NEW ARTICLE: Bill Donohue's Year of Bad Takes Topic: CNSNews.com
The dishonest Catholic and CNSNews.com columnist spent 2022 spreading lies and misinformation about George Soros, Alfred Kinsey, a graphic novel about the Holocaust and more. Read more >>
MRC Can't Stop Its Musk-Fluffing Campaign Topic: Media Research Center
Ever since Elon Musk showed an interest in buying Twitter, the Media Research Center has effectively been his servile handmaiden, gushing over everything he does and defending him against all criticism -- even criticism the MRC itself leveled at him pre-Twitter. One of his chief defenders and stenographers, Autumn Johnson, kept up the narrative by attacking more critics in a Nov. 13 post:
The New York Times assembled a team of four technology reporters to pen a bizarre hit piece over the weekend targeting Tesla CEO Elon Musk and his apparently nauseating takeover of Twitter.
At least four Times writers contributed to an article of over 2,500 words slamming Musk’s recent changes at Twitter, one of which includes his promise that the platform would no longer unfairly censor conservatives.
It appeared on The Times's website Friday under the headline "Two Weeks of Chaos: Inside Elon Musk's Takeover of Twitter."
The article accused Musk of cruelly treating employees during the layoff process:
Johnson identified nothing inaccurate in the Times article. Instead, she moved into her usual hero-worship mode:
Much of the criticism Musk has received stems from his promise to promote free speech online and ensure that content moderation is fairly applied when needed.
Last week, NewsBusters reported that Musk reaffirmed his commitment to free speech while not magnifying hate speech in an online meeting with investors.
“We have to be tolerant of views we don’t agree with, but those views don’t need to be amplified,” he said.
Catherine Salgado ignored that too, instead proudly proclaiming Musk as the chief mocker in a Nov. 14 post and that others need a sense of humor:
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) might need to develop a sense of humor after Twitter owner Elon Musk mocked him on his newly-acquired platform.
The Democrat [sic] Senator threatened Musk’s companies with a congressional investigation after a reporter got a fake account of the senator verified on Musk’s new blue check Twitter program.
Markey wrote a letter. That drew a jab from Musk that the senator’s real account was already like a parody.
Rather than admit that Musk's blue-check pay scheme was a failiure, Salgado stayed in PR mode, declaring that "It turns out Markey is angry that anyone, not just high-profile leftists, can now be verified on Twitter for only $8 a month."
Gabriela Pariseau cheered in a Nov. 15 post that climate misinformation -- which she dishonestly framed as "climate discussion" -- was spreading on Twitter:
Oh, the horrors of climate denialists having actual free speech online!
So say the climate doomsday propagandists.
French wire service Agence France-Presse (AFP) wrote a piece complaining about an alleged “surge in misinformation” on Twitter since Elon Musk became the platform’s owner. AFP pointed to the trending #ClimateScam which was the first search suggestion when a user searched the word “climate” on Tuesday morning.
But the outlet’s liberty-bashing incidentally highlighted Musk’s commitment to allowing free speech on Twitter, including speech he might not fully agree with.
AFP asserted that the top tag on Twitter “#ClimateScam” is evidence of “a rise in misinformation following Elon Musk's takeover of the platform.” But the outlet made no mention of any specific tweets and made no effort to refute any specific examples of misinformation that are allegedly running rampant on the platform.
Instead, the outlet cited unnamed “analysts,” “campaigners,” “researchers,” a report by the megadonor George Soros-funded Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and far-left group Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD).
AFP neglected to mention that Musk has repeatedly shown he cares about the environment and that environmental protection is one of his key focus areas.
Pariseau didn't how CAAD's exposure of climate disinformation is somehow a "far-left" endeavor. Instead, there was even more Musk-gushing: "Musk's nuanced ideas on the environment and energy show the need for open and robust debate and they appear to reflect the wide array of ideas the 'Chief Twit' allows on Twitter."
A Nov. 16 post by Johnson noted that CBS News had suspended posting on Twitter due to the "uncertainty around Twitter" (though she updated to note that CBS resumed posting two days later), going on to whine that "leftist advocacy group Accountable Tech and other progressive groups demanded that corporations pull their ads from Twitter." And a Nov. 20 post by Mark Finkelstein complained MSNBC's Yasmin Vossoughian argued that Musk's reign of chaos "is kind of the beginning of the end of Twitter," going on to huff: "In a no-good-deed-goes-unpunished moment, Vossoughian was very unimpressed by Musk's decision not to allow Alex Jones to return to Twitter." Of course, that's actually just an extremely low bar, given that even Finkelstein is demanding that Jones' account be restored.
Another Nov. 20 post, by Johnson, complained that "several Senate Democrats wrote a letter asking the Federal Trade Commission to investigate new Twitter CEO Elon Musk’s major changes at the platform," adding the pro-Musk spin that the senators are claiming that "Musk’s pro-free speech changes, one of which includes ending unfair censorship, are 'alarming'."
After playing up Republican talking points and nitpicking President Biden in the runup to the midterm elections, Election Day finally came on Nov. 8 -- and CNSNews.com was still pushing Republican narratives. Susan Jones set up the narrative regarding "election integrity" and election fraud -- suggesting that results that aren't complete on the night of the election may be fraudulent -- in a Nov. 7 article, while taking her usual partisan shots at Biden:
President Biden has said this, and his press secretary repeated it on Monday: It may take a few days to determine the outcome of some close, or legally challenged, elections.
In Pennsylvania, for example, lawsuits already have been filed over thousands of absentee ballots that were not properly dated, and which therefore must not be counted, by order of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Democrat Senate candidate John Fetterman has joined a lawsuit challenging the court ruling.
Jean-Pierre said President Biden has a "full schedule" at the White House on this Election Day. "As I previously said, we expect the President will address the elections the day afterwards. And when we have details on the timing of that, we of course will share it with all of you," she said.
In response to a follow-up question, Jean-Pierre said, "You’re going to hear from the President. He always enjoys taking your questions. [Clearly, he does not.]
On Election Day Nov. 8, first up was Craig Bannister, who complained:
The White House said that the results of Tuesday’s midterm elections aren’t supposed to be known immediately after Election Day and, in several states, they won’t, news reports reveal.
On Monday, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre repeated President Joe Biden’s prediction that election results won’t be finalized on time, this year, adding that “that’s how this is supposed to work”:
This was followed by an article by Micky Wootten complaining that "the Department of Justice announced that it would be sending poll monitors to 64 jurisdictions across 24 states 'to monitor compliance with federal voting rights laws.'" Another article by Bannister hyped Republican claims that monitoring those elections amounds to intimidation:
Florida and Missouri have told the U.S. Justice Department that they will not allow the DOJ to violate their state laws by going through with its plan to deploy election monitors to their states.
Missouri’s Secretary of State has said that his state will not allow federal agents to illegally intimidate voters,CNN reports:
Missouri law empowers local election authorities to dictate who may be at polling locations.
Florida has also notified the DOJ it would be illegal for it to intervene in the state’s elections.
Bannister didn't cite which laws in those states explicitly forbade federal election monitors -- nor did he mention that the monitors would be there to check compliance with federal laws, not state laws.
Bannister didn't mention that just the day before, CNS had quoted RNC chair Ronna McDaniel declaring that "poll watching is not intimidating" and hyping how "We have poll watchers everywhere. We have 100% coverage," let alone why GOP monitors are OK and federal ones are "illegal."
CNS even made time for some last-minute pro-GOP stenography on Election Day. Melanie Arter wrote:
Despite the White House’s warning that election results may take days to be determined, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) predicted that we’ll know tonight the fate of the House and Senate and gubernatorial races.
“We're going to know these results tonight, and we are seeing historic turnout. I will tell you in my district in upstate New York, and that bodes very well for statewide tickets like Lee Zeldin. We are seeing Democrats underperform consistently, when it comes to early vote numbers, but I expect results tonight. I expect results when it comes to winning back the House as well as the U.S. Senate and our gubernatorial races,” she told Fox Business’ “Mornings with Maria Bartiromo.”
“Democrats have been tone-deaf. So has the mainstream media but the good news is the voters in this country are smarter than the mainstream media biased media, which is why the voters and the American people are going to save this country, and it’s why we have states like New York, Oregon Washington state. We have an opportunity to have once-in-a-generation Republican wins,” she said.
Arter shilled for a GOP candidate that day as well:
Arizona GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters promised Tuesday to grind President Biden’s agenda to a halt until he secures the southern border.
“We bear the blunt of this crisis, but the reality is Joe Biden and Mark Kelly and their open borders policies, they've turned every county, not just in Arizona, but every county in America, into a border county,” Masters told Fox Business’ “Mornings with Maria Bartiromo.”
Masters said that the GOP plans to “bear hug” Biden’s administration and send them a message that nothing gets through unless he actually secures the border.
When asked what he plans to do to stop the flow of fentanyl through the southern border, the congressman said, “Well, by taking back Congress, right. We are going to send Biden a message. We’re going to bear hug his whole administration. I’m going to grind his agenda to a halt unless and until we get border security.
“I’m not going to vote for a thing, not a single thing, not a continuing resolution, not a single appointee unless Joe Biden actually does something to secure our border. That’s the leverage that one senator has. It’s the leverage that Mark Kelly has had for the last 20 months. Remember we had a 50-50 Senate,” Masters said.
As usual, Arter didn't allow anyone to respond to Stefanik or Masters.
Even Pat Buchanan -- whose presidential campaigns CNS editor Terry Jeffrey worked for in 1992 and 1996 -- got on the GOP talking points bandwagon in his Nov. 8 column:
Which brings us to what the election is really all about: the failure of a regime, and of the president, party and philosophy steering that regime.
"Democracy" is not on the ballot. What is on the ballot is a huge slice of the leadership and ruling class of the national Democratic Party, which is not the same thing.
What is being decided by the ballots this election season is the verdict of the nation on a president who has failed, a party that has failed, and a political philosophy that has failed.
Democracy has not failed America. The reigning Democrats have failed America. And their desperate leaders are urging us to equate their party's defeat and repudiation with a rejection of our political system.
If we lose the election to these Republicans, Democratic leaders have been telling America, it is because the American people preferred fascism to democracy.
This is the Big Lie of 2022.
Biuchanan didn't say what it would mean if voters decided that Biden and the Democrats weren't the failures he insists they are and rejected Republicans at the ballot box.
Bannister also touted how Republican Rep. (and CNS fave) Jim Jordan, speaking at an election-eve rally in Ohio being held by Donald Trump, declared that "Americans need to embrace three 'words of action' from the Bible" -- though, in true bipartisan fashion, he dinged Jordan for inaccurately paraphrasing the Bible quote Jordan referenced.
MRC Lashes Out At Chrissy Teigen, Tries To Redefine Abortion As A Thought Crime Topic: Media Research Center
Model Chrissy Tiegen stated in September that the miscarriage she had two years ago was actually an abortion done because neither she nor the fetus would survive the pregnancy. The Media Research Center tried to exploit her tragedy when it happened, and now it's lashing out at ner anew. Tierin-Rose Mandelburg -- the MRC's anti-abortion obsessive who wants to create an Orwellian surveillance state to monitor pregnant women lest they cross state lines to have an abortion -- spent a Sept. 16 post having a fit over her change in terminology. She went on to declare that abortion was essentially a thought crime dependent upon the intentions behind the procedure (even though they are medically the same), then launched into her usual anti-abortion talking points:
Abortion is the intentional termination of a pregnancy. Miscarriages happen unintentionally.
Now, unironically right before election season, Teigen's story shifted. She claimed that she had an abortion to save her life and that it was her only chance.
That’s a lie that so many people believe.
The truth is that abortion never saves lives, instead, it ends at least one, each time it is successful. It is tragic in every case, but Teigen did have a miscarriage, she didn’t intend to kill her child.
LifeNews presented a quote from Dr. Ingrid Skop, an OB-GYN to clarify what appears to have happened.
“In these cases, the purpose of delivery is not to kill the fetus, as in elective abortion, but to save the life of the mother and the life of the fetus, or to save the life of at least one of them,” Skop said.
“However, abortion activists have attempted to blur these details to make it seem that pro-lifers do not care about women’s lives. Perhaps that is why Teigen now believes her miscarriage was an abortion,” LifeNews commented.
Teigen’s new testimony is encouraging people to believe that states with pro-life laws will not allow a procedure like hers to happen. That’s not true. Even in states with life-saving laws, if a mother is in imminent danger, doctors are allowed to assist.
In fact, many anti-abortion laws are so vague to the point of being unclear under exactly what conditions an aboriton is permitted -- with the presumed intent of scaring doctors away from performing them even if medically justified.
An abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. Unless you believe that a pregnancy should never be deliberately ended — and few people do — abortion should be treated as what it is: a medical procedure.
And yet, because we hear so often that abortions are acts of thoughtlessness, selfishness or cruelty, people find it hard to acknowledge that abortion can be a medical necessity or to call tragedies such as Teigen’s by the correct name.
If those choosing abortion wish desperately that they didn’t have to — if they grieve for their lost baby — then, people seem to think, it couldn’t be an abortion.
I guess if you believe an abortion is always morally wrong, the idea that it could be clearly morally right simply does not compute. It must be something else!
Sorry — still simply the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.
And right-wingers have made it clear that abortion providers will be harrassed even if they performed a perfectly legal procedure, as the state of Indiana's persecution of (and the MRC's own attacks on) Caitlin Bernard for performing a legal abortion on a 10-year-old girl demonstrates.
Instead of trying to fix her logical flaw, Mandelburg instead accused Tiegen of changing her story for political gain (as well a spouting more anti-abortion talking points):
Teigen is either intentionally lying to the public to further popularize the fallacy that “abortion is healthcare” or she is just unaware. She’s simply trying to use her influence and platform to repeat liberal talking points.
Side note: It’s important to recognize that regardless of what Teigen calls what happened to her, miscarriage or abortion, she confirmed that what she was carrying was a child and that her child had value. That should be the takeaway, not that abortion is “healthcare” but rather that every single child, in and out of the womb has intrinsic value and the right to live.
Teigen's story is heartbreaking and their family is in desperate need of prayer over the grievance of losing their child Jack, but that doesn’t mean that she should use his tragic death to push a political agenda.
That’s a new low.
Does Mandelburg think her attacks on Tiegen for explaining the reality of her situation, done to push a political agenda, is a "new low" for her?
I am not ashamed to call myself a conspiracy theorist. It's one of the few things I disagree with Steve Bannon about. He is famous for saying that "there are no conspiracies but there are no coincidences" as a way to deflect the "conspiracy theorist" accusation from the deep staters – but in reality conspiracies are so common in human affairs that they make up a big part of every criminal court docket in every courtroom in America.
People conspire together in every conceivable way for every conceivable reason, everywhere, every day. And the people who presumably conspire together most often and most consequentially are those whose burning passion in life is to maximize their own wealth and power by controlling the world around them. The higher up the power-pyramid they go, the more conspiratorial they become, and the more likely they are to accomplish what they conspire to do. Somewhere near the top are reprobates like Bill Gates and George Soros and Klaus Schwab whose every waking act and thought (and vast resources) are devoted to enslaving humanity to their personal agendas.
So common and so consequential are the conspiracies operating all around us that considering the potential conspiratorial angles of every political/social/cultural event and news story should be a standard part of every person's analysis. And every self-respecting analyst at every level should routinely push back against the elites' conspiracy to define "conspiracy theorizing" as foolishness.
That doesn't mean we should accept every theory as fact. Far from it. But we should always consider the factors raised by the theorists along with every other bit of data we can gather in our relentless pursuit of objective truth. Truth is always our best defense against political/social/cultural manipulation and enslavement.
Here's a conspiracy theory I haven't seen anywhere, but I think deserves consideration.
Suppose the open-borders strategy of the elites is not actually for the purpose of bringing in low-cost labor for the American corporations and padding the Democratic voter rolls, but is instead a plan to sucker millions of military-aged young men from Central and South America (and elsewhere) into the clutches of the American war machine in preparation for their use as cannon-fodder in World War III? Chew on that for a moment while I ask some simple questions that challenge the current narrative on the right.
Frankly, I don't think very many Americans will be keen on the idea of a draft, which means if we have one, it might not even be called a draft. They might just tweak the definition and the methodology (like they did with the "vaccine" rollout) and draft just the immigrants into military service while calling it something else. Or perhaps not. They shoved the election coup and the lockdowns down our throats. Maybe they'll just straight-out draft everybody, including our own native sons, and insist that we agree its for our own good.
Again, like I say so often these days, I hope I'm wrong. Please, God, let me be wrong.
MRC Slow To Restart Defense Of Walker for Runoff Topic: Media Research Center
It seemed that even the Media Research Center was getting tired of having to defend Herschel Walker before the midterm elections. We've already noted its tepid complaint about too much "negative" coverage of Walker, but it started petering out shortly after it had to defend him over another abortion scandal. Indeed, the only major defense it attempted was in a Nov. 5 post by Mark Finkelstein complaining that MSNBC's Joe Scarborough criticized "black Republican" Walker as lacking "the capacity" to be a senator: "The way Scarborough stumbled and and sighed before claiming Walker lacks 'the capacity' to serve suggested that Joe realized he was getting into dangerous territory. But he decided to go there." And even then, Finkelstein didn't try to counter it.
With no candidate getting a majority in the Georgia Senate race, it was set to to to a runoff between Walker and MRC-detested Democrat Raphael Warnock. A Nov. 14 post by Brad Wimouth was reduced to complaining about a slavery reference:
Several times on Saturday, CNN demonstrated its inability to grasp fact as well as its fixation on racial issues that strained for a reason to discuss slavery within topics you wouldn't expect it. Previewing the upcoming Georgia runoff between Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock and Republican nominee Herschel Walker, correspondent Nadia Romero tried to tie the runoff system to slavery.
She first raised the topic at 8:03 a.m. Eastern during an appearance on CNN This Morning Weekend: “So let's talk about the runoff elections in Georgia as a whole. Usually, you see these runoff elections happening in the South -- in the Bible Belt -- in states that were formerly slave-owning states. And that is why so many people, including the Georgia NAACP, say that there is a racist element to why we have runoff elections as a total.”
But her tracing of the system back to the Reconstruction era of the late 1800s was contradicted two years ago by NBC News correspondent Priscilla Thompson, who recalled that the system was devised in the 1960s after the Supreme Court ruled against previous tactics in limiting black power.
And if the system is inherently racist and meant to penalize the party black Georgians predominantly support (Democrats), then Romero should be asked if it was racist that then-incumbent Senator David Purdue (R) won the initial 2020 vote but later lost the seat due to a runoff stemming from his inability to hit 50 percent.
It's a sign of how much of a non-person Perdue became in Republican circiles after losing that Wilmouth couldn't be bothered to spell his name correctly.
Having finally recovered from its exhaustion, the MRC became ready to defend Walker anew for the runoff. Geoffrey Dickens served up another so-called study on Nov. 17 complaining about an alleged coverage disparity:
The double-standard is atrocious. The Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) evening newscasts have almost completely buried Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock’s child support scandal, spending only 11 seconds on it since September 1.
In stark contrast, the network evening newscasts (September 1 - November 16) flooded their airwaves (36 minutes, 21 seconds) with stories of women accusing his GOP opponent Herschel Walker of paying for abortions. That’s almost 200 times more coverage to the Walker story than the Warnock scandal.
On Tuesday, Warnock’s ex-wife Oulèye Ndoye requested that a court compel the Georgia Senator to face questioning over child custody. Ndoye has also accused Warnock of failing to properly pay child care expenses. Despite the issue being brought up in the October 14 Walker-Warnock debate the evening newscasts mostly looked the other way.
With the two Senate candidates headed for a run-off the evening newscasts have a new opportunity to actually cover Warnock’s family problems but judging on their past coverage, viewers shouldn’t hold their breath waiting for it.
Dickens didn't explain why he's demanding coverage of a minor child-support squabble when he and his stauchly anti-abortion co-workers have refused to criticize Walker's penchant for handing out abortions like candy. Nor did he explain why these stories are in any way equivalent.
Farah's WND Cheers Trump Trashing His Daughter Topic: WorldNetDaily
It appears that the relationship between WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah and his daughter, Alyssa Farah Griffin, remain strained over his continued support for the corrupt, lying election denier Joseph Farah -- to the point that the elder Farah is allowing the website he runs to trash her. Joe Kovacs wrote in an Oct. 24 WND article:
Former President Donald Trump is blasting his own previous communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin, urging her firing as co-host of ABC's political talk show "The View."
"Alyssa Farah totally misrepresented her true feelings about me and the Trump Administration in order to get her job at ratings disaster CNN, and a seat with the low IQ people at The View," Trump said on Truth Social.
"Look at what she said about me, and that doesn't include the beautiful letter she sent and other statements she made. They should fire her for misrepresentation or fraud. Release the letter, Alyssa!"
Trump included a string of high praise tweets from Farah Griffin in December 2020, as she said it was "an honor of a lifetime to serve in the Trump Administration" for three and a half years.
It wasn't until the final paragraph of his article that Kovacs served up some disclosure: "Farah Griffin is the daughter of Joseph Farah, the co-founder of WND who has been a strong supporter of Trump since his successful run for the presidency in 2016."
We can assume that Kovacs never bothered to obtain comment from Farah Griffin. He could have obtained comment from his boss on why he's allowing Kovacs to write this story attacking his daughter -- but he did not. Apparently, Farah believes that letting Kovacs pen this article is a sufficient statement.
It's sad to see Farah split his family apart over his insistence being a Trump dead-ender. But given that he's prepared to allow his WND to die on the cross of fake news and conspiracy theories instead of fixing the problems that have led it to its impending demise.
CNS Complains About LGBTQ Club At Jewish College Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com doesn't appear to have anyone who's Jewish on staff (they're more Catholic than the pope, remember?), but they do hate LGBTQ people, so it got involved over a controversy over an LGBTQ club at a Jewish college. Managing editor Michael W. Chapman (an LGBTQ-hater extraordinaire) wrote in a Sept. 14 article:
Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, issued an "emergency stay" to Yeshiva University on Sept. 9, allowing it to stop the creation of an official "Pride Alliance" student club at the 135-year-old Jewish institution of higher education.
New York County Supreme Court Judge Lynn Kotler had ruled in June that Yeshiva University must allow YU Pride Alliance, otherwise the school would be in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law, which prohibits discrimination by public entities.
In its request to the U.S. Supreme Court, the university said, "As a deeply religious Jewish university, Yeshiva cannot comply with that order because doing so would violate its sincere religious beliefs about how to form its undergraduate students in Torah values." Yeshiva contends that a pro-LGBT student club violates its religious liberty under the First Amendment.
At the school, students study the Talmud, a series of laws for Jewish living, up to four hours a day. The students dress and behave in accordance with Torah values, and "the entire undergraduate experience is designed to form students in the Jewish faith," said the university in its request to the court.
The next day, CNS published a column by dishonest Catholic Bill Donohue whining that Catholic college aren't following Yeshiva's example in hating their LGBTQ students:
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a “stay” stopping a New York trial court from ordering Yeshiva University to approve an LGBT student group on campus; Yeshiva is an Orthodox Jewish university that seeks to adhere to the Torah.
This raises the question: How are Catholic colleges and universities dealing with the LGBT agenda?/p>
There are approximately 230 Catholic institutions of higher education in America, and according to New Ways Ministry, a dissident Catholic group that rejects the Church’s teachings on sexuality, more than 130 have yielded, in one way or another, to LGBT demands. Here are 10 examples.
Pope Francis has addressed the fiction that we can change our sex, calling it gender ideology. He has specifically said that it is “demonic.”
It would be instructive to know what the presidents of these queer-friendly Catholic colleges and universities would do if they learned that these LGBTQIA+ organizations held a forum to denounce the pope for his remarks.
None of what these Catholic schools are doing is required by law—Title IX provides for religious exemptions. It is all voluntary. This is the state of Catholic higher education in America today.
An Oct. 25 article by intern Lauren Shank hyped Yeshiva's creation of an alternate LGBTQ club it could control:
Although Yeshiva University continues its legal battle against YU Pride Alliance, an unofficial student group at the flagship Jewish university, its administration has approved a new organization, the Kol Yisrael Areivim Club for LGBTQ undergraduates, a traditional Orthodox alternative that is grounded in Halacha and Torah values.
In an Oct. 24 press release, the school said, “Yeshiva University, America’s flagship Jewish university, today announced a new initiative grounded in Halacha and Torah values to support its LGBTQ undergraduates, including strengthening its on-campus support services and endorsing a new student club that presents an approved traditional Orthodox alternative to YU Pride Alliance.”
Regarding student clubs and the current lawsuit, the university provided answers to frequently asked questions on its website, including why the institution created a new club rather than implementing an LGBTQ club that is already present on other campuses.
“Our efforts to formulate a Torah framework to provide our LGBTQ students with profound support is driven by our deep commitment to them and recognition that those who choose to attend an orthodox university come with a different set of expectations and navigate different challenges than those in a typical secular college setting,” part of the answer said.
“Pride Alliance is a recognized movement in colleges throughout the country that not only fights anti-LGBTQ discrimination, a cause which we fully support, but also promotes activities that conflict with Torah laws and values,” said the university. “While an adoption of this national brand is inherently unacceptable in the context of Yeshiva, we also realize the need to find additional ways to be supportive of our students that are consistent with Halacha and inspired by our values."
“That is what we have done with the approval of this new student club,” said the school. “It is worth noting that this approach is in line with other devout faith-based universities nationwide, who similarly do not host Pride Alliances but have established clubs consistent with their own faith-based languages and traditions.”
Shank censored criticism of the school's creation of the club. The YU Pride Alliance called the club a "desperate stunt" and that the school did not consult students in its creation. And it turns out the club doesn't even actually exist; while the school called it a club, all that has actually happened so far is just establishment of a framework that may lead to a club.
NEW ARTICLE: The Trump Stenographers At Newsmax Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax not only published numerous fawning articles on Donald Trump's rallies (while cleaning up after his mistakes that it couldn't ignore completely), it gushed over the candidates he endorsed in Republican primaries. Read more >>
MRC's Jean-Pierre-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch, Non-Doocy Edition Topic: Media Research Center
After lazily taking much of October off -- presumably to recharge the ol' hate machine -- the Media Research Center got back into the Karine Jean-Pierre-hating, Fox News-fluffing swing of things. Kevin Tober maliciously trashed Jean-Pierre yet again as an incompetent diversity hire in his writeup of the Nov. 7 briefing:
Proving once again that she was only hired so the Biden administration could fill their diversity quota, President Biden’s press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre struggled through another painful and cringeworthy press conference where she had difficulty stringing coherent sentences together in order to answer simple questions from reporters in the briefing room.
Jean-Pierre’s troubles began when Fox News White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich asked her about Biden looking to hide from the press and not hold a post-midterm news conference as every President has for decades.
Addressing Biden’s refusal to commit to holding a post-election news conference, Heinrich said “An outside observer might conclude that he doesn’t want to have a press conference because he looks poised to lose control of one or both chambers.”
She then asked, “why the day before the midterms won’t the White House commit to holding that traditional post-midterms press conference the day after the elections?”
“You’ve been covering this administration for the past 20 months right?” Jean-Pierre nastily replied. She then made the laughable excuse that “it takes some time in any administration to lay out what the schedule is going to be.”
“I've been very clear. You're going to hear from the President. He always enjoys taking your questions,” she added.
The incoherent press secretary’s next struggle session with the English language came during a question from CBS News digital’s Kathryn Watson who asked about Biden’s comments over the weekend where he said he wanted to shut down the coal industry and Jean-Pierre’s insistence the President’s words were “twisted” by Republicans or others who are hostile to Biden.
“You mentioned a couple times or repeated, a couple times today that those words were twisted. So w>“It’s how it was reported out was being twisted,” Jean-Pierre responded. “If you read the full transcript, the President was very clear. Commenting on a fact of economics and technology,” she added.
Last but not least, Real Clear Politics White House reporter Phillip Wegmann sought clarification on Biden’s intentions when it comes to the coal industry. Wegmann asked Jean-Pierre, “you said that the President is fighting for coal communities. But just to follow up, that doesn't mean that he's fighting to keep these coal mines open. Does it?”
Jean-Pierre, in broken English, claimed Biden “has put forward plans that are bringing new energy and manufacturing jobs to states, like West Virginia, to states like Pennsylvania,” and that “he has secured critical investment through the Inflation Reduction Act to support coal communities, as well.”
Curtis Houck found a different Fox News reporter to fawn over in his writeup of the Nov. 10 briefing:
After Bloomberg’s Jenny Leonard asked President Biden on Wednesday afternoon about whether he thinks Twitter boss Elon Musk is a national security threat, CBS’s Weijia Jiang and Fox’s David Spunt followed up during Thursday’s White House press briefing and whether Biden actually meant that and how that’d square with his campaign promise to have an independent Justice Department (DOJ).
Spunt was far more aggressive, using a rare pinch-hit appearance in the Briefing Room to point out that CFIUS involves the Justice Department and thus would mean Biden yet again meddled in the DOJ process like he has with January 6 subpoenas[.]
Spunt also tucked in a question about COVID-19 origins and whether Biden would bring that up with Chinese President Xi Jinping at next week’s G-20, especially considering that’s something Republicans would look to investigate if they take control of Congress.
Jean-Pierre hilariously claimed Biden “has always been clear on getting to the bottom of COVID,” but wouldn’t commit to having them discuss it.
Remember: for the MRC, it's all about gushing over right-wing reporters being jerks and finding new ways to denigrate Jean-Pierre.
CNS found a variation on that theme -- bash Obama for using the second person! An anonymously written Nov. 2 article asserted:
Former President Barack Obama gave a speech in North Las Vegas, Nevada on Tuesday night to support candidates in that state and in his speech had a moment where he repeatedly stated the word “your.”
“You know, Cousin Pooki,” said Obama at one point in the speech as recorded in a CSPAN video.
“You know, your, your, ah, your, you know, your, your, you know, your, your, your, your Nephew Cesa,” said Obama.
“They’re planning. They tell you they are going to vote, but they’re on their couch playing a video game. You got to talk to them,” said Obama.
While the article is anonymous, it was almost certainly written by editor Terry Jeffrey, who spearheaded CNS' Obama word obsession during his presidency. No explanation was provided as to why CNS considered this worthy of devoting a "news" story to.
MRC Does Stenography For RNC In Partisan Attack On Google Topic: Media Research Center
Earlier this year, we documented how the Media Rsearch Center falsely misrepresented a study, claiming that it showed Google's Gmail was exhibiting bias by sending more Republican campaign emails to the spam filter than Democratic emails -- but largely censored the fact that any purported bias goes away when users adjust their spam settings to receive those emails. Despite how misleading it is, it has become a full-blown right-wing narrative, and the Republican National Committee has decided to play along. Brian Bradley served as the RNC's stenographer in an Oct. 3 post:
The Republican National Committee told MRC Free Speech America on Monday that Gmail suppressed over 22 million GOP get-out-the-vote and fundraising emails Wednesday through Friday.
Gmail sent more than 3.1 million RNC emails to users’ spam filters on Wednesday, more than 9.8 million emails to spam on Thursday and nearly 10 million emails on Friday, the RNC said.
“We’re 40 days out from Election Day, we do not have any new transparency from Google,” the RNC wrote in an emailed statement. “We have raised this issue with Google for months with no resolution. On top of it all, our emails have been suppressed despite concrete changes that have improved overall performance.”
This comes more than a month after the FEC approved a Google pilot program to supposedly remove political spam bias from the email provider’s email filter, following widespread outcry among Republican politicians and political organizations.
A March North Carolina State University study exposed that Gmail marked 67.6 percent of right-leaning candidates’ emails as spam and just 8.2 percent of left-leaning candidates’ emails as spam.
In fact, the NC State researchers pointed out that right-wing partisans like the MRC have misrepresented the study's findings, adding that any blocking occurred only in default settings on newly created accounts and that users are free to tweak their spam settings to receive any email they want. One researcher even said: "Gmail isn’t biased like the way it’s being portrayed. ... I’m not advocating for Gmail or anything. I’m just stating that when we take the observation out of a study, you should take all of the observations, not just cherry-pick a few and then try to use them."
But instead of publishing what the researchers actually said, Bradley simply parroted Republican attacks on Google. Bradley also did not provide a link to any RNC data that supports its partisan conclusions, though he embedded two graphs that are too small to see what they are actually of. He also touted how "GOP party leadership is reportedly exploring unspecified 'legal options' to end Google’s 'clear pattern of bias.'"
When the RNC did launch that legal action, Bradley returned as stenographer again in an Oct. 24 post:
The Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit Friday asking a California court to require Google to stop sending hordes of Republican politicians’ campaign emails to Gmail users’ spam folders.
The RNC alleged seven counts against Google in its lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, including violation of California’s common carrier law, unfair competition, discrimination and negligence.
The committee is seeking a judgment that Google’s political email spam practices are illegal, an order banning Google from spamming RNC’s emails to supporters, and compensatory damages.
Google has pushed “millions of RNC emails en masse to potential donors’ and supporters’ spam folders during pivotal points in election fundraising and community building,” the lawsuit alleges.
Bradley again misrepresented the results of the NC State study, andhe gave space to more right-wing activists. It wasn't until the 14th paragraph of his item that Bradley bothered to include a response from Google:
In a statement Monday to MRC Free Speech America, Google denied any actions to filter emails based on political affiliation.
“As we have repeatedly said, we simply don't filter emails based on political affiliation,” Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said in a statement to MRC Free Speech America. “Gmail’s spam filters reflect users’ actions. We provide training and guidelines to campaigns, we recently launched an FEC-approved pilot for political senders, and we continue to work to maximize email deliverability while minimizing unwanted spam.”
But that's only two paragraphs of an 18-paragraph article. The rest are spent attacking Google -- ironic given how much energy the MRC expends complaining about alleged bias in other media outlets.
UPDATE: We found even more Republican stenography from the MRC over the email issue -- which also misrepresented the NC State study. Bradley touted an "EXCLUSIVE" in a July 5 post:
Republican senators are calling on Google to take quicker action after the company recently asked the Federal Election Commission to approve a pilot program to address concerns that Gmail’s spam algorithm disproportionately affects GOP electioneering campaigns.
Google’s filing with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) claims emails from participating campaigns won’t be “subject to regular spam detection algorithms.” But Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) flagged the FEC’s approval timeline as one of several concerns associated with the pilot, which comes at a critical time as GOP and Democratic campaigns briskly move forward just four months ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.
“It is difficult to see how the proposed filing with the FEC to conduct a pilot program accomplishes anything beyond delay and distraction from reforming [Google’s] practices to allow for transparent, fair and equal treatment of Republicans and Democrats,” Daines told MRC Free Speech America in an e-mail. “Response for permission to conduct the six month pilot may take 18 months. It isn’t acceptable to allow one political party unfair and unequal advantage of this significance on such a dominant platform critical to the outcome of elections.”
Bradley served up more "EXCLUSIVE" Republican whining over the pilot program in an Aug. 17 post:
Republican politicians knocked Google’s newly approved email plan, suggesting it doesn’t go far enough to ensure GOP fundraising emails reach Gmail users’ inboxes.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Aug. 11 approved a proposed pilot by Google to address GOP concerns that too few Republican political fundraising emails were reaching Gmail users’ inboxes. The approval follows a March North Carolina State University study that exposed how Gmail marked 67.6 percent of right-leaning candidates’ emails as spam and just 8.2 percent of left-leaning candidates’ emails as spam.
In addition to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), Republican Sens. Steve Daines (MT) and John Thune (SD) expressed doubt that Google will shore up its documented left-leaning spam filter bias, even after the FEC approved Google’s pilot proposal.
The MRC working hand-in-glove in pushing this anti-Google narrative demonstrates that it's a partisan storyline, not serious "media research."
WND Keeps Fearmongering Over COVID Vaccines For Children Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has longfearmongered about COVID vaccines for children, and it's not about to stop. Art Moore complained in an Oct. 12 article:
Despite warnings from an FDA adviser of a lack of sufficient safety and efficacy data, the FDA on Wednesday authorized COVID-19 boosters of the updated bivalent vaccine for children 5 years of age and older.
The agency amended its emergency use authorization of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent vaccines to include children, allowing it to be administered at least two months after completion of primary or booster vaccination.
The FDA adviser who issued the warning, Dr. Paul Offit, was one of two members of the agency's vaccine advisory panel to vote against recommending the booster shot, which was modified to target omicron variants. Offit, the co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine, argued that the testing was limited to only eight mice, with no human participation.
"I don't ever think you should ever ask tens of millions of people to get a vaccine based on mouse data," he said in a video interview.
In fact, fact-checkers reported that an earlier bivalent booster that was very similar to the one that was approved was more thoroughly tested, and it's common not to comprehensively test flu vaccines each year because only minor tweaks to them are done based on the strain that is expected to be dominant.
Moore gave anti-vaxxers a platform in an Oct. 18 article:
Armed with information from dissenting health scientists, parents in a number of states convinced their health board to reject bids to add the COVID-19 vaccine to the list of required shots for public schoolchildren.
And parents across the nation are demonstrating their lack of trust in the experimental mRNA vaccines issued under emergency use authorization, with only about 2% of children under 5 and less than one-third ages 5 to 11 having been fully immunized.
Nevertheless, the CDC is poised to address the "vaccine hesitancy" and the pharmaceutical companies' lack of permanent liability with one vote.
The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to decide at its meeting Wednesday through Thursday whether or not to include COVID-19 vaccinations in their pediatric immunization schedule.
Approval not only would make it more likely that states will mandate COVID-19 shots to attend public school, it could grant permanent legal immunity to vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna along with another profit windfall, health scientists are warning.
"This is a dangerous idea that will only benefit the vaccine manufacturers at the expense of the best interests of kids," said the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in a statement. "Not only do the shots have essentially no meaningfully positive impact on children's health, the fact that the risk of severe adverse events are greater than any potential small benefit is becoming increasingly evident."
Moore followed that with an Oct. 23 article featuring a list of states where "COVID-19 shots won't be mandated for schoolchildren."
Then, because Moore was apparently too reasonable, his boss, Joseph Farah, decided to raise the temperature -- and the misinformation -- several notches in his Oct. 31 column:
With a track record like this, why do our national leaders still talk about mandating shots for schoolchildren? It's insanity! Why in heaven's name do they insist it's the only way to make schools safe? What are they trying to accomplish? Are they trying to ruin children's lives – perhaps even kill them? Or do they just want to medicate children as a way to cater to Big Pharma?
Why are our inept officials not paying attention to this data? It's a scandal!
The U.S. government's enthusiasm for getting kids jabbed is hard to understand. It's enough to get you thinking that they are trying to reduce the level of the population! This has been one the most scandalous programs ever instituted by Joe Biden – and there's no end in sight for it.
Look at these numbers! Think long and hard about them.
Are you willing to have that risk taken by your children – especially since COVID poses almost no risk to them and never did?!
So why? Are they crazy? Or are they evil?
Well, now we may have the answer.
Because this is Joseph Farah, a conspiracy theory is incoming:
It appears that a coronavirus "simulation" was planned at the World Economic Forum's 2019 annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Event 201 took place only weeks before the first COVID-19 case was reported in Wuhan, China, reports independent investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel.
WEF and the Gates Foundation were among the organizations that joined forces for the Oct. 18, 2019, event, which Schachtel discovered – citing social-media posts – was planned during the January 2019 Davos meeting.
Tom Inglesby, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, announced on Jan. 23, 2019, that Event 201, in partnership with the Gates Foundation and WEF, would be held in New York City.
"Event 201 will shine light on need for pub health, global business, science, finance, security & political leadership to be fully engaged + working for common purposes to meet challenge of new pandemic," he wrote.
Schachel, on his Substack page The Dossier, explained the significance of the event originating at Davos.
"The World Economic Forum has become the go-to narrative and ideas shop for the global ruling class, weaponizing campaigns for their ideological agenda that are now advanced by the world's most powerful individuals and organizations, through slogans and movements such as 'The Great Reset' and 'Build Back Better,' among others," he wrote.
"The WEF and its backers seek to impose an extremely authoritarian agenda upon humanity, under the guise of healing the planet from climate change."
Schachtel noted that the first person to retweet Inglesby's Event 201 announcement was Ronald Klain, who now is White House chief of staff under Biden.
Inglesby, along with his role at Johns Hopkins, is now a senior adviser at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Heads must roll over this – Democratic heads. It's a disgrace – maybe the most egregious one yet.
Meanwhile, here in the real world, it's not exactly clear what Farah is mad about or why he thinks "Democratic heads" should roll over the exercise (which, by the way, was not predictive of the COVID pandemic). He's just ranting and talking nonsense because that has served him well as a business model until recently.
Newsmax Did Last-Minute Campaigning For Mich. GOP Candidates Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax did a little last-minute campaigning for Republicans running for office in Michigan before the midterm elections.
Newsmax served upa pair of video reports by Tom Basile on Nov. 3 promoting gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon, with whom Basile was traveling that day. She was given a softball interview on Newsmax TV on Nov. 7:
Conservative Republican Tudor Dixon said Monday her focus on education is behind her closing a gap in support with voters as she faces off against incumbent Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
In an interview on her final day of campaigning, Dixon told Newsmax's "Wake Up America," education is the No. 1 issue with voters in the state.
Michigan was out of school for so long during the coronavirus pandemic," she said, adding online learning "was not effective for our students… we have a lot of catching up to do."
A Nov. 7 article by Jay Clemons rehashed a Newsmax TV appearance by Kristina Karamo, Republican candidate for Michigan secretary of state, spouting her talking points:
Kristina Karamo, the Republican candidate for Michigan secretary of state, didn't require much time to answer the question of how she plans to shake things up on her first day in January — if she prevails in Tuesday's midterm elections.
"By following the law," Karamo succinctly told Newsmax on Monday while appearing on "American Agenda" with hosts Bob Sellers and Katrina Szish.
Jocelyn Benson, Michigan's current secretary of state and Karamo's main opponent, has garnered criticism from residents over the last few years — with issues ranging from election integrity and election security to the Democrat leaders' actions in handling the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020-21.
This strikes Karamo as odd, since the secretary of state position is "really not a partisan role."
Also, Karamo alluded to allegations of Benson's office committing election-related violations in the past month.
"I'm running on following the law" and making sure Michigan residents are properly served, regardless of political affiliation, Karamo said.
Karamo then conflicted with her pledge to be nonpartisan by spouting right-wing talking points about "pornographic materials in schools." The Newsmax host didn't call her on it.
The day of the midterms on Nov. 8, John Gizzi typed up some quick last-minute boasting from another Michigan Republican:
With an hour before the polls close in Michigan’s four-county 8th District. Republican Paul Junge predicted to Newsmax he would “end the Kildee Dynasty after 46 years.”
Former TV anchorman Junge was referring to his Democratic opponent, five-term Rep. Dan Kildee, and the congressman’s late uncle Dale Kildee, who represented a similar district from 1976-2012.
“There was no Republican to take on Dan Kildee and I felt someone had to do it,” he told us.
The conservative hopeful told us that in campaigning through blue-collar Bay County, “I met a lot of union folks. They made it abundantly clear the Democrats’ policies were driving their county into the ground.”
Kildee, he charged, “votes 100 percent with Joe Biden and belongs to the House Progressive Caucus. That says a lot.”
Many Democrats in Junge’s part of Michigan, he said “are still pro-life and that is what my opponent is attacking me for.”
As to whether he can unseat the heir to one of Michigan’s most durable political names. Junge told us: “I feel pretty good tonight.”
Unfortunately, the confidence of these candidates -- and Newsmax -- in their would-be victories was misplaced. Karamo lost to Benson by 14 percentage points, while Junge lost to Kildee by 10 percentage points. Dixon was also losing, but Newsmax touted her election denials in a Nov. 9 article:
Despite some projections suggesting Michigan Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer will win Tuesday night, GOP gubernatorial challenger Tudor Dixon is vowing to continue battling in a race too close to call.
Newsmax has not called the race, but Dixon was trailing the incumbent and some "premature" election calls have left former President Donald Trump's endorsed candidate angry.
"This race is not over yet, and Fox's call was premature," Dixon told her campaign headquarters. "We expect counting to continue into tomorrow in our major counties. This race has a long way to go."
MRC Still Taking Childish Shots At CNN Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center hates CNN so obsessively that it takes creepy, perverse and immature glee in the alleged misfortunes of its employees. We've noted how there was basically a street party at MRC HQ when channel head Jeff Zucker was fired and when Brian Stelter lost his hosting gig (and fits of rage when Stelter got a new job at Harvard), and much chortling when Don Lemon was supposedly "demoted" from his prime-time show to a retooled morning show. Curtis Houck tried to make up stuff regarding another CNN personality in an Oct. 6 post:
Matt Lauer anyone?
The Daily Mail reported in an exclusive late Wednesday that weekday morning CNN Newsroom co-host and former Obama official Jim Sciutto has been sent off on a leave of absence from the struggling network so he can “address personal issues” stemming from a mysterious trip to Amsterdam with a producer earlier this year after having been covered the war in Ukraine.
“CNN mainstay Jim Sciutto has been off air after network bosses ordered him to address a ‘personal situation’ stemming from a 'serious fall' he suffered while in Amsterdam earlier this year,” saidDaily Mail reporter Paul Farrell. He explained that, after having co-hosted Monday morning’s CNN Newsroom with Poppy Harlow, he hasn’t been seen since.
Farrell added that “a media source has told” them Sciutto “is now on ‘personal leave’” and “CNN has not responded to requests for comment.”
Houck name-dropping Lauer was effectively an accusation that Sciutto had engaged in some sort of untoward sexual misbehavior -- something for which he has presented absolutely no evidence and something not even hinted at in the Daily Mail story. Sciutto returned to CNN a few weeks later, suggesting that whatever "personal issues" he may have had were addressed during his leave. The MRC has yet to acknowledge Sciutto's return.
If Sciutto has not, in fact, been credibly accused of sexual misbehavior as Houck snarkily suggested, Houck probably needs to retract that baseless allegation lest he and the MRC find themselves on the wrong end of a defamation lawsuit.
Houck served up even more chortling in an Oct. 28 post at the prospect of more CNN layoffs:
In both a memo to staff and a story about the network on CNBC.com, CNN boss Chris Licht marked six months this week with the struggling liberal network by announcing he’s been tasked with cost cuts and layoffs as, according to CNBC, CNN’s profit “is set to drop blow $1 billion this year” and Warner Bros. Discovery is aiming to layoff 1,000 people from its 40,000-workforce.
In objectively welcome news, CNBC also revealed Licht will continue to move CNN back toward reality and away from what Licht called “the quick sugar high of ratings and outrage.”
Licht said in a memo Wednesday that he’s conducted “formal business reviews with senior staff to identify areas where we should make changes, investments, and reductions” and, as part of that, he’ll “reduce or eliminate areas that aren’t core to our mission.”
Then came the key lines as Licht said “that work will accelerate” in “the next several weeks” and, to accomplish that and “factor” in the state of the global economy, there will be “noticeable change to this organization...affect[ing] people, budgets, and projects.”All told, Licht said he hopes “these decisions” are “made by the end of the year.”
Not surprisingly, Licht has found winning the trust of employees to be a challenge with many still worshipping his predecessor, Jeff Zucker, who was more or less the network puppetmaster.
It took both Nicholas Fondacaro and Geoffrey Dickens to take even more lame shots at Lemon in a Nov. 1 post as his morning-show stint began:
Don Lemon will be starting his totally-not-a-demotion stint on CNN’s revamped morning show CNN This Morning this morning. So we at NewsBusters thought it would be nice to take a stroll down memory lane and look back at Lemon’s heinous remarks that the network would prefer were memory-holed.
This was joined by a "brief montage of Lemon’s primetime blathering" from Bill D'Agostino. So it actually took three MRC employees to spew this nastiness. This childishness and gossip is what passes for "media research" at the MRC these days.