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

The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck loves it when reporters are as hostile and biased as Fox News' Peter Doocy -- but only if they, like Doocy, advance right-wing talking points. So he was pretty darn happy when writing about the July 20 White House press briefing:

Tuesday’s White House Press Briefing was a welcome reprieve as Fox News’s Peter Doocy found himself with more than a few colleagues willing to join him in grilling Press Secretary Jen Psaki as ten reporters (including Doocy) lobbed one question after another about Texas Democrats fleeing Austin for Washington D.C. and triggering a superspreader of coronavirus cases.

By the time Doocy spoke, he was the third reporter to inquire about how Texas Democrats have spread COVID on both Capitol Hill and in the White House. Doocy, however, went where his colleagues wouldn’t with the use of the word superspreader.

“More than 10 percent of the traveling party with these Texas Democrats now claim to have a breakthrough case. Is there any concern that this trip that was intended to advocate for voting rights is now a superspreader event in Washington,”he asked.

An abrasive Psaki griped “that’s not a characterization we’re making from here,” but rather insisted that these “breakthrough cases” among unvaccinated individuals was proof that vaccines work in preventing from “death,” “hospitalization,” or even “serious illness” (which is entirely correct).

Note that Houck couldn't simply admit that Psaki was right about something; he also had to smear her as "abrasive," something we're pretty sure he never said about Kayleigh McEnany. Also, calling the coronavirus cases among Texas Democrats leaving the state to slow down a voting-restriction bill a "superspreader event" comes straight from Republican leadership, so Houck may as well be congratulated for adhering so close to partisan messaging (as well as exposing himself as a blindly partisan hack).It's also not accurate; all the Democrats who caught the virus were fully vaccinated, which is actually a lesson about how transmissible the Delta variant iseven among vaccinated people.

On July 22, Houck cheered that "Thursday’s White House press briefing gave us another welcome surprise as Press Secretary Jen Psaki found herself under the gun from not just Fox’s Peter Doocy, but a variety of reporters on issues such as Covid cases inside the administration, Critical Race Theory, Hunter Biden’s artwork, and masking." And, as usual, Doocy got special attention -- and whitewashing how he got owned by Psaki:

Doocy came next and things didn’t get any easier for Psaki. First, he wanted to know whether the Education Department will ensure that a pro-critical race theory group isn’t included in school curriculums seeing as how they had claimed its inclusion in new guidance was a mistake.

Psaki tried to minimize it, saying it was one small footnote and insinuated Doocy was lacking the full context.

Here's how that exchange actually went down:

Doocy asked if the Biden administration “will follow up with school districts to make sure that the Abolitionist Teaching Network material is not in lesson plans.”

Psaki replied, “Just to be clear, for the context, because I know you love context of what you’re asking about here, what you’re referring to is a citation in a report of which there were a thousand citations, so I’m quite impressed with your researchers for finding one of a thousand citations.”

Psaki went on to say that “it was an error in a lengthy document to include this citation. The specific site does not represent the administration’s view and we don’t endorse the recommendations of this group and I believe it’s been removed or is in the process of being removed.”

Doocy’s network has been covering outrage over CRT and its tenets extensively.

Houck is not going to admit Psaki won that exchange, nor will he admit that Doocy was parroting his employer's agenda. He didn't even bury the transcript in the item -- he simply censored it. 

That's the bias -- and hostility to anyone not as right-wing as he is -- Houck brings to his so-called reviews of Psaki's press briefings.

MRC Melts Down Over Captain America's Verson Of The American Dream
Topic: Media Research Center

At the Media Research Center, superheroes are not allowed to talk about anything but superhero-ing -- especially if that involves talking about things that don't reinforce right-wing narratives. So when Captain America said some non-jingoistic things about the American dream, Abigail Streetman was there to smear him as a commie in a July 6 post:

The Marvel Commies have struck again. This time they’re attempting to indoctrinate the readers of “The United States of Captain America” by telling them that the American Dream “isn’t real.” In the first issue of the comic written by Christopher Cantwell, the patriotically dressed Avenger promotes an anti-American view of our country on the weekend of Independence Day. 

The left-wing propaganda packed comic book was released on June 30. Marvel’s website then published an articlempromoting the new comic on July 3 titled “Spend the Fourth with these Captain America Reads.” They described the series as a celebration of “the character’s incredible legacy.”

The story begins with the hero going on a journey to find his stolen shield and running into everyday people or “Captains” who have been protecting their communities by taking on the identity of "Captain America." However, the story that is actually told is one of divisiveness and politically charged commentary. 

What did Captain America actually say that got Streetman so riled up? Well, she chops up his words and takes them out of context for full rant value, but he said that the "white picket fence" version of the American dream is a lie because it lies outside of the reality for many Americans, and that his version of the American dream is centered around freedoms for all. Streetman somehow translated this into right-wing rage-speak:

The more than 5.5 million family-owned businesses in the U.S. may have something different to say about that. Releasing this kind of hateful rhetoric on the weekend of Independence Day is one of the most anti-American acts to come from the publishing company, and Marvel seems to be constantly promoting left-wing insanity. 

The character continues to promote the biased viewpoint by discussing the “white picket fence” view of America and insists that this does not actually exist. According to the comic, the existing version of America is one that “doesn’t get along nicely with reality. Other cultures. Immigrants. The poor.” The Captain then says “a good dream is shared. Shared radically. Shared with everyone. When something isn’t shared, it can become the American lie.”

No, Marvel. That's called equity. That is the false utopian belief that's constantly pushed by deranged leftists. The true American dream is equality of opportunity for everyone and the promise that if you work hard you will achieve great things.

One of the characters portraying a version of "Captain America" continues to manipulate the readers even further, saying, "A while back, we told the world they could come here for a better life. But too often we turn our backs on them."

Freedom of thought is slowly being destroyed by companies like Marvel that push fallacies onto unsuspecting citizens. We now have to question comic books because the left-wing nuts can’t help but insert their radical beliefs into places where they don’t belong - like a comic book that's supposed to appeal to a mass audience.

Defund Marvel.

It seems that Streetman is making stuff up so she has something to write about. How else to explain her insisting that calls for full equality for all Americans as "left-wing insanity"?

Ranting for ranting's sake appears to be more important than making sense, apparently.

MRC Returns To Promoting Rep. Greene -- And Hiding Her Extremism
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center spent months portraying Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene as a victim of "Big Tech" while censoring the fact she's a far-right politician who faced sanctions from social media for her extremism. It appears that the MRC believes enough time has passed since her extremism was so exposed that even the MRC couldn't hide it that it can revive the victim narrative for her again. Alexander Hall wrote in a July 20 post:

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) returned from her recent Twitter suspension to compare the Big Tech platform to totalitarian censors in China.

“Twitter said on Monday that it was suspending Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from its service for 12 hours after she posted messages that violated its policy against sharing misleading information about the coronavirus,” The New York Times reported July 19. After her suspension was over, Greene claiming, “[it] banned me for 12 hrs, censoring me, & violating my freedom of speech.” She then compared Twitter’s leadership to state censorship by “CommunistChina.”

A Twitter spokesperson explained to the MRC that “[w]e took enforcement action on the account you referenced (@mtgreenee) for violations of the Twitter Rules, specifically the COVID-19 misleading information policy (Tweets here and here).”

The spokesperson linked to Twitter’s so-called “ COVID-19 misleading information policy” page.

First: It's not a "so-called" policy -- it's a real policy with a real name. Second: Not only did Hall censor Greene's extremist background, he didn't even quote the offending Greene tweets -- perhaps out fear that the false claims would get the MRC into trouble as well -- he simply links to them.The first tweet falsely claimed there have been "6,000 vax related deaths," and the second conspiratorially referred to COVID vaccines and masks "human experimentation."

Instead of telling his readers the truth, Hall acted as Grteene's PR rep, touting how "Greene made it clear in a Newsmax interview that Big Tech censorship is one of her core political talking points." Perhaps Greene -- and Hall -- should be making it clear that they care about truth more than false partisan talking points.

Loki Is Not Heterosexual, And The MRC Is Not Happy About It
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has long been oncerned that superhero shows feature characters, and even main characters, were not heterosexual. After obsessing over DC Comics characters, it's Marvel's turn to be the target in a June 7 post by Abigail Streeman:

In a predictable turn of events, Disney+ has released a short teaser video for the new Loki series that announced the sex of the main character as “fluid.” Marvel has consistently been outdoing itself with the woke leftist propaganda being shoved into every possible aspect of its movies. This one depicts Loki, the God of Mischief, as the protagonist who has to travel through the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) in order to save the world’s timeline. It wasn't enough to just add a “gender fluid” character, they must glorify it as well. 

In Norse mythology Loki is a “cunning trickster” who is seen shapeshifting from male to female forms but is referred to most often as a male (and he’s Thor’s brother in both the comic books and movies.) Still Disney saw the opportunity to push its agenda once more. 

The term “gender-fluid” is best described as someone who does not believe that they have one fixed gender. Scientists have pointed towards genetic, hormonal, and environmental exposures and influences during the formative years of childhood as a likely cause of gender dysphoria. This is certainly not the case with the God of mischief, so why is Marvel forcing this and putting mental illnesses on a pedestal?

So if you're not heterosexual, you're suffering from "mental illness"? That's hjow much the MRC hates LGBT people.

And when this actually showed up in thte show, Alexa Moutevelis was there to complain in a June 24 post:

Fresh off the announcement that Loki is gender fluid, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) has now officially made the character bisexual, to the delight of LGBTQ activists in and outside the media.

Loki’s coming out of the closet came in the third episode of the eponymous Disney+ show, which was released on Wednesday and titled “Lamentis.”

In the episode, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) and his variant Sylvie (Sophia Di Martino) are stuck on a moon that is about to be destroyed and must team up to escape. In one scene, as the two travel on a train, the conversation turns to their pasts and that’s when the big bisexual reveal occurs.

She concluded by whining: "LGBTQ propaganda is EVERYWHERE, it hardly needs to be further celebrated and encouraged, especially on Disney+."Only at the MRC is it "propaganda" for a character not to be heterosexual.

NEW ARTICLE: Is CNS The MRC's Whore?
Topic: Media Research Center
While the Media Research Center is hurling the "whore" slur at networks engaging in the common practice of promoting happenings by its corporate siblings, the MRC's "news" division writes press releases promoting MRC chief Brent Bozell. Read more >>

MRC Abandons The Right-Wing Lawyer It Helped Create
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center regularly attacked Michael Avenatti, whom it loved to tag as a "creepy porn lawyer" for the ofense of representing porn star Stormy Daniels (whom the MRC also attacked) in her accusations that Donald Trump had an affair with her -- an accusation that was seemingly proven by the fact that Trump paid her hush money. When Avenatti got in trouble with other extralegal shenanigans, the MRC was even happier to bash, continuing to tie him to the "liberal media" though it had long abandoned him. When Avenatti was sentenced to prison in July for his misdeeds, the MRC was ready to rehash his story yet again:

• The Man They Helped Build: CBS, NBC Ignore Avenatti’s Prison Sentence
• EMBARRASSING: MSNBC Ignores Buddy Michael Avenatti Being Sentenced to Prison
• Lying CBS: ‘We’ Didn’t Misjudge Avenatti (Fact Check: They Called Him a ‘Rock Star’)
• NewsBusters Podcast: The Very Quiet Downfall of Avenatti
• The Media and St. Michael Avenatti

Of course, the MRC built up its own favored attorneys as well ... and then went silent when they went bad. Last September, we argued that John Pierce -- whom the MRC had lionized as the attorney for Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who shot and killed two people during a protest in Kenosha, Wis., last year -- was a right-wing Avenatti who had engaged in financial shenanigans and hostile and threatening behavior toward his ex-wife, serving as Rittehouse's defense attorney while also running a foundation paying for Rittenhouse's legal fees. Our last update on Pierce noted that he had left the foundation, but the story didn't end there. In December, Pierce was barred from representing Rittenhouse as a defense lawyer in  Wisconsin (Pierce is based in California) because of his financial shenanigans -- which include "the collapse of Pierce's law firm earlier this year 'under a cloud of debt,' and several lawsuits alleging Pierce defaulted on hundreds of thousands of dollars in business and personal loans" -- and because he continued to use the foundation to fund-raise for Rittenhouse' legal defense. Pierce then withdrew as Rittenhouse's criminal attorney but stayed on to pursue civil cases against media outlets who had purportedly defamed Rittenhouse.

In February, Rittenhouse fired Pierce from even that bit of representation, suggesting it was because Pierce opposed setting up an independent trust for Rittenhouse. And around the time the MRC was obsessing over Avenatti yet again, it was reported that Rittenhouse's family and current attorney accused Pierce of still trying to siphon away money raised for Rittenhouse and keep control of the $2 million that was raised.

Since then, we have an even more apt candidate for the MRC's Avenatti. Back in 2019, the MRC was cheering attorney L. Lin Wood -- who, it so happens, operated that defense fund along with Pierce -- for planning to file nuisance lawsuits for needlessly large amounts against media outlets for supposedly defaming high school students (best known as the Covington kids) caught up in a protest while visiting Washington, D.C. Curtis Houck gushed over Wood's "incredibly-detailed" $250 million lawsuit against CNN, while Nicholas Fondacaro made a point of noting that a similar lawsuit against the Washington Post was "lengthy."

When Wood reached confidential settlements with a couple of the media outlets it sued -- which suggest that Wood likely got llittle more than token going-away money for his student clients -- the MRC nevertheless insisted there were massive victories despite there being no public retraction as part of the settlement, and Kristine Marsh even gushed over "eagle-eyed lawyer" Wood for freaking out over such speculation over the settlements.

By August 2020, the MRC was cheering Wood joining Rittenhouse's legal team, with Alexander Hall touting one media outlet "recounted how Wood is a battle-hardened veteran of America’s recent culture wars, and Corinne Weaver complained that Wood was briefly "suspended from Twitter on September 1 for 'glorifying violence.'" Wood then joined Donald Trump's post-election team attempting to turn over the election; Weaver complained in one November post that a Wood tweet was "censored" -- it wasn't; Twitter simply flagged it as pushing dubioius claims about election fraud.

The trail ends there for Wood at the MRC; he got only two passing mentions after that. But the rest of us know what happened next: Wood drunk deep from Trump's bogus conspiracy theories; implicated himself in possible voter fraud by suggesting he voted in Georgia despite living in South Carolina; has had his law lilcense challenged and was ordered to undergo a mental evaluation as part of it; argued that Mike Pence shoiuld face a firing squad, which even the "free speech" folks at Parler objected to; annoyed GOP officials by running for the chairmanship of the South Carolina Republican Party; President Trump ultimately distanced himself from Wood; tried to defend himself against disbarment in Michigan by arguing that he had nothing to do with legal filings there despite his name being all over them; posted a video clip of those proceedings on Telegram despite being ordered not to; and blames communist conspiracies, not his own behavior, for his current legal woes.

Lin Wood is the man the MRC helped build, and they no longer want anything to do with him. Double standard, anyone?

MRC Gushes Over Hateful Right-Wing Country Song
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has found a country song right-wing enough for it, and Gabriel Hays is in love:

A new country song seems to be saying all the things patriotic Americans have been thinking over the past year as they’ve watched riots rage in their cities, statues of American heroes demolished, and professional athletes disrespecting the Stars and Stripes.

Country music artist Aaron Lewis released his new song, “Am I the Only One” on July 2, just in time for the Fourth of July weekend. Though if audiences were expecting a fun, straightforward tune about how good seeing the American flag makes Lewis feel, well, they got something different.

The new song is patriotic, though in a different, more raw, angrier way. It‘s about the confusion and grief Lewis feels as he sees the American flag get trampled on, the ideas represented by it spurned by new generations of Americans.

[...]

Though the chorus clears up the mystery of what Lewis is anguishing over, and it ends up being a theme all of us conservative, freedom-loving, flag-waving Americans have been dealing with as we look at the nightly news or scour Twitter. He sings, “Am I the only one willin’ to bleed, or take a bullet for being free? Screamin’ ‘what the f***?’ at my TV? … Are you telling me that I’m the only one, willin’ to fight for my love of the Red and White and Blue?”

Of course, by this point it’s pretty obvious what Lewis is singing about, and it’s the constant subversion of patriotism and love for American liberty that’s all too popular these days. Lewis’ lyrics hit directly in the same spot that was rubbed raw with outrage and terror as my friends and I watched our cities being torched, people being hurt, and statues being torn down for the sake of the Marxist Black Lives Matter lies. Those lies – and similar ones being taught to kids in schools today – say that America, as it was founded, is a place fit to be torn down.

[...]

It's poignant imagery that refuses to sugarcoat what’s going on. This isn’t politics as usual for Lewis. He, like many of us, sees this all as a concerted effort to destroy the social fabric and freedoms Americans have loved and have died for. His lyrics also speak to him feeling like a crazy person because of all the media propaganda telling us this "change" is a good, noble thing.

He asks, “Am I the only one not brainwashed, makin’ my way through the land of the lost? Who still gives a s*** and worries about his kids, and they try to undo all the things he did?”

Nothing like right-wing grievance narratives set to song. Hays has drunk deeply of the conservative Kool-Aid -- as has Lewis, apparently -- and he's u nable to tolerate anyone who is not a conservative like him, trying to otherize them by portraying them as enemies of the United States.

Which makes Abigail Streetman's July 21 post uniroinically bashing any one who has criticized Lewis' song of a piece with Hays:

Aaron Lewis’s new country song “Am I the Only One” quickly rose to the top of Billboard’s Hot Country Songs list because of its pro-American lyrics and strong criticism at the left. The song’s popularity angered a lot of cry-baby leftists and they are now targeting the founder of Big Machine Label group for promoting Lewis.

Music blogger Bob Lefsetz wrote a blog about Lewis's song last week and called out Big Machine founder Scott Borchetta for “marketing this junk.”

[...]

Borchetta released a response to the post and noted that his job is not to tell his artists “what to sing and write about.” He further noted that his label group also represented left-wing Sheryl Crow and when she released her song “Woman in The White House.” 

"Aaron Lewis and I have political disagreements. But there are also things we agree on. I think that’s the foundation for the idea of our country," Borchetta continued. "It doesn’t work if we’re so divided that we can’t reach across the aisle, have a conversation or an argument, and ultimately, shake hands. If we can’t do that, and this moment is so divisive, we may never get our country back."

Neither Streetman nor Borchetta would admit that there's a significant number of people who believe we did get "our " country back by electing Joe Biden over Donald Trump, and that all this right-wing ranting that Lewis and Streetman are pushing are just partisan narratives designed to divide America and exploit divisions for profit.Apparently Streetman also believes you're not a "real" American unless you're spouting right-wing talking points.

Streetman concludes by praising Borchetta because he "won’t bend his knee to the mob that wants to cancel all things conservative" -- but she's part of a right-wing mob that wants to cancel all things liberal. Not that she'll admit her double standard, of course.

MRC Continues To Defend Babylon Bee's Alleged Satire
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has been helping the Babylon Bee walk the line between satire and misinformation -- getting mad at anyone criticizes the Bee for walking that line but hiding the fact that its right-wing target audience tends to treat its alleged satire as fact. A June 14 article by Nicholas Fondacaro cheered that the Bee successfully nagged the New York Times into changing an article that referred to the Bee as "misinformation" -- then hyped CEO Seth Dillon complaining that it doing so the Times pointed out that fact-checking sites had identified the Bee as misinformation (presumably because some had presented Bee articles as fact).

The next day, Heather Moon tried to discredit an academic study that claimed "conservatives couldn’t tell the difference between factual and misleading news as well as liberals," in part because "Many of the so-called “false” headlines were stories from political satire sites like the Babylon Bee," adding, "The Science Advances study’s use of satirical headlines as examples of 'false' news is misleading." Actually, it shows that the Babylon Bee's alleged really is indistinguishable from fact for a significant portion of its target audience.

In a June 18 post, Kayla Sargent cheered that Facebook would cease being as tough on outlets claiming to be satire:

Facebook appears to have finally developed a sense of humor after its history of fact-checking and targeting satire sites like The Babylon Bee.

The platform announced that it has developed a satire exception to its censorship practices in response to a recent decision from the Oversight Board (the Board). The Board overturned Facebook’s decision to censor a meme that a user had posted. Facebook said that it will “add information to the Community Standards that makes it clear where we consider satire as part of our assessment of context-specific decisions.”

 [...]

Facebook’s past censorship of satirical content, however, is no laughing matter. The platform has censored Christian satire site The Babylon Bee (The Bee) on numerous occasions, and Facebook-owned Instagram has also censored the satire site’s creator, Seth Dillon. At one point, Facebook censored an article from The Bee titled “Senator Hirono Demands ACB Be Weighed Against A Duck To See If She Is A Witch.”

As usual, Sargent's definion of "censored" is laughably overbroad. Regarding the duck/witch article,  One of the examples on the MRC's Free Speech America portrays a pop-up box on Facebook asking if a person really wants to share a post as "soft censor[ship]." Pop-up boxes are not censorship, no matter how hard the MRC insists otherwise.

ON June 25, Alexander Hall got mad that it was pointed out that the Bee's alleged satire is mean-spirited and tends to punch down, and that Facebook might not like that:

Facebook made it loud and clear that satire may be OK on the platform, but only on the condition it doesn’t target people or things that it favors. Leftist, progressive outlet Slate responded by claiming The Babylon Bee is the perfect target for punishment.

Satirical humor might be protected on a conditional basis, but Facebook has decided that humor at the expense of groups it likes is not allowed. “[T]rue satire does not ‘punch down,’” Facebook whined in a June 17 transparency report. “[I]f content is simply derogatory, not layered, complex, or subversive, it is not satire. Indeed, humor can be an effective mode of communicating hateful ideas.” In short, Facebook suggested that it has reserved the right to purge satirists for making jokes about people or things it favors.” Only a few days later, Slate responded by suggesting conservative satire website The Babylon Bee has “a nasty tendency to punch down” in a June 22 blog.

Slate gave due credit and remarked that The Babylon Bee has seen a meteoric rise in popularity “now garnering more interactions on Facebook than the Onion.” Even so, the leftist news outlet accused The Bee of being “often ‘ironically’ misogynistic, as when it ‘defended’ the place of women soldiers in the American military by reporting how ‘they don’t throw grenades well, so the enemy will never know what to expect’ and how ‘you can pay them way less, which gives you more money for weapons and ammo.’” It also described The Bee’s tendency to lampoon absurd gender politics as being “frequently antagonistic toward the LGBTQIA+ community.”

Um, doesn't the fact that the Bee is "garnering more interactions on Facebook than the Onion" pretty much blow up the MRC's narrative that conservatives are being silenced?

Hall gave Dillon -- or more accurately, as even Hall surprisingly admits, "the unverified account purporting to represent The Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon" -- a chance to respond, insisting that they're not punching down, they just hate liberals:

The Dillon account rejected the premise that The Bee, a rare example of conservative entertainment, is punching down when it pokes fun at the left’s ideology: “They say we antagonize the trans community (punching down). Utter nonsense. We're attacking the top-down tyranny of the left's progressive agenda and the destruction it's wreaking throughout society, enabled and fueled by all the most powerful people and institutions.” In a following tweet, he quipped “If that's not punching up, I don't know what is. But more importantly, the left's prohibition of ‘punching down’ is speech suppression in disguise. It's people in positions of power protecting their interests by telling you what you can and cannot joke about.”

Of course, the Bee's "attacking the top-down tyranny of the left's progressive agenda" is indistinguishable from attacking the trans community because no distinction is made between the two. It comes down to the Bee being opposed to LGBTQ people having the same rights as everyone else.

The same day, Sargent served up more PR by touting how the Bee was quitting its email service because its account was suspended, dramatically declaring the Bee "has, once again, felt the sting of tech censorship." Sargent also let Dillon rant that the service "has been exercising viewpoint discrimination under the guise of protecting the public from harmful misinformation" and purportedly "looking for excuses to censor us by literally scanning the content of our emails." Sargent gave the service no chance to respond to Dillon's accusations or her attempt to demonize it.

Sargent did disclose that "The Babylon Bee is a member of the Free Speech Alliance" -- the conglomeration of right-wing groups the MRC assembled to fight "censorship" of conservatives (which really isn't happening).The fact that the Babylon Bee is part of such a partisan group betrays its partisan nature -- and belies any attempt by the MRC and the Bee to frame what it does as benign satire.

What Fringe Figures Do The MRC Insist Are Being 'Censored' Now?
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has a long, shameful history of siding with fringe far-right figures whose extremism got them restricted or suspended from social media because it can massage the story and whitewash the extremism to portray them as victims of "censorship" by "Big Tech." Narratives, you know.

Dan Gainor found a fringe doctor who matched that description -- and, thus, the increasingly bogus narrative -- perfectly:

Google has opened a new front in the online censorship fight — restricting access to documents created in Google Docs. 

Google Docs restricted Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, the first doctor to advocate for alternative COVID-19 treatments, from sharing six different documents. Users received a terms of service note when the doctor tried to share the documents with them. “We're sorry. You can't access this item because it is in violation of our Terms of Service,” went the Google alert. It was unclear what rule was broken.

He wasn’t surprised by the restriction, noting, “I called out the globalist elite” for how they handled the pandemic.

[...]

Zelenko made news in 2020 when he recommended alternate treatments for COVID-19, including the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine and antibiotics. He sent a letter to the White House about his experience treating patients and was also contacted by the Trump administration. 

Former President Donald Trump gave support to the doctor’s efforts last May, according to The Times of Israel. The president even took hydroxychloroquine and a zinc supplement. He explained, “I got a letter from a doctor the other day, from Westchester, New York,” who appeared to be Zelenko. “Trump did not name the doctor, but it matches the description of Jewish physician Vladimir ‘Zev’ Zelenko.”

But as we documented -- and Gainor deliberately omits -- Zelenko's claims about hydroxychloroquine were poorly documented to the point that they are effectively worthless as medical research, and no legitimate medical research has backed up Zelenko's original claims. Gainor also didn't mention that despite Trump's promotion of hydroxychloroquine, he was not treated with that drug when he himself fell ill with COVID -- he was treated with the experimental drug remdesivir.

Alexander Hall wrote the next day:

Christian author and radio host Eric Metaxas currently still has a YouTube channel, but the outspoken conservative said videos of his radio show have been removed from the platform.

YouTube purges are often outrageous, but are no surprise to conservative commentators. Metaxas tweeted that YouTube purged content from his channel June 1: “FINALLY... Youtube decided that because we violated their ‘community standards’ my show has been entirely kicked off their platform. In related news, the [Chinese Communist Party] CCP and the North Korean govt don't like our videos.”

Hall didn't mention that Metaxas has been moving further to the right over the past couple years, using racist language to demean Joe Biden and has pushed bogus election conspiracies. YouTube has pointed out that it "removed content that violated our policies on COVID-19 medical misinformation and presidential election integrity." Hall didn't explain why a private business is not allowed to enforce its terms of service on users.

Kayla Sargent ranted in a June 21 post:

YouTube has reportedly struck down yet another video of a school board meeting for violating its policies on misinformation. 

The platform reportedly took down a video from the Shawnee Mission School Board in Kansas City, Kansas for “spreading medical misinformation and violating YouTube's community guidelines,” according to NPR. “School board president Heather Ousley says having the broadcast taken down was a surprise.” 

One person, who NPR identified as Kansas State Senator Mike Thompson (R), said “I'm about six feet tall. Saying that this mask is going to block the virus is like saying, I can't walk through a doorway 6,000 feet tall and 2,000 feet wide.” YouTube did not respond to a request from MRC Free Speech America to confirm the video’s removal. NPR went on to say that Thomphson’s statement “just isn't true,” but provided no evidence for the claim.

Sargent provided no evidence that Thompson's claim is medically accurate. She also omitted the fact that, according to a news report, parents at that meeting made discredited claims that masks cause hypoxia -- a dangerous decrease in oxygen levels -- and that they are ineffective at stopping the spread of the coronavirus.

Hall took the side of a right-wing authoritarian leader in a July 22 post:

Big Tech platform YouTube has censored yet another head of state for the unforgivable: He dared to question the liberal narrative concerning COVID-19.

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has reportedly been punished by YouTube for sharing his opinions as a head of state regarding COVID-19. “YouTube removed videos from President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil on Wednesday for spreading misinformation about Covid-19, becoming the latest internet platform to act against a leader,” The New York Times reported. The Timesillustrated for readers that YouTube “played an important role in Mr. Bolsonaro’s rise to power” and is reportedly “more widely watched in Brazil than all but one television channel.”

[...]

Unfortunately for people under the grip of Big Tech, the question of which drugs are effective to treat COVID-19 has become extremely politicized, with only a narrow range of opinions allowed. YouTube, for example, is not the only platform to purge users for speculating over the viability of using hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

But YouTube is not the one that made treatments "extremely politicized" -- right-wingers like Trump and the MRC did. And Hall offers no credible scientific evidence that hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin are effective treatments for COVID. And all his partisan ranting aside, Hall also offers no evidence that YouTube is trying to do anything other than get reliable health information out there when there is so much unreliable information that may be getting people killed.

Hall grumbled the next day:

History is, well, history. Facebook allegedly purged British historian/filmmaker Tom Rowsell and his wife without warning. Celebrating history apparently has consequences.

It’s not just a fight for free speech anymore. Big Tech has now appeared to target the very ability of honest academics to earn a living online. “My wife and I both just had our [F]acebook pages deleted without warning, or reason given nor is there an option to appeal,” Rowsell said via his Patreon account. “There was nothing on there that went against their community standards. The page had no strikes at all. They have given up all pretence of reason, and are just unpersoning people without reason.”

Rowsell’s channel, Survive the Jive, named for rejecting the loss of history amid a technological age, has approximately 139,000 subscribers. He described his channel in the description of his introductory video as a project that focuses on the “religions of ancient Europe” and examines the “linguistics, genetics, anthropology and other disciplines in order to gain insights into ancient peoples.”

He explained to MRC Free Speech America: “The page was very helpful for me to raise awareness of my video content and was therefore part of my business.” He then clarified: “It had no community strikes or objectionable content on it.”

Again, Hall is censoring (!) crucial context. Rowsell is a far-right activist who has been involved in the UK branch of Generation Identity, a far-right youth movement that anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim (the French division of the group was banned in the country for inciting violence). Rowsell attended a recent Generation Identity UK conference and invited two neo-Nazi skinheads to join him.

So he's not the benign history professor Hall portrayed him as. Anyone surprised that Hall censored the truth (again)?

MRC's Whitlock Serves Up Even More Hypocrisy on Corporate Whoring
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Scott Whitlock is so filled with hate for any non-right-wing news operation that he disgustingly smears them as "WHORES" (his all-caps, not ours) for engaging in the common practice of offering promotion of other events or programs tied to corporate parents -- even though the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, routinely treats corportate MRC doings as "news." Whitlock did this again in a July 8 post under the headline "Corporate WHORES at ABC Abandon News, Shill for Disney Overlords Instead" (bold in original):

Some liberal journalists and media outlets like to mock Fox as not real “news,” given that the network doesn’t parrot their left-wing agenda. But no one should ever consider ABC actual “news.” The network is committed to producing propaganda for corporate overlord Disney. Thursday showcased yet another pathetic example as Good Morning America devoted more time to pushing Black Widow than covering the latest on the Surfside disaster in Florida.

Co-host Robin Roberts sounded like a talking Disney press release, opening the 7:30 hour by robotically cheering, “Black Widow finally hitting theaters tomorrow. It is one of the most eagerly anticipated movies of the summer! Fandango reporting that the Marvel movie has already zoomed past F9 in presales!”

Whitlock's reference to Fox News is interesting, since its parent companhy not only owns Fox Broadcasting but also owned 20th Century Fox studios until 2019. Is Whitlock really saying that Fox News has never engaged in the corporate synergy process to use Fox News to promote Fox Broadcasting shows or 20th Century Fox movies? It would be highly unusual if that didn't happen and would display a demonstration of ethics that Fox News is not known for.

Meanwhile, we've documented how -- just a few days after Whitlock's post -- the MRC turned its main websites, including CNS, over to Mark Levin for a weekend of shilling for Levin's new book. One CNS headline had a particularly whorish tone to it: "EXCLUSIVE: MRC President Brent Bozell Interviews 'The Great One' Mark Levin on His Timely New Book, 'American Marxism'." Bozell and Levin are friends, making this whordom a very personal one.

Whitlock has been silent about this. Apparently he believes whordom is a good and virtuous thing when right-wingers engage in it.

UPDATE: Whitlock also wrote a July 30 post asserting that "ABC “News” seems to exist to shill for the network’s overlords at Disney" because one show "took their bosses side in the fight against Black Widow star Scarlett Johansson" regarding how the movie's simulatenous release in theaters and streaming violated her contract. Whitlock claimed that "ABC journalists repeatedly misrepresented how Disney+ harmed the box office totals," insisting that a movie that made $319 million "was not a hit." Whitlock concluded that ABC was engaged in -- you guessed it -- "corporate whoring for Disney bosses."

Curtis Houck joined the slur parade as well, declaring in a July 23 post that instead of covering Hunter Biden, there was "more corporate whoring on ABC’s Good Morning America for parent company Disney with a new Disney+ “cinematic experience”starring Billie Eilish."

MRC Psaki-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch, Full Man-Crush Edition
Topic: Media Research Center

Peter Doocy had the previous week off, so the Media Reserarch Center's Curtis Houck was not able to man-crush over him at Jen Psaki's White House press briefings. So with Doocy's return on July 12, Houck was ready to go into man-crush overdrive:

With Cubans having taken to the street over the weekend to protest the 62 years of communist rule that worsened during the coronavirus pandemic, AP and CNN White House reporters used Monday’s briefing to side with their friends in the Communist Party, and demand Press Secretary Jen Psaki blame former President Trump’s posture toward the island nation for its economic ruin.

Fortunately, Fox News’s Peter Doocy returned from a week off to call out the spin that the protests stemmed from coronavirus cases while the Daily Caller’s Shelby Talcott asked whether the administration agreed with The New York Times that the American flag — which Cubans waved as they marched — was “alienating the some.”

[...]

As for Doocy, he started with a back-and-forth about vaccine mandates (which left a flustered Psaki to sarcastically tell him, “welcome back”), but pivoted to Cuba and specifically the disconnect between Psaki claiming Cubans were upset with their government and the State Department blaming it on COVID cases.

Psaki tried to engage in damage control, but Doocy called out the insanity in claiming the Cubans protesting “freedom” and “enough” were demanding liberation from the coronavirus[.]

Of course, Houck was lying when he claimed reporteres were siding with "Communist Cuba," but the MRC is cool with any besmirching of the "liberal media," now matter how fanciful.

Houck's man-crushing continued on July 14:

Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy went toe-to-toe with Press Secretary Jen Psaki during Wednesday’s briefing, challenging her on the hypocrisy surrounding Texas Democrats fleeing the state over proposed voter integrity measures and the administration’s refusal to denounce the evils of communism that have ravaged the Cuban people for 62 years.

While Doocy actually did his job as a reporter to challenge those in power, others in the room pushed the White House not out of accountability, but from the left to help allies will policy proposals into existence.

Once again, Houck covered up the fact that Psaki actually owned Doocy, writing of a Doocy questionabout Democratic Texas lawmakers leaving the state to stall a Republican-pushed voting restriction bill that "Doocy called out Psaki’s humorous dismissal, noting Biden’s eye-popping assertion that voter integrity measures pose the greatest threat to American democracy 'since the Civil War.'"IN fact, as a more honest outlet pointed out, Psaki did not make a "humorous dismissal" of Doocy's question:

She went on to say the president believes these Democrats “were making a statement through action in opposition to efforts in their state to oppose restrictions on people’s fundamental rights and their rights to vote in their state.”

He “certainly applauds their actions and their outspoken opposition to efforts to put in place restrictive measures in their state,” Psaki added.

“And maybe it is funny to think about it that way, but the president is talking about this as the most serious assault on democracy…” Doocy started to say.

Psaki jumped in to remark, “I don’t think anything about this is funny.”

The next day, Houck cheered even more hostile questions from Doocy designed to push right-wing narratives:

Three days after first asking her if the administration would condemn communism and the far-left ideology’s gruesome affect on life inside Cuba, Fox News’s Peter Doocy finally got White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki to condemn on Thursday both communism and demand the regime grant “freedom” to the Cuban people.

And, on another matter, Doocy pressed Psaki on the Biden administration inviting the United Nations Human Rights Council (which included oppressive regimes such as China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia, and Venezuela) to examine the U.S. government and trash it as repulsive and systematically racist.

On July 16, Houck gushed that another right-wing reporter joined Doocy in attacking Psaki (while making sure not to point out they are right-wing reporters) under the overexcited headline "BOOM":

Friday’s White House press briefing grew tense as the Biden administration continued its collusion with Facebook and the rest of Big Tech to crack down on dissent (under the guise of fighting misinformation about coronavirus vaccines). 

As usual, Fox News’s Peter Doocy and Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann were the rare voices to raise concerns as they inquired about whether it could be seen as “spying on people’s Facebook profiles,” how long this partnership has been going on, and if there are any safeguards to protect speech.

Doocy set Press Secretary Jen Psaki up by leading with a question about China’s lack of cooperation into the origins of the coronavirus, citing one Chinese conspiracy theory that the virus came from smuggled in “frozen food.”

After Psaki said the administration is “concerned...about misinformation” from China, Doocy used that as a springboard to the federal government’s work with social media platforms: “[S]peaking of misinformation and the announcement from yesterday, for how long has the administration been spying on people's Facebook profiles looking for vaccine misinformation?”

Psaki immediately became disgusted, telling Doocy he had offered up “quite a loaded and inaccurate question, which I would refute.”

Yes, Houck thinks that spreading lies and misinformation about vaccines is merely "dissent" and that calling it what it is -- misinformation -- is a political term, not a statement of fact (as is the current MRC narrative).

Houck then proceeded to further denigrate Psaki, claiming she engaging in "word salad" and "gaslighting," two things he had no problem with when his beloved Kayleigh McEnany was doing them. Apparently still missing her, he went on to name-check her: "Exit question: If this were still the Trump administration with Kayleigh McEnany at the podium saying these things, what would the chances have been that everyone from Yamiche Alcindor to Jim Acosta to Peter Alexander to Brian Karem to April Ryan would have blown a collective gasket?"

And what are the chances McEnany would also be serving up "word salad" and "gaslighting" in response, and Houck would say nothing?

UPDATE: Houck engaged in more Doocy stenography in his July 16 post, touting that "Doocy pushed back on Psaki’s claim that the posts are 'publicly open information' and thus fair game, asking whether the 12 people the administration believes hold the lion’s share of blame for misinformation have been told that the government is surveying them." The Washington Post's Aaron Blake pointed out that Doocy was wrong to portray the government as spying on these people. In May, the Center for Countering Digital Hate issued a list of 12 people it found to be responsible for a majority of disinformation about vaccines, which were all taken from publicly available posts. Blake continued:

Nor did anything in Psaki’s comments Thursday suggest that this was from some kind of government study or research project. But Doocy jumped from her stat to not just assuming that it was, but also that this amounted to “spying” and that the “spying” was specifically done by the surgeon general’s office (perhaps because Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy appeared with Psaki on Thursday?).

This continues a long-standing, often tortured search on Fox for government spying on their allies.

[...]

Doocy’s claim that the stat Psaki cited was proof of yet more supposed spying is just nonsensical, as he might have found had he done even the slightest bit of due diligence. But at least another spying conspiracy theory that can be turned into cable news segments has now been seeded.

Houck will never admit any of this, of course -- the man-crush must continue unencumbered by the facts.

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?

Because a Biden could be trashed, Graham trotted out another column:

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.

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 >>

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.

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 continues to defend 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.