MRC Flip-Flops Between Musk-Fluffing, Whining That Right-Wing Hate On Twitter Is Still Monitored Topic: Media Research Center
When it wasn't cheering Elon Musk's own-the-libs stunt of arbitrarily relabeling NPR's Twitter feed as "state-affiliated media" (which ended up making things worse when Musk ultimately, and just as arbitrarily, dropped the label for not only NPR but actual state propaganda from other countries), the Media Research Center ontinued to vascillate between Musk stenography and complaining that Musk still hadn't given right-wing hate a sufficiently free space to spread on Twitter. Gabriela Pariseau served up another example of the latter in a March 31 post:
Twitter CEO Elon Musk announced late last night that Twitter’s “Algorithm goes open source at noon Pacific Time” (today). But the tweet begged a couple of questions: What does that mean and why is he doing this? MRC Free Speech America asked industry insiders.
Musk released the news just hours after the Media Research Center released a damning study revealing that Twitter censorship has actually increased under Musk’s leadership. But the move seems to be more of a distraction from Twitter's ongoing problem with censorship.
As we've noted, that "damning study" is mostly whining that right-wing hate is still monitored and blocked. Also, Pariseau's list of "industry insiders" is highly dubious, given that one is her boss, Dan Schneider. Three are anonymous -- two former Twitter employees and "a high-level employee at a social media company who asked not to be identified," which would seem to run counter to the MRC's regular attacks on anonymous sources. Her final source was Nathan Leamer of something called the Digital First Project, which we can assume that beyond its website's platitudes is nothing more than a right-wing advocacy group given Leamer's previous employment at Republican strategy firm Targeted Victory, whom you might remember is the firm Facebook hired to plant stories in right-wing media -- including, presumably, the MRC -- attacking competitor TikTok. The MRC has never told its readers about this, nor has it disclosed whether it was a beneficiary.
The MRC reverted to its Trump-fluffing norm soon enough. Mark Finkelstein spent an April 21 post whining that a TV host expressed a little schadenfreude over Musk's public failures (which the MRC didn't really talk about otherwise):
Elon Musk has become the liberal media's second-most-hated man, behind only Orange Man Bad. Witness today's opening of Morning Joe, wherein Mika Brzezinski proclaimed "Thursday was a very rough day for Elon Musk," gloated over Musk's SpaceX Starship exploding shortly after liftoff yesterday.
To our knowledge, after countless hours of suffering through Morning Joe, Mika has never been equally enthused about a North Korean rocket going kaput! Then again, Kim Jong-un is merely a nuclear-armed dictator and enemy of America. Whereas Musk occasionally makes life a bit uncomfortable for liberals!
Brzezinski also exulted over Musk's Twitter travails, with his plan to eliminate free blue checks running into opposition, and Tesla's share price having dropped. We can report the Twitter accounts of @Morning_Joe, @JoeNBC, and @MorningMika now reflect they haven't paid for their Twitter Blue check.
Warning sent to any entrepreneur who dares to cross the liberal/ESG line: the MSM will revel in any misfortune that might befall you!
Finkelstein is being utterly hypocritical, given how his employer repeatedlytakes pleasure in the misfortune of its sworn enemies.
Luis Cornelio baselessly tried to claim victory in an April 24 post by cheering a Twitter policy change that will allow right-wingers to maliciously misgender transgender people:
Elon Musk’s Twitter halted part of its hateful conduct policy that has explicitly been used to censor those who oppose transgender ideology on the platform.
On April 18, Twitter removed parts of the policy that prohibited the “deadnaming” and “misgendering” of transgender individuals, marking a partial victory for free speech.
The policy change, which was not publicly announced, came after MRC Free Speech America tracked hundreds of censorship cases of individuals who cited the scientific fact that there are two genders. A March MRC study revealed that Twitter censorship is shockingly on the rise after his takeover.
The platform implemented similar anti-speech policies to muzzle individuals who affirmed the existence of two genders or pointed out the biological differences. In December 2021, MRC Free Speech America tracked 100 examples of Big Tech censoring content that stated the scientific-based statement that there are two genders. Big Tech companies, and particularly Twitter under its previous regime, identified such content as so-called “hateful conduct.” Meta and YouTube labeled similar content as “hate speech.” LinkedIn, in contrast, used “bullying” and “harassment.”
Cornelio didn't explain what purpose it serves for right-wing activists to deliberately misgender transgender people. His post also weirdly contained the MRC's "Anti-Americanism" tag, as if malicious misgendering is some sort of American virtue.
Pariseau was back to fretting that Musk wasn't kowtowing enough to her fellow right-wing haters in an April 26 post:
While Twitter is still throttling content, the platform will now notify users when it limits an account’s reach. It was the least the platform could do.
“Freedom of Speech, not reach,” Twitter Safety euphemized in a Monday tweet announcing that the platform rolled out its new visibility filter labels. A Twitter Safety blog post last week explained that the platform would soon “add publicly visible labels to Tweets identified as potentially violating our policies letting you know we’ve limited their visibility.”
Twitter Safety attempted to justify its “freedom of speech, not reach” stance in its blog post. “Twitter users have the right to express their opinions and ideas without fear of censorship,” Twitter Safety wrote. “We also believe it is our responsibility to keep users on our platform safe from content violating our Rules.”
Twitter Safety attempted to justify its “freedom of speech, not reach” stance in its blog post. “Twitter users have the right to express their opinions and ideas without fear of censorship,” Twitter Safety wrote. “We also believe it is our responsibility to keep users on our platform safe from content violating our Rules.”
While the new policy marks a victory for transparency, MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider warned that policing speech is not Twitter's responsibility. “Our skepticism of Twitter becoming a haven for free speech has just been justified,” he said. “It’s not Twitter’s responsibility to limit speech. That should be left up to individual users who can decide what they like and dislike. Censoring or throttling speech is what authoritarians do. It should never take place in a free society.”
Yes, those repeated paragraphs exist in the original.
Of course, Schneider and Pariseau very much want speech censored or throttled -- as long as it's speech they disagree with. They, however, don't believe they should be subject to any rules even though those platforms don't belong to them.
CNS Catholic Priest Turned Right-Wing Pundit Continued Pushing Political Talking Points Topic: CNSNews.com
Jerry Pokorsky, like Michael Orsi, is a Catholic priest who'd really rather be a right-wing pundit. CNSNews.com gave him a platform to feed those ambitions, and it continued doing so until its shutdown in April. Pokorsky spent his Dec. 30 column spouting talking points and cosnpiracy theories to laughably claim that right-wingers have been silenced:
Government and media elites throttled reasoned dissent based on evidence during the pandemic. We were not allowed to question these assertions: Bats transmitted the COVID virus. The US never funded the gain of function research in the Wuhan lab. The COVID virus never escaped from the Wuhan lab. Lockdowns were necessary and should remain in the government arsenal. Masks and rigorous social distancing prevent the spread of COVID. COVID vaccines are safe for everyone and prevent the spread of COVID. Vaccination is a moral obligation.
Conventional wisdom deemed unassailable by corporate media, politicians, and government agencies include:
Obamacare: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.
Lois Lerner’s IRS did not target tea party conservatives.
Medical facilities do not traffic in aborted baby parts and do not use them to develop pharmaceuticals.
Trump colluded with the Russians to get elected in 2016.
BLM riots were largely peaceful.
The Hunter Biden laptop was likely Russian disinformation.
There is no significant voter fraud in US elections.
Homophobes and Catholic teaching threaten the mental health of the LGBTQ community.
With surgery or hormone treatment, a person can change his or her sex.
Monkeypox (like AIDS) threatens the entire population.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion are inviolable moral precepts that transcend and replace the Ten Commandments.
Taken individually and in isolation, these assertions may represent aberrations from the cultural norm. Taken together and in historical context, we have sufficient evidence to conclude that immoral authoritarianism threatens the culture. The verdict is in. The facts are good enough for conclusions that require our testimony and action. Most of our elites – government, corporate, the media, and even some in the Church -- are liars. They depend upon our silence to accomplish their evil purposes.
He then falsely claiming that right-wingers have been silent about all of this:
Every cultural crime scene needs careful analysis to compile sufficient and persuasive evidence for the pathology report. Speak honestly and freely. We’ve been silent too long. “The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.” (Romans 13:12)
A resolution for a happy new year!
In his March 16 column, Pokorsky accused LGBT people of being involved in "blood worship" and maliciously described President Biden as supporting the "butchering of young people":
It is perplexing to realize that most of our population fails to distinguish between a surgeon and a butcher. It is breathtaking to realize that many parents and school systems around the United States have become butchers.
The mutilation of children in blood worship of the LGBTQ ideology has become common practice. At long last, emerging as a political point of contention, such liturgical butchery is now a standard part of many government school programs.
It is even more shocking to read that the president of the United States – a self-professed Catholic -- has elevated the butchering of young people as a moral imperative:
Liberals have supported the butchery of abortion for over 50 years. If butchering unborn babies is a yawner, it is even more acceptable to butcher the genitals of children after birth.
These non-butchers behaving like butchers give the profession a bad name. Perhaps the butcher industry association (there probably is one) should protest.
President Biden besmirches the reputation of honest butchers -- and Catholics. And his mother.
For his final column before CNS' shutdown, on April 6, Pokorsky bizarrely tried to argue that not discriminating against people is a "heresy" against the Catholic Church:
The “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) heresy undergirds the LGBTQ agenda and the promotion of female ordination. The diversity component stresses our differences more than unity (family, tribal, national, or religious). The equity component is unachievable because there will always be differences in physical and intellectual abilities and opportunities. The inclusion component is unintelligible. Why does it exclude pro-life Christians, for example?
The DEI heresy views man as a “ghost in a machine” with interchangeable parts. The various forms of sexual debauchery derive from the heresy. Church teaching is realistic: Man is an embodied spirit. Our masculine and feminine attributes express who we are.
Within the context of sound doctrine (based on Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterium), theologians are free to speculate under the watchful eye of the Church. The study of theology – like Mary’s pondering of the Angel Gabriel’s greeting – deepens our understanding of God’s revelation.
Let’s consider a rebuttal of the DEI ideology based on the Catholic theology of "sacramental sexuality."
But Pokorsky raged against his imaginary version of DEI by emphasizing "the nuptial dignity of male and female as God created us -- which has nothing to do with what actual DEI is.
MRC's Joke Policeman Makes Kimmel A Target Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center actually pays Alex Christy to hate-watch late-night comedy shows so he can loudlycomplain that right-wingers like him get made fun of too much (which is to say, at all). He did this again in an April 14 post:
ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live! conducted a series of man-on-the-street interviews for Thursday’s how where a reporter asked a series of men questions about women’s bodies that they naturally did not know the answers to. The point was not just to laugh at men who can’t identify cat toys or confuse the rectum for the ovaries, but to attack pro-lifers.
At the end of his monologue, Kimmel introduced the segment, “It's getting extra crazy between the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade and the judge who ruled against the abortion pills. There are a lot of people, mostly men telling mostly women what they can and can't do with their bodies which got us thinking about how little men know about the female anatomy.”
Kimmel added, “Speaking for myself, I don't know a whole lot of it. We did this once before. The results were not surprising but with all the new focus we decided to try it again. We went out on Hollywood Boulevard, we asked men walking by questions about women's bodies and then, well, here's what they had to say.”
What followed was a massive non-sequitur.
One man could not tell the difference between the uterus and the bladder or between the ovaries and the rectum. Another had no clue how tampons work, while another thought that a cat toy was something that was inserted into the vagina. The segment ended with the failed tampon explainer detonating a tiny firecracker under the impression is was an “ultra” tampon.
Of course, Christy was not at all amused by any of this. Rather then understand that the point was to note that men who generally know little about women's bodies are trying to regulate women's bodies, he white about the who man-on-the-street process and insisted it was all irrelevant anyway:
Man-on-the-street interview are always suspicious because there is no way of knowing who is truly clueless and who was willing to play a role in exchange for being on TV or how many people knew the correct answer, but who were naturally not shown. Either way, a man (or woman) not knowing how many eggs a woman is born with has nothing to do with abortion opinions. People know what an abortion is and that has nothing to do with the length of the vaginal canal.
Should a man with such an obviously deficient sense of humor -- and clearly believes his and his employer's political beliefs must be exempt from being made fun of -- really serve as an effective joke policeman? Are his techniques state-of-the-art training at joke police academy?
Victoria Jackson Resurfaces At WND To Spread Election Conspriacy Theories Topic: WorldNetDaily
Former "Saturday Night Live" comedian Victoria Jackson has spent the past several years sliding toward the far right, and her Obama derangement is what helped make her a WorldNetDailycolumnist for a while. She has only slid further right since then, and WND still likes her, to the point that an April 13 article by Bob Unruh tried to defend outrageous behavior from her:
Veteran "Saturday Night Live" star Victoria Jackson appeared at a public meeting in Franklin, Tennessee, this week to share her opposition to gay pride events being supported by the municipality.
She instantly became the target of jokes and vitriol by intolerant commenters who appeared unwilling to allow her to have, and express, her own beliefs.
Jackson took to the podium to comment on a planned gay pride parade, noting that God "hates" sodomy, sexual immorality and pride.
"Like, one of the things he hates most is pride," she explained, citing the Bible.
Proverbs 11:12: When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. The Lord detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished. … Proverbs 16:18: Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."
Recalling the Bible's account of Sodom and Gomorrah, Jackson said that clearly documents that "God hates sodomy, and sexual immorality and pride."
Barely a minute into her comments, she was gaveled into silence by officials running the meeting.
The SNL veteran added: "The reason I was shouting at the end of my speech isn’t because I was on a ‘homophobic rant,’ as TMZ said, but because the mayor was pounding his gavel on my most important last sentence: ‘I want to encourage this generation not to be brainwashed and go to Becket Cook’s YouTube channel!’
WND was apparently sufficiently impressed by this performance that she was given space to write her first column for it in six years (and just her second column for WND since 2011) the next day, in which she further demonstrated her limited grip on reality:
Why aren't people talking about the 2020 election anymore? Is it old news?
Millions of us believe it was rigged – which raises the question: Why vote again if the system is rigged?
On Nov. 3, 2020, our votes for president were counted. Our choices were 1) pro-abortion (senile) Joe Biden who drew no crowds to his rallies and stayed in his basement, and 2) pro-life (energetic) incumbent Donald Trump who drew huge crowds to his rallies and who in only four years had boosted our economy, lowered unemployment, strengthened our military and protected our borders. The choice was a no brainer. We watched the count reported on TV. Trump won.
In the middle of the night, however, everything mysteriously changed. "The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do." (Josef Stalin)
Recounts were demanded. Lawsuits. Hearings. On January 6, I joined a crowd of a least a million in Washington, D.C., to support the truth, that Trump won.
There's a lot wrong here, but we'll just note two things: 1) Trump lost, and 2) the crowd at the pre-riot rally was closer to 10,000. But she had more misinformation to impart:
Since our biased media is radical left, it was hard to find truth. Every election-fraud article I found, I posted on Twitter, YouTube and Facebook. The posts got wiped, and I got banned.
Patriots scrambled to find and share truth. I have no insider info, but I'll tell you what I've found.
Election machine "servers are overseas," says Col. Phil Warden in the documentary "Absolute Truth," produced by the MyPillow guy Mike Lindell. At the 19:48 mark of the film, he says there was a coup involving foreign and domestic enemies of the U.S. At the 28:29 mark, Russell Ramsland of Allied Security Operational Group in Dallas said, "… there is no effective security at all for your votes. Your votes are stored overseas where they can be easily manipulated. …"
Jackson went on to declare that "I highly recommend every American watch the documentary 'Absolute Truth'" -- getting the film's name wrong again -- and adding, "Another recommendation: If you care about the future of your children, you must watch Dinesh D'Souza's documentary '2000 Mules.'" Yes, another debunked conspiracy film.
Jackson concluded by declaring, "Let's start talking about Election Integrity. All of our freedoms depend on it." It's difficult to take advice from someone who can't even get simple, basic facts correct.
MRC's Jean-Pierre-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch: Doocy Defense Edition Topic: Media Research Center
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stood up to the biased questioning of Fox News' Peter Doocy, and the Media Research Center's Curtis Houck -- an enthusiastic Doocy-fluffer -- spent his writeup of the May 2 press briefing freaking out over his man-crush being besmirched and framing it instead as Jean-Pierre being "triggered":
The Fox News Channel’s Peter Doocy triggered ever-inept White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre Tuesday for the basic crime of fact-checking her after she falsely claimed during Monday’s briefing that illegal immigration had plummeted 90 percent since Joe Biden became President. While other White House reporters chose to ask process questions about the banking system, the border, and the debt limit, Doocy came to correct the record on a bold-faced lie.
As he usually does, Doocy started with a short, simple question: “If the border is secure, as the administration has said, then why would we need to send 1,500 active-duty U.S. troops down there?”
Doocy shifted to her comments from Monday: “You said yesterday that, when it comes to illegal migration, you've seen it come down by more than 90 percent. Where did that number come from?”
Doocy started to explain that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has told Fox the number for this fiscal year so far has been up 136,000 people, but Jean-Pierre tried to shout him down and keep the facts from coming to light by saying she would “answer” him.
Jean-Pierre came out of left field by trying to rattle Doocy’s cage by twice telling him to have “the dramatics...come down just a little bit.”
Doocy was incredulous and attempted to ask what was “dramatic about asking a question”(and seeing as how he wasn’t channeling Jim Acosta).
Jean-Pierre’s answer made little sense as she insisted she was referring “the parolee program” the Biden regime had “put in place...to deal with certain countries on — on ways that we can limit illegal migration” and “the data has shown us, that is gone down by more than 90 percent.”
Kevin Tober took the hate baton for his writeup of the May 8 briefing, again maliciously smearing Jean-Pierre as an "incompetent diversity hire":
At Monday's White House press briefing, the incompetent diversity hire press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre took fire from all sides over President Biden’s ineffectiveness to push his agenda through Congress and his lack of focus on the issues that matter to the American people. First out of the gate was CBS News Radio’s Steve Portnoy who chastised KJP over Biden’s lack of engagement in the left’s war on the Second Amendment in light of a recent shooting in Texas.
“The President’s position is known, but can you describe his engagement on this crisis today? What’s he doing about it today?,” Portnoy asked. “Because many Americans, they’re certainly happy to hear that he’s engaged on airline prices and airline compensation, but what about this issue that many Americans agree with you is a crisis?”
“The President has signed more than a dozen executive actions to deal with this issue, more than any other President,” KJP responded. “This is a President that has worked on this issue as a Senator, as Vice President, and as President. He has done everything that he can, using the tools that are in front of him, to deal with this issue,” she proclaimed.
Houck returned to write up the May 9 briefing, in which he put the spotlight on a Doocy colleague for dutifully spouting Republican talking points:
In an otherwise pedestrian questioning Tuesday of White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on the looming debt battle, Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich actually made something out of the gathering by grilling her on her rhetoric smearing 260 members of the House and Senate as domestic extremists and threats to the country for either supporting or voting spending cuts tied to raising the debt ceiling.
Heinrich’s first question had serious bite: “43 Republican senators signed onto a letter opposing raising the debt ceiling without budget reforms, and 217 members in the House voted for that bill to raise the debt limit with cuts to spending. Does the White House consider all of those members to be dangerous, MAGA Republican extremists?”
Jean-Pierre replied that many members of Congress are, indeed, dangers to the country, arguing House Republicans have “voted for cuts that's going to hurt American families...22 percent cuts to veterans, healthcare, schools, that's what they voted for.”
Heinrich recognized the divisive tact against tens of millions of Americans.
Jean-Pierre doubled down, accusing Republicans of “cut[ting]...programs that are incredibly important for the American family.”
Heinrich interjected with a fact-check: “Their bill would raise the debt limit. They passed a bill to raise the debt limit.”
The ever-inept press secretary displayed her lack of a grasp of basic English:
They've connect — I hear you, but they are connecting passing — whatever — this debt limit, to cuts — 22 percent cuts to veterans, to seniors — that's what they are threatening — cuts to our schools. That's what the — that's what is connecting — that's what their budget plan is.
Heinrich responded with even more fact-checking: “The bill doesn't have any appropriations in it, actually and the — the Speaker has, you know, ruled out a number of those things including defense, veterans benefits, senior entitlement programs.”
She then concluded with this outstanding query:“I mean, you have Mitt Romney saying there's got to be a conversation here. Is he a MAGA Republican extremist?”
Houck concluded by gushing over yet another Fox reporter: "The Fox Business Network’s Edward Lawrence followed immediately after and asked whether Biden even possess the ability to travel outside his silo."
Remember, Houck cares only that right-wing talking points were advanced and Jean-Pierre was made to look bad -- not that anything important happened.
An April 18 Newsmax column by Scott Powell started with a lot of lofty language about the founding of America before getting to his main point:
What has set America apart from so many other countries in the world up until recently has been the honesty and integrity of our electoral system.
And perhaps because of the "normalcy bias" that has been long established in the hearts and minds of so many Americans, it’s difficult for them to fathom that the 2020 election was compromised and fraudulent due to a myriad of ineffective and corrupt processes.
Actually, there are many significant examples of vote fraud in America’s past.
Vote fraud has happened and defending election integrity starts by accepting the fact that fraud occurs.
What is both surprising and disturbing about getting a hearing and trial on the evidence of voting irregularities in the presidential election of 2020 — much of which includes vast amounts of sworn testimony and camera video records — is how difficult that has been.
That stark reality alone suggests our country is in deep trouble from: corruption and compromise — that it's deep and broad, making some states’ judicial institutions and political machines so impenetrable as to make correction and adjudication impossible.
Truth and trust go hand in hand.
The trustworthiness of our election system has been considered the backbone of our political system — a sense of national identity connected with our freedom, rights, and equality under the law.
Evidence keeps growing that irregularities took place in multiple states in the 2020 national election.
That has had huge ramifications.
In fact, the primary cause of our most pressing problems today can be traced back to the 2020 election of Joe Biden:
The second president of the United States, John Adams, said, "Liberty once lost is lost forever." We desperately need a turning point in the trajectory of political corruption in America.
Let us hope and pray that will soon come, perhaps with Kari Lake’s lawsuit exposing vote fraud and election polling place organized crime that subverted Arizona’s gubernatorial election.
Needless to say, Powell offered no proof of the "vote fraud" he alleges took place. And so eager was Newsmax to distance itself from this column that an "editor's note" was added to the end of it:
The opinions expressed by this writer do not necessarily reflect Newsmax’s position. Newsmax believes the 2020 election results were both legal and final. Newsmax does not accept claims the election was stolen.
Newsmax is still facing defamation lawsuits from voting-tech companies Dominion and Smartmatic regarding claims of election fraud it promoted after the 2020 presidential election, and it's slightly desperate to explain why the issues in those lawsuits are "materially different" from the lawsuit Dominion fiiled against Fox News, which resulted in Fox News paying Dominion $787 million to settle things before the start of a trial.
MRC Tried To Falsely Conflate Carlson, Lemon Firings Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center had a sad when Fox News fired Tucker Carlson, but it rejoiced when CNN fired Don Lemon the same day. But the MRC also wanted to create a false equivalence between the two firings -- even though Carlson was a highly rated (for cable news) host in charge of the flagship show on a highly partisan TV channel while Lemon had been, as the MRC repeatedly reminded us, "demoted" to a morning-show slot on a more straightforward news channel. As a result, it complained with non-right-wing outlets wouldn't embrace that narrative. Kevin Tober huffed in an April 24 post:
The cable news landscape was shaken to its core Monday with the stunning newsthat cable news star and host of Fox News Channel's Tucker Carlson Tonight was out at the network. A short time later, CNN announced that CNN This Morning co-host Don Lemon was fired as well. DuringCBS Evening News's coverage of both developments, anchor Norah O'Donnell resorted to labeling Fox News as a conservative network, while seeing no need to use the liberal label for CNN.
While it's accurate to label Fox a conservative network in terms of its opinion-side programming, it wasn't honest or fair reporting to refuse to label CNN a liberal network when that's clearly what it is.
In fact, Fox News' "news" side is just as biased as its opinion side -- not a surprise given how many former MRC employees work in that "news" operation. And CNN's failure to not be as far-right as Fox News does not make it a "liberal" network; that's just the view from Tober's ideological position, which was made even more clear when he laughably called O'Donnell a "left-wing anchor."
Joke policeman Alex Christy complained that late-night comedians told too many jokes about Carlson's firing and not enough about Lemon's (and, yes, he counted them):
The Monday news media news surrounding Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon provided the late night comedy shows a golden opportunity to show they aren’t just liberal partisans. However, they would fail this test as individual jokes about Carlson outnumbered jokes about Lemon 32-to-2 with five additional jokes about both men.
Comedy Central’s The Daily Show temp host Desi Lydic came in with a 6:1 ratio. Her most notable jabs at Carlson included, “I can't believe that a network that’s so opposed to gender-affirming surgery just cut off their own dick. Though, apparently, Tucker was forced out by Rupert Murdoch, which is pretty ironic. Tucker spent so many years saying that Mexican people were coming to take our jobs away. Turns out, he should have been worrying about Australians.”
An April 25 post by Tim Graham brought the MRC's hypocritical labeling complaints into the debate, grousing that the New York Times wouldn't portray Lemon as being as "far left" as Carlson is far-right:
William Donohue of the Catholic League pointed out the Tuesday New York Times demonstrated an obvious labeling contrast. On page A1 came the headlined "Fox News Ousts Carlson, a Voice Of the Far Right." But on B-1, there was no label in the header "Lemon Out At CNN; He Says He Is ‘Stunned’. "
In the piece by Michael Grynbaum, John Koblin, and Benjamin Mullin, Lemon was only "fiery" and "spiky," not liberal or far-left:
But the Carlson story by Jeremy Peters, Katie Robertson, and Grynbaum began: "Fox News on Monday dismissed Tucker Carlson, its most popular prime-time host, who became one of the most influential voices on the American right in recent years with his blustery, inflammatory monologues on immigrants, Black civil rights activists, vaccines and national identity."
There were five mentions of conservatives and their media in the piece, and two "far-right" uses in the copy:
He then cited a purported analysis by dishonest Catholic Bill Donohue claiming that "We found over 200 examples of Carlson being called 'far right,' but only a few instances of Lemon being called 'far left.' PBS, NBC and MSNBC referred to Carlson as 'far right' but none referred to Lemon as 'far left.'" But neither Graham nor Donohue provided any evidence that Lemon is "far left" or that Carlson is not "far right."
(Graham also didn't disclose that his boss, Brent Bozell, sits on the board of advisers of Donohue's right-wing Catholic League.)
Mark Finkelstein played the whataboutism card in an April 26 post, referencing Graham's post as a starting point:
Yesterday, our Tim Graham called out the New York Times' double standard when it came to the paper's descriptions of Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon. The former "Gray Lady"—now the home of red-hot wokeism—branded Carlson "far right." But when it came to Lemon, the Times merely called him "fiery," and "spiky," with no mention of his consistently left-wing views.
That same sort of double standard was on display at CNN itself today. In a CNN This Morning segment on Fox's firing of Carlson, repeated mentions were made of an alleged culture of misogyny and sexism at his show.
Fair-'n-balanced journalistic standards would have made it incumbent on CNN to discuss serious allegations of sexism and misogyny against its own fired host, Lemon. But not a peep about Lemon's transgressions out of his former co-hosts, Poppy Harlow and Kaitlan Collins, or from CNN media reporter Sara Fischer. The focus was exclusively on Carlson's alleged misdeeds.
However Carlson might have transgressed respectful norms, it would appear to have occurred behind the scenes. In contrast, Lemon unleashed some of his feminist-frown material on the air, for all to see and hear.
Finkelstein didn't explain why Carlson is somehow less of a terrible person because he didn't display it on air.He then dismissed claims made about the working environment on Carlson's show made by a former show producer Abby Grossberg -- whom the MRC previously attacked as "disgruntled" -- as "not the most outrageous allegations imaginable," as if that makes it OK.
NEW ARTICLE -- Out There, Exhibit 85: CNS Obsessed Over Biden's Words Too Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's excessive concern with specific words President Obama did or didn't say spread to President Biden -- and it never stopped nitpicking what Obama said. Read more >>
In Contrast With Carlson, MRC Cheered Don Lemon's Firing Topic: Media Research Center
In contrast with the reverential fanboy treatment it gave to fellow right-wing ideologue Tucker Carlson, the Media Research Center has long despised Don Lemon -- it repeatedly attacked him after he came out as gay, spread bogus allegations of sexual assault even after the allegations were proven to be false, and baselessly insisted that Lemon moving from an evening newscast to CNN's morning show was a demotion. Here are some of the attacks the MRC launched on Lemon just since the start of this year:
Of course, Lemon did not help himself at times. The MRC hurleda lotof abuse at him for describing Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley as "past her prime,:" and there were alleged conflicts with co-hosts, which the MRC eagerlyateup (for maximum mockery, of course, with one item regarding it carried the sneering headline "SAD TROMBONE" -- not that it actually cares about the women since they work for CNN and thus presumably deserve what they get).MRC writers lapped up gossip about whether Lemon's days at CNN were numbered, with one podcast asking, "Is It Time to Fire Don Lemon?"
The MRC's Kevin Tober cheered in one February post: "CNN’s low-rated morning host Don Lemon has a history of on-air outbursts and privately berating his co-hosts for interrupting him. On Thursday night, Fox News host Tucker Carlson got in on the fun by mocking “diva Don Lemon” for his apparent fragile mental state."
Which made for an interesting bit of irony when both Carlson and Lemon lost their respective cable-news jobs the same day. And where Curtis Houck reported on Carlson's dismissal with sadness and reverence, in the same post he rehashed old attacks cheered Lemon's firing: "In contrast, Lemon’s ouster had been in the works for months given his demotion to the morning from his primetime slot Don Lemon Tonight where he had spent eight years smearing conservatives, being a race hustler, and spouting off conspiracy theories."
Carlson smeared poeple and spouted conspiracy theories too, but he conformed to right-wing ideology and thus would not be criticized for doing so.
Don Lemon is gone! The longtime CNNer took to Twitter on Monday to announce he was fired. While Lemon claimed he was “stunned” by the move, the dismissal shouldn’t have been too surprising ever since he was demoted to the mornings back in November.
At NewsBusters the longtime CNN anchor has left a large footprint of biased outbursts. In fact the ex-CNN anchor has won our “Quote of the Year” award for two-years running.
Lemon may have worn out his welcome at CNN but don’t be surprised to see him picked up by another leftist outlet. Until then let’s take a stroll down memory lane and look back at Lemon’s heinous remarks that the network would prefer were memory-holed.
NewsBusters Media Editor Bill D’Agostino put together this brief montage of Lemon’s blathering.
The MRC did publish a couple more articles related to Lemon's firing:
Tim Graham demonstrated his employer's tonal split on the firings in his April 24 podcast:
The Tucker news seemed shocking, considering how it's been a ratings juggernaut for Fox. Media reporters suggested that somewhere in the "treasure trove" of internal messages that Dominion Voting Systems forced into view in their lawsuit, the Murdochs were less than pleased with how they were discussed.
The Lemon firing just seems delayed. The demotion to morning-show duty never seemed like it would work. There was no "chemistry," just chilly exchanges that demonstrated Lemon's diva tendencies. Other than his race and sexual orientation, it would have seemed logical for him to catch the bus out of CNN with Brian Stelter, John Harwood, and Chris Cillizza.
The tonal split continued in an April 26 post rehashing media appearances by MRC staffers opining on the firings in right-wing safe spaces:
On Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning, the Media Research Center led the way in providing reaction to and instant analysis at NewsBusters, online, and on the radio about the bombshell firings of Tucker Carlson by Fox News and Don Lemon at CNN.
This included three spots from MRC Founder and President Brent Bozell, NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham, and NewsBusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck on NewsTalk 105.9 WMAL in the Washington D.C. market, the leading conservative station in the nation’s capital and an oasis for conservatives in the Swamp.
Bozell cropped up on Tuesday morning’s O’Connor and Company and didn’t hold back. After exclaiming “what a day” Monday was, he declared “the narrative” around Carlson’s axing seems to be Fox executives “just wanted him out.”
Bozell jokingly called out the alleged internal dismay over Carlson’s personal messages: “What a crock that would be. A private email is a private email...If there is a single person who worked at the Media Research Center who has not sent an email criticizing me, I’m going to dismiss that person.”
As for Lemon, Bozell cut to the chase: “What a trainwreck of a network this is...Licht was brought on to fix a sinking ship and he’s just been poking more holes.”
That was followed by Graham making a bizarre claim:
Earlier in the show, Graham noted the ideological diversity between Fox hosts:
It’s really obvious this is Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News...Things can change depending on that the Murdochs want...It is interesting that you had...dramatic changes or differences of opinion from hour to hour. You don’t tend to see that on MSNBC. You don’t tend to see that on CNN.
“I think you can look at this and say, yes, it seems like a big deal, but it’s not something that’s really a threat to Fox in the sense that they let go of Bill O’Reilly, Tucker moved into the space, and then people tend to forget,” he said.
Huh? There's "ideological diversity between Fox hosts"? Needless to say, Graham offered no example of this purported "diversity," given that one must obviously be a committed right-winger to even be considered for a Fox News hosting spot.That was followed by the expected Lemon-bashing:
Graham then tied the two together:
With Don Lemon, everybody kind of gets the idea. He was a big diva. You know, everyone gets tired of him...I think, in this case, the tea leaves suggest that all of the internal e-mails and texts that came out in the Dominion case...probably angered them with his imperiousness or something.
As for Lemon, Graham quipped that something “we all wanted to hear” was Lemon “was past his prime” while, at CNN, “it’s the same” from under Jeff Zucker and “has not changed.”
That was followed by Houck serving up rote Lemon-bashing while similarly insisting there is ideological diversity on Fox News:
Houck said the longtime CNN host’s firing arrived like “a snowball rolling down the hill, gaining steam — an incoming avalanche” to illustrate CNN boss Chris Licht’s reign thus far as “an absolute failure.”
On Carlson, Houck called it “a difficult story” for Fox with plenty of backlash, especially with subscriptions to its popular streaming site, Fox Nation.
“I don’t think liberals or conservatives...don’t do enough introspection and realize...that people tune into Fox News at 8:00 for Tucker Carlson. They tune in. A lot of young people...tune in...for Tucker Carlson,” Houck said, noting how Fox created “a healthy media ecosystem” with differences of opinion between Carlson and even the host in the next hour, Sean Hannity.
Houck identified none of these purported "differences of opinion."
CNS Obsessed Over NYC Murders To Attack Prosecutor For Indicting Trump Topic: CNSNews.com
We've documented how CNSNews.com expressed concerned about crime in Chicago -- though only sporadically, when it advanced right-wing narratives to do so. In its final days before being shut down, CNS started to do the same thing about crime in New York City, presumably driven by another right-wing narrative, a desire to smear Manhattan-based district attorney Alvin Bragg for indicting Donald Trump. We've already noted how CNS was quick to frame Bragg as "soft on crime," but the sudden interest in New York crime continued after that.Editor Terry Jeffrey wrote in an April 13 article:
There were 100 people murdered in New York City in the first 99 days of 2023, according to data published by the New York Police Department.
The NYPD’s latest “CompStat” report, which was for the week that ran from April 3 through April 9, indicates that there were 7 murders in New York City that week. It also indicates that there were 30 murders in the last 28 days and 100 from the beginning of 2023 through April 9. (April 9 was the 99th day of the year.)
The 100 murders committed in New York City through April 9 of this year is down from the 111 that were committed in the city through April 9 of last year, according to the CompStat report.
In addition to the 100 murders committed in New York City through April 9 of this year, the NYPD reports that in that same period there were 408 crime complaints for alleged rapes, 4,102 for alleged robberies, and 6,742 for alleged felony assaults.
Yes, Jeffrey managed to work in a reference to 100 murders in each of the first four paragraphs of the article. Also note that Jeffrey hyped overal numbers instead of the murder rate -- he did that because New York City's murder rate is actually the second-lowest among the nine U.S. cities with a population of more than 1 million.
Jeffrey hyped raw numbers agan in an article published on April 20, the final day of CNS' operation:
Ten people were murdered in New York City last week, according to a report released by the New York Police Department.
In the seven days from Monday, April 10, through Sunday, April 16, ten people were murdered in the city, according to the NYPD’s weekly CompStat report. That works out to an average of one murder every 16.8 hours.
In addition to the ten people who were murdered in New York City last week, there were also 18 rapes, 317 robberies and 566 felony assaults.
In the first 106 days of 2023 (January 1 through April 16), 113 people have been murdered in New York City, according to the NYPD report.
During those 106 days there were also 429 rapes, 4,417 robberies and 7,338 felony assaults.
Those 7,338 felony assault in the first 106 days of this year work out to about 69 per day—or one every 21 minutes.
Jeffrey did add -- reluctantly, one must presume -- that "On March 20, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office put out a statement saying that “ New York remains one of the safest big cities in the U.S." But he refused to prove the numbers that prove it.
It's clear that if CNS had not been shut down, Jeffrey would be churning out weekly updates on murders in New York -- and censoring the fact that New York is a safe city.
FLASHBACK: MRC Loved Tucker Carlson's Cherry-Picked Capitol Riot Clips Topic: Media Research Center
As we show how the Media Research Center had a sad when Fox News fired Tucker Carlson, it's worth noting how much it was in Carlson's thrall -- even gushing over how he promoted misleading, cherry-picked video footage of the Capitol riot. In a Feb. 22 post, Nicholas Fondacaro spewed his usual misogyny in attacking "The View" for noting concerns about Kevin McCarthy giving unedited riot footage to Carlson:
The cackling coven of ABC’s The View was outraged on Wednesday after news broke that Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) gave Fox News host Tucker Carlson all 44,000 hours of footage from January 6. The gaggling gals were off the rails from the get-go with accusations that Carlson was a security risk who would reveal “evacuation points,” “safe rooms,” and security camera locations which would end up enabling another January 6 or 9/11.
“So, exactly how dangerous is it to let Tucker Carlson reset the narrative on January 6?” Joy Behar asked the hysterical faux conservative, Alyssa Farah Griffin.
Without evidence, Farah Griffin proclaimed that Carlson’s possession of the footage “raises huge safety and security concerns for the Capitol.”
Farah Griffin’s ridiculous suggestions about security threats were something the entire cast latched on to. “The biggest thing here is what Alyssa said before. The security risks, exposing the inside of the White House,” Sara Haines declared.
Insisting that Carlson had “nefarious intentions,” Haines also pushed the long-debunked accusation that Republican members of Congress had helped rioters scout the Capitol beforehand:
But they proved that they were giving tours – Congress people were giving tours before to show people exactly what we just – what was just now handed over to someone. And where there can be nothing good coming from it, they've investigated we’ve done everything we need to do. It's not only not going to add good, it actually only has bad intentions. It's – Nefarious intentions drive this request.
The cast of The View knew perfectly well those accusations were busted last year. Back in June 2022, they cried foul when the Capitol Police exonerated Congressman Barry Loudermilk (R-GA).
As we noted when Fondacaro originally attacked "The View" over this, Loudermilk originally falsely claimed there was no tour at all and subsequent evidence showed that tour participants -- at least one of them took part in the Capitol riot the next day -- took photos of non-touristy things like hallways and security checkpoints.
On Feb. 27, P.J. Gladnick falsely claimed that the media was not interested in obtaining video footage from the riot until it was given to Carlson:
Remember all the incessant demands by the liberal media for the security camera video footage of the Capitol ever since January 6, 2021? No? Perhaps because it never happened... until now. On the heels of the new House Speaker Kevin McCarthy turning over 40,000 hours of that video to Fox News host Tucker Carlson, the liberal media suddenly has an urgent desire to see those videos right away.
In fact, the media have repeatedlysought access to video from the riot before it was given to Carlson.
When Carlson did release cherry-picked video from the stash, Tim Graham hyped them in his March 8 podcast while uncritically embracing the Tucker-endorsed narrative downplaying the riot:
The unglued freakout over Fox host Tucker Carlson airing Capitol Police clips of the January 6 riot underlines that the Left cannot stand any attempt to undercut the Pelosi-Picked Plotline. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer told Rupert Murdoch he shouldn't allow Carlson to air a second night of January 6 counter-testimony.
One of the most obnoxious critics was PBS star filmmaker Ken Burns, who compared Carlson (and Ron DeSantis) to both the Nazis and the Soviets. Burns said the videos in Carlson's hands were a "huge threat" to the Republic. Does this sound like someone who has even the most tenuous grasp of history?
These programs were not a momentous rewrite of history. The clips were not epic. But the media have clearly oversold January 6. The best clips were from the media and Democrats. Just hearing Vice President Kamala Harris compare it to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 shows how overwrought the Democrats are. On Tuesday, Biden press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at the podium: "The President has been very clear: January 6th was the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War." That implies 1/6 is worse than 9/11 and worse than Pearl Harbor.'
The Capitol riot was a very bad, violent day, and one we shouldn't forget. But it was not a "deadly insurrection." It wasn't like, for example, the Tree of Life synagogue mass shooting in Pittsburgh in 2018. The only person shot on January 6 was a protester named Ashli Babbitt. Does anyone remember her shooting by a Capitol policeman being discussed by the House panel in their curated hearings? No.
Tucker Carlson did raise alternative narratives and questions. Why were the Capitol Police so unprepared? Why was the "Q-Anon Shaman" sentenced to almost four years in jail when he wasn't violent? Why would the Pelosi Panel mislead the public on Sen. Josh Hawley seemingly running alone out of the Capitol? That’s not dangerous. That’s democracy. Why is the Left so arrogant that they cannot countenance anyone presenting an opposing view?
Says the guy whose job it is to attacking any view that opposes right-wing narratives. Also, Babbitt was a domestic terrorist who was part of a mob trying to enter through a broken door. We thought the MRC believed all mobs were violent and posed imminent danger to law enforcement.
Graham then spent a March 9 post ranting that a fact-checker pointed out that Carlson's video was indeed cherry-picked. He started with a gratuitous attack on the fact-checker for fact-checking things:
Tucker Carlson is clearly a hate figure in the offices of PolitiFact. Over the years, this is his "Truth-O-Meter" record: one "Mostly True," one "Half True," and 26 "Mostly False" or worse ratings(five "Mostly False, twelve "False" and NINE "Pants On Fire").
Now compare that to the other cable hosts in his hour. Chris Hayes, who's hosted an MSNBC show since 2011, has one "True" and one "Half True"(that one from 2011). CNN's Anderson Cooper, who's had a prime-time show from the founding of PolitiFact in 2007....doesn't have a page! That's zero "fact checks."
Graham didn't dispute the accuracy of any of those previous act-checks on Carlson. Then came the attack on the fact-check itself:
Unsurprisingly, the latest "Pants On Fire" from PolitiFact takes Carlson's January 6 riot videos, specifically the footage of the "Q-Anon Shaman" Jacob Chansley wandering the halls of the Capitol facing no visible resistance from police. Carlson said they basically acted as "tour guides" -- mocking the appearance without audio.
PolitiFact's Madison Czopek makes the point that what you don't hear is that the cops were trying to get Chansley to vacate the premises. "Capitol Police officers repeatedly asked Chansley and other rioters to leave the Capitol building, according to the plea agreement."
Graham then pushed a conspiracy theory that Chansley was set up to be a scapegoat:
Carlson was underlining that Chansley was non-violent, even if he wanted "justice" (whatever that means) for Mike Pence. "If he was in fact committing such a grave crime, why didn't the officers who were standing right next to him place him under arrest?" Why did they throw the book at non-violent Chansley with a 44-month jail sentence? Because he was "the face" of the riot.
We've noted that prosecutors pointed out how Carlson's selectively edited videos "did not show Chansley, who was sentenced to 41 months in prison for his actions on January 6, facing off with officers for half an hour outside the Senate chamber or when Chansley refused to be escorted out of the Capitol by an officer and only left after being forcibly removed," adding: "Chansley was not some passive, chaperoned observer of events for the roughly hour that he was unlawfully inside the Capitol. ... He was part of the initial breach of the building; he confronted law enforcement for roughly 30 minutes just outside the Senate Chamber; he gained access to the gallery of the Senate along with other members of the mob (obviously, precluding any Senate business from occurring); and he gained access to and later left the Senate floor only after law enforcement was able to arrive en masse to remove him.” But Graham would rather push a conspiracy theory that fits his narrative than tell the full truth.
NEW ARTICLE -- WND Profiles In COVID Misinformation: McCullough And Malone, Part 2 Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily continued to give space to Peter McCullough and Robert Malone to spread more misinformation about COVID and vaccines -- and to complain that their misinformation was being called out for what it is. Read more >>
MRC Takes Tucker Carlson's Fox News Firing Hard Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center -- fans of everything Fox News -- particularly loved Tucker Carlson, so much so that it would dedicate entire posts to transcribing what he said. Here are a few examples of its Tucker stenography in recent months:
Note how the MRC feels so close to Carlson that it's quite comfortable identifying him by only his first name in headlines.
The MRC would also defend Carlson as well from any criticism, as shown in a Feb, 26 post by Mark Finkelstein hining that Carlson was called a "bomb-throwing whack job" and a March 23 post by joke policeman Alex Christy lashing out at a discussion on "The Daily Show" in which Carlson was called a "world-class asshole." Neither writer made an effort to prove those assertions wrong.
So when Fox News abruptly fired Carlson on April 24 and killed his TV show, the MRC was shocked (and, apparently, fearing the loss of easy clickbait). Curtis Houck declared the event to be part of "one of the more bizarre and consequential days in modern cable news" along with the firing of CNN's Don Lemon the same day, and he had nothing but gushy things to say about the guy:
Carlson’s ouster gripped social media and conservative circles Monday, leaving many baffled by Fox’s decision to oust the most-watched cable news host, who had not only a weeknight primetime show Tucker Carlson Tonight (which averaged 3.3 million viewers in 2022), but a daytime show on its streaming network Fox Nation called Tucker Carlson Today, and an investigative series Tucker Carlson Originals.
A Fox News spokeswoman broke the news in a statement: “FOX News Media and Tucker Carlson have agreed to part ways. We thank him for his service to the network as a host and prior to that as a contributor.”
The statement concluded by revealing Carlson would not be given a farewell show and instead the timeslot will be filled by a placeholder show Fox News Tonight and helmed on a “rotating” basis by various “FOX News personalities until a new host is named.”
Going back to Carlson, it’ll remain an open question as to why Carlson was unceremoniously axed (so long as no further reporting is provided). Last week, Fox News agreed to a $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems and avoid trial over its “false” coverageabout the aftermath of the 2020 election.
Carlson’s final segment will go down without much fanfare as he ended Friday’s show by bringing in Pennsylvania pizza deliveryman Tyler Morrell to eat pizzas from the shop, Coco's Pizza in Delaware County, and discuss Morrell’s heroic action to trip up an alleged car thief.
Carlson wrapped by teasing the latest episode of Tucker Carlson Originals and telling viewers he’d be back on Monday: “That’s it for us, for the week....And we’ll be back on Monday. In the meantime, have the best weekend with the ones that you love and we’ll see you then.”
That was followed shortly after by a post from Tierin-Rose Mandelburg raging at anyone who dared to criticize Carlson:
The left has a tendency to marvel when the right seems weak. Typical for those who have no moral backbone.
Moments after Fox News and Tucker Carlson broke up, numerous celebrities posted in celebration. Though no confirmation as to why the split took place, Hollywood elites used it as an opportunity to bash Carlson and Fox News itself.
Mandelburg didn't rebut any of the criticism of Carlson; instead, she concluded by huffing:
The irony is that while the left was busy cheering Carlson not working with Fox News anymore, one of their own, Don Lemon, was fired from CNN.
All this to say, celebrities and much of the left are so dedicated to harassing, bashing and being evil towards others that at this point, it’s simply all they seem to know.
That's right -- the person whose paycheck depends on her harassing, bashing and being evil towards anyone who's not heterosexual and, in particular, is transgender is whining about other people being mean.
Nicholas Fondacaro lashed out at more Carlson critics:
With news breaking during their Monday show that Tucker Carlson was out at Fox News, the liberal and faux-conservative cast members of ABC’s The View celebrated the development by doing the wave and leading the audience in singing goodbye. One of the ladies even praised God.
As they were coming back from a commercial break late in the show, moderator Whoopi Goldberg broke the news. “Welcome back. Word has just come down that Fox News Media and Tucker Carlson have agreed to part ways,” she said as the audience erupted into cheers and applause.
“They thanked him for his service to the network as a host and as a prior contributor,” she read from the Fox News Media statement as she stood up and instructed the rest of the cast to do the wave with her.
Racist co-host Sunny Hostin then sarcastically gloated that, “I don’t think anyone likes to celebrate the demise of someone’s career” and quickly suggested Carlson was singularly “responsible for the degradation that we see somewhat of our democracy in this country.”
Then, speaking “as a faithful person,” the self-proclaimed devout Catholic thanked God for Carlson no longer having his gig at Fox News. “Look at God! Look at God!” she proclaimed.
For her part, co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin declared it “a good day for the Ukrainians” because Carlson was “the biggest purveyor of pro-Russian talking points” and “Russian propaganda hardest hit” by the departure.
“Karma doesn't lose anyone's address,” Hostin bragged, with Goldberg adding: “No. Well, it may misplace the address, but it doesn't lose it.”
The next day, Finkelstein groused that a commentator said Fox News want to be spoon-fed by hosts like Carlson -- then actually tried to defend Carlson's pro-Putin stance on Russia's invasion of Ukraine:
The late, great Rush Limbaugh often made a point of refuting the liberal-elite notion that his listeners were "mind-numbed robots" who took all of their political marching orders from El Rushbo. He insisted"You may learn some things, but in terms of your core beliefs you had ’em long before I came along. You’re just now having them reinforced."
On today's Morning Joe, George Conway of the disgraced Lincoln Project echoed that robotic line as he commented on Tucker Carlson's abrupt departure from Fox News. Said Conway:
That's the appeal of him to the MAGA base. Because they want to, they want to make things simpler for themselves. They don't want to think for themselves.
Democracy is complicated. Democracy is messy. Democracy is diversity. We don't like that, these people who watch Fox News. And Tucker appeals to that.
Not just the authoritarian streak, but also, you know, the great replacement theory. He wants to gin up, gin up the right, you know, with racism.
It's true that Carlson has been a critic of Biden's Ukraine position. But Conway overstated things in saying Carlson believes that it is up to Putin to define the situation there. On the first anniversary of Russia's invasion, Carlson wrote that limited objectives were reasonable:
To push Russia back to where it was a year ago before it invaded Ukraine . . . seemed like a reasonable and measurable objective."
Today, Scarborough sounded like the Biden campaign announcement, that the Democrats were for freedom and democracy, while Tucker and Trump were autocrats who liked Putin.
Of course, Carlson wasn't just "a critic of Biden's Ukraine position" -- he was enough of a supporter of Russia that his rants were played onRussian state TV. (And Russian propagandists offered him a job following his Fox News firing.)
Back to the original claim Conway made, Finkelstein played whataboutism:
If ever there were a viewership that slavishly follows the pronouncements of TV hosts, it's that of MSNBC, where Conway is a regular. The likes of Rachel Maddow, Nicolle Wallace, Joy Reid, et. al, set the agenda for liberal groupthink. Heck, many viewers apparently even take Joe Scarborough seriously! But not all: on Twitter, Scarborough was trending last night when when lefties were mad that Chris Hayes was replaced by a Scarborough softball interview with Bill Clinton.
He didn't actually prove any of that, of course. Finkelstein's soft treatment of Carlson's pro-Russia stance tells us he's a true Tucker believer and dead-ender -- you know, like the rest of the MRC.
WND Columnist Blames Nashville Massacre On Sex Education In Hungary Topic: WorldNetDaily
Carole Hornsby Haynes -- a self-proclaimed "education analyst, curriculum specialist, historian, and classical pianist" who wants you to know she has a Ph.D. -- used her March 31 WorldNetDaily column to attack the alleged transgender status ofthe perpetrator of a gun massacre at a school in Nashville, starting with the unfounded smear that all transgender people are mentally ill:
How could this shy young woman from a Christian family turn into a calculating, transgender terrorist, killing six? It's not surprising that she was under care for an emotional disorder. Transgender individuals are almost four times as likely as cisgender people to have a mental-health condition, including mood and anxiety disorders, PTSD, schizophrenia, personality disorders, autism, substance use disorders and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders.
The study to which she links also noted that "Improved social support in childhood among transgender persons may be a critical mental illness in adulthood as described in this article" -- in other words, social stigma of the kind Hornsby Haynes is apparently endorsing contributes to mental illness among transgender people.
She then went way into the weeds to blame the massacre on sex education in, um, Hungary:
Although the public is bewildered by this national trend toward transgenderism and homosexuality, history provides the answer as to why.
The origins of radical sex education date back nearly a century to a Marxist program implemented in Hungarian public schools in their quest to destroy Christianity and the family in Western Europe. The curriculum included sex lectures and graphic instructional materials about free love and sexual intercourse. Students were encouraged to ridicule and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority. Hate was turned toward parents, clergy and all dissenters.
The program was a huge success. Continued exposure to atheism, radical sex education and rebellion against authority turned Hungarian students into bullies, thieves, murderers, sex predators and sociopaths who disrespected authority.
Hornsby Haynes linked an article she wrote in 2019 from which she pulled much of this attack, and went on to identify the person who introduced sex education in Hungary, from which all of this purportedly comes, as Georg Lukacs.You may not be surprised to learn that this attack appears to be less than factual.
Lukacs was a Marxist philosopher who who spent more time in Berliln and Moscow than he did in Hungary. His actual direct influence on education, though, appears to have been limited: he was a "People's Commissar for Education and Culture" in the Hungarian Soviet Republic, which controlled the country for a few months in 1919 before collapsing; communism didn't return to Hungary again until after World War II, and he became critical of Hungary's links to the Soviet Union.
If one guy on Reddit is to be believed, the portrayal of Lukacs' sex education plan as extreme comes from research Victor Zitta, who relied on historians with an anti-Semitic bent who would be prone to smear Jewish intellectuals like Lukacs. Other historians say the sex education was much more tame.
Factual inaccuracy wasn't about to stop Hornsby Haynes from continuing to blame education, of course:
Nearly all states have dropped their bans against the teaching of LGBT propaganda in public schools, leaving only Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi and Louisiana. So it's not surprising that Hale had an emotional disorder and transitioned to a "male." She attended Tennessee public schools from 2006-2014 where she was subjected to far left-wing indoctrination, LGBT curriculum and the discrediting of Christianity.
Hardening schools with armed security is not going to stop school shootings that are a consequence of the moral decay of our nation. American public schools are churning out students who exhibit the same characteristics found in Hungarian youth after implementation of a radical sex curriculum – violent, murderers, sociopaths, sex predators and God-haters. The Communist goal of creating student hatred for America, our Founding Fathers, Christianity and American capitalism has been achieved.
Looks like Hornsby Haynes wants to impose her own form of propaganda in schools.
Newsmax Columnists Freaked Out Over Trump Indictment Too Topic: Newsmax
Just as Newsmax freakedout about Donald Trump's indictment, its columnists did too. Larry Bell treated Trump as a victim in his April 6 column:
Apart from — and in addition to — torching America’s foundational fair justice and democratic electoral systems, the transparently political prosecutorial persecutions of Donald Trump by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg have inflamed to an inferno, one destined to backfire on the perpetrating arsonists.
The obvious agenda has been to keep Trump’s unabashedly unfettered persona in the compliant media forefront to distract and deflect public attention away from a previously unthinkable siege of domestic and foreign Democratic Party-Socialist policy disasters.
First, don’t imagine for a moment that the current sham Manhattan court case which George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley describes as a "legal slurpee" — satisfying for liberals but there’s nothing there — will possibly lead to a disqualifying felony conviction.
Despite all the brouhaha regarding 34 "felony charges" in Bragg’s grand jury indictment, there are exactly zero that would even warrant legitimate misdemeanor beefs in part due to long-expired statutes of limitations.
Bell's column carried a laughabledisclaimer stating that "The following article has been authored by a non-lawyer, and does not constitute a legal opinion; nor does it consitute an endorsement for any candidate, or political party, by Newsmax" -- as if Newsmax hasn't made clear it's completely in the tank for Trump.
Josh Hammer served up a ridiculous historical comparision in an April 7 column:
The Roman historian Suetonius described Julius Caesar as timid and noncommittal as he initially approached the Rubicon River — a shallow and narrow waterway that, at the time, demarcated the boundary between Cisalpine Gaul and Italy proper — in January 49 B.C.E.
In fact, the historian ultimately attributed Caesar's decision to cross the waterway, precipitating a four-year civil war and ultimate Caesarian dictatorship, to the supernatural. Prior to crossing, again according to Suetonius, Caesar uttered the now-infamous phrase: "The die has been cast."
While we cannot know for certain whether New York County, New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg's catastrophic decision to successfully indict and arraign a former president of the United States was partially attributable to an intervening apparition, we can reasonably conclude that the actions of this past week have cast a most woeful die for the trajectory of our decadent, declining republic.
The 34-count formal indictment of former President Donald Trump, laughably meritless on the legal merits and scandalously imprudent on the broader political judgment, represents a genie that cannot, and will not, ever be returned to its bottle.
Much ink has already been spilled on the glaring legal deficiencies in Bragg's case, which ought to be evident to any competent first-year law student and which had led Bragg's predecessor Cyrus Vance Jr., U.S. prosecutors and — in the not-so-distant past — Bragg himself to eschew prosecution.
Neither Bell nor Hammer can't actually know anything about the merits of Trump's indictment, given that all of the evidence has not yet been revealed.
Michael Reagan whined about the indictment in his April 11 column:
Additional proof that you can kill two birds with one stone. Or in this instance, one indictment can accomplish two political goals. Pipsqueak District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his comical indictment of Donald Trump is a big crowd pleaser among rabid leftwing voters.
Bragg "The Man Who Indicted Trump" will never have to pay for a drink again.
Or buy his own dinner, although in the long run that could be a real problem for him.
For feverish leftists this lame indictment is so much better than some stodgy Senate impeachment trial because it has fingerprints and the potential for more zany jurors.
Trump energizes the Trump base.
Then he polarizes every last member of the Democratic Party and he alienates independents and swing voters. The GOP’s path to presidential victory is razor thin at best.
With Trump as the nominee, it vanishes.
Trump deserves our sympathy. He's not been treated fairly.
Yes, the indictment is an outrage. But the best response for the country we love is not to give Trump the nomination because the left is picking on him.
That is exactly what they fervently want us to do.
The response that will hurt the left the most is to pick a nominee that has the best chance of beating Biden and the rest of the country wreckers that stock his administration.
The 2024 election may be our last chance.
Don’t throw it away.
Bell Returned to attack the indictment again in his April 14 column -- though, again, he cannot possibly know all the evidence behind it:
Never underestimate a targeted victim's ability to fight back.
Although Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s contrived charges against Donald Trump proves you can indict one, Democrats are the ones most likely to suffer acute indigestion served up by 2024 voters hungry for change from a two-tier Orwellian animal farm justice system.
Recent surveys indicate that a large segment of the population recognizes the case as being full of unsavory and otherwise thoroughly distasteful political malarkey.
Bell then played whataboutism by referencing various alleged scandals involving Democrats that were hyped by right-wing media -- though, oddly enough, in part to insist that voters don't care about such things. Still, Newsmax slapped a disclaimer on his column laughably insisting that "The following article does not constitute support for any political candidate and/or political party, on the part of Newsmax."