CNS Still Promoting GOP Rep. Boebert, Hiding Her Extremism Topic: CNSNews.com
Craig Bannister gushed in a June 29 CNSNews.com article:
The more Democrats threaten to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights, the more Americans will buy guns, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) said Monday in a speech on the House floor.
The congresswoman began by sarcastically “thanking” Democrats for fueling the sale of firearms in the U.S., attributing purchases to Democrats’ tolerance of violence and “threats to strip away our basic constitutional rights”:
“So, my colleagues from the other side, they can keep running our mouths and we will keep adding to our arsenals,” Rep. Boebert concluded.
CNS justlovesBoebert -- and as with fellow far-right Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, it also loves to hide her extremism and controversies. So you won't read about any of the following at CNS that happened over the past month or so:
Boebert calling people who would come door-to-door to vaccinate people against COVID "needle Nazis."
A prominent Republican women's group rejecting both Boebert and Greene as "carnival barkers."
Boebert rudely throwing a mask at a staffer who asked her to wear one in order to adhere to a new masking mandate on the House floor.
Revelations of a mysterious late-night tour of the Capitol that Boebert gave to family members in December, three weeks before she was sworn in as a representative and about three and a half weeks before the Jan. 8 Capitol riot.
But if Boebert again says something clickbait-y that advances CNS' right-wing narratives, CNS will undoubtedly be all over it.
MRC Rages At Jill Biden For Being On Vogue Cover Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is looking for any reason, no matter how lame, to attack Jill Biden. Before the election, for instance, the MRC tried to make a huge deal out of her breaking up her first marriage nearly 50 years ago to be with Joe Biden -- while never disapproving of Donald Trump's multiple marriages and infidelities.
The MRC seems to be weirdly offended that the Bidens actually love each other, something there was little evidence of with Donald and Melania Trump (whom the MRC can't stop defending). In February, Tim Graham whined that the Bidens got a "puffball" interview from People for Valentine's Day (does Graham think People does any other kind?), and P.J. Gladnick complained that Politico "presented a politically weaponized Valentine to Jill and Joe Biden, appropriately on Valentine's Day" that "went full gush over the couple's "PDA" (Public Displays of Affection) that many would object to." Only the MRC would complain that it's offensive for a non-conservative couple to demonstrate affection for each other in public (not like we saw any of that from the Trumps).
Tierin-Rose Mandelburg raged against Jill wearing a scrunchie in her hair while picking up a Valentine's gift for her husband and was offended that anyone would think of her as relatable: "She’s the First Lady of the United States. She is probably the least relatable person unless you’ve been a First Lady yourself. Her and Joe’s net worth is like $9 million. #relatable." The rant continued: "Does a normal/relatable person casually spend over $100 on cupcakes and macaroons? Does a normal person have a Secret Service squad accompany them to a bakery? Does a relatable person have a quality camera man follow them around to take pictures of them picking up pastries?" A couple days later, Duncan Schroeder picked up the scrunchie-hating baton, huffing that "While the liberal media nastily smeared Melania Trump by reducing her to being “arm candy” and a “trophy wife,” it has nothing but praise for Jill Biden."
And Graham returned to complain: "The Bidens may be great lovers. But everything at White House level has a large degree of calculation in it. Everyone should know the gushing liberal newspapers and magazines are aggressively engaged in the politics of humanization." He also tried for a calculated defense of Melania, insisting that she "began her tenure as First Lady behind the Eight ball. First, the liberal media always adores First Ladies who are Ivy League-educated lawyers or career educators, not just – ick – wives. Second, Melania Trump’s beauty was deployed against her: she was seen as 'arm candy,' a 'trophy wife.' She resisted any attempt at public affection for the cameras."
So when Vogue did a cover story on Jill Biden at the end of June, it was a full-on knives-out event for the MRC. Scott Whitlock ranted:
If you’re a Democratic First Lady, you can expect lots of puff pieces from outlets like ABC’s Good Morning America andVoguemagazine. If you’re a Republican? Not as much. GMA journalists on Tuesday gushed over Jill Biden appearing on Vogue for the first time, hailing the “inspiration.”
ABC reporter Janai Norman sounded like she was a PR rep for the Democrat, fawning, “Dr. Jill Biden, the First Lady who is also a former second lady, a current professor who is sometimes called Dr. B. But according to Vogue, in informal settings she'll say to call her Jill.”
Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour is a long-time Democratic donor, so we can consider this a donation.
Just like we can consider Whitlock's hit job a Republican donation?
The cover story comes with a bunch of pretty, posed pictures -- of Jill Biden, and Jill with Joe, and Jill with precious Biden grandchildren -- all by star photographer Annie Leibovitz. Some have designer captions: “Dr. Biden wears a Michael Kors Collection sweater and skirt.”
Troubling family topics – like Hunter Biden and his infernal laptop – are all airbrushed out.
There was no Vogue cover story for Melania Trump. Three years ago, Vogue instead was celebrating porn star Stormy Daniels (complete with posed, pretty Annie Leibovitz portraits) as a “catalyst of historic proportions,” destined to ruin the Trumps.
These sticky valentines underline that overall, journalists shouldn’t boast it’s their job to ask tough questions and hold powerful people accountable. Because they seem to do that about half the time. That’s the spin when the Democrats they supported didn’t win.
Graham didn't mention that Melania already appeared on the cover of Vogue -- in 2005, when she married Donald Trump, and it gushed over her ostentatious $100,000 wedding dress. Ane we see once again Graham denigrating a woman for having an affair with Trump, another utter hypocrisy at the MRC.
A July 3 column by Jeffrey Lord rehashed all the right-wing talking points -- Wintour likes Democrats, Melania wasn't on the cover -- bizarrely called Vogue "corrupt," then whined: "Under the guise of being a so-called “women’s magazine” Vogue is not about “women” or style or beauty or anything else. It is, like so many other American institutions that pretend to be about one thing, in fact about something else entirely. In reality Vogue is about a celebration of all things progressive. ... The Vogue< cover of Jill Biden is nothing if not a reminder of the game being played. And millions of Americans are now onto the game. The Devil may indeed wear Prada. But it is also very safe to say the Devil wears Liberalism on her sleeve — and her magazine covers."
UPDATE: We forgot to note that in March, Graham tried to revive the Jill-cheated story -- but he too apparently has no problem with Trump's multiple marriages and infidelities, so he looks like a hypocrite in doing so.
WND Embraces Anti-Google Researcher's Dubious Work Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've documented how the Media Research Center embraced Robert Epstein as a legitimate critic of Google -- specifically for his claim that Google built bias into its search engine to influence voters in favor of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election -- despite his shoddy research (extrapolating a mere 21 undecided voters). Now, WorldNetDaily has fully embraced Epstein's anti-Google sentiments. Art Moore interviewd him for a July 6 article, which weirdly started out by his taking credit for supposedly not being any search bias for Georgia Senate elections:
After finding that Google's search-engine manipulation in the 2020 election could have shifted a minimum of 6 million votes to Democrat Joe Biden, Harvard-trained research psychologist and Democratic voter Robert Epstein turned his sights to the Georgia Senate elections.
For the first time -- after having monitored three national elections -- he said in an interview with WND that his growing team of field agents found no political bias in Google's search results.
But Epstein believes that's a direct result of his monitoring efforts, and he plans to exponentially expand them.
Actually, Epstein's claim that millions of votes were moved by Google in the 2020 presidential election is disproven by the election itself, as the Washington Post's Philip Bump noted: "Of course, the idea that people primarily base their decisions on what they learn from Googling candidates — particularly at the presidential level — is dismissible on its face. President Biden got a record level of support from Democrats even as Trump earned near-universal support from Republicans. Which of them was influenced by his or her search results?" Also, no evidence was presented to back up that claim, with Epstein himself apparently conceding the speculative nature of it by having WND say it "could have" happened.
Moore gave Epstein space to push his allegedly liberal-leaning bona fides, claiming that "He emphasized to WND he is not a Trump supporter but a "supporter of democracy." He wanted Joe Biden to win, but wanted the election to be fair, recognizing that in the future the tech giants could put their massive power behind a candidate who is not of his choice." Moore also rehashed Epstein's defense of his earlier work by insisting that tht results "were based on an analysis of 13,207 election-related searches, along with the 98,044 web pages to which the search results linked" -- which still doesn't make up for the fact that the research was based on the work of 95 people, 21 of whom were undecided, and that his conclusions were based on how those 21 undecided voters reacted.
WND editor Joseph Farah touted Epstein again in his July 30 column:
Did you know that Google and Facebook have the power to throw elections?
Robert Epstein, a Harvard Ph.D. in psychology, has long studied Big Tech and its ability to swing massive numbers of votes.
In conjunction with the apolitical, nonpartisan American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology, Epstein has watched carefully Big Tech's involvement with U.S. elections since 2016.
Stop right there. There's no evidence that Epstein's AIBRT is "apolitica" or "nonpartisan" -- indeed, it appears that Epstein is quite partisan given how much he caters to right-wing media with his research and wild anti-Google bias. Farah continued to be a reliable Epstein messenger:
You may recall what happened in the election for 2016. That was the year Donald Trump upset Hillary Clinton. Trump didn't have tens of millions of Twitter followers then. He didn't get any help from Big Tech that year. But Hillary did. At least 6 million votes – a combination of illegal ballots and manipulated data. But it still wasn't enough for Hillary.
Then came the next election – in 2018. Epstein estimated that Google and Facebook were in a position to turn about 12 million votes due to their overwhelming pro-Democrat bias demonstrated in their virtual monopoly dominance of search and social media platforms. That was the year Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the House.
But 2016 and 2018 were probably rigged elections, according to Epstein's projections.
Of course, that's all speculative extrapolation -- Epstein has no proof that 1) Google searches were definitively biased, 2) they were so biased they caused any voter to change his or her vote, or 3) that so many votes were changed to make those elections "rigged."
Epstein is saying what Farah and WND want to hear, and Farah and Moore are lapping it up.
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC's War on Jen Psaki (And Man-Crush On Peter Doocy), Part 3 Topic: Media Research Center
In April, the Media Research Center's Curtis Houck crushed harder (on Fox News' Doocy) and raged more viciously (against Psaki) than ever in his writeups of Psaki's White House press briefings. Read more >>
CNS Is Mad Again That CPAC Doesn't Hate LGBT People Enough Topic: CNSNews.com
Back in February, CNSNews.com was quite angry that the Conservative Political Action Conference was committing the offense of not hating LGBT people by giving an award to an "openly gay" man. With the summer edition of CPAC in July, it was outraged again. An anonymous CNS writer complained in a July 10 article:
The 2021 Conservative Political Action Conference, which is being held this weekend in Dallas, Texas, will feature two speakers who are self-professed gays.
Former acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell, who also served as ambassador to Germany, had an on-stage “conversation” with American Conservative Union President Matt Schlapp on Saturday morning. Radio talk show host Tammy Bruce will moderate a panel discussion on Sunday that is entitled “Fuel for Thought” and will look at energy policy issues.
The anopnymous writer never explained why Grenell's and Bruce's appearances were problematic beyond singling out their sexual orientation, though the headline of the article put "Conservative Political Action Conference" in scare quotes without further explanation. CNS managing editor Michael W, Chapman, a notorious homophobe, singled out Grenell's appearance at the February CPAC, making sure to note that Grenell "is gay" and "lives with his long-time partner Matt Lashey." CNS also attacked Grenell's sexual orientation during his moves through the Trump administration.
The only coverage CNS gave the actual CPAC itself was for Donald Trump's speech, which somehow warranted two articles from Susan Jones:
MRC's Double Standard on Rooting Against America Topic: Media Research Center
Under the headline "CBS Roots for Team USA to Fail at Olympics," Scott Whitlock complained in a July 26 post: "According to CBS guest William Rhoden, arrogant Team USA need to be “humbled," and maybe losing several medals at the Olympics was the way to do it. Appearing on CBS This Morning, Monday, the liberal sports journalist derided the opening ceremonies as too nationalistic, saying they reminded him of 'white nationalism.'" He added that "Seeming to root against the U.S., the former New York Times columnist took pleasure in the American basketball team’s struggles," going on to criticize the "trashing of American athletes."
You know who else has been trashing American athletes and rooting against America at the Olympics? The MRC.
We've already documented the seething hatred the MRC has for any athlete -- particularly American ones -- who aren't heterosexual, and one got the sense they were rooting for the failure of these athletes at the Olympics solely because of this.
Jay Maxson explicitly did in a July 11 post exactly what Whitlock accued Rhoden of doing -- taking pleasure in the American basketball team’s struggles:
How the mighty – and the woke – have fallen! The dominant international men’s basketball powerhouse forever, Team USA, suffered a shocking, embarrassing pre-Olympic exhibition game loss to lowly Nigeria on Sunday. The NBA’s wokeness sure doesn’t fly on the world hoops stage.
Ranked 22nd in world, Nigeria downed the Americans 90-87. It was the USA’s first-ever loss to an African team. The USA is now 54-3 since NBA players took over U.S. Olympic basketball, and the team had won its last 39 games. In two previous games against Nigeria, the USA had won by a whopping 127 points combined.
Greg Popovich (at right in photo), the most woke and politically outspoken coach in the NBA, coached the U.S. to this disaster. It’s certainly a red alert for him and all the American NBA players who have been disgracefully carrying on about social justice, Black Lives Matter and Donald Trump in recent years.
Once again, we see that all the money and wokeness in the world - and the complacency that can come with it - doesn’t always beat heart, hunger and desire.
This was followed by a July 21 post in which Matt Philbin took immense pleasure in the U.S. women's soccer team losing its Olympic opener:
The U.S. Women’s National soccer team lost 3-0 to Sweden in their Olympic opener on Tuesday. That probably hurts the team’s chances for the gold. But let’s not forget that this was a victory of sorts too. The U.S. ladies proved they could maintain a busy schedule of politicized grousing, kvetching and posturing, and still find time to lose a soccer game. You really can have it all, gals!
Just in case sports fans forgot how deeply the team feels the world’s every injustice, they and their opponents knelt before the game to strike a blow against racism or something. Then they got down to the business of being trounced.
Oh sure, they missed the net and maybe the ball sometimes. But the Angry Amazons for Equity have other targets dead in their sights: “ racist infrastructures,” sexism, and reality based economics. And attractive women’s lingerie is toast.
The same day, Tim Graham used his podcast to ask: "How do we feel about kneeling American Olympians? Should Americans root for them anyway....or root for them to lose?" He admitted that MRC staff members "tend to root for these Americans to lose, even though they're Americans," but he didn't name any MRC staff members who believe that "Americans should always root for Americans." Graham then declared his "swishy Susan Collins-type centrist" position that "I root for the Americans, but I'm not going to be too upset if Megan Rapinoe loses."
So, yeah, the MRC is utterly hypocritical about this.
CNS Touts McCarthy Noting That Confederates Were Dems, Hides That 120 Republicans Voted Against Removing Confederate Statues Topic: CNSNews.com
Susan Jones wrote in a June 30 CNSNews.com article:
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 285-120 on Tuesday to remove more statues of Confederates from the U.S. Capitol.
Sixty-seven Republicans voted with 218 Democrats in support of the bill, and one of those voting for removal was House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who seized the occasion to note past Democrat racism, even as he condemned present Democrat attempts to stoke racial division in the United States.
"The bill we're voting on today we voted (on) before," McCarthy said in a floor speech. "And I supported it. I support it now. But let me state a simple fact: All the statues being removed by this bill are statues of Democrats," McCarthy said.
(The House resolution removes statues of John C. Calhoun, Charles Aycock, and James P. Clarke, all of whom defended slavery and fought for the Confederacy. And it replaces a bust of the late Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, author of the Dred Scott decision, with one of Thurgood Marshall, the first African American Supreme Court justice.)
McCarthy noted that the Confederate portraits removed from the Capitol one year ago were all of Democrats as well. And he noted that the statues identified in the House resolution were sent to the House of Representatives by states controlled by Democrats.
What Jones was careful not to mention: All Democrats voted for the statues' removal, and that all 120 "no" votes on this removal were cast by Republicans, which would seem to drive home the point that Democrats have repudiated its history or racism, while Republicans have picked up that mantle. While Jones gave McCarthy space to declare that "I'll vote for this bill today, just as I voted for it before," she gave no explanation for why 120 Republicans voted against it (and the leader of their caucus).
Jones went on to uncritically quote McCarthy making the case for Democrats changing the name of their party despite it not being germane to the issue of removing Confederate statues:
Just a few years ago, then-Vice President Joe Biden praised Democrat Senator Robert Byrd [D-W.Va.]. He was the exalted cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan. In his eulogy for Byrd, he said, for a lot of us, he was a friends, a mentor, and a guide.
Another leading Democrat who praised Byrd at the time was Speaker Pelosi. She called Byrd a friend, a great person, and a great American patriot.
Jones censored the fact that Byrd repeatedly apologized for his KKK involvement, and even the NAACP acknowledged upon his death in 2010 that he"went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country."
Newsmax Cheers Evidence-Free Attempt to Defund NPR Topic: Newsmax
Charles Kim complained in a July 5 Newsmax article:
National Public Radio (NPR) is in a bit of hot water after posting an article during the Independence Day holiday Sunday that claimed the Declaration of Independence was “a flawed” document with “deeply ingrained hypocrisies,” leading to yet another call from people on the right to defund the organization.
“I’ve seen enough,” Republican Congressional candidate Irene Armendariz-Jackson said responding to the NPR post on Twitter. “Defund NPR.”
The article NPR posted Sunday included its tradition of staff members reading the document of America’s founding, a custom of some 32 years on the radio station, but also referred to the riots of last summer and the need to understand that the document contained things that some find offensive, like referring to Native-Americans as “merciless Indian savages.”
But Kim did not explain what was factually wrong with NPR's interpretation, nor did he quote anyone who did. Instead, he touted the history of right-wingers trying to defund NPR.
Meanwhile, even obsessive NPR hater Tim Graham at the Media Research Center didn't see enough in NPR's interpretation to devote a post to it. Instead, all it warranted is a couple paragraphs in his July 7 column trying to blame the "liberal media" for dividing America":
So-called National Public Radio tweeted out a thread of the original Declaration of Independence, blasting it as "a document with flaws and deeply ingrained hypocrisies." It says “‘that all men are created equal’ — but women, enslaved people, Indigenous people and many others were not held as equal at the time.”
See? You can’t see the text as a statement of idealism, a promise to be fulfilled in time. The Declaration is painted as a lie perpetuated by malignant, propertied white men...with your taxpayer dollars.
Graham conveniently omits the fact that it took the better part of 200 years for indigenous people to be treated as full Americans -- probably because that would bolster NPR's case.
Cashill Tries To Rewrite History Of Waco Siege, Tulsa Massacre Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Cashill served up a little, um, alternative history in his June 2 WorldNetDaily column:
"Some injustices are so heinous, so horrific, so grievous they can't be buried no matter how hard people try," said President Joe Biden in Tulsa on Tuesday.
Biden knows something about burying injustice. On April 19, 1993, he was serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee when a Democrat-controlled, FBI-led tank assault on the Mount Carmel religious community outside of Waco, Texas, left 74 people dead, more than half of them racial minorities.
As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Biden had the responsibility to redress the injustice that took place at Waco. He passed on that responsibility.
f the 74 killed that day, six were Hispanic. Six were of Asian descent. And 27 were black. The victims ranged in age from 6 to 61. And no, this is not something I read on the internet. I found a verifiable list of the dead, broken out by age and ethnicity, and counted them.
At Tulsa on Tuesday, Biden repeated his blood libel that "terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today." Biden's goal at Tulsa, indeed the goal from the day he announced his candidacy, has been to frighten blacks into remaining within the Democratic fold.
Truth be told, Waco represented the single greatest federally orchestrated one-day slaughter of racial minorities on American soil since Wounded Knee in 1890, and there, at least, the Indians fought back, killing more than 30 American cavalry.
In Tulsa the blacks had better odds than they did at Waco. The initial encounter between black and white mobs left 10 whites dead and two blacks. A 2001 commission confirmed a total of 26 black dead and 13 whites, notwithstanding Biden's insistence that "the likely number is much more than the multiple of hundreds."
Actually, while the commission was only able to confirm the 36 dead, it also stated that "credible evidence makes it probable that many people, likely numbering between 100-300, were killed during the massacre." In other words, Biden is correct.
Of course, it's ridiculous for Cashill to try and diminish the Tulsa massacre by invoking the Waco siege. He, of course, leaves out inconvenient facts to the Waco narrative. For instance, he omitted nearly all mention of David Koresh, whom even former Branch Davidians admit was highly controlling and had sex with girls as young as 12. (There is dispute about whether Koresh could be accurately described as a cult leader.) Whatever mistakes federal officials made in handling the Waco siege, there's also evidence that the Davidians lit the fire that destroyed the compound and killed Koresh and his followers, but Cashill doesn't want to remind you of that either. Indeed, he still wants to whine:
For Biden and other Democrats, it is now axiomatic that black lives matter only when they are politically useful. As Biden has proved since his election, blue lives matter only when they, too, are politically useful.
The police are to be defended when serving the interests of the Deep State against the white supremacist hordes. So the killer of Ashli Babbitt remains unknown, and Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick is elevated to martyrdom though dying of natural causes.
In fact, the medical examiner pointed out that "all that transpired" at the Capitol riot "played a role in his condition" and led to SiIcknick's death. And Cashill is on the wrong side of history yet again, defending Babbitt, a domestic terrorist who was engaged in criminal acts as the time she was killed while breaking through a window inside the Capitol.
MRC Still Inexplicably Defending Crowder's Hate Amid Removal From TikTok Topic: Media Research Center
There's a boatload of misinformation in a June 28 Media Research Center post, in which Alexander Hall inexplicably continuestodefend hateful right-wing ranter Steven Crowder, under the headline "China Strikes":
TikTok can be subservient to the genocidal Chinese government, but the platform’s real offense was allowing conservative commentators, a leftist organization said.
“Comedian and conservative commentator Steven Crowder has been banned from China’s TikTok viral video platform,” Reclaim The Net reported June 26. Leftist organization Media Matters proclaimed it was behind the purge: “Far-right internet personality Steven Crowder has been banned from TikTok following a June 8 Media Matters report highlighting his bigotry on the platform,” the organization wrote in a June 24 update. “A TikTok spokesperson confirmed to Media Matters that Crowder’s account had been removed for violating its community guidelines.”
Media Matters leadership has received extensive funding from leftist megadonor George Soros, the record shows. Soros’ Foundation to Promote Open Society (OSF) tax forms has shown five separate donations between 2010 and 2014 totalling $1,575,000. Soros gave the organization money every other year during that time. The leftist group released a report earlier in June sliming Crowder for “using TikTok to spread hate to a younger audience.”
First: Hall offers no evidence that the Chinese government even knows Crowder exists, let alone that it ordered TikTok to remove him from the platform, as he suggests -- or, for that matter, that the Chinese government is so involved in TikTok that it polices all users or eve the those in America.
Second: Hall's complaint about Media Matters receiving funding from Soros interests is a red herring. He offers no evidence that any of it was used to target Crowder -- highly unlikely, since even its own documents notes that the last bit of Soros funding came in 2014. It's also a pittance compared to the money the MRC receives from rich conservatives like the Mercers.
In addition to claiming that Media Matters "slim[ed]" Crowder, Hall also asserted that it "spread fearmongering rhetoric about Crowder’s popularity" ... by pointing out his record of hateful rhetoric. Hall did not prove anything Media Matters said about Crowder to be false or misleading. Hall also laughably claimed that noting TikTok's "young user base" meant that "Media Matters may have also revealed the main reason why liberals are terrified of conservative commentators accessing platforms like TikTok to spread right-wing humor." The MRC likes to portray what Crowder does as "humor" -- giving him the comedian defense it won't offer to those whose sense of humor is farther to the left -- but offers no evidence that any of it is funny.
Indeed, Hall didn't quote anything from Crowder Media Matters found offensive -- just like it didn't directly quote the nastiness that got Crowder suspended from YouTube in May.
Crowder's TikTok suspension also made the June roundup of what the MRC claims is the "WORST censorship"; Casey Ryan laughably called Media Matters an "extreme far-left organization" and repeated Hall's complaint that it "spread fearmongering rhetoric about Crowder’s popularity."
It's just another reminder that Media Matters lives rent-free inside the collective heads of the MRC -- perhaps because it does its job more effectively than the MRC does.
WND Columnist Mad That Victoria's Secret, NFL Will Seek Customers Beyond Heterosexual Men Topic: WorldNetDaily
Wayne Allyn Root spent part of his July 5 WorldNetDaily column melting down over Victoria's Secret ratcheting back on catering to lustful men (like himself?)
This is stupidity. This is insanity. This is suicide. American companies and institutions are purposely destroying themselves. They're ripping apart billion-dollar brands that have taken decades of hard work to build. And they're doing it in a matter of days.
They're marching off cliffs like sheep.
Keep in mind sheep are idiots. They have no brainpower. They can't think for themselves. If one sheep walks off a cliff, they'll all happily follow. Did you ever imagine CEOs of billion-dollar companies could be as dumb as sheep?
Who committed suicide this week? Some of the biggest brand names in America.
Let's start with Victoria's Secret. I have a secret for them. You just killed your business. How clueless can you get? Victoria's Secret sells lingerie, bras, bathing suits. This isn't brain surgery. Those products are sold by beautiful female models. Always have been, always will be. They're so beautiful they're called "angels." And here's another secret for clueless Victoria's Secret: Men open up their wallets for beautiful women.
Most women want to look like angels, too. Even if only for one night with dim lights on. Even if only while wearing Victoria's Secret lingerie.
They've decided to fire all their sexy, gorgeous, skinny, busty models. The angels are being replaced by overweight, unattractive, feminist icons and transgender models.
Even if you personally believe this leftist, feminist drivel, that's fine. Be a Stepford wife in private. But to attach this insanity to your billion-dollar brand is suicide. No one will buy clothing, let alone bras, panties and lingerie from unattractive, overweight feminists and transgender models. Your business is ruined, thanks to your radical, absurd, insane political philosophy.
But that's not all. Root is also enraged that the NFL is trying to expand its audience beyond aggressively heterosexual men (like himself?):
But the NFL could be even more stupid and reckless than Victoria's Secret. Have you seen the latest TV ad for the NFL? It says, "The NFL is gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender." Insanity does not even begin to describe how clueless this is. I'm Exhibit A. I'm the prototype for your typical NFL fan.
I've loved the NFL since I was 5 years old. I live for Sundays to watch NFL football. I live and die with my Dallas Cowboys. I love America, faith, family, freedom, my fiancee and my NFL. That's not a brand. That's a religion. The NFL is part of my life. It's the DNA of America.
Why would the NFL ruin its brand by getting involved with politics? And not just any politics, but the most controversial and radical politics possible.
The NFL is about sports, gambling and violence. It's a perfect mix that attracts mostly macho, straight males – a majority of whom are conservative, Christian and unabashed patriots. I'd bet my life's fortune that a large majority of the fans sitting in the stands at NFL games voted for former President Donald Trump.
Like it or not, that's your audience. Like it or not, a majority of the NFL's paying customers have conservative views and values. They go to church; they believe in God; they own guns; they vote Republican; and they idolize Clint Eastwood, Sylvester Stallone and Donald Trump.
Why offend your customers? Why get involved in politics at all? But if you do, why pick a stand that alienates a majority of your most loyal fans? I have nothing against lesbians, bisexuals or transgenders, but how many pay for NFL season tickets? Maybe a dozen in a stadium that seats 75,000? Maybe.
Is the NFL trying to attract 0.0000000001% new fans while driving away 60% of their current fans forever? Is that a smart business decision? Actually, this is business suicide.
The NFL shouldn't hate gays, lesbians or transgenders. I don't. But what does anyone's sexuality have to do with football? Will there be a straight male Pride Month? Will future NFL television ads say: "We are macho, straight, Republican and proud"? I doubt it. But why not? That's your audience. That's who buys the tickets.
Actually, Root is very much showing his hatred for the LGBT community by insisting they don't deserve to be football fans.
Trump's New Spokesperson Is A Former CNS Reporter Topic: CNSNews.com
The Media Research Center loves to whine about the "revolving door" between the media and politics -- but only when it involves the "liberal media," not Fox News and the Trmp administration, and most definitely when it involves its own "news" division, CNSNews.com. We've documented how the revolving door works at CNS, and its current editor, Terry Jeffrey, is a former political operative, having worked for Pat Buchanan's presidential campaigns in the 1990s.
So, yeah, there's a fundamental dishonesty there that makes her a perfect spokesperson for the fundamentally dishonest Trump. Just don't expect the MRC to mention this the next time it rants about "revolving doors."
MRC Mocks Toobin's Return, Silent On Fox News Host Accused Of Sleazy Sexual Behavior Topic: Media Research Center
When legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin returned to CNN following a leave of absence after he got caught masturbating on a Zoom call with colleagues at the New Yorker, the Media Research Center was all too eager to make hay from it. Curtis Houck declared in a June 10 post that didn't skimp on details (which we don't feel the need to repeat):
CNN showed its aversion to decency, ethics, and journalistic principles on Thursday afternoon as the Jeffrey Zucker-led network officially welcome back chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin for an absolutely cringeworthy interview seven months after he was caught masturbating on a Zoom call with fellow journalists.
And with a “I’m trying” from Toobin, Camerota’s nearly 14-minute-long interview from hell was over.
And in the process, CNN made clear that while Fox News is the news outlet without shame, the WarnerMedia outfit has shown the world that, if you’re the right person who holds left-wing political views, all can be forgiven, no matter the sin.
Houck also rehashed Toobin's return in the NewsBusters podcast the next day, including regurgitating his lament of CNN portraying Fox News as"is the news outlet without shame."
Funny you should mention Fox News and its lack of shame, Curt. We've documented how the MRC largely censored the story of accusations of sexual harassment against Fox News hosts and executives; indeed, so lacking in decency was the MRC that it not only gave Bill O'Reilly space to respond to harassment charges against him, Tim Graham appeared on the final episode of what was Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show.
More importantly, the MRC completely censored all mention of charges of disturbing behavior against Fox Newshost Charles Payne; former right-wing talking head Scottie Nell Hughes accused him of coercing her into a sexual relationship with him. It was serious enough that Fox News suspended Payne for a couple months, but he was allowed to return. As we also noted, not only did the MRC omit mention of his suspension and return, it was so completely lacking in decency that the MRC's Joseph Vazquez did a suck-up softball interview with Payne that made no mention of the sexual allegations against him, and Vazquez declared afterward that it was "an honor and privilege of mine" to do the interview.
While the MRC is nonplussed by Payne's disturbing personal life, it feels free to mock Toobin for his:
A June 18 post by Abigail Streetman claimed a politician almost went the "full Toobin."
A June 23 post by Mark Finkelstein declared Toobin was "continuing his comeback tour after his Zoom-masturbation suspension."
On July 2, Alex Christy called Toobin a "disgraced" analyst.
Brad Wilmouth reminded us on July 16 that Toobin "masturbated on a Zoom call, but wasn't fired by CNN."
Finkelstein asserted on July 20: "Will it ever be possible to hear the name "Jeffrey Toobin" without you-know-what coming to mind?"
Meanwhile, Payne's sleazy sexual behavior isn't keeping the MRC from treating him as an honored elder statesman.
NEW ARTICLE: WND's Ivermectin Chronicles Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily reporter Art Moore misleadingly promoted a dubious study from a pro-ivermectin group touting the drug's alleged effectiveness against COVID-19 -- and he pushed misinformation and fearmongering about vaccines. Read more >>
CNS Mindlessly Attacks School Board For Letting Parents Know About Child Tax Credit Topic: CNSNews.com
We documented how CNSNews.com intern Elizabeth Nieshalla followed marching orders and churned out an article pushing right-wing narratives against a Virginia school board discussing "pro-transgender" policies for its students (without any mention of the fact that CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, helped incite the volatile atmosphere at one board meeting). A few days later, Nieshalla attacked the school board again for no real reason at all:
Two days after their controversial June 22 school board meeting, Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) sent out an email to families detailing and promoting President Joe Biden’s Child Tax Credit under the American Rescue Plan, which was signed into law in March of this year.
The LCPS School Board has been under harsh criticism by many parents who are concerned about the implementation of many of the board members’ progressive ideologies, such as a transgender policy that requires the illogical use of pronouns in reference to a person’s selected gender, as well as concerns about the anti-American Critical Race Theory and its variants.
Neishalla didn't explain why the school board informing parents about a new child tax credit is so offensive. Nor did she explain what the child tax credit has to do with the other initiatives that right-wingers have targed the school board for.
(She also didn't explain how critical race theory is "anti-American" either or why referring to a student by their preferred pronoun is "illogical," but then, she's just regurgitating right-wing talking points.)
Informing parents of a benefit they may be able to take advantage of is a responsible act by a school district, not a partisan act. The use ot a photo of a woman holding up a sign declaring "Education Not Indoctrination" is quite illogical in this instance, because the child tax credit is not tied to anything the school district does, and information is not indoctrination.(Not hating transgender people and informing students of racism in American history isn't either, but again, Nieshalla is all about right-wing narratives, not facts.)
Articles like this may help get Nieshalla find a job at a right-wing website, but legitimate news outlets would likely stay far away from someone who puts such blatant partisan propaganda before facts.