ConWebBlog: The Weblog of ConWebWatch

your New Media watchdog

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

Tuesday, February 14, 2023
Farah's Trump Restoration Plan Moved Briefly Closer During House Speaker Vote
Topic: WorldNetDaily

For the past couple of years, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah has been intermittently obsessed with the idea that Donald Trump could sneak back into the presidency by Republicans winning the House and then naming him House Speaker, then impeaching President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, thus elevating Trump back into office. That was never a realistic plan, of course, but when has Farah been tethered to reality when it comes to anything related to Trump? (See: election fraud conspiracy theories.)

Last month's Republican infighting over picking a new House speaker, though, gave Farah a glimmer of hope, when Trump's name was put into nomination duyring one round of voting. Bob Unruh sycophantically wrote in a Jan. 5 article:

President Trump already has announced his candidacy for the office of president in 2024.

But now his name is appearing in the fight inside the GOP in the U.S. House over the new House speaker, and the idea, although unlikely, could get him back to the White House even sooner.

It's because Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., has voted for Trump to be the next House speaker, a position that requires being elected by the House, but does not require the winner to be a House member.

The Washington Examiner said Gaetz has been leading a GOP revolt against having Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., a party leader for many years, installed in the post.

The GOP already has gone through multiple votes this week without a winner for the job.

Unruh went on to note others who had advanced the idea, including WND columnist Wayne Allyn Root, but surely pleased his boss by claiming that "originating the plan was WND Founder Joseph Farah."


Farah, meanwhile, devoted his Jan. 5 column to taking credit for Gaetz putting Trump's name into nomination:

He said it – finally.

Steve Bannon said it. It was more than a question. It was a PLEA!

Regarding the failure to elect a House speaker, Bannon said: "Why not Trump? Why not Trump?"


This is where it all started: me asking the question on Jan. 3, 2021, and Steve Bannon backing me up a few days later. I couldn't let go of the idea. Other people picked it up.

Then Rep. Matt Gaetz put his name into the mix Thursday, voting for Trump for speaker on the seven round of balloting. Later Gaetz nominated Trump for speaker, prior to the 11th roll call vote.

It was like magic when he dropped it.

It sounded as good as it originally sounded to me in 2021.


Will he do it? Yes, if he's asked. If he has the people's support. He cannot say no to the American people. He'll do it if he's needed. And boy is he needed.

It can be done – Donald Trump will answer the bell.

Trump is listening. He's weighing the options. Obviously, he's not in it to lose. He wants to see a path to victory.

Will you give it to him, America?

Is he still the greatest president whoever served this country? Do we need him now? Will anyone else do?

The answers to that last paragraph are no, no, and yes, but Farah is too wrapped up in Trump worship to care about the facts.

Neither Unruh nor Farah mention that the only vote Trump got in that round of voting was from Gaetz. And never miind that, just a day earlier, a WND article by Joe Kovacs quoted Trump making it clear that he supported McCarthy as speaker.

Nevertheless, Unruh wrote an article the next day touting Trump posting on social media a Photoshopped picture of himself making a goofy face inserted into an image of Biden speaking at a State of the Union-style address, which Unruh soberly portrayed as Trump responding to speculation about him being House speaker. Again, Unruh made sure to credit his boss for coming up with the idea.

Meanwhile, Trump's name never came up for nomination again, and Gaetz's vote was the only one Trump received in all 15 rounds of voting, after which McCarthy finally won the speakership. But Farah didn't seem to want to talk about afterward; his Jan. 6 column hyping how debt-limit concerns played into the speaker vote didn't mention Trump at all.

Posted by Terry K. at 5:45 PM EST
Newsmax Deplatforming Victimhood Watch
Topic: Newsmax

How is Newsmax's campaign of victimhood over getting dropped by DirecTV in a dispute over licensing fees going? Here's how it began its third week of complaining about and rooting for government interference into private business decisions:

Newsmax also republished "an urgent email to Republican members" by Republican national Committee chair Ronna McDaniel "just days ago urging them to oppose AT&T DirecTV's censorship of Newsmax." The article is headlined "See Ronna McDaniel's Email That Shocked AT&T," but no evidence of "shock" on AT&T's part is provided.

With these 34 articles, Newsmax has now published at least 145 "news" articles attacking DirecTV since the deplatforming happened on Jan. 25.

Newsmax columnist were advancing the narrative as well. A Feb. 6 column by Michael Abramson demanded that the Republican National Committee offer preferential treatment for businesses who adhere to its partisan narratives:

The Republican National Committee (RNC), the voice of the nation's Republicans, should lead Republicans in condemning those who take actions against companies which support Republican causes.

The RNC should make public statements denouncing the behavior, conduct a public relations campaign, and, if the situation warrants, call for a boycott. The RNC must support and defend other Republicans when they are attacked. If the RNC does not do so, Republicans will continue to be targeted.

On Wednesday, January 25, 2023, DirecTV cut off Newsmax's signal from DirecTV, DirecTV Stream, and U-Verse. One year earlier, in January 2022, DirecTV chose to not renew its contract with another Republican-leaning news station, One America News Network (OANN).

DirecTV is a company and can decide, free from government interference, the stations that it wishes to carry. It is clear that the absence of Newsmax from DirecTV, DirecTV Stream, and U-Verse decreases the amount of people who can view Newsmax's Republican-leaning news coverage and opinion.

DirecTV's action, therefore, while constitutional, is a silencing of Republican views. Republicans are free to respond by cancelling their subscriptions to DirecTV and/or its parent company, AT&T.

Abramson failed to tell his reader that DirecTV replaced Newsmax with another right-wing channel, The First, which means there isno "silencing of Republican views" happening. Robert Zapesochny similarly failed to disclose that narrative-busting fact in his Feb. 8 column wailing about a purported "blacklist" against right-wing media:

In 1996, Fox News was founded. In 1998, Christopher Ruddy founded Newsmax.

In February 2021, two Democrats in Congress, Jerry McNerney and Anna Eshoo, sent a letter to the CEO of AT&T John T. Stankey to cancel Newsmax, Fox News, and OANN.

At the time, McNerney and Eshoo were both members of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, which has oversight over the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). This subcommittee also has jurisdiction over interstate communication.

Because AT&T owns 70% of DirectTV, these two members of Congress thought they could pressure this company to cancel Newsmax. In January 2022, DirectTV dropped OANN and it recently dropped Newsmax.

McNerney retired from Congress last month, but Eshoo is still there. Conservatives must fight for the First Amendment as hard as they have fought for the Second Amendment.

This will not just stop with Newsmax.

Zapesochny also refused to tell his reader why Eschoo and McNerney sent that letter: it was in response to the fact that Newsmax, Fox News, and OAN spread falsehoods and misinformation abopuit the 2020 presidential election that helped incite the Capitol riot. But Zapesochny has no interest in holding his fellow right-wingers accountable for their falsehoods and misinformation -- he has a narrative to push.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:12 PM EST
CNS Continues Its Pro-Musk Stenography Over 'Twitter Files'

After the initial rush of parroting its Media Research Center parent on hyping the selectively released "Twitter files" that Elon Musk gave to handpicked reporters, slowed the pace and move toward reaction pieces/. A Dec. 9 article by Craig Bannister featured a right-wing radio hosdt:

After proof that Twitter had shadow banned him was revealed, conservative commentator Dan Bongino said the liberal media, that had adamantly denied the censorship, will never apologize.

“The press completely lied about this. Now, they've got this whole, ‘All of this is a big nothing- burger; Twitter can do what they want’ That's not what they said,” Bongino noted an appearance on “Fox & Friends” on Friday:


On Thursday, Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk released tweets showing that Twitter had previously censored and suppressed the posts and accounts of conservatives, including Dan Bongino.

 “When's the apology come for me? The answer is never,” Bongino said, explaining that apologizing is not what communists, fascists, and others who relish in the abuse of power, do:

A Dec. 13 article by Bannister noted that "Three-fourths all U.S. likely voters think that social media companies like Facebook are censoring content because of political bias, and three-fourths of Democrat voters [sic] agree, but Democrats are much less likely to want Congress to do anything about it – and much more concerned about so-called 'misinformation' posted on social media sites." It w as a biased Rasmussen Reports poll, so "misinformation" was in scare quotes throughout without an explanation of why.

Bannister cheered the mean-spirited crassness from a Fox News host in a Dec. 16 article:

On Tuesday, late-night television Host Greg Gutfeld defended the decision by Twitter's new owner, Elon Musk, to end the social media company’s $13 million dollar a year free lunch program for employees.

While Musk has been vilified by liberal media for cancelling free lunches, comedian/commentator Gutfeld sided with him, while simultaneously taking a shot at Joy Behar, co-host of the rabid, left-wing talk television show, “The View”:

“On Sunday, he announced plans to end free lunches at Twitter headquarters, saying the meals cost the company $13 million bucks a year. That’s still $2 million less than ‘The View’ spends on feeding Joy Behar.”

It says a lot about Bannister as a person that he thought Gutfeld's ugly smear was worth amplification.

The Musk stenography cobntinued as well. A Dec. 12 article by Susan Jones hyped that "Before the 2020 election, Twitter executives were 'clearly liaising with federal enforcement and intelligence agencies about moderation of election-related content,' according to Friday's dump of the 'Twitter files,' as reported by Matt Taibbi."

The fluff continued: A Dec. 18 article by Patrick Goodenough noted that Musk "posted a poll asking users whether or not they want him to stay on at the helm, and promising to accept the outcome," then updated it to show that a majority of users want him gone. A Dec. 21 article by Bannister noted another poll Musk posted on whether Congress should approve an omnibus spending bill, adding that "more than seventy percent of the 3.1 million Twitter users who voted said 'No.'"

Jones returned to Musk stenography for a Dec. 27 article hyping how "The latest edition of the "Twitter Files," a saga of censorship and shadow-banning, shows that Twitter, with input from the White House, 'rigged' the debate over COVID -- a debate that continues to this day." Managing editor Michael W. Chapman did stenography for Republicans in an article the next day:

Two prominent House Republicans, who will be in the majority come January, sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray stating that new information shows the agency "coordinated extensively with Twitter to censor or otherwise affect content on Twitter's platform."

The letter also demands that the law-enforcement agency turn over all records, communications between FBI agents and Twitter employees or contractors, as well as "all documents and communications" between FBI agents and 23 specific Twitter employees who are named in the letter, such as Yoel Roth, Jack Dorsey, and Vijaya Gadde.

CNs' "commentary" side weighed in as well. A Dec. 15 column by R. Emmett Tyrrell gushed over Musk for being the richest man in the world and, thus, brilliant, which somehow means we should trust whatever he does with Twitter.A Dec. 16 column by Josh Hammer was simiarly gushy over the "promising new path forward" Musk established and how he is "answering the call of his civic duty as the world's wealthiest man," but also argued that "concerted public policy and legal changes are still needed to wrest control away from powerful Silicon Valley bureaucrats and to restore that control to its rightful place: with the American people." We thought conservatives opposed the taking of private property.

Ron Paul, meanwhile, decided in a Dec. 20 column that the FBI working with Twitter to counter extremism and misinformation means that the FBI must be dismantgled:

As we learn more and more from the “Twitter Files,” it is becoming all too obvious that Federal agencies such as the FBI viewed the First Amendment of our Constitution as an annoyance and an impediment. In Friday’s release from the pre-Musk era, journalist Matt Taibbi makes an astute observation: Twitter was essentially an FBI subsidiary.

The FBI, we now know, was obsessed with Twitter. We learned that agents sent Twitter Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth some 150 emails between 2020 and 2022. Those emails regularly featured demands from US government officials for the “private” social media company to censor comments and ban commenters they did not like.


We do not need the FBI and CIA and other federal agencies viewing us as the enemy and attacking our Constitution. End the Fed…and End the Federal Bureau of Investigation!

Tyrrell penned a Dec. 22 column again fawning over Musk:

As of this week, Musk is proving himself to be quite possibly the most refreshing force in American politics in years. All he really has to do is keep Twitter -- as he has said -- really neutral. That means open it to conservative voices that have been shut out of Twitter for years.


One of the aspects of modern-day America is that it is so boring. Musk quite possibly could make it lively again. Let us give him a chance.

Tyrrell did not mention that Musk suspended the Twitter accounts of people who made fun of him and of journalists who reported on him, so fairness and neutrality is clearly not on the guy's agenda.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:36 AM EST
Monday, February 13, 2023
MRC's Vazquez Obsesses Over George Soros' Donations
Topic: Media Research Center

Another part of the Media Research Center's recent round of attacks on George Soros has been a series of so-called studies that boil down to complaining that Soros funds things like any billionaire does. This was kicked off in an Dec. 6 post by the MRC's point man on hating Soros, Joseph Vazquez, and Dan Schneider who runs the MRC's Free Speech America program:

Leftist billionaire George Soros used his charities to build ties with hundreds of media organizations around the world involved in news and activist media. The journalism and activist media groups Soros supports mold public opinion on practically every continent and in many languages. They also insulate him from inquiry because reporters see him as an ally, not a target for investigation.

The 92-year-old philanthropist’s multimillion-dollar efforts promoting his bizarre “open society” agenda encompass some of the most radical leftist ideas on abortion, Marxist economics, anti-Americanism, defunding the police, environmental extremism and LGBT fanaticism. 

His global media clout is massive. An extensive analysis by MRC Business discovered at least 253 news and activist media organizations across the world financed by Soros’ philanthropic organizations. These groups wield massive power over information in international politics.

This report is the first in a three-part series that reveals the extent of the reach Soros wields over international media to influence the world population. Soros once told The New York Times that he was working to “bend” the arc of history “in the right direction.” He means it.

Which makes Soros no different than the right-wing billionaires that fund the paychecks of Vazquez and Schneider, such as the Mercers.

This particular segment complained about a website called Project Syndicate that Vazquez and Schneider hyperbolically describe as "A Global Soros-Funded Behemoth" and a "Global Propaganda Operation" despite few in the U.S. even being aware of it.They also laughably called the Poynter Institute "A Global Soros-Backed Ministry of Truth" mainly becuse it fact-checks right-wing falsehoods and misinformation, and bashed the group Free Press as "anti-American" despite quoting co-founder Robert McChesney saying that that group engage in things like "democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism," none of which sound particularly anti-America. They go on to apply more overheated language to the Media Demnocracy Fund, declaring it "A Soros-Funded Gargantuan Dedicated to Woke ‘Social Justice’" and "a Money-Spewing Cog in Soros’ Sphere of Influence," then describe National Public Radio as "Soros and State Media" and "Soros’ Taxpayer-Funded Radio Propaganda Mill."

Language like this makes Vazquez sound like they're cranking out a partisan hack job, not engaging in sober or legitimate "media research." But that is the tone they use throughout. Because this is, in fact, a partisan hack job, exposure in the right-wing media bubble is the coin of the realm, not reasoned debate -- so MRC chief Brent Bozell ran to Fox News to promote it and spew hate at Soros: "He hates the Judeo-Christian tradition. He is out to destroy the underpinnings of Western civilization and he’s using $36 billion that he is spending on it. ...This is a dangerous man.” Keeping the promotion in-house, Tim Graham parroted the study on his Dec. 7 podcast, and Vazquez plugged it on Paiten Iselin's Dec. 9 "CensorTrack" podcast. Even the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews, performed an act of whoredom and reprinted Vazquez's hit job.

Vazquez took a break from hyping his own work to note a complementary finding in a Dec. 8 post:

Liberal billionaire George Soros is upping his accolade as the “largest donor” for the 2022 midterm elections to the next level by reportedly signaling that he’s ready to buy the 2024 presidential election.

Politico revealed Dec. 7 that Soros pumped a whopping $50 million into his leftist super PAC — Democracy PAC — “building on an already large investment in Democratic groups and candidates for the 2024 election cycle and beyond.” This is on top of the $128 million he spent during the 2022 midterm elections. Politico noted that it’s “the latest sign that Soros will continue to play an enormous role in the Democratic campaign finance ecosystem, particularly ahead of the next presidential election.” The talking heads at the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news shows predictably ignored the report during their Dec. 7 broadcasts.


It looks like he’s not done yet as he bids to buy the presidency in 2024. 

Vazquez failed to mention the right-wing billionaires who are similarly trying to "buy the presidency in 2024."

Vazquez had another Soros donation spree to complain about in a Dec. 22 post:

Leftist billionaire George Soros apparently kept himself very busy last year by funneling millions into groups and causes spreading anti-police hatred across the country.

Fox News Digital reporter Joe Schoffstall reported Dec. 21 that Soros’ Open Society Foundations “dropped at least $35 million into anti-police groups and initiatives in 2021,” according to reviewed tax forms.

Overhauling the American criminal justice system is a “high priority” for Soros, wrote Schoffstall. Soros’ millions went toward “groups that back defunding police, hubs used by progressive activists aiming to dismantle law enforcement, and even funding databases to track donations to police department foundations and unions.” Schoffstall also mentioned Soros’ record of financially backing “dozens of far-left prosecutor candidates as part of the efforts.”

Open Society-U.S. co-director Laleh Ispahani apparently didn’t mind using Schoffstall’s discovery to smear police officers across the country and push defunding police departments in comments to Fox News.

“The level of police violence, particularly impacting communities of color, has spurred reform efforts across the country,” Ispahani reportedly said. “Open Society supports the exploration and development of policies that actually work to reduce crime and defers to communities regarding what alternatives make sense to them. Whether that includes shifting funding currently allocated to policing into services that actually work to address crime and improve public safety is up to them.” [Emphasis added.]

As Ispahani's statement makes clear, Open Society favors more effective policing and not defunding -- which would seem to be the oppposite of the "anti-police" pejorative Vazquez and Schofstall are trying to hang on the group -- and Vazquez did not explain how seeking more effective policing equates to "smearing police officers." But for these two, clinging to this right-wing narrative -- no matter how it's been debunked -- is more important than reporting facts.

(Vazquez also didn't disclose that Schofstall is a former MRC employee who, like so many others, have entered the pipeline to work for Fox News.)

Posted by Terry K. at 10:04 PM EST
CNS Managing Editor Promotes Rand Paul's Anti-Fauci Witch Hunt
Topic: has long been a promote of right-wing Sen. Rand Paul's nasty, partisan attacks against Anthony Fauci for his efforts in trying to protect Americans during the COVID pandemic. For instance:

Forhis latest tirade, none other than CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman chose to serve up servile stenpgraphy for Paul in a Jan. 11 article, with added boldface:

In a tweet of a video showing Dr. Anthony Fauci telling Americans in May 2021 that if they "are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected" with COVID, Sen. Rand Paul remarked, "so many lies," and added that he would "hold Fauci accountable."

Dr. Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and former chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, made his remarks on the May 17, 2021 edition of All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC.

During the discussion, Hayes mentioned cases of COVID infection among members of the New York Yankees who were fully vaccinated but still "tested positive for COVID." These included three coaches, five staff members, and shortstop Gleyber Torres.

Explaining why this happened, Fauci said "these are certainly breakthrough cases," and added, "Breakthrough infections mean, you have been vaccinated, but you still get infected." He also said that even if infected with COVID while vaccinated against COVID, the symptoms in most cases are minor or "no symptoms at all."

"If you do get infected, the chances are that you're going to be without symptoms, and the chances are very likely that you'll not be able to transmit it to other people," said the doctor.

Fauci further said, for the vaccinated, "when you do get infected [with COVID], the chances are, you're going to be without symptoms. And because of that -- that was the accumulating scientific data that prompted the CDC to make that recommendation -- that when people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected, whether they're outdoors or indoors. That's the bottom line of that to get people to appreciate: you get vaccinated and you're really quite safe from getting infected." (Emphasis added.)

Commenting on the video-clip of Fauci, Senator Paul tweeted, "How many vaccinated people do you know who still got Covid? So many lies. I will hold Fauci accountable."

But neither Chapman nor Paul offered any evidence that Fauci was telling "lies," a word that means a specific thing that is not defined as Fauci not exactly matching CDC guidance. Neither mentioned the fact that the COVID virus has mutated in a way that makes older vaccines less effective, the updated bivalent boosters protect against infection, hospitalization and death. Boosters are necessary because the nature of the virus means that efficacy of the vaccines wear off over time -- just like protection from a previous case of COVID (which anti-vaxx enthusiasts like Paul like to romanticize as "natural immunity") wears off over time.

Chapman managed to refrain from doing so here , but CNS has previously tried to privilege his rants on COVID-related issues by touting that he is a "medical doctor" -- even though he's actually just an eye doctor with no demonstrated expertise in virology or epidemiology.

Posted by Terry K. at 5:54 PM EST
MRC Doesn't Understand What Metaphors Are, So It Smears 'View' Co-Host As 'Racist'
Topic: Media Research Center

Nicholas Fondacaro -- whose Media Research Center job is to hate-watch "The View" -- put quite the inflammatory headline on a Nov. 3 post: "Rampant Racism: Sunny Calls White Women 'Roaches' for Voting GOP." Despite this framing, the truth was actually quite different:

For a while now, NewsBusters has been documenting and calling out the racism of Sunny Hostin, a co-host of ABC’s The View. But even we were shocked Thursday when she suggested white women were “roaches” if they voted Republican. And being the wealthy elitist that she is, Hostin suggested they “were voting against their own self-interest” and supposedly wanted to live in the dystopian world of The Handmaid’s Tale.

Citing “the abortion issue,” Hostin recalled reading “a poll just yesterday that white Republican suburban women are now going to vote Republican.” “It's almost like roaches voting for Raid,” she proclaimed.

This drew immediate applause from the radical liberal audience and pushback from self-proclaimed conservative co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin, who called the comment “insulting to the voter.” Hostin responded by shouting about how “They're voting against their own self-interest! Do they want to leave it in Gilead? Do they want to be in The Handmaid’s Tale?”

Hostin did not call white women "roaches" -- she used a metaphor. Fondacaro has apparently never heard of metaphors, so he dishonestly decided to take Hostin out of context as an excuse to treat her statement as literal.

Tim Graham tried to further things in a Nov. 8 post:

In her Daily Mail  column for Election Day, Meghan McCain responded directly to her old friend (and co-host of The View) Sunny Hostin, who characterized white women voting for Republicans to “roaches voting for Raid”– voting for their own demise. 

In fact, McCain wasn't directly responding to Hostin at all -- her column didn't even reference Hostin by name, and  she following  Fondacaro in taking one word outof context ("we've heard women described as 'roaches' and 'Nazis' for valuing their best judgement over the orders of Democrats and the liberal media"). It seems McCain is just as shaky on metaphors as Fondacaro is.

This is fairly run-of-the-mill incompetence on the part of serial liar Fondacaro and the MRC. So why revisit this now? Because in pretty much every hate-watching post Fondacaro has written about "The View" since then, he has described Hostin as a "racist" and linked back to the above post as evidence.

That's right -- Fondacaro is smearing Hostin as a "racist" because he doesn't understand metaphors. How does such a fundamentally dishonst guy continue to be employed at the MRC?

Posted by Terry K. at 2:22 PM EST
NEW ARTICLE -- The Big Lie In Arizona: The Rachel Alexander File
Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily columnist has been its biggest promoter of the discredited claim that Kari Lake is the real winner of the Arizona governor's race and that it was stolen from her due to election fraud. Read more >>

Posted by Terry K. at 8:58 AM EST
Sunday, February 12, 2023
Without New 'Twitter Files' To Promote, MRC Engages In Musk-Fluffing
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's electively released "Twitter files" to Elon Musk's hand-picked journalists continued with a Jan. 16 post by CatherineSalgado declaring that "The latest Twitter Files showed Big Pharma  “directly” pressured Twitter to help censor users offering any alternative treatments to COVID-19 besides Big Pharma’s vaccines." Salgado didn't mention that "alternative treatments" like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin don't really work in treating COVID.

After that was a bit of a fallow period. Even without any new selectively released "Twitter files" to promote, the MRC's Elon Musk stenography continued with Gabriela Pariseau being stuck summarizing previous releases in a Jan. 16 article:

The Twitter Files have uncovered the internal mess that Twitter has become over the last six years as the company has interfered in American elections, directly colluded with federal government agencies and censored Americans.

Thanks to new Twitter owner Elon Musk, some of the platform’s past misgivings have been laid bare for all to see. To date, 15 Twitter Files have been published by 6 nonpartisan journalists. Musk’s release of the Twitter Files has given us a closer look at what exactly happened when the platform mass-censored the Hunter Biden laptop story, interfering in the 2020 election. The files have revealed Twitter’s deep entanglement with numerous federal government agencies and how those agencies used Twitter to censor speech that they themselves could not. Finally, the files pulled back the curtain on Twitter’s internal conversations about censorship and complete disregard for free speech.

“Twitter did everything they could to deliver the 2020 election to Joe Biden,” said Media Research Center President Brent Bozell. “Now we need Congress to investigate the rest of Big Tech and uncover the same for Facebook, Google, and the rest.”

Neither Bozell, Pariseau nor the rest of the MRC has ever questioned why nearly all the files Musk has selectively release conveniently advance right-wing narratives against "big tech," or why Musk doesn't give those "Twitter files" to journalists who aren't right-wingers -- they're just happy to be subservient to Musk and advance those narratives.

The next day, Autumn Johnson cheered that a class-action lawsuit by former Twitter employees was dismissed, supporting the idea they deserve to have to be forced to go through arbitration:

A federal court judge ruled on Friday that five former Twitter employees from the old censorship-obsessed regime must pursue their claims against the company in arbitration.

The layoffs, which heavily impacted the platform’s content moderation team, were part of Musk’s changes to save the company money while turning the platform into one that supports free speech. However, five former employees disputed Musk’s terms for severance pay and alleged he failed to provide adequate notice before the layoffs, according to The Verge.


Twitter employees from the pro-censorship regime have to realize they can’t always get their way as many content moderation and Trust and Safety employees formerly did, according to the Twitter Files.

Geoffrey Dickens served up yet another complaint that non-right-wing media are not obsessing about this right-wing-bubble story:

The bombshells from the Twitter files keep on coming, yet the liberal media elite keep ignoring them. Last month when Tesla founder and Twitter owner Elon Musk began tweeting out former Rolling Stone editor Matt Taibbi’s explosive reporting on how Twitter (under pressure from government agents) suppressed the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story in the final days before the election. 


Of course the tiny amount of network coverage of the Twitter files story does a disservice to the scope and depth of Taibbi’s reporting on how the government forced Twitter to censor the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. 

Note how Dickens describes Taibbi as a "former Rolling Stone editor" in an attempt to create some sort of mainstream credibilty for him, even though any association with Rolling Stone -- as well as his history of being a sexist creep -- would be mentioned only in a disparaging way if Musk ever allowed him to report on "Twitter files" that didn't advance right-wing narratives. (Also, Musk was not the founder of Tesla.)

Johnson had more pro-Musk stenography to crank out, this time in the service of bashing an organization of "elitists":

Independent journalist Michael Shellenberger said Tuesday that Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter is a significant obstacle to the radical World Economic Forum’s agenda.

Shellenberger, who has reported on batches of Twitter Files exposing the FBI exerting pressure on Twitter’s censorship operations, joined Blaze Media podcast host Glenn Beck to discuss the pro-free speech changes Musk has made to Twitter since he acquired it last year, including an end to one-sided censorship.

"He's basically said ordinary people should be on an equal platform...and we should stop censoring ordinary folks because the elites demand it," Shellenberger said on the Jan. 17 edition of The Glenn Beck Program, referring to elitists in organizations like the World Economic Forum (WEF).

The WEF is a leftist organization that promotes Orwellian initiatives, such as the “recalibration” of “free speech” online. The WEF is also the same radical organization that legitimized an insane idea of microchipping children.

Pro tip for Johnson: If Schellenberger is Elon Musk's errand boy and running to right-wing radio host to uncritically repeat those errands in a forum where he knows he will get only softballs and will not be seriouslly challenged, he's not an "independent journalist."

P.J. Gladnick spent a Jan. 19 post raging that someone said something less than laudatory about Musk:

On Tuesday, New York magazine published a looooooong hit piece on what a horrible boss Elon Musk supposedly is at Twitter yet the biggest revelation was its admission that it favors censorship. This admission by the authors Zoë Schiffer, Casey Newton, and Alex Heath appeared innquot;Twitter’s staff spent years trying to protect the platform against impulsive ranting billionaires — then one made himself the CEO."

Before getting around to slamming Musk, the New York authors celebrated the early free speech era of Twitter before absurdly claiming it was somehow ruined by Orange Man Bad.


So just one man, the "tyrant" Donald Trump, caused Twitter to give up on free speech and embrace censorship.

And this was the reason that Musk bought Twitter; to return to its era of free speech by ditching the censorship which was blamed on Trump. For this embrace of free speech, Musk earned the derision of New York magazine -- including the bizarre charge that although he approves free speech for the platform, he disapproves of it in the workplace, when he was letting go of staff who liked everything censorious:

When the article pointed out Musk's tyrannical treatment of Twitter employees, Gladnick huffed in response: "Psst! It's a private company owned by Elon Musk. A lot of bosses have rules for the office that have nothing to do in relation to how it treats the customers or, in this case, the Twitter users." We don't recall anyone at the MRC offering the "it's a private company" defense to Twitter before Musk bought it.

Gladnick even defended Musk and his lackey Taibbi publishing the names and emails of now-former employees involved in communications with government officials as part of the "Twitter files" releases, which resulted in harassmsent and abuse targeting them: "The names but not the homes or phone numbers were revealed. Hardly the doxxing as practiced by Taylor Lorenz." In fact, as we've documented, Lorenz identified the operator of the hate site Libs of TikTok, Chaya Raichik, through publicly available information, and only briefly linked to her real estate license that included an address and employer, which was also publicly available. Gladnick didn't explain why such publicly available information was off limits.

Posted by Terry K. at 8:50 PM EST
Updated: Sunday, February 12, 2023 10:35 PM EST
CNS Pushes Republican Attack Lines Over Biden's Classified Documents

When Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate was raided by the FBI in search of classified documents he refused to return,'s coverage was filled with right-wing spin that symatheticially portrayed Trump as a victim of bias. When classified documents were discovered at offices Joe Biden used between his stints as vice president and president -- which he returned with incident -- CNS made sure to crank up the outrage machine over such possession (which it didn't do regarding Trump). Susan Jones set the tone in a Jan. 10 article:

After all the fuss about top secret documents found at President Donald Trump's Florida estate, it turns out that former Vice President Joe Biden also had documents "with classified markings" in his possession.

The classified documents were discovered in office space formerly used by Joe Biden at the University of Pennsylvania's Biden Center in Washington, D.C., on November 2, 2022 -- six days before the general election.

But we're just hearing about it now, from a statement released by the White House Counsel's Office, which reads as follows:

Jones then went on to uncritically quote Republicans eager to insist that this was somehow much worse than Trump's situation:

Democrats say Biden's case is different than Trump's because Biden's attorneys volunteered the information and sent the documents -- fewer than Trump had -- to the Archives without being asked. Trump reportedly failed to cooperate with the Archives' repeated demands for the return of classified documents in his possession.

But Republicans say Biden has just as much to answer for, as the following tweets from Republican politicians indicate:

-- “Biden stole classified documents and stored them at his think tank while he was VP. The VP does not have any authority to declassify classified documents. And this “think tank” received $54 million in funding from the CCP," Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) tweeted on Monday.

-- "Re. Biden and classified documents: there can't be separate standards for Republicans and Democrats. The same rules must apply to everyone," Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) tweeted.

-- "Joe Biden stole classified documents. This is a very serious crime. DOJ & NARA can’t sweep this under the rug AND persecute Trump," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) tweeted on Monday.


-- "It’s just been discovered that Biden had HIGHLY CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS that were improperly stored in one of his private offices. INCREDIBLE! WHERE is the FBI? WHERE is the dramatic raid? We have two systems of justice in this country: one for them and one for us," Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) tweeted.

CNS then fired up its right-wing talking points machine over the next several days:

CNS also pulled its usual stunt of devoting more than one article to pushing the same exact story:

By contrast, CNS published significantly fewer articles focused on Biden's side of the story in this same time period:

Another of these articles, by Jones, quoted Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a" Michigan Democrat who formerly worked as a CIA analyst," as pointing out how Republicans are seizing on the the Biden documents as a "political talking point" -- but then immediately followed it with a statement from House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy laughably denying any political motivation "in his choppy fashion."

It wouldn't be CNS if it wasn't mounting some weird, tangentally related attack of Biden over this, and Craig Bannister obliged in a Jan. 13 article:

Despite his insistence that Americans embrace electric vehicles, President Joe Biden treasures his gasoline-powered 1967 Corvette Stingray so much that he stored it next to the documents marked “classified” found at his Delaware home.

Two batches of documents marked “classified” kept by Biden have reportedly been discovered, the second of which Biden says had been kept next to his Corvette in a garage.

Biden admitted at a press conference on Thursday that he had kept documents that bore classification markings next to his Corvette in what he called “a locked garage” at his Delaware home.

The admission prompted the Oil and Gas Association to tweet out a photo and a few facts about Biden’s coveted Corvette – including that it’s not electric:

CNS regularly parrots talking points sent out by the oil and gas industry.

UPDATE: There was also a strange Jan. 13 column by Josh Hammer, who went straight for a "deep state" conspiracy theory:

But perhaps the most pressing question is: Why? Why was there a leak to CBS News just now, over two months after Biden attorneys discovered the first tranche of classified documents deep in the bowels of a Penn Biden Center office? Why has there been such a slow, drip-drip, dramatic leaking and reporting of various classified document tranches throughout this whole week?

It is thoroughly unsurprising that the federal law enforcement apparatus and the corporate media buried the news of Biden's malfeasance on the precipice of the midterm elections. The "Democrat-Media Complex," as the late Andrew Breitbart called it, demands nothing less than such complicity.

But the timing of the leak from various federal law enforcement actors now, just as Biden is beginning his second term, suggests there is real internal turmoil over at the Democratic National Committee. Perhaps someone at the DNC instructed deep state spooks that now would be a particularly propitious time to leak sordid details to the media. Perhaps someone at the DNC thought that Joe Biden did his job by shepherding his party through the midterms without succumbing to the much-feared "red wave," but that he is now disposable and should be replaced at the ballot in 2024 by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). Loath though I am to speculate, it is difficult to think of a sounder explanation as to why, only now, all of this is coming out.

No evidence of this is offered, of course.

Posted by Terry K. at 6:19 PM EST
Updated: Monday, February 13, 2023 2:03 PM EST
Saturday, February 11, 2023
MRC Hides Factual Basis Of Colbert Joke It Bashed
Topic: Media Research Center

As part of the Media Research Center's complaining that non-right-wing media pointed out how far-right the Republican opposition to Kevin McCarthy as House speaker was, Alex Christy served up a side complaint about a joke in a Jan. 10 post:

The Late Show host Stephen Colbert tried and failed during his Tuesday show to use Republican infighting during the Speaker battle to play the sexism card by suggesting there was a double standard present.

Recalling the fourteenth and penultimate ballot, Colbert recalled, “After that, all pluperfect hell broke loose. A furious [Kevin] McCarthy got out of his seat, walked up the aisle, and got into a yelling match with [Matt] Gaetz.”

Advertising for a parodic show, Colbert moved on with an exaggerated McCarthy impression, ‘You can catch all the drama on the new Bravo hit: The Real House Guys of D.C. No, no. No! uh-uh, I'm not here to make friends. Because I'm Kevin McCarthy, and no one will be my friend.’” 

While showing some C-SPAN footage, Colbert recalled, “then it got even dramatic-er, when McCarthy ally Mike Rogers approached the scrum and then-- where it is, right here-- and appeared to lunge at Matt Gaetz, and then was quickly pulled away.”

Colbert reacted to this confrontation with fake horror, “Oh, my god. I don't know if men should hold political office. They're just too emotional! You know what I mean? They're just... hormones, I guess. I just-- it's just-- it's the damn-- it's their damn hormones.”

The point Colbert is trying to make is not literally that men should be banned for public office because of testosterone. He is trying to ironically suggest a double standard, arguing that less sophisticated people believe women are not as qualified because they are hormonal. Of course, he cannot point to anyone of any relevance to back up this accusation or rebut the obvious point that most people vote based off party label. As it is, the man who called Kellyanne Conway “Satan’s trophy wife” should hold off on accusing other people of sexism.

Christy either didn't do his research or did research and hid it -- but it turns out that Colbert's joke has a basis in fact. CBS reported on a 2019 study on Americans' attitudes toward female politicians:

A Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) analysis of the General Social Survey, a broad study of attitudes and opinions conducted every two years, found that 13 percent of Americans still have serious doubts about women's emotional suitability for political office. And while that number represents a substantial decline in the bias against women in politics since the 1970s, it still represents a real hurdle for women running for office. 

Republicans were almost three times as likely as Democrats to believe that men were better suited emotionally for politics than women. 


Case in point: Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. Clinton marketed herself as the most experienced candidate to ever run for president, but was dogged by questions concerning her temperament and general likability. 

It was a problem female candidates commonly face: Women in politics need to be strong and decisive, but doing so risks making voters uncomfortable by pushing the boundaries of typical gender norms, according to CEW.

A successful, powerful woman could risk coming off as shrill and demanding. At the same time, she could read as too soft on serious issues facing the country such as national security or defense.  

That's right -- the idea that a woman is not emotionally fit to hold office is more likely to be held by a Republican than a Democrat. So Christy's right-splaining the joke in an attempt to make it less funny backfired because a full explanation actually shows it to be quite a hoot.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:02 AM EST
WND's Farah Still Embracing Bogus Claims Of Election Fraud In Brazil
Topic: WorldNetDaily

We've documented how WorldNetDaily has embraced unproven claims of fraud made by Jair Bolsonaro, the right-wing former president of Brazil who, like Trump, can't accept that he lost an election. Since then, Bolsonaro emulated Trump in another way: his supporters ransacked government buildings in an attempted insurrection. WND left coverage of the riot itself to a pair of outside articles, but editor Joseph Farah -- who pushed the bogus fraud claims in November -- did so again in his Jan. 10 column:

For all of December, the election was contested. Millions of people filled the streets, peacefully, in the some of the largest demonstrations in the world.

But guess what?

Outside of Brazil, the demonstrations went virtually unseen, including in the United States. They were blacked out.

On top of that, Joe Biden, months before the election, sent an unusual message to Bolsonaro. He told him, in no uncertain times, not to contest the election if he lost.

You can imagine what Bolsonaro thought of that warning – coming from Biden. Bolsonaro remembered clearly the 2020 election in the U.S. He knew it had been fixed, rigged, stolen.

Another thing you should know about the Brazilian election. They didn't use paper ballots – at all. They used just machines. One of the ways people knew it was rigged, aside from the activity by the Chinese Communists, was some of the regional results. In heavily contested areas, the supposed results revealed no opposition to "Lulu." None! He received all of the votes.

That's why the people amassed in some of the greatest peaceful protests in the history of the world.

Just look at them! But keep in mind that the people in Brazil knew the protests were not seen outside of Brazil because of the fake news media in the U.S. and in Brazil!

In fact, no one has provided credible evidence that Brazil's voting machines resulted in fraud. From there, Farah moved to downplaying the riot:

Flash forward to what is being called the Jan. 6 style riots in Brazil, on Jan. 8. They include break-ins at the Brazilian Congress, the presidential palace and the Supreme Court

And by contrast, look at the pictures!

This week, of course, Joe Biden condemned the unruly protests and offered his full support for Lula after the two spoke by phone. Meanwhile, Bolsonaro, a very good man, is in the U.S. but can be easily extradited. Biden called the unrest, familiarly, an "assault on democracy."

In a tweet on Sunday, Biden said supporters of Brazil's former President Bolsonaro were attacking the peaceful transfer of power in the nation, and again cast his support behind President da Silva.

Does any of this surprise anybody?

Did you expert Biden to change his tune with the change in the House of Representative?

Is this whole pattern of rigged elections getting old?

Is it clear to you how it's all done, with the help of the cooperative media and the Big Tech tyrants?

Brazil is the largest county in South America. China has long had its eyes on it – in fact, all of Latin America. It's their big prize. And now Beijing's man is president.

Again, Farah provided no evidence that Lula is "Beijing's man." And he didn't explain why the U.S. shouldn't recognize the winner of an election in which no credible evidence has surfaced to not do so.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:11 AM EST
Friday, February 10, 2023
MRC's Jean-Pierre-Bashing Watch
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center continued its attacks on White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, portraying her as incompetent for not answering questions to its satisfaction over the discovery of classified documents by President Biden outside the normal places they should be (which the MRC has also obsessed over). For the Jan. 17 briefing, Curtis Houck cheered that the "inept" Jean-Pierre was peppered with question from non-right-wing reporters even as he complained that she ignored right-wing outlets:

Tuesday’s White House press briefing marked another installment of a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day for the inept Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre as, while she ignored journalists from the Daily Caller, Fox News, and Newsmax about President Biden’s classified documents scandal, she ran into a proverbial buzzsaw from outlets such as ABC, the AP, CBS, CBS News Radio, NBC, and NPR with fiery questions about the scandal.

Houck complained further that Jean-Pierre wouldn't take the bait in his writeup of the Jan. 18 briefing, praising not only a current Fox News employee but a former one as well:

As we’ve documented over the last week (see here, here, here and here), Wednesday’s White House press briefing marked yet another tough day at the office for the empty and inept Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre as she kept up her stonewalling on President Biden’s classified documents scandal, while reporters from the likes of the ABC, the Associated Press, CBS, the Fox News Channel, Gray Television, NBC, and even an independent journalist from Angola fired off hardballs.

The AP’s Josh Boak led off the unsuccessful questioning by wondering if Jean-Pierre could give a justification “against visitor logs for” Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware home “given the frequency with which [he] works” there, but Jean-Pierre only told him to review statements from the White House counsel and Secret Service.

Formerly with Fox News Radio, Gray Television’s Jon Decker brought the hardball a little later, invoking Biden’s September 60 Minutes interview where he denounced Trump hoarding classified documents as “irresponsible”: “[D]o you think it was proper for President Biden to comment on an ongoing DOJ investigation?”


After not being called on Tuesday, Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich had a turn and focused on more public press access seeing as how “we’re in sort of an information blackout.” When Jean-Pierre said “no” to whether she’d have someone speak at a briefing, Heinrich tried once more before returning to the previous concern raised about any national security concerns.

Houck did not offer evidence to back up his claim that  Jean-Pierre declining not to answer questions made her "inept."

Meanwhile, Tim Graham gleefully touted criticism of Jean-Pierre from anonymous White House reporters (funny how anonyous sources are suddenly credible when they're spouting right-wing narratives, eh, Tim?) as reported by CNN's Oliver Darcy, whom the MRC normally hates and whom Houck himself obsessively denigrates as a "Benedict Arnold" for for the sin of escaping the right-wing media bubble. Graham went on to whine:

Then Darcy added a comical rebuttal from an anonymous White House source in a statement to CNN: "A lot of this sounds more like theater criticism than concern about ability to report facts for the American people’s benefit." Wrong! Reporters in this case are upset over lies about the Biden documents scandal. 


Anyone watching the briefing in recent says [sic] isn't really seeing a question-and-answer session as much as a question-and-stonewall session.


Can Jean-Pierre last at the White House if this document scandal goes on for months? Surely, Team Biden wishes they had a more talented stonewaller like Jen Psaki to handle the newly angered press corps. 

We don't recall anyone at the MRC complaining when their beloved Kayleigh McEnany stonewalled reporters -- but then, her stonewalling was for the conserative cause.

Despite the MRC previously denying that Jean-Pierre was being attacked as a diversity hire, Kevin Tober did exactly that in his writeup of thte Jan. 23 briefing:

During Monday’s White House press briefing, a handful of members of the White House press corps continued pressing the incompetent diversity hire, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre over the fifth batch of classified documents found in President Joe Biden’s home in Delaware and his regime’s lack of transparency over the scandal. 

First out of the gate on this topic was a series of spicy barbs thrown by ABC’s Mary Bruce who asked Jean-Pierre: “You have said though from this podium many, many times over the last two weeks that this President takes the handling of classified material very seriously, and yet we continue to learn about more documents being found and discovered at his home.” 

Due to those facts, Bruce asked: “Why should the American people believe that this President takes classified material seriously and the handling of it?” 

Of course, Jean-Pierre, like all the prior times she’s been asked, had no real answer. “The American people heard from the President directly on this when he was asked by your colleagues at least twice now about how he sees this process,” she mumbled.

Houck surprisingly whined more about a reporter who dared to deviate from questioning about Biden documents than about Jean-Pierre for the Jan. 24 briefing:

Tuesday afternoon’s White House press briefing brought about plenty more hardballs on President Biden’s classified documents scandal that the ever-inept Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre refused to answer, but along the way, Angolan reporter Hariana Veras temporarily brought the briefing to a halt with two long stemwinders of leftist commentary demanding gun control.

The next day, Houck once again tried to dunk on Jean-Pierre by praising a national security expert who was brought in, though he too was denigrated as a "crutch":

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre brought in National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby Wednesday afternoon to serve as a crutch amid weeks of hardballs on the Biden classified documents scandal and, sure enough, Kirby ended up exposing Jean-Pierre’s repetitive, tiresome answers by actually providing general explanations for why handling classified information is incredibly serious.

ABC’s MaryAlice Parks went first and cited “bipartisan outrage and frustration over the last few days that there are just more and more disclosures of classified documents showing up in places where they were not supposed to be.”


Jean-Pierre eventually had a turn, but she went back to shutting down, refusing to answer questions from AP’s Aamer Madhani on whether “all former presidents” should “scrub...their homes and offices” for classified documents and ABC’s MaryAlice Parks on whether the Biden-Harris administration would commit to ensure they’d leave office with no classified documents.

Any excuse to take a shot at Jean-Pierre, it appears.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:06 PM EST
Updated: Friday, February 10, 2023 10:08 PM EST
Newsmax's Victimhood Train Keeps Rolling
Topic: Newsmax

Newsmax can't stop complaining that its TV channel was dropped by DirecTV in a business dispute of licensing fees, which it is dishonestly framing as "censorship" (even though DrecTV replaced it with another right-wing channel, obliterating any claim to viewpoint censorship), and it's continuing to call back seemingly everyone who ever appeared on the channel to perform a little outrage over it. Here's how if finished out its second week of victimhood:

By our count, that's at least 111 "news" articles Newsmax has published complaining about getting deplatformed, attacking DirecTV and threatening to sic the government on the company over a business decision.

Newsmax columnists have opined as well. Tom Borelli parroted the pro-Newsmax line in a Feb. 3 column:

To the uninformed, DirecTV’s claim it got rid of Newsmax based on a business decision seems reasonable on the surface; looking deeper, it’s clear an intimidation campaign by U.S. House Democrats was a driving force behind its move to get rid of Newsmax.

In a February 2021 letter from Reps. Anna G. Eshoo, D-Calif., and Jerry McNerney, D-Calif., to companies that distribute TV news programs through streaming, satellite or cable, pressed those companies on their justification for providing Fox News, Newsmax and OANN to their customers.

Reps. Eshoo’s and McNerney’s opening paragraph didnt pull any punches; it accused AT&T and DIRECTV of being responsible for "disseminating misinformation to millions."

The congresspersons followed up by asking the companies a number of questions including how "moral and ethical principles" play into deciding which channels to distribute and do they require "content guidelines."

They also asked if actions were taken against the TV channels regarding "the November 3, 2020 elections, the January 6, 2021 Capital insurrection or COVID-19 misinformation."

The last question served as a direct assault on the companies business decision demanding to know if they planned to continue to carry Fox News, Newsmax and OANN and "If so, why?"


We want you to cancel Newsmax and other conservative outlets because we don’t agree with their content because it makes Democrats look bad in the eyes of the public.

Borelli censored the fact that bot Newsmax and OAN did, in fact, broadcast falsehoods and misinformation regarding the 2020 election, particularly about election tech firm Dominion, who is suing both of them. Borelli also wrote:

It may well be argued that AT&T and DirecTVare feeling the sting of GOP wrath because they just added a new conservative outlet, The First, to its offerings.

Perhaps that reflects an obvious clean up aisle five move in an effort to placate the political outrage it created.

The best solution for all is for AT&T and DirecTV to bring back Newsmax.

That, as far as we can tell, is only the second reference at Newsmax to the fact that DirecTV did, in fact, replace it with another right-wing channel -- which, again, obliterates the argument that what DirecTV did is viewpoint censorship. The first apparent reference was in a Jan. 27 article.

James Hirsen devoted his Feb. 6 column to blaming Newsmax's deplatforming on DirecTV's parent, AT&T, somehow being "woke" (translation: not filled with right-wingers):

In a nutshell, the world's largest telecommunications company (and third largest provider of cellphones) has insidiously morphed into a far-left organization that poses as a service company.

According to OpenSecrets, during the time period between 1989 and 2019, AT&T was the 14th-largest donor to United States federal political campaigns and committees, contributing tens of millions of dollars, a majority of which went straight into Democrat hands.

As Newsmax contributor Jeffrey Lord reported in the American Spectator, the company's leaders have backgrounds that link them with politicians of the liberal Democrat kind.

AT&T’s board of directors includes a chairman of the board that previously served as FCC chair, and was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. This same chairman of the board was an ambassador that was appointed to the position by former President Barack Obama.

Two board members are reliable contributors to prominent Democratic candidates, including one individual who was an adviser and supporter of former President Bill Clinton, as well as being the co-chair of the left-leaning Brookings Institution.


Did corporate heads at AT&T via its DirecTV subsidiary set out to suppress the speech of Newsmax? And was the company following the dictates of its fellow left-leaning politicians, media apparatchiks and radical activist groups?

The pieces of the puzzle seem to be falling into place.

Hirsen didn't explain how not being filled with right-wingers makes as company "woke." Nor did he disclose that DirecTV replace Newsmax with another right-wing channel, which undermines his conspikracy theory that the company was "following the dictates of its fellow left-leaning politicians, media apparatchiks and radical activist groups."

(Updated to note a previous reference to The First.)

Posted by Terry K. at 6:30 PM EST
Updated: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:31 AM EST
NEW ARTICLE -- Anti-Semitism And The MRC: The Virus Spreads
Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center was as squishy on the anti-Semitism of Kyrie Irving and on Donald Trump's dining with anti-Semites Kanye West and Nick Fuentes as it was on Ye's anti-Semitism. Read more >>

Posted by Terry K. at 11:43 AM EST
CNS Can't Stop Making Petty Attacks On Nancy Pelosi
Topic: may have shifted to petty attacks on the House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, but that doesn't mean it's done with petty attacks on the previous leader, Nancy Pelosi. We've already noted how CNS briefly obsessed over a tiny provision in the omnibus budget bill naming a building after her and that she noted that money in the bill will help LGBTQ youth, but there's much more.

A Dec. 1 article by Craig Bannister complained that Pelosi marked World AIDS Day and reminded us (with boldface!) that most AIDS victims are icky gay people who presumably don't deserve health equity because they're icky gay people:

Democrats remain committed to creating “health equity” when it comes to AIDS, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday, in a statement commemorating this year’s World AIDS Day, December 1.

AIDS “disproportionately” infects LGBTQ communities, those of color and the poor, Pelosi says in a statement posted on the speaker’s website:


But, as emphasizes with bolded text, behavior, not health discrimination, appears to be at the root of the disproportionately high HIV rates among some subpopulations, as “ gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are by far the most affected group in the US”:

An anonymously written Dec. 23 article carried the headline "Nancy Pelosi: ‘As Speaker of the House, I Have Awesome Power’" -- as if to portray her as a power-mad megalomaniac (despite the fact that she was in the middle of voluntarily stepping down from House leadership). The anonymous writer did put her words in context in the article:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) reflected during her last speaker’s press conference on Thursday on how much power she has enjoyed in that position.

“As Speaker of the House, I have awesome power,” said Pelosi.

“Now transitioning to a different role, I expect to have strong influence, but not on my Members, just in terms of encouraging more women, for example, to run,” she said.

“But the Speaker of the House is a very big job, and just wrapping it up will take time, with the Library of Congress for the papers, with the Historian of the Capitol–of the Congress–in terms of interviews and the rest of that,” said Pelosi.

CNS continues to disapprovingly note (anonymously, of course) whenever Pelosi references her Catholic faith:

The latter article made a point of adding: "In May 2022, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco notified Pelosi that because she persisted in advocating legalized abortion she could no longer receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. In doing so, Cordileone cited an instruction that then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had sent to the Catholic bishops of the United States in 2004." The anonymous writer failed to note that Pope Francis generally disapproves of denying Communion to Catholic politicians.

Another anonymously wreitten article, on Jan. 6, impllicitly took Pelosi to task for invoking the Catholic holy day of Epiphany to criticize the Capitol riot:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.), the former speaker of the House, put out a statement on Jan. 6—which is the Catholic Feast of the Epiphany--calling on people to pray to ensure that this day remains an “epiphany” for America based on what happened on Jan. 6, 2021.

The statement was headlined: “Pelosi Statement on Two Years Since January 6th Insurrection.”

“Two years ago today, our nation watched in horror as a terrorist mob stormed the Capitol grounds in a violent attempt to subvert the peaceful transfer of power,” said Pelosi in her statement.

“January 6th marks the Feast of the Epiphany in the Catholic tradition,” Pelosi said. “As we commemorate two years since the insurrection, let us pray that this day continues to serve as an epiphany for our nation: to heal the wounds that remain and to preserve American Democracy, what Lincoln called ‘the last best hope of earth.’”

Three days later, CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman wrote an article trying to whitewash the effects of the riot.

A Jan. 9 article -- anonymously written, of course -- complained that Jeffries said nice things about Pelosi:

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D.-N.Y.) said in a speech from the podium at the front of the House chamber on Saturday that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) was the “greatest speaker of all time.”

“Before I proceed any further, let me begin by acknowledging the distinguished Gentlelady from the great state of California, the iconic, the heroic, the legendary Speaker Emerita, Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi,” said Jeffries.

“And without question in my mind, Speaker Emerita Pelosi will go down in history as the greatest Speaker of all time,” he said.

Pelosi, who was in the chamber, acknowledged the praise of her successor with a broad smile.

CNS apparently thinks this is a bad thing.

On Jan. 20, yet another anonymously written article groused about Pelosi's selection of quotes from Martin Luther King:

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) sent out a pair of tweets on Martin Luther King Day in which she quoted King as saying that God did not intend for a one class “of people to live in superfluous inordinate wealth.”


Earlier that day, Pelosi had sent out a tweet that said: “Dr. King wrote: ‘God never intended for one group of people to live in superfluous inordinate wealth, while others live in abject deadening poverty.’

“Let us draw strength from these words,” Pelosi said, “as we strive to realize Dr. King & Coretta’s glorious vision of justice, equality & peace.”

We can see why CNS might be upset about that.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:06 AM EST
Updated: Friday, February 10, 2023 1:57 PM EST

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

« February 2023 »
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

Bloggers' Rights at EFF
Support Bloggers' Rights!

News Media Blog Network

Add to Google