MRC Launches More Partisan Attacks On Google Over Purportedly Biased Search Results Topic: Media Research Center
In the runup to last year's midterm elections and runoffs afterward, the Media Research Center tried to play gotcha with Google by accusing it of bias against Republians because a certain search term didn't put Republican candidates at the top -- even though it never explain why that particular search term should have returned the results it demanded. It's playing the same bogus search-result gambit again, this time framing it as so-called "election interference." Gabriela Pariseau and Michael Morris wrote in an Aug. 24 post:
Google’s election interference is just getting warmed up as we head into 2024.
MRC Free Speech America researchers searched Google for “presidential campaign websites,” but the search engine did not display a single Republican candidate on its first page of results the day before the first Republican Party presidential primary debate on Wednesday. President Joe Biden’s campaign website, of course, showed up as the second search result along with a Democratic Party challenger Marianne Williamson’s campaign website, which came up as the fifth result.
Google even displayed results for past failed Democratic Party presidential candidates who aren’t even running this cycle, including: Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) website, which showed up as the ninth result; Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) campaign website, which came in twelfth; and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign website, which appeared twenty-ninth in the results.
Notably, 2024 Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., did not appear in Google’s search results even though he is, at present, the biggest threat to President Joe Biden's nomination.
“Google has erased every threat to Joe Biden,” said MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider. “We know that Google pulled out all the stops to put Hillary Clinton in the White House, and it has continued to interfere in our elections ever since. Compared to other social media platforms, it is harder to document what Google does in secret, but we at MRC Free Speech America have caught them red-handed again.”
Schneider continued, “Google has consistently stood apart from all other search engines, and not in a good way. We have repeatedly seen Google and Big Tech social media platforms treat Republican candidates harshly compared to their Democrat [sic] opponents.”
Weirdly, Pariseau and Morris did not state how Republican candidates ranked in the search findings, even though this "study" was specifically done before the first GOP debate. As before, they also failed to explain why that particular search term should have delivered the results it demanded, or even what normal human would use that search term. And their fretting over Kennedy not appearing in the results is merely part of the MRC's ironicpromotion of his campaign -- not because they actually want him to win, but in the hope that it might hurt Biden's re-election chances.
Pariseau repeated the same trick for a Sept. 27 post, under the headline "More Election Interference!":
Is Google shilling for Biden? It appears so, as its search engine once again buried Republican “presidential campaign websites.”
Google's search engine failed to produce even-handed results in multiple searches performed by MRC Free Speech America over the course of a week prior to today's Republican presidential primary debate. Researchers broadly searched for “presidential campaign websites” as well as two additional searches specifying the party affiliation of the candidates. When MRC searched for “republican presidential campaign websites,” only two candidates’ websites appeared on the first page in the search results — a Democrat candidate and a Republican who is polling at less than half a percent.
Democratic Party candidate Marianne Williamson’s website somehow found its way onto the first page. So did Will Hurd, who has yet to garner enough support to make it to the debate stage. His website was the only Republican candidate’s website to appear in the search results. His website came up as the third result while the campaign websites of former President Donald Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Strive Asset Management co-founder Vivek Ramaswamy, Former Vice President Mike Pence, Former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley, Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) and Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie were nowhere to be found on the first page of results.
The search did include a link to a Library of Congress page that referenced Trump’s 2020 campaign website but even the link referenced was dead.
“These results are so outrageous,” said MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider. “Google is either the most incompetent search engine on the planet, or it’s intentional. This is not a coincidence.”
But the MRC undermined itself by injecting partsan terminology into its "study." One of the terms used was "democrat presidential campaign websites"; right-wing activists like those at the MRC have spent years trying to rename the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party" for the lulz. Speaking of ironic lulz, Pariseau added that "Biden’s most formidable challenger in the primary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ’s website was notably missing." In fact, Biden was ahead of Kennedy by about 50 points at the time Pariseau's item was posted, making her use of "formidable" at least as ironic as the MRC's support for Kennedy itself.
Pariseau went on to complain that factual information about Republican candidates was noted in the results:
Each of the liberal outlets made clear their bias against GOP front-runner and former President Donald Trump, primarily listing controversial flashpoints of his administration in their respective write-ups.
CNN, for example, characterized Trump’s criticisms of how the 2020 election was conducted as “conspiracy theories.” Meanwhile, Politico touted Trump’s alleged “numerous scandals,” while NBC and AP seemingly eagerly recounted recent criminal charges brought against the former president. CNN and Politico also touted Biden as the presumed Democrat nominee the GOP will face in 2024, not even acknowledging his two Democrat challengers.
Yes, Pariseau used "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" twice, further demonstrating teh partisanship that marks the MRC's so-called studies. She also didn't dispute the accuracy of the reporting she criticized, and she purported to read the mind of non-right-wing news organizations by claiming without evidence that they "seemingly eagerly recounted recent criminal charges" against Trump.
Parisau's injection of partianship into this so-called study shows the underlying bias in what she does -- it's clear that these search terms were chosen specifically to make Google look bad and, thus, to have clickbait talking points to spread throughout right-wing media. It's the way a partisan organization acts -- and certainly not one that purports to care about "media research."
WND's Constitutionalists Fret That Constitution Could Kick Trump Off Ballot Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily likes to portray itself as faithful constitutionalists, but when some invoked the Constitution as a reason to remove Donald Trump from 2024 presideintial ballots, WND started singing a different tune. Bob Unruh complained in a July 20 article:
Democrats have insisted since it happened on calling the riot in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, an "insurrection."
Setting aside the facts, which include that it was a riot by a few hundred people who vandalized parts of the building, and that President Trump had told his fans to protest "peacefully," there are other considerations.
An "insurrection" would require some sort of plan to actually take over the government, to implement new rules, orders, policies and such. And what about commanding the military? There have not even been suggestions there's evidence for this.
Nevertheless, Democrats insist it was an "insurrection" and now it's being explained why.
By convincing Americans, and especially judges, it was an "insurrection," Democrats want to use any conviction of President Trump to label him an "insurrectionist" and, under the 14th Amendment, keep him off the 2024 ballot. Or prevent him from taking office if elected.
That amendment was adopted after the Civil War and bars those who participated in an "insurrection" from holding federal office.
By manipulating the facts about Jan. 6, and redefining various words, leftists hope that they will be able to accomplish their goal.
Unruh didn't offer any evidence to refute the claim, instead quoting other right-wingers whining about it.
In a July 25 column -- the opening essay to a issue of the sparsely read Whistleblower magazine that bestowed martyrdom on Trump by declaring him the victim of "persecution" -- managing editor David Kupelian huffed that "the Democrats’ end-game appears to be a perverse attempt to constitutionally bar Trump from ever again seeking public office on the grounds that he violated the 14th Amendment, Section 3, which forbids any person from holding any elected office who 'shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against' the United States of America." He too failed to offer any evidence to refute the claim.
An Aug. 21 article by Unruh touted a pro-Trump attrorney bizarrely calling the Constitution an "urban legend" and likening enforcing the Constitution on Trump to authoritarian dictatorhips like Iran:
An increasing number of voices on the left are demanding that, like in countries like Iran, America's ballot be subjected to a "cleansing" in which the government officials now in power will determine who will be on the ballot to succeed them in their power.
But constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, who has testified before Congress and represented members in court, said the implications of that agenda are "chilling."
The issue is that infamous Jan. 6, 2021, protest-turned-riot at the Capitol. Leftists insist President Trump is to blame for everything that happened that day. And they have chosen to define it themselves as an "insurrection."
They say that means they can apply the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War and bars those who participate in a rebellion or insurrection to overturn the government from later being elected.
"Such ballot cleansing is common in countries like Iran where citizens wait to learn which opposition candidates will be allowed to run," he said.
Turley explained, "The popularity of urban legends is a testament to the will to believe. The desire of people to keep Elvis alive or prove that a Sasquatch could exist furtively in our backyards shows the resilience of fables.
"Constitutional urban legends often have an even more immediate appeal and tend to arise out of the desperation of divided times. One of the most popular today is that former President Donald Trump can be barred from office, even if he is not convicted in any of the four indictments he faces, under a long-dormant clause of the 14th Amendment."
As usual, this is a one-sided story in which Unruh refused to seek out anyone to respond to Turley's claims (and there are people who will).
Some voters in a leftist state with a strong anti-Trump agenda are taking the lead in pushing a "highly suspect constitutional theory" intended to keep him off the 2024 presidential ballot by simply declaring him unqualified.
"No adjudication. No judge. No jury. Just the Left declaring him 'disqualified' for office," explained a commentary from Jordan Sekulow at the American Center for Law and Justice.
The Center Square explains it is in Colorado where some voters have sued seeking a court order banning President Donald Trump from the Republican presidential primary ballot.
The report explains the 115-page complaint claims Trump can't be on the ballot because of the 14th Amendment, which "states anyone who took an oath to support the Constitution and then 'engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,' … cannot hold a state or federal office."
It dates to the post-Civil War period when individuals who fought for the Confederacy were returning to be members of Congress.
But the premise conflating Trump's criticism of faults in the 2020 election and the Civil War seems extreme, critics say. Further, Trump never has even been charged with anything like insurrection.
But as others have pointed out, the Constitution does not require anyone to be charged with insurrection to run afoul of that provision. Unruh raged against the Colorado effort again in a Sept. 13 article:
Leftists in Colorado have filed a lawsuit trying to finagle a way to use the 14th Amendment to keep President Donald Trump off the 2024 presidential ballot.
"The Left is desperate to keep Donald Trump off the ballot in various key states by arguing that an obscure provision of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from even running from office," explained a report at the American Center for Law and Justice.
They're using a provision that was adopted after the Civil War that banned those who tried to overthrow the government from returning and being officers.
The ACLJ said the "brazen" attempt to eliminate the choice of Trump for voters reveals the "desperate" attitude of Democrats.
The Colorado case, by six voters and the leftist Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, named Donald Trump and Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a far-left activist who claims Trump is a "liar with no respect for the Constitution," as defendants.
But the plaintiffs left out the Colorado Republican Committee.
"This is where the ACLJ comes in. It is the state party, not the Colorado secretary of state, that decides who the Republican nominees are going to be in the presidential election. CREW is trying to circumvent the Republican Party and deny it the chance to defend its own ability to choose its candidates for president," the ACLJ reported.
Unruh didn't dispute the claim that Trump is a "liar with no respect for the Constitution."
An anonymously written Sept. 24 article freaked out about a similar effort in another state:
One of the schemes that Democrats are rallying around right now in their attempt to keep President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot is by claiming he is ineligible.
They have, on their own, charged and convicted him of "insurrection," and they then claim that the 14th Amendment prevents him from being a candidate.
Their actions come irrespective of the fact that Trump has not, in fact, been charged with insurrection, much less convicted.
Nevertheless, they are suing various states to try to eliminate him as a possible opponent to the octogenarian Joe Biden, whose verbal and mental stumbles appear to multiple each day.
The latest fight has erupted in Oklahoma, where the American Center for Law and Justice says it has asked a court to be allowed to represent the state GOP, which was left out of the case by Democrats.
Unruh rehashed it again in a Sept. 29 article touting how Newt Gingrich claims that Trump will be the Republican nominee:
Democrats are claiming that the 14th Amendment, which bans those guilty of "insurrection" from taking office again, and came in the aftermath of the Civil War.
Leftists charge that Trump should not be on the ballot because of the protest-turned-riot on Jan. 8, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol.
Key problems with that argument are that the law can be read to exclude presidents, and Trump never has been charged, much less convicted, of insurrection.
Gingrich said that movement typifies "how terrified" the left is of a Trump candidacy – and presidency.
WND also republished a couple outside articles making similar arguements against invoking the amendment:
WND also published a Sept. 6 column by Betsy McCaughey complaining about the effort:
Innocent until proven guilty. That's a fundamental right in America, at least until now.
Anti-Trump groups determined to disqualify the leading Republican candidate for president are urging state election officials across the U.S. to remove Donald Trump from the ballot, claiming he's an "insurrectionist." They're citing an arcane clause in the 14th Amendment, written after the Civil War, that disqualifies anyone who "engaged in insurrection" against the United States from holding public office.
Here's the hitch. Trump has never been convicted of insurrection, and none of his prosecutors – not Jack Smith nor Fani Willis – is charging him with insurrection. The House of Representatives impeached him, accusing him of insurrection, but he was acquitted. So, zero convictions, one acquittal.
Even so, left-wing group Free Speech For People has sent letters to state election officials, including the co-chairs of the New York State Board of Elections, labeling Trump an insurrectionist and telling these officials they have a duty to remove Trump from the ballot, just as they would be obligated to remove any presidential aspirant who had not reached the age of 35 or was not a natural born citizen.
Under this scheme, if Trump wants to be on the ballot, he'll have to go to court and prove his innocence.
In short, guilty until proven innocent. That's as un-American as it gets. Whether you like Trump or loathe him, you should be concerned.
Again, the Constitution does not require that a person be convicted of insurrection to be barred from office.
MRC's DeSantis Defense Brigade Watch, Immigrant Cred Edition Topic: Media Research Center
How has the Media Research Center's DeSantis Defense Brigade been doing its PR duty since the last time we checked in? Let's take a look. Nicholas fondacaro had a massive meltdown in an Aug. 1 post when co-hosts on "The View" questioned his immigrant credentials, which he screeched was "anti-Italian HATE" in the headline despite the fact that DeSantis' ethnic heritage wasn't even mentioned:
Since it’s a day that ends in “y” (Tuesday), Disney’s attack dogs on ABC’s The View were trying to savage Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. Of course, they were still pushing Vice President Kamala Harris’s BIG LIE about Florida schools teaching that slavery was a good thing, but moderator Whoopi Goldberg took a disgusting swing at the Governor by disparaging this Italian family’s immigration to the United States.
Goldberg’s anti-Italian HATE flared when she tried to engage in a bit of one-upmanship and suggest her family’s history as slaves and generations on American soil were better than his.
“And just so we're clear, we're not going anywhere! We've been here, Mr. DeSantis!” falsely suggesting he was trying to get rid of black people in America. “Many of us have been here for generations. Can you say the same?” she scoffed. She and co-host Joy Behar agreed that he couldn’t:
BEHAR: I don't think he can.
GOLDBERG: No, I don't think he can.
While Goldberg was busy becoming the nativist caricature the left paints Republicans as the fact of the matter was that DeSantis’s family has been here for generations.
According to a 2018 Tampa Bay Times hit piece trying to portray him as a hypocrite on the issue of legal and illegal immigration, DeSantis’s great-great-grandmother Luigia Colucci immigrated from Italy during the first Italian diaspora in 1917 and his great-great-grandfather “had been in the United States since 1904.”
Clearly, Goldberg’s assertion was false, his family had been in the United States for generations. It was a very anti-immigrant attack from Goldberg, but then again it was her trying to go up against someone in the left’s Grievance Olympics.
Actually, it appears Fondacaro is the one going for the gold in the Grievance Olympics with this contribution to the DeSantis Defense League that falsely accused Goldberg of besmirching his ethnicity.
Curtis Houck defended DeSantis' anti-abortion policies in an Aug. 7 post:
Possibly out for redemption in the eyes of her fellow liberal journalists after her infamous October 2022 interview with now-Senator John Fetterman (D-PA), NBC correspondent Dasha Burns interrupted, lied, and smeared her way through the first portion of her sit-down with 2024 GOP presidential candidate Ron DeSantis (FL) on Monday’s Today.
Burns not only insisted January 6 would be the central focus of the 2024 general election, but lied about abortion and brushed aside approximately 12,000 late-term abortions.
[...]
Invoking Florida’s six-week limit on abortion, she asked him whether he’d “veto any sort of federal bill that would try to put a nationwide ban in place.”
DeSantis argued he would “be a pro-life president and” back “pro-life policies,” but he “would not allow what a lot of the left wants to do, which is to override pro-life protections throughout the country all the way up really until the moment of birth, in some instances, which I think is infanticide.”
If Burns had consulted his July 18 CNN interview, she’d know the answer that, while he supports such policies, he’s seemed doubtful a divided Congress would have the appetite to go that far.
Instead, Burns looked down at her talking points to hurl lies: “Well, actually, I got to push back on you on that because that’s a misrepresentation of what’s happening. I mean, that 1.3 percent of abortions happen at 21 weeks or higher.”
The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute’s latest year of data was 2020, in which they put the number of abortions at 930,160, meaning Burns was scoffing at 12,093 babies being murdered.
Earth to Burns: Would that be an acceptable train of thought if applied to hate crimes and racially-motivated murders? Of course not.
If Houck really believes that abortion is murder, he should be demanding that all 12,093 of this women be arrested and jailed, if not executed, for committing murder. But he won't take that step-- even though it's the logical endpoint of right-wing anti-abortion activism -- because it makes the movement look bad.
Houck attacked the second part of Burns' interview with DeSantis the next day for pointing out how badly DeSantis is doing in the polls:
This second part followed a segment on the liberal media’s most beloved topic in the third indictment of former President Trump with anchor Lester Holt boasting DeSantis was “still trying to make a dent in Mr. Trump’s lead” in the polls.
For her part, Burns reveled in DeSantis “predicting success despite struggling to gain traction against the Republican front-runner.”
Burns was then showed telling DeSantis he’s probably out-of-touch with the Republican Party: “Trump’s lead has only grown since you began campaigning in earnest. Like, is it possible that you’re potentially just out of step with what GOP voters are looking for right now?”
“So, if I had a nickel for every naysayer I’ve had in my life, I’d be a very, very wealthy man,” DeSantis replied.
The next part was a largely a replay of a portion from Today in which Burns fixated on having DeSantis state that Joe Biden won the 2020 election (which he did, but she didn’t like the way he said it).
Houck spent an Aug. 9 post whining that it was reported that DeSantis was trying to fix his failing campaign:
The major broadcast networks have made no secret that, above actual issues such as crime and the economy, they want voters to have Donald Trump’s criminal indictments and January 6 top of mind as they consider what matters for 2024. As such, they’ve spent roughly 335 minutes on the third indictment alone. On Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, ABC and NBC cheered the changes to Governor Ron DeSantis’s (R-FL) “floundering” and “struggl[ing]” campaign.
ABC’s newscasts — World News Tonight and then Good Morning America (GMA) — used chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Karl to spin the change in campaign manager as if it were another sign of his campaign’s immediate death.
Importantly, Karl has a financial incentive for DeSantis and Trump’s opponents to lose given his need to hawk an upcoming anti-Trump book (on top of the two he’s already published).
“Trump’s legal troubles don’t seem to be hurting his campaign at all. In fact, his tactics seem to be working. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, once seen as the most formidable Republican challenger to Trump, is now trying to revive his floundering campaign. He replaced his campaign manager today, his third staff shakeup in a month,” Karl bragged on World News Tonight.
Houck didn't dispute the accuracy of Karl's reporting, nor did he evaluate coverage of the Republican primary on Fox News, where it might do more good beyond creating right-wing clickbait. And if the MRC doesn't want Trump to be the nominee, why does it continually defend Trump every time he gets indicted? Houck was silent on that question.
Clay Waters whined in an Aug. 14 post that PBS "Washington Week" host Jeffrey Goldberg called out DeSantis for ranting about the "Deep State," a far-right bogeyman, and that guest Laura Barron-Lopez argued that such extreme talk is causing government officials to fear for their safety and that it's "a classic tactic used by authoritarian figures, autocratic figures, to try to rally their base around them and they know exactly who they’re speaking to." Waters, of course, insisted that DeSantis was merely speaking metaphorically, then played whataboutism:
This extreme response to DeSantis’s blunt, metaphorical rhetoric, which wasn’t directed at anyone in particular, is a bit much given the way Democrats have traditionally felt free to talk about and even attack Republicans.
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul has been physically attacked twice in recent years, to liberal amusement and little condemnation from the mainstream press. Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called Trump supporters “a basket of deplorables.”
[...]
A Bernie Sanders supporter shot up a ball field of Republican congressmen in 2017. Obnoxious protests have been held outside the homes of Republicans including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Lindsay Graham, not to mention conservative justices of the Supreme Court. Would Goldberg like to discuss the man arrested on his way to assassinating Justice Kavanaugh?
Kevin Tober found the idea of context useful in defending DeSantis in an Aug. 20 post:
Former Virginia Attorney General and founder of the DeSantis-aligned Super PAC Never Back Down, Ken Cuccinelli confronted CNN's State of the Union fill-in anchor for deceptively editing comments made by Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis during an interview with the Florida Standard to make it seem like he called Trump supporters "listless vessels." Regardless of whom you support for the Republican nomination, everyone should be outraged at the media lying about one of the Republican candidates.
Setting up the dishonest clip, Hunt insisted "There was a pretty interesting moment in a recent interview where Governor DeSantis talked about Trump supporters. He used the words listless vessels."
Cuccinelli jumped in to correct her: "He wasn’t talking about Trump supporters!"
Tober was in full DeSantis PR mode, touting "the full transcript from this portion of the DeSantis interview which was sent to members of the media through a press release from the DeSantis campaign," then concluding: "Luckily readers don't have to go find the transcript online since it was provided here at NewsBusters! Share this article with your friends and family so they aren't tricked by liberal media hacks like CNN's Kasie Hunt!" Tober didn't mention how much the DeSantis campaign paid him for this PR job.
WND's LaBarbera Doesn't Understand How Juries Work Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Peter LaBarbera complained in a Sept. 6 article:
A new poll of Washington, D.C. residents finds than an overwhelming majority, 64%, would vote to find Trump guilty in his upcoming March trial over subverting the 2020 election, while only 8% would find him innocent.
Twenty-eight percent of the 500 people polled were unsure, according to the Emerson College Polling survey conducted Aug. 29-Sept. 2.
Ominous as it is for Trump's chances of getting a fair trial, the Emerson poll understates the extreme pro-Democrat political bias in the district, with Joe Biden getting 93% of the 2020 vote.
We find it hard to believe that LaBarbera is this dumb, but surely even he knows that an entire city doesn't judge a defendant -- only 12 jurors do. And in the jury selection process, both the prosecution and defense lawyers, as well as the judge, will screen jurors and try to eliminate those who they believe cannot be impartial. Merely living in a particular city is not evidence that a prospective juror cannot be partial.
LaBarbera concluded with the sentiments of a right-wing historian:
Conservative author and retired historian Larry Schweikart echoed a sentiment of many conservatives when he cited the implications of DC's uber-biased demographics for defendants in the J6 trials in D.C., in his own X post Wednesday: "Yeah, fair trials for all those Patriot Day J6 people."
Yes, a guy who thinks a violent attempted insurrection is "Patriot Day" and all those who took part are automatically innocent -- and who apparently also doesn't understand how juries work -- is someone who LaBarbera thinks is a trusted source.
MRC Promotes Roseanne Barr As 'Anti-Woke,' Censors She's A Holocaust Denier Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long had a sweet spot for Roseanne Barr. In 2018, for example, it cheered her false smear of George Soros as a Nazi sympathizer during World War II (in fact, he was a Jewish teenager trying to evade capture). That same year, even the MRC couldn't defend her racist smear of former Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, but it did play whataboutism to try and distract from it.
Still, the MRC's soft spot for Barr has persisted. In a June 2022 column, Christian Toto complained that Barr hasn't been welcomed back into Hollywood yet, defending her by uncritically repeating her excuse that she was on Ambien when she smeared Jarrett:
Barr shared a gross, racially-charged Tweet in May of 2018 connected to former President Barack Obama official Valerie Jarrett, who is black. Barr immediately apologized for the message, saying she had been taking Ambien at the time and didn’t realize the light-skinned Jarrett was black.
True? False? It didn’t matter.
ABC fired Barr from her own show, costing her millions in the process. The network didn’t stop there. It killed off her character and continued the series without her, rebranding it as The Conners.
Barr hasn’t had a mainstream gig since. She appeared briefly alongside Andrew “Dice” Clay in 2019, but otherwise she’s been off the Hollywood radar.
She may never work in that town again.
Toto then claimed that Jussie Smollett, he of the racial attack hoax, made a film that got attention, whining that "he’ll be working again faster than Barr, a feminist pioneer who changed the face of TV but got punished for a Tweet that injured no one."
In June of this year, however, Barr went in a bizarre tirade claiming that "nobody died in theHolocaust" but that "It should happen — 6 million Jews should die right now because they cause all the problems in the world." She later claimed that this was humor and sarcasm, but didn't explain where, exactly the humor was supposed to be.
Desite that dubious and offensive track records, the MRC is still cheering Barr, this time as an "anti-woke" comedian, whatever that's supposed to mean. Catherine Salgado gushed in an Sept. 15 post:
Anti-woke comedian Roseanne Barr slammed censorship-heavy YouTube as she announced increasing interest in video platform Rumble.
Barr posted on X (formerly Twitter) Sept. 12 that she is increasingly focusing on The Roseanne Barr Podcast (which has 376,000 YouTube ubscribers) on the more pro-free speech Rumble as Google’s YouTube continues its biased and oppressive censorship. “[T]this is the start of something better!” she celebrated, before adding, “Free speech is great again.”
In the same tweet, Barr shared a link to her Rumble channel. “Starting to build up my Rumble- If you want to, follow this page to stay up on the podcast and any and all videos going forward,” she posted. “I’ll keep the YouTube going until they go full Gulag.” Barr already stated in a post on X she was considering leaving YouTube on Sept. 6, 2023.
Salgado made no mention of the offensive smears and attacks Barr has engaged in, of course -- not even her Holocaust denial of a few months earlier -- let alone how all that hate is supposed to make her "anti-woke."
Salgado also repeated the MRC's earlier complaint that a court ruled YouTube had the right to ban quack doctor Joseph Mercola over what she euphemistically called his "COVID-19 content" -- which actually involved spreading falsehoods and misinformation -- going on to huff, "It’s no wonder free speech advocates are looking for alternatives to YouTube." Yes, liars and extremists would want to seek out places where their lies and extremism isn't called out for what it is, and Rumble clearly isn't picky.And, yes, Salgado clearly believes that hate and lies are "free speech" that must never be questioned or exposed.
Barr is just the latest extremist the MRC has chosen to embrace because she spouts conservatively correct things.
NEW ARTICLE: WND's Politician-Nazi Double Standard, Biden Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's David Kupelian can't stop complaining that people have likened Donald Trump to Hitler -- but he was silent when his boss, Joseph Farah, went Godwin on President Biden by declaring, "There's a Nazi living in the White House." Read more >>
MRC Cheers Musk Allowing More Hate And Lies On Twitter (Well, X) Topic: Media Research Center
There was a lot of unfavorable news regarding Elon Musk and Twitter (well, X) in recent weeks:
Musk rushed to the defense of credibly accused rapist, sexual assaulter and groomer Russell Brand.
In yet another attack on George Soros, Musk spread the racist right-wing "great replacement theory," which posits that nefarious interests (i.e., Soros and Democrats) want to replace white people in the U.S. with non-white immigrants.
He helped incite harassment and death threats on a Las Vegas neswpaper and its journalists by falsely accusing the paper of hiding that the death of a bicycle rider killed after being hit by a car was intentionally caused.
He smeared tech journalist Kara Swisher, blaming her for the disastrous performance of Twitter CEO Linda Yaccarino in an interview at a Swisher-hosted tech conference.
Musk was sued for defamation by a man whom he falsely described as a federal agent posing as a neo-Nazi (the man is actually Jewish).
Rather than tell its readers about any of this -- even though it too has defended Russell Brand and has insisted that replacement theory isn't racist or a conspiracy theory -- the Media Research Center instead was annoyed that Musk wasn't letting anti-trans hate spread on Twitter even more than it already does. After vicious homophobe Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok complained that her hate wasn't spreading, Musk was compelled to respond, as Tom Olohan stated in an Sept. 28 post:
After the woman behind Libs of TikTok uncovered inexplicable censorship of content on the X platform, owner Elon Musk promised to look into it.
Libs of TikTok creator Chaya Raichik wrote in a post on Thursday that X (formerly known as Twitter) would not run ads on posts that contained words such as “Gr**m*er”, “Dr*g qu**n”, “In*0c**ce/in*0ce*t”, “Tr*ns” and even “Am*n”, but would run ads on her posts if she self-censored. Later that day, X owner Musk mentioned her by name and promised to cut that list down to size. Musk said in a video, “There’s a list, I think, Chaya Raichik was pointing out. Like, the system, you know, and I have looked at this list. And some of the terms on the list, I’m like, ‘Look, if that’s a bad word, I clearly need to look up, ge Urban Dictionary or something,’ you know, because that one I didn’t realize was a bad word. So that list needs to be trimmed. That’s the, sort of, not safe for advertising list.”
[...]
Immediately preceding these remarks, Musk strongly suggested that much of the current censorship that occurs on his platform is a holdover from the past Twitter regime that is being eradicated. “We do lots of dumb things, but these dumb things, you know, as the saying goes, ‘One should not attribute to malice that which easily can be explained by incompetence,’” Musk added before discussing demonetization. “We do lots of foolish things, but, and we want to fix that. And a bunch of these foolish things have been in place for a decade, you know, and I can’t fix them all at once. And we are fixing them.”
Noting that both Elon Musk and X CEO Linda Yaccarino have embraced the expression “freedom of speech, not of reach,” MRC Vice President Dan Schneider challenged Musk to go further, “How about instead of trimming the list of unacceptable words, you just protect all constitutionally-protected speech?”
Olohan added that "Previously, Musk has reversed the platform's bans on 'deadnaming' and 'misgendering' two leftist words used to describe telling the truth about 'transgender' individuals." If Ohohan is putting "transgender" in scare quotes, he clearly doesn't care about truth.
Because Musk cares so much about gaining the approval of right-wing haters and extremists, he acquiesced to Raichik's demands, which Olohan gushed over in a post the next day:
After promising to take action against demonetized terms on his platform, X owner Elon Musk ended censorship of several key words the next day.
Libs of TikTok creator Chaya Raichik posted on Sept. 29 that seven out of ten of the demonetized words she discovered on a day prior no longer triggered post demonetization. Words like drag queen, groomer, innocence, innocent, LGBTQ, police, non-binary and Amen no longer result in post demonetization, but trans and ugly will, noted Raichik. However, Musk promised Friday to end the demonetization of tweets with the word(s): trans, transgender and ugly.
Musk, who thanked Raichik for flagging the censorship, addressed the censorship issue in his posts and during a discussion hosted by The Daily Wire editor emeritus Ben Shapiro, where he said that the list of demonetized terms found by Raichik should be “trimmed.” He also suggested that these shadowbanned words were an example of “foolish things” from the past that his employees were in the process of fixing.
In an article published Thursday evening, Raichik discussed her discovery and broke down why the terms were demonetized. Raichik pointed out that drag queen, groomer, innocence, and innocent were likely demonetized to disincentivize conservative organizing against gender theory in schools and children at drag queen events.
Or, you know, it could be about disincentivizing vicious and irrational right-wing hatred of anyone who's not a heterosexual. Olohan and Raichik don't seem to consider that possibility.
In another Sept. 29 post, Luis Cornelio cheered how Musk opened the door to even more election misinformation on Twitter by firing much of its election integrity team, under the sneering headline "Bye Felicia!":
X owner Elon Musk announced he was doing away with part of his platform’s infamous “election integrity” team—sort of.
According to The Information on Sept. 27, the social media platform reportedly ousted five anti-free speech activists from its contentious election integrity team. Musk took to Twitter to react to the reports, confirming that the individuals were “gone.”
Among those affected by the purge was notorious disinformation chief Aaron Rodericks who came under fire last month in mid-August for undermining Musk’s promise to protect free speech.
Cornelio didn't explain how lies and disinformation equaled "free speech." Instead, he whined that Yaccarino "chimed in to dispel rumors that the company was completely getting rid of the group, effectively dousing pro-free speech advocates with a bucket of cold water":
Yaccarino warned that the best of their election integrity — whatever that means — is yet to come. “It’s an issue we take very seriously,” she claimed while speaking at a conference hosted by leftist outlet Vox. “And contrary to the comments that were made, there is a robust and growing team at X that is wrapping their arms around election integrity.”
The election integrity faction at X first came under scrutiny after political commentator Kristen Ruby found that X — under Rodericks’ oversight — sought to hire new disinformation experts, marking what Foundation For Freedom Online executive director Mike Benz described as a “new crop of censorship shills.”
Again, Cornelio wouldn't explain how trying to stop lies and misinformation is "censorship." Does he think lies and misinformation must never be fact-checked or criticized?
WND's Massie Defends His Death Wish Against Fauci Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mychal Massie spent his Sept. 11 WorldNetDaily column whining that Twitter (well, X) suspended him for expressing a death with for Anthony Fauci:
How am I supposed to stand beside Elon Musk in his fight against online censorship, when X (formerly Twitter) is guilty of doing the same thing, if not worse?
My X account was suspended a couple days ago for daring to use what those sissies consider violent speech. What did I say, you ask? I said, "Fauci needs to get the electric chair" – and it caused a bowel secretion in their tortured worthless lives that was consistent with encopresis.
[...]
I've said it many times: I say what I mean and I mean what I say – and I don't apologize, especially to an entity I have virtually no respect for in the first place. There's nothing under this sun that could cause me to lament their actions. In fact, if they're smart enough to read sign language, they'll understand that the positioning of my thumb to the tip of my nose isn't a field sobriety test for alcohol consumption. Since I am a teetotaler.
Saying Anthony Fauci deserves the electric chair is me being extremely generous in my call for him to be punished. The death penalty is too good for him. He deserves the eternal agony of hell for knowingly and intentionally causing pain, faking data, fear mongering, censorship, and knowingly destroying lives and careers. All while he paves the way for his cronies to get richer.
Just because Massie claims to mean what he says doesn't mean that his death wish for Fauci is any less offensive.
Massie then tried to lay out his evidence that Fauci deserves to be executed -- but his first example involved right-wing anti-vaxxer Megyn Kelly claiming that a COVID vaccine gave her an autoimmune disease, though she has offered no evidence to back up the claim. Massie continued his anti-Fauci rant:
Fauci knowingly misled the public and outright lied to We the People about COVID and about the jab.
He knowingly lied about medications that had been safely prescribed and purchased over the counter for decades. Medications that were free of side effects. He knowingly lied, placing literally millions of lives at risk forcing the nonsensical fraud of face masks.
He lied about gain-of-function research at Wuhan Institute of Virology and his participation. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has made criminal referral of Fauci to the Department of Justice.
Miscarriages among women in the military rose exponentially, specifically because of Fauci's pushing mandated injection of the deadly toxins. I spoke with a young woman I know who developed life-threatening blood clots literally days after receiving the jab. Never in the history of sports have we seen so many superbly conditioned athletes dropping dead, having heart attacks, blood clots and the sudden onslaught of other autoimmune diseases. I personally know several persons who almost immediately developed nerve issues in their feet and ankle area, within weeks of receiving the jab. There are valid claims of married couples developing critical issues from normal marital relations, because one received the jab and the other did not.
Lots of misinformation to unpack here. Massie is alluding to a study allegedly claiming that masks don't work, which the editor of the medical journal where the study was published said was not what the study actually concluded. His claim that the vaccine caused a spike in miscarriages is similarly bogus. We've alreadydocumented how WND has promoted the baseless conspiracy theory that the on-field collapse NFL player Damar Hamlin and other athletes was caused by the vaccine. Massie's statement about "medications that had been safely prescribed and purchased over the counter for decades" is presumably a reference to hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which still lack legitimate evidence that they are effective in treating or preventing COVID. We're not sure what Massie is referring to when talking about the vaccine disrupting "normal marital relations," but one study found that it did not increase the risk of erectile dysfunciton.
Massie concluded by likening the COVID vaccines to Agent Orange:
Not one thing dissuades me that these things are barely the tip of the iceberg. I was among the early analysts warning the government cannot be trusted and the idea of forcing a fake vaccine on the public, that excluded the elected, was a clarion call to avoid the jabs at all cost. Based on the history of the government's involvement in Tuskegee, secretly spraying Agent Orange on entire communities without their knowledge and the aerial spraying of the deadly Agent Orange compound into the entire ecosystem including fruits and vegetables, CIA experiments in New York City subway systems and the LSD experiments on prison inmates and persons confined to mental hospitals, don't believe anything they tell you.
You're darn right Facui [sic] deserves the electric chair, and if that offends the fairies and trolls at X, it's too bad. I don't give a rip.
Perhaps not, but law enforcement authorities do. It's also a sign of Massie's insecurity and sociopathy that he can't handle criticism, as evidenced by his lashing out at the folks at X who sensibly held him accountable for his violent death wish as "fairies and trolls."
Ironically, a few days after Massie's column was published, an article by WND's Bob Unruh complained that "an MSNBC columnist has set a new standard with his death wish" for Donald Trump by declaring that he "must die in prison." Talk about a double standard.
MRC's Graham Has Another Flare-Up Of Folkenflik Derangement Syndrome Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center executive Tim Graham has a case of David FolkenflikDerangementSyndrome -- repeatedly attacking the NPR media reporter for reporting on Fox News, though he never criticizes Fox News' media reporters for obsessing over competing outlets like CNN and rarely reporting bad news about their own employer. Graham turned his ire toward Folkenflik again in an Aug. 27 post complaining that Folkenflik noted the revamped CNN streaming operation, which the MRC mercilessly mocked when it originally launched last year as CNN+, then got shut down shortly afterward when new owners took over the company:
We shouldn't be surprised that the Fox News debate this week led inevitably to story number 45 and story number 46 for NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik on Fox News this year.
And we shouldn't be surprised he talked loosely about Donald Trump as a felon: "And think of the other big story today -- Donald Trump is being processed for, you know, felonies in Fulton County, Ga., over trying to block the due election proceeds in the state of Georgia." Is that the way he would discuss a Democrat being indicted?
What's still surprising somehow is that Folkenflik can report on CNN and just sound like a publicist for CNN, and not a skeptical reporter. On Friday night's badly named All Things Considered, the subject was CNN Max, a new streaming effort that looks a lot like CNN+, which was unceremoniously dumped by Warner Bros. Discovery just a few weeks after it began.
Of cousre, Graham couldn't stop whining that Folkenflik referenced Fox News:
Folkenflik can't stop talking about Fox's very expensive settlement with Dominion Voting Systems, but what about CNN's finances or CNN's struggling ratings? This is where NPR is doing more advertising than reporting. CNN's own media reporter Oliver Darcy was more candid about the parent company's finances!
Graham has never accused Fox News media reporters like Joseph Wulfsohn and Brian Flood of being candid about their employer, nor does he accuse them of being CNN-haters or criticize them for being obsessed with CNN the way he claims Folkenflik is obsessed with Fox News.
WND Defense Of Trump Backer Long On Dubious Talking Points, Short On Facts Topic: WorldNetDaily
You know there's cleanup that needs to be done when WorldNetDaily starts an article touting the supposed credentials of the person they're promoting. And that's how Bob Unruh started a Sept. 4 article:
A recognized expert in civil liberties, Harvey Silverglate, who, among other accomplishments, co-founded the prominent Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, has issued a warning to the nation about the fallout from the war Joe Biden and Democrats are waging against President Donald Trump.
Unruh didn't mention that FIRE mostly cares about "Individual Rights and Expression" only when they involve right-wingers like Silverglate. Unruh then shifted to repeating tired, discredited talking points about Trump:
Those leftists, of course, have orchestrated, so far, four criminal cases against Trump. They have turned misdemeanor business record keeping offenses into felonies. They have determined the First Amendment didn't protect Trump's comments about the 2020 election. They have said he turned criminal by keeping documents from his presidency, even though Mike Pence and Joe Biden, in their posts as vice president, are facing no charges for doing the same thing. And they are making telephone calls and holding meetings illegal in their "conspiracy" case in Georgia.
These events all follow the conspiracy theory created by Hillary Clinton and others in the 2016 election that falsely claimed Trump campaign links to Russia. Then there were the multiple attempts by Nancy Pelosi to impeach Trump and remove him from office, based on no evidence.
It wasn't a "conspiracy theory" that the 2016 Trump campaign met dozens of times with Russian operatives, or that then-campaign manager Paul Manafort gave internal polling data to another Russian operative. And as we've already noted, Unruh is lying by claiming that Trump is being prosecuted in Georgia for "making telephone calls and holding meetings."
Unruh did effectively admit how far-right Silverglate is by noting that he "now is working in defense of John Eastman, a lawyer who has represented Trump," then complained that "Georgia is targeting him with a criminal prosecution over his representation, and California is targeting him with a bar complaint." Unruh then uncritically repeated Silverglate's defense of Trump:
Silverglate said, of the Biden-run DOJ, "I am appalled that the Department of Justice — under a Democratic administration — appalled that they have done this to the leading Republican candidate for the presidency prior to the Republican National Convention. There is a statute of limitations that is quite lengthy and they could have waited. Common decency, common sense and propriety would have had them wait until after the nomination because if Trump got the nomination, then they should wait until after the election."
He continued, "I consider that what the Department of Justice is doing here to be candidate suppression. That's not their job. So the timing is appallingly bad judgment and I believe done in bad faith to keep him from being the Republican nominee for president.
"They realize Biden is a very weak candidate. If Biden had any common sense, he would have just said he was not running for a second term. That would have opened up the field to some excellent Democratic — younger Democratic candidates. So on top of everything else, this is an attempt to kind of fix the election for Biden. It is appalling in every single way."
What Silverglate is effectively arguing, of course, that that Trump be held above the law and never fel the consequences for the crimes he appears to have committed, portraying that being a declared political candidateis insurance against having to face responsibility for his actions. He also offered no evidence to back up his assertion that Trump's prosecutions are being orchestrated by Biden in order to kneecap a political opponent.
Unruh then returned to talking-point land, repeating his falsehood about the Georgia prosecution being about "making phone calls and holding meetings":
A leftist Georgia prosecutor has created a case including 41 charges that Trump and 18 others allegedly conspired in a criminal enterprise when they had doubts about the election, and raised them while seeking answers. Their offenses included making phone calls and holding meetings.
Further, he confirmed that at that time, he had "lots of evidence of fraud" in the election.
Legacy media immediately added its opinion that, "there is no evidence of far-reaching election fraud in the 2020 election."
However, what is known is that the election was under undue influence from the $400 million plus that Mark Zuckerberg handed out to election officials who often used it to recruit voters from Democrat districts.
Unruh is lying about the Zuckerberg money as well; we've also pointed outthe truth (which Unruh doesn't seem to be interested in) that money from a Zuckerberg-funded noprofit was made available to government election offices across the country to help them conduct the 2020 elections, affected by the COVID pandemic, but there is no evidence of political favoritism in how the money was distributed or spent. While some of that money was used by governments for get-out-the-vote efforts, it's not illegal to encourage people to vote, despite what Unruh wants you to think.
MRC's Jean-Pierre-Bashing, Doocy-Fluffing Watch, COVID Edition Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's chief Doocy-fluffer, Curtis Houck, spent his writeup of the Sept. 21 White House press briefing complaining that press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre refused to take a question from his beloved Peter Doocy, but cheered that Doocy's biased Fox News colleagues stepped in to perpetrate their employer's narratives:
The Biden border crisis has reared its ugly head in the last week and brought more misery and ruin to border towns, including Eagle Pass, Texas. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre offered clownish spin Thursday afternoon that President Biden “has taken...historic action” to “fix this issue” and, not surprisingly, she received not only some hardballs from select reporters, but a searing fact-check afterward on the Fox News Channel by correspondent Bill Melugin.
Melugin’s colleague Peter Doocy tried to wade in on the questioning, but he was suddenly shut down when he tried to push back on Jean-Pierre.
[...]
>Doocy interjected as Jean-Pierre mumbled along, so the latter suddenly changed her mind about wanting to let Doocy speak and muzzled him (click “expand”):
[...]
After two decent question from Dallas Morning News’s Todd Gillman, Doocy’s Fox colleague Edward Lawrence seemed to pick up on what Doocy had tried to ask, which was “how many people coming into this country illegally is enough for President Biden”to truly stop the flow.
We don't recall Houck ever accusing a press secretary for a Republican administration of having "muzzled" a reporter at a briefing. Instead, Houck hyped how Meligin "called out her disrespectful behavior toward Doocy, especially because he had 'an important question.'” Yes, Melugin would consider any question that feeds into his employer's anti-Biden bias to be "important."
Houck was still whining about Jean-Pierre shutting down Doocy even as he acknowledged that she took a question from him the following day:
A day after the ever-inept White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre bizarrely called onFox’s Peter Doocy and then almost immediately moved on when he was visibly unamused by her spin on the border crisis, Jean-Pierre only somewhat owned up to her nonsense Friday and let Doocy press her on the latest flare-up in Texas.
“I know — I know your — your dad had some thoughts about our back-and-forth yesterday, so maybe we sh — we should try this again,” Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy sounded off hours earlier.
Peter stuck to his guns, saying he had the “same question as yesterday”: This time, Jean-Pierre answered while Doocy didn’t interject (likely so as not to again result in her pitching a hissy fit). Jean-Pierre played Baghdad Bob, arguing Biden “put forth a comprehensive immigration reform” on his first day in office that’s “desperately needed for this country,” but Congress has refused to acquiesce.
[...]
Doocy wrapped with the latest Biden gaffe ignored by the liberal media: “[A]t a fundraiser this week, President Biden told donors about how Charlottesville inspired his campaign. And then, according to the pool, a few minutes later, he told the story again, nearly word for word. What’s up with that?”
Houck would not be treating this exchange the same way if Doocy worked foer a "liberal media" outlet and Jean-Pierre worked for a Republican.
As befits the MRC's whining about COVID coming back being discussed in the media, Houck complained that COVID-related questions were raised at the Sept. 25 briefing, under the headline "We Don't Care":
As the liberal media hawk the latest COVID-19 booster shot and begin their latest fear-mongering campaign ahead of the holidays, the Associated Press’s Will Weissert served as the standard bearer during Monday’s White House press briefing as he opened the Q&A for the ever-inept Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre by fretting that President Biden didn’t get his umpteenth booster in public.
“Why did the White House choose to have the President take his — his latest COVID booster out of public view? Isn’t this a time when, you know, given the promotion of boosters and how important they are that the public might want to see the President have one,”he asked.
Three words (plus two) for Weissert: No one cares (except liberals).
it's a sign of how politicized right-wingers like Houck and the MRC have made COVID that he insists that a disease that has killed millions is not only something anyone should care about but also that those who do care about it must be mocked for doing so.
Column Needed Two Disclaimers For Newsmax To Fully Distance Itself From It Topic: Newsmax
You know a column will be a doozy when the publisher attaches not one but two disclaimers to it -- and that's what Newsmax did to Larry Provost's Sept. 1 column. As is standard with columns that push COVID conspiracy theories, Newsmax topped it with a statement that "The following column has been authored by a non-clinician." and indeed Provost started with the baseless conspiratorial claim that "Coinciding with election season '24 gearing up, warnings of COVID are appearing again." After offering some lip serviced to the severity of the pandemic, he started throwing in more dubious claims:
No reasonable person the severity [sic] of the pandemic; the number of patients flooding hospitals and mortality rates well beyond "normal."
Scores of bodies filling up morgues and refrigeration trucks attest to this grim reality.
The pandemic was real regardless of its origins (China), whether masks (were or are) effective in slowing it (most were not, nor worn properly), or the lie that getting the vaccine would serve as a "guarantee" to stop the pandemic. It didn't.
The virus became endemic: from people getting it and building up antibodies, and those eventually taking a vaccine for it.
Even at age 65, less than 1% of those who contracted the coronavirus died from it.
Provost then complained that churches and schools didn't reopen quickly enough for his purposes":
Yet, the church sadly bought into the politicization of COVID-19: by teachers unions (the same organizations trying to cancel out the words "mother" and "father" in schools) and others who had a personal stake in keeping lockdowns going.
The church could have set an example for the rest of the nation by getting back to normal as quickly as possible, at least for the sake of kids; for psychological and economic reasons and for the reason of staying in faith, while keeping Scripture close by.
The church as a whole, frankly, failed to say "enough is enough," and then reopen as before, at least for the sake of its younger congregants.
[...]
Children actually largely knew they would not die from the virus, yet they were forced to suffer psychologically from not being in school and not being in their places of worship.
More so, many children may have wondered: why be a part of an institution tacitly supportive the garbage laid upon them by other institutions: teacher unions, and goverment-oriented concerns?
We suspect most children were not engaging in anti-institutional rants that dovetail with Provost's right-wing activism. And by complaining that schools and churches didn't reopen quickly, Provost is, in fact, questioning the severity of the pandemic. From there, Provost moved on to grouse that churches being closed to in-perspon worship meant lost opportunities to indoctrinate children:
Children missed out on the preaching, teaching, fellowship (all variants of the Word of God), as well as the freedom Jesus offers from sinful lives, fallen homes, and our broken world.
As children were zonking-out through online learning and no social interaction, the one place where they should have been interacting (much more than the public school system) was in fact at a place of worship.
Our houses of worship were, and still are, the original "school" in our great nation.
It is there there children have learned about Jesus and his unconditional love for all of us.
Jesus suffered so we would not, so we would learn and stay in faith; to "be not afraid."
Provost closed by arguing:
In Christendom, the church (along with the family) is God’s institution for the organization of humanity, far ahead of anything Caesar could accomplish or mandate.
Hopefully, the church, and all of us, will well-remember this.
Will we choose man or God?
Provost's rant earned him another disclaimer at the end of the column, stating that "Views in the preceding column are those of the author and not any government agency."
Time For Another Dishonest MRC Coverage 'Study' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Rich Noyes had a new "study" to promote in an Aug. 21 post:
Going into this week’s GOP presidential debate, broadcast evening news coverage of the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination has overwhelmingly been dominated by former President Donald Trump, with the remaining GOP candidates garnering just a tiny fraction of the attention given to the frontrunner.
The vast majority of Trump’s coverage (90%) has been negative, and heavily focused on the legal allegations made against him by Democratic prosecutors and the Biden Justice Department. But the networks’ coverage of Trump’s top GOP opponent, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was nearly as bad (78% negative), suggesting a media hostility that extends beyond Trump himself to other Republican candidates and their conservative policy positions.
But Noyes has done nothing more than serve up just another of the kind of skewed "studies" it has done in previous years, with the same discrediting problems:
The study focuses only on a tiny sliver of news -- the evening newscasts on the three networks -- and falsely suggests it's indicative of all media, even as it ignores the highly GOP-friendly Fox News, which the MRC considers the gold standard for how media should be covering politics (with a right-wing bias).
It pretends there was never any neutral coverage of Trump and Republicans. Indeed, the study explicitly rejects neutral coverage -- even though that's arguable the bulk of news coverage -- dishonestly counting only "clearly positive and negative statements from non-partisan or unaffiliated sources," according to Noyes' meethodology.
It fails to take into account the stories themselves and whether negative coverage is deserved or admit that negative coverage is the most accurate way to cover a given story.
It fails to provide the raw data or the actual statements it evaluated so its work could be evaluated by others. If the MRC's work was genuine and rigorous, wouldn't it be happy to provide the data to back it up?
At no point does Noyes dispute the accuracy of any of the coverage, nor does he offer evidence to back up his suggestion that Trump's multiple indictments have a positive spin that should be reported, or that the leading Republican candidate president should not receive the dominant amount of coverage. (Of course, if non-right-wing media started heavily covering another candidate, the MRC would simply accuse them of favoring that candidate, just the way it does so now regarding Trump coverage.)
Noyes concluded by declaring:
Eight years ago, the rap on the media was that it was so focused on a single celebrity candidate (Trump), the coverage deprived GOP voters of a real choice. This time around, TV’s obsession with Trump is far more intense, which means that if rank-and-file Republicans are interested in comparing the candidates, they’ll need to rely on events such as Wednesday’s debate — not the daily drumbeat of Trump courtroom developments that dominate ABC, CBS and NBC’s agenda.
What Noyes will not talk about, however, is the agenda of himself and his employer. It makes no sense to demand positive coverage of a candidate who can't stop getting indicted, or to insist that candidates in single digits in the polls be covered as intense as the one with a 40-point polling lead over them. It seems that Noyes and the MRC would like a different Repubican nominee than Trump, but they're too afraid to explicitly say so lest they face the wrath of pro-Trump supporters, some of whom may very well be the MRC's funders. Again, there's no reason to exclude Fox News' coverage from evaluation given that the MRC thinks every media outlet should have the same right-wing bias as Fox News, which the MRC will never admit has an agenda.
In other words, another bogus, dishonest "study" that is designed to advance a partisan agenda and not advance the cause of "media research." That's why nobody trusts the work of the MRC.
WND Columnists Again Rush To Defend Trump After (Fourth) Indictment Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily defended Donald Trump after his (fourth) indictment, so WND columnists made sure to do the same. Andy Schlafly complained in his Aug. 15 column:
Monday night in Georgia, Democrats launched yet another political prosecution of Trump. Tacked onto this indictment by the Democrat-controlled county were 18 other Republicans as defendants, illustrating how this is about politics rather than law.
Democratic allies of President Joe Biden have piled up a string of 91 bogus felony charges against their Republican opponent, Donald Trump. That's in addition to dozens of similarly contrived charges against lawyers, colleagues and supporters of the leading Republican candidate.
his unprecedented abuse of the legal system for political ends, a process known as lawfare, presents an existential crisis for "democracy in America," to quote the title of Alexis de Tocqueville's famous book. Previous generations of Americans met their challenges with our Constitution mostly intact, but this abuse of prosecutorial power threatens our Republic.
Democrats like to recite the mantra that "no person is above the law," but the Supreme Court has long held that the president is effectively immune from oppressive legal harassment during his term of office. Prosecutions can be so demanding and distracting that no president should be expected to discharge the duties of that high office while under the thumb of a judge.
The leading candidate for president has been ensnared in a judicial process controlled by his political enemies. This unprecedented crisis requires extending the well-established immunity of the president to candidates for that office, such that the American people remain free to select our next president in a free and fair election.
Schlafly then complained that a judge in a previous indictment instituted a limited gag order on Trump over his threats to and attacks on said judge and other court officials:
The liberal goal of gagging Trump overlooks that the American people have their own First Amendment right to hear what Trump has to say. He's the front-runner for president, and there is no free speech right more important than that of voters to hear the views of our future president.
Trump does not have a right to attack and intimidate people, and he is not above the law -- something Schlafly doesn't seem to understand.
Wayne Allyn Root huffed in his Aug. 18 column that the indictment was somehow proof that the 2020 election was stolen:
Folks, now you know it. I know it. Everyone with a brain knows it. Even Democrats (deep down) know it. The 2020 election was stolen. The debate is over.
How do I know? Because both the feds and Georgia just indicted our former President Donald Trump for talking about, questioning and trying to investigate a stolen election. When the communist thugs, bullies and tyrants make it a crime to question a stolen election, in a country built around free speech, it's 100% proof they stole the election.
[...]
The bans accomplished nothing. The noise would not go away. Polls showed a huge majority of Americans believe the 2020 election was rigged.
The communist thugs started to panic. They couldn't let Trump run for president and keep talking about a stolen election. Worse, what if he won and opened an investigation? Democrats would go to prison for life. Or worse. This was treason.
They had to act – to end this talk once and for all. To set an example. To make sure no one ever dared question any stolen election ever again – because of course, they plan on rigging and stealing 2024.
[...]
So now they've taken it a step further. Now they've indicted and arrested Trump (and other Republicans) for free speech, for talking about a stolen election, for asking questions, for trying to investigate ... in America.
Trump faces hundreds of years in prison for free speech.
So, now the mystery is gone. Now you know. When it becomes a crime to talk about a rigged and stolen election, when Democrats are so desperate that one indictment is not enough, so they indict Trump again and again and again and again ...
That's the final proof the election was stolen.
That's also the final proof this is a communist takeover of America. These are the hallmarks of communist and Nazi thugs and tyrants throughout history: steal elections, weaponize government, censor and ban dissent, arrest your political opponents.
Folks, we are there.
Michael Master devoted his Aug. 18 column to explaining why he will vote for Trump no matter what and how the guy is just like Winston Churchill:
Donald Trump has a huge ego. No humility. The media, Democrats, establishment Republicans paint him as some self-centered lunatic. A criminal lunatic. But Trump has my vote against all other candidates – and that's true for almost 60% of Republicans, according to Real Clear Politics and Morning Consultant, despite the indictments against him. If Trump wins the Republican nomination, then more than 90% of Republicans will vote for him … again.
Trump is a true outsider. Prior to being POTUS, he never held a government position. He owes nothing to bureaucrats, most of whom think that they are the ones who really run our government. He is determined to stop those deep state bureaucrats in order to make America great again, so of course the deep state and Democrats and RINOs are determined to stop Trump – any way that they can, including using the legal system as a political weapon.
Winston Churchill also had a huge ego. No humility. He was beaten in his bid for reelection as prime minister even after guiding England against Germany. Leaders of his own party campaigned against him. Then, just a couple of years later, the people voted him back into office. Why? because voters eventually realized that he got results. Because they realized that Churchill stood up to the enemies of England rather than make deals with those enemies as Neville Chamberlain did. Churchill put England first.
Trump is much like Churchill.
Is Trump a self-centered lunatic? Maybe. But so what? As said by Billy Joel: It just could be a lunatic that you are looking for.
So Trump has my vote, even more so now because of the indictments. Make America Great Again. Put America first, especially for average working Americans. Stop the bureaucrats, stop the deep state, stop Democrats, stop those establishment Republican politicians.
Rachel Alexander spent her Aug. 21 column nitpicking the indictment and declaring that the prosecutors who brought it will be disbarred:
It is well known that RICO laws, named after the original federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, contain a lot of vague, broad provisions and "process crimes." The laws were drafted in order to ensnare the Mob, since it was difficult making other crimes fit their actions. RICO laws have been used unfairly since then to target pro-life protesters, since not much else would stick. So it was no surprise when left-wing activist prosecutor Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney in Georgia, used the state's RICO laws to charge and get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, er Donald Trump and 18 others over their concerns about election fraud in the 2020 election.
Here is exactly why the State Bar of Georgia will of course disbar the prosecutors over the frivolous, harassing indictment. I received a – ahem – leaked draft of the opinion from the bar's disciplinary judge. Although the case hasn't even been tried yet, and there hasn't been a single ruling on it from a judge, of course the bar already knows it has no merit.
Schlafly returned to fret in his Aug. 22 column about the others indicted in Georgia along with Trump:
The attempt in Georgia to ruin the lives of 19 Republican leaders with a sham indictment should not be accepted by Americans nationwide. Georgia taxpayers should not be looted by the Fulton County prosecutor with this travesty foisted on the rest of the country, and the American people should not go along with this abuse of power.
Leftists are exploiting a weakness in our political system that for too long has given nearly unlimited and unaccountable power to low-level prosecutors. A county prosecutor has no business interfering with the election for president of the United States, yet Democrats are so determined to hold onto the White House in 2024 that they are willing to go there.
Their single-minded purpose is to prevent – at all costs – the election of a Republican as president. If they succeed at blocking or even imprisoning Trump, no other candidate is likely to take on the Establishment ever again.
[...]
If Georgia will not restrain the misuse of its taxpayer dollars to infringe on First Amendment rights, other states should defend the rights of their own residents against this wrongful attempt to chill political activity in a national election. Objecting to an election as a fraud is no crime, yet that is all these indictments allege.
MRC Loved 'Rich Men North of Richmond' Song -- Until Singer Stopped Playing Along Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's other song of the summer -- after Jason Aldean's "Try That In A Small Town" -- was Oliver Anthony's "Rich Men North of Richmond." Christian Toto hyped the right-wing embrace of Anthony, and whined that non-right-wingers weren't rushing in the same way, in his Aug. 19 column:
The singer shares plainspoken lyrics that speak to the working stiff, the guys and gals who break their backs only to watch it scooped up by the government. The songs aren’t overtly political, but they speak to modern frustrations in ways that make progressives nervous.
Well, if you work for Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline or TheWrap.com you don’t even bother. Those entertainment sites are ignoring the stunning rise of Oliver Anthony, a Virginia resident whose song “Rich Men North of Richmond” went viral mere days ago.
A Google News search also couldn’t find the AP or Reuters picking up the story. Most mainstream news outlets pretend it’s not happening.
Meanwhile, his recent concert drew strong media coverage from right-leaning outlets.
Billboard begrudgingly covered Anthony’s rise, while both TMZ and Rolling Stone found the most newsworthy element of his story is that conservative influencers are sharing his music.
Like that noted alt-right figure Joe Rogan.
[...]
Reporters understand Anthony’s work undercuts their narratives. Bidenomics is working! There is no collusion between the Biden administration and Big Tech!
Look, squirrel!
Everything is fine, and our elites have the situation firmly in hand.
Anthony’s music says otherwise, and reporters are loathe to give those messages the oxygen they richly deserve.
When the song's lyric about "the obese milking welfare" was called out -- which alludes to right-wing attacks on welfare recipients who tend to disproportionately be people of color -- Nicholas Fondacaro lashed out in an Aug. 23 post:
The rich liberal cast of ABC’s Good Morning America was possibly feeling targeted Wednesday as they broke the network news silence on the runaway, smash-hit song Rich Men North of Richmond with the direct intent to smear singer/songwriter Oliver Anthony with accusations of being a racist. The classic tactic of the rich men north of Richmond.
[...]
The report was delivered by correspondent Chris Connelly, who noted that “Fans hear an authentic, from-the-heart hit that speaking on behalf of an overlooked America,” but added that “Critics hear racially-tinged dog whistles.”
Anyone who has actually listened to the song and the lyrics knows that race was not brought up once or alluded to.
[...]
Ironically, ABC flashed their own racism because their assertion was that welfare was synonymous with minorities. And if the song truly used "racially-tinged dog whistles" as they claimed, then why have so many black reaction YouTubers fallen in love with the song? It also doesn't square with what Anthony told Fox News earlier int he week that America is a "melting pot" and that's a good thing.
Connelly steered clear of the lyrics that directly called out ABC’s friends and allies in Washington, like President Biden and his terrible economy, which made up a vast majority of the song:
But the lyrics Fondacaro quoted to back up that claim don't reference Biden or any specific media outlet -- which means he's doing the exact thing he's accusing ABC of doing, reading things into lyrics that may not be there.
When NPR noted that the song's lyrics leaned into right-wing conspiracy theories -- not only about welfare but a reference to "minors on an island" that alludes to Jeffrey Epstein -- that hint at QAnon topics, Clay Waters went on a rant in an Aug. 27 post:
National Public Radio is stirring up liberal hysteria again, courtesy of Odette Yousef, who works the outlets “extremism” beat (as in solely “right-wing” extremism). NPR’s website claims that “Yousef aims to explore how extremist ideas break into the mainstream, how individuals are radicalized and efforts to counter that.”
The latest “extremist idea” Yousef has latched onto is a… song? The raw, countrified tune “>Rich Men North of Richmond,” a populist plea from singer/songwriter Oliver Anthony criticizing taxes and welfare, made history by debuting at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. It was accompanied by a not very terrifying clip of Anthony with his guitar and two dogs.
[...]
One doesn’t have to be a conspiracist to have suspicions about Epstein’s death, including the lackof guard checkups and the lack of a cellmate.
With their hypersensitivity to “right-wing extremism” and misinformation, today’s liberals have painted themselves into their own extreme worldview, where speaking out against child trafficking is dangerous.
Waters went on to whine further that it was pointed out that QAnon leans hard into the "anti-Semitic blood libel" of elites supposedly drinking the blood of children, then huffed that professional homophobe Matt Walsh was (accuretly) described as "far-right."
An Aug. 29 post by Tom Olohan cheered that Robert Kennedy Jr. -- whose presidential campaign the MRC has been ironicallypromoting in the hope it might hurt President Biden's re-election efforts -- got on the song's bandwagon:
According to RFK Jr., people aren’t paying attention to what he described as a “corrupt collusion” between the government and corporate power. He said that this duo is “strip mining the wealth from the American middle class and destroying the lives of the working poor in this country.”
“The whole system is rigged against you,” RFK continued. “And those corporations because of government collusion with these rich men north of Richmond have their boots on the neck of every American... [T]he wealth is being stolen-by corporations with the cooperation of these government agencies”
But a funny thing happened -- Anthony started pushing back against the right-wingers turning his song into a political tool. He issued a YouTube video in which he stated, "It’s aggravating seeing people on conservative news try to identify with me, like I’m one of them. It’s aggravating seeing certain musicians and politicians act like we’re buddies and act like we’re fighting the same struggle here, like that we’re trying to present the same message." He added that his song "has nothing to do" with Biden. He further stated:
"It was funny seeing my song at the presidential debate," Anthony said of the Republican debate last week in Milwaukee. "Cause it’s like, I wrote that song about those people."
"So for them to have to sit there and listen to that, that cracks me up. But it was funny kind of seeing the response to it. That song has nothing to do with Joe Biden, you know? It’s a lot bigger than Joe Biden. That song is written about the people on that stage and a lot more too not just them, but definitely them."
The MRC stopped writing about Anthony and his song after those sentiments became known. Apparently, it wants nothing to do with someone who won't completely play along with its right-wing narratives.
In the runup to last year's midterm elections and runoffs afterward, the Media Research Center tried to play gotcha with Google by accusing it of bias against Republians because a certain search term didn't put Republican candidates at the top -- even though it never explain why that particular search term should have returned the results it demanded. It's playing the same bogus search-result gambit again, this time framing it as so-called "election interference." Gabriela Pariseau and Michael Morris wrote in an Aug. 24 post:
WorldNetDaily likes to portray itself as faithful constitutionalists, but when some invoked the Constitution as a reason to remove Donald Trump from 2024 presideintial ballots, WND started singing a different tune. Bob Unruh complained in a July 20 
How has the Media Research Center's DeSantis Defense Brigade been doing its PR duty since 
WorldNetDaily's Peter LaBarbera complained in a Sept. 6 
The Media Research Center has long had a sweet spot for Roseanne Barr. In 2018, for example, it 
There was a lot of unfavorable news regarding Elon Musk and Twitter (well, X) in recent weeks:
Mychal Massie spent his Sept. 11 WorldNetDaily 
Media Research Center executive Tim Graham has a case of 
You know there's cleanup that needs to be done when WorldNetDaily starts an article touting the supposed credentials of the person they're promoting. And that's how Bob Unruh started a Sept. 4 
The Media Research Center's chief Doocy-fluffer, Curtis Houck, spent his writeup of the Sept. 21 White House 
You know a column will be a doozy when the publisher attaches not one but two disclaimers to it -- and that's what Newsmax did to Larry Provost's Sept. 1 
The Media Research Center's Rich Noyes had a new "study" to promote in an Aug. 21 
WorldNetDaily 
The Media Research Center's other song of the summer -- after Jason Aldean's "
