ConWebBlog: The Weblog of ConWebWatch

your New Media watchdog

ConWebWatch: home | archive/search | about | primer | shop

Monday, June 27, 2022
CNS Defends DeSantis Over Purported (And Unproven) CRT In Math Textbooks

Craig Bannister showed off his stenographic skills yet again in an April 20 article:

“Math is about getting the right answer. And, we want kids to learn to think, so get they the right answer,” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) said Monday, explaining why his state has rejected math textbooks that include elements of “social justice” ideology.

“It’s not about how you ‘feel’ about the problem, or to introduce some of these other things,” Gov. DeSantis explained in his speech. Math education should not be used to indoctrinate young students on issues like Critical Race Theory, Social Emotional Learning and Common Core principles, DeSantis said:

“There’s a right answer and there’s a wrong answer. And, we want all our students getting the right answers.

“And so, most of the books that did not meet Florida standards, for whatever reason, happened to be in the early grades. As you get into the older grades, most of those books did meet the standards. But, we’re going to continue to focus the education on the actual, strong academic performance of the students.”

“We don’t want things, like math, to have some of these other concepts introduced. It’s not been proven to be effective and, quite frankly, it takes our eye off the ball,” the governor said.

Florida recently rejected a record number of textbooks for content violating the state's standards, The Daily Wire reported Tuesday.

However, Bannister was silent on the fact that DeSantis offered no specific examples of "social justice ideology" he claimed was appearing in math textbooks; it claimed "proprietary reasons" for hiding that information. In the meantime, others found copies of the books Florida rejected and found no purportedly offensive content, unless you consider encouraging students to be nice or brief bios of black mathematicians to be offensive. Florida did release a couple examples a few days later, but they were presented without context and were apparently not targeted to elementary students.

When Florida released more detailed information on what reviewers found, it was clear that, as the Washington Post reported, "The reviewers overwhelmingly noted that the books had avoided forbidden topics such as critical race theory" and that there were only a few overly sensitive right-wing reviewers who complained about such things like a (completely factual) statement that the U.S. has not eradicated racism or that the Federalist Papers weren't referenced in a math discussion of the Electoral College. Those reviewersalso pushing talking points against "social-emotional learning," the new outrage among hateful right-wing activists.

Bannister didn't report on any of those later developments -- no need to let facts get in the way of a good right-wing narrative.

Posted by Terry K. at 4:59 PM EDT
MRC's New Bulldog Awards Are As Lame As You'd Expect
Topic: Media Research Center

Back in March, the Media Research Center announced it was creating an award to give to its fellow right-wingers who in its judgment best advance right-wing narratives:

The Media Research Center has had fun bestowing our DisHonors Awards on those members of the media least deserving of accolades. Now, we want to recognize those most deserving of accolades and we’re looking for the guidance of NewsBusters readers to help us select the deserving winners of the Media Research Center’s Bulldog Awards for the best in journalism.


Let us know who you think has done outstanding work in the areas covered in the six categories, the kind of work appreciated by conservatives that is so disdained by the legacy media which will never honor it as they pile on honorifics for left wing advocacy by all too many “journalists.” Look at it as our version of the Pulitzer Prizes.

Of course, announcing it would consider only biased work that advances its political agenda saps much of the alleged prestige from it, ensuring it will be considered much closer to the Slanties than the Pulitzers in terms of credibility. The MRC effectively confirmed that when the award winners were announced in May:

With our first annual Bulldog Awards in six categories, the Media Research Center is honoring conservatives in the media who truly deserve accolades yet will never receive them from the media establishment.


Left-wing journalists are regularly honored for their liberal advocacy with awards throughout the year. On Monday, the biggest journalism awards, the Pulitzer Prizes, were announced. Inevitably, they honored left-wing journalists who pushed the liberal agenda. (The Washington Post won “for its compellingly told and vividly presented account of the assault on Washington on January 6, 2021” and the Houston Chronicle earned a prize for how they “revealed voter suppression tactics, rejected the myth of widespread voter fraud and argued for sensible voting reforms.”)

In announcing the winners of the Bulldog Awards, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell explained: “Today’s MRC Bulldog Award recipients have been selected after careful consideration. Their impactful work is trusted and respected by Americans nationwide, unlike the work of the left-wing operatives that call themselves ‘journalists.’ As the liberal media celebrate themselves with Pulitzers, we wanted to shine a light on the real truth-tellers who are greatly dedicated to informing the American public on stories the legacy media ignores. Congratulations to this year’s winners!”

Only in the MRC's right-wing world is reporting on a violent insurrection and exposing dishonest attacks on voting part of a "liberal agenda."

The award winners are as lame and predictable as you'd expect, as if the MRC's main goal was to bestow awards on its friends and fellow travelers instead of rewarding actual quality content. The award for "outstanding talk show host" was given to Mark Levin, a good friend of MRC chief Brent Bozell whom the MRC aggressively defends no matter what and to whom the MRC's "news" division,, devotes a considerable amount of stenography.

Dan Bongino received an award for "outstanding podcast"; he too is an MRC fave not only for investing in right-wing Twitter clone Parler (which just so happens to be bankrolled by the MRC's chief bankroller, Rebekah Mercer) and for railing against vaccine mandates (even though he is fully vaccinated). The "outstanding blogger" award was given to Stephen Gutowski, a former MRC employee -- what a conincidence! -- who now runs a pro-gun blog.

The manufacturers of new right-wing narratives also got honor. The right-wing New York Post's Miranda Devine was named "outstanding columnist" for putting Hunter Biden's laptop out there before the 2020 presidential election, but as we've noted, she didn't provide independent verification of the laptop or its alleged contents, making sure that non-right-wing outlets would not take it seriously and treat it as the dubious October surprise that it was. The right-wing Daily Wire's Luke Rosiak was given an award for "outstanding investigative journalism" for "blowing the whistle on the sexual assaults in Loudoun County (Virginia) Public Schools and the subsequent attempts to cover them up by the far-left administration and school board"; we've documented how that work was transphobic in nature and particularly obsessed with an incident in which a transgender student sexually assaulted a female student -- but hid the fact that the student previously had consensual sexual encounters before the incident. Finally, Drew Holden of the right-wing Washington Free Beacon was named "outstanding social media personality" main for tweeting things the MRC likes.

All of this is explicitly ideological -- pushing narratives is more worthy of MRC reward than telling the truth. We put more work, and more honesty, into the Slanties.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:37 PM EDT
Anti-LGBT Michael Brown Only Vaguely Aware Of Why LGBT People Hate Him
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Michael Brown headlined his June 3 WorldNetDaily column "I understand why some LGBTers call us hateful," and he tried to portray himself as reaonable (while, yes, still being hateful of LGBT folks):

When I first began to focus on LGBT issues in 2004, it was because of the gay agenda. I immediately saw that this was the principal threat to freedom of religion, conscience and speech in our nation. I also saw that this was an issue that all of us would have to address someday. We would not get to sit this one out.

At the same time, I understood that we were dealing with both people and issues. And if I was to be in harmony with the Lord, I needed to have His heart of love and compassion for the people.

I understood that the rejection so many of them had experienced (at the hands of family and religion) had deeply wounded them. Consequently, what I perceived as loving and tactful would be perceived by them to be hateful and harsh.

That's why I sat with local gay activists and asked them to tell me their stories face to face. That's why I immersed myself in their literature, wanting to understand the world through their perspective. That's why I even bought their theology and commentary books, reading every argument they brought in support of same-sex relationships.

That's also why I would sometimes pray for them in tears, saying, "God, I don't want to hurt people. I just want to help them."

Brown linked to a version of his June 1 column in which he referenced "a [1972] gay rights platform spelling out militant, comprehensive goals, including the repeal 'of all laws governing the age of sexual consent' (an endorsement of pederasty!) and governmental recognition of multiple-partner 'marriages' (today called 'polyamory') at both the national and statewide level.'" But Brown offers no evidence that this platform had any influence at the time or since; certainly nobody is seriously advocating for the repeal of laws regarding age of sexual consent (the "endorsement of pederasty" Brown is apparently referring to) then or now. The fact that he believes he needs to fearmonger about this 50-year-old document shows us why people call him hateful. 

Indeed, much of his schtick is hateful fearmongering over LGBT people. We've already documented his meltdown over the transgender Caitlyn Jenner being allowed onFox News, but he's done much more over the past few months. He went fearmongering in a March 2 column:

Yes, you read that headline correctly. A man claiming to be a gay Christian has predicted that the gay community will destroy the Christian church – those are his exact words – and he hopes it will happen sooner than later.

Allow me to give you a spoiler alert. The church that Jesus is building – by which I mean the community of His true followers around the world – cannot be destroyed. Or canceled. Or silenced.

As for much of what goes by the name of "Christian church," that's another story.

Perhaps that is what this gay author is describing, namely, the dismantling of so-called Christianity. If so, how on earth could he imagine that the gay community will lead the way in destroying it?

Brown eventually revealed that the author was saying that anti-LGBT hate -- which he of course denies exists -- will destroy the church, and he argued the writer can't be a real Christian because he's gay:

As for churches "hating" gays, I'm sure there are gay-hating churches in America, and I and many others have called them out. They are the exception to the rule, and they misrepresent God.

But it is not hate to tell someone that God has a better way. And it is not hate to declare that, not only did Jesus die for every human being, He also wants to change every human being.


Do I agree with him that the church needs to demonstrate much more unconditional love, including to the LGBTQ community? Absolutely. "More love" is always a word the church needs to hear. After all, Jesus is our example, and no one practiced selfless love more deeply than He.

At the same time Michael has things completely upside down. It is when the church of America returns to preaching and teaching the Word of God, as written and without apology, full of the Spirit and full of love, that our buildings will be filled with seekers and sinners alike. The truth that will set them free.

In his March 11 column, Brown insisted that the Florida eduction restriction bill is not the "don't say gay bill" -- "In order to oppose it, the critics must grossly misrepresent it" -- then insisted the alleged misnomer is the same as conversion therapy in that it's "a term created by critics, not by proponents of change":

The reality is that there is not a counselor or therapist or pastor that I have ever met who advocates using coercive, forced, or, God forbid, violent measures to "convert" a homosexual into a heterosexual.

All they advocate for is that those with unwanted same-sex attractions or gender-identity confusion have the legal right to sit down with a trained professional and talk. That's it. And what is the goal of these people who seek out counselors? They hope to get to the root of their struggles and find a path for inner-peace, emotional wholeness and potential change (as many thousands have successfully done, to one degree or another).

Why on earth should that not be allowed, not just for minors who want counseling but all the more for adults? 

Because minors tend to be forced into conversion therapy by parents or church people who hate LGBT people and think one can "pray the gay away"? Of course, he calls that a "mocking term" and declared that "the Christians who are being accused of practicing 'pray away the gay' do not simply rely on the power of prayer. They believe in solid counseling, in uncovering spiritual or emotional or experiential roots that influence our behavior and our desires." Of course, Brown doesn't explain why a person's homosexuality must be removed by whatever means.

Brown started saying the quiet part out loud about the bill in his March 28 column:

Yet, even if the bill actually contained the expression, "Don't say gay," I would still support it, since there's no good reason to be talking about homosexuality to these young children. As Bill Maher correctly opined, "maybe kids that young shouldn't be thinking about sex at all.'"

Again, the bill does not mention homosexuality or use terms like "transgender." And we must be diligent to combat the media's misinformation.


Simply stated, it is not the role of a kindergarten teacher to address these things, especially when we remember how young and socially ignorant and impressionable the little ones are.

That's why even an irreligious atheist can point this out. And that's why, even though the Florida education bill does not say "don't say gay," there's no good reason that "gay" needs to be in these children's vocabulary.

Brown spent his March 25 column lashing out at transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, offering "five reasons why 'Lia' Thomas is not the new Jackie Robinson" (note the scare quotes around her name) and ranting:

How can this possibly be compared to the situation of a person of color? It cannot.

So let's stop this moral insanity before it destroys more lives.

Let's stop calling Thomas "she" and "her."

Let's help him get to the root of his gender confusion (if he's willing).

Let's stand up for women's sports and for female athletes.

And let's not demean the courage and legacy of Jackie Robinson.

Brown used his April 29 column to declare that pastoers cannot be silent about "LGBTQ+ issues and people" because there are "kids in school (from pre-K to college) who are getting indoctrinated with all the radical LGBTQ+ talking points until they have embraced them for themselves." (Brown offers no evidence of this.) He went on to mention "the family members who write to me in tears, sharing their own horror stories," which seem to be about the mere existence of an LGBT person in their family, which is "horror" only in the eyes of people like Brown.

And in the June 1 column in which he complained about the "gay agenda," Brown groused that unlike an ethnic or racial identity being LGBTQ is "grounded in self-perception and self-definition" and that they "assume that same-sex relationships are valid. That gender is what you perceive it to be. That virtually all (adult, consenting) sexual attractions and romantic desires are to be affirmed. In short, gay (or bi or trans or queer or +) is not the new black." He went on to complain that to not hate the existenceof LGBTQ+ Pride Month is "activism."

Brown is a guy who laments been seen as hateful by the LGBT community while being oblivious to the fact that his dismissive attitudes toward them and his ultimate rejection of the idea that they should be treated as anything other than abnormal and hellbound are exactly what makes him a fount of hate, no matter how nicely he tries to couch it.


Posted by Terry K. at 12:46 AM EDT
Updated: Monday, June 27, 2022 12:57 AM EDT
Sunday, June 26, 2022
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC Attacks Facts -- And Those Who Report Them
Topic: Media Research Center
When the Washington Post's Taylor Lorenz exposed the person behind the anti-LGBT Libs of TikTok Twitter account, the Media Research Center not only lashed out at Lorenz for telling the truth, it defended the hateful women behind the account. Read more >>

Posted by Terry K. at 5:23 PM EDT
CNS' Homophobic Managing Editor Pushes Anti-Transgender Attacks

In talking about transphobia at, we can't ignore the contributions from its notoriously homophobic managing editor, Michael W. Chapman.We've already noted his freakout over a transgender flag being flown outside the building for a federal agency, but there's so much more.

In a March 29 article, Chapman cheered his favorite right-wing homophobic minister, Franklin Graham, for helping to advance CNS' war on Ketanji Brown Jackson by endorsing the gotcha question Republicans asked her regarding the defintion of a woman: "Where are we going as a nation when a nominee for our highest court will not define what a woman is?" Graham also took a swipe at transgender college swimmer Lia Thomas, and Chapman concluded with a series of cherry-picked Bible verses designed to suggest transgender people are evil and going to hell.

Chapman used an April 19 article to try to shove transgender people back into the closet because they're purportedly not enough of them to be concerned about:

Although many liberal activists and lawmakers, including President Joe Biden, use their influence to promote transgender people throughout society -- see sports, modeling, cable TV, public schools, government, military -- the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that nearly 1 million people identify as transgender in the U.S., which is 0.3% of the population, or less than 1%. 

According to the Census Bureau, the U.S. population is 331,893,745 (as of July 1, 2021). One million transgenders equals 0.3% of the total population.

Chapman then smeared transgender people as filthy disease vectors:

The CDC also reports that in 2019 (latest data available), there were "36,801 total new HIV diagnoses in the U.S. and dependent areas."  Among those diagnosed with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, 671 people were transgender, about 2% of the total diagnoses. 

On a related note, gay and bisexual men made up 69% of the new HIV diagnoses: 25,552 people. 

For the transgender women (biological males) newly diagnosed with HIV -- 625 total -- blacks made up 46% of the cases, or 289 people. Hispanic trans women made up 35% of the cases, 221 people, and white trans females comprised 13% of the new diagnoses, 80 people.

For the HIV-positive among trans men (biological females) -- 46 total -- 41% (19 people) were black, 26% (12) were Hispanic, and 24% (11) were white. 

According to the CDC, "there are several challenges that place transgender people at higher risk of HIV." This includes transphobia, racism, HIV stigma, and lack of knowledge.

Chapman loves portraying LGBT people as worthless HIV carriers.

In addition to rehashing hic complaint that "Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra had the transgender flag flown outside HHS headquarters in Washington, D.C.  ... the first time in U.S. history that the trans flag had been displayed outside a federal building," Chapman also cited right-wing anti-transgender psychiatrist Paul McHugh as well as the anti-LGBT Family Research Council without identifying the anti-LGBT ideology; he did, however, identify the Human Rights Campaign as "pro-LGBTQ."

Chapman wpent an April 25 article ranting that Notre Dame refused to hate LGBTQ people as much as he does, claiming the school can't really be Catholic unless it does:

Although the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind., is supposed to be a Catholic institution "defined by its Catholic character," it sponsors an LGBTQ+ alumni group that held a campus event this month to honor one of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case that legalized "gay marriage." The alumni association also gave an award to South Bend transgender activist Meghan Buell.


An alumni group of faithful Catholics that oppose the Notre Dame sponsorship of the ARC, the Sycamore Trust,  is headed by 1952 alumnus William Dempsey. He told the National Catholic Register that the ARC ND awards event was a "scandal of the first order."

“Notre Dame’s official blessing of an LGBT alumni group hostile to Church teaching on sex, marriage and gender has had its predictable result,” he said.  “The very first act of the new official LGBT organization is sponsorship of an ‘LGBT Awards Weekend’ to celebrate prominent proponents of same-sex marriage and gender change."

Dempsey also cited a document issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops entitled Catholics in Public Life. It partly reads, "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."

Chapman doesn't explain where, exactly, it is "Catholic character" to spew hatred at LGBT people as he demands, or why one can only be "faithful" if you spread that hate. And, again, he ended with some Bible verses.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:09 AM EDT
Updated: Sunday, June 26, 2022 11:27 AM EDT
Saturday, June 25, 2022
MRC Can't Stop Defending Lara Logan's Bad, Biased Journalism
Topic: Media Research Center

Is there any depth to which Lara Logan will sink that the Media Research Center won't defend? It seems not.

The MRC hid her misdeeds in reporting a false claim about the Benghazi attack for "60 Minutes," then continued to promote her even as she spread Antifa hoaxes. When Logan outrageously likened Anthony Fauci to notorious Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele in a Fox News appearance late last year, the MRC refused to criticize her without resorting to lame whataboutism, even as it has whined about conservatives being likened to Nazis. When the New York Times documented Logan's descent into far-right conspiracy theories, it wasthe MRC's Clay  Waters rushing to her defense against the "hit job" in a May 23 post:

The New York Times ran a hit piece on former CBS journalist Lara Logan by Jeremy Peters, who is the paper’s go-to reporter for criticism of conservative media figures: “Former Star At CBS News Follows Path To Far Right.

After introducing Logan as someone who had “reached the heights of American journalism….as the chief foreign affairs correspondent for CBS News,” he lamented “today Ms. Logan cuts a far different figure in American media. Instead of on national news broadcasts, she can be found as a guest on right-wing podcasts or speaking at a rally for fringe causes, promoting falsehoods about deaths from Covid vaccines and conspiracy theories about voter fraud.”

Peters characterized her supposed decline as “one of the most puzzling in the modern history of television news.” But more interesting than what Peters had to say about Logan was his assumptions about what a mainstream journalist is allowed to believe.

More than half a dozen journalists and executives who worked with Ms. Logan at “60 Minutes,” most of whom spoke anonymously to discuss private interactions with her, said she sometimes revealed political leanings that made them question whether she could objectively cover the Obama administration’s military and foreign policy moves. She appeared increasingly conservative in her politics over the years, they said, and more outspoken about her suspicions of the White House’s motives and war strategy.

Wasn’t it a requirement for any reputable journalist to be suspicious of the “White House’s motives and war strategy” when George W. Bush was president and the Iraq War was raging? Is doubting presidential motives only a problem when the president is a Democrat?

Waters made sure to hide the exact deeds that caused people to doubt her objectivity -- namely, she uncritically promoted the claims of a self-proclaimed first-person witness to the Benghazi attack who, it turned out, had told his employer he wasn't. Waters also censored her descent into Antifa conspiracy theories. And like his MRC co-workers, he played whataboutism to dismiss Logan's Nazi smear:

Peters noted Logan comparing Dr. Anthony Fauci to Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, which got Logan canned from Fox Nation. If we can agree that contemporary Hitler comparisons are bad, perhaps the media (including Times reporters) will stop comparing Republicans to Hitler or Nazis.

If Waters must resort to whataboutism, he can't possibly be sincere about ridding the world of Nazi comparisons.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:32 AM EDT
Updated: Saturday, June 25, 2022 9:34 AM EDT
WND Cheers Ruble's Value To Own Biden
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Art Moore was effective rooting against America and for Russia in a May 19 post:

The hard economic figures indicate President Biden's effort to crush the Russian economy in response to Moscow's invasion of Ukraine isn't working.

The ruble hit a four-year high this week.

In March, Biden touted the sanctions and other measures to punish Russia economically.

"You need 200 rubles to equal $1 today. Two hundred," he said.

The president said the "totality of our economic sanctions and controls are crushing, crushing the Russian economy."

Now, it takes about 62 rubles to equal $1.

As a dishonest reporter, Moore made sure not to report on why the ruble is doing so well. Meanwhile, an honest news outlet reported on why -- turns out it's being driven by Russia demanding that foreign companies still trading with it convert its currency to rubles -- which it can do because many countries have no easy substitute for Russian oil and gas -- as well as an initial ban on Russian citizen from transferring money abroad, which has since evolved to a $10,000 per month limit.Even so, Russia just barely managed to avoid a financial default with an 11th-hour bond payment.

While the ruble has continued to do well, financial experts say that's all artificial; one expert says the current exchange rate 'is really a Potemkin rate, because sending money from Russia abroad given the sanctions — both on Russian individuals and Russian banks — is incredibly difficult, not to mention Russia’s own capital controls."

The ruble is still a mess but the numbers currently look good, and that's all Moore cares about because hating Biden is more important than reporting facts. He doesn't see that rooting against America to own the libs is one reason his employer is going down the tubes.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:40 AM EDT
Updated: Saturday, June 25, 2022 12:43 AM EDT
Friday, June 24, 2022
MRC's Houck Cranks Up The Hate For Jean-Pierre
Topic: Media Research Center

After taking several days off around Memorial Day weekend, the Media Research Center's Curtis Houck was back in full denigrating form to attack new White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre with his overly quick narrative of incompetence in his hyperbolic (and Doocy-fluffing-filled) writeup of the May 31 briefing:

After K-Pop band BTS led Tuesday’s White House press briefing, economic adviser Brian Deese and Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre faced questions about the economy, gas prices, gun control, inflation, and student loans. In the case of Jean-Pierre, she continued using her briefing binder as a clutch.

Deese went first and dealt with mostly open-ended questions and softballs such as one from Team Biden potted plant Kelly O’Donnell of NBC about whether the recent pickup in administration outreach on the economy has been an “implicit...acknowledgement that you have not been telling the story of the economic picture in a way that has been satisfactory to the President.”


Things didn’t let up for the former MSNBC political analyst as it was Doocy Time, which began with a simple question:“Canada is making it impossible to buy, sell, transfer, or import handguns anywhere in that country. Would President Biden ever consider a similar restriction on handguns here?”

Jean-Pierre retreated to her notes and meandered about other gun control proposals (including Biden’s demand there be a “ban on the sale of assault weapons”) before insisting “[h]e does not support a ban on the sale of all handguns, to answer your question.”

Doocy moved onto gas prices and the fact that gas prices are now above the minimum wage. Predictably, Jean-Pierre insisted Biden knows what it’s like to struggle as ordinary Americans are currently (even though Biden’s been part of the D.C. elite since 1974) and, in response to a Doocy follow-up, Russia and Vladimir Putin are to blame[.]


Doocy wrapped with another basic question: “Does President Biden take any responsibility for his policies potentially contributing to inflation?”

Jean-Pierre replied with what could be described as reckless abandonment for basic grammar: “His policies has [sic] helped the economy gets back on its feet. That's what his policies has [sic] -- his policies has [sic] done.”

Houck continued to mock and insult Jean-Pierre the next day, as well as falsely putting words in President Biden's mouth:

Amid White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre’s worst press briefing yet as she faced questions Wednesday about the baby formula shortage, the economy, inflation, and presidential leadership, Bloomberg’s Justin Sink came from the left on abortion by twice wanting to know why Biden hasn’t made abortion more of a focus in his administration following the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion striking down Roe v. Wade.


Jean-Pierre replied that she didn’t “have anything to preview on his schedule, but the President is clear on this....that a woman has the right to make their own decisions when it comes to their own healthcare and their own health and their own reproductive rights.”

In other words, it’s that Biden supports abortion on-demand, up to the moment of birth.

Houck went full hate-blast for the June 1 briefing in order to fluff Doocy yet again for peddling right-wing narratives:

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre suffered the first of what could be many terrible, horrible, no good, very bad days as reporters from conservative and liberal outlets as well as the front and back of the room hammered away with questions about the baby formula shortage, inflation, and presidential leadership. For Jean-Pierre, she had little in the way of answers besides lengthy, pre-written notes she used as a heavy crutch.


Fox’s Peter Doocy cut to the chase:“[W]ho is the person, in the West Wing, who decided after six or eight weeks that this baby formula shortage was finally something that somebody should tell the President about?”

Obviously, Jean-Pierre didn’t answer and instead said she’ll need “to go back and talk to the President.” Following more meandering, Doocy moved to inflation: “When are you guys going to admit that you were wrong about inflation?”

A flustered Jean-Pierre then offered up this quip that went over like a lead balloon: “No easy questions today. Huh?”

Doocy persisted:“The Treasury secretary says that she was wrong. So why doesn’t anybody here at the White House?”

Jean-Pierre blamed supposedly unforseen events like COVID-19 and Russia, so Doocy gave her one more chance to give a different answer (which she didn’t): “Just so that I understand the treasury secretary says that she was wrong but the White House was not wrong about inflation.”

We again remind you that Houck had nothing but praise for McEnany's " binder of facts," meaning that Houck is being utterly hypocritical in criticizing Jean-Pierre for similarly using a binder.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:02 PM EDT
Updated: Friday, July 8, 2022 12:41 PM EDT
CNS Did Other Narrative-Pushing After Buffalo Massacre
Topic: defended the honor of the right-wing replacement theory after the racist Buffalo shooter invoked it in his manifesto, but that wasn't the only place it went into defense mode. A May 17 article by Susan Jones complaining that President Biden was going to Buffalo defended the theory without using its name (while also complaining that some critics wouldn't mention Fox News by name):

As some leftist pundits on cable television blame a rival conservative-leaning network for promoting racist "conspiracy theories," White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre on Monday refused to name names -- even when the reporter did.

Note that in Jones' world, the critics are "leftist" while Fox News is merely "conservative-leaning."

Melanie Arter served up a perfunctory stenography piece on Biden's appearance in Buffalo. Meanwhile, a May 19 article by Craig Bannister helped scandal-tarred lawyer Alan Dershowitz play whataboutism over the massacre by criticizing Democrats and non-white people, declaring that he said taht "Biden needs to take the next – and more difficult – step, by going to other cities and calling on Black leaders to denounce Black-on-Asian and Black-on-Jewish crime" and "In particular, Biden should also call out radical Democrats in Congress, like those who call themselves 'The Squad,' who represent 'bigotry, anti-Semitism and racism.'"

CNS also took a stab at sending its interns out to pester senators about the right-wing issue du jour. This this one, the question -- based on the fact that the Buffalo shooter and the one who perpetrated the massacre in Uvalde, Texas, were both 18 -- started out by asking: "Federal law sets the legal drinking age at 21. Should federal law also make 21 the legal age for buying guns?" These senators got that question:

But then, the question got flipped around: "Under federal law, a person can buy a rifle at 18, but can’t buy alcohol until they’re 21. Should the drinking age be lowered to 18?" These members got that question:

The interns didn't ask that question in either form after that, apparently deciding it didn't sufficiently serve right-wing narratives.

Posted by Terry K. at 6:58 PM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 8:05 PM EDT
WND's Kupelian Expands An Old Book Of His
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Back in 2005, WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian wrote a book called "The Marketing of Evil," in which he he used less-than-honest methods (one might even say evil) to promote his thoughts about how everything that isn't as right-wing and Christian as he is is "evil." He even used a synergystic relationship between WND and the right-wing legal group Alliance Defense Fund (now the Alliance Defending Freedom) to hype a legal case involving the book in an apparent effort to boost sales. Now the book is back and bigger (in size, anyway) than ever, as Kupelian explained in a May 20 article:

I’m pleased to announce that "The Marketing of Evil" has just been re-released in an expanded paperback edition including brand-new chapters explaining exactly how today’s truly unprecedented level of insanity, psychosis and evil has been skillfully sold to America.

In case you're unfamiliar with it, "The Marketing of Evil" essentially explains why and how so many millions of today's Americans have come to strongly embrace and defend ideas and behaviors that horrified every previous generation of Americans since its founding.


In the brand-new chapters, I dive right into the Trump and Biden eras, shining a bright light on the secret workings of today’s “marketers of evil” who figured out how to convince so many Americans that the least racist nation on earth is somehow actually the most racist, that Trump is comparable to Hitler, and so on. But even more fundamentally, I explore and document how the Left is able to brainwash huge numbers of people into believing – and acting on –  literally anything, no matter how obviously insane, destructive or evil.

This coming from a guy who has been brainwashed into supporting the corrupt and amoral Donald Trump -- thus violating the Christian principles he purports to uphold -- and uses the WND website to spread lies about election fraud designed to help Trump. Further, Kupelian's complaint about people likening Trump to Hitler -- something he has repeatedly whined about --is utterly hypocritical because he and WND spent eight years likening Barack Obama to Hitler and other various and sundry Nazi, and he in fact is the one who's guilty of doing "literally anything, no matter how obviously insane, destructive or evil" to try and destroy Obama, including eight years of lies about where he was born.And one need only to look at how WND is teetering on the brink of financial failure to see how Kupelian's falsehood-laden war on Obama ended up as blowback on him.

So, there's nothing really new there -- unless Kupelian confesses to his own hypocrisy, which is highly unlikely.

Also of note is where Kupelian's updated book is being published. It was originally published by WND's in-house book division, which went defunct early in the midst of WND's financial troubles (and, of course, that Paul Nehlen thing). The updated edition is being published by company called Republic Book Publishers, a house dedicated to right-wing tomes co-founded by longtime right-wing book publisher Alfred Regnery. According to Republic's website, it's also serving up a "revised and expanded" edition of Kupelian's 2015 book "The Snapping of the American Mind," which was also published by WND and, again, is unlikely to discuss the snapping of Kupelian's mind into a slavish Trump-bot. Republic has also picked up one more former WND title: "The Antidote" by Jesse Lee Peterson, a right-wing black guy who sounds like a white supremacist and has issues with women and Barack Obama and who apparently gone so far afield that he isn't even a WND columnist anymore.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:58 PM EDT
NEW ARTICLE: An MRC Writer Cashes In On His Transphobia
Topic: Media Research Center
Gabriel Hays' years of spewing anti-LGBT hate from his perch at the Media Research Center earned him a new job doing pretty much the same thing for Fox News. Read more >>

Posted by Terry K. at 1:11 AM EDT
Thursday, June 23, 2022
MRC Pushes Republican Playbook Downplaying Hearings On Capitol Riot
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center had its marching orders from the RNC or whatever dark-money right-wingers run the show: Pretend that the public hearings being put on by House committee looking into the Capitol riot are meaningless and biased, and conservatives should spend more time being fed right-wing propaganda instead of watching them. The flagship piece for this narrative was a June 6 item by Curtis Houck lashing out at non-right-wing outlets for covering the first hearing, which carried the desperate-sounding headline "No One Cares":

Amid a decaying culture, rampant crime, record-high inflation, struggling wages, and surging gas prices (among other things), Monday’s CBS Mornings and NBC’s Today want Americans to focus this week on a different issue: primetime hearings from the House Select Committee on January 6. On Monday’s shows, the two combined for five minutes and 37 seconds of coverage doing the bidding of their loyal source, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA).

CBS co-host Tony Dokoupil boasted that come Thursday, his fellow liberals are “promising to show Americans never-before-seen evidence of the most violent assault on the capitol in more than 200 years.”


NBC’s Today was also enthused at a pet project that matters little to those outside insufferably elite and liberal newsrooms and The Swamp.

A post the same day from Tim Graham complained that the committee made use of a former ABC News executive to help polish their presentation:

Now imagine if the Republicans stacked an investigative committee and then hired a Fox News president as an "unannounced adviser" for prime-time hearings. The liberal outlets would all scream that there's no difference whatsoever between the GOP and Fox. So, in this case, there's no difference whatsoever between Pelosi's hand-picked committee and ABC, and CBS, and CNN, and so on. ABC News apparently has no concern that Goldston's advising will hurt the image of ABC News.

Actually, the Trump administration did hire former Fox News executive Bill Shine as an adivser. Graham was mad that people pointed out that this revolving door showed just how tight Trump and Fox were.

Three days later, Alex Christy dismissed the hearings as a "made-for-TV spectacle" becaiuse of the ex-ABC executive's hiring. He didn't mention that Trump also hired a TV executive to help turn his administration into a made-for-TV spectacle.

A post by Kevin Tober groused that CNN's Brian Stelter pointed out that right-wing outlets Fox News and  Newsmax would not be airing the first hearing live despite the word "news" in their channels' names:

CNN and particularly Stelter always want to dictate what the rest of the media should or should not be covering. Why would Fox News cover a hearing where Republican congressional leadership’s appointments to the committee were rejected by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? 

Also the committee and their Democrat allies have repeatedly lashed out at Carlson and his network, so why would they give them airtime? Stelter doesn’t get to demand what Fox News puts on air.

Um, isn't the MRC's main job lashing out at non-right-wing media outlets for not covering things that advance right-wing agendas? Graham similarly played dumb in a June 6 podcast echoing Tober's Stelter-bashing.

The MRC did a lot of other whining about the hearings both before and after the first hearing:

And as usual, the MRC also tossed around agenda-driven ratings numbers. A June 10 post by Bill D'Agoistino cherry-picked numbers to portray the first hearing as a failure:

The preliminary broadcast network ratings are in for last night’s January 6 committee hearings, and they paint a disappointing picture for Democrats and their media pals.

Based on the most recent ratings data, January 6 hearing coverage on broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) drew significantly smaller audiences than those networks’ own evening newscasts generally do on a standard weekday. Evening newscast audiences on any given night last week were 1.6 times larger than the total number of broadcast viewers who tuned into the hearings on Thursday.


Perhaps CBS morning host Tony Dokoupil was right when he proclaimed on Friday morning: “Obviously, January 6 is the big story today.” But based on the numbers, it certainly wasn’t the big story last night.

Graham pushed the same talking point in his podcast that same day, sneering: "Democrats talked all the networks (except Fox News) into a breathless hearing (or retelling) of January 6. But it felt like a summer rerun."

Meanwhile, back in reality, the first hearing drew more than 19 million viewers across all channels that aired it, dwarfing Fox News' non-coverage.And Fox News was so afraid that viewers might be distracted enough to change channels to the hearing -- and, thus, learn that Fox News has been lying to them about the riot and the events (and bogus claims of election fraud) that led up to it -- that it didn't run any commercials while the hearing was on, costing it hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions in revenue.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:52 PM EDT
WND Ghouls Can't Stop Blaming People's Deaths On Clinton
Topic: WorldNetDaily

The "Clinton Body Count" -- a list of people tangentally associated with Bill and/or Hillary Clinton who have died, causing hate-filled right-wingers to tie their deaths to purported misdeeds by one or both of the Clintons -- was discredited a long time ago, well before we did an exploration of it way back in 2005. Unfortunately, the hatred at WorldNetDaily for all things Clinton is so virulent and irrational that it's no surprise to see it has insisted on perpetuating the bogus list for lo these many years. (It still hasn't apologized to its readers or to Seth Rich's family for cynically spreading lies about his death in 2016 in order to add him to the list.) And it's still adding to it today. Bob Unruh wrote in a June 6 article:

The family of a onetime Clinton family associate is working to keep concealed the circumstances of his recent death, adding fodder to the longtime suggestions that the "Clinton Body Count," as Wikipedia describes it, has risen again.

The death of Mark Middleton – he reportedly was found hanging from a tree in Arkansas with a shotgun blast to his chest – prompted the Daily Mail to say, "His death adds to the number of close associates of the former president and first lady who have died unexpectedly, many in small plane crashes. The phenomenon has led to a conspiracy theory called Clinton Body Count which even has its own Wikipedia page."

According to reports, Middleton was a Bill Clinton adviser who admitted Jeffrey Epstein to the White House at least seven times.

Now his family, including father Larry and widow Rhea, are fighting to keep photographs and other investigative content about his death away from the public.

They have filed for an injunction that alleges blocking the release would halt what they describe as "unsubstantiated conspiracy theories."

The reports so far have said the married father-of-two, who lived in Little Rock, Arkansas, shot himself at the Heifer Ranch in Perryville, a half hour's drive from his home.

The Middleton family's reason for hiding images of their loved one's suicide is abundantly clear: to keep ghouls likje WND and the Daily Mail from splaying them all over the internet solely because they still -- after 30 years -- are nursing a grudge against the Clintons and are still des[perate to destroy them efen if the lives of innocent people get damaged or destroyed.

Unruh went on to lovingly and ghoulishly detail the method of Middleton's death -- as if he gets some sort of sick pleasure from it -- and further hype the purported connection to Clinton and Epstein. Unruh also rehashed a WND from last year when it tried to add another name to the list. Unruh concluded:

The actual "list" of Clinton Body Count individuals now totals well over 30.

See the "Clinton Death List" here.

Middleton's name had not yet been added to the list, but that's presumbly coming.

Yep -- Unruh and WND are nothing but sick ghouls.

Posted by Terry K. at 5:51 PM EDT
Updated: Sunday, March 26, 2023 11:38 PM EDT
Newsmax Joined ConWeb Spin On Durham's Failure
Topic: Newsmax

Like the Media Research Center, WorldNetDaily and, Newsmax didn'dt take it well when its beloved biased special counsel John Durham's prosecution of Democratic lawyer Michael Sussman failed with him receiving a quick acquittal. A May 31 article by Eric Mack repeated Jonathan Turley's conspiracy theory that the jury was too liberal because the trial was held in Washington, D.C., as well as rantings from the MRC's Curtis Houck:

Special counsel John Durham thanked the Michael Sussmann jury for their service, but critics are blasting the Washington, D.C., judge and jury for the verdict Tuesday.

Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley denounced a stacked jury that delivered the verdict, including admitted donors to Hillary Clinton, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and even a woman whose daughter plays sports with the Sussmann's daughter.

"I mean, he is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team with Sussmann's daughter," Turley said in a video posted to Twitter. "With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury."


"Breaking: Ultra-liberal D.C. jury acquits their friend and former Hillary Clinton attorney for having concocted collusion between Donald Trump and Russia," Newsbusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck tweeted Tuesday.

Former federal prosecutor Brett Tolman said Americans should not be surprised a D.C. judge and jury followed the politics instead of the law.

As with his fellow ConWeb outlets, Mack did not mention that Durham had the opportunity to remove jurors he thought were biased during jury selection, and he also had the option to attempt to move the trial to a jurisdiction he thought could be more favorable to his prosecution.

An article by Sandy Fitzgerald turned to a Republican congresswoman to complain about the verdict:

Rep. Nancy Mace, speaking to Newsmax after a Washington, D.C., court's verdict that former Hillary Clinton-connected attorney Michael Sussmann was found not guilty of lying to the FBI, said she does not feel that special counsel John Durham or his prosecutors got their fair day in court, and that "no one is ever held accountable" for breaking laws.

"No one is ever held accountable in this country for breaking the law, particularly in the highest echelons of campaigns and the federal government," the South Carolina Republican said on Newsmax's "John Bachman Now." "It's inexcusable, really, and the frustration of the American people I'm sure will be palpable with this verdict. We just want someone, anyone, to be held accountable for the laws that they're breaking."

Speaking of politicians who haven't been held accountable for the laws they broke, Jay Clemons gave Donald Trump an article to rant about the verdict and other stuff. Clemons made no attempt to fact-check anything Trump said.

Dick Morris called in from bad take-ville for a June 1 column:

The acquittal of attorney Michael Sussmann by a Washington D.C. jury effectively means that no Democrat can ever be convicted of any crime involving corruption as long as the crime has political implications and the trial is before a D.C. jury.

We now have one-party justice in America.

Despite overwhelming evidence that he lied to the FBI, Sussmann was found not guilty by a jury filled with Democrats.

Hillary Clinton got 91% of the votes of the residents of Washington D.C. in 2016.

Biden got 95%, proving that the jury pools are so highly partisan there that they're  incapable of judging the facts and acting impartially in a criminal case involving political charges against prominent Democrats.

Since the Department of Justice (DOJ) is located in the nation's capital, this effectively means there is no way to hold Democrats responsible for their corrupt activities.

Morris went on to huff that "Defense attorneys must be allowed to successfully pursue motions to change venue" -- which ignores the rfact that Durham was the prosecutor, not the defense, and he apparently made no effort to seek a change of venue. He went on to ignore Sussmann's actual defense to assert that "The case against Sussmann was overwhelming" and "His perjury could not be more obvious."

Larry Bell used his June 3 column to rant about the purportedly biased jury, then praise Durham for advancing right-wing narratives:

Durham must have recognized slim odds in a Washington, D.C., court venue where 91% of the electorate voted for Hillary; presided over by an Obama-appointed judge whose attorney wife has represented related scandal compromised former FBI attorney Lisa Page; and with a jury with one member whose daughter is on a high school rowing team with Sussmann’s daughter and as many as three were Hillary Clinton donors — including one who also supported U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Whereas a small rodent was set free, we can safely bet that Durham’s larger plan was always to use the trial as means to release information already in his possession as bait to bag much larger game in upcoming indictments and hearings.

Horace Cooper sung from the same choirbook as his Newsmax compadres in his June 4 column:

The evidence presented at trial was overwhelming.

By many accounts, Michael Sussman had indeed lied to the FBI about his reasons for meeting with FBI general counsel James Baker.

He did so to cover up his part in an elaborate role to weaponize the FBI against candidate Donald Trump.

On the other hand, the trial, to use G. Gordon Liddy’s term, was "stacked and packed."

Several Clinton campaign donors were seated on the jury and the presiding judge, an Obama appointee, issued rulings that prohibited Durham’s case preventing him from showing how Sussman’s false statement fit in as part of a far larger narrative.

This greatly affected the trial’s outcome.


Jury nullification is a poison that having been unleashed by the left could harm everyone.

Regardless of political sympathies, our legal system works best when all citizens — whether in blue or red states — truly do their duty and not simply follow their political allegiances.

Cooper failed to point out that Durham could have tried to move the trial but apparently did not, and also that Durham could have done a better job of keeping allegedly biased jurors off the jury but also apparently did not.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:33 PM EDT
CNS Intern Writes Fake-News Article
Topic: summer intern Ben Kelley wrote in a June 6 article:

The Oak Park and River Forest High School in Chicago reportedly will change its grading system next year to “equitable grading,” an approach that eliminates such grading factors as class participation and turning homework in on time because underprivileged students may not be able to master those skills.

According to the school’s Strategic Plan, dated May 26, 2022, the school has found that “traditional grading practices perpetuate inequities and intensify the opportunity gap.” The presentation goes on to explain that teachers have begun implementing equitable grading practices such as “eliminating zeros from the grade book” and that the school “will continue the process necessary to make grading improvements that reflect our core beliefs.”

Supporters of “equitable grading,” such as educator Ken Shelton, claim it minimizes grading biases, which are “rooted in racism, anti-Blackness, sexism, transphobia, and ableism.” Critics, however, say “equitable grading” hurts students of color and “impede[s] their success as adults” – it is “bigotry of low expectations,” remarked Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.

As reported on May 30, 2022 by the West Cook News, “Oak Park and River Forest High School administrators will require teachers next school year to adjust their classroom grading scales to account for the skin color or ethnicity of its students.”

Just one problem: that's not true. The story was effectively manufactured by the West Cook News -- a anonymously written "pink slime" website run by right-wing dark-money operatives (the leader of which has his own shady journalistic history) posing as legitimate local news. As a legitimate news operation pointed out:

But the erroneous story cited no actual policy changes, and the school said in a statement that the claim is false. “OPRFHS does not, nor has it ever had a plan to, grade any students differently based on race,” the statement said.

The article instead mischaracterized a May 26 school Board of Education meeting, at which a committee focused on grading and assessment presented an initial report. The report noted at one point that “traditional grading practices perpetuate inequities and intensify the opportunity gap.”

At “no time were any statements made recommending that OPRF implement a race-based grading approach,” the school’s statement continued.

Bizarrely, Kelley violated journalistic ethics by waiting until the sixth paragraph of his story to explain that the previous five were false:

On May 31, following criticism of the school’s reported decision, the Oak Park and River Forest High School announced that a final decision to implement a race-based grading system had not been made.

The school said the West Cook News article contained “a variety of misleading and inaccurate statements,” and explained that before any grading changes are made they must first be “made to the Board at a public meeting.”

Kelley then tried to justify spreading this lie by adding: "So, although Oak Park and River Forest High School has not made a final decision, it is discussing and considering 'equitable grading.'"

Again: Despite the fact that the real story is that an secretive right-wing website spread a falsehood, Kelley spread the falsehood and downplayed the fact that it was false.

It's hard to know who to blame for this. This story was debunked a few days before Kelley's story was published, so there's basically no possible way he could not have known that.Which leaves two explanations: 1) Kelley knew the story was false and wrote it up anyway, and 2) Kelley was made to do a bogus story by his CNS overlords. Neither of which makes CNS look good.

If Terry Jeffrey and Co. are going to force interns to write stories they know are false, what exactly is the value of a CNS internship? It certainly has nothing to do with "news" -- it's all about forwarding right-wing narratives no matter their accuracy.

If CNS is knowingly publishing false stories, that's a black mark on the organization and a reason nobody should trust its work.

We've contacted CNS to give it a chance to respond to our concerns. We'll let you know if it responds.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:06 AM EDT
Updated: Thursday, June 23, 2022 2:32 PM EDT

Newer | Latest | Older

Bookmark and Share

Get the WorldNetDaily Lies sticker!

Find more neat stuff at the ConWebWatch store!

Buy through this Amazon link and support ConWebWatch!

Support This Site

« June 2022 »
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30

Bloggers' Rights at EFF
Support Bloggers' Rights!

News Media Blog Network

Add to Google