Jeffrey McCall used a June 11 CNSNews.com column to dutifully repeat the right-wing, pro-Truymp line on a government report on protesters being cleared from Lafayette Square, followed by then-President Trump doing a photo-op there:
Public trust in the establishment media has been cratering for years and that trend is not without cause. News reporting continues to be done with kneejerk reactions, little concern for reality, and too often for partisan purposes.
More evidence of such media malfeasance came out Wednesday in the form of a report from the Interior Department’s Inspector General. The report concluded that the United States Park Police did not remove unruly demonstrators from Lafayette Park near the White House a year ago to allow then-President Donald Trump a photo op near an arson-damaged church.
The establishment media had quickly jumped to conclusion last June, too eager to create a narrative that Trump was using the U.S. Park Police for selfish promotional purposes and abusing supposedly peaceful demonstrators. The recently released Inspector General’s report explains the plans for clearing Lafayette Park were put in place well in advance of Trump’s evening stroll to the church, and that police had the authority to clear the area for security reasons.
The media failed its Logic 101 exam for that event, assuming that because one event followed another, there must necessarily be causation. News reporting at the time also failed to acknowledge that the U.S. Park Police had solid reasons to expand the security perimeter near the White House, after numerous incidents of chaos in that section of the district. Those security steps, as is known now from the Inspector General’s report, were being implemented without directions from the White House.
But the media was too compelled, as usual, to make everything about Trump. The press relied on unnamed White House sources to create the unfounded narrative that the park was being cleared of demonstrators solely for a Trump photo op.
As we documented when CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, pushed this same narrative, the report was extremely incomplete, having declined to interview most of the major players in the incident. Additionally, there was no evidence at the time that the reporting was false, and the Trump White House had such a horrible track record of lies and misinformation that there was no reason to take anything they said at face value.
McCall did at least concede missteps on the part of the Trump White House: "The Trump handlers, for their part, also blundered that evening, failing to recognize how damaging the optics could be of a presidential pseudo-event taking place after the removal of protestors from a public park. The timing of Trump’s appearance created a bizarre scene for which an upside was difficult to find." But he immediately followed that with more media-bashing: 'That doesn’t excuse the media’s distorted narrative that surely played a role during the 2020 presidential campaign."
Like the MRC, McCall has chosent to put his faith in an incomplete report for political purposes in order to advance a partisan narrative. Not a good look for a college professor and, according to his end-of-column bio, "a recognized authority on media and journalistic ethics and standards."
MRC Tries To Deflect Blame From Conservatives, Fox News For Vaccine Hesitancy Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has tried various strategies to deflect from the fact that refusal to get the coronavirus vaccine is largely the domain of conservative white people -- from blamingKamalaHarris (whom white conservatives are unlikely to turn to for health advice) to blaming the unreliability of polls noting that fact (even though the MRC has touted other work by the pollster). But as that fact gets more exposure in the media, the MRC has gone on defense.
When CBS late-night host James Corden's show argued that those who refuse to get vaccinated should be excluded from events, Charlotte Hazard played the celebrity card in a June 8 post: "It’s so interesting watching elite celebrities lecturing Americans about how they have to get a vaccine to do normal things in life."
When CNN noted a poll showing Republicans' vaccine hesitancy, Brad Wilmouth -- who wrote the above-noted poll-releated piece -- used a June 22 post to attack the poll again instead of acknowledging the truth: "Here again, the pollsters didn't make any distinction among the unvaccinated: What if you've already had an infection and have natural antibodies? Wouldn't it make sense that those people could feel less concerned about masks and social distancing? But for CNN, all's fair in love and coronavirus—when it comes to ripping Republicans."
On July 9, Kevin Tober complained that "former Missouri Democrat [sic] Senator turned MSNBC political analyst Claire McCaskill used her appearance on Thursday night’s All In with Chris Hayes to blame Republicans for the low vaccination rates in rural areas of the country," adding that "Instead of giving real reasons, she decided to play politics and blame Republicans." But Tober gave no real reasons to defend Republican deniers, other than to argue that "The real solution is to expand access to the vaccine in rural areas." But he still stayed on the attack: "Instead of thumbing her nose at rural Americans, McCaskill should advise the Biden administration to do just that. But she would rather hate on people in the flyover states."
After the New York Times pointed out Fox News' role in scaring its viewers into avoiding vaccines, Clay Waters huffed in a July 14 post: "Speaking of 'amplifying vaccine hesitancy,' it wasn’t Fox News but the Biden Administration that actually cancelled vaccinations, when the Centers for Disease Control recommended pausing the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in mid-April over rare occurrences of blood clots, which marked the start of the decline in America’s daily vaccination rate." Waters offered no evidence there was any link between the brief pause in the J&J vaccine and "start of the decline in America’s daily vaccination rate," and he conveniently omitted the fact that the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines continued to be available.
An elections official in Georgia has admitted that "a few" legally required forms documenting the chain of custody for ballots during the 2020 presidential election are missing, blaming the significant problem on the fact some "core personnel" were quarantined due to positive COVID-19 tests at the time.
But actually, a report in the Georgia Star News reveals that 385 official transfer forms, of an estimated 1,565 that would have been present in Fulton County, are missing.
"The total number of absentee ballots whose chain of custody was purportedly documented in these 385 missing Fulton County absentee ballot transfer forms was 18,901, more than 6,000 votes greater than the less than 12,000 vote margin of Biden’s certified victory in the state," the report said.
The report explained the "stunning admission" about the missing documents came from Mariska Bodison, of the Fulton County Registration & Elections office.
Earlier this week, a pro-Trump media outlet that has amplified calls for a so-called quot;forensic audit" of the election kicked off a firestorm of criticism, asserting the county was missing 385 absentee ballot transfer forms used to document how many ballots were retrieved from drop boxes daily and suggesting the provenance of nearly 19,000 ballots were questionable.
This comes from an ongoing open records request that the ;Georgia Star News made to Fulton for all transfer forms from the Nov. 3 election. The media outlet only received a portion of Fulton's forms.
According to Georgia Star News, an elections worker emailed the outlet stating that "a few forms are missing" and that "some procedural paperwork may have been misplaced" and the county disputed that 19,000 ballots were unaccounted for.
Then, the story published and rocketed across the pro-Trump mediasphere, prompting Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (who faces his own pro-Trump primary challenge from election denier Rep. Jody Hice) to announce an investigation in the county's actions and further fanning the flames.
But after GPB News asked the county Monday about the forms not included in the Georgia Star's records request, elections staff located all but eight of the more than 1,500 forms, sent them to state investigators and provided them to GPB News on a flash drive.
Unruh has not updated his article with the facts, nor has he written a follow-up that debunks this story.Unruh also didn't mention the hard-right bias of the Georgia Star News -- none other than Steve Bannon endorsed the operation, part of a network of state-level websites, as "very MAGA, very American First" -- which means it lacks credibility. Not a good sign when you're trying to convince people you're credible so they give you money so you don't go out of business.
NEW ARTICLE: Biased Beat Cops At The MRC Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center spent much of the past TV season being angry that TV police shows tried to reflect reality by tackling the thorny issues of racial justice and police brutality in the wake of George Floyd's death. Read more >>
CNS Touts Bishops' Attacks On Biden -- But Went Silent When They Wouldn't Refuse Him Communion Topic: CNSNews.com
For months, the uber-Catholics at CNSNews.com have been attackingPresident Biden for not being Catholic enough, with an emphasis on building a narrative aimed at encouraging Catholic bishops to deny him and other Catholic politicians it has deemed insufficiently Catholic -- such as Nancy Pelosi -- Communion at church in a very public way. That has continued:
Managing editor Michael W. Chapman touted in a May 3 article: "In a May 1 pastoral letter on the moral evil of abortion, Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco explains why Catholic politicians (and other public Catholics) who support abortion must not receive Holy Communion and why they must stop pretending that advocating for abortion is compatible with the Catholic faith."
In a May 18 column, anti-abrtion activist Judie Brown cheered the idea of bishops denying Biden Communion, huffing that "seeing their bishops debate whether or not a Catholic public official like Biden or Pelosi should be denied the body of Christ because they support this killing is an absurdity. And it creates confusion everywhere." Brown then ranted: "Pelosi, Biden, and others have pandered to evil and insulted the body of Christ for many years. Do the bishops and the Vatican really need to study this, or are they obligated to Christ Himself to say once and for all, 'Choose! Unity or division, Christ or Satan!'?"
Chapman highlighted in a June 1 article how another bishop "largely denounced President Biden's budget proposal for excluding the pro-life Hyde Amendment, stating that 'Congress must reject the Administration’s proposal to subsidize the deaths of unborn children.'"
Dishonest right-wing Catholic Bill Donohue used a June 4 column to huff that it was "character assassination" when a liberal Catholic publication argued that bishops desperate to publicly rebuke Biden are trying to create a "MAGA church" and are "in the pockets of wealthy donors pushing a political agenda." Three days later, Donohue contributed a column that purported to list "Biden's 30+ Departures From Catholicism Thus Far."
An anonymously written June 14 article quoted a bishop who issued s statement "in which he cites President Joe Biden for promoting evils, including the abortion of unborn babies, the marriage of people of the same sex and people identifying as the opposite sex of the one they are biologically," adding that "the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, as planned, should discuss at their virtual meeting this week why Catholics who advocate abortion cannot receive communion."
An anonymously written June 18 article found a bishop who said that Biden's "calling abortion a 'right' and trying to abolish the Hyde Amendment so taxpayers must pay for it is 'the most aggressive thing we’ve ever seen in terms of this attack on life when it’s most innocent.'"
In a May 12 article, Chapman complained that CNS' anti-Biden goal of denying him Communion was being resisted by the Vatican:
As U.S. Catholic bishops prepare for a June meeting on how to address the scandal of pro-abortion Catholic politicians receiving Holy Communion, the Vatican's doctrinal office has sent a letter to the bishops essentially urging them to slow down, delay, take more time to debate and communicate before formulating a policy on the issue.
Cardinal Luis Ladaria, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the office that defends official Catholic teaching, said in a May 7 letter to the bishops that when this topic was discussed in 2019-2020, "the formulation of a national policy was suggested ... only if this would help the bishops to maintain unity."
"This Congregation notes that such a policy" today, "given its possibly contentious nature, could have the opposite effect and become a source of discord rather than unity within the episcopate and the larger Church in the United States."
In the United States, some of the most prominent Catholic politicians who support abortion are well known and their anti-life position has been well-documented for decades.
CNS started building up to that meeting of Bishops. A June 18 article by Melanie Arter featured how Biden said "he doesn’t think the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will deny him Communion based on his support for abortion," and a June 22 column by Pat Buchanan hyped bishops' alleged "alarm that the public religious practice of President Joe Biden is conveying a heretical message to the faithful and the nation."
But when that meeting of bishops resulted in them declining to establish a national policy of withholding Communion from Biden and other Catholic politicians, CNS ... reported nothing. It wasn't until July 1 -- several days after the bishops' meeting -- that the outcome was first mentioned on the CNS website, and that was in a column by Donohue complaining that a newspaper criticized the bishops for even considering such drastic action.
This was followed by a July 6 column by Brown complaining that "Catholic bishops, for the most part, seem to be unfamiliar with the difference between profaning the body of Christ in the Eucharist and being coherent in a policy that defends and protects Him from sacrilege." Then, a July 8 column by Stephen Kokx ranted:
How much do Catholic bishops in the United States care about unborn babies? Or, for that matter, infallible church teaching on the Eucharist? By the looks of it, not that much.
It would’ve been a glorious moment in Church history — perhaps something even akin to St. Ambrose rebuking Emperor Theodosius in the 4th century — had the bishops taken a stand and boldly defended Catholic doctrine at their June meeting. Instead, they caved to media and Vatican pressure and are now complicit in the continued profanation of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. May God have mercy on their souls.
Kokx didn't explain why it's a bad thing for Catholic bishops to be influenced by "Vatican pressure." That's the head of the Catholic church, after all.
CNS has yet to devote a "news" article to the bishops' decision.
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 Newscalling 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.
Newsmax Keeps Flooding The Zone With Fawning Trump Coverage Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax just loves serving as Donald Trump's publicity agent, flooding the zone whenever he does an interview with a Newsmax personality. That happened again on June 25, when Trump appeared on Newsmax's morning show, "Wake Up America" (telling us that some Newsmax employees have experience writing outraged letters to the editor of newspapers). Newsmax generated a whopping eight articles out of that interview:
Now, this was not an interview that deserved eight articles -- who thinks that, say, what Trump says about his wife is worthy of a headline? But if you're a "news" organization that's effectively Trump's PR agent, you get your client's name out there as much as you can, and that's exactly what Newsmax did here.
And that's not even the end of the fawning, uncritical coverage Newsmax gave Trump that day. Jeffrey Rodack wrote in a separate article:
Former President Donald Trump is suggesting that Georgia residents sue the state for running "a corrupt and rigged 2020 presidential election."
His comments came in a statement released Friday after Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the Justice Department is filing a lawsuit against the state of Georgia to try and overturn a new voting law that Democrats allege discriminates against minorities.
Trump, in his statement said: "Biden’s Department of Justice just announced that they are suing the Great State of Georgia over its Election Integrity Act. Actually, it should be the other way around! The PEOPLE of Georgia should SUE the State, and their elected officials, for running a CORRUPT AND RIGGED 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION — and for trying to suppress the VOTE of the AMERICAN PEOPLE in Georgia. If we don’t address these issues from the 2020 Election head on, and we allow the Radical Left Democrats to continue to politicize the DOJ and Law Enforcement, we will lose our Country. SAVE AMERICA!"
A real reporter would have also noted that no credible evidence has been found to back up Trump's claim of a "CORRUPT AND RIGGED" election in Georgia. But Rodack didn't -- he's part of the Trump PR team at Newsmax.
CNS Does Softball Interview With Ex-Trump Adviser Now Leading Right-Wing Legal Group Topic: CNSNews.com
The Media Research Center loves to rage against reporters who ask allegedly softball questions of non-conservative people -- even cheering the most vile of obscenties being hatefully hurled at them. But when one of its own employees conducts a softball interview? No problem.
A June 4 CNSNews.com article -- presented as "news" -- detailed an interview commentary editor Rob Shimshock conducted with Stephen Miller, the former Trump adviser who now runs a right-wing legal organization, America First Legal.Shimshock touted how Miller's group "is using the legal system to combat the left’s attempt to strip Americans of their civil liberties" -- showing total buy-in of Miller's partisan agenda right off the bat -- and his questions were highly softball:
Now I know your group has also been very active in other fields, particularly on the front of racial discrimination, and what I like about America First Legal’s approach here is that you’re not just fixated on one prong of this attack by the left but are instead tackling the whole kit and kaboodle, suing the Biden Administration to stop discrimination against white farmers, filing for a temporary restraining order on COVID relief funds being distributed to restaurants based on the skin color of their owners, and slamming the Department of Education for a proposed rule to include viciously racist critical race theory in K-12 education. So tell me a bit about these fights briefly and let me know how optimistic, or concerned, you are about each of them.
Now, turning to another topical issue, and you alluded to this earlier, the coronavirus: we’ve seen some states, like Texas and Florida refuse to implement vaccine passports, but we recently saw the Oregon Health Authority issue an edict saying that people can enter businesses and even churches without a mask only if they have been vaccinated. Now, to me, this sounds impractical in execution and also like a pretty clear violation of medical privacy. Has America First Legal considered getting involved on this front?
Great, now, I asked Matt Whitaker this question in April, but I wanted to get your take on it, too. We’ve seen coverage during the past few years about corrupt prosecutors funded by George Soros, the potential for a tainted jury, which could have played a role in the George Floyd murder ⎼ the George Floyd verdict ⎼ and we’ve even seen ostensibly conservative justices on the Supreme Court make some rather questionable decisions. So, can you identify one aspect of the legal system for me that poses the biggest hurdle to you and your team and conservatives at large as you try to defend American civil liberties, and how do you overcome that?
Yeah and one common thread -- just on that point -- that I’ve seen is that a lot of these nefarious systems will oftentimes start off in academia. So we’ve been talking about critical race theory and then we also have the justice system, there are campus kangaroo courts when it comes to sexual assault allegations and so hopefully, we won’t take that direction as a country as a whole, but that remains to be seen. So, finally Stephen, what advice would you give to viewers who see all of this insanity going on and want to make a difference? How can they support America First Legal and, more broadly, how can they channel their understandable frustration into positive social change?
Shimshock concluded with a total suck-up statement: "Awesome, well I’m very excited to see what America First Legal accomplishes this year, and thanks so much for joining us, Stephen."
Shihmshock could have asked Miller about the controversial immigration policies he crafted in the Trump White House, or about the falsehoods he has told about President Biden's immigration polices. But he didn't, because his job was to toss softballs. His MRC bosses won't be hurling any obscenities Shimshock's way for this performance.
WND Columnists Continue To Spread Fear About COVID, Vaccines Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnists -- not exactly known for their thoughtful takes on amy issue, but particularly involving the coronavirus pandemic -- have continued to rage about various aspects of COVID.
In his June 14 column, Wayne Allyn Root detailed an interview with Vladimir Zelenko, a doctor whose claims about hydroxychloroquine being an effective treatment for COVID were enthusiastically touted by WND early in the pandemic despite his work lacking credible documentation. Root went on to rant:
It's time to start asking why treatments for COVID-19 proven in multiple studies around the world to save lives are slandered, censored and banned by social media? Who are they to ban life-saving information? Who are they to label life-saving information as "medical misinformation"? What's in it for them if thousands die needlessly? Somebody clearly is getting filthy rich on this scam.
I asked Zelenko about it on a return visit to my show only days ago. He said: "Pre-hospital treatment of COVID-19 was intentionally suppressed. Life-saving information and medication was intentionally suppressed. … Out of 600,000 dead Americans, we could have saved 510,000. The American people have been brutalized and are the victims of mass murder and crimes against humanity."
I asked Zelenko for his solution to this ongoing tragedy. He said, "Number one, immediately endorse pre-hospital treatment with the Zelenko Protocol, and make it the standard of care. Number two, we must bring these criminals to justice."
Jane Orient -- the leader of WND's COVID misinformers -- spent her June 15 column fearmongering about COVID vaccines and the idea that colleges may require students to be vaccinated before coming to campus:
Many young Americans and their parents believe that a college degree is the key to open doors to a successful future. So, when they get a letter from the college administration saying you must get this injection or you are barred from our campus, they rush to comply.
After all, vaccines are "safe and effective," and you've already had dozens of them, so what's one more? Our vigilant and world-renowned scientific and health agencies would never allow an unsafe product to be authorized, would they? The National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would never miss a safety signal or lie to us, would they? Look at the thousands of regulations they impose on us, and the warning label on everything from plastic bags to table salt. See the signs in the liquor section warning pregnant women not to take a sip lest their baby be harmed.
Orient went on to like the vaccine to thalidomide, hyped rare episodes of heart inflammation linked to the vaccine, then concluded by asking, "Would putting a hold on your college education be worth it? Is it even worth it to win the lottery if you lose your heart?"
Orient returned for more fearmongering in her June 23 column:
Many patients tell us that their doctors are pressuring them to get the COVID jab. The American Medical Association (AMA) claims that 96% of doctors are themselves fully vaccinated. So, if 9.6 out of 10 and not a mere 4 out of 5 doctors recommend something, it must be "right for you."
As far as I have heard, the message from state and local medical societies is "take the lead, get your shot, volunteer at a vaccination center, educate your hesitant patients."
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) decided to check out the AMA's 96% claim. We recall that the "one voice" has sometimes been wrong, and the 4% right.
Remember that your doctor may only see pro-vaccine material and may suffer repercussions from an employer or insurance panel for not meeting vaccine goals. You might ask him some questions, such as what does he think of the first autopsy report on a COVID-vaccinated patient, who had spike proteins in every organ?
General good advice for life applies here: 1) Don't fall for the hard sell. If you have to sign up immediately (before you look under the hood), or lose your once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, alarms should go off. 2) Don't take the word of the anointed "expert" on faith, especially when he won't let others peek behind the curtain.
Hanne Nabintu Herland declared in her June 30 column that "The COVID-19 scandal continues to transfer billions into the pockets of the already ultra-rich, while national economies are faltering under the weight of mass unemployment, bankruptcies, debt and despair." She went on to suggest nefarious links between Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, and Bill Gates, "the oligarch billionaire turned "world pandemic expert" paying millions into the WHO system, with particular interest in world vaccines and controlling public health."
WND recently devoted an issue of its sparsely read Whistleblower magazine to accusing Democrats of spreading fear. It would never hold its own columnists to the same scrutiny.
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?
Failing Downward: Eric Bolling Ends Up At Newsmax Topic: Newsmax
An anonymously written June 28 Newsmax article put the best possible spin on the development:
Newsmax, America’s fastest growing cable news network, announced today that it is adding acclaimed television host and best-selling author Eric Bolling to its impressive talent roster.
Chris Ruddy, CEO of Newsmax, said: “Eric Bolling is a consummate media professional who isn’t afraid to ask tough questions, get provocative answers and challenge establishment thinking. His background in business and politics separates him from the competition.”
Bolling will begin as a guest host for shows on Monday, June 27, and is slated to host a new show in July with details to be announced soon.
Bolling said, “Like myself, Newsmax is concerned with the direction that Big Tech and Big Corporate Media have taken journalism and our nation. I’m excited to join an organization that delivers programming you can trust.”
Most recently, Bolling hosted a popular talk show called “America This Week With Eric Bolling.”
The show aired weekly across the Sinclair broadcast platform of 200 stations.
At Fox News, Bolling was its most visible and popular guest host, sitting in for Bill O’Reilly more than 200 times and guest hosting for top-rated “Hannity” more than 70 times.
Needless to say, Newsmax didn't tell readers why Bolling is no longer employed at those previous jobs. He was fired from Fox News in 2017 after allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the form of sending lewd photos to colleagues, part of a wave of allegations against Fox News hosts and executives. He was fired from Sinclair Broadcast Group earlier this year after repeatedly getting busted for spreading misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic.
Newsmax did not provide an explanation of why it has chosen to hire a man with such a dubious track record.
WND Columnist Falsely Claims Biden Repeatedly Quotes Mao Topic: WorldNetDaily
Hanne Nabintu Herland ranted in her June 16 WorldNetDaily column:
The authoritarian Communist leader Mao Zedong, the founder of the People's Republic of China, is currently quoted again and again in President Joe Biden's speeches. "Mao qualifies as the greatest mass murderer in world history," says Frank Dikötter, an expert with unprecedented access to the Communist Party archives.
Dikötter explains in his book, "Mao's Great Famine: The Story of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe," that around 45 million people were starved, beaten to death or killed in prison camps in China between 1958-1962. Bear in mind that the death toll from World War II was around 55 million. The Hong Kong-based historian said he found that during the time Mao was enforcing the Great Leap Forward in 1958, in an effort to catch up with the economy of the Western world, he was responsible for overseeing "one of the worst catastrophes the world has ever known."
Since President Biden keeps quoting the Communist leader, one may humbly assume that Biden respects Mao and endorses his work, or else he would obviously not repeatedly have referred to the authoritarian leader. Black Lives Matter openly endorses atheist Marxism and the U.S. university systems are now being modeled after the same revolutionary thought. Let us therefore take a quick look at who Mao Zedong was.
This is a highly misleading -- not to mention dumb -- attack on Biden.Despite Herland's insistence that Mao has been "quoted again and again" by Biden, she offers no evidence that he has used multiple Mao quotes. In fact, all he has done is on several occasions use the phrase "women hold up half the sky." The phrase is actually older than Mao, though Mao popularized it, and there's nothing inherently communist or evil in the phrase.
Nevertheless, Herland spent the rest of her column rehashing Mao's history for shock value, then concluded: "The fact that Biden gladly and repeatedly quotes Mao speaks volumes." No, it doesn't, and all the right-wing ranting in the world will not make that happen.
Similar to what happened the previous month, the employment numbers were so good that CNSNews.com could find nothing to attack President Biden over, and it was shocked into reporting the news in a mostly straightforward manner. Susan Jones, however, still tried to emphasize the few not-so-good numbers in her lead story:
Total nonfarm payroll rose by 850,000 in June, the strongest number of the year so far, and well above the 583,000 (revised) jobs added in May. The 850,000 jobs added exceeds analysts' estimates, which ran as high as 700,000 for June.
But at the same time, the unemployment rate ticked up a tenth of a point to 5.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
(Note: Total nonfarm payroll employment is the number of paid U.S. workers in all businesses, excluding proprietors, private household employees, unpaid volunteers, farm employees and the unincorporated self-employed. It includes about 80 percent of those who contribute to GDP and who are covered by unemployment insurance.)
On Friday, BLS reported that the number of employed Americans broke a 13-month upward streak, dropping by 18,000 to 151,602,000 in June from 151,620,000 in May.
At the same time, the number of unemployed Americans -- those who don't have a job but are available for work and have looked for work in the past four weeks -- increased to 9,484,000 in June, a gain of 168,000 from 9,316,000 in May.
This produced the higher unemployment rate.
The numbers were so good the previous month that CNS didn't bother to do any sidebars; this time, editor Terry Jeffrey served up his usual complaints about government employment: "Governments in the United States added a net total of 188,000 jobs in the month of June, even as the federal government decreased the number it employed by 5,000."
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.”
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."
NEW ARTICLE: WND Adds To Its COVID Misinformer Army Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joel Hirschhorn uses his WorldNetDaily platform to lobby for dubious coronavirus treatments and to carry out a bizarre vendetta against Anthony Fauci. Read more >>