Rogan Patrol: Faced With Defending Rogan's Use Of N-Word, The MRC Plays Whataboutism
Topic: Media Research Center

When you commit to something the way the Media Research Center has to defending Joe Rogan's COVID misinformation, you're pretty much stuck defending everything he does. A Feb. 1 post by Jeffrey Clark got mad at Rolling Stone magazine for pointing out how Rogan was joined by right-wing guru guy Jordan Peterson to spread misinformation about climate change:

The left-wing orthodoxy has spoken: Podcast host Joe Rogan must be banished from society. Rolling Stone slammed Rogan and clinical psychologist and University of Toronto professor emeritus Dr. Jordan Peterson in a self-righteous hit piece. Rogan and Peterson’s crime? Having the nerve to discuss climate change.

Rolling Stone contributing writer Jack Crosbie, who also writes for the self-described “leftist politics and culture site” Discourse Blog, appeared to be especially outraged. In a Jan. 26 article headlined “ Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson Wax Idiotic on Climate Change and What It Means to Be Black,” Crosbie declared Rogan, a world-famous podcast host, and Peterson, a renowned clinical psychologist, “two of the dumbest people on earth.” The controversy stems from a conversation Rogan and Peterson had on The Joe Rogan Experience, posted Jan. 25 to Spotify.

To Crosbie, the “four-hour marathon conversation on The Joe Rogan Experience” was “stupid.” He griped, “Their topics were varied, but almost all of them were intensely stupid, if not incoherent.”

[...]

Peterson noted: “There is no such thing as climate. ‘Climate’ and ‘everything’ are the same word.” Rogan pushed Peterson to clarify, and he explained: “[T]hat’s what people who talk about the ‘climate apocalypse’ claim in some sense: ‘We have to change everything.’” Peterson continued, “And the same with the word ‘environment’ … it means so much that it actually doesn’t mean anything.” 

Crosbie interpreted Peterson’s comments as “a theory on climate change loaded with circular arguments that all come back to the same point: It’s not real.” 

That is unfair and untrue. Peterson never said in this interview that “climate change” was a hoax. If he did, Crosbie almost would have likely clipped Peterson saying that. Peterson instead criticized believers in “climate apocalypse” who think “the planet has too many people on it.” For Rolling Stone to arbitrarily cast Peterson’s comments as “intensely stupid” and “incoherent” is just babble wrapped in hyperbole.

Note that Clark barely quotes from the podcast to defend Peterson, suggesting there's probably a lot more to Rolling Stone's analysis that he's ready to admit. Also note that  Clark doesn't state the obvious, that neither Rogan nor Peterson have any demonstrated expertise on the issue of climate, as demonstrated by Peterson's bizarre assertion that there's no such thing as climate.

Meanwhile, a new Rogan issue was brewing. Autun JOhnson hinted at it in a Feb. 5 post noting that "Spotify has removed approximately 70 episodes of" Rogan's podcast, though she misleadingly complained that "Many on the left have attacked Rogan for his promotion of alternative treatments of COVID-19" without proving any link between the two. Meanwhile, a Feb. 6 post by Clay Waters complained that a New York Times opinion piece "called for the massively popular podcaster Joe Rogan to be censored by his hosting platform Spotify" (invoking hte ag populum fallacy again). When the writer noted Rogan's history of transphobia and racism and his giving a platform to the likes of Alex Jones, Waters played whataboutism: "Wait until these benighted folks discover the history of Sirius XM podcaster (and former radio shock jock) Howard Stern."

What happened was that a clip compiliation was released on Feb. 4 summarized Rogan's enthusiastic use of the N-word. Alexander Hall couldn't even acknowledge the existence of that clip in a Feb. 7 post, vaguely stating only that there "outrage over past language" and cheering Spotify for continuing to stand by him. Hall also complained that tech writer Kara Swisher called out Rogan defenders for claiming that his critics want to "silence" him when they haven't really done that.

Brian Bradley went full whataboutism in a Feb. 8 post, expressing faux shock that -- gasp! -- rappers say the N-word:

The platform continues to host a ton of content brimming with references to the racial slur, including one Lil’ Jon song that belts the N-word a whopping 152 times. This is after 70 episodes of the well-known Joe Rogan Experience podcast were removed from Spotify over the weekend, reportedly because of the host’s past use of slurs.

[...]

Spotify didn’t respond to a Media Research Center request for response on whether the platform plans to remove any of the above songs/purge all content containing the N-word, or whether its policy on removing racially insensitive content applies only to Rogan.

Spotify clearly knows better than to try to engage with a bad-faith actor like the MRC.And Bradley certainly won't concede that black rappers use the N-word in a much different context than a white podcaster does.

Johnson served up more whataboutism in a Feb. 10 post:

Since many on the left have called on Spotify to remove Joe Rogan’s podcast from its lineup, it is worth noting that the podcasts of convicted criminals and alleged racists are still up.

Rogan has faced criticism on the left for allegedly spreading “misinformation” about COVID-19. Earlier in the week, Newsbusters  reported that several songs on Spotify contained obscene material that included various uses of the N-word, while Rogan was singled out after he quoted someone who used the word.

Fox Business reported that Spotify “rarely censors content” and first pointed out that Louis Farrakhan’s podcast was still listed on the platform, despite the fact that he is notorious for his anti-Semitic comments. Gary Glitter, a convicted pedophile and glam rock singer, also had his podcast present, as well as that of R. Kelly, who was found guilty of sex trafficking, kidnapping, and more.

The same day, Hall lovingly wrote of "legendary podcaster" Rogan defending himself, with a little added defense of his own:

The embattled legendary podcaster Joe Rogan defended his right to speak his mind on his podcast.

Rogan, host of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, slammed recent Cancel Culture witch hunts against his show: “This is a political hit-job, and so they're taking all this stuff that I've ever said that's wrong and smushed it all together,” he declared in a Feb. 8 podcast episode. While Rogan suggested that “you should apologize if you regret something,” he warned that there is a very clear line that must not be crossed: “I do think you have to be very careful to not apologize for nonsense.”

[...]

A major Cancel Culture campaign began in late January, when musician Neil Young issued an ultimatum to Spotify that he would remove his music if Rogan were to keep questioning Covid narratives. Later, 70 episodes were removed from Spotify after Rogan was criticized for past use of the N-word, despite its common usage in rap songs on Spotify.

Again: Rogan was not criticized for "questioning Covid narratives"; he was criticized for spreading documented misinformation. The MRC apparently doesn't understand the difference between the two.

MRC Promotes Attempt To Whitewash Anti-Gay Conversion Therapy
Topic: Media Research Center

A few months back, we caught WorldNetDaily trying to whitewash warmed-over anti-gay conversion therapy as "reintegrative therapy." Now, the Media Research Center is taking a stab it it. Gabriela Pariseau wrote in a Jan. 20 post:

YouTube “terminated” the Reintegrative Therapy Association’s channel for alleged “hate speech,” accusing the group of pushing “conversion therapy.”

The Reintegrative Therapy Association (RTA) specializes in “established, evidence-based treatment interventions … to treat trauma and addiction.” Joseph Nicolosi, Jr., a licensed clinical psychologist and founder of the RTA, told MRC Free Speech America that YouTube banned RTA’s channel overnight.

"Our channel went from 0 strikes against us — and having tens of thousands of views — to permanent suspension for all videos indefinitely, overnight," Nicolosi explained. "Our video content ranged from client testimonials to research explainers. None of that mattered."

[...]

RTA explicitly distinguishes reintegrative therapy, which it said, “seeks to identify and resolve past traumatic memories,” and “conversion therapy” in which “[s]exual orientation change is the goal.”

However, it acknowledges that a “client's sexuality can sometimes change on its own.” The organization also clarifies that it uses “the same approach, regardless of the client's sexual orientation or gender” 

YouTube’s block of the RTA channel came after a recent report by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE), which conflated reintegrative therapy and conversion therapy and put pressure on Big Tech companies to remove accounts like the RTA YouTube channel.

Pariseau, however, censored the fact that Nicolosi is the son of Joseph Nicolosi, one of the biggest promoters of conversion therapy, whose legacy Nicolosi Jr. isn't exactly running hard to get away from. Video touting reintegrative therapy on Nicolosi Jr.'s website are titled "This changed my sexuality" and "The science behing my sexuality change" -- meaning his therapy is unambiguously being marketed as having a anti-gay goal. Further, despitte Pariseau's declaration that Nicolosi Jr. is "a licensed clinical psychologist," his doctorate came from a school that wasn't accredited by the American Psychological Association at the time he received it.

Pariseau also made sure not to quote from the GPAHE report, which detailed the father-son link and noted that research claiming to validate "reintegrative therapy" was published in the Journal of Human Sexuality, which is published by the successor group to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, the anti-gay organization founded by Nicolosi Sr.

Pariseau, meanwhile, was too busy trying to paint Nicolosi Jr. as a victim:

Nicolosi, however, told MRC Free Speech America that Big Tech censorship and organizations like GPAHE ultimately hurt those in need of real help. “Everyone should be free to find therapy and support to help them achieve their desired goals and outcomes. Not Big Tech, or any political organization. Clients should be in the driver’s seat of their therapy,” he said.

“Ultimately, it’s the public who suffers— it’s the sex-abuse victims, seeking out alternative therapy options, for example. We can’t be educated on any topic if we only have access to one point of view. Our clients —and the general public— deserve better.”

The MRC is anti-LGBT enough to want to help Nicolosi with this dishonest whitewashing. Its "news" division, CNSNews.com, recently lamented a conversion therapy ban in Canada.

The MRC's Pro-Misinformation Brigade Stays On Rogan Patrol
Topic: Media Research Center

Just because Joe Rogan quasi-apologized for spreading misinformation doesn't mean the Media Research Center had finished defending his right to spread it. Curtis Houck kept up the whining that Rogan was being held accountable in a Jan. 31 post:

All three major broadcast networks continued on Monday morning to do their part in the push to remove Joe Rogan from the public square over his top-rated Spotify podcast under the guise of COVID-19 falsehoods. In the case of ABC, CBS, and NBC, they ratcheted up the rhetoric from when they first covered it last week, calling his show and views “dangerous” “misinformation” with one implicitly tying him to Americans who’ve died from the virus.

CBS Mornings was the most sinister, insisting they support “free speech” and First Amendment rights while also demanding Rogan be prevented from having a “massive” “platform as large as Spotify” because “a lot of people do listen to” him.

“What to Watch” host Vladimir Duthiers reported on “developments in the controversy over misinformation...on Joe Rogan’s popular podcast” with rocker Neil Young having his music removed from Spotify because he “and others say...Rogan’s show promote[s] false information about COVID-19 and the vaccines.”

It should be noted Young’s 2006 tour was entitled “Freedom of Speech” as a slight against George W. Bush. How the tables have turned for this hippie!

Only at the MRC would it be considered "sinister" to hold someone accountable for their behavior. And Houck offered no evidence that "freedom of speech" protests lies and misinformation.

Nevertheless, he went on to rant that this was all an "open example of collusion to censor those the liberal media oppose." Never mind that his job is to censor the speech of people right-wing activists like him oppose.

Alex Christy took a predictible shot at the evil (in the fevered brains of the MRC minions, anyway) Brian Stelter of CNN, complaining thathe said that CNN ismore trustworthy than Rogan -- an indisputable truth.Still, Christy felt the need to sneer in response that "Stelter's claim that CNN can better discern what is true than the average Joe Rogan listener is not something backed by evidence" -- though he offered no direct comparisons of CNN vs. Rogan.

Catherine Salgado, meanwhile, screamed "DOGPILE!" in the headline of her post:

Leftists called on Spotify to ban popular podcast host Joe Rogan over alleged COVID-19 “misinformation.” Rogan has interviewed doctors on his show who dissent from the left’s COVID-19 narratives.

Rogan’s enormously popular podcast “The Joe Rogan Experience” is exclusive to Spotify, but leftists railed against the streaming platform and demanded he be deplatformed. Rogan interviewed both experienced cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough and mRNA vaccine patent holder Dr. Robert Malone.

The left has repeatedly vilified Malone and McCullough for scientifically dissecting many touted COVID-19 narratives. By calling for Rogan to be banned, leftists have made it clear that anyone who disagrees with them shouldn’t have a platform to speak freely.

Notice all the fallacial appeals Salgado invoked -- the ad populum fallacy in touting how Rogan is "enormously popular," and the credentials fallacy in hyping the medical and research credentials of McCullough and Malone and ignoring the fact that both have been repeatedly discredited. And her insistence on putting scare quotes around "misinformation" shows that Salgado is never going to admit Rogan, McCullough and Malone ever misinformed people -- even as she refuses to lift a finger to prove that claim correct, as proven by her false statement that they stand accuse of "dissent[ing] from the left’s COVID-19 narratives." No, they're accused of dissenting from established medical reality, and the fact that Salgado considers medical reality merely a "narrative" from "the left" tells you all you need to know about how the MRC and the rest of the right-wing media have politicized COVID.

Salgado went on to complain:

Many “theories” were aggressively dubbed “misinformation” earlier in the pandemic, such as the lab leak theory of COVID-19 origins and the fact that vaccinated individuals can contract COVID-19. These same “theories” have now been shown to be plausible or true, and authorities have now acknowledged the veracity of emergent facts. Furthermore, while a letter to Spotify from medical and scientific professionals has hundreds of signatures, over 17,000 scientific and medical professionals have signed the Rome Declaration condemning many touted COVID-19 measures.

As we noted when Rogan claimed it, the lab leak theory has yet to be proven conclusively true, andthere's little evidence that COVID-19 is a Chinese-made bioweapon. While there is a Rome Declaration on COVID -- created last May by the European Union -- that's not what Salgado linked to. Instead, she linked to a different declaration from a group of fringe doctors and researchers -- including Malone and McCullough -- who oppose COVID vaccines and have pushed dubious treatments such as ivermectin.

Pro-misinformation advocate Alexander Hall complained that the White House wanted to do something about it in a Feb. 2 post:

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki called on music and podcast streaming platform Spotify to tighten its grip on speech to stop so-called “misinformation.” It’s a culture-war tactic often used by the left: Accept some subservience by others to its agenda, but say that’s only a start.

Psaki gave minor praise to Spotify for announcing it will add disclaimers on podcaster Joe Rogan’s podcasts, but said that is only a fraction of the censorship it should be doing.

Hall is lying -- Psaki is not calling for "censorship," and Hall knows it. Nevertheless, he kept trying to put that word in her mouth.

Clay Waters used a Feb. 3 post to attack a New York Times reporter over his article on Rogan:

New York Times tech reporter-columnist Kevin Roose took on the controversy between hugely popular podcaster-interviewer Joe Rogan and the music-media streaming provider Spotify over supposed misinformation Rogan spread about Covid vaccines in an interview with a controversial doctor. The story dominated the front of Tuesday’s Business section: “Staying Power Of an Uproar.” 

It wasn’t hard to spot Roose was setting Rogan up for a fall. His jittery fear of conservative “misinformation” online has only increased during the COVID era and the Black Lives Matter riots:

[...]

It’s clear how Roose wants it to end, given his obsession with “misinformation.” As if Rogan is purposely spreading lies (and who decides what is “misinformation” on Covid anyway?), as opposed to drawing out controversial figures in interviews.

It's not hard to identify COVID misinformation, Clay. You and the rest of the MRC pretend that there is no such thing as objective misinformation in order to give you and other right-wing media outlets a lane to spread more.

MRC Misleads About DeSantis And The Nazis
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center is continuing to serve as an apologistand cheerleader for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.  Curtis Houck huffed in a Feb. 2 post:

Tuesday night on CBS’s The Late Show, far-left host Stephen Colbert engaged in the latest smear against Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL), falsely claiming he was “silent” on alleged neo-Nazi gatherings and deceptively edited a clip to claim he only commented so far as to attack Democrats for using it against him. In reality, DeSantis slammed the white supremacists as “jackasses.”

[...]

Citing the “Nazi rallies in Orlando,” Colbert noted that it was a “terrible” thing before launching into his DeSantis smear:

[T]he easiest thing in the world to condemn, unless you're Ron DeSantis, who “remain[ed] silent.” It's been said the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to say nothing. It's also bad when Ron DeSantis says nothing.

Colbert added the Governor was “cornered by...reporters wanting to know things like, ‘Hey, gov: So Nazis? Where do you come down on that whole deal?’”

Instead of showing a fuller clip of DeSantis condemning what happened during a Monday Q&A, Colbert played a fragment of his comments and said the only thing DeSantis did was spot “the true enemy: Democrats.” Then, he played this from DeSantis calling out the left’s attempts to tie him to Nazis:

What I'm going to say is these people, these Democrats who are trying to use this as some type of political issue to try to smear me as if I had something to do with it — we're not playing their game. 

Put simply, Colbert proved DeSantis’s point.

What the governor actually said was that, in addition to condemning what took place, he promised “state law enforcement is going to hold them accountable...and they should,” and insisted Jews have “tremendous support” in the Sunshine State.

Houck omitting important facts about DeSantis' statement. First, it took two days for him to issue a response, and it happened at a Q&A with reporters that was originally about another issue -- so  the claim that DeSantis had been silent on the issue is not without merit. Second, DeSantis' press secretary, Christina Pushaw, issued a tweet (since deleted) suggesting the Nazis were actually Democrats in disguise, and she continued to make that baseless suggestion on her Twitter account and in other statements.

It remains ironic that the MRC -- which gets mad when right-wing Babylon Bee's satire gets fact-checked because other right-wingers present it as fact -- works so hard to fact-check jokes it doesn't like.

Kevin Tober similarly claimed to DeSantis' defense, this time from Rachel Maddow, in a Feb. 3 post. Like Houck, Tober omitted the fact that it took DeSantis two days to respond and censored the fact that Pushaw's posts pushed the unproven idea that the Nazis were disguised Democrats.

NEW ARTICLE: The MRC Can't Stop Failing In Its War Against Facebook
Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center discredited its own narrative that Facebook is "censoring" conservatives by bragging about how well its conservative content does there. It also whined about Facebook having a protected VIP list -- but censored the fact that Donald Trump was on the list for years. Read more >>

MRC Tried To Give Republicans A Pass For Being Putin-Curious
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center may be gung-ho against Vladimir Putin and Russia now that it has invaded Ukraine, but it has been Putin-friendly in the past. As we've documented, Putin was one of the right-wing authoritarian leaders the MRC has praised for spouting its anti-"bi tech"narrative; a March 2021 post by Alexander Hall praised Putin for "fight[ing] back against Silicon Valley, suing five companies to force removal of posts supporting anti-Putin protests." That's right -- the MRC was cheering Putin for trying to censor his critics, which would seem to be the opposite of what it claims to do with its "free speech" initiative.

The MRC even tried to defend Fox News host Tucker Carlson's pro-Putin leanings before thte invasion. Kevin Tober did this in a Jan. 25 post:

On CNN Newsroom during their coverage of the ongoing border dispute between Russia and Ukraine Tuesday, they quickly switched gears and slimed Fox News star Tucker Carlson and the entire Republican Party as having a "soft spot for Russia".

CNN Newsroom co-host Alisyn Camerota kicked off the slime fest by lying about Fox host Tucker Carlson claiming "one of the primetime hosts doesn't see the difference between Vladimir Putin and the leader in Ukraine, doesn't see the difference between an autocracy and a fledgling democracy." Camerota then aired a soundbite of Carlson arguing it is not in America's national interest to get in the middle of the Russia-Ukraine conflict: 

[...]

After displaying a small dose of common sense, Browder decided to join Camerota in knocking Carlson by wailing that he "is clearly an ignorant man, he doesn't understand what Putin is up to." 

Browder then listed a litany of crimes and murders Putin had committed and then ended with another broadside shot at Carlson demanding that he "keep his mouth shut when it comes to Vladimir Putin."

After that unhinged rant, Camerota brought up an unsubstantiated allegation Democrat Congressman Tom Malinowski made blaming Carlson for his constituents calling his office to request that the United States side with Russia.

Tober then tried to distance Republicans a little from Carlson -- but he also insisted there was nuance in Carlson's argument:

It's typical of CNN to slime conservatives as having "a soft spot for Putin." While NewsBusters does not take a position on the Ukraine conflict, it is fair to say that conservatives like Tucker Carlson who believe we should not get involved in another conflict in a foreign country is not having "a soft spot for Putin."

But of course, those nuances don't compute with the simpletons like Alison Camerota and the other leftists at CNN. 

Of course, Carlson did much more than argue against getting involved in "another conflict in a foreign country" -- he was a cheerleader for Putin, complaining that "Democrats want you to hate Putin" and argued that Putin was doing nothing wrong in his aggression toward Ukraine. There really wasn't a lot of nuance there, and certainly not as much as Tober wants you to believe there was.

That wasn't a smart take then, and it has definitely not aged well since.

MRC Continued To Defend Joe Rogan's Right To Misinform People
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center is so dedicated to defending COVID misinformation that when podcaster Joe Rogan was busted for letting anti-vaxxers like Robert Malone and Peter McCullough, it rushed to shoehorn Rogan into its right-wing victim narrative. As criticism of Rogan continued, the MRC doubled down on its defense. When rock legend Neil Young demanded that Spotify either drop Rogan or stop streaming his music, Alexander Hall sneered on Jan. 25:

Neil Young has reportedly demanded that Spotify become a safe space for him. The Once-legendary Canadian-American singer delivered an ultimatum to Spotify, according to Rolling Stone: Get rid of the massively popular Joe Rogan Experience podcast or lose his music. 

A questionably relevant singer demanding the removal of perhaps the world’s most popular podcast is a hard sell. “Neil Young posted a since-deleted letter to his management team and record label demanding that they remove his music from Spotify,” Rolling Stone reported Jan. 24. “‘I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform,’” he wrote, according to Rolling Stone.“They can have [Joe] Rogan or Young. Not both.” 

Young later accused Spotify of “spreading fake information about vaccines” and “potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation,” according to the magazine.

Hall didn't dispute Young's statement that Rogan spreads misinformation -- perhaps because he knows it's true. And insisting that misinformation not be spread is not the same thing as hiding in a "safe space."

The next day, Nicholas Fondacaro put "misinformation" in scare quotes when talking about what Rogan has done -= because the MRC will never unequivocally acknowledge any right-winger spreads misinformation -- but he seemed surprised that "The View" co-host Joy Behar came to Rogan's defense. On Jan. 27, Hall tried to feel superior over Young after Spotify chose Rogan over Young's music, claiming that "Young may have drastically overestimated his popularity and influence" and sneering again, "Old man, look at your life." The same day, Autumn Johnson joined the scare-quote brigade:

U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on Big Tech to remove Joe Rogan’s podcast because of so-called COVID-19 “misinformation,” on Tuesday.

Murthy was discussing what he considered to be COVID-19 “misinformation” on social media platforms with MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski. Brzezinski asked Murthy what he thought of Rogan’s podcast, which reached 11 million people per episode. Rogan has been criticized for promoting alternative treatments for COVID-19.

[...]

Murthy said that Big Tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter should do more to remove alleged “misinformation” online. He said, however, that change should be the responsibility of the platforms themselves, not the government.

Johnson made no effort to prove that Rogan wasn't spreading misinformation, making her scare quotes a lazy way out.

On Jan. 29, it was Jeffrey Lord's turn to lash out at Young for standing up for truth, falsely declaring of him, "Who knew rocker Neil Young was into censorship?" He claimed Rogan and other anti-vaxxers were spreading misinfomation but, rather, "different views on the vaccine," going on to huff: "Make no mistake. America is involved in a battle royal with leftist censors who are determined to silence any and all views on any and all subjects they don’t like."

Johnson returned on Jan. 30 to complain about "another aging lefty rocker" criticizing  Rogan:

Spotify has faced more criticism for its decision to keep Joe Rogan’s podcast on the platform. Last week, artist Neil Young challenged the music streaming platform to remove the podcast or remove his music. Spotify removed his music.

And now, singer Joni Mitchell also asked that her music be removed from the platform.

“Irresponsible people are spreading lies that are costing people their lives,” Mitchell said of her decision. “I stand in solidarity with Neil Young and the global scientific and medical communities on this issue.”

Johnson didn't dispute Mitchell's contention that Rogan was irresponsibly "spreading lies." But she waited until nearly the end of her post to admit that "Spotify CEO Daniel Ek said the company will now add a content advisory on podcasts that mentions COVID-19. The user will then be directed to information about the virus from physicians and other health officials.

The next day, Rogan issued a video addressing the controversy surrounding him. Hall was bizarrely gleeful that it could be considered a "non-apology" and seemed absolutely giddy about labeling him a "world-famous podcaster":

World-famous podcaster Joe Rogan stirred up controversy with Cancel Culture mobs by interviewing medical professionals who questioned shifting narratives of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, rocker Neil Young pulled his music from Spotify in protest, causing Spotify and Rogan himself to respond.

The Joe Rogan Experience host released a video that could be described as a “non-apology” to the people offended by so-called “misinformation” in his podcast interviews. “The problem I have with the term ‘misinformation,’ especially today, is that many of the things that we thought of as misinformation just a short while ago are now accepted as fact,” he explained in a video on his Instagram page.

He provided examples of claims that went from alleged “misinformation” to widely accepted facts after a few months. Then, he noted how he had discussed many of those exact, now acceptable, narratives with qualified professionals: “All of those theories that at one point in time were banned, were openly discussed by those two men that I had on my podcast that had been accused of dangerous misinformation.”

One example of this that Rogan cited, according to Hall, regarded the origin of COVID-19, which he "claims that were censored for being so-called “conspiracy theories,” but now are the predominant explanations for the course of the pandemic. Hall linked to an old NewsBusters post complaining that an article at the unreliable far-right site ZeroHedge claiming that COVID-19 was weaponized by China, citing another article claming the virus was a leak from the Wuhan lab as evidence that this is now the "predominant explanation" -- even though that wasn't exactly what ZeroHedge was claiming. Meanwhile, there's still plenty of evidence that discredit the lab-leak theory.

Hall also wrote:

“If you said, ‘I don't think cloth masks work, you would be banned from social media. Now, that’s openly and repeatedly stated on CNN. If you said ‘I think it's possible that COVID-19 came from a lab’ you’d be banned from many social media platforms, now that's on the cover of Newsweek.”

But cloth masks do have a level of effectiveness, though not as good as N95 or KN85 masks. Rogan is lying when he claims they don't work at all.

Hall seemed disappointed to report that Rogan said "he would accept disclaimers on his podcasts about COVID-19 'saying that you should speak with your physician and that these people and the opinions that they express are contrary to the opinions of the consensus of experts.'" And, curiously, he again repeated Young's contention that Spotify hosts like Rogan were "spreading fake information about vaccines" and "potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation" without making an effort to dispute the claim.

Preemptive Strike: MRC Pushed Biden-Is-Weak Narrative Ahead Of Russian Invasion
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center had a mission in covering tensions between Russia and Ukraine and role the U.S. played in trying to avert an invasion or other crisis: Blame Biden, no matter what. Before Russia invaded Ukraine, the MRC was doing just that. Nicholas Fondacaro used a Feb. 11 item to revive an old anti-Biden narrative to use against him over Ukraine:

In an apparent attempt to not repeat the bad optics and moral travesty of failing to get Americans out of Afghanistan by an arbitrary/self-imposed deadline, President Biden has decided to simply not try to get Americans out of Ukraine at all if Russia invades. And almost as shocking, the liberal broadcast networks, who were actually tough on Biden’s abandonment a few months ago, didn’t share the same outrage at what’s essentially a morbid promise by the President.

At no point did any of the networks invoke the Afghanistan withdrawal disaster, nor did they air any concern or criticism of the decision to leave Americans in a war zone. They treated it as the Biden administration giving them fair warning and getting out is on them now.

Mark Finkelstein devoted a Feb. 15 post to bashing MSNBC's Jeremy Bash for the sin of saying nice things about how Biden was handling the Ukraine crisis. Then, on Feb. 20, Kevin Tober cheered a right-wing attack on Biden under the ridiculous headline "GOP Guest Wipes the Floor With CNN Libs Over Biden's Russian Weakness":

On CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, during a panel discussion on the tensions between Russia and Ukraine CNN contributor and former Bush administration advisor Scott Jennings schooled host Dana Bash and her fellow leftist panelists on Russian sanctions. 

At the beginning of the segment, Bash turned to Jennings and lectured him on the GOP’s stance on Russia. “you have a Republican Party which historically, largely, almost entirely has been about pushing back on Russian aggression” Bash observed before turning around and trashing the GOP. “And now you have some pretty loud voices in the GOP, Scott Jennings, from Fox News to Capitol Hill, questioning why the U.S. even cares about this, whether there's even an interest there?”

Jennings set the record straight “I would just point you to January when the Republican Party led by Ted Cruz in the Senate tried to put sanctions on Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden and the Democrats led a filibuster, a Jim Crow filibuster, their words, not mine, against these sanctions.”

Neither Jennings nor Tober mentioned that forcing those sanctions in January -- Cruz's motivation for which was the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, not Russia's aggression toward Ukraine -- would have broken the U.S. away from working with Europe in acting against Putin and might have even provoked Putin into attacking Ukraine earlier.

A Feb. 21 post by Kyle Drennen complained that ABC was "lobbing softballs" at national security adviser Jake Sullivan "and even suggesting the U.S. should appease Vladimir Putin with 'concessions.'" Drennen didn't mention that his fellow right-wingers were demanding that Biden appease Putin by declaring that Ukraine would not be let into NATO or even by dissolving NATO altogether.

As threats of sanctions by the U.S. and European countries failed to convince Putin to back off and he invaded into Ukraine, the MRC's narrative shifted to portraying Biden as a failure (not that Putin was a madman who would not have been deterred no matter what Biden did, including the NATO appeasement the MRC's fellow right-wingers wanted). A Feb. 22 post by Curtis Houck, for example, complained that "major broadcast network newscasts largely chose Tuesday to absolve President Biden and his team for Putin feeling emboldened to take another step in what he views as reclaiming the old Russian empire." The MRC's attacks continued:

• Andrea Mitchell Can’t Handle It When Told Biden Has ‘Failed’ on Ukraine
• Tapper Calls Out Biden’s Russia Sanctions as Weak, Less Than Deterrent
• ABC Hypes Biden's 'Tough New Sanctions', Ignores GOP Criticism
• Networks Erase Biden’s Reckless Okay of a ‘Minor Incursion’ By Russia
• CNN Admits Biden's Sanctions 'Not Enough' to Stop Putin's Invasion
• NEW NewsBusters Podcast: Pro-Biden Media Rally Around the Ukraine Failure

And when commentators pointed out that Donald Trump's actions and policies toward Russia may have played a role in Putin feeling emboldened to invade Ukraine, the MRC lashed out. Alex Christy complained that "Morning Joe" on MSNBC "bizarrely tried to point a finger of blame at former President Trump instead. Hosts and pundits claimed the only reason Vladimir Putin didn’t further dismember the eastern European nation during Trump's presidency was because the Republican already gave Putin everything he wanted. " Christy sneered in response:

If Putin didn’t feel threatened by Trump and if Trump gave him everything he wanted, then what was stopping him from recognizing the separatist regions of eastern Ukraine or possibly conducting a full scale invasion?

[...]

Still, if Ukraine is defenseless, she declared that it's Trump’s fault: “...why didn't Putin do this during the Trump Administration? Because he thought Trump was weakening Ukraine, especially on these grounds. So this, the problem with Ukraine being unfortified goes back several years and—and-- much of the fault lies in the Trump Administration.”

Like Jordan’s explanation, Appleabaum’s theory makes no sense. Trump did more in terms of military support for Ukraine than the Obama Administration did as the latter refused to provide lethal aid. If Ukraine was so defenseless because of him, why wait until he was no longer president?

Christy didn't mention that Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine by threatening to withhold some of those weapons unless it came up with dirt on Joe Biden.

Houck devoted a Feb. 24 post to grumblling that some critics "took the farcical route by suggesting the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol was to blame." Houck never offered a coherent response to the idea, instead mocking it as a conspiracy theory and "galaxy brain opinions." When Alex Vindman -- the officer whose military career was destroyed by Trump for telling the truth about what Trump tried to do to Ukraine -- argued that Republicans have "blood on their hands" over the invasion because of how  Trump emboldened Putin, Houck simply sneered in response: "Maybe making such an ardent liberal partisan the poster child for civil and military service in 2019 and 2020 wasn’t the best idea."

It's clear that Houck still can't see that clinging to Trump after five years of his lies and inciting an insurrection isn't the best idea either.

Flooding The Zone: The MRC's War on Whoopi, Part 2
Topic: Media Research Center

When last we left off, the Media Research Center played flood-the-zone over Whoopi Goldberg's misguided comments about the Holocaust and achieved its objective: she was suspended from "The View" for two weeks. Somehow, this was not the end of the MRC hammering away on this story.

The day after Goldberg's suspension, Mark Finkelstein lashed out at MSNBC's Joe Scarborough calling the suspension too harsh: "Anyone recall Morning Joe complaining about a conservative being canceled?" Nicholas Fondacaro returned tpo complain about "Whoopi Goldberg’s (stage name) anti-Semitic remarks about the Holocaust" anew, this time griping that despised MSNBC host Joy Reid thought that the incident should have been turned into a "teachable moment" instead of a suspension (which Fondacaro sneered was "a vacation":

She made it clear in the second tease that keeping Whoopi on TV was the goal. “Coming up, ABC suspends Whoopi Goldberg for her recent remarks on race and the Holocaust. Did the network miss out on a prime opportunity for discussion and learning,” she wondered.

In reality, Reid wouldn’t extend such grace if Whoopi was a conservative or espoused right-wing politics.

Fondacaro again complained that Goldberg "had been absolved of all wrong doing by Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt." Also, of course, Fondacaro would not be spewing so much hate if Whoopi was a conservative or espoused right-wing politics.

Fondacaro then appeared on Tim Graham's Feb. 2 podcast -- the second podcast he devoted to the issue. Graham gushed how Fondacaro "broke the story" of Goldberg's remarks despite the fact that "The View" has an audience of millions. Both Graham and Fondacaro lamented that token conservative Meghan McCain was no longer on the show. After Fondacaro again falsely called her remarks "anti-Semitic," Graham surprisingly pushed back: "I would say it wasn't anti-Semitic; it was very insensitive." They did both complain that Goldberg, in Fondacaro's words, "got atonement from the ADL."

Alex Christy got testy when George Soros got thrown into the conversation:

On Thursday's New Day, CNN's John Avlon rushed to defend liberal View host Whoopi Goldberg from charges of anti-Semitism after her offensive comments about the Holocaust. As part of one of his "reality checks," Avlon instead tried to deflect the controversy by claiming critics of left-wing billionaire George Soros using his immense wealth to push a radical political agenda were the real villains. 

[...]

Criticizing mega donors is cool when the left does it, but when Fox does it, it suddenly becomes anti-Semitic. And of course, Avlon won't criticize his CNN colleagues for their Nazi comparisons and conveniently forgot to mention various progressive lawmakers engaging in the same anti-Semitic themes.

Christy didn't mention that the MRC has used anti-Semitic imagery to portray Soros as a "puppet master" and at one point declared him a Jew you're allowed to hate.

Alexander Hall renewed the MRC's attack on the ADL, accusing it of having "altered its definition of racism following The View co-host Whoopi Goldberg’s outrageous Holocaust remarks," adding: "In short, it appears that ADL has altered its own definition of racism multiple times to respond to modern events. When an influential organization like ADL updates a definition, it may signal a sea change for liberal organizations to follow its guidance." Hall also played the Soros card on Greenblatt, rehasing a claim from the right-wing New York Post that he once "directed an initiative at the Aspen Institute, a George Soros-financed, left-leaning nonprofit."

The MRC also published a  Feb. 3 column by right-winger Ben Shapiro attacking Goldberg, followed by a post by Elise Ehrhard touting right-wing actress Gina Carano -- whom the MRC turned into a victim last year when she was fired from "The Mandalorian" for spouting dubious right-wing views -- opining on the case. (She's an employee of Shapiro's.)

For those counting at home, that's 14 Whoopi-centric post over four days. That's the definition of flooding the zone.

When Goldberg returned to "The View" following her suspension, Fondacaro served up a rehash-driven, glory-hounding, poorly edited Feb. 14 post to mark the occasion:

Whoopi Goldberg (stage name) was back on The Views [sic] Monday, a day earlier than her two-week suspension suggested. She was suspended after making anti-Semitic comments claiming the “ Holocaust isn't about race” but rather just "white people doing it to white people" (which NewsBusters was the first to report). But according to her boastful returning message to viewers, they were going to continue to have the “tough conversations.”

“Well, hello, hello, hello, and welcome to The View. And yes, I am back,” she boasted at the top of the show. Her return came a day early, having been suspended on a Tuesday but returning on a Monday.

[...]

“And I hope it keeps all the important conversations happening because we're going to keep having tough conversations,” she declared. “And in part, because this is what we’ve been hired to do.”

The idea that The View has tough conversations is laughable. They all occupy the same liberal bubble and are openly hostile to anyone who doesn’t share it. That truth is evident by the fact that the show is struggling to find a real conservative woman to replace former co-host Meghan McCain.

If Fondacaro is so concerned about ideological balance, why doesn't he walk down the hall and demand that the MRC's "news" operation, CNSNews.com, add a liberal columnist?

MRC Has Another Meltdown Over Cartoons Not Being Heterosexual Enough
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has spent the past few years hating the children's cartoon "Arthur" because it committed the offense of being relevant to the lives of its viewers -- thus, the MRC's meltdowns over the show featuring a same-sex marriage and discussing racism. Now that the show is ending its 25-year run on PBS, Elise Ehrhard devoted a Jan. 23 post -- headlined "Get Woke, Go Broke" -- to baselessly blaming those two episodes for the show ending:

After spending recent seasons alienating parents across America with homosexual and BLM propaganda, PBS Kids' Arthur, the longest running animated children's series ever on television, is officially getting the ax.

On January 18, the public broadcaster announced that the final four episodes of the series will be released next month. How did PBS Kids manage to ruin an iconic cartoon beloved by generations?

First, the series announced in spring 2019 that Mr. Ratburn, Arthur's teacher, was homosexual and premiered an episode with a gay wedding.

[...]

As if confusing prepubescent kids about sexuality wasn't enough "wokeness" for the show, it then premiered a short BLM-themed segment in the summer of 2020 which attempted to teach kids how to be "anti-racist" (i.e. Marxist). Arthur and his friend Buster talked about a video they saw of a cop killing a black person. Buster asked, “But how could it happen here, in Elwood City, outside the Sugar Bowl?” Elwood City is populated by animals.

Gosh, I wonder why this established show with high name recognition had middling ratingsas of late?

Never mind, of course, that Ehrhard offered no evidence whatsoever to back up her contention that the episodes that offended her so much are the direct cause of the show's cancellation. Nevertheless, she whined that the show's content will move online, meaning that "parents who want to teach their kids about gay and anti-racist anthropomorphized animals, will have to seek out such content online." She concluded by sneering: "Maybe PBS Kids will learn from this and quit the woke nonsense on children's programming, but I doubt it. Marxists cannot help pushing their agenda on kids."

Pretty much what you'd expect to hear from some one who thinks that merely acknowledging the existence of non-heterosexual people and racism is "propaganda."

This wasn't the only show the MRC was upset with for failing to be sufficiently heterosexual. Rachel Peterson huffed in a Jan. 25 post:

This is a warning to parents who want to introduce their children to their childhood favorite, "The Proud Family" - the upcoming reboot of it...is really "proud." 

If you don't remember, the animated series "The Proud Family" aired from 2001 to 2005 and "[follows] the adventures and misadventures of Penny Proud as she does her best to navigate through the early years of teen-dom," according to the original version of the show's description on IMDb. 

The show and the subsequent reboot are rated TV-Y7, which is designed for children ages seven and up. But the new reboot has themes and characters that may not be appropriate for children.

In the age of reboots, Disney+ is revamping the animated series with the upcoming "The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder," airing on February 23rd. This new take on an old classic gets both louder and prouder in the way of pushing the LGBTQ agenda. The show heavily leans into this as, according to producer Ralph Farquhar, the biggest change in the show is the "introduction of LGBTQ+ characters."

Yes, Peterson thinks that acknowledging the biological reality that people can be other than heterosexual is "not appropriate for children."

Peterson went on to grouse about the LGBTQ talent that would supplying voices for some characters in the reboot, including Lil Nas X, over whom the MRC spent last year being repeatedly triggered.

The MRC had previously grumbled that "The Proud Family" reboot would not be for its pro-heterosexual-obsessive employees.

Flooding The Zone: The MRC's War on Whoopi
Topic: Media Research Center

One of the Media Research Center's anti-media tactics is best described as "flooding the zone" -- cranking out post after post about an issue it has designated to be an outrage with the goal of not only getting its fellow right-wing media outlets to join in the outrage but also to force non-right-wing outlets to pick up the story. We've documented the MRC's abortive attempts to flood the zone before the story changed away from right-wing-friendly narratives, but that tactic also works on stories that stay on narrative but have been deemed to need a little extra oomph.

That explains why the MRC managed to wring a whopping 14 items over four days manufacturing outrage over Whoopi Goldberg's misguided remarks regarding the Holocaust. Now, her remarks didn't need much help to generate outrage, but because Goldberg is an enemy of the MRC for committing the offense of not being conservative, the MRC felt compelled to amplify the comments as much as it could. Nicholas Fondacaro was quick to brand her "anti-Semitic" while also getting in a a tacit endorsement of school book banners:

Following a Monday segment blasting podcaster Joe Rogan for spreading “misinformation,” co-host Whoopi Goldberg showed us that real misinformation and anti-Semitism was alive and well on ABC’s The View as she falsely suggested, “the Holocaust isn't about race” but just “two white groups” going at it.

As part of their discussion about a Tennessee school allegedly banning the Holocaust-themed graphic novel Maus (in reality it was simply removed from an 8th-grade reading list and they were open to bringing it back), Whoopi described the Holocaust as “ white people doing it to white people. So, this is y'all go fight amongst yourselves.

[...]

A few minutes later, Whoopi let loose her full anti-Semitic perspective on what the Holocaust was: “Well also, if we're going to do this, then let's be truthful about it because the Holocaust isn't about race.

Immediately following her false declaration, you could hear a pin drop on the set. It was broken by co-host Sara Haines saying “no” seemingly in agreement and Whoopi doubling down. “No. It's not about race,” she said.

Was Goldberg wrong and ignorant about the Holocaust by denying it was about race? Absolutely. Was it anti-Semitic, as Fondacaro insisted? Not so much -- she didn't deny the Holocaust, nor did she deny that Jews were its main victims, nor does she have any kind of history of anti-Semitism. But that's the narrative the MRC ran with -- even though it could be argued that the MRC is more anti-Semitic than Goldberg because of its obsession with George Soros -- at one point declaring him a Jew you're allowed to hate -- and its habit of using the anti-Semitic "puppet master" trope to describe both Soros and ex-CNN chief Jeff Zucker.

In a later update to his post, Fondacaro proclaimed himself "first on the scene" in capitalizing on Goldberg's comment and noted her apology that cited "comments from Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt scolding her."

But Fondacaro had a narrative to push. Soon after, Fondacaro wrote a post declaring that Goldberg went on "an anti-Semitic screed," gushing that right-winger Ben Shapiro went on Fox News "to unpack and call out Whoopi and the radical left-wing ideology that allow for her type of anti-Semitism." That was followed by Curtis Houck complaining that Goldberg appeared on CBS pre-apology where she "defended her vile comments about the Holocaust," dismissing the partial apology she made on the show as "mealy-mouthed pandering."

The day after Goldberg's original remarks, Fondacaro lashed out not only at her but, bizarrely, at Greenblatt for helping educate her on the truth about the Holocaust (while, again, bragging that he was "first to report" her statement even though she said it on national TV in front of an audience of millions):

Proving there’s a double standard when it comes to who politically gets to have their career survive and life’s work preserved after making controversial comments, on Tuesday’s edition of ABC’s The View, co-host Whoopi Goldberg (a stage name) got direct absolution from Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt after she falsely claimed: “the Holocaust isn’t about race” (for which NewsBusters was first to report).

[...]

Greenblatt did note that the history of hate against Jews doesn’t comport well with “the way we think about race in 21st century America, where primarily it's about people of color.”

Adding: “But throughout the Jewish people's history, they have been marginalized, they have been persecuted. They have been slaughtered in large part because many people felt they were not just a different religion, but indeed a different race.”

At no point did Greenblatt address the recent revelation that the ADL changed their definition of racism to suggest only white people can be racist. “The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people,” they wrote.

Despite claiming a "double standard," Fondacaro cited no instance of a right-winger whose remarks unfairly cost them their career.

Kyle Drennen devoted a post to complaining that ABC's morning show didn't cover the story immediately, sneering: "Perhaps the network morning show was waiting for Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt to grant Goldberg absolution before it touched the story – something which occurred later Tuesday morning on The View." Another Fondacaro post again referenced "Whoopi Goldberg’s (stage name) anti-Semitic comments about the Holocaust" -- he's weirdly obsessed about noting that Whoopi uses a "stage name" -- and hying that "sources inside ABC said Whoopi’s in “deep s--t” with some pushing for her to be fired." At the end of the day on Feb. 1, Fondacaro got the climactic resolution he was hoping for, while still whining that Greenblatt worked with her:

ABC finally took disciplinary action against The View co-host Whoopi Goldberg (stage name) Tuesday night regarding her anti-Semitic comments about the Holocaust, in the form of a two-week suspension, effective immediately, according to a staff e-mail sent by ABC News president Kim Godwin and leaked to CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy.

[...]

As NewsBusters reported, Whoopi was conveniently absolved of her transgression by Anti-Defamation League CEO and former Obama official Jonathan Greenblatt during Tuesday’s show. It was something [ABC News president Kim] Godwin seemed thankful for.

Written like someone whose work to manufacture a narrative got the payoff he wanted -- and that was just two days of work and seven outraged MRC posts. But the MRC wasn't done complaining -- more soon.

MRC Loves Gutfeld's Cruel 'Humor'
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center has a cruel streak, as seen by its immature gloating over CNN's allegedly low ratings. It loves when others are cruel to its preferred targets too, which brings us to this Jan. 24 post in which Nicholas Fondacaro enjoys Greg Gutfeld's casual cruelty:

In a hilarious and pointed segment on the Fox News Channel’s The Five on Monday, co-anchor Greg Gutfeld unloaded on CNN’s Brian Stelter for taking swipes at Fox News for reporting on the fact that violent and other forms of crime were on the rise throughout President Biden’s America. Even Democratic co-host and former Congressman Harold Ford (D-TN) took Stelter and his henchman Oliver Darcy to task.

After playing a clip from CNN’s so-called “Reliable Sources” where Stelter and Darcy whined about Fox’s reporting, Gutfeld declared: “It's got to be gross to work at CNN where all you do is push these elaborate hoaxes while denying actual human suffering.”

Gutfeld recalled his jokes about Stelter being “fat,” “bald,” and “homely” and how CNN host Don Lemon and disgraced former host Chris Cuomo would repeatedly mock the rise in violent crime on-air[.]

Yes, Fondacaro thinks mocking someone's looks is "hilarious." And Gutfeld's justification for his cruelty isn't any better:

People ask me why do I constantly point out how fat Brian Stelter is, how fat and bald and homely he is. And I always tell you that no insult is worse than their ideas, as long as they mocked the black-on-black crime and death in the streets, which there is tape of Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo laughing about it. As long as they believe that I got a pass on it, then everything is on the table. You can make fun of them about anything. Right?

So, they chose this hill to die on while cops and civilians are literally dying.

How does the fact Gutfeld doesn't agree with Stelter's criticism of Fox News' cirime coverage justify Gutfeld's viciously smearing Stelter over his looks? It doesn't. But Gutfeld thinks it does -- and Fondacaro thinks his cruelty is hilarious.It's clear neither of them see Stelter as a human bein, only an enemy to be destroyed for failing to conform to right-wing groupthink. That's how conservative cancel culture works.

Which tells you all you need to know about Fondacaro and the mindset that runs the MRC.

The MRC's Mean Girls Mock CNN's Ratings Again
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center loves to gloat childishly over the allegedly low ratings on non-right-wing channels. Curtis Houck is the designated childish mocker of CNN's ratings, and he brought the immature hate again in a Jan. 21 post:

CNN’s New Day co-host and insufferable liberal pundit Brianna Keilar received her turn this week to audition for the vacant 9:00 p.m. Eastern slot and, instead of it being called CNN Tonight, it was labeled Democracy in Peril. According to Nielsen Media Research, no one seemed to care as she drew fewer viewers than shows like Food Network’s Worst Cooks in America, Game Show Network’s Chain Reaction, TLC’s My 600 Pound Life, and reruns of The Andy Griffith Show.

Needless to say, we’re not surprised that few seemed to tune in for a nightly dose of her penchant for spewing venom against just about anyone who disagrees with her. If they want fear porn about your conservative coworker or spouse, they probably watch MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace instead.

[...]

No matter how you slice it, things aren’t going well for her and the divisive, snarky kind of politics she espouses (masquerading as news).

That act normally wouldn’t fly in the eyes of any reasonable executive worth spending millions to make permanent, but given the way Jeff Zucker has operated, it wouldn’t be surprising if Keilar and Democracy in Peril receive the permanent nod.

Since the MRC has made CNN's Jim Acosta its longtime personal enemy, it's no surprise that lazy potshots were taken at him too.Kevin Tober whined about Acosta's turn in that timeshot for a Jan. 24 post:

If you are like the overwhelming majority of Americans and did not tune into Jim Acosta’s debut of the low-rated CNN show Democracy in Peril, you weren’t missing much. In fact, you can probably guess what was said by Acosta and his conga line of leftist guests. 

The first guest Acosta had on was the left-wing election attorney Marc Elias who spewed all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories on the show. Jim Acosta was the first one out of the gate, asking Elias “how likely is it in these upcoming midterms that we're gonna see a scenario of multiple elections across the country becoming such a huge circus because of these bogus fraud claims?” 

As expected Elias didn’t scoff at this notion, instead he fearmongered that “we are one, maybe two, elections cycles away from a real constitutional crisis.”

Tober made no effort whatsoever to disprove or counter anything that was said on the show, so maybe it's not as "crazy" as he would like us to believe.

Sure enough, a few days later, Houck served up another dose of immaturing in mocking Acosta's ratings:

Following New Day co-host Brianna Keilar’s spectacularly bad week hosting CNN’s poisonously partisan Democracy in Peril special, carnival barker Jim Acosta received his chance to audition for the primetime slot formerly held by Chris Cuomo and, through three days, Acosta did even worse. Among the shows he lost to, Acosta fell behind a Hallmark movie, History’s Forged in Fire, a rerun of Everybody Loves Raymond, Property Brothers, and, yes, My 600 Pound Life.

Yes, Houck sure seems to find fat people eminently mockable, doesn't he?

This petty gloating doesn't exactly make people want to the MRC seriously -- Houck comes off as a jerk, not a serious person.

MRC Is Upset M&M Characters Getting A Design Update
Topic: Media Research Center

Last year, the Media Research Center was a top combatant in right-wing culture wars, whining about everything from cereal to Legos to Muppets mostly for failing to hate non-heterosexual people enough. It's a new year, but the MRC has the same old culture-war things to complain about -- like the female M&M characters being made less stereotypically female. Gabriel Hays was the designated complainer in a Jan. 20 post:

What a time to be alive! M&Ms has made its Green M&M mascot less sexy. All is well with the world.

Yep that’s a real news development and it’s not just about the green M&M losing her high heels and having her “come hither” demeanor turned way down. All the zany M&Ms characters that fill the candy product’s ads are getting their toxic personalities adjusted for the sake of inclusivity, as declared M&M’s parent company Mars.

Well this is downright pathetic.

[...]

I previously enjoyed M&Ms because I really loved objectifying the anthropomorphized piece of green candy-coated chocolate and her sexy voice. 

Thankfully pervs like me will be snapped out of this lust by such soul-saving corporate decisions.

Well, we wouldn't call Hays a "perv," but he does seem unnaturally obsessed with transgender people, so...

Anyway, Hays wasn't done sneering:

And Ms. Green M&M isn’t the only sexpot that’s being told to put some clothes on. The brown female M&M has “transitioned from high stilettos to lower block heels and a fresh pair of glasses.” Oh yes, because she’s sexy AND smart. 

Though I don’t know, Mars. You might be playing right into the hands of guys who fetishize the sexy librarian look. Might we suggest putting her in a brown paper bag to be completely safe. Or how about putting her in a Burka? Actually yeah! Think of it! You’d get even more diversity points!

[...]

In addition to this marketing idiocy, Adweek mentioned that M&Ms “will stop attaching prefixes to the characters’ names to prompt people to focus more on their unique personalities rather than their gender.”

Well even if they removed peanut M&Ms from their candy lineup, M&Ms will always contain nuts. This is insane stuff.

But, really, what's more insane -- a company updating its image, or a right-wing activist getting paid to write several hundred words whining that the image update doesn't conform to his preferred gender stereotypes?

MRC Turns Djokovic Into An Anti-Vaxxer Hero
Topic: Media Research Center

Last fall, the Media Research Center was cheering tennis player Novak Djokovic as "the hero in a greater cause" because of his refusal to get a COVID vaccine in preparation for the Australian Open tournament, even though Australia was requiring all visitors to be vaccinated. The tourney's ultimate decision to allow unvaccinated players in as long as they undergo a two-week quarantine period was declared by MRC sports blogger John Simmons to be a victory and a "convicted stance against tyranny." But as the tournament neared and auestions were raised about the medical exemption Djokovic claimed to have received, Simmons rushed to his defense again in a Jan. 5 post:

Tennis player Novak Djokovic has received a medical exemption from taking the COVID vaccine, allowing him to play in the prestigious Australian Open tournament. However, Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison is attempting to intimidate the star beforehand, threatening that Djokovic will be sent home if his medical exemption does not meet Australia’s standards.

Both Morrison and Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews expressed that they will not be afraid to enforce their tyrannical vaccine mandates, even if that means sending the world’s best tennis player back to his native Serbia:

Simmons went on to laud Djokovic becaise "he has already won the fight against medical tyranny in several ways" by finagling his way into the tournament without being vaccinated" and declaring him a "rebel" fighting against the island's "draconian ways."

A Jan. 8 post by Clay Waters ranted about the New York Times' "judgmental hysteria over vaccines"in writing about Djokovic. He went on to proclaim that "As the world’s No. 1 tennis player, he’s presumably in above-average physical condition, in relatively little danger from the virus," and that "the Omicron variant is significantly less deadly than the Delta variant it is replacing." He didn't mention that Omicron is far more contagious than Delta.

Jay Maxson used a Jan. 12 post to complain that Howard Stern argued Djokovic should be banned from tennis for not being vaccinated. Maxson retorted: "Well, guess what, Howard? Djokovic already had COVID-19. How many more times does Stern think he’ll catch it without the vaccine that needs multiple booster shots to actually finish the job and prevent COVID-19 forever?"

Simmons hyperventilated in a Jan. 14 post:

Novak Djokovic’s intense battle to have his visa approved by the Australian government took a turn for the worse when Immigration Minister Alex Hawke revoked the tennis star’s visa and threatened him with deportation, even though Djokovic has done nothing wrong.

[...]

So far, Djokovic’s legal team has shown that he has sufficiently met every requirement necessary for a medical exemption and even had an Australian judge say that he would be cleared to stay in Australia and participate in the Australian Open (which begins Monday). So how in the world does overriding a judge’s ruling just so you can flex your power benefit anyone?

In fact, Djokovic did do something wrong: he messed up his visa paperwork, and he never disclosed what exactly the reason is for his medical exemption -- and then it was revealed that Djokovic had caught COVID the month before, which had not been previously disclosed.

Rather than tell his readers those relevant facts, Simmons raged that Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison is someone "many rightly consider a tyrant," then praised Djokovic again as a hero against the purported hellscape that is Australia:

The result of those sacrifices has created a world in which policemen can fire rubber bullets into a crowd of protestors and get away with it and where police have the authority to separate a child from its mother. Australians are not free, the government is in full control over everyone and everything, and that’s how people like Morrison and Hawke want to keep it.

So when a high-profile, widely respected individual who is not bowing down and groveling to Australia’s vaccine tyranny steps onto the scene (potentially inspiring millions of others to stand up), it would only make sense that Australia’s officials would do what they can to not let Djokovic into their country.

Djokovic loast his appeals and was barred from playing at the Australian Open. Simmons returend to cheer again in a Jan. 26 post when player Daniil Medvedev said he was losing a match until he asked himself, "What would Novak do?" (Unmentioned was the fact that Medvedev did something Djokovic didn't do: he had his visa papers in order and he didn't try to deceive Australian officials.) Simmons went into full gush mode again:

It is quite comical to see that Djokovic has caused quite the stir Down Under, even when he was deported back to Serbia for “not having a legitimate enough reason” to be in Australia to compete in the Australian Open. The man is not even in the country, and he’s still living rent-free in the minds of those who are mad that he had the nerve to stand against Australia’s pervasive and restrictive vaccine mandates.

He’s even influencing the tournament despite not being in it!

But Simmons still wasn't done fawning over Djokovic, upgrading him to full-blown martyr in a Feb. 15 post:

Novak Djokovic was crucified by the media and deported by the Australian government after not providing “sufficient enough information” to receive a vaccine exemption so he could participate in the Australian Open. Despite all the trials he has had to endure because of his stance, his resolve to defy medical tyranny has not wavered.

Djokovic told the BBC that trophies are not as important to him as the freedom to choose what goes into his body. He currently sits tied for second all-time in the men’s division with Roger Federer for most Grand Slam titles won with 20, just one behind his contemporary Rafael Nadal (who won the Australian Open Djokovic was forbidden from playing in). But if he is forced to get the vaccine to pursue becoming (statistically) the greatest men’s player ever, Djokovic will not chase that illustrious achievement.

[...]

The majority of celebrities today will sacrifice any of their convictions just to roll with the flow of the political and social environment as long as it does not affect their livelihood. But Djokovic’s rigid determination is a reminder that there are still people who value freedom and their beliefs over material gain and who understand that life is more than money, trophies, and fame if you have to compromise who you are to get there.

In reality, Djokovic exposed himself as a selfish jerk who cares only about himself and not about the society in which he lives. No wonder conservatives like Simmons love the guy.