NEW ARTICLE -- Psaki-Bashing And Doocy-Fluffing At The MRC, January/February 2022
Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck sent sluggishly into the new year of attacking what he dismissively calls "the Psaki Show," but once he did, he continued to churn out the same old right-wing bias. Read more >>

CNS Opinion Pieces Joined 'News' Side In Opposing Jackson
Topic: CNSNews.com

CNSNews.com's coverage of Ketenji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court nomination was just as unfair and unbalanced on its opinion side as it was on the "news" side. We've already noted that editor Terry Jeffrey took a shot at her shortly after her nomination was announced, followed by Hans Bader trying to (badly) play the race card. Other opinion pieces took the same anti-Jackson tack -- not a surprise, since liberal opinions are forbidden at CNS.

In his March 23 column, Jeffrey grumbled: 

Had President Joe Biden believed there was any chance Jackson would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, he would not have nominated her to the Supreme Court.

If the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee believed there was any chance Jackson would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, they would not be supporting her confirmation.

Jeffrey refused to acknowledge the obvious parallel: If Donald Trump believed there was any chance Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Comey Barrett would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, they would not have been nominated, and Republicans (and Jeffrey) would not have supported them.

Tony Perkins used his March 24 column to falsely claim that "Jackson is getting the respect that Kavanaugh and Barrett deserved" in her Senate confirmation hearing -- then showed her disrespect by complaining that "Jackson seemed to be toeing the White House line on everything from life to transgenderism," as if Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Comey Barrett weren't toeing the Trump White House line in their hearings. He then repeated right-wing attacks on her over the definition of a woman.

Speaking of toeing political lines, a commentary the next day by Nicole Russell slavishly repeated Republican attacks on Jackson over the whole define-what-a woman-is thing:

Society has known the definitions of “woman” and “man” for millennia. This was not a trick question, but probably a primer to understanding where Jackson might rule on cases that specifically address issues of gender and sex, cases like Bostock v. Clayton County, which now bars discrimination based on gender identity, just as the law bars discrimination based on sex.

[...]

By refusing to answer the definition of “woman,” Jackson leaves the door open to what she thinks about sex, gender, and controversial cases like Bostock v. Clayton County.

If Jackson knows the definition of “woman” but remains afraid to say so, this is certainly a red flag. In a free country, a Supreme Court nominee should be able to speak the truth without fear of repercussion.

If Jackson is unable or unwilling to define what a woman is in a legal sense, this can pose real problems for future cases she may hear as a sitting Supreme Court justice. How can she know what the law says on sex and gender identity if she cannot define sex? How can she rule in cases on women’s issues or rights when she isn’t sure how to define a woman?

Jeffrey spent his April 6 column repeating an attack on Jackson by CNS' most quotable senator, Ted Cruz:

The Founding Fathers, as noted, said in the Declaration that "all men are created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

A set of written questions that Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas (for whom this writer's daughter works) submitted to Jackson during her confirmation hearings asked the following: "Please explain, in your own words, the theory prevalent among members of the Founding Fathers' generation that humans possess natural rights that are inherent or inalienable."

[...]

The very next written question asked Jackson: "Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no?"

Jackson responded: "I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights."

So, she does not agree with the foundational principle of the Declaration of Independence?

Funny, we don't remember CNS mentioning that its editor's daughter is employed by Cruz in the dozens of stenography articles it has published about Cruz over the past few years. Most normal people would call that failure to disclose a conflict of interest.

Jeffrey then followed up his "news" side's attack on Mitt Romney for voting to confirm Jackson with an April 13 column castigating him some more, complete with irrelevantly noting that Romney was governor of Massachusetts before moving to Utah:

Today, Romney is a senator from Utah — not Massachusetts.

Now, he favors abortions only when the child being killed was conceived through rape or incest or when the abortion is to "protect the life of the mother."

[...]

What this signifies is that through most of his 30-year political career, Romney has failed to take a logical position on the most profound role of government: protecting human life.

It is a biological fact that an unborn child is a human being. A person who deliberately kills an unborn child is deliberately killing a human being.

Given that both articles have the same Massachusetts reference and similar attacks, one must wonder if Jeffrey also wrote the first hit piece on Romney, which was published anonymously. Isn't it dishonest of him to hide his authorship?

Newsmax Columnist Defends Gabbard For Pushing Biolab Conspiracy Theory
Topic: Newsmax

A March 25 Newsmax column by George J. Marlin is devoted to defending Tulsi Gabbard:

Earlier this month, inside-the-beltway progressives went ballistic after Gabbard made a statement concerning revelations of U.S. supported bio labs in Ukraine.

Gabbard stated the fact "that there are over 25 U.S.-funded bio labs in Ukraine, which if breached, would release and spread deadly pathogens across the United States and the world."

Reacting, progressives accused Gabbard of telling "traitorous lies," promoting "Russian Propaganda," "shilling for Putin" and Instagram is "shadow banning" her.

The leftist commentator, Keith Olbermann, demanded that Gabbard be arrested for being a "Russian asset" in time of war.

The left’s favorite tool, Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, also jumped into the fray.

He declared, "Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives." CNN contributor Alyssa Farah agreed: "I think Mitt Romney is absolutely right … this is … the Russians are spreading propaganda … it’s helping them get away with acts against Ukrainian civilians."

Huh?

To accuse Gabbard of treason — of betraying her country — for commenting on a matter in Ukraine is not only ludicrous but scary.

Marlin omitted the fact that Gabbard was not stating a fact. While there are biolabs in Ukraine, the U.S. is not running them and there is no evidence it is.By claiming otherwise, Gabbard is, in fact, spreading Russian disinformation. Still, Marlsin continued to falsely insist that Gabbard told the truth and that she was being persecuted by liberals, huffing that "Progressives arresting perceived dissenters is not new":

If the 1918 Sedition Act were in force today — the progressives would throw Tulsi Gabbard into the darkest dungeon for daring to speak the truth.

Yes, the left confirms Ron Paul’s maxim, "Truth is treason in the empire of lies."

Gabbard and I are on opposite sides of the political fence.

Nevertheless, I applaud her for standing up to the progressives and their "empire of lies."

I hope she continues to speak out and heeds Patrick Henry’s 1776 declaration, "If this be treason, make the most of it."

Whether it's treason is debatable, butGabbard is definitely not spreading facts and definitely is spreading Russian disinformation.

WND Touts Dubious Election Study By Discredited Researcher
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily is still publishing misinformation about the 2020 election, as Bob Unruh demostrated in a March 28 article:

Even Democrats believe there was voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, according to a commentary from John R. Lott Jr., formerly the senior adviser for research and statistics at the DOJ's Office of Legal Policy and now the president of Crime Prevention Research Center.

Lott explained in his commentary at Real Clear Politics that peer-reviewed research confirms evidence of voter fraud.

[...]

He said his own peer-reviewed research to be published in Public Choice confirms evidence of "around 255,000 excess votes (possibly as many as 368,000) for Joe Biden in six swing states where Donald Trump lodged accusations of fraud. Biden only carried these states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – by a total of 313,253 votes. Excluding Michigan, the gap was 159,065."

He explained his point isn't to "contest" the election results, "but to point out that we have a real problem that needs to be dealt with. Americans must have confidence in future elections."

Neither Unruh nor Lott mentioned the fact that despite his study being submitted to the journal in December 2020, it still isn't considered to be officially published and revisions are ongoing -- a suggestion that the peer review process isn't going well. Another suggestion it's not going well is that other researchers have pretty much decimated Lott's work. Politiclal scientist Andrew Eggers and a colleague submitted a brief to the journal slated to publish Lott's study is based on crucial errors and selective reporting of data that, when corrected, no longer support his conclusion. Eggers went on to state that "we’re not trying to suppress academic debate or silence efforts to uncover fraud. The paper’s main evidence is based on an error, and we think giving it a stamp of scientific approval would be bad for Public Choice (let alone democracy).

Unsurprisingly, Unruh made no effort to talk to anyone refuting tyhe research, nor did he mention Lott's history of dubious research. Such biased and selective reporting is no way for WND to rebuild the credibility it has squandered over the years.

MRC Complains Wash. Post Did What It Wouldn't Do And Try To Confirm Hunter Biden's Laptop
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Hunter Biden Derangement Syndrome continued with a Washington Post report on what could be confirmed as authentic -- and, just as importantly, what couldn't -- on Hunter Biden's alleged laptop. Naturally, Curtis Houck was quick to declare victory in a March 30 post:

Late Wednesday morning, The Washington Post decided that, as our Tim Graham tweeted, Democracy Has a Sunrise instead of Dying in Darkness as reporters Matt Viser, Tom Hamburger, and Craig Timberg published two bombshell articles acknowledging the existence of the infamous Hunter Biden laptop and detailing the First Son’s life of corruption as it relates to a Chinese energy company.

The trio’s admission came a year and a half after the laptop was first exposed by the New York Post and a full-court press and open collusion ensued between Big Tech, the liberal media, and the Biden campaign to censor and silence those who merely shared the New York paper’s groundbreaking story.

[...]

“Here’s how The Post analyzed Hunter Biden’s laptop” came first and did what the Daily Caller was able to do back on October 29, 2020, which was analyzed to verify its validity as “unquestionably authentic.”

Actually, the Daily Caller claimed to confirm the authenticity of only a single email, not the entire laptop -- and given its reputation as a partisan right-wing media outlet and the fact that this came in the runup to an election, there was no reason to take their word for it at face value.

Houck also proclaimed, "As we found after the 2020 election, 9.4 percent of Biden voters in swing states wouldn’t have voted for him if they had been made aware of his son’s negligence." The MRC didn't "find" this -- it paid Trump's pollster to manufacture this result in order to push Donald Tump's Big Lie about a stolen election.

Houck did grudgingly admit that much of the laptop's contents couldn't be verified because of, as the Post stated, "sloppy handling of the data" by the right-wing activists who had been passing the laptop's contents around -- which puts the lie to Houck's headline claiming that the Post story was "confirming Hunter Biden's laptop." He then whined that the Post was "downplaying the 22,000 confirmed e-mails as 'routine messages, such as political newsletters, fundraising appeals, hotel receipts, news alerts, product ads, real estate listings and notifications related to his daughters’ schools or sports teams' and 'bank notifications'" and that it "shamelessly downplayed the lies and screeches about the laptop being Russian disinformation."

But Houck is forgetting that Rudy Giuliani and the New York Post -- which sprung this story as an October surprise during the 2020 election -- failed to provide proof at the time that the laptop's contents were verified as authentic, and as the Post pointed out elsewhere, skepticism about the laptop was absolutely warranted given its origins and the fact that Giuliani and the New York Post were vociferious Trump supporters. Speculation about the laptop being Russian disinformation was not a "lie" or "gaslighting,"as Houck insists, because the chain of custody was so tainted. Additionally, the owner of the computer store where Hunter allegedly brought the laptops to be repaired, John Paul Mac Isaac, couldn't give a straight answer to questions about them.Even today, the full chain of custody of the laptop and the data has never been made fully clear.

So, yes, skepticism about the laptop's provenance were absolutely justified at the time, and the fact that only some of those questions have been resolved a year and a half after the story was unleashed confirms that skepticism. It was only pro-Trump political partisan activists like Houck and the MRC who demanded that the laptop story be swallowed whole with no questions asked whatsoever.

At least the Washington Post bothered to try to authenticate what was claimed to be on the laptop. Neither Houck nor anyone else at the MRC ever did before obsessively touting it in an attempt to damage Joe Biden's election chances and, perhaps, drive Hunter Biden to suicidal behavior. They would have been pleased with either result -- or both.

WND Does PR Piece On Trump's Social Media Site, Censors Its Problems
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Bob Unruh wrote a press release for Donald Trump's social media outlet masquerading as a March 11 "news" article. But first, he served up a dubious history of Trump's relationship with social media:

President Trump was censored from virtually all the mainstream social media companies because his political views conflicted with theirs back when he was president. They condemned his perspectives as "misinformation" while claiming their own opinions were "fact."

In fact, Trump was banned from those social media companies because he incited an insurrection against the government he headed because he couldn't accept the reality that he lost an election. And Trump's rampant spreading of misinformation has been irrefutably documented, and pointing out that misinformation was not an"opinion." Anyway, back to Unruh's rah-rah PR effort:

And it wasn't long before reports were appearing about his plans to create his own platform, and Truth Social is in the process now of signing up consumers.

And it's hitting on all cylinders with the public, reveals a new analysis by Just the News.

Just the News chief John Solomon, for example, reported he put a story on Twitter this week – about 20 confirmed cases of voting illegalities and irregularities during the 2020 presidential election – and got 871 likes and 551 retweets – from a total of 866,500 followers.

But when the same details were posted on Truth Social, he immediately got 1,480 likes and 1,030 re-truths, even though there were only 24,700 followers on his account.

"Conservatives say the early Truth Social anecdotes seem to support two theories they have had for year: Twitter has been throttling or shadow-banning some content, while new platforms that allow free speech are booming with engagement from people tired of the censorship," he explained.

[...]

He ridiculed legacy media claims that Truth Social is getting a slow start.

"A handful of liberal reporters get an account on Truth, can't attract any followers because no one wants to hear them, and then they report it isn't working," he explained.

But Unruh has censored any mention of all the problems Truth Social has faced since it launched last fall. As we documented when the Media Research Center similarly censored it, Truth Social was immediately overrun by trolls upon its early launch last fall and appears to violate the terms of the open-source software that underpins it. When the website officially launched in February, a reporter was able to get the @realDonaldTrump handle (it has since been stripped from him), software bugs created a massive backup in signups, and its terms of service censors users who "disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site." So much for it being a "free speech" operation. And, actually, the statement that non-conservatives "an't attract any followers because no one wants to hear them" proves further that it's a right-wing echo chamber.

Nevertheless, Unruh continued in rah-rah mode:

He also cited radio host and TV commentator Dan Bongino, whose army on Twitter is 2.4 million strong.

In a few weeks, he's gathered one-tenth that on Truth Social.

But this week his Twitter message "Panic Breaks Out Over The Ukraine Bio-Labs Story" got 554 likes and 185 retweets while the same message on Truth Social got 1,550 likes and 488 re-truths.

"The traffic to the site and to the show is off the chart," Bongino explained to Just the News.

Is that the same Russian propaganda conspiracy theory WND itself was spreading? Not sure we've beas proud of spreading that as Bongino is.

Writing PR propganda pieces that hide inconvenient facts is not the way to credibilty and profitably WND needs right now.

 

Newsmax's Hirsen Thinks Pixar Film is Evil And 'Occult' For Showing Non-Christians
Topic: Newsmax

James Hirsen spent an entire March 22 Newsmax column lashing out at the new Pixar film "Seeing Red" for, essentially, dealing with a girl going through puberty and not being Christian enough:

Disney, via Pixar, is currently streaming a movie that is over-the-top in terms of its unsuitability and potential to cause outright harm to our youth.

The film "Turning Red" is being marketed as a coming of age story.

The setting is a Chinatown community located in Toronto, Canada. Lead character Meilin "Mei" Lee is 13 years-old and is in the process of transitioning to full-fledged womanhood.

Curiously, in this new state of transition, Mei discovers that whenever she feels angry, upset, or otherwise emotionally charged, she turns into a giant red panda. This condition is frequently accompanied by an unpleasant scent and some unfortunate occurrences.

The cinematic tale is apparently meant to be an allegory about female puberty, a kind of symbolic representation of the physiological, psychological, and emotional changes that occur in a female’s life as she journeys from youth to adolescence.

The panda manifestation, red in color, problematic, and emotionally intense, only happens to the women in Mei’s family.

The representation of the menstruation process is disrespectful and debasing in nature. But this is far from the worst of the film’s flaws. Adding to the potential mind, body, and soul-altering mix are the exploration of sexual urges and blatant participation in occult practices.

Wait, what? "Occult practices"? Yes, as Hirsen huffs further: "Christian parents should be especially concerned with the depictions of ancestor worship, polytheism, ritualistic practices, and supernatural transformations."

Actually, those things are better known as Chinese culture and Buddhism (the latter of which the right-wingers at MovieGuide similarly lashed out against). Millions of people follow those beliefs, but Hirsen seems obllivious to that. Instead, he found a pastor named Mike Signorelli to spread hate on the movie because shows people who areb't Christian:

During his clerical tenure, Pastor Signorelli has had extensive experience in a deliverance ministry, one in which he has had a key role in confronting evil itself.

This enables him to recognize imagery in the film that is not merely inappropriate, but dangerous to the spiritual well-being of our young ones.

"Even within the first eight minutes, you have chanting, communication with ancestors, and immediately a red flag should start to go off," he stated.

Additionally, he noted that scenes in the film contain numerous concepts that conflict with a biblical worldview. He warns of danger in the fact that "the movie contains an intermingling of spirituality and ritual."

[...]

"I cannot in good faith allow you to show this to your children knowing what I know about demonic spirits, knowing what I know about the cultures that demons create," he said.

Parents, relatives, and guardians of children and teens would be wise to take heed of Pastor Signorelli’s words regarding this film and other youth-oriented media that have hidden agendas embedded within.

Films are not inherently evil for showing how non-Christians live, but that's what Hirsen seems to believe.

CNS Keeps Up Highly Biased 'News' Coverage Of Jackson Nomination
Topic: CNSNews.com

CNSNews.com's wildly biased "news "coverage of Ketanji Brown jackson's Supreme Court nomination continued after the hearing and in the runup to the Senate vote.

Susan Jones used a March 30 article to lament that the ideologically driven Repuiblican blockade against Jackson was broken withone senator defecting:

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is the first Republican to announce support for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

She may not be the last. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) says he's still reviewing her record.

[...]

All 50 Democrats will vote to confirm Judge Jackson, and Collins' vote means they can now describe Jackson's support as "bipartisan."

Jones made sure to add that Brett Kavanaugh "was confirmed by a vote of 50-48 on October 6, 2018. One Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin of Virginia, made his confirmation "bipartisan" as well.

On April 4, Jones dug up a response by Jackson to a written question she didn't like: "Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, in response to written questions, has told the Senate she does not hold a position on whether individuals have natural rights that come from God, not the law." This was followed by a couple more attacks on Jackson from Repubican senators, including CNS' most quotable senator, Ted Cruz:

• Sen. Cruz: Jackson's Average Sentence for Child Porn Distribution Was 'Half' National Average
• Cruz on Judge Jackson: ‘She Will Prove to Be the Furthest Left of Any Justice to Have Ever Served’
• Sen. Grassley: Jackson ‘Does Not Believe In--Or Act Within--The Limited and Proper Role of a Judge’

CNS published no articles focused on what a Democratic senator had to say in favor of Jackson.

When Romney similarly confirmed that he would vote in favor of Jackson, an anonymous CNS writer took swipes at him and rehashed its anti-Jackson talking points:

Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, who now represents Utah but formerly served as the governor of Massachusetts, was one of three Republican senators who voted today to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the United States Supreme Court.

The other two Republican senators who voted for Jackson were Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. The final vote on the confirmation was 53 to 47.

Romney had announced he was going to vote to confirm Judge Jackson in a written statement he released on Monday in which he called her a “person of honor” who “meets the standard of excellence and integrity.”

[...]

At her confirmation hearings, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R.-Tenn.) asked Judge Jackson: “Can you provide a definition for the word woman?”

“Can I provide a definition? No, I can’t,” Jackson responded.

“You can’t,” Blackburn retorted.

“Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said.

In written questions submitted to her by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz (R.-Texas) asked her: “Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no?”

Judge Jackson responded: “I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.”

The anonymous writer did not explain the relevance of mentioning in the lead paragraph that Romney used to be governor of Massachusetts.

A Democrat didn't make it into a headline  on the Jackson vote until CNS could find somnething to complain about, and Melanie Arter found it in an April 8 article:

In a speech prior to the confirmation of Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Thursday mentioned “notable moments in America’s history” for African-Americans, pointing out the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall, as the first black U.S. Supreme Court justice but omitting the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas, who currently serves on the high court.

Another anonymously written CNS article that day seemed to be complaining that too many women were being made judges, including Jackson:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) delivered a speech on the Senate floor on Thursday in which he provided a breakdown by race and gender of the people confirmed to the federal judiciary since Democrats gained functional control of the Senate in January 2021.

Super-majorities of confirmed judges, Schumer explained, have been women and people of color.

On Thursday, the Senate voted to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is African American, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes, CNS seems less than thrilled about all those women in high places -- though apparently not so committed to that opinion that the writer would sign his or her name to it.

MRC's Anger At Jackson Nomination Slowly Winds Down With Senate Vote
Topic: Media Research Center

It has been a long road for the Media Research Center to act as a right-wing narrative machine over the Supreme Court nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson, from ranting she would be a radical even before anyone was nominated to emphasizing her first name to otherize her to slavishly hyping false right-wing attacks on her. Having failed in doing so -- enough Republican senators refused to buy into the hate and announced they would vote for her confirmation -- the MRC was reduced to whining that non-right-wing outlets accurately noted the historic nature of her nomination while still complaining that Republicans' harsh, factually deficient questioning of Jackson was being criticized -- even though a Quinnipiac poll found that only 27 percent of Americans approved of how Republians treated Jackson.

Kevin Tober complained that MSNBC guest "Elie Mystal doubled down on his claims that the criticism Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson received from Republicans was designed to get her killed. He even suggested Republicans oppose her nomination because she's black." He concuded by hypocritically huffing, "This kind of talk isn't just deranged, it is dangerous and should be called out by all sane people who value civil political discourse."

Clay Waters actually suggested that people should stop complaining about what Republicans did to Jackson because she'll be approved anyway -- even as he nursed grievances about the treatment of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas more than 30 years ago:

After his repulsive front-page piece March 25 excoriating Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their supposedly racist treatment of Biden’s Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, New York Times reporter Carl Hulse announced some Republicans would vote yes in the upcoming confirmation vote on Tuesday’s front page: “Cracks Appear in G.O.P.’s Opposition to Jackson.”

Even as Jackson stands on the precipice of victory, Hulse is still bitterly attacking committee Republicans for daring to question her record.

[...]

Hulse hypocritically longed for the good old days when Congress reliably rubber-stamped a president’s Supreme Court nominees. (Does he not remember the treatment of the Republican-nominated Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh?)

Alex Christy tried to soft-pedal things by claiming that Jackson merely faced "tough" and "sharp" questions from Republicans while getting upset that they were (accurately) described as rigbht-wing culture war issues: "Apparently previous Supreme Court nominees have never had to deal with culture war questions. Only when Republicans do not get out of the way of “history” are such questions considered going too far."

Later, when NBC's Chuck Todd pointed out that the GOP attacks were driven by the “echo chamber conservative media,” Christy uniroinically retorted, "Irony is dead at MSNBC." Of course, that's exactly what someone stuck in the right-wing media echo chamber would say.

Then, on the day of the Senate's vote on Jackson, there came the MRC whining about something historical being accurately reported as such and the non-right-wing media's refusal to hate Jackson like the MRC clearly does:

• CBS Goes Gaga for Jackson, Demand GOP Do 'Soul-Searching' After 'Wasted' Hearings
• 'Lots of Shards of Glass,' ABC Gushes Over Jackson Confirmation, Pans GOP Opposition
• NBC: Jackson ‘Destined’ to Be on SCOTUS, ’233 Years In the Making’
• 'White Men Will Be In The Minority' Nets Gush Over Judge Jackson
• CNN+ Anchor: GOP Turned 'Their Backs' on 'Achievements of Black Women'
• CNN Condemns GOP For Not Appreciating Jackson Amidst Ukraine War
• America’s ‘Beaming!’; CBS Swoons Like Teens at Boy Band Concert Over Jackson Vote
• Networks Get Weak in the Knees Over ‘Genuine,’ ‘Remarkable’ KBJ’s ‘Beaming Smile’
• MSNBC Plots Strategy With Biden White House on Selling Supreme Court Win
• Ruhle Frets GOP 'Nonsense' Deprived America of Knowing Jackson Better

Tober lost it when CNN pointed out that some Republican senators couldn't be bothered to dress like a senator to cast their vote:

Even after Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has been confirmed the leftist media cannot stop whining that she was treated unfairly by Republican Senators. They are even playing the race card in their attacks on the GOP, with CNN’s Lauran Coates suggesting that some Senators not wearing neckties to the vote was disrespectful to the first African American woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court. 

[...]

Coates didn’t mention which Senator or Senators committed the unforgivable sin of not wearing a tie. Regardless, this is a petty complaint even for CNN.

Tim Graham, meanwhile, was still stuck on his Kavanaugh grievance kick in his April 8 column:

The shamelessness of liberal politicians and journalists is displayed by their unique outrage at the treatment of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, as if everyone forgot the smearing of Brett Kavanaugh with unsubstantiated sexual allegations, including teenaged gang rape.

Graham used his podcast the same day to whine that non-right-wing media "complained that Republicans were somehow rude to walk out of the Senate chamber once the vote was over, like everyone was supposed to surround Judge Jackson like she was the hero at the end of Top Gun."

Brad Wilmouth continued the MRC's anger at Republicans being criticized by complaining that "CNN analyst Errol Louis suggested that Republicans are opposed to and bitter about the acquisition of civil rights for African Americans as he reacted to Republican resistance to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's appointment to the Supreme Court," then "suggested that Judge Jackson's Republican critics represent a backlash to the Civil Rights Movement and oppose "progress" like the appointment of Judge Jackson." Wilmouth did not rebut any of Louis' claims.

Which kind of sums up the MRC's entire strategy against Jackson -- make a lot of noise, keep the narratives in play, and deny they have been discredited. That's not "media research," that's a partisan political organization.

CNS' Right-Wing Catholic Priest Denounces Social Justice, Buys Into Conspiracy Theories
Topic: CNSNews.com

Rev. Michael Orsi has been continuing to put right-wing politics ahead of his mission as a Catholic priest in his CNSNews.com columns. He used his March 21 column to rant that the idea of social justice and equity is not Christian:

Christians are justified by Jesus Christ — living according to his Word, following his teaching. Our faith in him demands that we treat others justly. This not only involves a commitment to being charitable, but to inviting others to join us in adhering to the standards he set.

Social justice, on the other hand, holds up abstract and highly ideological conceptions of “right.” It calls us to excuse (or even to encourage) ways of living that are not at all consistent with the nature by which we are made and the behavior that Jesus modeled.

A stark example of this difference is the ideology of gender that’s such a prominent aspect of current social justice thinking. The very fact that God chose to come among us in the distinctive form of a man demonstrates the reality that human beings are created in his image with the complementary qualities of maleness and femaleness.

Social justice offers us an alphabet-soup assortment of gender characteristics and sexual inclinations (LGBTQ+). This is a false idea. It’s heretical. And Christians are not being just when they encourage, or even accept, such a proposition.

[...]

Social justice is not Christian. It does not reflect a Christian understanding of justice. It does not fit the Christology of Jesus. It’s a distorted attempt to create a “perfect” world, according to a vision of perfection that’s cast in the image of man, and is quite aside from what God understands as perfection.

Sometimes even people within the Church persist in believing there are valid “truths” other than those Jesus shows us. When that happens, those “Christians” are in danger of losing their identity as human beings. They are in danger of losing their moral compass. They are in danger of losing their souls.

Orsi spent his April 28 column buying into right-wing "new world order" and "great reset" conspiracy theories:

For some time now, we’ve been hearing about a so-called new world order. This concept has been referred to by several names. The terminology currently favored is the Great Reset. But by whatever label, it’s a way of living designed and controlled by human beings, in which God has little or no part.

Indeed, God’s true world order is disparaged and rejected, because it’s detrimental to the vision of the new world order based on human will.

The new world order claims a great vision for a just and equitable future, but in reality its focus is always on the now. Its dream is to make humanity conform to an image conjured up by an elite leadership. So its ongoing challenge is controlling human behavior in the present.

God, on the other hand, offers us eternity. And in the true world order, he’s in charge. This imposes a cap on human efforts to exercise control.

[...]

Throw in population control initiatives, of which promotion of abortion is the most visible component. Add open borders, by which cultural identity and civic peace are weakened and people lose control of their own communities.

And don’t forget about our current celebration of gender fluidity and the whole LGBT menu of sexual adventurism, an assault on marriage and family life that’s unprecedented in our history.

All of this shows how intent are the advocates of the new world order on destroying God’s true world order.

The essence of Christ’s resurrection is freedom — the ultimate expression of which is eternal life. As Christians we are called to hold up the truth of that great event memorialized in the Octave of Easter. We’re called to defend God’s true world order.

Is it a good thing that ministers are so immersed in right-wing conspiracy theories? It seems not.

MRC's War on NewsGuard Continues Its Lame Gotcha Phase
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's war on website rating service NewsGuard has been descending into lame gotchas for a while now. That trend is continuing. Catherine Salgado actually wrote this in a March 9 post:

Does biased NewsGuard automatically favor state-affiliated media? The liberal online “credibility” arbiter gave seven traditionally non-autocratic state-affiliated media outlets around the world an average score of 98.6/100.

MRC Free Speech America looked at seven traditionally non-autocratic state-affiliated media outlets from Germany, the U.S., France, the United Kingdom and Canada. Biased NewsGuard didn’t allow government affiliation to harm journalistic credibility.

America’s National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), France’s Radio France Internationale (RFI) and France 24 and Germany’s Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF) all received perfect scores of 100/100.

The UK’s British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Canada’s Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) both received excellent NewsGuard scores of 95/100.

Salgado doesn't explain why this government affiliiation must automatically be in conflict with journalistic credibility or even dispute the ratings or provide examples of why those outlets should be downgraded. Instead, she tried to play false equivalence and rehash old complaints about state-owned outlets in authoritarian countries getting better ratings that right-wing misinformers like One America News.

Salgado returned on March 11 to whine about NewsGuard's mission again:

NewsGuard co-CEO Steven Brill claimed that NewsGuard’s goal is “not to block anything,” but “just [to] give people straight information.” However, in a recent interview, he revealed NewsGuard’s real game of demonetizing anything the “credibility” arbiter deems “misinformation.”

Brill went on on March 8 to discuss NewsGuard and how the self-appointed online “credibility” arbiter works, especially how it restricts social media, with podcast host Molly Jong-Fast.

Brill explained that Facebook’s two top executives, Meta (formerly Facebook) CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg, apparently ultimately rejected the idea of using NewsGuard for Facebook, though a Facebook executive had originally helped NewsGuard raise money.

[...]

He then summarized NewsGuard lists dividing supposedly “legitimate journalism” outlets from supposedly illegitimate media companies, so advertisers can choose what quality of news to affiliate with. “They can advertise there using our inclusion list, and can use our exclusion list to make sure they’re not on” sites that are presumably not “legitimate journalism,” he said. When leftist podcast host and Bulwark contributor Molly Jong-Fast suggested that NewsGuard could “stop fake news” on Facebook, Brill agreed, bragging, “You could do it in a minute.”

Brill said that Facebook executives originally endorsed NewsGuard as a tool that it could use instead of algorithms to regulate content, and helped the company fundraise. “One of the senior executives there even helped us raise money by encouraging investors,” Brill said. NewsGuard does not work like social media, Brill insisted, because it is “transparent.”

Again, Salgado offered no rebuttal beyond rehashing old attacks and hyping "a recent letter signed by MRC founder and President Brent Bozell and dozens of free speech advocates warned all U.S. governors about NewsGuard’s bias and influence." As if Bozell and his fellow letter-signers -- which, as we documented, include officlals from misinformation-laden operations like WorldNetDaily, LifeNews and the Western Journal -- aren't peddling their own bias and influence.

Because NewsGuard calls out misinformation, it's a threat to the MRC and its fellow right-wingers. That's why it has been waging war on the company.

NEW ARTICLE -- Fake News At WND: Coronavirus Edition, Part 3
Topic: WorldNetDaily
Even as it's fighting to stay alive after all the fake news and conspiracies it has promoted, WorldNetDaily just can't stop publishing false claims and misinformation about COVID vaccines. Read more >>

MRC Defends Republicans Accused of Racist Questioning of Jackson
Topic: Media Research Center

With the actual confirmation hearing over for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, it was time for the Media Research Center to try and get a handle on the post-hearing narrative, starting with blanket denials that Republicans' aggressive and deceitful questioning of Jackson. First up, whining that said questioning was considered to have at least a tinge of racism:

• NYT Notes 'Pain and Disgust' Toward GOP After KBJ Hearings; 'Appeals to Racism'
• CNN Lets Race-Baiter Guest Accuse GOP of 'Race-Baiting' on Jackson
• The View: Did 'Insane' GOP Prove How Racist They Are With Jackson Questions?

Then it was Tim Graham whine time. First, he insisted that what Jackson faced was nowhere near as bad as what happened to Brett Kavanaugh:

Was this epic shamelessness or remarkable amnesia? (Pick A.)

Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Ruth Marcus penned a piece in the Sunday paper headlined "Confirmation hearings? More like defamation hearings." Online, the headline was "Forget advise and consent. This is smear and degrade." It's like nothing ever happened to Brett Kavanaugh.

[...]

In this case, the words "Brett Kavanaugh" never appeared, as if Marcus didn't have to address the Fake News about teenaged gang rape. In 2018, Marcus took after Kavanaugh for daring to get angry when he was accused of teenage rape. The headline then was "Ford’s testimony was devastating. Kavanaugh’s was volcanic." No "smear and degrade" or tarnish.

Oh no, "the fundamental wisdom of the Constitution’s approach was on display Thursday. Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh was confronted with the witness against him — one of them, anyway — and it was devastating." What a Democrat rag this paper is!

Graham offered no evidence that the sexual assault claims made against Kavanaugh were "fake news."

Then, Graham dedicated his March 30 column to issuing his usual complaint about fact-checkers fact-checking Republicans too much:

Now that the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings are complete, we have collected another fascinating exhibit of the leftist tilt of “independent fact checkers.” Just try and find a single fact check on anything Judge Jackson said. Try and find a single evaluation of any statement by a Democratic politician touting Jackson – from Biden and Dick Durbin on down.

Checking liberals and Democrats is apparently not listed among their job duties.

On March 28, White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates addressed Judge Jackson’s qualifications. Bates claimed what speaks to the strength of her public record “is the multitude of fact-checks from the press, from retired judges, and from former prosecutors who have dismantled attacks brought by a small group of GOP senators.”

“Dismantling” Republican critiques is the job of the Fact Check community? That’s what it looks like.

Graham went on to disingenuously rant:

Add to that one bizarre attack on a Trump fan on Facebook with 2,700 friends. He was ruled “False” when he claimed the Kavanaugh hearings drew more live coverage than the Jackson hearings. That is “True,” and PolitiFact is “False.” Once they started throwing around shoddy rape claims, The Price Is Right  and The View had to take a hike.

Graham conveniently didn't link to the PolitiFact fact-check in question so we could see it for ourselves. And it turns out that Graham is misleading about the fact-check; it actually said: "The coverage is comparable to how news networks reported on the initial days of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing. After  four days of hearings, sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh emerged and another hearing was scheduled on Sept. 27 to address them. News networks canceled their regular programming to air that hearing live."

To repeat: The assault allegations against Kavanaugh weren't made until after the same round of hearings, and those were covered comparably to Jackson's hearing. The allegations were covered in an additional hearing, and that's the one that got widespread coverage. Graham's declaration of "false" is, well, false.

The MRC's parade of whining that Republicans are being criticized continued:

• Toobin Blames GOP For Increased SCOTUS Confirmation Partisanship
• Ex-NYT Scribe SEETHES: ‘How Low Will' the GOP 'Go?'
• They 'Don't Trust Black Women': Whoopi RAGES at GOP Opposition to Jackson
• IRONY: MSNBC Angry GOP Won't Support Jackson Based on Qualifications
• Sexist Kimmel Accuses Female Sen. Blackburn of Trying to Set Women 'Back 50 Years'
• 'How Dumb Is This Woman?' The View Doesn’t Know What a Woman Is
• NY Times Reporter Decries GOP 'Assault' on Judge Jackson -- Worse Than Thomas in 1991??

In that last one, Clay Waters made a lame attempt to throw shade at Democrats by suggesting Republicans treated better than Democrats treated Amy Comeyt Barrett: "At least Republicans stayed to vote against Jackson. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee simply boycotted the vote for Trump nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett in 2020." Waters conveniently omitted the context -- which was actually noted in the NPR article he linked to as backup -- that Democrats boycotted the vote to highlight how Barrett's nomination was being hypocritically rammed through by Republicans during a presidential election despite Republicans blocking Merrick Garland's nomination in 2016 by claiming that it was too close to a presidential eleciton.

CNS Serves Up Wildly Biased 'News' Coverage of Jackson's Confirmation Hearing
Topic: CNSNews.com

We've shown how CNSNews.com's coverage of Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court nomination started out balanced then began to revert to its anti-liberal right-wing bias. Nowhere was this more pronounced than its coverage of Jackson's confirmation hearing, which was largely devoted to echoing anti-Jackson narratives as expressed by Republican senators -- particularly hammering on the discredited attack on her sentencing of those convicted of child porn offenses and the gotcha question of what a woman is.

Here are the articles devoted to Republican senators asking Jackson questions and otherwise pontificating:

• Cruz Challenges Left-Wing SCOTUS Nominee: 'Will You Protect Freedom or Restrict It?'
• Hawley Lists Seven Times Ketanji Brown Jackson Issued Soft Sentences in Child-Porn Cases
• Sen. Graham Wonders Why 'Extreme' Leftists 'Spent the Money They Spent' to Have Biden Pick Jackson
• Cruz to SCOTUS Nominee: In 100% of the Child Porn-Possession Cases, You Sentenced 'Far Below' What the Prosecutors Requested
• Sen. Graham: Jackson Over-Ruled DHS’ ‘Unreviewable Discretion’ in Expedited Removal of Illegal Aliens
• Graham to SCOTUS Nominee: It’s Better to Put Child Porn Criminals in Jail, ‘Not Supervise Their Computer Usage’
• Hawley Gets Judge Jackson to Answer Question Durbin Wouldn’t Allow Cruz to Ask About Lenient Child Porn Sentencing

By contrast, CNS devoted no articles whatsoever to questions to Jackson from Democratic senators. The only time a Democratic senator's name appeared in the headline of a hearing-related article was a piece by managing editor Michael W. Chapman, "Durbin Interrupts Cruz to Stop Questioning SCOTUS Nominee Over Child Porn Cases" -- though it was clear by the transcript of the exchange in the article that Durbin was trying to get Cruz to stop talking over Jackson so she could actually answer the question he was badgering her with.

CNS also devoted a few articles to cherry-picked answers from Jackson largely framed to portray her as an evil liberal or focus on other right-wing obsessions:

• Ketanji Brown Jackson--Who Did Legal Work for Abortion Advocate--Thanks God at Confirmation Hearing
• SCOTUS Nominee: 'I Believe I Did' Celebrate Clarence Thomas' Nomination to the High Court
• Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson Avoids Saying That Punishment Deters Crime
• Judge Jackson: 'No, I Can't' Provide a Definition for the Word ‘Woman’
• Judge Jackson: ‘Roe and Casey Are the Settled Law…Concerning the Right to Terminate a Woman's Pregnancy’

CNS then sent intern Emily Robertson out to do her intern thing of pestering senators about the manufactured child-porn issue, asking them: "“Sen. Hawley yesterday listed seven child-porn cases in which he thought Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson had given sentences that were too lenient. Do you agree?” She wrote four articles compiling their reponses:

• GOP Senators: SCOTUS Nominee’s Leniency in Sentencing Child Porn Cases is a Serious Concern
• Democrat [sic] Senators Okay With SCOTUS Nominee’s Lenient Sentencing in Child-Porn Possession Cases
• GOP Senators ‘Very Concerned’ With SCOTUS Nominee’s Leniency in Child-Porn Sentencing
• Democrat [sic] Senators: SCOTUS Nominee is in ‘Mainstream’ in Sentencing Child Porn Criminals

At no point did Robertson tell her readers that the child-porn talking point has been discredied, with even conservative National Review legal expert Andrew McCarthy denouncing it as "meritless to the point of demagoguery."

Roberetson was made to do the same with the other right-wing narrative, hurling this biased question at senators: “Senator Blackburn asked Judge Jackson to define the word ‘woman’ and Judge Jackson said, ‘No, I can’t.’ Should someone who does not know what a woman is serve on the Supreme Court?” These senators responded:

• Kevin Cramer (R)
• Sheldon Whitehouse (D)
  
• Cynthia Lummis (R)
• Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley (R)
• Four other Republican senators

By focusing almost exclusively on Republican senators, it's clear that Robertson's mission wsa to advance right-wing talking points, not engage in journalism. Driving the point of her intent home even further, she even did an article on how Republican Newt Gingrich -- who hasn't been a senator for more than two decades -- huffed that Jackson "should be disqualified" from consideration on the Supreme Court "unless she can come back in and explain what a woman is and she can explain whether words like 'he' and 'she' are acceptable pronouns."

MRC Sports Blogger Pretends There's No White Supremacism Problem In MMA
Topic: Media Research Center

Media Research Center sports blogger John Simmons complained in a March 24 post:

If you look hard enough for a problem, you’ll find it. MSNBC published an op-ed by Cynthia Miller-Idriss that attempted to condemn home fitness as a potential breeding ground for white supremacists.

Citing a mere handful of mixed martial arts training groups in Canada and Europe that have been flagged for neo-Nazi rhetoric, Miler-Idriss is worried that the growing trend of home fitness in the United States will lead to a rise in white supremacy-minded MMA gyms within our own borders.

[...]

Pushing through pain, heroism, solidarity, and brotherhood are values and attributes you learn to appreciate if you participate in any sport. There is nothing unique or inherently special about physical fitness training providing these things, and certainly nothing that even hints at white supremacy. Maybe these people just want to stay fit and learn some valuable life lessons along the way.

Actually, MMA has been a breeding ground for racists for years -- the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote about it back in 2008, and it didn't have to go to Europe or Canada to find it, and others have found white nationalism and racism in the MMA scene in America as well. Indeed, the day after Simmons' post, MMA news site Bloody Elbow reported that a collection of neo-Nazi MMA & fitness fight clubs called Active Club are spreading white supremacist and anti-Semitic propaganda across the U.S.

Instead admitting this is an actual problem, Simmons attacked the writer for having "an economic interest in finding right-wing boogiemen in new and interesting places," then pretened  

MMA is not a hotbed for fostering white supremacists. For those that care, lots of black, Hispanic, and African fighters have achieved and sustained incredible amounts of success in MMA. Perhaps the only reason why people think white supremacists thrive there is because a great many people within the sport - like UFC figure and based podcaster Joe Rogan - who supported Donald Trump when he was president. But being a Trump supporter does not make you a white supremacist (although the left has an interest in claiming there's no difference between the two.)

So if you’re thinking about getting into physical fitness or even MMA at a more serious level, go enjoy yourself. Just don't let the Nazis get you.

Simmons didn't mention that, as a paid MRC blogger, he has an economic interest in discrediting anyone who doesn't adhere to right-wing narratives -- even if they're telling the truth. And maybe citing Rogan wasn't the best example of reasonableness in MMA given that the MRC had just spent weeks defending him from the fact he loves to spread COVID misinformation.