NEW ARTICLE: Riding The Anti-ESG Bandwagon
Topic: CNSNews.com
Attacking investments that take into account environmental, social and governmental issues is all the right-wing rage these days -- and CNSNews.com did its partisan duty to promote those talking points. Read more >>

Musk PR: MRC Childishly Mocks NPR For Quitting Twitter Over Twitter's Arbitrary Label Change
Topic: Media Research Center

We've shown how the Media Research Center took the bait when Elon Musk needed a distraction from bad right-wing press and happily embraced how he arbitrarily changed the label of NPR's Twitter account to "state-affiliated media" -- even though nobody can plausibly argue that NPR is anything like state-controlled media in authoritarian countries. When NPR decided it would no longer publish anything on Twitter due to Musk's capricious targeting of it, the MRC found this hilarious and decided that NPR -- not Musk -- was the bad guy, even though it had done nothing to provoke Musk. Curtis HOuck ranted in an April 12 post:

On Wednesday morning, taxpayer-funded National Public Radio (NPR) upped the ante in its hissy fit against the Elon Musk-owned Twitter as, in light of the fact that Twitter added the “state-affiliated media” label to NPR’s account and then tweaked it to say “government-funded media.” The far-left crackpots are quitting the social media platform because Twitter was “falsely implying that we are not editorially independent.” 

To reiterate, NPR quit Twitter in a childish fit of rage because the free speech platform accurately labeled them as government funded in the same way as wholly state-run media outlets in China and Russia are labeled. Therefore, staying would be a supposed affront to their “journalism”.

NPR and its litany of liberal defenders also purposefully left out the fact that Twitter has slapped the same label on BBC, who’s also incensed despite existing thanks to a royal charter and fee set by the government and charged to nearly every British business and household.

To reiterate -- correctly, unlike what Houck did -- NPR quit Twitter because Musk had a childish fit of rage and decided that he alone could decide how media organizations are labeled, ignoring that nobody, not even NPR, is obligated or mandated to use Twitter. (He also didn't support his assertion that NPR is "far-left.") Houck then maliciously described NPR justifying their decision as "whining" (though identifying no actual whining) and playing games with how NPR describes its funding:

On NPR’s website, media correspondent David Folkenflik took a pause from his life’s mission to kill Fox News to report his outlet “quits Twitter after being falsely labeled as ‘state-affiliated media’”.

Talk about some serious coping and seething. Folkenflik would probably hate if we shared links harkening back to the days when defunding NPR and PBS were seen as killing Big Bird.

Folkenflik explained the move extended “to its 52 official Twitter feeds” and parroted his bosses in whining it was offensive to NPR to being depicted with “the same term it uses for propaganda outlets in Russia, China and other autocratic countries.”

He insisted in a comical take that NPR isn’t “government-funded” and rather “a private, nonprofit company with editorial independence” that “receives less than 1 percent of its $300 million annual budget from the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting.”

So, NPR receives money from a federal board? That sure seems like government funding. Also, what a relief to know tax dollars are so infinitesimal to NPR’s survival that it wouldn’t be a threat to their existence if Congress defunded and shuttered the CPB, which received $465 million in 2022.

Simply put, Folkenflik and his likeminded lemmings play accounting games.

Houck and the MRC might be taken more seriously as "media researchers" than they are if they didn't engage in such gratuitious, childish insults. And his attempt to claim that Folkenflik as a " life’s mission to kill Fox News" is rather hilarious considering his own liffe's mission to kill NPR, CNN and every other media outlet that's not as right-wing as Fox News.

Houck then bizarrely accused Folkenflik of engaging in "mind-numbing egotism and use of stochastic terrorism" by pointing out that journalists could be endangered by Musk's arbitrary relabeling." Of course, Houck couldn't be bothered to actually prove Folkenflik wrong, instead choosing to hurl even more immature insults instead. He concluded with one more petulant rant:

According to longtime NPR lefty Steve Inskeep, [NPR CEO John] Lansing stopped by Morning Edition’s production meeting to insist Musk’s site “no longer has the public service relevance that it once had” (meaning it’s no longer controlled by pro-censorship leftists).

Those cries you hear? That’s the sound of a liberal political strategy firm realizing they’ve lost control of a key medium to shovel their propaganda.

Houck seems weirdly outraged by all this, considering that absolutely none of it affects him personally. It's almost as if he's getting paid by the insult -- but by who, the MRC or Musk?S

Speaking of petulant: Later that day, Tim Graham devoted a post to Musk reacting badly to NPR quitting Twitter (though, of course, that's not how he framed it) by repeating the right-wing mantra "Defund NPR":

For many years, NewsBusters has urged the Congress to "defund NPR." It doesn't mean taking away all their funding -- just the government funding. They often claim only two percent of their funding comes from government. In that case, why not give it up? Today, Elon Musk tweeted out "Defund NPR" in the wake of NPR's arrogant proclamations about how great they are. So now we have celebrity endorsers! 

Musk tweeted an email from NPR’s tech reporter Bobby Allyn asking for comment on NPR’s decision to abandon Twitter.  “Because of the label, NPR is quitting Twitter across all of our 50+ accounts. Our executives say the government-funded media label calls into question our editorial independence and undermines our credibility," huffed Allyn. "Some wonder if this will cause a chain reaction among news orgs. What’s your reaction?” He probably wasn't prepared for the answer.

[...]

But note Allyn begging for a "chain reaction" of liberal media following NPR off Twitter. CNN's partisan liberal media reporter Oliver Darcy tweeted "NPR becomes first major news org to stop using Twitter," as if they'll be the first of many. Will CNN be next? This shows that the leftist media are unhappy that Twitter has become a free-speech platform that doesn't bend to NPR whims -- like insisting the Hunter Biden laptop was a "pure distraction."

Like a feisty NPR liberal, Allyn cried hypocrisy at Musk: Tesla, "which has received billions of dollars in government subsidies over the years, does not appear to have the label."

NPR’s main Twitter account has (had?) 8.8 million followers. This means that Twitter has one less major national misinformer.

Needless to say, Graham didn't describe Musk as acting on a whim by arbitrarily relabeling NPR's Tweitter feed for no reason other than an attempt to own the libs and generate right-wing clicks and attention.

Kevin Tober dutifully regurgitated Houck's malicious "hissy fit" framing when noting that other media outlets reported on Musk's hissy fit:

Hours after National Public Radio threw what NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck described as a "hissy fit" against the Elon Musk-owned Twitter and left the platform over being accurately described as "state-affiliated media" and later "government-funded media," CBS Evening News anchor Norah O'Donnell clearly seemed saddened by the left-wing outlet leaving. CBS later attempted to slime Musk's stewardship of Twitter by falsely claiming that "misinformation" on the platform was up 42 percent. They then omitted a BBC reporter getting called out by Musk when he couldn't point to an example of "hateful content" on Twitter. 

[...]

Later on in the report, correspondent Jonathan Vigliotti whined about "rampant misinformation" on Twitter and cut to a BBC interview Musk gave where he addressed those false claims: 

MUSK: I actually think there's less these days because we have eliminated so many of the bots, which were pushing scams and spam. And previously, previous management turned a blind eye.

Despite just explaining why claims of "misinformation" were untrue, Vigliotti pushed a bogus study claiming "accounts that often linked to false information have seen engagement increase 42 percent since Musk purchased the company last October."

Tober offered no evidence to support his claim that the study was "bogus."

Graham concluded the MRC's April 12 activity on the subject by having Houck on his podcast to rant some more. Graham tried to addhis own purported zingers: "They like to think they are a herd of independent minds, but they sound like National Public Relations for Democrats. Or National Press Release." Never mind that both he and Houck are actively doing PR for Musk by allowing themselves to be distracted by his clickbait.

CNS' Last Biden-Bashing Crusade: Nitpicking His Trip to Ireland
Topic: CNSNews.com

CNSNews.com's final anti-Biden crusade before being shut down last month involbved doing a lot of whining about President Biden's trip to Ireland. Susan Jones sneered in an April 5 article headlined "WH: Biden 'Is Going to Focus on the American People' -- But He's Going to UK and Ireland Next Week":

The Biden White House had no comment Tuesday on former President Donald Trump's arraignment.

President Joe Biden, however, flashed a big, wide smile when reporters shouted questions about Trump’s indictment as they were ushered out of the room where Biden was meeting with his science and technology advisers.

At the White House press briefing on Tuesday, spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre said, "It's an ongoing case, so we’re just not going to comment on the case specifically itself.

"Look, the President is going to focus on the American people, like he does every day," Jean-Pierre said.

"He is not — this is not something that is a focus for him.  He is going to focus on things like making sure that the — that we lower — continue to lower prices for the American people."

At least seven times, in response to other questions, Jean-Pierre repeated that Biden's focus "is on the American people."

So it came as a bit of a surprise on Wednesday morning, when Jean-Pierre announced that "President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. will travel to the UK (Northern Ireland) and the Republic of Ireland from April 11-14."

It's unclear how this underscores Biden's focus on the American people.

Jones ramped up the nastiness (with added nitpicking) in an April 7 article headlined "With All That's Going On in the World, Why Is Biden Going to Ireland?":

"How does a Biden trip to Ireland help counter China or end the war in Ukraine?" a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Thursday:

"So, let me just say a couple of things," Jean-Pierre responded:

"The President is certainly looking forward to taking this trip to Northern Ireland and also the UK" (she meant Northern Ireland, which is in the UK, and the Republic of Ireland).

Jones pushed her anti-Biden partisanship again over the trip in an April 11 article:

With all that's going on in this chaotic world, President Joe Biden is taking time to visit Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, and then the Republic of Ireland. The trip, which mixes business with pleasure, begins today.

As of Monday, the White House could not or would not say which members of his family will accompany the elderly president on a sentimental visit to his ancestral home.

Jones added in an update: "Biden, asked if his family will accompany him on trip, said, "Just two of my family members who hadn’t been there before." No names given." All of these articles, mind you, were presented as "news" despite Jones' blatantly partisan attacks.

Once actully on the trip, Jones' partisan sniping continued in an April 13 article:

The American president waxed sentimental about his Irish roots on Wednesday at a community gathering in Dundalk, Ireland, saying, "coming here feels like coming home."

"Well, it feels like home," Biden said at the beginning of his speech.

"I said last time I was here, in a sense I know why my ancestors and many of your relatives left during the famine. And -- but you know, when you're here, you wonder why anyone would ever want to leave. No, I mean it, so it's good to be back."

Biden noted that he brought along his sister Valerie and his son Hunter on a trip that is more personal than policy-dominated: "Stand up, guys," he said. "I'm proud of you."

There was nitpicking, of course; Patrick Goodenough spent an April 14 article bashing Biden for getting the name of a rugby team wrong:

The “All Blacks” is the nickname for New Zealand’s national rugby union team, one of the world’s best.

The “Black and Tans” was the nickname for British police recruits, often notoriously brutal, who were sent to Ireland to bolster the local force during the guerilla war against British rule just over a century ago.

President Biden evidently got the two mixed up during his nostalgia tour of the Republic of Ireland this week.

[...]

In Dublin on Thursday, National Security Council senior director for Europe Amanda Sloat was asked by a reporter whether Biden was aware that he had misspoken when he referred to the “Black and Tans.”

“I think for everyone in Ireland who is a rugby fan, it was incredibly clear that the President was talking about the All Blacks, and Ireland's defeat of the New Zealand team in 2016,” she said.

“Did he realize that right after he said it, do you know?” Sloat was asked.

“You know, I think it was – it was clear what the president was referring to,” she said. “It was certainly clear to his cousin sitting next to him who had played in that match.”

Addressing Irish lawmakers in Dublin on Thursday, Biden again mentioned Irish rugby victories against New Zealand, but this time referred to the “All Blacks.”

In that same address, Biden said he would rather have his children play rugby than American football.

That last comment, by the way, drew its own article, headlined "Biden Disparages American Football in Address to Irish Parliament." Its author was anonymous but was mostly likely writtten by editor Terry Jeffrey, lover of all things football.

Such blatant editorializing and partisan targeting presented as "news" is a big reason why CNS' readership was in decline, which likely played a role in the MRC shutting it down six days later.

MRC Tries To Defend Right-Winger's Brain Freeze On Defining 'Woke'
Topic: Media Research Center

Right-wing activist Bethany Mandel got a little attention some weeks back when she was unable to define "woke" during an interview in which she was promoting a book she co-wrote that raged against "the current woke indoctrination happening in politics, education, medicine, mental health, entertainment, and culture." (Of course, right-wingers have used the word to describe anything and everything they don't like, to the point that it no longer has a fixed definition, if indeed it ever had one.) The Media Rsearch Center's Kevin Tober rushed to Mandel's defense in a March 19 post, partly by insulting others:

During the inaugural episode of MSNBC’s Inside With Jen Psaki, the former Biden White House press secretary dedicated an entire segment on her otherwise bland show to mocking conservatives for their fight against the left’s woke ideology. She particularly focused in on a moment from an interview given by conservative author and commentator Bethany Mandel in which she had a brief brain freeze when asked to define wokeness. 

Of course, it's all the more hypocritical when you recall that Psaki’s immediate successor, the inept diversity hire Karine Jean-Pierre, is incapable of putting a coherent sentence together even on her best day. 

“In a recent interview, it was even too difficult for at least one conservative commentator to define what woke actually even means. Conservative author Bethany Mandel has written a book that covers this exact subject.” Psaki started off noting.

She then cut to video of Mandel’s interview on The Hill’s Rising in which the leftist co-host Briahna Joy Gray asked the gotcha question: 

Yes, Tober really did call Mandel being asked what "woke" means a "gotcha question" even though, again, she had just co-written a book railing against "woke indoctrination." And all the insult-hurling suggests that he really doesn't have a coherent argument to defend her.

Tober continued to whine that Psaki mocked Mandel's brain freeze on the subject on which she has presented herself as a expert, going on to insist that Mandel is "extremely smart and articulate" based on alleged personal experience:

We all have our bad moments, Psaki knows that better than anyone. This writer has met Mandel and she’s extremely smart and articulate. Despite that, Psaki decided to use this as an opportunity to claim that the GOP’s attacks on the left’s woke mind virus aren’t a winning issue.

Psaki lectured Mandel and the GOP: “Just two cents from someone who has worked a few years in communications. If you can't explain it, and people don't understand it in 15 seconds, it may not be the winning message you think it is.”

“So everyone out there, it sounds like you can let your woke flag fly,” Psaki proclaimed.

Yes leftists, keep imposing your woke ideology on Americans. See how that works out for you in 2024.

Strangely, Tober failed as well to offer a definition of "woke," despite using it in right-wing-insider terms like "woke mind virus," a term that seems to have an even more ambiguous defintion than "woke."

If neither Mandel nor Tober can define "woke" despite using the word as a main part of their activist vocabularies, why should they be listened to about anything?

WND's Farah Echoes Lively, Wants Rainbow Taken Away From LGBT People
Topic: WorldNetDaily

LGBT-hater and WorldNetDaily columnist Scott Lively has long raged against the rainbow being a symbol for LGBT people and demanded that Christians should reclaim it because it is supposedly only for Christians. Now his WND boss, Joseph Farah, decided to jion in that strange quest in his March 27 column, invoking Lively-esque homophobic rhetoric:

I had been living in California about 25 years ago, but it was getting desperate; I was clear I had to get out. Yes, 25 years ago, it was already a nightmare to live there – to raise a family in peace with God. Elizabeth and I decided to try rural southern Oregon. We visited frequently. It seemed like a world apart.

So we moved our family there, and it brought us a modicum of peace … for a while.

One day, we decided to visit Portland. We didn't realize it was "pride day." What a mistake.

We had a choice – head home, another four-hour drive, or take shelter in our hotel room for the day. I ventured outside with my five daughters and immediately encountered the parade. It was a scene from hell. People in various states of undress, noisemakers, horns blaring, weirdness. I took the kids, and a baby carriage, as far away as I could. It wasn't far enough.

Several women with blue hair began accosting us.

"Look," one said. "Breeders!" Five or six surrounded us. I kept my kids in tow cautiously. I noticed all of them wore rainbow shirts.

I got out of there as quickly as I could. It wasn't threatening but was something the kids and I remembered. It was a sign for me. I had not moved far enough away. Yeah, that was the beginning. Twenty-five years later, we cannot escape this "pride" movement. It's all around us. It's growing more diabolical. It's becoming more sinister every day.

And why did they take the rainbow for their emblem?

"And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; … And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth." (Genesis 9:12-17)

That was God's covenant with us. For thousands of years, it was a sign of hope. But it has been hijacked, stolen, misappropriated.

It's time for us to reclaim it – or God will. We're told that his throne is surrounded by rainbows, in the last chapters of Revelation: "And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald."

Lively, meanwhile, hasn't given up on his quest to reclaim the rainbow. In a Jan. 5 column, headlined "Satan's Rainbow Synagogue" (is he suggesting that Jews are satanic?), he ranted that Christians who don't hate LGBT people as much as he does "are false 'Christians' (tares among the wheat) who pledge their allegiance to that ideology and its flag – the hijacked rainbow intended by God to symbolize His presence and authority – by which the Antichrist is also identified in Revelation 6:2." He concluded by huffing; "Make no mistake, you remnant Jews and Christians, the flag of that Luciferian kingdom is the flag of Satan's Synagogue: the rainbow – and wherever it flies today its purpose is to signal loyalty to him in the ancient tradition of welcoming an arriving conqueror (Revelation 6:2). Prepare yourselves accordingly."

MRC's Jean-Pierre-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch, NPR Edition
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center kicked off April's round of attacking White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre with a writeup by chief Karine-hater Curtis Houck of the April 4 briefing, in which he whined that she wouldn't take a reporter's bait and continued the Biden White House's refusal to comment on Donald Trump's indictment:

During the media-wide prostration over New York City Tuesday for former President Trump’s arrest and arraignment, a White House press briefing took place and reporters such as The New York Times’s Michael Shear called out Jean-Pierre and President Biden for the double standard in refusing to weigh into some but not all criminal probes.

Shear came a few moments after Doocy Time as the Fox correspondent asked why the White House wouldn’t say more about something the country has never seen before. Shear latched onto Jean-Pierre’s ducks and dodges, noting Biden including “at least two major speeches that I can think of, and he’s talked at length” about it despite there being “more than 500 active legal cases going on.”

Noting that those “potentially could have been affected...by whatever his opinions were,” Shear questioned “what is different between his being willing to talk about...the issues presented by — by what happened on January 6th and questions about” Trump.

“But there are issues that are presented — people have been talking about it for weeks now — when a former President — any former President would be indicted for the first time and arrested for the first time. What is the White House’s reticence? And what’s the difference between that and this,” he added.

Jean-Pierre insisted Biden was within his bounds because “January 6th was a devastating day” and people “died” in a “devastating” “attack on our democracy” that “millions and millions of Americans...watched”.

“[A]nd so the President will never shy away when it comes to our democracy, when it comes to the fabric of who we are as a country and what makes this country who it — what it is and so it — it was a different, different moment and a different time,” she explained.

[...]

Jean-Pierre stuck to her talking points that January 6 “was incredibly devastating” and “people died on that day,” so it’s been necessary for Biden to weigh in on a subject such as “protecting our democracy” and has left “many people...scared”

Of course Houck had to sneak in his "Doocy Time" man-crush, even if it was only linking to a tweet. In writing up the next day's briefing, he got mad that Jean-Pierre defended National Public Radio after Elon Musk aribrarily changed its description on Twitter to "state-affiliated media" (a fit of mallicious trolling that the MRC absolutely loved):

Tuesday was a banner day for liberals and their media allies as not only did they see former President Trump arrested and arraigned in New York on 34 charges, but they flipped the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the far-left candidate won the Chicago mayoral runoff. But some still ended the day infuriated as Twitter chose to label National Public Radio (NPR) as “U.S. state-affiliated media.” As such, it came up at Wednesday’s White House press briefing.

Marek Wałkuski of Polskie Radio — which is NPR’s equivalent of state-run media in Poland — bemoaned to Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that the designation placed NPR “in the same category as Russia Today or Chinese media.”

Asked to comment, Jean-Pierre rushed to NPR’s defense, gushing that “there’s no doubt of the independence of NPR’s journalists and has been — if you’ve ever been on the receiving end of their — of their questions, you know this.”

She continued with the gag-tastic takes: “You know that they have their independence in journalism. NPR journalists work digitally [sic] to hold public officials accountable and inform the American people. The hard-hitting, independence nature of their coverage speaks — speaks for itself and so I’ll leave it there.”

At the other end of the spectrum, Fox’s Peter Doocy did his thing in pushing Jean-Pierre, starting with this:“[D]oes it bug President Biden when former presidents suck up all the oxygen?”

For his writeup of the April 6 briefing, Houck complained that Jean-Pierre let Jhn Kirby handle most of the questions about a new report on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan:

On Thursday’s White House press conference, the incompetent Karine Jean-Pierre once again used National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby as a crutch by letting him brief the members of the White House press corps for nearly the entire time. The topic of the day was the conveniently timed release of the Biden regime’s post-mortem on the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. The reporters in the room skewered Kirby on the report’s findings as well as the pre-holiday news dump. During what WMAL radio talk show host Vince Coglianese refers to as “the grownup press briefing,” Kirby struggled with the rare barbs from all sides. 

First up was CBS’s Ed O’Keefe who was furious at what he called the “major holiday news dump.” “I think I speak on behalf of my colleagues in this room when we want the record to reflect that this was sent to us about 10 minutes before the briefing began with little notice,” O’Keefe fumed. 

“So, why today? And is this all we get? And is this a response to the studies that were done by the agencies? Or is this considered a summary of them?” O’Keefe asked.

Houck then ramped up his mancrushing over you-know-who:

Then came the moment everyone waits for at every press conference: Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy:

“Who’s going to get fired over this?,” Doocy demanded to know. 

“The purpose of the document that we’re putting out today is to sort of collate the chief reviews and findings of the agencies that did after-action reviews,” Kirby responded in bureaucratic gibberish. 

“Do you admit that the intel was bad? So how can President Biden ever trust, when they come into the Oval Office with the PDB, that anything in there is legit?” Doocy shot back. 

“What I said was intelligence is hard business, and they get it right a lot too. There were some pieces here that weren’t accurate,” Kirby replied. 

Then things got heated between Doocy and Kirby.

We suspect that Houck's definition of "everybody" who is waiting for Doocy to hurl biased questions at White House press briefings doesn't extend beyond the MRC's headquarters and may not even extend much farther than Houck's cubicle.

WND Columnist Ignores History To Bash Biden For Not Attending Coronation
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Barbara Simpson complained in her April 21 WorldNetDaily column:

I don't know about you, but I think it is a terrible affront that our president is not going to the coronation of King Charles III.

There will be dozens of heads of state and presidents attending the event from across the entire world. They will be showing respect for the man, for the event and for the country. They will be doing so – but our president will not.

I am ashamed of him for his decision.

President Biden is, in fact, snubbing King Charles and his coronation. It is an historic event, perhaps one of the most important days in modern British history, and yet, our president chooses not to be there representing our country and our people.

Yes, I know, he is sending his wife, but she is just a figurehead. She is a token. The American people did not elect her. We elected him. HE is the president, and he is the one who should be representing our country at such an historic event. But it is not to be.

Simpson is ignoring one pertinent fact -- no U.S. president has ever attended the coronation of a British monarch, so it is hardly out of line for Biden not to attend and to sent his wife instead. Simpson did vaguely hint at that later in her column:

Yes, President Eisenhower did not attend the coronation of Queen Elizabeth in 1953, which occurred during his tenure, but travel and various aspects of dealing with British protocol have changed. In fact, Eisenhower sent four high-level individuals from our government to represent the American people. He did not send his wife, Mamie. He knew better.

Today, there is just no excuse – short of illness – for a head of state not to attend the event. Given our history with England, this snub is unforgivable.

Nevertheless, Simpson went on to manufacture a conspiracy theory about it based on Biden's Irish heritage:

The president consistently backs anything Irish – he is Irish, in case you hadn't noticed – as though that is the most important aspect of his life. Perhaps it is, but it is not fitting for that attitude to be the main theme of his presidency.

He may think it's "cute." I think it's disgusting and demeaning of his office and also of our country. He represents all Americans, thousands of whom are Irish and British – and they deserve respect from our president. They don't get that from Joe Biden – and he should be ashamed.

[...]

Biden has just returned from a trip to Northern Ireland, a trip that was to mark the anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, which occurs later this month. He wasn't about to miss that.

The White House allowed that a man of his age should not attempt such major trips so close together, and so the decision was made for him to go to Ireland (Biden is Irish, you may recall) and send his wife, Jill, to London for the coronation on May 6.

Simpson went on to quote some British guy complaining about this, but he too failed to note that no U.S. president has ever attended a coronation.

MRC's Defense Of Man Who Shot Protester Didn't Age Well
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro ranted in an April 11 post:

We all remember the liberal media’s Orwellian portrayal of the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020 as “fiery but mostly peaceful.” Well, ABC kept the gaslight flowing on Tuesday with hate crime hoaxer John Quinones spinning lies and misleading Good Morning America viewers about a July 2020 self-defense shooting of a BLM “protester” by Army Sargent Daniel Perry, and the possible pardon he could receive from Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott; even lying about what transpired during the altercation.

With the BLM riots raging out of control that summer and stories of innocents being killed and targeted by the mobs, Perry found his car surrounded and “protester” Garrett Foster brandishing a weapon at him. Perry drew his legally concealed-carry handgun and neutralized the threat before retreating and immediately called police. A detective concluded that Perry used lawful self-defense but the Soros-backed Travis County district attorney, Jose Garza, indicted him and was later found guilty of murder.

On Tuesday’s ABC, Quinones didn’t try to hide his disappointment that Perry could soon walk free. He asserted it was “an open-and-shut case” and openly whined that “that killer could come one step closer to being a free man.”

In his retelling of the events leading up to and during the shooting, Quinones omitted Perry’s account that Foster brandished the gun at him and the fact he was surrounded by an angry mob. He then LIED about Perry taking a handgun from Foster and shooting him with it:

Fondacaro worked hard to name-check all the requisite right-wing bogyemen -- BLM! Soros! Gaslighting! Quinones was wrong about the ownership of the handgun -- it belonged to Perry, not Foster -- but Fondacaro offered no evidence to prove the error was deliberate, making his shireking about a "LIE" premature and unproven.

Fondacaro went on to try and disprove Quinones not by citing established facts but, rather, Perry's attorneys, who have a certain bias:

Quinones scoffed that “attorneys for Perry say he had no choice but to shoot Foster for his own protection,” adding that “prosecutors say Perry could have fled the scene instead.”

But Perry’s car was surrounded by other so-called “protesters” who were banging on his car. Would Quinones prefer Perry run over those people? In that case, he would likely still want Perry charged.

He also wrongly stated Perry’s defense hinged on Texas’s stand-your-ground law (something liberals find controversial) when his lawyers were using so-called castle doctrine.

In a statement to Fox News in December 2021, Perry’s lawyers said: “Garrett Foster either intentionally or accidentally pointed his rifle at Daniel Perry’s head and Daniel Perry fired in self-defense … And as a practical matter he had no ability to retreat nor was he required to." “Texas castle law extends to one's vehicle in some circumstances,” Fox noted.

Fondacaro omitted that prosecution witnesses stated that Perry initiated the confrontation by driving into the midst of a crowd of protestersand that no witness to the incident saw Foster point his rifle at Perry.

But it turned out that not only was Fondacaro's "LIE" attack on  Quinones premature and unproven, so was his entire defense of Perry. A few days after this post was written, unsealed documents from the case revealed that Perry had a history of making racist and violent comments on social media, stating just a couple months before the shooting that “I might go to Dallas to shoot looters," and stating in another post that “It is official I am a racist because I do not agree with people acting like animals at the zoo."

Fondacaro did not update his post to reflect this new information about a man he was defending, but neither he nor the MRC has written anything more about the case.

NEW ARTICLE: James Hirsen's Moral Projection, Part 2
Topic: Newsmax
The Newsmax columnist still won't apologize for spreading lies about election fraud, but he will hype faith-based films and melt down over a cartoon that wasn't about white Christians. Read more >>

MRC Continued Right-Wing Narrative Of Linking Bragg to Soros
Topic: Media Research Center

In between complaining about being called out for anti-Semitic dog whistles in trying to link George Soros to DA Alvin Bragg and insisting the link between them is a lot stronger than it actually is, the Media continued to push more basic accusations of Bragg being linked to Soros in order to defend Donald Trump.

A March 26 post by Kevin Tober, about an episode of "Meet the Press" in which a Trump appeared, insisted that Bragg is "a radical Soros-backed prosecutor" who is engaged in a "political prosecution" of Trump -- though he offered no facts to back up and Trump hadn't even been indicted yet -- then went on a tirade smearing Soros as evil and Bragg as a "third-world" attorney:

It's clear that no amount of facts or logic will deter leftists like [show host Chuck] Todd from their half a decade quest to see Trump behind bars. Regardless of what you think of the man himself, all fair-minded people know this is a political prosecution by a corrupt third-world District Attorney doing the bidding of one of the evilest men in the world: George Soros. 

Tober didn't explain how "fair-minded people" somehow know this is a "political prosecution" when the evidence hadn't yet been made public. He also didn't back up his smears of Bragg and Soros with anything resembling actual facts.

Alex Christy was triggered in an April 6 post when a comedian called out right-wing attacks on Soros and Bragg:

NBC Late Night host Seth Meyers teamed up with show writer Jeff Wright on Wednesday for a painfully unfunny bit where they declared that GOP criticism of George Soros and his funding of progressive causes is “racist” and “anti-Semitic.”

Meyers set the table by reporting that “following President Trump's indictment, Trump and many of his allies have been claiming the Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg's investigation is funded by liberal mega-donor George Soros. Here to comment is one of my writers, Jeff Wright, everybody!

After Wright did a bit about how he confused “George Soros” for “George Santos” and some jokes at the latter’s expense, he got to the point, “it turns out George Soros is some rich liberal billionaire who donates to a lot of Democrats and Republicans think he's the puppet master controlling all the strings on all these Trump investigations and that is offensive.”

Meyers then chimed in to add, “Because it's anti-Semitic,” to which Wright followed up, “It racist. I mean, why can't people admit that a black person is capable of hatching an evil scheme like this all by himself?”

If conservatives were to focus their attention exclusively on Bragg himself, Wright and Meyers would almost certainly still play the race card. As it was, Wright highlighted two Republicans and their supposedly outrageous attacks, “Seth, look at all these statements. Ron DeSantis called Alvin Bragg ‘Soros-backed’ Senator Ron Johnson called him ‘Soros funded.’”

Yes, and? Still, Wright then introduced a quick montage of various Republican politicians, conservative activists, and Fox News and Fox Business mentioning name dropping Soros in response to Trump’s indictment.

At the conclusion of the montage, Wright returned to add, “I'm Soros-ed out. Even Trump mentioned Soros in his speech from Mar-a-Lago. Why you gotta keep bringing Soros into this? Let Alvin Bragg enjoy his time in the spotlight.”

[...]

Apparently Late Night thinks pointing out oneperson’s political donations is the same as blaming Jews for your personal problems.

A few days later, though, the MRC was taking the opposite view when billionaire Harlan Crow (who has a weird collection of Nazi stuff) was exposed as the sugar daddy of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The same day, Clay Waters whined about the New York Times pointing out the anti-Semitic dog-whistle stuff:

In the indictment of Donald Trump, many conservatives saw the malign influence of left-wing billionaire George Soros, who funded the successful election campaign of Manhattan-based Democrat District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The liberal press reacted to criticism of Bragg and “puppet master” Soros with outrage and accusations of racism and anti-Semitism.

A Tuesday morning “news analysis” from New York Times  reporters Jonathan Weisman and Andrew Higgins went down the same path: “George Soros Is a Familiar Villain for the Right Wing in Trump’s Indictment.”

"Puppet master," of course, is very much an anti-Semitic trope -- even the MRC has gone there -- though Waters seems to be unaware of that history. Instead, he tried to play whataboutism:

Yet when liberals target influential conservative donors as “puppet masters,” the Times nods along, as reporter Jeremy Peters did in a 2018 story about the spat between libertarian donor Charles Koch and Donald Trump:

The difference -- which Waters failed to point out -- is that Koch is not Jewish and Soros is.

Joseph Vazquez used an April 10 post to complain that the hated NPR called out the right-wing obsession with tying Bragg to Soros:

The taxpayer-funded leftists at National Public Radio flung proverbial sewage at critics who dared raise Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s financial ties to billionaire George Soros. 

NPR’s Apr. 6 edition of All Things Considered decried Bragg’s highly politicized prosecution of former President Donald Trump. The outlet railed at critics like Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).

NPR host Mary Louise Kelly brought on guest and liberal Soros biographer Emily Tamkin, who downplayed the fact that Soros gave $1 million to the anti-police Color of Change PAC just a few days after the group initially pledged $1 million to support Bragg’s 2021 election campaign. She also teed up Tamkin to direct wild accusations of anti-Semitism at “conservative politicians” who criticize Soros.

But here was the fun fact that Kelly conceded that undermined the entire argument: “I want to open by noting that NPR has in the past accepted money from Soros' foundation to finance independent reporting on state governments.” Perfect, so no conflict of interest there, right NPR?

[...]

MRC Business Vice President Dan Schneider, who is Jewish, slammed NPR for its asinine propaganda in a statement: “NPR is doing what weak people typically do: they call their opponents nasty names instead of addressing the actual issue.” He continued: “[S]imply because the largest donor to Democrats and left-wing causes happens to be Jewish should not make it impossible to point out that Soros is a funder of the most radical, left-wing causes.”

One could more plausibly argue that "weak people" are actually the ones who use propaganda (that could very well be called asinine) to turn people like Soros into bogeymen to advance partisan agendas and who hurl immature insults (like "asinine") at anyone who disrupts their narrative.

Root Asks His Readers To Pick A Story To Write About -- Then Ignores Them
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Wayne Allyn Root excitedly declared in his March 4 WorldNetDaily column that "I have five of the biggest stories in the history of America to tell you about – all at the same time. They're all so important, I can't decide which one to write about. So, I'm going to write about all five." Needless to say, they were all conspiratorial in some form. The first:

STORY No. 1: Of Course China Likely Intentionally Released COVID-19. But Even More Shocking is Who Helped Them.

Everyone in power is finally in agreement that COVID-19 most likely came from a Chinese biowarfare lab. I told you that three years ago. But even that is not the real shocker. Tucker Carlson had a doctor who escaped China on his show this week. She says China intentionally released COVID-19 to destroy America and the Western economies. This was a planned attack upon America.

In fact, Yan's claims have been challenged before, and  it's still not firmly proven that a lab leak was the source. Also, many people died of COVID in China, which would seem to discredit the idea that the virus was targeted at the West. Nevertheless, Root continued to conspiracy-monger:

I believe the deep state, D.C. swamp, Democratic Party and Dr. Anthony Fauci were all in bed with China. They were all desperate to stop Trump at all costs. They all needed to kill Trump's economy and destroy Trump's reelection. They had even stronger motives than China. COVID-19 was the perfect plan. 

Root's second story was along the same lines: "Woody Harrelson Was Right About Big Pharma and the COVID-19 Vaccine Scam. But Woody was Way too Naive and Nice!" He added: "But Woody left out the biggest part of the story: This vaccine is not just a failure at preventing COVID-19. In just the past week, I've seen mounds of data from around the world proving the COVID-19 jab is a killing machine that could cause the collapse of our entire society." Root's claims against the COVID vaccines have been repeatedly discredited.

Next there was "STORY No. 3: Is the Next Pearl Harbor or 9/11 Sneak Attack on the USA on the Way Soon?" in which Root ranted that "ew realize how badly our military has been weakened and corrupted by President Joe Biden (who is doing the bidding of China and the CCP)," and that Russia and China may be planning a joint attack on the U.S. Then there was this odd bit of logic:

STORY No. 4: Biden and Mayor Pete's Response to the Ohio Train Derailment Catastrophe is More Proof of Rigged and Stolen Elections.

I believe the shocking lack of interest, or empathy by Biden, Mayor Pete or the EPA for the citizens of Ohio is more proof our elections are rigged and stolen. The "tell" is they didn't even try to fake it. They didn't even bother to act like they care about the worst environmental disaster in our country's history. They couldn't care less about white, working class or Midwest votes. Why? Do they know the fix is in?

Aas we pointed out when the Media Research Center pushed these same attacks, the responsibility for the derailment and its aftermath lies with the railroad that caused the derailment, and federal officials have helped where needed.

Root's final story mixed COVID conspiracy theories with right-wing anti-education narratives:

STORY No. 5: Why Every Decent Parent in America Must Immediately Remove Your Children From Public School and Start Homeschooling.

Forget about the evil lies of Critical Race Theory and transgender brainwashing going on in schools across America. All of that is child's play (excuse the pun) compared to this story.

Soon most school districts across America – certainly in every blue state – will demand your child take the possibly deadly, experimental COVID-19 jab in order to attend school. You must get your children out of school before this happens. I've seen the myocarditis data: Your child's life is on the line.

Root promised: "Pick the story you think is THE most important story and I'll give you the expanded, detailed version next week," offering his email address.

And the winner was ... none of these stories. Root's column the following week, on March 10, was all about advocating for the U.S. to invade Mexico to go after drug cartels and stop immigration, which led to a xenophobic rant that included disregard for the soverignty of other countries:

Mexico is allowing an army of millions of barbarians (soon-to-be tens of millions when Title 42 ends in May) to attack our gates. And President Joe Biden and Democrats make sure the gates are wide open and unmanned.

They're filling America with poverty, homelessness, criminals, pedophiles and deadly drugs. They're bankrupting America. They're destroying America. They're turning America into a craphole – just like the countries they came from.

[...]

Are you worried about offending Mexico? No one ever worried about offending Vietnam, Korea, Panama, Grenada, Iraq or Afghanistan. America attacked all those countries. Today no one in power seems concerned with offending big, bad Russia.

All those others pale in comparison. Mexico is directly attacking and harming the USA. We are being invaded by millions of criminals, drug traffickers, pedophiles and barbarians. The whole world is emptying their prisons to send their worst criminals through our southern border. And you can bet terrorist cells are walking across our open border. These hordes coming across are bankrupting our courts, schools and health care system.

Make no mistake: We are already at war. But we are the only ones who don't know it.

How does Russia attacking Ukraine affect your life? Ukraine is meaningless. But what's coming across our border is destroying America forever.

Root then mixed Biden derangement into his xenophobia:

But sadly, all of this is a fantasy. None of it will ever happen.

Because the Biden crime family, Obama crime family and the entire Democratic Party is clearly a business partner of the Mexican drug cartels. They are paid to keep the border open. They are paid to keep the fentanyl and heroin flowing. I know the Democrat politicians are all paid a piece of the human trafficking, sex trafficking, child trafficking and drug trafficking.

The cartels make billions of dollars per day. They've bought off the entire Mexican government, military and police. What makes you think they haven't bought off the U.S. politicians too?

I think that's why millions of migrants have been waved in since illegitimate president Biden rigged and stole the 2020 election. That's why Kari Lake had her Arizona election stolen by Katie Hobbs, who whistleblowers report is owned by the Mexican drug cartels. Starting to get the picture?

[...]

This is all as clear as day. Biden, former President Barack Obama (the real power behind the throne) and the entire Democratic Party are owned by the Mexican drug cartels.

Root has made it quite clear that he lives in fantasyland.

MRC Can't Stop Hating Rachel Levine
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's hatred for transgender Biden administration official Rachel Levine has unsurprisingly continued into this year. A Feb. 20 post by Matt Philbin raged at Levine for, of all things, supporting capitalism:

There’s no question “Admiral” Rachel Levine, Biden administration assistant secretary for health, is a Trans true believer. After all, Richard put his money where his Richard was to become Rachel. But the Daily Caller tells us that Levine’s not averse to somebody turning a profit while advancing the cause.

Megan Brock, a Pennsylvania parents’ rights activist, obtained some 2018 emails in which Levine, PA’s then-acting secretary of health, and pediatrician Rollyn Ornstein of Penn State Hershey Children’s Hospital talked about selling sex changes to kids in terms of cold, hard cash. In fact, Ornstein’s use of terms like “ROI” and “downstream” revenue and talk about hooking in underage kids to exploit the opportunity to upsell them later would warm the heart of any regional sales manager.

Philbin didn't explain why wanting to make money was suddenly a bad things despite conservatives like his employer normally being in favor of things like being paid for providing a service. Instead, he ranted about "Big Trans," whatever that is.

Philbin merged the MRC's Clinton derangement with his hatred of Levine in a Feb. 24 post:

I should write a kids book that’s going to be part of the Great Muscle Cars series. It’s called “The Yugo Persisted.” It’s the inspirational story of how the plucky upstart from behind the Iron Curtain challenged the status quo and took its place beside the Mustangs, GTOs and Camaros of the world.

What’s that? The Yugo isn’t a muscle car? Well, it doesn’t have a V8 engine, and it’s been criticized as a hamster-powered deathtrap made of recycled communist ration cards. But it identifies as a muscle car, and who are we to question its lived experience? 

I mean, “Rachel Levine: The Dude Abides” would work, but “ShePersisted?” Anyway, if Chelsea can sell 6-9 yr-old kids Rachel (nee Richard) Levine as a woman, I can darn sure try to convince them the Yugo is a road-eating monster of ferocious power.

Yeah, Admiral Levine is joining the likes of  Oprah Winfrey, Sonia Sotomayor and Greta Thunberg on Chelsea’s pantheon of inspirational leftwing battle axes.

Weird how Philbin thinks that any woman who isn't as right-wing as he is is a "battle ax."  Sounds like he has some issues. Indeed, he dismissively refers to women as "gals" in the headline of a March 1 post raging that a future Smithsonian women's museum would include transgender women, which he likened to a museum having the exhibit "'The Trail of Tears Down My High Cheekbones: Elizabeth Warren and the Tragedy of the Cherokee Nation' at the National Museum of The American Indian. (Tip: take a break at the museum cafe, 'Pow Wow Chow.'[)]" (Philbin offered no evidence that Warren deliberately lied about her heritage.) He smeared the museum director as a "queer-obsessed social justice drone" and referenced a potential future "Rachel Levine exhibit" that linked to a earlier post of his that mocked Levine with the purported parody song "Mannish Girl."

A March 3 post by Philbin sarcastically cheered that  all the women on Time magazine's "Women of the Year" list "have actual lady bits!" and didn't include "Admiral of the Fleet and Goddess of the Seas Rachel Levine," which again linked to the "Mannish Girl" post.

CNS Continued Mocking, Nitpicking Biden To The End
Topic: CNSNews.com

CNSNews.com loved to nitpick President Biden and mock any verbal misstep -- in a way it refused to do regarding Donald Trump when he was president -- and it continued to do so until its demise. Susan Jones wrote in a Jan. 6 article under the headline "Biden Confused":

"Fentanyl is the deadliest drug threat facing this country," the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said on December 20, when it announced the seizure of "50.6 million fentanyl-laced, fake prescription pills and more than 10,000 pounds of fentanyl powder this calendar year."

That amounts to "379 million potentially deadly doses of fentanyl," DEA said.

The president of the United States tried to make the same point on Thursday in his speech on border security, but he failed, apparently not reading the teleprompter correctly:

"[S]ince August of last year, Customs and Border Patrol [it's Customs and Border Protection] have seized more than 20,000 pounds of deadly fentanyl," President Joe Biden said. "That’s enough to kill — kill as many as 1,000 people in this country. Twenty thousand pounds of fentanyl. It’s a killer. It’s a flat killer," Biden said.

The White House posted a transcript of Biden's words, not putting a correction in brackets this time, as it often does.

Jones sneered in a Jan. 31 article:

In case anyone hasn't heard the stories he loves to repeat, Joe "Amtrak" Biden reminisced about riding the rails on Monday, during a stop at a Baltimore train tunnel that will undergo a $4-billion replacement.

"Back in Delaware, I’m known for riding Amtrak, for being their senator all those years," Biden said:

"And most of you know that a senator — as a senator, I rode the train between Washington and Wilmington, and back and forth, every single day that the Senate was in. And they tell me it was about an average 200- — 117 days a year, about 265 miles a day. I put over a million miles on Amtrak — not a joke — including as Vice — including as Vice President.

"Amtrak wasn’t just a way to get home to family," Biden continued:

[...]

(The Daily Mail reported that this is the eighth time Biden has repeated that debunked story about a conductor congratulating him for logging a million miles on Amtrak. "The conductor had been dead for more than a year – and retired for more than two decades – before the earliest moment Biden could have had this conversation as vice president," the newspaper said.)

Jones served up even more nitpicky whining in a Feb. 21 article:

In remarks at a meeting with Polish leaders on Tuesday, President Joe Biden -- as usual -- recalled his childhood in Scranton, Pennsylvania, where he said he was self-conscious about his Irish surname.

Mr. President, the connection between Polish and -- Polish and American people is extremely strong and deep," Biden said.

"I was kidding with the (Polish) president. I was, as a young man, I was born in a coal town of Scranton, Pennsylvania, northeastern Pennsylvania, in an Irish Catholic neighborhood.

"Then when coal died we moved down to Delaware, to a town called Claymont, Delaware, which was a working class town, and ah, but everyone in town was either Polish or Italian. I grew up feeling self-conscious my name didn't end in "s-k-i" or an "o."

Craig Bannister proclaimed a "Biden Blunder" in a March 24 article:

Today, I applaud China for stepping up,” President Joe Biden accidentally said in a speech in Canada on Friday, adding another public gaffe to his legacy of public speaking miscues that have gone viral on social media.

“Excuse me. I applaud Canada,” Biden then said, prompting laughs from the members of the Ottawa parliament.

Bannister hyped another purported miscue in a March 29 article:

“Voters resoundingly and roundly rejected the voices of extremism” in the November 2022 national elections, President Joe Biden bragged Wednesday – even though his party lost control of the House and picked up only a single seat in the Senate.

Biden made the boast during remarks at the Summit for Democracy Virtual Plenary in Washington, DC:

Bannister failed to mention that those results were much better than what a party holding the presidency typically sees in a midtern election, meaning that there is some accuracy to Biden's claim.

Jones took yet another shot at Biden in an April 11 article:

President Joe Biden sometimes has trouble exiting the stage, not sure which way to go, and yesterday was no exception.  

After speaking to the crowd gathered on the South Lawn for the annual White House egg roll -- brief remarks he read from notes in his hand -- the president asked his wife, "We walk off?"

"We walk off, yep," Mrs. Biden said.

CNS was shut down nine days later.

MRC Whines When Right-Wing Narrative of Soros Directly Funding Bragg Gets Challenged
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center went hard on trying to link DA Alvin Bragg to George Soros to distract from Donald Trump's criminality (and vehemently denying that playing the Soros bogeyman was an anti-Semitic dog whistle) -- but the link between Bragg and Soros isn't as clear-cut as the MRC would like to you believe. As the Washington Post documented, Soros donated $1 million to a group called Color of Change, which had pledged to to spend $1 million on Bragg's election campaign before the donation; it ended up spending only half that, and the campaign itself raised much more than that though Bragg was far outspent (yet still won) by an opponent who was largely self-funded.

Just as the MRC got mad when folks pointed out the anti-Semitic dog-whistle stuff, it was annoyed that they also pointed out that the link between Bragg and Soros isn't as direct or consequential as it wants you to believe. Luis Cornelio desperately tried to spin away the ambuguity and nuance brought up by the Post and others in a March 24 post:

The legacy media is yet again defending the indefensible. This time, they claim the Soros-backed Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, is not actually backed by Soros.

The Washington Post’s Philip Bump, CNBC’s Brian Schwartz, and The New York Times fact-checker dismissed the fact that Soros donated $1,000,000 to the Color of Change PAC in 2021 just days after the organization endorsed Bragg and pledged to donate the exact same amount to his campaign.

One might think that one million-dollar donation from a Soros-backed group, would be enough proof of a Soros-Bragg tie, but that’s not enough for the legacy media. 

The Times’ fact checker went so far as to claim that “neither Mr. Soros” nor his “Democracy PAC” contributed directly to Bragg’s campaign. That claim is partially true but clearly ignores that other Soros family members did indeed directly contribute to Bragg’s race, per a March 21 Fox News report.

CNBC’s Schwartz dismissed the ties claiming that Soros never met Bragg, per a “Soros advisor.” He also downplayed the donation by noting that the Color of Change PAC ran independent expenditures on behalf of Bragg.

WaPo’s Bump defended Bragg’s ability to fundraise, claiming he “raised more than $2 million in direct contributions.” However, are we supposed to ignore the fact that a group backed by Soros single-handedly gave nearly half of what Bragg and his team raised on their own? I guess so.

Cornelio went on to rant: "Regardless of which came first, the rise of Soros-backed prosecutors is well documented. The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund detailed in a scathing report how Soros’s 'shell organizations' and 'affiliates' usurped prosecutors’ races through the funneling of multi-million dollar donations." Corneiio didn't mention that the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund is a right-wing group that opposes prosecution of police officers for malign actions, nor did he mention that Bragg's opponent raised more than triple the campaign money that Bragg did.

When Soros pointed out that he had never met Bragg and didn't contribute to his campaign, Cornelio  raged in a March 31 post hyperbolically (and falsely) headlined "MORE LIES!":

George Soros is attempting to save Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg from GOP critiques by distancing himself from him–but the truth is that there is a money trail that arguably helped bolster Bragg’s efforts to become Manhattan’s DA.

Echoing the legacy media, George Soros dismissed his million-dollar donation to a pro-Bragg PAC. “As for Alvin Bragg, as a matter of fact I did not contribute to his campaign and I don’t know him,” the leftist billionaire megadonor said in a text message exchange with Semafor magazine published on March 31, attempting to distance himself from the radical Manhattan DA who pushed to indict former President Donald Trump.

Soros, who donated $1,000,000 to the Color of Change PAC in 2021 days after it endorsed Bragg, is downplaying his ties to the leftist Manhattan DA. Color of Change earmarked $500,000 from that donation to help seat Bragg as the Manhattan DA. The other $500,000 was revoked after “disturbing” allegations were raised by an unnamed woman.

“Soros is a bald faced liar,” wrote MRC President Brent Bozell in a tweet. “He paid for the political persecution of Donald Trump.”

Not only did Cornelio actually identify any lie that Soros told, he's clearly afraid to fact-check his own boss and point out that Soros did not actually lie.

Alex Christy insisted that the right-wing anti-Soros narrative is more important than inconvenient facts in an April 1 post:

Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler was the April fool on Saturday as he gave those claiming that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who is currently prosecuting former President Donald Trump, is funded by George Soros three Pinocchios. Even worse, Kessler claimed such claims were “incendiary” and play “into antisemitic conspiracy theories.”

Kessler’s first attempt to rebut the claims is that “the intense focus on Soros is misplaced. Soros never directly funded Bragg, but instead contributed to a group that supported Bragg and other liberal candidates seeking to be prosecutors.”

Soros gave money to a group and that group gave money to Bragg, most people would say that means Soros funded Bragg. If Soros didn’t want his money going to people like Bragg, he would not be giving it to groups that support him.

[...]

He also wrote, “Soros supports candidates through occasional direct contributions, but mainly though his Democracy PAC or to groups that support candidates with what are known as independent expenditures... Independent expenditures are not coordinated with a campaign but work in support of one, such as through sending mailers or operating phone banks.”

Another distinction without a difference. Kessler continued to painfully attempt to argue Soros’s relationship with Bragg is not what conservatives are alleging. He reported that on May 8, Color of Change announced it’s plan to spend $1 million supporting Bragg and that on May 14, Soros sent Color of Change $1 million.

Kessler goes to great lengths to say that Soros’s donation had no impact on Color of Change’s endorsement, but again that misses the point. If Soros didn’t support Bragg or people like him, he would never have given Color of Change the money. Indirect support is still support.

Kessler also stresses “there is no evidence Soros has influence over Bragg,” but, once again, Kessler misses the point. Soros has an ideologically soft-on-crime preference for people like Bragg and donates money to groups who support prosecutors who share those preferences.

Christy also claimed it was "absurd" to point out the whole anti-Semitic dog-whistle thing, even though his employer has explicitly invoked that against Soros.

Curtis Houck ran to Fox News to push the narrative and baselessly insist that media outlets reporting  facts about Soros' relationship with Bragg were somehow "shamelessly defending" him:

Houck picked the fact-checking of the supposedly esteemed fact-checkers who’ve set out to defend Soros by insisting he didn’t bankroll Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s campaign promising to hammer away at former President Trump.

Houck cited NewsBusters, Twitter Community Notes, and Washington Free Beacon as examples of outlets that pushed back on the insane notion “that George Soros has nothing to do with the Alvin Bragg campaign.” In reality, the Color of Change PAC was connected to Soros as, after having promised they’d give $1 million to Bragg, Soros then gave that same amount.

Tim Graham whined about all of this in his April 3 podcast:

The liberal media's "fact checkers" are furiously spinning how Trump and conservatives shouldn't say Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg is "Soros-backed," even though that is a fact. Washington Post fact-finagling scold Glenn Kessler claims "the intense focus on Soros is misplaced." Anyone who's focusing is playing with fire: "The incendiary focus on Soros raises more difficult questions. Given the tenuous connection between Soros and Bragg, it’s a dangerous game that plays into stereotypes of rich Jewish financiers secretly controlling events." 

MSNBC "disinformation" specialist Ben Collins uncorked a tweet insisting "Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Ron DeSantis have all claimed Alvin Bragg is 'Soros-backed' or aligned since the news of the indictment dropped. In reality, Soros 'has never met or spoken to Alvin Bragg,' according to a CNBC story last week.”

By this logic, Ben Collins can't be accused of being "NBC-backed" if he hasn't met the CEO of NBCUniversal.

Um, that's not how that "logic" works -- a second-hand campaign donation is not direct employment.

Joseph Vazquez spent an April 4 post trying to parse imprecise wording from CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale to claim he really was admitting that Soros was directly funding Bragg  through Color of Change:

At the bottom of his piece, Dale said that Color of Change PAC “ended up spending about half of what it had planned [to support Bragg due to the allegations], [Color of Change President Rashad] Robinson said, and kept the rest of Soros's donation for other uses.” Ah, so Soros' money was in fact used?  [Emphasis added.]

Dale must not have realized the implication of his framing. But Dale still tried to tell readers to ignore their lying eyes by quoting Robinson, who deflected: “‘Soros didn't give us money to give to Alvin Bragg. Soros made a donation to Color of Change.’” Per Dale’s framing, some of Soros’ money was used to support Bragg. But Dale dismissed this by zeroing in on how Soros didn’t make a “direct” contribution to Bragg and didn’t speak to him.  For Dale, Soros' connection to Bragg was just "indirect."

“Soros did not make any direct contributions to Bragg's 2021 election campaign, and a Soros spokesperson, Michael Vachon, told CNN last week that the two men have never once communicated in any way,” Dale gaslighted. Newsflash Dale: Soros doesn’t have to make a “direct” contribution to indicate his backing of Bragg. He just needs to fuel radical leftist groups that support his views with his cash and they take care of the rest. The benefit of indirect funding is that Soros can then claim plausible deniability when it suits him, just as he’s done in Bragg’s case. Either Dale doesn’t know how a money trail works and accidentally said the quiet part out loud or he does know and just doesn’t care. 

Christ again whined about the anti-Semitic dog-whistle stuff being called out, insisting that it was a "tired leftist tactic." Has he not seen the anti-Semitic tropes his employer has invoked against Soros (for which it has never apologized)? It's not a "tactic" if it's absolutely accurate.

Newsmax Joins ConWeb War On NewsGuard For Pointing Out Deficient Right-Wing Media
Topic: Newsmax

The Media Research Center isn't the only ConWeb outlet lashing out at website-ratings service NewsGuard for demonstrating that right-wing websites are less reliable than non-right-wing ones. A paywalled January 2022 article, for instance, complained that a teacher organization purchaed NewsGuard licenses for 1.7 million teachers, "sparking fears that students will be isolated from news outlets not deemed sufficiently liberal or even potentially penalized for using them as sources." (We're not paying Newsmax money to read the rest of it.) But it also published an April 2022 Associated Press article favorably quoting NewsGuard pointing out Chinese-generated misinformation about Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Soon enough, Newsmax got on the right-wing anti-NewsGuard bandwagon and started cranking out more attacks conforming to that narrative. Nicole Wells wrote about blacklists that deny ad revenue to misinformation-spreading media outlets in a Feb. 9 article, suggesting without evidence that only right-wing outlets are being targeted and quoting Trump-era State Department official Mike Benz complaining that "The implementation of ad revenue-crushing sentinels like Newsguard, Global Disinformation Index, and the like has completely crippled the potential of alternative news sources to compete on an even economic playing field with approved media outlets like CNN and The New York Times."

Sandy Fitzgerald uncritically peddled the narrative  in a March 2 article:

Florida’s Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis is warning left-wing "media monitor" group NewsGuard that he is ready to leverage the power of his office to protect any Florida businesses the company targets.

In a letter dated Wednesday, Patronis says that the company's actions are in line with the "environmental, social, and governance" (ESG) standards that the Florida Legislature is targeting in its upcoming session, and that its efforts appear to be a larger push to create "social credit scores" that will resu>Florida, he explains, took a stand against ESG standards "because as fiduciaries, we cannot undermine those in our pension plan from gaining the best returns possible in the name of political outcomes."

NewsGuard, which says it devises credibility ratings on news and information for advertisers, agencies and other businesses, declares on its website that it provides "online safety ... while promoting safety for readers, brands and democracy."

NewsGuard’s ratings have been used by major advertising agencies, including Publicis Groupe and Magnite. The agencies, in turn, are using the rating system to ban conservative media outlets from receiving advertising revenues.

Fitzgerald offered no evidence to support her claim that NewsGuard is "left-wing," but she did regurgitate the MRC's hatred:

In December 2021, an analysis of NewsGuard’s rating system by the Media Research Center said that the company gave an average high score of 93 (on a scale of 1-100) to "left" or "lean left" news outlets, based on classifications by the company AllSides, which rates organizations based on bias. At the same times, outlets that were deemed "right" or "lean right" received an average score of 66.

Last month, MRC released its 2022 review of NewsGuard and found a similar bias in its ratings. "Discredited leftist website ratings firm NewsGuard has had a year to prove that its ratings system isn’t prejudiced against conservative media, but it’s failing miserably," the recent MRC January report stated.

As we documented, the MRC offered no evidence that NewsGuard did anything wrong nor made any attempt to prove that right-wing outlets were more reliable than NewsGuard ruled they were -- it just ranted that right-wing websites' ratings were lower. Indeed, the MRC's entire anti-NewsGuard strategy seems to be to rant about it without ever bothering to prove them wrong.

Fitzgerald did eventually get around to the reason why it's suddenly interested in all this: "Newsguard negatively rates leading conservative outlets like Washington Times, Newsmax, Breitbart, Federalist, Epoch Times, Red State, Prager U, Daily Wire, and others." We've caught Newsmax spreading misinformation and lies about COVID and election fraud, so it has very much earned that "negative" rating.

The same day, Newsmax CEO sat down for a discussion at CPAC in the midst of his war with DirecTV, and he also attacked NewsGuard:

Ruddy called out left-leaning rating groups like the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard for exerting influence over recent decisions to silence conservative voices. They present themselves as independent fact checkers and have even received federal funding.

"All the liberal sites like CNN and New York Times get great scores no matter what they do," he explained. "Think about what CNN did — all the problems, the scandals, the Cuomos, the Russian collusion — and they're among the highest-rated by NewsGuard."

Despite the clear biases, Ruddy said, big advertising agencies use data from those groups to "block conservatives from getting advertising revenue."

"What they're trying to do is demonetize conservative media, and it's a threat to our constitutional freedoms."

Like Fitzgerald, Ruddy provided no evidence to prove NewsGuard's ratings are wrong.

Hey, we have an idea: If Ruddy wants to get higher ratings from NewsGuard, Newsmax should stop spreading lies and misinformation. Seems simple, no?