MRC Remains Weirdly Obsessed With Leana Wen's Former Job Topic: Media Research Center
Wenoted last year how the Media Research Center has had a weird obsession with Dr. Leana Wen appearing on TV to discuss the coronavirus, raging that she wasn't being identified as the former president of Planned Parenthood -- despite that having no relevance to discussions of coronavirus and despite the fact that she held the position for only nine months. That never really stopped.
In April 2020, Curtis Houck did a follow-up on an earlier post ranting about the lack of mention ofWen's onetime affiliation with Planned Parenthood:
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, CNN has shown perhaps the strongest inability to shy away from framing the pandemic through the lens of attacking President Trump and implicitly placing blame at his feet for the deaths of Americans.
Another tic has been their continued refusal to be honest with viewers about how frequent guest Dr. Leana Wen was a former president of Planned Parenthood. Since our first post the Media Research Center kept tabs on Wen’s appearances and calculated her total airtime from March 2-April 2 as 150 minutes and 27 seconds across 44 appearances as a guest or soundbite.
CNN instead stuck to its usual script identifying Wen as either an “emergency room physician,” “former Health Commissioner for the City of Baltimore.” It was an intriguing choice of words for someone who also led an organization (albeit briefly) that aborted over 345,000 unborn children in fiscal year 2018.
As before, Houck didn't explain the relevance of identifying Wen as a former Planned Parenthood official when it has nothing to do with the subject of her TV appearances, despite asserting that CNN was exhibiting "no ethics" in not doing so.
But it didn't stop there:
A June 2020 post by Houck huffed that CNN "brought back Dr. Leana Wen for more fear-mongering and, as NewsBusters has previously documented, he refused to note her former post running Planned Parenthood."
In July 2020, Houck groused that CNN had on "former Planned Parenthood president Dr. Leana Wen (which, again, they didn’t disclose)."
An October 2020 roundup by Houck of "CNN’s WORST Moments Immediately After Trump’s COVID Diagnosis" made a point of highlighting "Former Planned Parenthood president Dr. Leana Wen" though, again, that identity was irrelevant to what she was discussing.
Posts by Duncan Schroeder on Oct. 23, Jan. 22 and Feb. 15 all made sure to reference "former Planned Parenthood president Dr. Leana Wen" even though that identification was irrelevant to her appearances and apparently she was never identified as such on the air.
A July 17 post by Alex Christy did the same, but left out the word "former," thus falsely portraying her as the current Planned Parenthood president.
Tim Graham devoted an entire July 30 post to whining that Wen promoting her new book didn't bring it up:
CNN medical analyst Dr. Leana Wen had a short and stormy tenure at top of Planned Parenthood, but CNN avoids mentioning it like the plague. They are not alone. Wen is now selling a new memoir called Lifelines: A Doctor's Journey in the Fight for Public Health, and the book information on Amazon doesn't include it.
On Tuesday, NPR's talk show Fresh Air interviewed Dr. Wen for 36 minutes (more than 6,300 words in the transcript, according to the Nexis data-retrieval system). Nowhere in there was the slightest whisper of her presidency of Planned Parenthood. NPR host Terry Gross read her bio four times, but it never came up.
Lydia Switzer turned a Sept. 16 post into an anti-Wen screed, ranting that she was a baby-killer who wants to keep children safe from COVID:
On Wednesday, CNN actually had the audacity to bring on the former president of Planned Parenthood to demand that public officials "protect our children" by backing draconian COVID regulations being pushed by the Biden administration. In the 1:00 p.m. ET hour, Newsroom host Ana Cabrera referenced the total COVID death count, noting that 1 in 500 Americans have died from COVID. She then brought on Dr. Leana Wen and Dr. Jeremy Faust to discuss.
Dr. Wen, who Cabrera introduced as “CNN medical analyst and former Baltimore health commissioner,” was the president/CEO of Planned Parenthood from October 2018 through July 2019. During the 2018-2019 business year, according to their own annual report, Planned Parenthood facilitated 354,871 “abortion procedures,” or, to be less euphemistic, killed 354,871 babies.
The irony of a former leader of Planned Parenthood, America’s leading baby-killing regime, claiming to stand up for the health and well-being of children, is apparently lost on CNN. In fact, Wen’s position at CNN as a medical analyst is disturbing, given her track record of violating the Hippocratic Oath. She has done inconceivable harm to hundreds of thousands of babies, along with their mothers – but CNN is perfectly fine with letting her accuse schools and viewers of not taking sufficient care of their own children.
So how does Switzer justify being anti-abortion while opposing any efforts to make them safe from COVID? She doesn't say -- that irony is apparently lost on her.
WND Tries Desperately To Burnish Robert E. Lee's Reputation Topic: WorldNetDaily
Nicholas Waddy's Sept. 10 column is actually headlined, "You are no better, or worse, than Robert E. Lee" -- which, of course is a lie.We didn't lead a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of people in an attempt to preserve the institution of slavery, so we are immediately better than Lee.
After praising "President Trump" (despite the fact that he's no longer president) for issuing a moving defense of Lee upon the removal of his statue from Monument Avenue in Richmond -- while omitting the fact that Trump called Lee "the greatest strategist of them all," a ridiculous and counterfactual claim to make about someone who lost a war -- Waddy made his case for Lee because anti-racists are against him:
More importantly, though, we should reject the latest campaign against Robert E. Lee and Southern pride for the simple reason that it is inspired by the same neo-Marxist ideology that underlies Critical Race Theory, which is currently warping the minds of America's schoolchildren.
Leftists believe that history is nothing more than a pantheon of heroes and villains, chosen by them, to drive home the more fundamental lesson that all of us are defined by our racial, ethnic, religious and gender-based identities, which in turn cast us as either victims or oppressors, as good or evil, for all time, regardless of any actions we take as individuals in our own lifetimes. In other words, we study history for one reason only: to remind ourselves how right "progressives" are when they castigate us for our "whiteness," our Christianity, or our Y-chromosomes, or when they praise us for our BIPOC heritage, our secular humanism, or our status as "transgender."
Elements of history that portray any kind of ambiguity, on the other hand – like Robert E. Lee, who was both a traitor and a patriot, a slaveowner and a champion of liberty – are to be erased, or demonized, because they confuse the issue. And "the issue," in case any one is in further doubt, is the ongoing moral imperative, as the left sees it, to take up arms against the forces of "white supremacy," Christian fundamentalism, patriarchy and homophobia/transphobia, which, we're constantly assured, still dominate every aspect of American and Western culture. Yeah, right!
Actually, there's no ambiguous dichotomy at all: Because Lee was a traitor, he cannot be a patriot, and because he was a slaveowner, he cannot be a "champion of liberty" -- after all, Lee, unlike other Founding Fathers who were slaveholders, took up arms against his own country. Waddy continued:
Robert E. Lee is a historical luminary beloved especially of Southern whites, and we all know which side of history's moral ledger these reprobates belong on, as far as the left is concerned. Southern whites have no right to feel pride or self-respect, as the progressives see it, because their history and current social standing are permanently stained by the sins of slavery and racism.
Of course, one could say exactly the same thing about the Democratic Party, which stood for generations for both slavery and segregation, but if there is one thing the left believes in almost as fervently as its binary/Manichean interpretation of history's moral lessons, it is double standards. Thus – presto! – the Democrats get a pass. The South emphatically does not.
Waddy didn't mention that the Democratic Party stopped supporting segregation more than 50 years ago, and that Republicans have since become the political party that's hostile to minorities. Waddy then tried to sell his "we're all Robert E. Lee" argument:
There is, however, a deeper truth in American and Western history, and it is one that the left is laboring mightily to obscure. It is the simple fact that all of us, in terms of our national, racial, religious, gender-based, or familial history, have ample reason to feel both pride and shame. There is no Southerner alive, of any race, who is ignorant of the horrors and injustices that some of his ancestors committed. Likewise, we – all of us – can point with pride to forebears who exemplified some species of excellence, or virtue, or wisdom, or courage, and we are entitled to do so. We take the good with the bad, in other words.
The left's latest victory – against a mute, impassive, utterly defenseless statue – should not deflate us. They won this battle, yes, but they will not, they cannot, win the wider war they are waging against the human condition itself.
They might wish to imprison half of America eternally in the chains of shame, based on identity politics alone, but the basic truth of our individual and collective moral complexity will always set us free.
Simply put, we are all oppressors, and we are all victims. We are all good, and we are all bad. We are mere mortals, so how could it be otherwise?
Robert E. Lee was a great man partly because he never believed that he was or could be anything but a poor sinner. It's that humility that Lee's modern detractors entirely lack. And for that reason we are right to oppose their arrogant dictates and demands with every fiber of our beings.
We are equally right to pity them, however, for, in denying the agency and humanity of their enemies, they also inevitably deny it to themselves. How sad.
Again: We are not Robert E. Lee because we did not fight a civil war for an odious cause, and for that reason alone he was not a great man. And conservatives like Waddy regularly deny the humanity of the liberals they despise, which gets him and his ilk a lot closer to Lee than us.
MRC Psaki-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch, Doocy-Gasm Edition Topic: Media Research Center
It was Doocy-gasm time for Media Research Center writer Curtis HOuck again, as he once more got off on Peter Doocy asking biased questions of Jen Psaki. On Sept. 9, Houck gushed hard under the headline "Doocy Goes HARD After Team Biden on Covid Origins, Praising the Taliban":
Ahead of President Biden’s early Thursday evening speech calling for more forced vaccinations and touting masks, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki took to the Briefing Room podium and faced fire from Fox’s Peter Doocy and Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann on Afghanistan and also CBS’s Weijia Jiang and ABC’s Rachel Scott about the sudden change of heart on vaccine mandates.
After a quick follow-up about Fauci’s job safety, Doocy wanted to know “why the White House in a statement is calling the Taliban businesslike and professional.”
Psaki replied that the statement was meant to commemorate the first flight and acknowledge that “the Taliban was cooperative in facilitating the departure of these American citizens and legal permanent residents from HKIA.”
The next day, Houck proclaimed "Doocy Bomb" in his headline:
On Friday’s episode of The Psaki Show, Fox’s Peter Doocy capped off a busy week with newsy questions about President Biden’s Thursday call with Chinese President Xi Jinping and why is it that millions of Americans are being subjected to President Biden’s rash of Covid vaccine mandates but not illegal immigrants.
Doocy chose to lead with China and Biden’s call and whether Biden “press[ed] [Xi] like he said he was going to” when he said two weeks ago in a statement that China was still hiding “critical information” about the origins of Covid.
Psaki wouldn’t commit to “going...into lists of every topic covered,” but said the virus was one of many “transnational issues” discussed. Doocy twice tried to get a definitive answer, but Psaki said what matters was that they’ve previously “conveyed” the need for more information, so China “know[s]” where they stand.
But the question of the briefing came next when Doocy launched this humdinger: “[W]hy is it that you are trying to record anybody with a job or anybody who goes to school to get the COVID-19 vaccine, but you're not requiring that of migrants that continue walking across the southern border into the country?”
Psaki ignored the question other than saying “our objective is to get as many people vaccinated across the country as humanly possible” “more people are vaccinated” within our borders.
From here, we skip to Sept. 16 for Houck's next skewed review, in which he cheered that non-right-wing reporters were advancing the right-wing Biden-is-frail narrative:
Thursday’s episode of The Psaki Show featured two welcome surprises as NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell and then ABC’s Karen Travers asked Press Secretary Jen Psaki about President Biden’s health in light of the fact that Biden repeatedly had to battle a cough to get through his remarks an hour prior about the economy. The questions came after the liberal media spent years insisting President Trump showed severe cognitive and physical declines.
Following some solid questions about Afghanistan, O’Donnell switched gears: “Many of us were in the East Room watching the President. We’ve seen him on many occasions where he has a repeated cough. What is the situation with that cough and is that a concern?”
Psaki immediately shot back that “we have a doctor who travels with him — obviously, who checks in if — if it is ever warranted and, certainly that continues to be the case, as it has been since the beginning of his presidency.”
O’Donnell wasn’t taking that for an answer, so she followed up: “Is there an explanation for why he coughs so frequently in situations like that? I'm sure you saw it.”
Skip ahead about 30 minutes and Travers asked about it in context of when Biden will get a physical: “Following up on one of the questions from Kelly. Do you have an update on when the President will get a physical?”
Psaki provided an answer that sure wouldn’t slide under Trump, calling it “an understandable question,” though “I don’t have an update.”
“He will get one soon. And when he does, we will make sure you all are aware of it and get the information,” she added.
Of course, all of those NewsBusters posts about Trump that Houck higlighted attacked the people fowarding the idea -- somehing Houck is clearly loath to do regarding similar allegations against Biden. But doesn't the fact that Trump has spent the past several months in abject denial insisting he won an election he clearly lost and attempt to foment a coup against the government to overturn the outcome, evidence enough that he is suffering for some type of mental instability -- not to mention prove those questioners NewsBusters denoucned correct? Houck will never answer that question.
Houck went on to cheer another right-wing reporter, Newsmax's Emerald Robinson, advancing the conspiracy theory that Biden was deliberately limiting shipments of monoclonal antibodies to treat COVID to "red states."
Then it was back to Doocy-gasm mode on Sept. 20, under the headline "Doocy HAMMERS Psaki":
It was a tale of two approaches during Monday’s White House press briefing as Fox’s Peter Doocy and select reporters (including even CNN’s Jeremy Diamond) chose to challenge Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Afghanistan, illegal immigration, travel bans, and U.S.–France relations while CNN analyst April Ryan led another group in standing up for Haitian illegal immigrants and spreading fake news about border officials using whips.
Doocy eventually got a turn and led with using Psaki’s own comments about America’s “over the horizon capacity” against her seeing as how “you guys didn't kill people who went after our troops” but instead droned to death “10 civilians, including seven children.”
A Psaki word salad and follow-up about bringing family members of those killed into the country, Doocy brought the heat with this inconvenient truth about the border: “Is somebody asking the foreign nationals who are walking into Del Rio, Texas and setting up camps on this side of the border for proof of vaccination or a negative Covid test?”
Psaki tried to wiggle out of it, but Doocy wasn’t having it: “[I]f somebody walks into the country, right across the river, does somebody ask them to see their vaccination card?”
The spokeswoman lobbed meaningless claims about health screenings and quarantines and even had the gall to claim that the tens of thousands at the border weren’t “intending to stay here for a lengthy period of time.”
With an incredulous look on his face, Doocy called this out, but Psaki shamelessly plugged along by talking about Title 42 being used to expel migrants (even though only single males are being deported with the others all being allowed to fan out across the U.S.).
Before ending on vaccine boosters, Doocy wondered about Vice President Harris: “Where’s the Vice President on any of this? Wasn’t she supposed to be addressing the root causes of migration?”
Psaki hilariously replied that Harris “has been addressing the root causes of migration by working with countries in the region” and “[w]e’ve actually seen a reduction in some of those numbers.”
Houck went on to note only that Doocy was "ending on vaccine boosters," hiding the fact that Doocy got owned by Psaki on that issue. As Mediaite noted, Psaki "made quick work of a 'quick' question from Fox News’ Peter Doocy by reading a key quote from President Joe Biden that Doocy did not include in his query on Covid boosters." But Houck absolutely refuses to make Doocy look bad -- that's not what the MRC is paying him to do -- so he completely censored the "Psaki bomb."
Houck clearly doesn't see how ridiciulous he looks in his Doocy-fluffing -- and, by extension, proving beyond a doubt that Doocy is a reporter who's more biased than anyone on the "liberal" ledger in that room, or who were in the room during the previous presidency questioning his beloved Kayleigh McEnany.Like McEnany, Houck is not a serious person, caring only about advancing polical narratives and scoring political points and nothing at all about genuinely informing people.
WND Keeps Bogus COVID Story That Original Source Deleted Topic: WorldNetDaily
We'verepeatedlybusted WorldNetDaily and its columnists for depicting reports of vaccine side effects to the government's VAERS database as fact-based, verifiable and indisputable when no report has been verified and the VAERS database itself clearly states that "the inclusion of events in VAERS data does not imply causality." Still, WND apparently believes such fearmongering it too good to fact-check as long as it makes people click on its work. Thus, we have an anonymously written Sept. 13 article peddling the same bogus story:
The U.S. government database that keeps track of deaths from vaccine side effects has exploded by 10-fold since the advent of COVID-19, and the experimental vaccines that have been developed in response.
The Beltway Report revealed there are about 1,400 deaths reported to the system each year, among the thousands of reports of adverse events from vaccines.
The report explained the Vaccine Adverse Event Report System gets more than 60,000 reports each year, including 1,400 deaths that are documented on average.
But since COVID was unleashed on the world, "there have been 14,701 deaths reported," the report said.
"Many of those have come from within the last month and a half with around 3,300 deaths. That’s about 70 per day!" the report said.
The anonymous WND writer's source here is a website called the Beltway Report, which Media Bias/Fact Check identifies as a questionable source "due to extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda and the use of poor sources who consistently fail fact checks."
Also of note is that the story's link to the Beltway Report story redirects to the Beltway Report front page. That's because the story has been deleted. The original story was published on Sept. 13, the day of WND's regurgitation of it, written under the name of "Jack Crane," a bland enough name with a bland enough bio to be little else but a pseudonym. But according to the Internet Archive, it had been deleted by Sept. 22, and it has disappeared from "Crane's" story archive. No explanation could be found on the Beltway Report as to whe it was deleted.
Could it be that one of the most unreliable websites out there decided that a story was so egregiously bogus that it was shamed into deleting it? And why doesn't WND -- which is similarly unreliable -- feel the same way?
NEW ARTICLE: Mainstreaming Extremism At CNS: The Boebert Brigade Topic: CNSNews.com
Just as it did with Marjorie Taylor Greene, CNSNews.com is promoting far-right Rep. Lauren Boebert while censoring her history of extremism and lies. Read more >>
Flip-Flop: MRC Suddenly Trusts Polls Again (Now That They Show Biden Down) Topic: Media Research Center
Last year, the Media Research Center proclaimed its distrust of media polls, declaring that polls showing Donald Trump badly losing the election were "intentionally" wrong -- a serious claim for which it has never presented any evidence to support. (This seems like an opening for a pollster to sue the MRC for libel and defamation.) But with polls showing President Biden down from his initial high favorability rates, the MRC is suddently trusting polls again -- despite them coming from many of the "liberal media" sources it was trashing last year.
The flip-flop started last spring, when Nicholas Fondacaro hyped a poll showing "President Biden’s approval rating was supposedly sitting at an anemic 52 percent. And according to their methodology, the margin of error for the poll was 3.5 percent. Now given how that meant Biden could be below 50 percent, it was understandable that the cast of characters on ABC’s Good Morning America were floored by the results." The next day, Kyle Drennen kept up the hype job under the headline "Here’s the Bad Biden Polling News Networks Are Hiding."
Neither Fondacaro nor Drennen mentioned that most mainstream polls didn't show Trump above 50 percent at any point during his presidency, nor did they mention their employer's insistence that polls are rigged.
In July, Drennen had another poll to hype: "With COVID cases, violent crime, inflation, and illegal immigration all on the rise after the first six months of Joe Biden’s presidency, it’s no surprise that pessimism about the country’s future has surged in a new ABC News/Ipsos poll released Sunday morning. However, rather than provide full coverage of this bad news for the Democrat in the White House, the liberal network only managed a paltry 91 seconds of air time divided among three broadcasts on Sunday and Monday." Again, it was not discussed why the MRC suddenly finds media polls credible again.
When the Afghanistan withdrawal in August didn't go well, the MRC pounced on polls expressing disapproval -- and said nothing about why those polls are suddenly trustworthy. Fondacaro was happy with a poll gotcha from a despised "liberal media" reporter in an Aug. 22 post:
During another White House press conference where he tried to gaslight Americans about his poor decision-making and planning in Afghanistan, President Biden was confronted by CBS senior White House correspondent Ed O’Keefe with a network poll that shows the public was questioning his competence and ability to be president.
After asking a question about whether or not he trusted the Taliban, O’Keefe prefaced “a new poll out today shows Americans wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan, but they disapprove of the way you've handled it.”
And given how harsh the poll was for the President, O’Keefe actually begged for Biden’s forgiveness: “The poll also found that based in part on what's transpired in the past week, a majority of Americans – forgive me, I'm just the messenger – no longer consider you to be competent, focused, or effective at the job.”
The poll definitely struck a nerve with Biden. When he got around to answering O’Keefe’s first question, he snapped at the journalist. “I don't trust anybody, including you. I love ya, but, you know, there's not a lot of people I trust,” he said.
Despite Chuck Todd warning on Sunday’s Meet the Press that President Biden’s falling poll numbers amid the disaster in Afghanistan could signal a “forever stain” on his presidency, that evening’s Nightly News and Monday’s Today show completely ignored the negative findings in the network’s latest survey. While both broadcasts continued covering the Afghanistan debacle, reporters weren’t interested in talking about the American people giving Biden failing marks on his woeful mishandling of the crisis.
Despite having a full two hours, Monday’s Today show also lacked a single second on the poll – though it did manage to offer nearly three minutes on the ongoing search for a new Jeopardy host.
Tim Graham's Aug. 25 podcast similarly hyped bad polls: "On the latest NewsBusters Podcast, we discuss the media's temperamental use of polling results. They have a tendency to highlight polls that underline the narratives and candidates they like, but tend to bury poll results they don't like and don't match their talking points." We didn't listen to the podcast, but we're guessing that Graham didn't discuss his employer's flip-flop from denouncing polls last fall to demanding they be covered now.
Scott Whitlock picked up the hype baton in a Sept. 2 post:
Joe Biden hit record lows in two new polls on Thursday. Will the journalists at ABC, CBS and NBC bother to cover, or even notice, the cratering polling for the Democrat? They certainly enjoyed covering bad news for Donald Trump. In the new NPR/PBS survey, Biden’s approval has slipped to just 43 percent, a new low. In the new Rasmussen poll, the President has fallen to 42 percent, a tie for his record low.
The Biden White House is cratering in the polls. The Real Clear Politics average showed the approve/disapprove numbers intersect in late August as the Afghanistan disaster worsened.
Whitlock went on to complain about "the 'Republicans pounce'-esque tone" of an article that pointed out how Republicans are trying to exploit Biden's low poll numbers for political gain ... in an article in whcih the Republican Whitlock is pouncing on Biden's low poll numbers in order to exploit them for political gain.
Another day, another record low poll for Joe Biden. But the media are still doing their best to hide the implosion of the Democrat’s presidency. ABC’s Good Morning America on Friday buried a survey the network did with The Washington Post finding Biden cratering to 44 percent. On Thursday, new polls showed Biden at 43 and 42 percent, also record lows.
There’s no indication that Biden’s numbers show any hint of improving. But journalists will do their best to hide the bad news for Democrats.
Just like Whitlock is doing his best to hide the fact that his employer vehemently distrusted media polls just a few short months ago.
The deadly incompetence in Afghanistan, the summer of skyrocketing prices, and sluggish job growth all stemming from massive spending that’s driven up inflation had woke up Americans to the liberal media’s lies about President Biden being a world-class leader. With pollsters now showing Biden as a largely unpopular president, ABC was suddenly shocked during Sunday’s Good Morning America as they finally gave their polling some daylight and analysis.
ABC couldn’t even be honest about when the poll came out. According to co-anchor Dan Harris, the ABC News/Washington Post poll was “released overnight.” But in reality, the poll was released on September 3, Friday.
But, of course, ABC would lie about when their poll of released because this may have been the first time their viewers had really heard about it. As NewsBusters’ Scott Whitlock reported on Friday, that morning’s GMA only gave the findings 30 seconds=. The Sunday segment was just over two minutes (2:05).
Meanwhile, Fondacaro and the rest of the MRC have given zero seconds to explaining the MRC's polling flip-flop.
AIM Is Mad Media Bias Chart Doesn't Reflect Its Own Bias Topic: Accuracy in Media
An anonymously written Sept. 14 Accuracy in Media article complains about the latest Ad Fontes media bias chart:
Despite claims by Ad Fontes Media that its analysts are some of the chart’s findings are dubious at best. For instance, it lists Reuters as a centrist, fact-reporting outlet. However, just this past summer, Reuters displayed a blatant double-standard about what types of protests were at risk of spreading Covid-19. Reuters claimed that Black Lives Matter protests would not lead to spikes in Covid-19 cases but that protests in favor of Cuban liberation risked exacerbating the Covid-19 spike. How is an outlet that acts as a lobbyist for the socialist dictatorship of Cuba a “centrist, fact-reporting” source?
In addition to Reuters, other outlets such as NowThis, Teen Vogue, and Vice are categorized as only “skews left” and are a mix of fact reporting and analysis when in reality, these outlets put out extremist content frequently. Just recently, NowThis put out climate propaganda on behalf of the Biden administration. Vice insisted that Marines were actually neo-nazis while also advocating for controversial vaccine passports and downplaying valid arguments against them.
Well, vaccine passports are a health issue, not a political issue. Similarly, climate change is also not a political issues much as AIM has been indoctrinated by its fellow right-wingers to portray it as one. And Ad Fontes likely didn't rush to a snap judgment on Reuters' alleged bias based on three cherry-picked articles out of the thousands it publishes each year, like AIM did. Indeed, as the anonymous AIM writer goes on to quote from the group's website, “Ad Fontes Media has a team of over 40 paid analysts who rate individual articles, episodes, and shows of news sources. They are politically balanced left, right, and center, and come from a range of personal and professional backgrounds.”
AIM wasn't done complaining:
When it comes to right-wing media sources, the chart plays fast and loose in terms of who they list as “extreme.” According to Ad Fontes Media, conservative outlets and personalities such as Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Ben Shapiro and Fox News as a whole are all borderline propaganda sources that are nearly on par with Alex Jones of InfoWars.
Unlike with the outlets it complained weren't placed left enough, AIM offered no evidence to support its claims that Carlson, Hannity, et al, aren't "borderline propaganda."
Based on these faulty complaints, the anonymous AIM writer concluded by whining:
The trouble with this is that the Media Bias Chart is taught in classrooms across the country. In fact, its website has an entire section dedicated to resources teachers can use for their curriculum.
How can a company that has so failed at identifying its own bias teach America’s youth about how to identify it themselves?
How can an organization like AIM credibly analyze "media bias" when it has trouble admitting there's any in right-wing media?
WND Columnist Keeps Up False COVID Vaccine Fearmongering Topic: WorldNetDaily
One of WorldNetDaily's most prolific COVID misinformers, Marilyn Singleton -- who's linked with the fringe-right Association of American Physicians and Surgeons -- is not stopping. She gaslighted in a July 23 column:
Breathless headlines featuring "the Virus" are beginning to fade into a chronic undercurrent of "fear thy neighbor," for he might be bearing the gift of COVID. What you won't see in the headlines are stories about a more pervasive and ultimately more lethal virus: a growing disregard for others and devaluation of life. Rampant homicides are disheartening enough, but more shocking is the shifting morality in medicine.
News headlines gave the impression that the newly instituted COVID rules were designed to save lives, yet we soon learned the lockdowns, masking and school closures did more harm than good. Meanwhile – in plain sight – government-sanctioned sacrifice of the elderly was taking place.
Sadly, physicians have become willing participants in the government's borderline coercion by not informing themselves about early treatments for COVID or the side effects of the experimental vaccine. Federal and state governments are bribing, cajoling and subjecting us to door-to-door pressure to take an injection of a product that could be killing us in numbers not seen before. Serious reactions include miscarriages, Bell's palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, blood clotting disorders (including brain clots) and anaphylaxis. Bizarrely, the White House is challenging colleges to vaccinate entire campuses, despite sometimes fatal heart inflammation after vaccinations in young adults (who have infinitesimal risk of significant COVID illness).
It appears we are guinea pigs in a grand experiment. The elderly were the casualties of Phase I. As the post-vaccine bodies pile up, the Nuremberg Code's principle is being ignored: The experiment must be stopped if continuation would result in injury and death.
It's not too late. Physicians must remember their Oath of Hippocrates and speak up and act for the benefit of their patients, even in the face of conflicting government dictates.
Singleton is lying of course -- the COVID vaccines aren't killing anyone.
Singleton repeated her fearmongering and gaslighting in her Aug. 23 column:
COVID-19 is the latest justification for government overreach in the name of public health. There is little reason for confidence given the CDC's faulty COVID-19 tests, the conflicting information on the usefulness of wearing masks and censoring of effective treatments that were not on the infallible Dr. Fauci's personal favorite list. (Note: The World Health Organization recommended against the use of his favored drug, remdesivir). Adding to the erosion of trust is the change in definition of a COVID-19 "case." Prior to the vaccination rollout, any positive COVID-19 test – with or without symptoms – was a "case." Now, a positive test in a vaccinated person is only considered a "case" if the patient was hospitalized or died.
The federal health bureaucracy is encouraging businesses and local governments to mandate vaccines, despite the growing list of adverse effects, their modest effectiveness against the predominant Delta variant and the imminent need for booster shots. According to data gathered from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, as of Aug. 23, 2021, there have been 13,068 deaths, 154,142 hospitalizations, 5,617 cases of anaphylaxis, 4,681 cases of Bell's Palsy, 1,607 miscarriages, 4,861 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis, 13,812 life-threatening reactions and 17,228 permanently disabled, among other issues. On one hand, it is arguable that this is a pittance given that 360,634,287 doses of Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson/Janssen (J&J) vaccines have been given.
She's lying here too, deliberately misinterpreting VAERS data, which was never meant to documnent proven connections between vaccines and side effects. Indeed, the VAERS database itself clearly states that "the inclusion of events in VAERS data does not imply causality." Yet she continued to fearmonger and gaslight:
We do not know all the risks of the current COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States. Yet the vaccines are given in drive-through parking lots with little to no discussion.
Drunk with power and preying on our fears, the federal government is having corporations do its bidding. Mandates unsupported by medical science could be the greatest threat to our lives and liberty.
And Singleton is not drunk with right-wing notoriety and preying upon people's fears by spreading lies about the COVID vaccines? She apparently believes she's exempt from scrutiny... and libel law.
CNS Keeps Up The Weird (And Anti-LGBT) Attacks on Schumer Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com hates Chuck Schumer as much as it does Nancy Pelosi -- and, as withPelosi, it loves to write weird articles about Schumer to make him look buffoonish or, conversely, insufficiently hateful of the LGBT community.
In March, some poor anonymous CNS staff writer was actually tasked to crank out an article about Schumer sharing ice cream with someone described in the headline only as a "2-year-old kid -- but is actually his grandson:
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) sent out a tweet on Sunday that featured a video of himself eating ice cream off the spoon of Noah Melvin Schumer-Shapiro, his two-year-old grandson.
In the tweet, Schumer says: “Noah and his grandpa having ice cream!”
Nowhere was it explained why this article exists. Two days later, Schumer got another anonymous article, this time headlined "Chuck Schumer: ‘I’m Praying…I Continue to Pray’" -- just like it does for Pelosi.
A month later, that same anonymous CNS writer (or perhaps a different one) got tasked to write about this:
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) sent out a tweet on Sunday that included a photo of himself within a few feet of a television set—with a bottle of beer in his right hand.
“Excited to be watching the Oscars with an ice-cold plant-based beer,” Schumer said in his tweet.
“Thanks Joe Biden,” he said.
The reference to a “plant-based beer” was presumably a reference to a statement that Larry Kudlow made on his Fox Business show on Friday.
So it was a joke -- which nobody at CNS apparently found funny, ;east of all the anonymous writer.
In May, another anonymously written article weirdly attacking Schumer popped up:
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) gave a speech Saturday at New York’s Cannabis Parade and Rally and sent out tweets marking the celebration.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation in April that legalized possessing, using and selling marijuana in New York.
“It’s the Cannabis Parade and Rally in New York City,” Schumer said in one tweet. “This year, we finally equitably legalized marijuana in New York.
“And I won’t stop working to end the federal prohibition on marijuana and undo the harms of the War on Drugs,” he said.
“The War on Drugs has been a war on people,” Schumer said in a following tweet.
CNS was obviously offended by this, but the anonymous writer can't be bothered to tell his (or her) readers why this is so bothersome.
On July 22, a writer -- Craig Bannister -- not only surprisingly committed an actual byline to a Schumer hit piece but also appeared to admit that the point was to mock Schumer and his grandson:
“Noah’s first visit to the Capitol!” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) boasted in a Thursday Twitter post of his two year-old grandson sitting next to him – both without coronavirus masks – at the U.S. Capitol.
Social media was quick to chide Schumer and Noah for brazenly rejecting the COVID precaution at the Capitol – and Schumer for having the audacity to publicly post the photo of the two doing it. “They don’t have masks. Masks are for peasants,” one tweet highlighted by Twitchy mocks.
On Sept. 15, another reporter -- this time Susan Jones -- put her name to a Schumer hit piece:
At the start of a Democrat [sic] leaders' news conference on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) sneezed, prompting Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)--who was standing right next to him and in the direction that he sneezed--to ask him, "Where's your mask?"
“It's here in my pocket," Schumer said, explaining that he doesn’t have a cold (or COVID!): "It's sneezing from eating," he said.
For the record, here's another little-known fact:
According to the< Healthline website, Schumer's condition is known as "Snatiation," which is a combination of the words "sneeze" and "satiation."
"It refers to a relatively common but poorly understood condition that causes people to sneeze uncontrollably after a large meal...Snatiation is likely genetic and doesn’t cause any health problems. If you notice that you sneeze more after large meals, try eating smaller meals or eating slowly."
So, after mocking him and portraying him as a insensitive dolt, Jones waited until the end of her article to admitt he may be right about his condition. Thanks for demonstrating how CNS puts its agenda before the facts, Susan.
CNS kept up its anti-LGBT shots at Schumer as well. In April, an anonymous writer grumbled that Schumer "gave a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate on March 24 in which he applauded President Joe Biden for nominating the 'first openly transgender official ever confirmed by the U.S. Senate,'” Rachel Levine. In keeping with CNS' history of attacking Biden's LGBT nominees, the anonymous writer made sure to add: "Levine grew up in Massachusetts as Richard Levine. He married a woman and had two children. According to a 2016 report in the Washington Post, Levine “publicly announced herself as a transgender woman” in about 2011."
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) sent out a tweet on Sunday boasting that although he has personally marched in the New York City Pride Parade for more than two decades this was the first time a Senate Majority Leader has done so.
In yet another tweet, he provided a video of himself marching in the parade, waving a rainbow flag and saying: “Happy Pride, everybody!”
In still another tweet, he said: “I’ve marched with #NYCPride for over 20 years. It might look a little different this year, but that couldn’t stop us from celebrating because the LGBTQ+ community is strong!”
In one other tweet, Schumer showed images of himself from previous Pride Parades. “Happy #Pride!,” he said. “Taking a look back at marching with #NYCPRide through the years.”
As usual, there was no explanation for why this bothered CNS so much it made a reporter who wouldn't put a name to the work write about it.
MRC Embraces Woodward Book ... To Accuse Milley of Treason Topic: Media Research Center
A new year, a new Bob Woodward book exposing the highly dysfunctional inner workings of the Trump White House -- and, just likelast year, another round of tirades and ranting from the Media Research Center over said book.
This time, though, Woodward and co-writer Robert Costa (a former writer for the conservative National Review) served up a tidbit the MRC could work with, one that kept it from attacking them, at least at first: In the midst of Trump's increasingly unstable mental state following his election defeat and out of fear that he might provoke a war with China, Joint Chiefs of Staff head Gen. Mark Milley that he secretly contacted Chinese officials to assure them that the U.S. wouldn't attack. But instead of focusing on the instability of their favorite president that forced such extraordinary measures, the MRC decided to accuse Milley of treason, like Nicholas Fondacaro did in a Sept. 14 post:
If a military general tried to insert himself into the chain of command in an attempt to usurp power from a civilian Democratic president and promised America’s chief adversary they would warn them if we were going to attack, the liberal media would be screaming and calling it what it was: treason. But since Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley did those exact things to President Trump, CBS and NBC came out in strong support of it during their Tuesday evening newscasts, suggesting he was protecting the nation.
For much of Tuesday, CNN was fixated on claims from Bob Woodward’s new book that Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley had committed treason by promising China that he would warn them if the United States planned to attack. It even weaseled into their California recall election coverage where special correspondent Jamie Gangel openly defended Milley, suggesting he was just trying to protect the country and critics were acting on politics.
Unsurprisingly, Fondacaro refused to address the issue of Trump's mental instability.
Mark Finkelstein complained that CNN had on Miles Taylor, who anonymously wrote a book criticizing the Trump administration while still working in the Trump White House, to talk about the accusation, huffing that Tayloer was "the most perfectly partisan source" -- never mind that, again, he worked in the Trump White House -- and weirdly adding that "There's something of the callow youth about the 33-year-old Taylor."
The View’s Joy Behar emphatically defended General Mark Milley, after it was revealed in Bob Woodward’s book that he may have committed treason while President Trump was in office.
In the journalist’s book, he claims that the Joint Chiefs Chairman, and principal military adviser to the president, secretly called China to assure them he would warn in advance if President Trump planned an attack against their country. Some might call that treason. But Joy Behar was fine with that, even being at odds with her equally liberal co-hosts.
But Behar was thankful for the general’s alleged betrayal of our country, because Trump was a “lunatic” and a “certifiable nutcase” who should’ve been removed from office, she claimed[.]
Fondacaro ranted some more, nonsensically calling Milley "woke" as well as treasonous:
The broadcast networks doubled down Wednesday in their defense of the woke general, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, going from beyond just circling the wagons to building out a fort backed by President Joe Biden. Each of the “big three” were out to paint him as a hero who single-handedly kept President Trump from destroying the world, a delusion they and Milley wished was true. They even tried to rationalize his promise to China to sell out America if we attacked.
Fondacaro insisted that there was "no evidence Trump was planning" an attack on China or Iran, but didn't mention that mentally unstable people are not known for their advance planning.
Finkelstein returned with a post that didn't mention Trump's mental instability but did lecture: "If substantiated, it means that behind the back of the President and Commander-in-Chief, Milley agreed to give a foreign adversary advance notice of an attack. That would constitute an egregious dereliction of duty, and a violation of the core constitutional principle of civilian control of the military."
Clay Waters decided that Milley was guilty of sedition instead of treason:
Wednesday’s New York Times ran a story on a new book by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa. “New Book Details Fears Trump Would Start War.”
But national security correspondent Michael Schmidt glossed over the book’s biggest alleged bombshell: That the nation’s top military officer, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, supposedly promised to provide China, a foreign rival, a heads-up if any attack was coming.
Such a secret promise to undermine civilian control of the military sounds akin to sedition, and would if true help vindicate “Deep State” concerns from Trump supporters. Yet theTimesdidn’t even notice.
P.J. Gladnick finally acknowledged questions about Trump's mental health -- but he was more interested in a gotcha on a reporter on a minor side issue:
CBS News correspondent Ed O'Keefe attempted to defend the actions of General Mark Milley's secret unauthorized contact with his Chinese counterpart by claiming that national security officials cast aspersions on President Trump's mental health. He added Milley was embarrassed about walking across Lafayette Square with Trump to an Episcopal church on June 1, 2020, where the president allegedly held up an upside-down Bible.
The problem? It was fake news. The "upside-down" Bible cited by O'Keefe was actually held right-side-up. A fact that O'Keefe should have known.
You ignorant Americans! How "delusional" can you be to think there was anything wrong about the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff promising America's greatest adversary to tip them off to any impending attack!
As "delusional" as that might seem to patriotic Americans, that was exactly Nicolle Wallace's opinion on her MSNBC show Friday. Discussing Joint Chief Chairman Mark Milley's phone call with his ChiCom counterpart in which he promised to give advance warning of a US attack ordered by President Trump, Wallace whined:
"Over indelusional America, where disinformation rules the day, there are calls for his firing and worse."
Note: consider the implications of Milley's promise to the Communist Chinese military that he would tip them off to any coming American attack. Milley would be sending our military members into an ambush where the enemy would be waiting for them! How is that not a fireable offense, or much, much, worse?
It's apparently not a fireable offense at the MRC for Finkelstein to omit the important context of Trump's mental instability.
And in a Sept. 18 column, Jeffrey Lord blames concerns about Trump's derangement on ... Trump Derangement Syndrome:
But as with Joe Scarborough, other liberals in the media are quick to celebrate Milley’s blatantly unconstitutional actions because, as always, Trump Derangement Syndrome reigns.
An uncomfortable truth of this moment in American media history is that liberal media simply doesn’t believe in the very Constitution that gives themselves a guarantee of a free press. To them the Constitution and the democratic values it exemplifies are situational.
And what happens if some future General - or a President - decides to take a page from Milley’s playbook and tries to suspend a network or a newspaper because they think the content aired or published is coming from network executives, editors and reporters the General or President believes are “unstable” or “unhinged”, as Milley was said to believe of Trump? Suddenly there would be self-righteous cries of indignant outrage from those in the media who are now General Milley’s cheerleaders.
All of which is to say, it is abundantly clear liberals in the media could care less about unelected Generals or bureaucrats violating the Constitution - as long as it’s the right unelected General and the right elected President. Got it.
Lord defends Trump no matter what, so perhaps he's not a reliable source of opinion on this.
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman touted in a Sept. 14 article:
Arkansas Sheriff Chris Brown, head of the Cleburne County Sheriff's Office, issued a statement on Sept. 10 declaring that his office "will not mandate the COVID vaccine" for its employees. He also stressed that he was "appalled" by some of the "absolute dictator-like things we are seeing from the Federal Government."
"I am appalled at some of the absolute dictator-like things we are seeing from the Federal Government, and several of the State Governments," wrote Sheriff Brown. "It is absolute tyranny, and completely abhorrent."
"It flies in the face of everything our country has always stood for, and is only furthering the damage and division done to the people of this wonderful nation," he said.
"I am not pro-vaccine, and I am not anti-vaccine," said Brown. "I am pro-freedom, and I am for each person’s ability and responsibility to decide for themselves (in conjunction with their doctor) whether or not to get the vaccine."
Chapman didn't mention, however, that Cleburne County has a low vaccination rate and a very high risk of its residents catching COVID -- which makes Brown irresponsible for refusing to do what he can to boost public health and safety in his county, which is supposed to be part of his job. (Also, if you are not pro-vaccine, it makes you effectively anti-vaccine.) It also makes Chapman irresponsible for hiding relevant facts that would demonstrate Brown's irresponsibility.
In other words, neither of these people are very good at their respective jobs.
Newsmax Columnist Is Sore Loser About Calif. Recall Topic: Newsmax
The Media Research Center is not the only ConWeb entity to be a sore loser over the California recall atempt. Judd Dunning ranted in a Sept. 16 Newsmax column:
It’s a perfect day to fly California state flags at half-mast for lost liberty. America’s backwards national trendsetter, and my home the last 24 years, has spoken.
By a roughly 63.9% to 36.1% majority (*with 70% voting in at the time of this column), Californians support more vaccine mandates, free market business repression, and individual liberty infringements.
“Rules for me and not for thee” elites are, once again, accepted as our new normal.
Gavin Newsom raised $80,000,000 from local entertainment and eco-socialists. Newsom desperately called in mentally crisp Joe “Jimmy Carter” Biden fresh off his Afghanistan “victory lap.”
Gavin successfully spread fear. Many Newsom supporters are over-emotional, dreamy, often well-tanned, socialist-tolerant sheep.
There is little resistance amongst this well wooled ilk. And why should there be, for those who worship “The State”?
California is a nanny state still high on PPP, EDD, and THC. Little excitement exists for leaving beaches and couches to return to work.
A true majority of Californians love and trust big government.
Our populace obediently watches gobs of leftist news and social media propaganda. It’s a spectator sport here.
Despite all that, Dunning couldn't even be that excited about the Republicans' leading candidate. "Larry Elder has boldly ripped the heads off stupid locals since 1993; as result he is loved by many and hated by more. It was just a fact," adding, "Trump caught elites off guard. Elder is great, but he’s not Trump."
Dunning then played the bogus election-fraud card:
It is a sad state that in the background many still do not trust our elections. Even Tuesday night, on CNN 351,000 “Yes” votes disappeared in an instant during live coverage of the Newsom Recall Election in California.
It remains an unsolved issue and one not to be determined on the federal level. Just as in 2020 our exact recall numbers seem they too, may never be properly known.
Dunning's source for this claim was the notoriously unreliable Gateway Pundit. And, no, it's not true: the exra votes were mistakenly entered then deleted when the mistake was discovered.
Dunning concluded by serving up a familiar turn of phrase:
Here in California behind it all, our greatest issue is our pre-existing hard leftist Foucault-like social capital contracts where people feel a pressure to conform to wokeness, or face getting cancelled or lose freedom for thinking a certain way.
Many have become programmed forgetful robots – and that in essence is … the Newsom problem.
We remember when a Newsmax columnist referred to the "Obama problem," the solution for which, he believed, was a military coup.
NEW ARTICLE: WND Doubles Down On The Big Lie Topic: WorldNetDaily
An issue of WorldNetDaily's Whistleblower magazine dedicated to insisting that the election was stolen from Trump might have been considered somewhat credible if it wasn't so filled with easily debunked and discredited claims. Read more >>
MRC Runs The Larry Elder Defense Committee, Part 3: Sore Losers Topic: Media Research Center
We'vedocumented how the Media Research Center went all in on advocating for and defending Larry Elder as the Republican candidate in the California recall election (while probably relieved that it was no longer forced to suppress its natural transphobia in order to defend an early GOP front-runner, Caitlyn Jenner). That continued the day before the Sept. 14 election. Curtis Houck attacked MSNBC's Joy Reid for criticizing Eider:
MSNBC’sThe ReidOuthost Joy Reid continued the liberal media’s meltdown over the possibility of Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) losing Tuesday’s recall election, warning Friday that Republican candidate Larry Elder would not only bring a far-right vision to California, but he will have exploited recall process with help from “right-wing activists” and “wealthy conservative donors” to infect Californians with deadly bouts of COVID.
Reid opened by bragging about improving polls for Newsom because of what The Los Angeles Times “a referendum on Trumpism,” adding she meant it translated into scaring voters that Elder “would turn the great state of California into another Texas or Florida.”
She also dismissed disapproval of Newsom in the Golden State as Astroturf, spitting on the face of millions of California by dubbing recall as “nothing more than a Republican power grab organized by right-wing activists and financed by wealthy conservative donors.”
Houck made no effort to disprove anything Reid said.
Meanwhile, Scott Whitlock was praising actress Rose McGowan -- whom the MRC was attacking just a few years ago as among the "wealthy celebrities" who showed "lack of empathy" by calling for new gun regulations after the Las Vegas massacre -- for her endorsement of Elder:
Normally if a movie/TV star endorsed a Democrat and made a blockbuster claim about a prominent Republican, journalists and network outlets would be anxious to repeat and promote the claim. But when actor and activist Rose McGowan endorsed Larry Elder and the recall effort against Gavin Newsom, there was a collective media yawn from ABC, CBS and NBC.
In addition to the endorsement, McGowan also accused Newsom’s wife of being in on the effort to protect convicted sex rapist Harvey Weinstein. Yet there has been no network coverage of her Sunday appearance with Republican Elder. MSNBC on Monday allowed a scant 47 seconds with Hallie Jackson trying to “both sides” the blockbuster claim: “You've got both sides trying to bring out some star power and some last-minute allegations coming from some.”
In other words, Whitlock got mad at MSNBC for doing to McGowan what the MRC had done a few years earlier.
Nicholas Fondacaro ranted: "The Monday night before California’s recall election, two of the broadcast networks were solidly backing embattled Governor Gavin Newsom as they downplayed his COVID hypocrisy and tried to stoke fear of Republican front runner and radio host, Larry Elder."
And that was it for the MRC's electioneering. But when the election results showed decisively supporting Newsom and rejecting the recall, the MRC went into sore-loser mode afterwards. Whitlock whined:
The media on Wednesday are cheering how Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom won his recall election, but that's not at all how some media liberals reacted when it was a Republican Governor, Wisconsin's Scott Walker, who won his recall back in 2012. Then, they grumbled about the defeat of a union-backed attempt to remove the conservative, lamenting all the money spent.
All three networks trumpeted Newsom surviving California’s recall election as a “resounding affirmation” and “vindication” for the Democrat’s policies. CBS Mornings journalist Major Garrett touted the California results: “The Governor told me he'd made mistakes. But now he has something other elected officials don't have: vindication. This recall election in the end was a referendum on his pandemic policies and the result was a blowout.”
Garrett seemed to have no issue with the massive amount of money spent to save the Democrat. He matter-of-factly explained: “Newsom raised about $70 million to fight the recall, roughly six times the total of conservative radio talk show host and GOP front-runner Larry Elder.”
Whitlock served up some whataboutism as well:
This is a quite a contrast to the tantrum thrown by journalists when the people of Wisconsin rejected a recall of Walker. On the June 6, 2012 Nightly News, then-anchor Brian Williams contemptuously lectured that "money flowed into that state from all over the country, from people who had never been to Wisconsin, had no connection to Wisconsin.”
Unlike the lack of concern about money in 2021, Williams warned, “Part of the new and unlimited spending that is changing politics in a hurry.” Then-CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley complained, "The Wisconsin battle also was a preview of how much money is changing politics these days. Donations flooded into the state on both sides. The recall election may have cost more than $75 million, and about half of that came from outside Wisconsin. A lot of it from wealthy individuals."
Wilmouth returned to serve up a different brand of whataboutism, this one of the Fox-fluffing kind:
As the California recall campaign closed, New Dayand other CNN shows ignored news reflecting unfavorably on Democrats while going negative against Republican candidate Larry Elder until the very end.
New Day and other CNN shows completely ignored liberal actress Rose McGowan's endorsement of Elder as she also accused Democratic Governor Newsom's ex-wife of trying to protect Democratic donor Harvey Weinstein from McGowan's charges of sexual assault.
As for the woman who made a racially-charged attack on Elder by throwing an egg at him while wearing a gorilla mask, Erin Burnett OutFront and Early Start were the only two CNN shows to give it any coverage, with Early Start burying it before 6:00 a.m. Kyung Lah even hinted that Elder was to blame for the attack as she asserted that he "draws out some hatred from people."
By contrast. New Day's competitor on Fox News Channel, Fox & Friends, covered both stories. On election day Tuesday, Fox showed a clip of McGowan being interviewed by Fox host Tucker Carlson discussing why a liberal like here would support Elder.
Wilmouth offered no evidence that the egg incident was "racially charged." Instead, he continued to praise Fox News for hyping the "racist egg attack," while complaining that CNN "jump[ed] on Elder for suggesting 'shenanigans' by Democrats might cost him the election, with CNN host Brianna Keilar calling it 'the little big lie' on Monday's show."
Given that no credible evidence has surfaced to back up Elder's pre-emptive claim of voter fraud, it can be argued that CNN was right to point that out. Strangely, Whitlock didn't question why Fox News chose to censor that.
Then again, the MRC knows what side its bread is buttered on. It has been publishing Elder's column since early this year. Elder suspended the column during his campaign, but he returned with two columns on Sept. 29 and Oct. 1 reflecting on his failed campaign -- and the MRC publishedthose without comment.
Muslim-Hating WND Columnist: Islam Is A 'Comorbidity' Topic: WorldNetDaily
The best way, then, to vet immigrants is by the faith they practice. As the data show, young, second-generation Muslims are well-represented among terrorists acting out against their hosts across the West. Second-generation Muslim-Americans are more prone to act out on their faith than their parents.
Omar Saddiqui Mateen shot up a Florida gay nightclub, in 2016. He was a second-generation Afghan-American. Although Mateen's father was an admirer of the Taliban, the moron media concluded that junior was no jihadist, only a latent, self-hating homosexual, fixated on phallic symbols like big guns.
The reason for second-generation terrorism is no mystery. More so than girls, boys need strong men in their lives – men who'll affirm their masculinity. Young men crave manly mentors with a strong moral message. But in contemporary American culture, men are sissified and feminized, and biological boundaries blurred. American boys, K-12, are mired in an estrogen-infused, cloistered world where strong men in authority are an endangered minority.
When a Muslim male, moreover, hears American preachers, parents, pedagogues and politicians pounding on about our country's Founding Fathers as the archetypal pale, patriarchal oppressors – he quickly learns to reject his adopted country's heritage and look elsewhere for masculine inspiration, maybe at Muhammad and his acolytes.
The fact that there are moderate Muslims doesn't mean there is a moderate Islam – or that these moderates won't sire sons who'll embrace the unreformed Islam.
As painful as it is to say, being Muslim is a predisposing characteristic, a risk factor, if you will, for eruptions associated with this religion.
By "risk factor," I mean that Islam predisposes its believers to aggression against The Other. For in Islam we have a religion that doubles up as a political system counseling conquest, not co-existence. "Islam's borders are bloody," cautioned famed historian Samuel Huntington. The data support his prescient and profound analysis.
It is a distraction to claim, as the moderates do, that jihadis are misinterpreting Islam, and that we must all do battle for the real Islam, a thing as elusive as Bigfoot or unicorns. Fact: A Muslim's actions, be they in accordance with the "real Islam" or not – sanctioned theologically or not – could be deadly to Americans.
Afghans are as tough as teak. America, however, is a soft, feminized, sentimental and self-hating society. It is dangerous to import men from such a militant manly culture into a country that teaches its immigrants to hate American history and heroes, and to despise and dominate our naive, eager-to-please people and their customs.
More so than countries-of-origin, religion is The Risk Factor in vetting Afghan immigrants. In the popular parlance, we might say that their Muslim faith puts Afghan Muslims in a security risk group and that Islam is a religious comorbidity.