NEW ARTICLE -- Slanties 2023: Ultra Slantie
Topic: The ConWeb
For the 20th time, it's time to honor (as it were) the worst ConWeb reporting and craziest ConWeb opinions of the year. Read more >>

NEW ARTICLE: The Big Biden Speech Meltdown
Topic: The ConWeb
The ConWeb simultaneously -- and unsurprisingly -- had fits over President Biden's speech calling out the extremism of MAGA Republicans. Read more >>

ConWeb Throws A Fit When Fox News Is Less Than 100% Transphobic
Topic: The ConWeb

Fox News has very much earned its status as a anti-transgender outlet -- it pushed the hateful narrative about a Loudoun County, Va., student who was "wearing a dress" who assaulted a female student  (in fact, the students had consensual sexual contact before the incident), was one of the leaders in demonizing transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, and it aired dozens of segments maliciously portraying transgender people as "groomers." But that's not enough for the ConWeb -- Fox News must be all-transphobia, all the time.

When Fox News hired Caitlyn Jenner as a commentator earlier this year, trtanphobic WorldNetDaily columnist Michael Brown threw a fit over the channel offering a "celebratory embrace of Jenner as an iconic trailblazer in the LGBTQ+ community" and declaring that Fox News could no longer trusted to hate the same people he does: "In short, just because Fox was pro-Trump doesn't mean Fox was (and is) pro-Bible (as if support for Trump equated with support for the Bible). And just because Fox is more conservative politically and fiscally than CNN or MSNBC doesn't mean that Fox is conservative morally or spiritually."

In darly June, Fox News committed the offense of not spewing hate in a segment about a transgender teen -- and the ConWeb exploded in outrage. The Media Research Center's Tierin-Rose Mandelburg whined in a June 10 post:

Oh come on! Seven million people saw a viral YouTube video of a transgender teenager and none other than Fox News just gave the delusion another platform to spread on.

At the 10 o'clock hour today onAmerica's Newsroom with Bill Hemmer and Dana Perino, the show highlighted the story of Ryland Whittington to show the company’s support of the LGBTQ community during Pride Month.

Dang it, I guess I’m gonna have to find a new channel to watch.

Mandeburg even suggested that it would be better that the teen killed himself rather than transition. In response to the teen's mother declaring that “I’d rather have a living son than a dead daughter,”Mandelburg sneered, "Nobody wants anyone to harm themselves in any way, I don’t think that indulging delusional sense of identity is the way to combat that."

Mandelburg concluded her post with another whine: "The only thing this story led me to understand is that Fox is a bit more woke than I’d like to admit. Prayers go out to the millions of people that saw this segment and think that transitioning the youth isn’t child abuse." Are there any prayers for someone who thinks the only possible response to transgender is to engage in her own form of child abuse by spewing hate and encouraging suicide?

(By contrast, the MRC was silent when former Fox News host Megyn Kelly attacked her former employer over the segment despite actually defending trans rights in a Fox News interview six years earlier.)

Newsmax joined the hate parade with a June 11 article by Jay Clemmons arguing that the Fox News audience (well, right-wing transphobes) was "stunned" that a transgender teen wasn't treated as evil:

Fox News stunned its audience Friday after it aired a sympathetic transgender story about a biological girl who had "transitioned" beginning at the age of 5 to become a boy.

As part of Fox News' special series called "America Together: LGBTQ+ Pride Month," Fox correspondent Bryan Llenas featured a Southern California family who decided to help make their female child a transgender boy named Ryland, now 14.

[...]

Shortly after the Fox report aired, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro slammed Fox for airing the pro-transgender segment as a "complete betrayal."

"Every element of this [Fox News] video is propagandistic, dangerous garbage," Shapiro said.

[...]

Likewise, Daily Wire host Michael Knowles knocked Fox News for spotlighting a controversial issue that goes against the beliefs of its Christian viewers.

"Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer when my conservative news outlets don't encourage parents to trans their little children," he said.

[...]

The sentiment was largely the same among regular Fox viewers.

One commenter wrote, via Twitter, "You're done with me now. Stop pushing the woke trans abuse of children. The media is the enemy of the people. That includes Fox News too. Nobody needs your propaganda."

Clemmons went on to complain that this story, along with the hiring of Jenner, demonstrated how the channel "has been undergoing a transitioning of sorts itself as it moves away from its more traditional base of viewers." Newsmax's TV channel has been gunning for the right-wing audience who thinks Fox News isn't transphobic or pro-Trump enough.

The MRC's "news" divisiobn, CNSNews.com, want a piece of that hateful action too. It published a June 14 commentary by Suzanne Bowdley of the right-wing, anti-LGBT Family Research Council's "news" operation, the Washington Stand, issuing the well-worn complaint about being sad that Fox News doesn't offer the 24/7 homophobia and transphobia she demands:

For the last handful of years, no one’s been under the impression that Fox News is particularly conservative. But at least they were reasonable, many thought. After Friday’s glowing endorsement of transgenderism, the benefits of those doubts are gone.

[...]

Maybe the network was trying to get back into the Human Rights Campaign’s good graces, after being dinged on this year’s Corporate Diversity Index after years of a perfect score. Still, the idea that anyone could be supportive of a movement so sinister and lethal to children is mind-boggling to viewers, who’ve seen the heartbreaking results firsthand. The pain and regret from teenagers who latched on to these new identities because of the adults in their lives is real. 

She then cited examples of transgender people who regret their transition that right-wingers like her are exploiting to fuel their anti-trans hate.

CNS also cheered Shapiro's hate in a June 17 article by intern Janey Olohan:

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro is railing against the Fox News Channel for airing a sympathetic segment highlighting a family that encouraged their young daughter to identify as a boy from the mere age of five, calling the report “despicable,” and “a complete betrayal of anything remotely resembling conservatism or decency.”

In Monday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” Shapiro dissects and refutes, piece by piece, the “insane propaganda” of the Fox News segment, “California transgender teen, family hope to be an inspiration to others,” promoting the transition of the young girl.

[...]

Shapiro called Ryland’s transition from such a young age “child abuse,” stating that, “the vast majority of children who display signs of gender dysphoria desist over time.”

He called the report “horrifying propaganda,” and ridiculed the mother, Hillary Whittington, for referencing her Christian faith to justify transitioning her daughter as an infant.

Olohan even parroted Shapiro calling the teen's mother a liar for defending her child:

“I’d rather have a living son than a dead daughter,” Ryland’s mother told “America’s Newsroom” – a claim Shapiro calls mere propaganda, not fact:

“There is no credible evidence that transition alleviates suicidal ideation among children who identify as LGBTQ+.”

Olohan did no fact-checking whatsoever of Shapiro to make sure he really dod "refute" everything in the segment. She apparently didn't consider the possibility that it was Shapiro and not Fox News who was serving up "propaganda." That's sadly par for the course, given how CNS is teaching its summer interns how to peddle right-wing bias instead of learning journalistic principles.

Who Cares About Facts? ConWeb Wants You To Believe A Bird Pooped On Biden
Topic: The ConWeb

It was a story too good to fact-check: Something appeared on President Biden's suit coat during a speech in Iowa, and it obviously had to be bird poop. Susan Jones wrote in an April 12 CNSNews.com article illustrated with three photos and a video:

About three minutes into his speech at an ethanol plant in Iowa Tuesday, President Biden was annointed from above by -- a bird?

Biden, standing near a pile of corn in what he called a "giant barn," was talking about "the work we’re doing to lower costs for American families and put rural America at the center of our efforts to build a future that’s made in America. And that’s not hyperbole; it’s about being made in America," he said.

Biden started to say, "A lot of that has — has to do with this industry." And as he said the words "a lot," something from above stained the shoulder of his navy blue blazer. Biden did not pause, assuming he even noticed.

The white splotch remained on his collar, above the pocket handkerchief and pin, as Biden took several minutes after his speech to meet and greet the plant workers.

But later, as he prepared to depart Iowa, the stain was no longer evident as Biden stopped briefly to speak to reporters.

WorldNetDaily followed suit the same day, with Joe Kovacs copying-and-pasting social media insults:

Is it a message from above?

Joe Biden was the recipient of a "gift" from the heavens Tuesday when something dropped on him during his televised speech.

The president was speaking in Menlo, Iowa, during the first stop of his administration's new "rural infrastructure tour."

As Biden said, "It's not hyperbole. It's about being made in America," a dropping of something that itself was made in America suddenly appeared on the left shoulder of the president's blue blazer near the neckline.

And, of course, the video was posted on social media.

"Look closely. It 100% looks like a bird just pooped on Joe Biden. Lmfaoo," tweeted Greg Price of Philadelphia.

The providential dropping is uniting Americans, with reactions online including:

• "It's a sign 😂"
• "Literally a sh** show."
• "Or what's left of brains spilling out of his ear."
• "Everyone's a critic."
• "It was #Putin.🙄"
• "A new national bird."
• "I wish it had been a bald eagle."
• "Looks like the bird's aim was a little off there."
• "It's a nice garnish for the verbal diarrhea pouring out of his mouth."
• "An omen from the gods."
• "Even the bird knows he's full of cr**!"
• "Insurrection! We must ban birds."
• "God has the best sense of humor 🤣"
• "The bird did what all of America wants to do."

Biden's dropping incident is reminiscent of a series of times when Barack Obama was bugged by flies and bees during his time in the Oval Office.

Oddly -- considering how much WND enjoys publishing falsehoods and misinformation -- Kovacs updated his article on April 18: "A fact check by Politifact, one of Facebook's partners, indicates: "Something did stain the president's suit during his speech, but it was distillers grains, according to reporters in the room and the White House. A video clearly shows particles flying around from a giant, nearby grain pile."

And because the claim was fact-checked, Media Research Center rushed to object to the fact-check in an April 18 post, even though he admits the claim is "erroneous":

Even the silliest content about President Biden can be grounds for punishing conservative sites.

Take the erroneous "Biden had bird poop on him" story. The president gave a speech in Iowa promoting how corn-enhanced gasoline could help reduce the price at the pump. PolitiFact didn't offer a "fact check" on anything Biden said, but it did trash conservative sites for what appeared on Biden's jacket.

It was "FALSE" to say “A bird pooped on Joe Biden during his speech” in Iowa. PolitiFact's Jeff Cercone summarized on April 13: 

[...]

Notice Cercone didn't evaluate Biden blaming price hikes on Putin. He was poop-focused. But PolitiFact looks like a partisan site when Sen. Ron Johnson gets a "Mostly False" for blaming high gas prices on the Democrats and Joe Biden gets a Mostly True for claiming "The current spike in gas prices is largely the fault of Vladimir Putin."

At no point does Graham apologize for publishing false information. To the contrary, he's mad that conservative media is being held accountable for it, huffing that "Based on the "fact checkers," Facebook has restricted our sister site MRCTV’s 3.3-million-follower page for the next three months for an article insisting that the president had the poopoo, and the article having now been branded with a “false information” label to protect the public from such damaging myths." Graham included a screenshot of an MRCTV Twitter post featuring the false claim -- which Graham admits is false -- that "A bird pooped on Joe Biden in Iowa."

A post the next day from Joseph Vazquez whined at length about the MRC being held accountable for its false claims:

The hypocrisy of Facebook’s fact-checking partners knows no bounds. In an act of discrimination against the Media Research Center, a Meta platform fact-checking partner threw a fit after MRC’s video division, MRCTV, dared to write about a video that showed President Joe Biden getting smacked with a white or yellow substance, depending on the photo or video.

MRCTV managing editor Brittany Hughes headlined, “Yes, a Bird Just Crapped On Biden During a Speech.” Hughes quipped that “It appears a bird proceeded to crap on Joe Biden while the president was speaking in Iowa Tuesday, dropping a big, dripping pile of poo directly on Biden’s shoulder in full view of God and everyone.”

“False information,” cried Facebook in a filter it slapped over MRCTV’s post of Hughes’ blog. The platform linked out to an absurd article by left-wing fact-checker PolitiFact that tried to protect biden. Facebook in turn canceled MRCTV, restricting its account and reducing its page quality for at least 90 days for supposedly having “repeatedly shared false information.” Oh, please. MRCTV received previous “missing context” flags, which are supposedly not supposed to hurt the quality of its page but did anyway.

Vazquez then bizarrely attacked the PolitiFact fact-checker for not personally investigating the substance on Biden's lapel:

While Cercone acknowledged that “there were birds in what the president called the ‘giant barn,’” he appears to have taken others’ word for it and dismissed the poop theory out of hand. “It became clear fairly soon after that the theory was a load of bird poop, but by that point the video had been widely shared.” Cercone continued: “A video clearly shows particles flying around from a giant, nearby grain pile. We rate this claim False.” Did Cercone examine the substance himself? Did he smell it? Did he smush it between his fingers? Did he taste it? Did he ask the White House for a sample of the substance and have it tested in a lab somewhere? It doesn’t appear so.

[...]

Cercone’s “bird poop” of a fact-check ridiculously tried but couldn't prove with hard evidence that the substance wasn’t feces. Yet, Facebook took PolitFact seriously anyway.

But it got even more ridiculous. PolitiFact cited a Des Moines Register article which “showed a closeup image of the president’s jacket, which clearly shows a yellow color, not the traditional white usually dropped on us by our avian friends.” Ah, so the brilliant rebuttal from PolitiFact’s in-house ornithologist is that the substance was too yellow to be bird poop? Apparently Facebook saw that as enough of an excuse to censor MRCTV.

Vazquez refused to admit the MRC was wrong, and Hughes' post remains live and uncorrected. That's right-wing arrogance and disregard for the truth in a nutshell.

ConWeb Embraces Bogus, Extremist Wis. Election Report
Topic: The ConWeb

When a Republican-generated report in Wisconsin called for overturning the 2020 presidential election because a foundation funded by Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg donated money to help finance putting on elections, some of which went to get-out-the-vote efforts, the usual ConWeb suspects -- and even some unusual ones -- embraced it. Of the former, Bob Unruh gushed in a March 1 WorldNetDaily article:

It's already been confirmed by a study that Mark Zuckerberg's decision to donate some $420 million to various leftist elections officials across America to "help" them accommodate COVID during the 2020 president race essentially "bought" the vote for Joe Biden.

Now a report from the Office of Special Counsel in the state of Wisconsin has determined that those actions also violated the state's bribery statutes.

Margot Cleveland at the Federalist has posted an explanation of the stunning verdict.

In Wisconsin, Zuckerberg's money, some $9 million, went "solely to five Democratic strongholds" and the special counsel's report to the Wisconsin Assembly said those actions violated the ban on bribes.

[...]

The report, 136 pages, said it was not challenging the certification of the 2020 results in Wisconsin, one of several battleground states that went narrowly for Joe Biden. Its goal, instead, is to recommend ways to avoid another election that results from criminal activity.

Unruh is lying. The author of the report, Michael Gableman, argued in a hearing discussing the report that the Wisconsin legislature "ought to take a very hard look at the option of decertification of the 2020 Wisconsin presidential election," and the report itself offered instructions on how it thinks that can be done.

Unruh then highlighted the report's key claim that money went to the apparently horrible offense to encouraging people to vote:

The Federalist reported, "According to the report, Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg providing financing that allowed the Center for Tech and Civic Life to offer nearly $9 million in 'Zuck Bucks' to Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay counties. In exchange, the 'Zuckerberg 5,' as the report called the counties, in effect, operated Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts. Those grant funds then paid for illegal drop boxes to be placed in Democratic voting strongholds."

But as the Washington Post's Philip Bump noted, the report's idea that it's somehow "cheating" or even illegal to encourage people to vote -- particiluarly if those people voted for a candidate opposed by the report's author -- is dumb:

Well, if you want to increase turnout among less frequent voters, you’re going to target groups that turn out less often, which, given the change from 2012 to 2016, means focusing on counties that have more non-White voters to turnout. In Wisconsin, that means counties such as Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, Dane, Sawyer, Brown, Ashland and Rock. Each of those counties has a non-White population that makes up at least a fifth of the population. Understandably, then, an effort to bolster election access in Wisconsin focused on the cities of Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay — in Milwaukee, Dane, Racine, Kenosha and Brown counties.

Would increasing turnout among low-propensity voters in those places probably increase the number of Biden voters? Yes. Is that cheating? Of course not. These efforts aren’t suppression of White turnout or giving non-White voters some sort of unfair leg up. Instead, they’re efforts to reduce the barriers that cause poorer, non-White citizens to vote less often.

That’s not how Gableman frames the efforts. His report is blatantly obvious in its efforts to imply wrongdoing. ... The “Zuckerberg 5” sounds like a domestic terror cell from the 1960s, which is the goal.

Bump went on to note that Gableman portrayed efforts to increase turnout as an inherently partisan Democreatic effort, even though turnout for Trump increased as well, and that turnout for Democrats was up nationally, not just in Wisconsin. Bump also pointed out that Gableman's effort to portray money to municipalities to help increase turnout as "bribery" has already been rejected as a valid legal theory. Bump concluded:

Here again, nearly 500 days after the 2020 election, we see a familiar pattern play out. Republican elected officials want to make Trump supporters happy by treating their unfounded claims of fraud as serious rather than actually confronting those claims. They hire an investigator who is starting from the conclusion that votes were stolen, here. Then the investigation serves as a giant, costly smoke machine so that the investigator can tell the legislators and Republican voters that, while you can’t see it, somewhere in that cloud is a raging fire.

In this case, that fire consists of trying to increase voting among those who have historically faced institutional difficulties in doing so. If that’s cheating, then so is offering SAT tutoring to students in disadvantaged school districts. Sorry if that expands the pool of Harvard applicants your kid is competing against.

Unlike Unruh, a March 1 Newsmax article by Brian Freeman admitted that Gableman wants to overturn the eleciton, and he also included comments from the Democratic head of the Wisconsin Election Commission, which Gableman wants tio eliminate, callingthe report "full in crazy conspiracy theory."

CNSNews.com,  meanwhile, publishsed a March 3 column by the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins ranting how Gableman's report exposed "bad actors" (the "bad act," of course, was to boost voter turnout), then had to parse exactly what was bad about that:

To be clear, the report does not allege widespread voter fraud. There was no violation of the "one citizen, one vote" principle. What the report does show is a well-funded effort by government-run election boards to systematically turn out more votes in regions known to lean towards one political party. Political parties and candidates are allowed to do this; in fact, GOTV efforts are essential parts of every modern political campaign. What is illegal here is that election administrators put their thumb on the scale for one political party. In the words of the report, they "crossed the line between election administration and campaigning."

[...]

How many votes can you buy with $350 million? Possibly enough to swing a close election. But to know for certain, we would have to prove how many votes would not have been cast if the money had not been spent, and that's impossible. The money was spent unfairly, but this is one wrong that can't be righted retroactively -- at least, not by human judges.

Perkins' idea of "unfair," of course, is turning out voters who might vote for a candidate Perkins doesn't apporove of.

Given what a ridiculous, misleading, conspiracy-laden report it is, it's surprising that the Media Research Center embraced -- though perhaps not so surprising, given how long the MRC has been trying and failing to attack Facebook. A March 2 post by Alexander Hall -- complete with the headline "Zuck Bucks!" -- was in full spin mode, right down to uncritically repeating a description of Gableman's piece of work as an "election integrity report":

An election integrity probe reportedly found that a nonprofit funded by Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg swayed the 2020 election “in violation of Wisconsin law.” 

Could this be the scandal that shakes up America’s electoral integrity? “A 2020 election integrity probe in Wisconsin reported findings Tuesday that a nonprofit group funded by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg committed election bribery when it targeted $8.8 million in get-out-the-vote funds to five heavily Democratic jurisdictions,” The Washington Times reported March 2.“The report details a ‘bribery scheme’ implemented by the Chicago-based Center for Tech and Civic Life, a liberal voter advocacy group heavily funded by Mr. Zuckerberg.”

[...]

The report’s findings, if true, implicate that “Election officials in the five jurisdictions, the report found, may have broken the law ‘by not treating all voters the same in the same election … a bedrock of principle of election law.’” 

Hall has no idea if the claims are true because he made no effort to investigate it -- and neither did the article he cited. Hall conveniently chose a Washington Times article to summarize because it's a right-wing publication that can be counted on to offer conservative-friendly spin; the article includes only two paragraphs of criticism of the report buried toward the end, neither of which was substantive.

But that's what happens because the MRC cares less about being authoritative and much more about owning the libs through any means necessary, no matter how discredited and WND-esque they are.

NEW ARTICLE -- Slanties 2022: Slant Game
Topic: The ConWeb
It's awards season, so it's time to honor, as it were, the worst ConWeb reporting and craziest ConWeb opinions of the year. Read more >>

ConWeb Treats Satirical Pro-LGBT Video As Deadly Serious
Topic: The ConWeb

The ConWeb -- particularly the Media Research Center -- loves to complain when right-wing "satire" is treated as fact and fact-checked accordingly (because right-wingers tend to think that what they read at the Babylon Bee is the truth and promote it as such). But a  piece of liberal satire that conforms with what conservatives believe about liberals gets treated as deadly serious.

Such is the case with a video released by the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus last month that mocks anti-LGBT right-wingers with lyrics like "We'll convert your children/Happens bit by bit/Quietly and subtlely/And you will barely notice it." The MRC's Gabriel Hays -- who absolutely hates LGBT people -- had a massive homohobic meltdown over the video, declaring it to be "grotesque" and a manifesto for the LGBT movement:

Sure, one could guess that this was going to be more LGBTQ propaganda. But viewers probably had no idea how shameful and nefarious the song was going to be.

One young, smug gay entertainer began singing: “You think we’re sinful. You fight against our rights, you say we all lead lives you can’t respect. But you’re just frightened, you think that we’ll corrupt your kids, if our agenda goes unchecked.”

(Though, in our defense, we have seen a Pride month this year featuring LGBTQ propaganda aimed at kids and even toddlers, so it’s a legitimate concern.)

And, as if to validate that concern, the choir members segued into their song’s creepy chorus: “Fine — just this once, you’re correct. We’ll convert your children. Happens bit by bit. Quietly and suddenly, and you will barely notice it.” 

Oh really now? They’re not even trying to hide it anymore, are they? It seems this was the Pride Month where the mask truly slipped.

Hays concluded by ranting, "This is what the LGBTQ movement is doing and everyone needs to be aware." Yes, Gabe, we all need to be aware of how satire works, especially since you apparently aren't.

A WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh did seem to understand there was a bit of satire going on, acknowledging that "The messaging is cast in a light that portrays anyone with moral or biblical objections to homosexuality as being unfair and intolerant" -- given that they are, an accurate interpretation. But he repeated anti-LGBT groups' overly serious interpretations of the video and falsely called the "we coming for your children" lyric a "threat" in the headline.

Meanwhile, at the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com,  homophobic managing editor Michael W. Chapman called on equally homophobic religious-right activist Franklin Graham to denounce it and ignore the satire:

The San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus posted a video last week about how they are "coming for your children," and will "convert" them, "bit by bit." In response, Christian leader Franklin Graham said they were proclaiming the "truth about" their agenda, which is a real "threat" to families and society.

In a July 10 post on Facebook, Rev. Graham wrote, "This gay group says they're 'coming for your children' -- and they’re telling the truth about it. We knew it, but I’m surprised they admitted it."

The video was pulled after threats of violence and doxxing came in, which Graham seems pretty cool with:

"After outrage from viewers on YouTube, the group took the video down, and tried to say it was an attempt at some kind of humor," said Graham.  "I don’t see any humor, and neither do a lot of other parents and grandparents, but I see a driving agenda and a threat that is real."

Apparently, Chapman and Graham are quite OK with LGBT people being harmed or killed because of who they are. They probably see much more humor in that.

ConWeb Hypes Arrest Of 'Leftist' Rioter To Distract From Pro-Trump Nature of Capitol Riot
Topic: The ConWeb

The ConWeb has had trouble accepting that their fellow Trump supporters committed the Jan. 6 Capityol Riot (witness WorldNetDaily's attempts to blame Antifa). But when an purported leftist was arrested for his alleged role in the riot, they were ON IT.

Unsurprisingly, WND dived in deeply, first with an anonymously written Jan. 14 article:

The FBI has arrested anarchist leader John Sullivan of Utah for participating in and committing various crimes during the riot at the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6.

He was quoted as saying, "We got to rip Trump from office" and "It's time for a revolution."

Videos showed Sullivan agitating the crowd and encouraging violence.

That was followed the next day with an article by Art Moore declaring that this proved Antifa provoked the riot:

The FBI's arrest of a "revolutionary" activist Thursday night has shattered the conventional narrative that the loose-knit, "anti-fascist" movement known as Antifa had nothing to do with the violence that shut down the U.S. Capitol and prompted the second impeachment of President Trump.

John Earle Sullivan of Sandy, Utah, insists he's not a "member" of Antifa or Black Lives Matter, but the activists in black bloc who were behind the estimated $2 billion in damage over the summer don't carry membership cards. In quieter moments, many explain their aim is to provoke a revolution and replace the American republic with an anarchist system in which there is no state.

[...]

Prior to Sullivan's arrest, the prominent "fact-checker" site published by the Poynter Institute, Politifact, declared there's "no evidence that the crowd was infiltrated or led by antifa activists in disguise, and specific individuals held up online as antifa activists have turned out to be Trump supporters."

In fact, BLM activists in Utah, where Sullivan is from, have said Sullivan was kicked out of the group for extreme behavior and suspected far-right ties. Observers of Sullivan at the riot have said they did not see Sullivan inciting violence.

Moore then labored to distance the rioters from purportedly real Trump supporters:

Along with anti-Trump extremists, the FBI has arrested extremists who have declared support for the president.

Among them is Jacob Chansley, the QAnon conspiracy theorist who was photographed wearing horns as he stood at the desk of Vice President Mike Pence in the Senate chamber.

However, Chansley doesn't fit the profile of a typical Trump supporter. He has explained he's a practioner of shamanism, and Reuters reported a detention memo by Justice Department lawyers in Arizona said he "has spoken openly about his belief that he is an alien, a higher being, and he is here on Earth to ascend to another reality."

Among the mob at the Capitol were members of a "group" that has drawn the attention of the FBI ahead of the inauguration called the Boogaloo Bois.

The Atlantic reported the FBI warned earlier that boogaloos could launch attacks in state capitols this Sunday.

But the center-left magazine said "the boogaloos don't appear interested in fighting for Donald Trump — they tend to despise him, mostly because they think he panders to the police."

But Sullivan appears to have been the only non-right-winger arrested in connection to the riot, undercutting Moore's bogus contention that it was instigated by Antifa.

Moore is also being disingenuous by dismissing the "QAnon Shaman" arrested at the riot as not a true Trump supporter because "he's a practioner of shamanism." He's deliberately overlooking the QAnon part of the description, which is very much a pro-Trump movement.

CNSNews.com also glommed onto Sullivan's arrest in a Jan. 15 article by Melanie Arter touting how "A leftist activist was arrested and charged with taking part in the Jan. 6 siege on the U.S. Capitol," adding that "Sullivan told the Rolling Stone that he tried to blend in so that Trump supporters would trust him." Strangely, CNS deleted Arter's article; it's no longer in the CNS archive, and the original direct link comes up empty.

At the Media Research Center's NewsBusters blog, P.J. Gladnick got all excited about Sullivan's arrest -- and his appearance on CNN after the riot but before the arrest -- in a Jan 15 post:

On January 6, after the rioting in the Capitol building, Anderson Cooper interviewed a leftist "journalist," John Sullivan, who was filming the scene when Air Force veteran, Ashli Babbitt, was shot and killed. Conveniently not mentioned by Cooper during the interview was the fact that Sullivan had been arrested the previous July for rioting and making threats in Provo, Utah. Somehow this important fact, which would have put Sullivan's background in the proper perspective, was skipped although CNN seemed to know enough about Sullivan to identify him as the founder of far left Insurgence USA in its transcript.

[...]

It is therefore not very surprising that this "journalist" has now been arrested for very similar activity at the Capitol that CNN somehow overlooked although his organization appears in the report of Sullivan's Provo arrest.

Interestingly, we have not seen that WND, CNS or the MRC has given another other person arrested at the riot the kind of headline coverage it gave Sullivan -- which tells us they're using Sullivan as a distraction from the fact that the rioters were, in fact, pro-Trump extremists not too much unlike themselves.

NEW ARTICLE -- Slanties 2021: Hy-Slantie-Chloroquine
Topic: The ConWeb
It's awards season, so it's time to honor, as it were, the worst ConWeb reporting and craziest ConWeb opinions of the year. Read more >>

ConWeb Triggered By Harry Styles In A Dress
Topic: The ConWeb

Pop star Harry Styles did a photo shoot for Vogue magazine in which he wore dresses, and unsurprisingly, the ConWeb melted down over it. Todd Starnes ranted in a Nov. 16 WorldNetDaily column:

Harry Styles, the former boy band singer, is making national headlines in the fashion world. He's the first man to grace the cover of Vogue. He was also wearing a dress.

Mr. Styles says society should dismiss the idea that there are clothes for men and clothes for women. He went on to say that wearing ladies' garments is "amazing."

Vogue prides itself in being the industry leader when it comes to fashion and style – and if they have their say, hairy-legged men with burly chests will be painting the town red in Gucci gowns with matching handbags.

[...]

It's a direct assault on cultural norms – this idea of gender fluidity. The left wants you to believe there's no such thing as male or female. They want you to believe that you actually exist on some sort of spectrum.

They want to create a society where it's perfectly acceptable for Doris and Sally to wear jock straps. And we should celebrate if Cousin Leroy meanders through Walmart wearing ladies' unmentionables.

At CNSNews.com, its favorite dishonest black conservative, Candace Owens, was given space for her own meltdown:

“There is no society that can survive without strong men,” Owens tweeted on Monday. “The East knows this. In the West, the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence. Bring back manly men.”

[...]

She trended on Twitter at the number two spot because of the tweet and received criticism from many fans of Styles.

“You’re pathetic,” Olivia Wilde responded to Owens. Wilde is a filmmaker who cast Styles as the lead in her upcoming movie Don’t Worry Darling.

Vox’s Carlos Maza said Owens sounded “like the pearl-clutching puritans who've been around since the 50s and 60s. Genuinely impossible for them to be cool for even one second.”

Candace tweeted after she began trending to clarify her position, “I meant: Bring back manly men. Terms like ‘toxic masculinity,’ were created by toxic females. Real women don’t do fake feminism. Sorry I’m not sorry.”

And at the Media Research Center, Sergie Daez was aghast that anyone would criticize Owens for her meltdown:

Who would look more manly? A gnarly-faced Scot who’s clad in a kilt, sporting a fierce beard, brandishing a claymore and wearing a scowl that could kill a snowflake? Or a smooth-faced boy with styled hair who’s wearing a dress that resembles a ball gown from the 1800s? 

While appearance doesn’t reveal everything about one’s character, it can send off a message about one’s beliefs. Harry Styles, British vocalist of the band One Direction, seems to think that it’s alright for men to wear dresses, as evinced by his latest photo shoot with Vogue magazine. Conservative political activist and author Candace Owens found the sight revolting, and she tweeted on November 14, “There is no society that can survive without strong men. The East knows this. In the west, the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence. It is an outright attack. Bring back manly men.”

Billboard.com reported Owens’s disgust in an article published on November 16, where they called Owens a “hater” and “conservative firebrand.” They also presented a number of tweets defending Styles from Owens’s comments, including a tweet from actress Olivia Wilde, who is known for acting in the medical drama House.

Billboard’s headline indicated that Wilde was defending Styles from Owens, but it sounded more like a childish attempt to avenge an injury.

Actually, Daez is the childish one here, responding to actor Zach Braff's tweet that people are "free to be whatever the f*** yoiu want jto be" by retorting, "Clearly it’s more important to Braff to be what one wants to be rather than to be what one is, that is, oneself," going on to further sneer, "Styles might have his own issues to deal with, but it’s important to just be yourself."

But it's clear Daez doesn't want Styles to "be yourself," especially if that self involves wearing a dress in a photo shoot.

NEW ARTICLE: Narrative Over Truth, Abortion Edition
Topic: The ConWeb
After a new documentary revealed that Roe v. Wade plaintiff Norma McCorvey said she became an anti-abortion activist because she was paid to do so, the ConWeb's anti-abortion activists sought to discredit the film. Read more >>

NEW ARTICLE -- Slanties 2020: Once Upon A Time In ... Slantie-Land
Topic: The ConWeb
It's awards season, so it's time to honor, as it were, the worst ConWeb reporting and craziest ConWeb opinions of the year. Read more >>

NEW ARTICLE: Defections In The Gay-Bashing Ranks
Topic: The ConWeb
The ConWeb used to be able to count on Chick-fil-A and the Hallmark Channel to be indifferent, if not hostile, to LGBT rights and issues. Now they can't, and they're a little sad about it. Read more >>

NEW ARTICLE -- Slanties 2019: Into the Slantie-Verse
Topic: The ConWeb
As the web the ConWeb weaves continues to spread under new writer Donald Trump, it's time once again to highlight the worst ConWeb reporting and craziest ConWeb opinions of the year. Read more >>

NEW ARTICLE -- Slanties 2018: The Shape of Slant
Topic: The ConWeb
As the ConWeb contorts itself into pro-Trump state media, it's time once again to honor, as it were, the worst ConWeb reporting and craziest ConWeb opinions of the year. Read more >>