRC Action member, we want you to know what the MRC team is doing, right there, on the scene, to keep families and friends informed about this very important battle, and the ideology against which the Loudoun residents fight.

Transgenderism, the claims of “inherent racism” leveled against innocent people by the pushers of Critical Race Theory, the destruction of the language, and even the inclusion of biological males in girl’s bathrooms — it’s all being exposed, today, at Ashburn.

Thanks to you, the MRC will be there.

Please keep us and the good folks who fight for their kids and their tax dollars in your prayers.

The MRC went on to tout one of the people who spoke out against the school board:

You also might have seen MRC chatting, in person, with Lilit Vanetsyan, a Fairfax County-based teacher who, at a recent Loudoun board meeting, also railed against the LCPS policy proposals, especially Critical Race Theory, explicitly saying that the proposed policies will push a radical lesson plan prompting kids to “root for socialism by the time they get to middle school."

[...]

Now, Vanetsyan and others are pushing for the removal of six LCPS Board members and the vanquishing of these anti-family, anti-reality, collectivist agendas, this afternoon, at 4pm ET.

The MRC didn't tell you that Vanetsyan is no mere school teacher -- if she is that; it's unclear which school, if any, in the Fairfax County district Vanetsyan actually teaches at -- she's a right-wing activist who's affiliated with Turning Point USA and is a former reporter for the highly biased Right Side Broadcasting Network. (Also: Why is a teacher in one school district trying to speak out against policies in another school district? Isn't that out of her jurisdiction?)

The MRC got the provocation it was seeking at that meeting -- chaos reigned, and at least one arrest was made. But the MRC couldn't have been more delighted, as an email it sent out the next day showed (typographical effects in original):

Leftist Local VA School Board SHUTS DOWN Dissent Over Critical Race Theory, Trans In Bathrooms - AND The MRC Was There

Local Loudoun, Virginia, residents who have become national heroes turned out in the hundreds on June 22 to oppose the Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) Board plan to adopt Critical Race Theory and perverse sexual “identity” rules in schools across Loudoun County, Virginia, and the Media Research Center (MRC) was on the scene.

As MRC Action members likely are aware, both CNS News and MRCTV have focused time and manpower to bring tell the nation about the plight of Loudoun County taxpayers, children, and numerous teachers, as the LCPS board prepared plans to force racist Critical Race Theory ideology into classrooms and as it prepped its scheme called “Policy 8040.”

Policy 8040 would require schools to admit “trans” students into any bathroom or locker room, and would ban “gendered speech” — i.e. pronouns that conform to the correct biological sex of the individual being addressed — in all district schools.

On Tuesday, June 22, the board abruptly ended the public comment period, even as taxpayers lined up to add their voices to the scant number that the bureaucrats allowed to speak. Tuesday also saw Sheriff’s Department police ARREST individuals who tried to be heard while the board members walked off.

But Tuesday saw the courage that is lighting fires nationwide — fires that could help others stop Marxist Critical Race Theory and Trans-permissive bathroom, locker room, and speech policies from being imposed on them, other taxpayers, and kids.

[...]

MRCTV’s Libby Kreiger Tuesday also reported on the meeting, revealing how these bureaucrats — formerly insulated from public outcries by COVID-related lockouts of the public — shut down dissent, and police cuffed and arrested citizens who tried to voice their protestations, claiming they were engaging in “unlawful assembly.” Which is curious, since the First Amendment prohibits the government from infringing on the right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances…

Clearly, the leftist Loudoun way is not the American way.

[...]

This story is receiving far less national news attention than it is from conservative and libertarian talk radio hosts and web commentators, and MRC Action and the Media Research Center will follow this, thanks to YOU.

Your care about freedom and the generations to come are the fuel for our never-ending efforts.

The MRC, meanwhile, cares about fomenting and exploiting chaos to advance its right-wing political agenda.

P.S.: It's not like the MRC went through any huge effort to turn this school board meeting into a launching pad for activism. Loudon County is just a few miles from the MRC's headquarters in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, so it just cost MRC employees a little gas money.

MRC's Graham Whines That Its Attacks On 'Liberal Media' Are Considered 'Bad Faith'
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has long beem afraid of criticism of its work -- particularly that they're a bunch of partisan hacks who care more about scoring political points than contributing to journalism. They're especially sensitive to the argument that they're bad-faith critics.

MRC executive Tim Graham complained in his June 4 column about how CNN's Brian Stelter believes right-wingers like Graham will respond to the idea that the news media should receive government subsidies:

As for critics? Stelter writes: "Billions in funding for local news?! I can hear the bad-faith mockery on Fox News at the same time I type these words." Stelter is so unsubtle that every conservative critique of the liberal media is a "bad-faith mockery."

One problem, say the liberals, is "less local news meant more polarization" in communities. But anyone can see that hot issues like transgender "girls" in school sports or teaching "critical race theory" are inherently polarizing on a local level, and, in each case, the left sees only one "civic" opinion worth hearing. The other should be discouraged if not crushed.

Does anyone think Stelter's CNN demonstrates a concern about "polarization" in its national product? Does it offer conservatives a "good-faith" platform for discussion?

Ah, but conservative media criticism is done in bad faith, because its goal is to demonize and destroy, not improve. Can Graham argue with a straight face that every single criticism the MRC has made in the past three decades lacked partisan intent, that it wasn't done to brand the media as "liberal" in order to advance a political narrative? Of course he can't -- he knows what his employer is all about.

(Also, it's quite rich to hear Graham rant about evil government subsidies when the MRC sought and received as much as $2 million in pandemic relief money last year.)

So irked by Stelter's statement that Graham spent his June 16 column ranting about being accused of bad-faith criticism:

The arrogance of the liberal media can be measured by their dismissal of all conservative criticism as "bad faith" attacks on the press. Assuming that conservative critics are dishonest and disreputable cynics is a common trope of CNN's Brian Stelter when liberal journalists become mired in scandal.

In a June 15 "Academic Minute" podcast, Marist College professor Kevin Lerner explicitly defined the entire conservative movement as bad-faith media critics.

"These bad-faith attacks on the press began to rise most recently in the 1960s and '70s, led by a concerted effort among conservative journalists and critics," Lerner argued. "Along with efforts to create a conservative counterbalance to the mainstream press, they engaged in attempts to delegitimize legacy news organizations by painting them as irredeemably biased. This strain of bad-faith criticism is alive and well today."

"Good-faith" criticism, he insisted, is "based on the premise that a strong, independent press, responsive to the needs of an engaged citizenry, is essential to the functioning of a democratic society."

There are several obvious flaws in this argument.

First, conservatives don't see "legacy news organizations" as "independent." They are not watchdogs of both parties. They are savage destroyers of one party and cuddly defenders of the other. They are not "responsive to the needs" of all citizens but to the political needs of one party. This argument is somehow in "bad faith," regardless of the evidence.

Second, conservatives dare to argue that the "press" is not synonymous with the "mainstream press." Lerner's side always implies that there is not a liberal media and conservative media, but a mainstream media and an extreme media.

Third, criticizing liberal news organizations is part of the "functioning of a democratic society." We want a vibrant press, but media criticism is not anti-democracy. It defines democracy. Liberals like Lerner believe that democracy functions best when "legacy media" never lose public trust, no matter what kind of partisan hackery they foist on the public.

Notice that Graham cites criticism of onbly "liberal news organizations" as essential -- he does not see criticism of, say, Fox News as valid. And given that the MRC is dedicated to the destruction of media that doesn't act like Fox News, it's entirely fair to assume that Graham and his boss, Brent Bozell, have no interest in maintaining "a strong, independent press, responsive to the needs of an engaged citizenry."

And as much as Graham gets paid to lash out at the "liberal media," it's clear that he believes there is no such thing as "conservative media" -- not even the MRC's own "news" division, CNSNews.com, which has an unmistakable right-wing bias and refuses to publish any columnists who aren't conservative.

Graham, by the way, will not hold Fox News responsible for even the most egregious issues of bias and ethics. So unbothered was he by Bill O'Reilly's history of sexual harassment that he appeared on the final episode of what was his show on Fox News and didn't mention O'Reilly's sleaze at all.

Graham and the MRC attacks the "liberal media" for things it would never dream of criticizing Fox News for (lest it jeopardize future appearances on the channel). That's the essence of bad-faith criticism.

Meanwhile, in neither of those columns does Graham made a coherent argument that the MRC's attacks on "liberal media" -- funded by millions of dollars in nonprofit money every year -- are done in good faith and only the best of intentions. That's because he can't.

Another MRC Anti-LGBT Freakout, 'Gay, Inc.' Edition
Topic: Media Research Center

One thing Media Research Center writer Elise Ehrhard loves to do is blame any non-hateful depiction of LGBT characters on TV as the work of "Gay, Inc." She never really explains what that is -- all the better to make it sound as nefarious as possible, even though it's clear she works for "Anti-Gay, Inc." -- the notoriously homophobic MRC. Now Ehrhard is complaining about a show being a "Gay, Inc." despite lacking much in the way of actual gay content. She complained in a May 3 post:

Do you have no desire for homosexual sex, but really think your same sex best friend is amazing? Do you wish you could be called anything but "straight"? Gay Inc. is here to save the day!

Freeform's Everything's Gonna Be Okay introduced a Gay Inc. term for what used to be called "Best Friends Forever." 

In the episode, "California Banana Slugs," on April 29, Drea (Lillian Carrier), the best friend of main character Matilda (Kayla Cromer), announces that she identifies as a "homo-romantic asexual". What on earth is that, you ask? Let me explain. But first, a little background.

You see, Drea and Matilda have been friends for years. In fact, at the end of their senior year of high school they liked each other so much they tried to be lesbians. (At first, they tried a threesome with a fellow student, but the guy ran away before it began.) 

Now that they have graduated and entered adulthood, they realize they are not lesbians and have no sexual attraction to each other whatsoever. In fact, they find intercourse with the same sex icky. Matilda decides she wants to have casual sexual intercourse with men. Drea decides she is just not feeling it for anybody. But they both agree to still call each other "girlfriend" which is something many female friends do anyway.

[...]

Nobody told Drea that the entire history of same-sex friendship, in both real life and fiction, from the Gospel of John to the Lord of the Ring's Sam and Frodo, has involved intense bonds of love that someone could erroneously label as "romantic." Of course, in order to define it as romantic you would have to be immersed in a homosexual culture that eroticizes or romanticizes everything.

And that is exactly what the LGBTQUIABCDEFG world has done. With a new magic trick, Gay Inc. has now found a term to bring even straight people into its tent. You have to give Big Gay credit. They never cease to find ways to convince young people they are really somehow, some way, kinda sorta gay.

Or, maybe, people would like the space to figure out exactly what their relationship is with each other without hateful moral scolds like Ehrhard denigrating and mocking them every step of the way.

Ehrhard returned for more scolding and denigration (and more blaming of "Gay, Inc.") in a June 6 post after the episode in which these characters formalized their relationship:

Make way for the first television wedding between platonic same-sex best friends. 

Last month, the Freeform show, Everything's Gonna Be Okay, introduced the first "homo-romantic asexual character," the latest iteration in LGBTQIA "identities." Basically, it is someone who has no sexual attraction to anyone, but really likes a best friend of the same sex. Gay, Inc. will create an identity for anything nowadays.

[...]

Believe it or not, this same-sex "best friend marriage" insanity is now being promoted by the left. The New York Times, a newspaper of emotionally immature writers that regularly pushes stupid ideas about marriage and relationships, recently published an article titled "From Best Friends to Platonic Spouses=." "Some people are taking their friendships to the next level by saying 'I do' to marriages without sex," the subheading announced. Actually, only lonely people living in an atomized society who no longer recognize the nature of either friendship or marriage would do any such thing.

[...]

And Hollywood needs to stop pushing these confused LGBTQIA narratives rooted in unhealed trauma or loneliness. There really are people in the world who know how to separate platonic friendships from marriage. There are also people who know how to create healthy, enduring families rooted in the monogamous love of a husband and wife.

Unfortunately, G.L.A.A.D. signs-off on most Hollywood scripts nowadays and is the arbiter of an increasingly extreme Gay, Inc. agenda. Therefore, these ludicrous storylines will only increase. And as they do, Americans will increasingly tune them out.

Is it emotionally mature for Ehrhard to obsess about the sex lives (or not) between fictional characters? Hard to say. Is sneering at and denigrating relationships that aren't floridly heterosexual a stupid idea? Perhaps. Is it "extreme" for LGBT people to not want to be hated and for media depictions of them to not be universally negative? Ehrhard seems to think so.

Perhaps Ehrhard needs to spend a little more time deconstruting her fictitious "Gay, Inc." and stop whining so much -- especially since "Anti-Gay, Inc." will pay her handsomely to noodle around like that.

Clinton Derangement Syndrome Continues At The MRC
Topic: Media Research Center

Bill Clinton hasn't been president for more than 20 years, but that's not keeping the Media Research Center from continuing to have meltdowns every time he appears on TV. Which brings us to a June 7 post by Scott Whitlock:

Given that a former Bill Clinton operative, George Stephanopoulos, is a co-host of Good Morning America, it’s no surprise that the morning show asked the controversial Democrat zero tough questions. But even for ABC, this was insane. Co-host Michael Strahan offered no follow-up when Clinton fantasized about being president for life. 

Strahan offered this softball: “Do you miss being president?” The man who exemplified Me Too before the term existed, rhapsodized, “The real answer is I loved being president.” He offered his bizarre admission: “I loved the job. It's a good thing we had a two-term limit or I would have forced the American people to defeat me or take me out in a pine box.”

No follow-up from Strahan. Instead, the co-host acted as a stenographer for the Democrat, touting the new novel he has written with James Patterson: “The President and Patterson wrote their latest thriller over the course of the pandemic, using their time in quarantine for some self-reflection.” 

What was the self reflection? Was it about his treatment of Monica Lewinsky or the numerous other women who have accused him of sexual harassment or abuse? Strahan didn't ask. 

Once again, liberal journalists don’t really care about Me Too abuses, so long as a Democrat is involved.

By contrast, the MRC didn't care about Me Too abuses when President Trump or Fox News hosts and executives were involved.

The MRC similarly melted down during publicity efforts for Clinton and Patterson's previous novel in 2018.

MRC Downplays 'Bachelor' Host's Missteps To Claim He's A Victim Of 'Woke Mob'
Topic: Media Research Center

The last time we checked on the Media Research Center's weird fixation on "The Bachelor," Curtis Houck was sympathizing with contestant Rachel Kirkconnell over the exposure of her racially charged past (and support for QAnon) and with host Chris Harrison for making the mistake of rushing to Kirkconnell's defense before knowing the full story.

When Chris Harrison officially left the show after the incident, Houck went on a June 11 tirade agains the "woke mob" that supposedly got him fired:

On Tuesday, ABC and Warner Brothers Television announced that it had officially cut ties with Chris Harrison, the longtime host of ABC’s The Bachelor and The Bachelorette following a truly childish and pathetic act of cancel culture.

However, Harrison may have had the last laugh thanks to numerous reports revealing that he demanded (and fetched) an eight-figure buyout or risk Harrison exhuming any and all bodies the franchise, network, and production company had buried.

To recap, Harrison found himself being burned at the stake by the woke mob in February when he insisted on there be grace for Bachelor contestant Rachael Kirkconnell when it was discovered that, among other sins, attended an antebellum-themed party in college. And because he said these things to an incensed Rachel Lindsey on Extra (who was the first Black Bachelorette), Harrison had to go.

Worse yet, he spoke out against the “woke police” that seemed hellbent on permanently ruining Kirkconnell’s life. And when the mob wants to make someone miserable, they’ll stop at nothing to do so.

[...]

Along the way, Harrison provided a textbook example of how the cancel culture mob will never be satisfied and thus anything from genuine apologies to public self-flagellation will remain a waste of time.

Note that Houck dishonestly, um, whitewashed Kirkconnell's offenses to mention only the most benign one, censoring that she also allegedly bullied girls in high school for liking black men and spread far-right QAnon memes on social media. Also it's quite rich that Houck bashed the "woke mob" for "cancel culture" and  "never be satisfied and thus anything from genuine apologies to public self-flagellation will remain a waste of time" -- because those are the exact same tactics he and his MRC co-workers use against anyone in the "liberal media" who doesn't sound or behave like they're working for Fox News or OAN. It has never treated, say, Dan Rather or Brian Williams with the same spirit of forgiveness that Houck is demandingfrom everyone regarding Harrison. In other words, they actually are the "woke mob" they pretend to warn others about.

Houck also expressed glee that Harrison got an eight-figure payout to kee quiet about "the motherload of dirt" he supposedly had on the show and was "willing to dish as a final screw-you to the mob unless they ponied up to meet his demands." So Harrison is getting well paid to go away, so he doesn't really need anyone's sympathy.

A few days later, Houck found a weird thing to be proud of in the new season of "The Bachelorette," while still not able to let go of the past:

ABC’s Bachelor and Bachelorette franchises have been in the headlines quite a bit as of late as the woke mob had decided to infiltrate one of reality TV’s earliest shows, turning what’s already a dumpster fire of drama and adding a side of wokeism. 

But on Monday’s Bachelorette, conservatives achieved a small victory when contestant Mike Planeta revealed his virginity during a group date that challenged each guy to be “sex-positive” in a skit meant to woo lead Katie Thurston and, despite Thurston’s outspokenness on sex, gave him first place for the date.

So the "woke mob" "infiltrated" the show and forced Kirkconnell to do stupidly racist stuff?That's a bizarre interpretation of what happened.

Meanwhile, the MRC's homophobic wing weighed in on another show-related issue. Take it away, Veronica Hays:

Queerness is so en vogue at the moment! So trendy and cool — now a former Bachelor is cashing in and coming out. Wednesday on ABC's Good Morning America, former Bachelor Colton Underwood did just that. Of course, the public will be dying to know every ounce of detail regarding his incredible story of self-realization. Fortunately for the culture, Netflix will be providing just what the world so desperately needs, a new reality series starring Underwood, the latest gay man. 

And predictably, GMA co-host Robin Roberts treaded lightly in all-but ignoring Underwood's creeper and stalker-like behavior toward now-ex-girlfriend Cassie Randolph.

Underwood sent shockwaves when he came out as gay to Roberts, who's a lesbian: “I’ve ran from myself for a long time. I’ve hated myself for a long time, and I’m gay. I came to terms with that earlier this year and have been processing it and the next step in all of this was sort of letting people know. Still nervous but, yeah, it's been a journey for sure.”

Stunning. Brave.

Would Hays be bringing up Underwood's alleged "creeper and stalker-like behavior" if he hadn't come out? Doubtful. And Hays is especially hateful and ignorant if she thinks people reveal who they are sexually only because of the possibility of "cashing in."

Hays completed her screed by huffing, "Unfortunately, the time when The Bachelor features an out member of the LGBTQ community may not be far off." Um, so what? It's on her that she hates LGBT people much that this possibility squicks her out so much.

MRC Lashes Out At Taylor Swift (Again) For Not Hating LGBT People
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center likes to make a big show about supporting "free speech," but it just can't handle it when Taylor Swift exercises her First Amendment rights -- particularly when she uses that right to not hate LGBT people. Abigail Streetman is the latest in a long line of MRC writers melting down over Swift saying something, in a June 2 post:

On June 1, the first day of “Pride Month,” Taylor Swift announced that the next brave step in her journey as a left-wing propagandist is to join GLAAD in it’s #summerofequality. Of course, this is just another phrase to describe the ongoing efforts of the Democrats to force the Equality Act through the Senate. How courageous of Swift to use her voice to support every other Hollywood celebrity who has been screeching about H.R. 5 for the past several months.

GLAAD is the speech police for all things gay, and it spends a lot of time demanding that gays and the rest of the alphabet be outrageously over-represented on TV and in movies. One of its recent projects includes a documentary on transgender athletes that seeks to demonize conservative politicians who don’t support males being permitted to participate in female sports.

Of course, Streetman is the one who is acting as speech police, lashing out at Swift for saying something. Or, as Streetman snidely put it: "Swift tweeted how “proud” she is to be joining GLAAD. Someone should ask her how comfortable she would be in a private restroom with a full grown male who’s pretending to be a woman." That's not how transgenderism works, but Streetmen advancing a narrative, not telling the truth.

Streetman concluded with a homophobic screed against the H.R.5:

Calling this insane piece of legislation the “Equality Act” is just the left manipulating emotions and obfuscating its true aims. How are we supposed to protect our First Amendment right to freedom of religion if citizens are forced to accept beliefs that go against their morals? Not only is it unconstitutional but it also flies in the face of the science that leftists have been telling us to trust.

There are only two genders, and biology agrees with that.

And we can all agree that Streetman is pushing an agenda rather than engaging in any sort of reasoned discussion.