YouTube Temporarily Suspends Musician's Graphic Video, And MRC Turns Him Into A Victim
Topic: Media Research Center

Last fall, the Media Research Center promoted a washed-up musician who performs under the name Five for Fighting -- who hasn't had a major hit in a good 15 years -- and his new song spouting right-wing anti-Biden talking points. Now he's claiming to be a victim, and we all know how much the MRC loves their right-wing victims. Alexander Hall conferred victimhood on the musician in a Jan. 11 post:

Musician John Ondrasik, also known by his stage name Five for Fighting, slammed YouTube for reportedly temporarily censoring his music video about Biden’s incompetence in the Afghanistan troop withdrawal. 

Biden mishandled the end of America’s longest war so badly that Big Tech is haphazardly handling criticism of the president. “Ondrasik spoke out against censorship on Monday during an appearance on America’s Newsroom after YouTube temporarily removed and then reinstated a music video of his song ‘Blood on my Hands,’ which criticized the U.S. for its handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal,” Fox News reported on Monday. While YouTube reinstated the original video, Ondrasik slammed Big Tech leadership for being too quick to remove content. 

Ondrasik explained to co-host Dana Perino that concern over free speech has become a value Americans only protect selectively rather than universally. "This YouTube issue, umm, it seems that freedom of expression only matters when the censorship applies to our side, our tribal team," he observed. "If it’s criticizing some, somebody that is on our side, ‘Well, so what?’ Censorship, it’s all political."

If Ondrasik has a ready platform at Fox News he can run to whenever he has a complaint to make, he's not really being "censored" the way he thinks he is. Besides, even Fox News itself called the video "graphic and chilling," including "horrifying videos of those who died trying to escape the country as well as those who were hanged, beaten and tortured by the new regime in power."

In other words, it appears to be little more than an artsy version of a snuff video -- content that Hall didn't reference in his post and more than likely the reason YouTube temporarily pulled it. Ondrasik apparently didn't reference the video's graphic content when he ran to cry to Fox, since Hall didn't note it.

The problem with the MRC's victim narrative is that it usually has to hide inconvenient facts to sustain that victimhood.

CNS' Jan. 6 Distraction: FBI Agents Soliciting Sex
Topic: CNSNews.com

CNSNews.com wasn't terribly happy about having to report on the anniversary of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, so about midway through the day, it apparently decided it was mostly bored with that eminently newsworthy story and decided to push one that has been an recurring obsession for CNS: employees of the FBI, Department of Justice and other similar agencies who were invesigated for alleged misconduct. An anonymous CNS reporter did the deed:

The Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice issued an investigative summary on Dec. 14 in which it said that four FBI officials “solicited, procured, and accepted commercial sex overseas” and that “a fifth FBI official solicited commercial sex overseas.”

Additionally, the investigative summary reported that “a sixth FBI official committed misconduct by failing to report suspected violations of the 2015 Attorney General Memorandum titled ‘Prohibition on the Solicitation of Prostitution’ by other FBI officials.”

The investigative summary did not name the FBI officials involved or specify the foreign country where they engaged in this behavior.

The summary did say the while the inspector general was investigating this behavior by FBI officials all of the officials involved left the bureau—through retirement, resignation and removal.

While certainly an at least somewhat interesting read, it was not a timely one -- the DOJ investigative summary was issued a full three weeks before the article was published. There certainly wasn't any news hook demanding that the article be published in Jan. 6.

This article simply comes off as a feeble attempt to distract from the news of the day because that news made Republicans look bad.

MRC Hated Biden's Jan. 6 Speech, Attacked Anyone Who Did
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's coverage of the Capitol riot anniversary started with preemptively whining about everyone else's coverage before it even aired. The coverage continued by lashing out at President Biden's speech on the anniversary and at anyone who liked the speech.  Kyle Drennen ranted at NBC's Chuck Todd for liking it, then praised other network commentators for being somewhat less effusive:

During NBC News special coverage of President Biden’s divisive speech using the anniversary of the January 6 Capitol Hill riot to attack Republicans, Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd absurdly claimed the screed was not partisan “if you’re pro-democracy and pro-America.” He also predictably hailed the address as Biden at his “best.”

“I thought it was an important moment that he did do this....This is important for now and it’s important for the history books here,” Todd gushed over Biden’s remarks. The journalist then promptly dismissed anyone criticizing the speech for being divisive:

[...]

In sharp contrast to Todd, CBS Mornings host Tony Dokoupil described Biden’s address this way: “He ended the speech with a reference to the United States of America, underlining that word ‘united.’ But much of the speech was anything but a unification message.” Though to be clear, Dokoupil wasn’t criticizing, he was thrilled: “[Biden] called the former president a defeated president and ticked off three lies that he laid at the feet of that former adversary...trying to restore the country’s attention to a particular set of facts that are important and are high-stakes for future of this nation.”

Meanwhile, during ABC’s special coverage of the presidential address, World News Tonight anchor David Muir proclaimed: “You could clearly hear the passion in his voice as he told the American people what’s at stake as we mark this one year mark since January 6th. Articulating the case that this democracy is fragile and must be protected.” Correspondent Cecilia Vega applauded: “...these were his strongest words yet on former President Trump since he has taken office....these attacks were personal and they were one after the next...”

On NBC, Todd cheered Biden as nonpartisan. On CBS and ABC, the President was celebrated for being highly divisive and launching personal attacks. Were they all watching the same speech?

A few hours later, Drennen lashed out at Todd again:

The cavalcade of leftist media idiocy regarding the one year anniversary of the January 6th Capitol Hill riot reached a new low on MSNBC Thursday afternoon as anchors Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell ridiculously wailed that current divisions in the country were worse than during the Civil War. Todd went so far as to utter the historically illiterate nonsense that “Lincoln’s election was more accepted in 1860,” than Joe Biden’s election in 2020.

“The election, the peaceful transfer of power, something that since the Civil War, we have never argued about, we have never had a disagreement about – actually, since the founders,” Mitchell proclaimed early in the 2:00 p.m. ET hour. That prompted Todd to chime in: “Yeah, Lincoln’s election was more accepted in 1860.”

Apparently Todd missed history class the day it was taught that half the country seceded following Lincoln’s electoral win in 1860, sparking the Civil War, which killed 600,000 people. In April of 1865, just months after being reelected in 1864, Lincoln was assassinated.

Rather than challenge such an insane and blatantly false assertion from Todd, Mitchell agreed: “Exactly. And I was just thinking about that, even the Civil War, we did not disagree with the passing of power.”

Drennen didn't mention that his employer -- through its promotion of a version of Trump's Big Lie -- does not accept Biden's eleciton.

Curtis Houck similarly lost it in bashing another speech-lover:

Continuing Thursday’s theme of news organizations allowing all nutty comparisons to fly on the anniversary of the January 6 riot, ABC News presidential historian Mark Updegrove proclaimed after President Biden’s “powerful” speech that it belonged alongside those from “FDR after Pearl Harbor,” “Lyndon Johnson after Selma,” “George W. Bush after 9/11,” and, most egregiously, Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address.

Appearing on the network’s streaming platform and asked by host Kyra Phillips whether “history” can “be rewritten,” Updegrove replied that “the future of the country is at stake” without heeding Biden’s words (and thus his agenda), which served as “a powerful statement about democracy.”

“This was FDR after Pearl Harbor. This is Lyndon Johnson after Selma. This is George W. Bush after 9/11. Joe Biden wasn't able to make a statement after – after January 6^th,” Updegrove said, adding that Biden had “wanted to unite the nation” at his inauguration, but it was time for a change.

[...]

Unfazed by the insanity that, as per his logic, Trump supporters are akin to al-Qaeda hijackers and Japanese bombers, Phillips invited him to explain “why is it so important for us to continue to remember this moment in history as we move forward.”

Having sufficiently lashed out at Biden and anyone who likes him, it was Nicholas Fondacaro's turn to lash out anew at more coverage of the anniversary:

As NewsBusters documented Thursday morning, the anniversary of January 6 was their Super Bowl as the broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) spent nearly 90-combined-minutes obsessing over the riot at the Capitol like their political careers depended on it. That infatuation cared over through half-time (to stick with the football nomenclature) to their evening newscasts where CBS and NBC each gave it over 80 percent of their total airtime.

NBC Nightly News was arguably the most political invested given their ties to MSNBC. Of their total airtime dedicated to delivering the news (18 minutes and 33 seconds) they spent 15 minutes and 27 seconds, or 83.3% on January 6 and stories related to it.

Not included in these time tallies are the opening teases, pre-commercial teases, teases of upcoming network content/reports, and commercials.

curiously, Fondacaro did not count up the amount of time Fox News devoted to the annniversary -- you know, for comparison purposes.

Kevin Tober, manwhile, was upset that NBC's Lester Holt did an interview with Nancy Pelosi:

NBC News has always been in the tank for the Democratic Party, and Thursday was no different. On NBC Nightly News during an exclusive interview with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the topic of the anniversary of the January 6 Capitol Hill riots, Lester Holt gave her a fluffy softball interview that was a borderline therapy session.  

The first question was probably the most sycophantic toward Pelosi where he asked about President Biden's divisive speech earlier in the day where he attacked former President Trump. Lester praised Biden's speech and wondered why he hadn't given it sooner:

[...]

Next up, Holt played therapist instead of journalist and asked Pelosi to share her experience on January 6 and how she felt: "I want you to take me into that day if you will. We all remember you being quickly escorted off the podium. I’ve heard you talk about it before. You didn't want to go." Holt empathized: "Do you think now, though, knowing what you know, do you think about what would have happened had you stayed?" 

Tober went on to pretend to be appalled that "Holt would try to portray partial-birth abortion-loving Pelosi as some kind of devout Catholic," going on to rant: "She has always been a bitter divisive partisan Democrat. The fact that Lester Holt would let her get away with this act shows how far in the tank he is for the liberal agenda."

Then again, Tober and the rest of the MRC crew are bitter, divisive, partisan Republicans, so maybe their media criticism isn't worth much.

WND Misleads On COVID Death Info
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Art Moore wrote in a Jan. 3 WorldNetDaily article:

The head of a $100 billion insurance company says all-cause deaths have spiked an astonishing 40% among people ages 18-64 compared to pre-pandemic levels.

It's an unprecedented rate that is four times higher than a once-in-200-year catastrophe, said Scott Davison, CEO of Indianapolis-based OneAmerica, during an online news conference last Thursday reported by the news site Center Square.

"We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica," Davison said.

"The data is consistent across every player in that business."

So far, so accurate -- though, weirdly, Moore didn't link to the article on Center Square he claims to be quoting from but, rather, to Center Square's "about" page. But because Moore must work a COVID conspiracy into everything, he started to deviate from the established facts:

Meanwhile, the daily number of deaths from COVID-19, according to the state dashboard, is less than half of what it was a year ago.

The news drew the attention of epidemiologists concerned about the collateral damage caused by COVID-19 mitigation efforts. And while there is no data showing a correlation between death and vaccination, experts concerned about the safety of the vaccines also took note.

Davison, referring to the third and fourth quarters of 2021, said it's not primarily elderly people who are dying, but "working-age people 18 to 64" who are the employees of companies that have OneAmerica plans.

Significantly, the CEO noted that most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths.

But Davison apparently doesn't see a possible connection to the vaccines.

Moore didn't mention what Davison actually did say:

“Whether it’s long COVID or whether it’s because people haven’t been able to get the health care they need because the hospitals are overrun, we’re seeing those claims start to tick up as well,” he said.

Because of this, insurance companies are beginning to add premium increases on employers in counties with low vaccination rates to cover the benefit payouts.

In that Center Square article that Moore didn't actually link to, Davison was more specific:

“What the data is showing to us is that the deaths that are being reported as COVID deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be COVID on their death certificate, but deaths are up just huge, huge numbers.”

Instead, Moore decided to indulge a conspiracy theory from a prolific COVID misinformer:

However, Dr. Robert Malone, who has three decades of experience at the highest levels of vaccine development, said in an interview Monday morning that the insurance CEO's statistics point to vaccine injuries.

Davison, Malone told Steve Bannon on "War Room," is talking about a working population of people "who are likely to be highly jabbed because they’ve been under employer mandates."

"And what you need to do is compare that event rate that he is reporting to the event rate of death and COVID-related death in the general population," Malone said.

In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that COVID vaccines are causing mass death in the U.S. or anywhere.

Such dishonest reporting is yet another reason nobody believes WND -- and why it's going down the tubes.

NEW ARTICLE: An MRC Microaggression Goes Macro
Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center clings to the false narrative that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are somehow "anti-vaxxers" because they pointed out that an extremely untrustworthy Donald Trump was promising a COVID vaccine as a re-election ploy. Read more >>

CNS' Jeffrey Regularly Bashes Wealthy D.C. Suburbs (Where He Lives And Works)
Topic: CNSNews.com

In what has basically become close to a yearly ritual, CNSNews.com editor Terry Jeffrey cites census data to attack the Washington, D.C., suburbs as 1) having too many wealthy people who 2) work for the government. We could see this way back in a 2014 column:

Those who live in this nation's richest county and those who live in its poorest have an important thing in common: a disproportionate dependence on government.

[...]

The independent City of Falls Church, Va. — which the Census Bureau treats as a county — was the nation's wealthiest. Its median household income was $121,250. Wilcox County, Ala., was the poorest. Its median household income was $22,126.

[...]

In both places, government employed people out of proportion to the national rate of 14.9 percent. In Falls Church, a suburb less than 10 miles south of Washington, D.C., 31.3 percent of the people with jobs worked for government. In Wilcox County, it was 25.4 percent.

Jeffrey's absurd comparison of a suburban city near the seat of government with a poor, rural Alabama county led up to an attack on "government investment in education and social welfare programs" promoted by liberals because Wilcox County is still poor. His solution: "Give every child in Wilcox County — and in every other American jurisdiction — a voucher worth as much as it costs to send a child to public school. Let parents, if they wish, send their children to private and religious schools, where they reinforce, rather than seek to replace, the family."

Just one problem with that: According to Wikipedia, the only private school in majority-black Wilcox County is a "segregation academy" -- that is, a school founded to serve white students after public schools were desegregated. So vouchers are not exactly the solution here.

Jeffrey continued to attack the wealth of the Washington suburbs on a nearly annual basis every time new census data came out, even though he admitted in that 2014 article that he lives near Falls Church (though he didn't admit that his office at the Media Research Center headquarters is also well in the D.C. suburbs as well):

• 2016: Census Bureau: 4 Richest Counties in U.S. Are Suburbs of D.C.
• 2017: Census Bureau: D.C. Suburbs Remain Nation’s Richest Counties
• 2017: Census Bureau: 5 Richest Counties Are D.C. Suburbs
• 2018: Census Bureau: 5 Richest U.S. Counties Are D.C. Suburbs; 10 of Nation's 20 Richest Counties in D.C. Area
• 2019: 9 of 20 Richest Counties Are D.C. Suburbs; Virginia Suburbs Beat Silicon Valley

Jeffrey did change things up a bit in 2020, writing an article claiming that "Twenty-six of the 27 richest congressional districts in the United States ... are currently represented by Democrats," and that "every one of the nation’s seventeen richest congressional districts, when measured by median household income as of 2019, are currently represented by Democrats."

After taking a couple years off, a Jan. 12 article by Jeffrey added San Francisco suburbs to his richest-county attack in an apparent swipe at Nancy Pelosi:

The eight richest counties in the United States in 2020, when measured by median household income, were all suburbs of Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, Calif., according to data released by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Five were in the Washington area and three were in the San Francisco area.

While this may all be factually accurate, Jeffrey is cherry-picking data to make a political attack. That kind of bias, sadly, is exactly what we expect from CNS.

MRC Won't Stop Helping Crowder Play The Victim
Topic: Media Research Center

Steven Crowder is little more than a professional victim at this point -- and the Media Research Center is a willing accomplice in helping him play that role. Every time Crowder gets busted b y YouTube for spewing hate and homophobia, the MRC is right there to help him whine about being "censored." AS the hate and suspentions continued, so has the MRC's victim narrative. Catherine Salgado pushed that narrative again in an Oct. 19 post after Crowder got himself in trouble again:

“This is terrifying for the United States of America,” said comedian Steven Crowder after he was censored by YouTube for a Louder with Crowder episode highlighting recent reports of “transgender” rape threat to women. YouTube issued the strike just after Crowder finished a different episode on the reported “transgender” rape cover-up in Loudoun County, Virginia schools.

Crowder posted on Instagram late last week that YouTube had removed an episode of his Louder with Crowder show and temporarily suspended his channel. The censored episode included a comedy sketch based on reports of the increasing sexual threat transgenders pose to female inmates in California’s prisons.

Crowder shared alleged screenshots in which YouTube claimed that the episode violated the video platform’s so-called “hate speech policy” against the “LGBTQ+ community,” including “by indicating that trans people pose a rape threat to women.”

Yes, it must be "terrifying" for Crowder to face consequences for his beahvior. At no point did Salgado quote from the episode in question to show Crowder's transphobia for all to see. Nor did she point out the fact that the story he was mocking was false. Mashable also reported the content that got Crowder a strike, which Salgado doesn't want you to know:

In the segment, Crowder and his producers make transphobic remarks such as referencing male genitalia when discussing transgender women.

The segment also includes a "comedy sketch" which parodies the Immaculate Conception. In the sketch, an angel portrayed by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones (who was permanently banned from YouTube in 2018) appears before an actor playing the Virgin Mother. Jones tells the actor that her cellmate, played by Steven Crowder and described by Jones as a "guy dressed as a woman," is going to "rape" her.

Gabriela Pariseau rehashed Crowder's victimization -- again, without admitting the story he was spreading was false -- in a Dec. 8 post as the lead example of "100 examples of Big Tech censoring content and users who affirm only two genders or recognize biological gender differences over the last 11 months." LIke Salgado, Pariseau didn't directly quote anything Crowder actually said.

Crowder got in trouble again later in December, and this time it was Joseph Vazquez who played the victimization card in a Dec. 16 post:

The censorship overlords at YouTube have apparently continued their digital war with comedian and political commentator Steven Crowder.

Crowder posted a purported snapshot of a notice from the liberal streaming platform informing him that it deleted his recent Louder with Crowder episode headlined, “The LEFT Hates Elon Musk Because He's Too Based!" The purported notice from YouTube said, "Our team has reviewed your content, and, unfortunately, we think it violates our hate speech policy." Crowder responded on Instagram, "Well well well… Rumble and #MugClub it is!! INCOMING!!! 10AM ET. #LwC."

Adhering apparent MRC policy, Vazquez refused to quote what happened in the actual show. Mashable again reported what Vasquez wouldn't:

Crowder's show that day opened up with a music video for a holiday "parody" song about a man who discovers his ex-girlfriend is trans and transitioned after they broke up. Crowder's comments on transgender people were similar to the segment that earned him his first strike in October, when he made anti-trans statements concerning a since-debunked story that he sourced from an anti-trans group.

Autumn Johnson confirmed the suspension in a post the next day. Surprisingly, she did reference the hateful content that got him suspended, albeit in a benign way to remove any offense: "The show featured a parody song about a transgender individual in a romantic relationship and also discussed criticism author JK Rowling had received over her own comments on the issue."

In a Dec. 22 post, Johnson touted Crowder's victimization tour:

Libertarian author and pundit John Stossel interviewed conservative talk show host Steven Crowder about his recent ban from YouTube. Stossel discussed the ban with Crowder and further attacks from Big Tech.

“.@SCrowder has been suspended AGAIN from posting to YouTube,” Stossel tweeted. “What did he do that broke the rules? YouTube hasn't said. That's dumb.”

Crowder has recently discussed cultural issues, transgenderism, and election fraud. Stossel said that YouTube never disputed the accuracy of Crowder’s reports, the platform “just deleted them.”

Despite the fact that she had linked to Mashable's item just a few days ago detailing Crowder's transphobic content, Johnson was content to help Stossel and Crowder play dumb about what Crowder did.

It's clear that the MRC knows if it details  the actual examples of Crowder's transphobia, he'll look much more like the bully he is and much less like a victim. That's why it stays vague at best about what he says -- that is, when it references that at all.

CNS Takes Shots At Efforts To Fight Islamphobia
Topic: CNSNews.com

Patrick Goodenough wrote in an Oct. 22 CNSNews.com article:

Three months Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a letter to create the post of special envoy to monitor and combat “Islamophobia,” Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) on Thursday introduced legislation to achieve that aim.

The Combating International Islamophobia Act would create an “Office to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia” at the State Department, headed by a special envoy.

Note the scare quotes around "Islamophobia" in the first paragraph, which indicates that Goodenough does not approve.He went on to quibble about the word's definition:

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Islamophobia as “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam.”

Other suggested definitions are more expansive.

“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness,” says the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims.

A working definition proposed by two legal experts to the UN. Human Rights Council (HRC) last year said, in part, that Islamophobia was “motivated by institutional, ideological, political and religious hostility that transcends into structural and cultural racism which targets the symbols and markers of a being a Muslim.”

This was weirdly and redundantlyfollowed by a anonymously written Nov. 1 article rehashing the bill.

Note that CNS is not especially hostile toward Muslims, but it is quite hostile toward Omar, most recently seemingly endorsing far-right Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert's portrayal of her as a terrorist. Goodenough, in turn, is not a screaming Muslim-hater; instead, his tactic was to pedantically focus on defining Islamophobia -- which became a Republican talking point against the bill. Thus, Goodenough was happy to to be a Republican messenger against the bill in a Dec. 10 article:

A bill to create a special envoy to monitor and combat “Islamophobia” ran into Republican opposition in the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday, as critics pushed for amendments to define the phenomenon – and some were themselves accused by Democrats of Islamophobia.

Authored by Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), the Combating International Islamophobia Act would create an “Office to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia” at the State Department, headed by a special envoy.

[...]

But GOP committee members argued that Islamophobia needs to be clearly defined to avoid misuse of the proposed envoy post.

Offering an example of the type of problems that could arise in the absence of a clear definition, Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) recalled an incident last summer when Omar came under fire for comments appearing to equate Israel and the United States with terrorist groups.

A dozen Jewish Democrats led by Rep. Brad Schneider (Ill.) in a statement then deplored Omar’s remark. In turn, Omar accused her Democratic colleagues of “harassment” and of engaging in “Islamophobic tropes.”

Goodenough linked to a July article he wrote in which he accused Omar of "stok[ing] Democrat [sic] divisions" through her statement critical of Israel. He did not explain why Israel should be exempt from criticism for its actions.

Goodenough went on to promote a proposed amendment by Republcian Rep. Steve Chabot "that would exclude what he called “legitimate, non-violent, evidence-based criticism” from statements or actions or material that would be regarded as Islamophobic":

He gave as examples: denouncing “Islamic fundamentalist terrorism,” condemning the mistreatment of women by the Taliban, calling out the persecution of Christians in Nigeria, combating “the brutal blasphemy laws in Pakistan,” and calling out those “calling for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.’

“Of course not all Muslims support these types of positions and I don’t mean to suggest that they do,” Chabot said. “But I think that we can all agree that criticism of these things is not Islamophobic.”

“So I would urge the adoption of this amendment. I think we need to define exactly what Islamophobia is.”

Goodenough later appended an update to his article noting that the bill had advanced out of committee and Chabot's amendment was defeated. When the bill was passed by the House, Goodenoucgh returned on Dec. 15 to once again play sematic games:

The House of Representatives late on Tuesday night passed a bill to create a special envoy on “Islamophobia,” after a sometimes heated debate in which Republicans criticized the legislation for failing to define the concept.

“This word appears nowhere in the federal statutes,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas). “It is so vague and subjective that it could be used against legitimate speech, for partisan purposes.”

Republicans argued that without defining Islamophobia, the bill risked threatening free speech, and that someone could be accused of “Islamophobia” when, for example, calling out blasphemy law abuses or the mistreatment of women whose proponents cite Islamic teachings to justify their policies or behavior.

During the earlier House Foreign Relations Committee markup, Democrats voted down GOP amendments including one proposing that “legitimate criticism” should be excluded from speech that could be deemed Islamophobic.

When a Democratic senator recalled former President Trump's attempts at a "Muslim ban," Goodenough did what he usually does and rushed to Trump defense mode:

While arguing in favor of the bill, some Democrats raised former President Trump’s controversial travel proclamations – even though what detractors labeled a “Muslim ban” was built on security concerns determined under the Obama administration.

[...]

Trump’s E.O. 13769 of January 2017 restricted entry (with exceptions) to visitors from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Those same seven countries had been identified the previous year by the Obama Department of Homeland Security as countries of concern regarding terrorism threats, with implications for visa-free travel – Iran, Iraq, Sudan, and Syria in January 2016, and Libya, Somalia, and Yemen a month later.

E.O. 13769 was later superseded by E.O. 13780 (which dropped Iraq from the original list) and by presidential proclamation 9645 (which removed Sudan, and added Chad, as well as some classes of visitor from Venezuela and North Korea.)

The Supreme Court ruling referred to by Reschenthaler, Trump v. Hawaii, related to presidential proclamation 9645.

The five Muslim-majority countries affected by presidential proclamation 9645 – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen together have a population of around 132 million, or about eight percent of the world’s estimated 1.6 billion Muslims.

Goodenough got another article out of the bill the next day:

During Tuesday night’s sometimes combative House debate over a bill to create a special envoy on “Islamophobia,” Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) was called out after accusing the bill’s author of being anti-Semitic and of being “affiliated with” terrorist groups.

Perry did not name Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) in his remarks – which were removed from the record – but his references to the “maker of this bill” made clear at whom they were directed.

Goodenough didn't seem as interested in seeking aprecise definition of anti-Semitism as it relates to right-wing criticism of Omar.

Dick Morris Pushing Evidence-Free Claim That Hillary Is Running In 2024
Topic: Newsmax

Before the 2020 presidential election, Dick Morris declared at Newsmax there was a "good shot" that Hillary Clinton would join the campaign. That didn't work out, as so many Dick Morris predictions don't. But hating the Clintons has been Morris' meal ticket for years, so he's already dragging out the Hillary-will-run-again thing for the 2024 election. He wrote in his Jan. 1 column:

How do you know if Hillary is gearing up for another presidential bid?

Her weather vane begins to twirl and points to the most advantageous direction for a candidacy. Following her ruminations and political gyrations is as accurate as monitoring polling data.

Lately, America's disgust with the woke progressives is registering with her, and she gives evidence of tacking to the center. It is triangulation all over again. She told MSNBC's Willie Geist that Democrats needed to do "some careful thinking about what wins elections, and not just in deep blue districts where a Democrat, and a liberal Democrat or so-called progressive Democrat, is going to win."

[...]

She is setting up the blame game for the likely Democrat losses even as they have not yet happened.

It looks like we are in for Hillary 3.0.

Never mind, of course, that Morris hasn't been on speaking terms with anyone named Clinton for a good couple decades now, and he offered no actual evidence of Hillary moving toward a presidential campaign.

Despite that utter lack of evidence, Newsmax touted Morris pushing this claim again in a Jan. 16 article:

Ex-Clinton adviser Dick Morris told "The Cats Roundtable" radio show Sunday that there is a "good chance" the 2024 presidential election will be between former President Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Hillary "has set up a brilliant strategy," a "zero-sum game, where the worse [Biden] does, the better she does, because she's positioned herself as the Democratic alternative to Biden. Not just to Biden, but to the extreme left in the Democratic party," Morris told host John Catsimatidis on WABC 770 AM.

Morris adds that among the Democratic frontrunners, there will be a Black candidate, likely Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., "a crazy left-wing candidate, probably AOC, and you're gonna have Hillary."

Clinton is a stronger candidate, says Morris, because of her focus on "pragmatism" and not "ideological issues."

Writer Nick Koutsobinas tried to sell the idea that claiming that everyone else is doing it: "In the last week, multiple publications from The Wall Street Journal to CNN, from CNN to The Hill have all published stories sprurring the idea of Hillary making a 2024 run." Biut The Hill article was pure speculation, and the CNN item Koutsobinas linked to is a discussion spurred by the Hill article.

Morris may be perpetually wrong (and he has yet to apologize for the bogus election fraud conspiracy theories he embraced), but he knows what sells in order to keep his job as a (terrible) pundit: he just has to keep pushing the Clinton button.

WND's Root Denies Being A 'Moron' As He Peddles More COVID Misinfo
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Prolific COVID misinformer Wayne Allyn Root took exception to being called a "moron" for spreading said misinformation, and he devoted his Jan. 10 WorldNetDaily column to rebutting the claim ... with more misinformation:

It's so easy to win a debate with an ignorant liberal. They have no facts. They have no brilliant oratory. Just name-calling. After my national TV interviews last week explaining why I believe the COVID-19 vaccine is killing and injuring thousands of Americans, I received an email from an intensive care unit doctor. He called me a "moron." Below is my reply filled with common sense, logic, facts and most importantly, SCIENCE about the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccine. Needless to say, the doctor never replied.

Dear David,

First, I read and answer all my own emails. I'm answering you personally. I don't engage in ignorant terms like "moron" toward people that disagree with me.

Second, this country (and world) is filled with both unvaccinated and vaccinated who are sick with COVID-19. It's a nasty and contagious flu. At this moment almost every vaccinated person I know is sick with COVID-19. A report released by the Robert Koch Institute stated that in Germany over 96% of those with COVID-19 are vaccinated.

In fact, that alleged result came from a data error, and the institute has since reported that the number of unvaccinated COVID patients is much higher.

Third, some studies show that the COVID-19 vaccine damages the immune system, thereby making it more likely that the vaccinated will get sick with each successive variant.

Actually, that's not true either.

Fourth, if the vaccine is so great, why do the deep blue states like New York have massive COVID-19 outbreaks? New York City just set the all-time record for COVID-19 infections in a day. New York right now has almost 30% of all the COVID-19 cases nationwide. How could this happen if vaccines, masks and lockdowns worked?

Because New York City is highly populated, the Omicron variant is highly contagious, and vaccine protection wears off and is less effective against Omicron.

Fifth, if the vaccine is so great, why are there far more COVID-19 deaths in 2021 with the vaccine than there were in 2020 – without it?

Because not enough people got vaccinated, people who absolutely refused to get vaccinted caught it, and the Delta variant was more contagious than the original variant.

Sixth, as a M.D., why don't you pay attention to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System? It's been the gold standard for decades to identify if any vaccine is causing more harm than good.

This COVID-19 jab may have killed over 21,000 Americans. That's separate from the cardiac arrests, strokes, blood clots and permanent disabilities that could be associated with the vaccine. And this jab has potentially caused a staggering 1 million "adverse effects." These numbers are from VAERS – user-reported data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Root is lying about VAERS data, as he usually does -- it is not a full accouting of all alleged adverse effects, and the database itself clearly states that "the inclusion of events in VAERS data does not imply causality."He is deliberately misinterpreting VAERS data to claim that the vaccine "may have killed over 21,000 Americans."

How could you doubt VAERS? Pfizer's own research showed that there were 1,200 deaths during the initial first few weeks of their vaccine rollout. That's Pfizer's reporting.

In fact, those reports were unverified, and the Pfizer report did not raise any new safey concerns about the vaccine.

Certainly, people should agree that no baby, toddler, child or teen should ever be forced to take this jab. As a John Hopkins study proved, the risk of a child dying is basically zero. Out of 48,000 childhood cases of COVID-19 they studied, no healthy child died.

That study came out in July, meaning that it's outdated because didn't include data from the Delta and Omicron outbreaks, which infected and killed more children.

I've had COVID-19. It was gone in 48 hours after I took ivermectin, plus antibiotic (Z Pak), plus megadoses of vitamins C, D3, zinc and quercetin. Plus, I received intravenous vitamin C. Worked like a charm. Gone in 48 hours. Mild.

He also hid his infection from people he was around while doing a book tour and media appearances, meaning he likely spread it to others.

I now have immunity. No one with immunity needs to vaccinate. I believe the risks far outweigh the benefits. I make healthy lifestyle choices. I'm not anti-vaccine. I'm pro-immune system.

In fact, "natural immunity" wears off just like vaccine protection does, and Root will need to get a vaccine -- unless, of course, he wants to be a bug-chaser like Dennis Prager and keep infecting himself with COVID.

Justus R. Hope, M.D., and others report that in India, the government ended the worst COVID-19 outbreak anywhere in the world by handing out free packets of ivermectin plus vitamins. They report that COVID-19 went away literally overnight, and deaths dropped to virtually zero. That's exactly what America should have done and should be doing right now.

As we've noted, there's no proven link between a decline of COVID cases in India and the introduction of ivermectin. (Oh, and "Justus R. Hope, M.D." is a fake name that someone claming to be a doctor uses to push ivermectin.)

We would never call Root a "moron" -- to the contrary, he's proven himself to be quite clever. It's pretty clear, however, that he thinks his readers are morons. Why else would he continue to peddle the same old discredited claims well after they have been discredited?

MRC Preemptively Whined About Capitol Riot Anniversary Coverage
Topic: Media Research Center

Like its "news" division CNSNews.com, the Media Research Center's coverage of -- or, more accurately, whining about -- the anniversary of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot began a few days earlier. A Jan. 4 post by P.J.  Gladnick, for instance, complained about "Politico reveling that the Democrats are attempting to use the occasion to engage in flat out partisanship by federalizing the elections at the state level so as to favor that party." Tim Graham preemptively whined further about the coverage in his Jan. 5 column:

On the cusp of an absolute glut of liberal-media anniversary coverage of the January 6 riot, CNN media reporter Brian Stelter was cranky. “We live in a world where Donald Trump's top supporters malign the media for being ‘obsessed’ with January 6.”

You don’t have to be a Trump supporter to see it. The media obsession with January 6 is easily quantifiable. Saying there’s not an obsession is like claiming the media didn’t do enough coverage of Princess Di’s car crash and funeral. The New York Times editorial board posted an article titled “Every Day Is Jan. 6 Now,” and the daily media coverage reflects that mentality.

You don’t have to be an election denier who thinks Trump won in a landslide to acknowledge it. But Stelter maligned everyone who thinks the pro-Biden media are overdoing 1/6 as a deranged kook: “We're not a single story or smoking-gun confession or criminal charge away from snapping back to a shared reality. Instead, we're experiencing something that might be best explained by psychologists or therapists or algorithm developers.”

Graham was unable to unequivocally criticize the insurrection, choosing to play whataboutism instead: "The riot at the Capitol was a horrible event, and every thug and goon that beat a policeman should be prosecuted. But everyone knows that when thugs and goons tried to set a federal courthouse on fire in Portland with federal employees inside it last year, these self-appointed 'reality' definers didn't find an 'insurrection.' They have a double standard on violent revolts against the government...when the thugs are on the left."

Graham originally disavowed whataboutism in the immediate wake of the riot, insisting that "this is not rioting at an Apple store. This is where our democracy lives." He appears to have gotten back in lockstep with his fellow MRC ideologues, and now apparently believes that destoying the Capitol is exactly the same as rioting in a Apple store.

The preemptive whining continued in a Jan. 5 post by Kyle Drennen:

In an effort to push the Democratic Party agenda on the federal takeover of elections and hype an anti-Republican campaign narrative ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, leftist media outlets have planned an avalanche of special coverage commemorating the one year anniversary of the January 6th Capitol Hill riot.

On Wednesday, network hosts eagerly announced plans to anchor live from Washington, D.C. on Thursday, while cable channels promised to devote hours of air time to the topic.

Bill D'Agostino kicked off the MRC's day-of coverage by constructing the right-wing talking point that any discussion of the riot is nothing more than a Democratic talking point:

After obsessing over the January 6 Capitol Hill riot for the past year, the media are now using its one-year anniversary to advocate for unprecedented, sweeping election reforms.

Democrats would have been foolish not to make political hay out of this anniversary, and so they've decided to wield it as a justification for federalizing America's elections. Naturally, their friends in the media quickly flooded the zone with articles and TV segments supporting the party's cause.

[...]

With the 6th now upon us, Americans are in for a day jam-packed with cynical political gamesmanship and overtures about Our Democracy™.

But don’t expect the press to stop haranguing about the Capitol riot once the fight over election laws is gone from the news cycle. January 6 has been the media’s favorite rhetorical cudgel for the past year, and they’re not likely to put it back on the shelf anytime soon.

And when the anniversary coverage they preemptively whined about actually happened, the MRC whined about that too. Curtis Houck huffed:

On Thursday, it was the liberal media’s Super Bowl and on the first anniversary of the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol as, according to a NewsBusters analysis of the major broadcast network morning newscasts, ABC’s Good Morning America, CBS Mornings, and NBC’s Today spent roughly 90 minutes dissecting, obsessing over, and painting the 75 million-plus Trump voters as enemies.

The networks specifically combined for 89 minutes and 31 seconds and, of that, a whopping 50 minutes and 28 seconds came from CBS Mornings with co-host Tony Dokoupil anchoring from outside the U.S. Capitol, introducing and/or leading ten of the 11 January 6-related segments.

Houck didn't explain to readers why the anniversary wasn't newsworthy -- he simply whined that it was covered.

Clay Waters similiarly complained: "The New York Times is making hay during the intense Democratic politicization of the one-year anniversary of the violent Capitol Hill riots of January 6, 2021, what an online headline called “the worst American attack in democracy in centuries.” (How many centuries are we talking about here?)" He also grumbled that the Times blew up the right-wing whataboutism narrative that Graham used, claiming without evidence that the reporter "tortured the data to downplay the summer 2020 riots over the police killing of George Floyd."

WND's Farah Gets Wildly Biblical Over U.N. Statue Display
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Joseph Farah began his Jan. 3 WorldNetDaily column by describing New York City as both "the most influential city in the world" as well as "the leading purveyor of pornography and also leads the globe in delivering prescription drugs to the world – as well as the COVID-19 vaccines." So life-saving drugs are on the same level as pornography? Only in Farah's mind. He then went Biblical with an assist from his favorite conspiracy-mongering messianic Jew:

With full tribute to Rabbi Jonathan Cahn in his book "The Harbinger," I was moved by the way the U.S. misunderstood a verse in the book of Isaiah, chapter 9 verse 10: "The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars."

It was Israel's message to the Assyrians' initial attack before final destruction. It was also America's response to the 9/11 attack on New York, as the book relates. There was no repentance, only pride in the people's hearts.

I don't know if the parallels go any further. I just don't know. But I am thinking about them. I am praying about them. I am certainly seeking repentance for my country's forgetfulness and its wrongdoings and its recent treacheries.

Remember, we did rebuild after 9/11. After a day or two of thinking about it, that was our response – leaders echoed the words of Israel's leaders, not even recognizing what they were saying. We built the One World Trade Center tower.

Then we got several more warnings, which I won't go into here. But New York is now a hell hole of sorts.

This all led up to Farah melting down over a statue recently placed in front of the United Nations headquarters in, yes, New York:

Just when you think you've seen everything, think again.

"A guardian of international peace and security sits on the Visitor's Plaza outside #UN Headquarters. The guardian is a fusion of jaguar and eagle and donated by the Government of Oaxaca, Mexico," explains the caption above the image the United Nations tweeted recently.

WHAT? It's one of the beasts of Babylon. It resembles a lion, too.

The U.N. does not have a sense of humor. This is no joke. Let me remind you what this is.

You know who else doesn't have a sense of humor (or history or non-American culture)? Joseph Farah. After extensively quoting from the Book of Revelation, he ranted:

Not only is it in New York City, this abomination defies the Living God!

That's pretty much all the U.N. does in its full-time war on Israel – and everything else decent.

Repent. Get out of sin. Bring yourself in alignment with God. Pray and fast.

That is what we should all be doing now. All the world is lining up against us. The beast is alive and well on planet Earth. Beware, the time is short. You can't cope in this world without relying on Jesus-Yeshua, our One True Savior and Deliverer and King of Kings!

But as one fact-checker noted, half-lion-half-eagle have long been mainstays of Western culture, and this one is inspired by Latin American culture. Also, the beasts of Revelation and Daniel are considered by Christian scholars not named Joseph Farah to be metaphors for ancient empires. According to CBN, it was a temporary exhibit that was displayed for about two months and removed as planned on Dec. 20 -- two weeks before Farah's column appeared.In other words, not the "mascot" Farah claimed it to be in his headline.

But because Farah doesn't care about anyone else's culture but his own narrow one, he felt the need to go all biblical here. Taht not only led him astray, it demonstrates another reason why WND's content can't be trusted (and why it's going down the tubes).

Newsmax Columnist Wants To Strip The Right Of D.C. Residents To Govern Themselves
Topic: Newsmax

Home Rule is a legislative carveout granted to the District of Columbia that allows the city to govern itself by electing a city government with a mayor, city council, and various bureaucratic agencies. Congress first granted D.C Home Rule in 1973, devolving their constitutionally outlined power to govern D.C to the residents of Washington.

Since 1973, Home Rule has been an unmitigated disaster that has subjected the capital to crises of crime, corruption, and unhinged progressive activism. Though in steep competition with crack-smoking crook Marion Barry for distinction as worst mayor, Muriel Bowser's administration may soon surpass all prior D.C infamy.

Mayor Bowser began in 2020 by forcing the city into some of the strictest lockdowns in the nation, not fully re-opening D.C's businesses until this past summer. The result was catastrophe.

Hundreds of businesses permanently closed, and with it came the destruction to incomes, lives, and community that always accompanies the collapse of small businesses.

She followed up by subjecting the city to lawlessness in the wake of George Floyd's death, permitting Black Lives Matter to riot, loot, and burn. Rather than restore order, she used tax dollars to plaster "Black Lives Matter" on the street in front of the White House, grossly abusing her powers to play race politics in the heat of the 2020 election.

If the American people want to visit the White House today, they're forced to walk over gigantic, ugly yellow neo-Marxist propaganda. So much for the so-called people's capital.

[...]

If Republicans win the House back in 2022, they should restore dignity to the capital by ending the Home Rule charade. The chaos must end, and the only way is for Congress to strip the Mayor and City Council of their abused authority.

Stripping the city council and Mayor Bowser’s authority is well within congressional rights. The Constitution plainly states the power to govern D.C is Congress’s, and the District’s charter makes plain that Home Rule is a privilege.

A Republican House could clean up the streets by instating camping bans and offering the homeless and mentally ill the help they need and deserve. They could drastically reduce crime rates by fully funding the police and giving them the authority to enforce the law.

Republicans could save communities by ending COVID-19 restrictions and empowering citizens to make their own choices. Most importantly, they could restore the nation's capital to constitutionally intended governance and end Mayor Bowser's humiliation of the country.

-- Collin Pruett, Dec. 28 Newsmax column

CNS Coverage Of Capitol Riot Anniversary Switched To GOP Talking Points
Topic: CNSNews.com

CNSNews.com writer Susan Jones lashing out at President Biden's speech on the anniversary of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was the climax of CNS' Jan. 6 coverage, but it was far from the end. An anonymously written article complaining that Vice President Kamala Harris was "likening the Jan. 6, 2021 riot that breached the Capitol building to the Pearl Harbor attack of Dec. 7, 1941 and the al Qaeda terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." Jones followed that up with a Jan. 7 article quoting none other than Liz Cheney dismissing the comparison:

Republican Rep. Liz Cheney is as determined as any Democrat to make sure Donald Trump never again becomes president. She is one of two anti-Trump Republicans sitting on the House select committee to investigate the events of January 6, 2021.

And while she "agreed with" some of the remarks made by President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on the one-year anniversary of the attack, she wouldn't go as far Harris did in comparing the attack on the U.S. Capitol to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the September 11 attack on the United States.

Jones went on to grouse that "Cheney said the committee's goal is not to prevent Trump from running again, although that's certainly how it appears," adding a further complaint that "Democrats on Thursday used the January 6 anniversary to push their voting legislation, which would set federal election rules that are weaker than those set by some states."

Craig Bannister gave Donald Trump his say in an article:

“The Democrats want to own this day of January 6th so they can stoke fears and divide America,” former President Donald Trump said Thursday, reacting to President Joe Biden’s divisive speech attacking Trump and Republicans on the one-year anniversary of the riot at the U.S. Capitol.

“I say, let them have it because America sees through theirs lies and polarizations,” Trump added, in a statement released following Biden’s speech.

Bannister failed to mention the highly relevant fact that Trump helped instigate the riot.

CNS served up more Republican spin on Jan. 7 -- namely, that Democrats are focusing on the riot to distract from their purported current failures. Jones did her part:

President Joe Biden, looking backward on a day when he said the country should focus on "the way forward," mentioned "the former president" 16 times in his speech marking the one-year anniversary of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

"They just want to continue talking about Donald Trump and anything else other than the problems that they created," House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) told Fox News on Thursday.

"Look, it was a day that nobody wanted to see happen," Scalise said.

Pat Buchanan's column pushed the same talking point: "Why cannot our liberal media let it go? Why does the distortion and hysteria about Jan. 6 seem to grow with each retelling?" He further whined: "Question: If the left is so terrified of Trump it feels it must prevent him from even running again, by imposing a criminal conviction, what does that say about the left's belief in American democracy? What does that tell us about the left's trust in the people?"

Melanie Arter served up another critic of Harris' 9/11 comparison, and Bannister featured a Republican congesswoman making an odd statement:

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) says her office was prepared for the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 – and that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and law enforcement leaders should have been, too.

“January 6th was an avoidable security failure that we can never let happen again,” Rep. Lesko says in a video posted on social media Thursday, the one year anniversary of the riot.

“I was in the Capitol complex that day – I made sure my office was prepared,” Rep. Lesko says, revealing that “We had enough food for the staff, and I told my staff to be prepared to spend the night, in case demonstrators blocked us in and we couldn’t go home after the vote.”

“It was common sense,” Rep. Lesko says.

Lesko went on to blame Nancy Pelosi for the situation at the Capitol, but Bannister failed to tell readers that Pelosi isn't in charge of the Capitol Police.  But if Lesko knew there was going to be a riot, why didn't she alert the Capitol Police herself? Bannister didn't seem interested in pursuing that line of questioning.

The coveraged was capped off with a Jan. 10 article by Bannister regurgitating a rant by right-wing radio host Mark Levin that, in Bannister's words, "The same radical leftists who tried to destroy the presidency by promoting conspiracy theories, impeachment and denying the legitimacy of the last president, Donald Trump, are now peddling the lie that the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol was, and is, the greatest threat to America since the Civil War," when "the greatest threat to the country is actually the Democrat [sic] Party, which has supported slavery and segregation in the past, and now wants to rig the system so that it can never lose another election."

MRC Stands With Rogan -- And COVID Misinformation
Topic: Media Research Center

When noted COVID misinformers Peter McCullough and Robert Malone appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast in December, the Media Research Center rushed to defend both Rogan and the misinformers, while censoring the fact that misinformation was spread. That defense mode continued well into January.

In a Jan. 8 post, Christian Toto gushed over how Malone, during his Rogan appearance, talked about "mass formation psychosis" (which isn't actually a thing), adding; "Twitter subsequently banned Dr. Malone, forcing him to move to GETTR. YouTube similarly yanked Dr. Malone’s recent interview with Rogan, heard by the podcaster’s massive Spotify audience. Toto then approvingly quoted right-leaning podcaster Dr. Drew Pinsky gushing, "The Fourth Estate needs a revolution … and it might be Joe Rogan. He might end up the head of the Fourth Estate."

It took both Autumn Johnson and Gabriela Pariseau to complain in another Jan. 8 post that Malone "has been banned from LinkedIn reportedly because of his controversial views on COVID-19 vaccines." They touted how "Malone told Joe Rogan that he believes the government is conspiring against him because of his dissenting views" but didn't mention that what they're referring to as "dissent" is actually misinformation.

Alexander Hall huffed in a Jan. 13 post that "President Joe Biden called for social media companies to censor American citizens online during a speech Jan. 13, amidst a presidency marked by censorship and government crackdowns" -- actually, he asked them to deal with "misinformation and disinformation" -- going on to huff further: "It may be hard for some to even imagine Big Tech censoring more on behalf of Biden and the COVID-19 narrative. YouTube recently made headlines when it purged an interview between world famous podcaster Joe Rogan and Texas-based cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough about the COVID-19 pandemic." He censored the fact that McCullough was also called out for spreading misinformation.

Johnson complained in a Jan. 14 post that numerious actual medical experts called out Malone's information, though she insisted on putting the word in scare quotes:

Hundreds of doctors called on Spotify to target Joe Rogan’s podcast because of alleged Covid-19 "misinformation."

Rogan was criticized for hosting Dr. Robert Malone on his podcast. Malone, a vaccine scientist, was banned from Twitter for his tweets that questioned the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. Now physicians want Spotify to remove the episode.

In an open letter, 270 doctors asked the audio streaming service to remove Rogan’s podcast to stop so-called “misinformation” about the virus. Rogan has also been censored because of his views on treatments for COVID-19.

Infectious disease epidemiologist Jessica Malaty Rivera warned people not to believe Malone simply because of his medical credentials.

Johnson did note that "A fact-check in the letter rated the veracity of the claims Malone made in the interview," but she did not dispute any of the claims in it, meaning she has no factual basis to justify putting "misinformation" in scare quotes.

Johnson returned to put misinformation in scare quotes again for a Jan. 16 post to deny that Rogan was spreading it, even though it's documented that he was:

Leftists are calling for platforms to ban famous podcast host Joe Rogan and political and social commentator Jordan Peterson to prevent the spread of so-called “misinformation.”

[...]

Rogan is also in the left’s crosshairs after he challenged the narrative on COVID-19. Rogan has hosted COVID-19 skeptics on his show and has opposed government mandates regarding the virus.

Clay Waters used a Jan. 18 post to whine that the New York Times was criticizing actual media censorship in Serbia, while "The Times has long embraced Big Tech squelching supposedly offensive viewpoints cross the pond, with their reporters taking the role of self-appointed hall monitor of internet speech." He cited as an example of the latter "Calls for media personalities that offer independent viewpoints on Covid, like uber-popular podcaster Joe Rogan, to be squelched in the name of public health." Waters didn't epxlain why Rogan deserves to be exempt from consequences merely because he's "uber-popular."

Hall complained in a Jan. 19 post that YouTube pulled another podcast featuring McCullough, huffing that "Censors now appear to nix videos before they are even published." He added: "McCullough had told host Joe Rogan there was a 'suppression of early treatment' in order to “create acceptance for, and then promote, mass vaccination.'" Hall failed to tell his readers that a fact-check of McCullough found that he offered no evidence whatsoever to support this claim.

Toto returned to lie in a Jan. 22 post: "Liberals also want to silence Joe Rogan. He’s not a journalist but someone eager to let multiple sides of a story be heard." Toto censored any mention of the misinformation spread on Rogan's podcast -- he apparently believes that's just a legitimate side of a story.