MRC Can't Stop Lashing Out At Jankowicz For Fighting Online Disinformation
Topic: Media Research Center

We've documented how the Media Research Center has continuallly attacked Nina Jankowicz even after the "disinformation governance board" at the Department of Homeland Security she was to head was shut down due to lies told by the MRC and its fellow right-wingers. Unsurpriringly, those attacks continued many months after the board was shut down. A Sept. 8 post by Luis Cornelio whined that Time magazine added her to one of its lists:

TIME is laying the groundwork for a return of the embattled warlord of the defunct Ministry of Truth.

TIME awarded Nina Jankowicz, Biden’s disgraced disinformation czar, with a puff feature piece on the first edition of then TIME 100 AI list, which lists individuals influencing the rapid growth of artificial intelligence. The piece, first published on Sept. 7 by TIME staff writer Astha Rajvanshi, falsely portrays Jankowicz as a victim of so-called “disinformation” and touts the infamous Biden administration Ministry of Truth called the Disinformation Governance Board (DGB).

Ignoring the real reasons for the backlash against the DGB, TIME engaged in revisionist history. “[H]ours into her appointment, the then 33-year-old became the target of a sustained disinformation campaign herself,” Rajvanshi claimed of Jankowicz. “Right-wing trolls on the internet waged continuous attacks that included allegations that she was transgender and infertile.”

However, the truth is that Jankowicz resigned from her position amid a relentless outcry from Americans concerned about the government’s role in censoring free speech online. Through the defunct DGB, Jankowicz had positioned herself to be the arbitrator of truth despite her own contentious trouble with spouting disinformation. But don’t expect TIME to report on any of this.

Don't expect Cornelio to ever admit that the "Ministry of Truth" smear is an outright lie; the board would have done no such thing. That means Cornelio is the one engaging in "revisionist history."

Catherine Salgado spent a Sept. 14 post whining that "The Biden Pentagon awarded a contract to a disinformation researcher who celebrated Big Tech’s election interference by suppressing the 2020 Hunter Biden bombshell scandals." Now, this wasn't Jankowicz, but this person apparently bears the taint because she has "ties" to Jankowicz. This gave Salgado an opportunity to repeat the MRC corporate line: "A 2020 Media Research Center poll found that censorship of the Hunter Biden scandal helped steal the election for Joe Biden, since 4.6% of Biden’s total vote wouldn’t have voted for him if in possession of all the facts. Kaplan approved that election-altering censorship, making her recent DoD contract questionable." As we've documented, that poll was conducted by a polling firm founded by Trump aide Kellyanne Conway, casting doubt on its accuracy and raising the specter of bias and bad-faith "media research."

A Nov. 12 post by Tim Graham whined that Jankowicz (accurately) called out right-wing election misinformation as a threat:

On Friday night’s ludicrously titled All Things Considered, NPR devoted almost seven minutes to the whining of left-wing social-media censors – or as NPR put it, “the people working to safeguard voting” – complaining that the 2024 election won’t be as free of “election lies” as 2020 because conservatives are fighting back.

[...]

NPR even interviewed Nina Jankowicz, the foiled federal censor. She's not in the radio story, but she is there in the online story: 

As Nina Jankowicz sees it, the opening salvo came in the spring of 2022, when a right-wing campaign quickly snuffed out a Department of Homeland Security initiative called the Disinformation Governance Board...

After a barrage of death threats and abuse, Jankowicz resigned, and DHS scrapped the board altogether.  Jankowicz told NPR that the timid effort by the federal government to defend her or push back against the allegations sent a clear message.

"That showed ... that it was open season on researchers, on civil servants, on anyone who was working in this space," Jankowicz said.

So leftists trying to keep Trump and his "MAGA extremists" out of office are "researchers and civil servants," not terribly disguised campaign operatives who "fortify elections."

[...]

It's fair to be alarmed about the "Trump won in a landslide" messagers. But NPR and other liberal media outlets obsess over that and ignore all the other cases where social-media giants censored conservative narratives that have turned out to be true.

Graham listed "the Hunter Biden laptop" and "the Chinese lab-leak theory of the Covid pandemic" as examples of those "conservative narratives." But as we've also noted, the New York Post failed to offer any independent verification of the Hunter laptop that might have assuaged reasonable fears that the story was Russian disinformation being spread by a biased pro-Trump rag. And the idea that the COVID virus originated in a Chinese lab has yet to be proven.

Clay Waters complained in a Nov. 19 post that NBC defended Jankowicz in a story on GOP efforts to shut down anti-disinformation efforts on social media by dishonestly crying "censorship":

They even defended would-be-censorious songstress Nina Jankowicz, who would have headed the Biden Administration’s Orwellian “Disinformation Governance Board” but had her own problems spreading disinformation about Hunter Biden’s laptop, complaining she “quickly became the target of a debilitating harassment campaign.”

Waters didn't deny that Jankowicz faced (and still faces) a right-wing harassment campaign -- or disclose that his employer is one of her chief harassers.

MRC's Year Of Talking Down The Ecomony To Hurt Biden
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center spent a good part of last year talking down the ecomony -- despite the fact that, by most traditional measures, it's doing well -- because such factually dubious trash talk is mandated by its right-wing anti-Biden agenda.After all, talking down the economy under Democratic presidents is what the MRC does, even when the economy is clearly improving. Let's take a trip down memory lane and see how this has taken place.

A Feb. 21 post by Renata Kiss, for example, hyped one economist who foretold economic doom:

Former President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council Director sounded the alarm on the Federal Reserve’s inability to tame inflation and warned about “a collision or crash down the road.”

Economist Larry Summers warned the public in a Saturday interview with Bloomberg TV that the Fed’s interest rate hikes aren’t enough to cool inflation, yet he advised against hitting the brakes too hard. “The Fed’s been trying to put the brakes on and it doesn’t look like the brakes are getting much traction,” Summers said. “And when your brakes don’t get much traction, two things happen. You can be moving too fast: that’s the inflation pressure, and you can be setting yourself up for kind of a collision or crash down the road. And both of those things, I think, are real risks in this environment,” he continued.

That prediction didn't age well, since further interest rate hikes did slow inflation enough that the Fed is now mulling the idea of lowering rates.

When it was noted that the media plays a role in talking down the economy, Kevin Tober complained in a Feb. 26 post:

On ABC's This Week, co-moderator Martha Raddatz aired more of World News Tonight's exclusive interview with President Joe Biden during which anchor David Muir displayed how out of touch he is with the economic reality everyday Americans are facing due to Biden's rampant inflation and incipient recession. Not to be outdone, a "reporter" from America's state media, NPR, named Asma Khalid claimed the economy is improved from where it was six months ago. 

During the Biden/Muir interview, Muir asked Biden about the economy and seemed befuddled why Americans weren't feeling good about their financial standing. Of course, Muir made sure to add every seemingly favorable metric he could come up with: "unemployment now at its lowest level in 50 years, but you've also seen the polls. Our latest ABC News poll shows 4 in 10 Americans say they're worse off than when you were elected. Only 16 percent said they were better off. So why is that? Why aren't Americans feeling this?" 

Biden incoherently explained that Americans aren't feeling good because "it goes well beyond the economy." The octogenarian President blamed the constant negative stories Americans see when they turn on the news: "can you think of anything when you turn on the television that makes you think, God, that makes me feel good? Almost anything. Everything is in the negative."

Has there ever been a time when the news wasn't negative? Not to our memory. That's why there's the saying "no news is good news."

Tober pffered no proof that Biden and only Biden is responsible for "rampant inflation," and his prediction of a "incipient recession" has fallen flat because economists now predict that the economy will come in for a "soft landing" without a recession.

When Stephanie Ruhle made the same argument, Alex Christy lashed out in a June 3 post:

MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle is not if not consistent in her efforts to blame the news media for the lack of confidence in the economy. On Friday’s The 11th Hour, Ruhle claimed that “we instilled this fear and unhappiness in people” right before going on to blame consumers for inflation.

During a panel discussion on the economy, REVOLT Black News anchor and managing editor Mara S. Campo made the normal observation that people do not feel confident in the economy because it does not reflect their everyday experience, “But I don't know if the messaging is getting through. Because I don't know that people feel it. You know, eggs still cost $8 a carton. A box of cereal is $10. Your credit card bills are going up every month by hundreds of dollars because the Fed keeps raising interest rates.”

Other than a gratuitous call for gun control, Campo summed up the problem with trying to convince voters the economy is doing great, “The housing market seems frozen because mortgage rates are at high sky high rates. We’re all afraid of getting shot by some lunatic with an AR-15 because no place feels safe. So, there are a lot of things that people are just feeling that don't feel good. But maybe when it comes to the economy it's not reflecting the messaging and the reality, but people are not really very enthusiastic.”

Ruhle wasn’t buying it, “But we, being the media, are somewhat responsible for that, right? Gas prices is the perfect example. When gas prices are up, like they were last year, every news organization and every reporter were standing in front of the gas station talking about it.”

Alternatively, consumers don’t need a reporter to tell them gas or egg prices are high because they see it themselves when they fill up their car or go to the store. Additionally, the media constantly tried to spin away inflation by repeating Ruhle’s point that the economy was actually doing rather well.

The MRC continued to bash the economy and anyone who noted it wasn't really as bad as right-wingers (are paid to) portray it:

• What Good Economy? NBC Highlights College Grads Losing Job Offers Under Biden
• CNN: Why Won’t Voters Give Biden Credit for This Great Economy?
• WATCH: Steve Forbes Slams Biden Advisor’s Economic Policy: ‘Destructive Nonsense’
• CNN Loves Biden's Economy, America Not So Much
• CNN's Zakaria Declares Biden a Great President, 'Brought Economy Back'
• Clueless WashPost Claims GOP Should ‘Rethink Attacks on Biden Economy’
• Behar Proclaims Economy ‘Booming,’ Whines Biden Not Getting ‘Credit’
• CNN Laments Biden Forced to ‘Convince Americans’ Economy Is Good
• Clinton Flunkie Robert Reich to MSNBC: We’re Living in a ‘Goldilocks Economy’
• Former Jill Biden Press Sec in MSNBC Op-Ed: Joe Should ‘Stop Focusing on the Economy’
• ABC, CBS, NBC Evening Nets Ignore Marquette Poll Showing Trump Cleaning Biden’s Clock on Economy
• MEDIA FAIL: New Poll Shows Majority of Swing-State Voters Say Economy ‘Better Off’ Under Trump

The MRC was still pushing the bad-economy argument in an Oct. 23 post by Joseph Vazquez:

Liberal journos like Vox co-founder Matthew Yglesias continue to treat struggling Americans as stupid for not giving President Joe Biden kudos on his so-called “great” economy.

Yglesias published a ludicrous Oct. 22 op-ed for Bloomberg Opinion with a headline that was nothing short of comical: “Biden’s Economy Is Great Everywhere Except in the Polls.” In Yglesias’s condescending, escapist worldview, those darn average Americans just don’t know what’s good for them: “Like a lot of world leaders, the US president must contend with voters who remain unhappy even as economic conditions improve.”

Yglesias even outrageously attempted to make Biden out to be a victim of unfair public perception, despite his administration’s policies largely contributing to the inflation crisis that crippled the U.S. economy: “This is undoubtedly a frustrating situation for the president, his campaign and Democrats overall.” 

Utterly “silly,” Heritage economist EJ Antoni told MRC Business of Yglesias’ argument. “It is reminiscent of when football commentators say an NFL team is better than its record,” Antoni added. “That may be true in the initial weeks of the season, but at some point, your record is your record, and it is indicative of the team’s performance. The American people have judged Bidenomics and found it wanting.”

Vazquez didn't disclose that Antoni is a highly biased right-wing economist whose job at the right-winbg Heritage Foundation is to talk down Biden's economy in order to boost Republians' chances of getting elected, so his arguments should be seen as partisan attacks, not sound economic analysis.

MRC Fails In Recycling Old, Discredited Attack On J6 Committee Witness
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's Clay Waters tried to revive an old controversy in a Sept. 29 post:

Even on a newscast preceding Wednesday night’s GOP presidential debate, the tax-supported PBS NewsHour kept its focus on former president Donald Trump, inviting former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson for a ten-minute interview to promote her book, Enough, about her traumatic experiences in the Trump White House and how dangerous it would be for Trump to win a second term of office.

You may remember Hutchinson as the left’s break-out star at the January 6 Committee hearings for the outlandish claims she made, though some of her most alarming allegations against Trump were denied by others. PBS took her at her word, after having spent weeks denying allegations against the Bidens as "unsubstantiated" or lacking evidence.

[...]

The PBS host forwarded as fact Hutchinson’s fiercely contested account of what Trump did on January 6:

Nawaz: Cassidy, one of the most explosive moments from your testimony was when you shared the story about, on January 6, Mr. Trump insisting he wanted to go to the Capitol, then trying to grab the steering wheel to get the Secret Service to take him there. What do you think he wanted to do there? What do you think he would have done if he made it to the Capitol?

Note the distinct absence of PBS reporters crying “unsubstantiated” or “no evidence” when it comes to a serious accusation against Donald Trump, though Nawaz and company deploy those phrases when defending Democrat Joe Biden. Nawaz took Hutchinson’s single-sourced account as the undisputed truth despite denials from sources close to the Secret Service[.]

It seems that Waters has forgotten that this line of attack against Hutchinson didn't age well. As we documented, the Secret Service agents who declared they would testify to the January 6 Committee that Hutchinson was lying -- who have been identified as Trump loyalists and yes men -- quickly lawyered up and refused to testify; when one finally did testify, he conveniently couldn't remember key details. Meanwhile, other witnesses corroborated key parts of Hutchinson's testimony. Given that, Waters' insistence that Hutchinson's account was "fiercely contested" completely deflates, since those doing so have not been found to be credible.

Note that Waters offered only anonymous "sources close to the Secret Service" as an attempt to discredit Hutchinson, as noted in a post by Curtis Houck that he linked to; doesn't the MRC hate anonymous sources? Waters also complained in the headline that there were "no fact checks on her testimony," which is false -- her testimony has been corroborated, so PBS did not need to do any further fact-checking.

Waters went on to whine that "For an eager PBS audience, Hutchinson described her White House time in melodramatic terms of an 'oppressive environment' that made loyalty more important than anything else." Waters didn't even bother to offer any sort of rebuttal, perhaps because he knows (or should know, since it's pretty common knowledge) that Trump is obsessed with loyalty.

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

Curtis Houck started winding down the Media Research Center's in hating White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre in a Dec. 22 post covering two press briefings, beginning with touting Mrs. Peter Doocy (as Houck calls her on his Twitter account):

With Tuesday and Thursday serving as the final White House press briefings of 2023, we had everything from questions at the border — which was a focus of the year’s first briefing — to more pro-Hamas idiocy.

Starting with Thursday, the best exchange came when the Fox Business Network’s Hillary Vaughn battled the National Security Council’s John Kirby over the latest flare-up in the seemingly never-ending Biden border crisis.

Vaughn started with the simple question of whether President Biden had “seen photos and videos from the past week of the sea of people crossing into this country illegally” beyond being briefed.

When Kirby demurred, Vaughn called out the administration’s pro-illegal immigration policies, such as giving illegals nearly a decade to mill about the country before a judge will hear their asylum claims: “Some illegal border crossers are being given court dates in 2031. What are they supposed to do here for seven years?”

Kirby took a page from his far-more-inept colleague, Karine Jean-Pierre, by punting to Homeland Security since he’s “not in a position to — to talk about specific cases like that”.

Vaughn kept pressing, pointing out Biden seems to be creating this crisis “for the next president” and if he believes it’s a problem to allow people to put down roots here before presumably being deported if their asylum claim is denied.

[...]

In the seat usually occupied by Vaughn’s husband, Peter Doocy, their colleague Rich Edson also had a simple question Kirby answered with a whole lot of nothing: “How successful would you say the administration’s efforts to stem root flow, to get to the root causes of migration have been?”

Houck finished out the year with a few briefing-related summary items. The first, on Dec. 26, lashed out at journalists who didn't follow pro-Israel narratives:

For decades, the liberal media have always had a soft spot for Hamas. Heck, even the Associated Press’s Gaza bureau shared a Gaza City high-rise with the barbaric Islamists. In the days following Hamas’s animalistic reign of terror on October 7, some in the White House press corps pestered National Security Council’s John Kirby during briefings with Hamas talking points.

Kirby, while a longtime Democratic administration apparatchik, showed serious fortitude to not only push back on, but utterly demolish many of their galling takes while reminding them that Hamas’s inhumanity on October 7 started this war.

Houck left out the part where the AP said it did not know Hamas was in the building and that Israel refused to provide evidence that Hamas was there, which puts the lie to his "soft spot for Hamas" claim and making it seem he approves of the death of journalists who don't push his approved narratives. Furthe, Houck portrayed questions about Israel's actions or that showed concern about civilians in Gaza as being "for Hamas."

A Dec. 28 post attacked questions by "stooges" from "the left":

On Tuesday, we took a look back at six moments from the past year when the questions inside the White House’s Brady Press Briefing Room skewed in favor of Hamas and against Israel. This time, we’re going to serve up six more times journalists showed their far-left bona fides, except this one will be more of the traditional sense as this summary touches on gun control and race.

This list focused on questions asked by journalists, so we left this one out as an honorable mention as, on April 24, the entire press corps – left, right, and center – failed to bat an eye when Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed during government spending negotiations that Republicans purposefully wanted to “fill our cities with smog,” “give asthma to our children,” and let oil companies use chemicals that’d “melt bones.”

Houck's final piece was a Jan. 1 post in which he summarized "the 12 best moments – battles, beatdowns, and hardballs – from 2023, the first full year of the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre’s term at the podium." Unsurprisingly, most of those questions were from biased right-wing reporters, whom he refused to give an ideological tag as he did with the purportedly "far-left" reporters.

NEW ARTICLE -- The MRC Flips Over Elon Musk, Part 18: An Anti-Semitic Meltdown
Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center decided that the best person it could find to defend Elon Musk's rage that the Anti-Defamation League showed how anti-Semitism has grown on Twitter since he bought it was ... racist cartoonist Scott Adams. Read more >>

MRC Promoted Bogus Claim That Photojournalists Embedded With Hamas
Topic: Media Research Center

Nicholas Fondacaro loves spreading lies -- we just documented him lying that a Palestinian Instagram influencer was a "crisis actor." A couple days before he started that lie, he repeated another one in a Nov. 8 post:

On Wednesday, HonestReporting drew attention to what they described as “ethical questions” stemming from the fact that local Gazan photojournalists affiliated with the Associated Press, CNN, the New York Times, and Reuters followed Hamas terrorists through their breaches in the border fence and into Israel during the October 7 terrorist attack. This led to accusations that these journalists were “embedded” with the terrorists and that they were given advanced notice of the attack.

In the subsection titled “AP: Photojournalists or Infiltrators?,” HonestReporting identified four photojournalists with various ties to Western liberal media outlets who somehow found themselves among the chaos of the invasion of Israel that was a shock to everyone but those who planned it. The reporters of note were “Hassan Eslaiah, Yousef Masoud, Ali Mahmud, and Hatem Ali.”

“What were they doing there so early on what would ordinarily have been a quiet Saturday morning? Was it coordinated with Hamas?” HonestReporting wondered. “Did the respectable wire services, which published their photos, approve of their presence inside enemy territory, together with the terrorist infiltrators? Did the photojournalists who freelance for other media, like CNN and The New York Times, notify these outlets?”

The answer was obvious to Free Beacon contributor Noah Pollak, who posted on X (formerly Twitter): “Important expose by @honestreporting: Photographers working for AP, CNN, NYT, and Reuters were EMBEDDED with Hamas on 10/7 and accompanied the terrorist group into Israel. They knew the attack was coming, and participated in it.”

Fondacaro followed up with a post the next day noting that the media outlets in question denied having any advance knowledge of Hamas' attack. But he didn't tell readers the truth: that the allegation was a lie.

The Associated Press reported that HonestReporting admitted it never had any evidence to back up its claims of embedding; it insisted it was merely asking "legitimate questions" and that despite its name, "we don’t claim to be a news organization." But because the lie serves the MRC's anti-media narratives, not only did it stay silent about the lie being exposed, it chose to perpetuate the lie. Curtis Houc, ranted about the lie being called out in a Nov. 10 post:

On Thursday night, CNN sent out its cartoonishly pathetic senior media reporter Oliver Darcy to do what he dubbed “Shooting Down a Smear” in the wake of HonestReporting’s bombshell alleging Gaza freelance journalists for CNN and The New York Times as well as Associated Press and Reuters embedded with Hamas terrorists during the group’s animalistic October 7 terror attack.

[...]

Touting the outlets “strongly pushing back against the report from the staunchly pro-Israel media watchdog, HonestReporting, that claimed photographers for the news outlets were present during the initial attack,” Darcy insinuated there’s nothing further to see since the AP and CNN “severed ties with the freelance photographer Hassan Eslaiah”.

The former conservative reporter pointed to an AP story doing damage control and doing what the liberal media do when targeted, which is try to smear and maim those who criticize them:

When Darcy cited the AP takedown of the lie, Houck whined with out evidence that "Darcy and the AP were a tad misleading":

HonestReporting published a statement Friday morning that, while they “unequivocally condemn calls for violence or death threats aimed at bona fide media workers” and disagree with arguments that there’s no distinction between terrorists and journalists, “HonestReporting stands behind the legitimate questions we asked media outlets in our recent expose.”

Back to CNN from the night prior, the dictatorial dweeb bemoaned that “the damage had already been done” in that “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu...used HonestReporting’s story to give credence to the false notion that newsrooms were aware of the terror attack prior to it taking place” with a member of his war cabinet saying terrorists and those who stood as “idle bystanders...are no different”.

Actually, Houck is the one who's being a tad misleading here, having deliberately omitted the fact that HonestReporting admitted it never had any evidence to back up its claims.

Houck promoted the lie  again in another Nov. 10 post promoting an interview NewsNation host Leland Vittert (a former Fox News personality) did with IDF spokesman Jonathan Conricus:

After alluding to the HonestReporting bombshell about Gaza freelancers, he asked Conricus for his reaction whenever he “see[s]...that the stories that Israel puts out and then the...same validity given to information coming from Hamas in American media.”

Conricus acknowledged journalists shouldn’t be threatened before hitting the nail on the head that Gaza journalists “report what Hamas allows them to report...and, if they don’t prove correctly, according to the Hamas message page, then they” and their families “face consequences.”

He even called them “compromised”:

[...]

Vittert spoke from experience on that issue: “I dealt with it myself. I mean, I — I worked with stringers in Gaza as well. And you had to — you had to sort of — ba — try — try and figure out what was Hamas propaganda and what were they really trying to tell you.”

Houck did not indicate whether Vittert and Conricus discussed whether journalists who cooperated with the IDF are "compromised" because they report only what the IDF allows them to report.

This also spread to an interview MRC executive Dan Schneider did with far-right writer Sara Carter, as detailed in a Nov. 10 post by Tom Olohan:

Liberal media photojournalists employed by CNN, Reuters, The New York Times and The Associated Press have been accused of embedding with Hamas during the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks against the nation of Israel. According to NewsBusters, on Nov. 8, The Associated Press, CNN, The New York Times and Reuters have all responded to HonestReporting's story with reactions ranging from cutting ties with the photojournalists in question to defending their work. You can read NewsBusters' reporting on their statements here.

Schneider commented on these atrocities in his interview with Carter. “[T]these photojournalists were embedded with the Hamas terrorists before the attack began,” Schneider explained. “They knew the attack was going to commence. They did not warn anybody that the attack was going to commence.” 

Schneider also predicted that there will be consequences for the journalists involved in attacks. “I think we’re going to see big lawsuits by the families of the murdered victims and the injured victims against AP, CNN, [The] New York Times and Reuters at a minimum for paying these, their own photojournalists kept silent about what was about to happen,” said Schneider

Carter agreed, also calling for lawsuits. “I certainly hope so. I hope every single family that is connected and has lost a loved one or has a loved one who has been taken, or who was harmed in any way shape or form or had to flee their home or has family in the United States, I hope there are multiple lawsuits across the board, targeting these news agencies,” Carter said.

No mention, of course, that the story was a lie. The narrative, however bogus, is more important than the truth, remember?

The Persistence Of Stelter Derangement Syndrome At The MRC
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center went into full-scale Stelter Derangement Syndrome when Brian Stelter released a new book about Fox News. When the sales numbers came in, that derangement quickly became gleeful schadenfreude, as Tim Graham exhibited in a Nov. 28 post:

Colby Hall, the founding editor of left-leaning Mediaite.com, reports that Brian Stelter's new Fox-trashing book Network of Lies is selling well below expectations, like a Disney blockbuster. It's a dud! 

Published on November 14, Stelter’s book sold 3,807 copies in its first week, according to Nielsen BookScan. Those numbers are down 82% from his previous book about Fox (Hoax), which saw first-week sales of 20,832 in August 2020, according to ookScan.

Mediaite has learned that Stelter’s latest will not make the New York Times bestseller list. As of publishing, it is currently ranked 6,638th on Amazon’s Best Sellers list, despite his numerous appearances on cable news and several podcasts, including Mediaite.

Stelter has been on CNN and MSNBC and PBS and NPR and NewsNation and Univision and a plethora of podcasts to plug his "epic saga" -- we're still waiting for the NewsBusters Podcast, come on, pal -- but it's not moving the needle.

Graham didn't mention that despite all his mocking, Stelter's book still had better first-week sales than Chadwick Moore's fawning biography of Tucker Carlson, which sold just 3,227 copies. (You will not be surprised to learn that right-wingers have manufactured a conspiracy theory about this.) Instead, he complained that the New York Times published a positive review of Stelter's book, though he did not question thedid accuracy of either the review or the book.

That was followed by an even more shadenfreude-filled Nov. 30 post by Bill D'Agostino claiming to note "9 Tiny Things That Still Outnumber Brian Stelter’s Failed Book Sales." He too did not mention that Stelter's book outsold Moore's bio of Carlson.

A Nov. 30 post by Graham whined that Stelter appeared on MSNBC to point out how Trump did try to block the merger of CNN's parent with another company because it aird things critical of Trump and is threatening MSNBC's parent for doing the same thing:

On Wednesday night's All In on MSNBC, host Chris Hayes brought in Brian Stelter to address the latest Trump outburst on his Truth Social account threatening Comcast and MSNBC for their left-wing propaganda: "our so-called government should come down on hard on them and make them pay for the illegal political activity. Much more to come, watch."

There's nothing there defining what is "illegal" in all of MSNBC's propagandizing. But it certainly allows MSNBC to feel good about their "defending democracy" credentials. Hayes warned Trump's "whining" could turn into "real punitive action."

Hayes and Stelter talked up how the Trump Justice Department sought to block AT&T's merger with Time Warner in 2017, which went through in 2018. The top antitrust official at the time said he never spoke to Trump or his aides about AT&T, but the liberals only believe the Justice staff is independent when Democrats are running it. 

You know liberal media outlets are involved when liberals love a merger of mega-corporations. Before long, AT&T dumped Warner's media assets like CNN to Discovery.

Graham then went on a whataboutism tear, whining that Stelter questioned the reach of right-wing influencers "after January 6," but he left out the part where those right-wing influencers helped incite a violent insurrection.

Nicholas Fondacaro added a little Stelter derangement to his own Nov. 30 post as part of his daily hate-watch of "The View":

The sales of Brian Stelter’s latest anti-Fox News book were so low that he made an appearance with the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View on Thursday in an attempt to bump up his numbers. Of course, there were the usual back-slapping conversations for him going after one of their mutual hate objects, but Stelter also had sweet nothings to proclaim the cast: falsely claiming the show was home to truthful conversations.

[...]

As they were nearing the end of the second segment with Stelter, Farah Griffin finally got around to admitting “have a handful of very good reporters like Trey Yingst, Jennifer Griffin, people who cover actual news.” Lamenting: “And it's so hard for those journalists that they have to be next to basically people espousing propaganda.”

Stelter called Fox News “a very uncomfortable environment” for them and suggested that that was why The View was better. “[W]e should advocate to have a truthier, healthier environment. That’s why I love this show! Your guys are louder than the liars!” he praised.

The MRC concluded 2023 with one final reminder of how Stelter lives rent-free in their collective heads: One of its year-end awards is named "The Brian Stelter Memorial Award for Worst Quote of the Year." Never mind that Stelter isn't dead, or that all he has done is write a book telling the truth about Fox News.

MRC Spreads Palestinian 'Crisis Actor' Lie
Topic: Media Research Center

Media Research Center writer Nicholas Fondacaro is a very prolific liar. He launched another one in a Nov. 10 post:

In the same week that four other major American news outlets had to answer for utilizing dubious sources with connections to Hamas for their reporting on the Israel-Hamas war, MSNBC seemingly tried to one-up the rest by promoting a video put out by Saleh Aljafarawi, a known Hamas-linked propagandist and crisis actor. On her eponymous show Friday afternoon, Chris Jansing treated him as though he was an innocent civilian brutalized by Israel.

Aljafarawi has been dubbed “Mr. FAFO” and “Mr. Pallywood” (a combination of Palestinian and Hollywood) on social media by those who call him out. He posts his propaganda videos to his Instagram account which has over three million followers. He’s pretended to be a Hamas fighter in a music video, a radiology tech in a hospital, a foster father, a member of the press, and a rescue worker, among other roles. He even put out a video of himself praising Hamas rockets that were launched at Israeli civilians.

But that didn’t stop Jansing from elevating a video of him purportedly at the al-Shifa hospital running around with “blood” on his hand.

[...]

MSNBC regular Malcolm Nancy [sic] was among the first to call out the network for promoting Aljafarawi’s propaganda. “I LITERALLY JUST SAW @MSNBC JUST FEATURE THIS SAME GUY AT AL-SHIFA HOSPITAL SCREAMING WITH BLOODY HANDS. PRODUCERS! FFS CHECK YOUR SOURCES. HE IS FAKE!!! #PunkedAgain,” he wrote in all-caps on X (formerly Twitter).

“‘Content creator/Actor’ Yes for HAMAS,” he scolded one of his commenters. “People are so ridiculously ready to excuse a dedicated HAMAS propaganda player they refuse to believe their own eyes.”

But as commentator Matt Binder documented, Aljafarawi is not a "crisis actor," nor has he pretended to be one. He's a prolific poster on Instagram. Binder pointed out that Aljafarawi appears to be in many different places in Gaza because Gaza isn't that big -- and also that videos that have been claimed online to be Aljafarawi being a "crisis actor" aren't him at all. Others have pointed out that a collage of images purporting to be of Aljafarawi are doctored, taken out of context or lack evidence to back the claims.

In other words, Nance is lying and Fondacaro chose to repeat his lie without bothering to fact-check first. But Fondacaro is so committed to the lie that he repeated it a few hours later:

If you’re on X (formerly known as Twitter) and follow the Israel-Hamas War, you’re likely aware of the man we’re about to speak of. Saleh Aljafarawi, dubbed “Mr. FAFO” and “Mr. Pallywood,” is a KNOWN Hamas-linked social media influencer and crisis actor. But those easily researchable facts were of no interest to ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News on Friday as they all, much like MSNBC did, treated his content as though it was a legitimate source of news from Gaza.

[...]

CBS was the most brazen in flaunting the video. Correspondent Debora Patta used the part of the video that featured Aljafarawi. “Reeling in stunned disbelief, this man shouts, 'They bombed the hospitals,'" she breathlessly translated for him. “Nearby, a young girl breaks down hysterically, ‘my mom, my father, my brother.’”

“Their one place of refuse, now a blood-soaked battleground,” she lamented. Meanwhile, it was yet another Gaza-launched rocket that fell short.

Over on ABC and NBC, correspondents Matt Gutman and Keir Simmons (respectively) both used arguably deceptively edited versions of Aljafarawi’s video. They edited down the video to take him out of it completely and only used the portion with the little girl.

Aljafarawi was very much a highly recognizable figure that had emerged from the conflict, so it’s suspicious that they used the part he was not visible in.

Note Fondacaro's lie that Aljafarawi is a "KNOWN ... crisis actor." If Fondacaro had bothered to do any research at all before posting,he would have KNOWN that Aljafarawi is NOT, in fact, a "crisis actor."

Alex Christy parroted Fondacaro's "known crisis actor" lie in a Nov. 11 post: "Just on Friday, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC got caught using footage from a Palestinian propagandist and known crisis actor." Curtis Houck also repeated the lie in touting a right-wing congressman spouting Fondacaro's falsehood in a Nov. 14 post:

On Monday’s edition of Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) podcast The Verdict, Cruz and co-host Ben Ferguson had a lengthy segment praising the work of NewsBusters and associate editor Nick Fondacaro for exposing the “big three” networks of ABC, CBS, NBC for using dubious footage from a known pro-Hamas crisis actor named Saleh Aljafarawi.

“I want to show part of this propaganda. NewsBusters found that ABC, CBS, and NBC elevated a Gaza video from a known propagandist influencer. This guy — we’re going to show you all the different jobs that he has,” Ferguson began just prior to the 25-minute mark.

Cruz and Ferguson then played the full video that the networks would use Friday night and, on a second view, Cruz walked viewers (and listeners on the audio-only side) through the video, including multiple people with “red liquid” that they want to portray as blood, but there’s “no visible wounds” on Aljafarawi or a young girl.

[...]

Ferguson then read from Fondacaro’s piece about who Aljafarawi really is before the co-hosts put on-screen a collage of the roles Aljafarawi has played over the course of the war:

Meanwhile, PolitiFact pointed out that there's no actual evidence to prove this particular video was faked. Remember, the MRC doesn't care about the truth; they care much more that their narratives get traction in right-wing media.

Perhaps realizing he had been caught spreading a lie, Fondacaro hilariously de-escalated things a bit in another Nov. 14 post:

During an appearance at the Global Women’s Summit put on by The Washington Post on Tuesday, CBS News president Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews boasted about her organization’s new fact-checking unit “CBS News Confirmed” which was allegedly supposed to be able to identify and call out images and video that were meant to misinform the public. But as NewsBusters reported just last week, CBS Evening News promoted a video out of Gaza created by a known Hamas-linked propagandist and alleged crisis actor.

[...]

But as NewsBusters reported, CBS was the most brazen evening newscast last Friday in flaunting a video from Saleh Aljafarawi, a known Hamas-linked social media influencer and alleged crisis actor, who was dubbed “Mr. FAFO” and “Mr. Pallywood” online.

But who was the person who "alleged" that Aljafarawi is a "crisis actor"? Fondacaro. Did he apologize for his lie? Of course not.

Luis Cornelio complained that YouTube called out Cruz's parroting of Fondacaro's lie in a Nov. 21 post:

Anti-free speech YouTube targeted a video from Sen. Ted Cruz’s popular podcast where the lawmaker praised a report from MRC’s NewsBusters about fake videos depicting alleged victims in the Gaza Strip.

YouTube placed a contentious age restriction banner on the Nov. 14 episode of The Verdict podcast. During the show, Cruz and co-host Ben Ferguson highlighted a study by NewsBusters that exposed ABC, CBS and NBC for using dubious footage from Saleh Aljafarawi who has gone viral over accusations of being a crisis actor in the Hamas-governed Gaza Strip. “This video may be inappropriate for some users,” YouTube inexplicably warns potential viewers, before asking users to log in and “confirm” their age—but wait, there’s more.

Yes, Cornelio is actually claiming that YouTube putting an age restriction on Cruz's video is "censorship." Needless to say, Cornelio refused to admit that his co-worker is a liar.

(Catherine Salgado put this on her Dec. 5 list of the "WORST Censorship of November," despite the fact that only the most deluded partisans think an age restriction on a video is "censorship." She also claimed that Aljafarawi was "accused of being a crisis actor in the Hamas-governed Gaza Strip" while not disclosing that those making the accusation are her co-workers.)

As Fondacaro's "crisis actor" fizzled with people continuing to debunk it, he devoted a Dec. 2 post to bashing PolitiFact's debunking, weirdly headlined "PolitiFact Comes to the Defense of THAT Hamas Influencer You’ve Seen:"

You might not know his name but you’ve probably seen his face. Saleh Aljafarawi is a known Hamas-linked influencer who has been all over social media where he praises Hamas, pretends to be a journalist, hospital worker, and pretty much anything to get sympathy for Palestinians. But despite what was known about Aljafarawi, PolitiFact came to his defense on Thursday to quibble over his being described as a “crisis actor” by those who know his connection to Hamas.

PolitiFact decided to assign “Spanish misinformation reporter” Marta Campabadal Graus the task of aiding Aljafarawi because Gaza influencers were totally in the Spanish media sphere. And she gave the accusations that he was a “crisis actor” a “false” rating.

“PolitiFact’s review of Aljafarawi’s social media accounts and background did not reveal evidence of him being a ‘crisis actor’ or faking the scene at the hospital,” she proclaimed, ignoring his connection to Hamas and without providing evidence that the hospital scene was real.

It's not a "quibble" to get basic facts right, of course. Fondacaro made clear, declarative claims about Aljafarawi that were proven false, as well as a claim about a video of his that are unproven at best. So rather than admit he lied and correct the record, Fondacaro hastily tried to change the narrative to assert that is a a "Hamas propagandist":

But while Campabadal explored his social media accounts, she didn’t make the obvious connection that he’s a Hamas propagandist. “The ‘freedom fighter’ image of Aljafarawi with a gun was taken from a music video that was deleted a few weeks ago. In the music video, he was posing as a singing Hamas fighter,” she admitted.

But the fact of the matter was that he would have needed to get all the gear and weapon he was wearing in the video from Hamas since they controlled that kind of stuff.

As Soch Fact Check noted, that video was first posted in July -- three months before the war started. (It has now been deleted from Aljafarawi's account.) That means Fondacaro is lying again by suggesting it was posted after the war started.

This is the way the MRC works -- spread a lie, don't acknowledge that the lie has been debunked, then move on to the next lie. Fondacaro has learned well from his employer.

NEW ARTICLE: Watching Over Wonky Whistleblowers
Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves narrative-advancing whistleblowers like Devon Archer and Gal Luft, to the point that it will work hard to ignore questions about their credibility -- and their criminality. Read more >>

MRC's Stelter Derangement Syndrome Flared Up As He Promoted His New Book On Fox News
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's fall outbreak of Stelter Derangement Syndrome had on gotten started when Brian Stelter released a book critical of Fox News (which is forbidden at the MRC). The MRC's chief Stelter Derangement Syndrome sufferer, Tim Graham, who had a whataboutism-laden metldown over the book in a Nov. 10 post (though he still had to concede that Stelter's reporting was accurate on how Fox News lied to viewers):

Brian Stelter’s second book raining fire on Fox – Network of Lies – is coming out next week, but he appeared on MSNBC’s Alex Wagner Tonight on Thursday night to promote it. Somehow, in the seven-plus minutes of Fox-bashing, they didn’t discuss Stelter’s old network CNN having its freelancer literally kissed by a Hamas terrorist. That’s an inconvenient truth for Mr. Facts First.

Instead, MSNBC put on screen Stelter’s hot quote that “Fox is the black widow at the center of the web of lies that pervert American politics.” You can’t call CNN “fake news,” but you can compare Fox to a dangerously venomous spider.

Stelter’s book is in part a compilation of all the frantic internal communications over a short period when Fox aired embarrassing segments spreading wild conspiracy theories about Trump winning in a landslide. Some of those texts are explicit acknowledgments that this was fake news.

So let’s fast forward to the part where Stelter and Wagner address the current status of Fox and Trump.

Wagner asked “Does Fox, I mean, is all forgiven? And to what do you feel like Fox feels like it needs to actively curry favor with Trump? I ask that because it's interesting in and of itself. But because there's going to be January 6, 2025?”

This, on the network that hires their program hosts right out of the Biden White House public relations department, from Psaki to Symone. That illustrates a close relationship between a president and a network.

[...]

Wagner and Stelter won't discuss all of the misinformation that CNN and MSNBC uncorked in the Trump years, from the years of spreading Russian collusion conspiracy theories to the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop, falsely dismissed as Russian disinformation. "Networks of Lies" could describe that period for them.

Remember that Graham gave a pass to Fox News for telling those lies -- something he would never have done if CNN or MSNBC had done the same thing -- because it wouldn't hurt the channel with its core audience.

The next day, Alex Christy complained that Stelter plugged his book at his old employer and, like his boss, hurled whataboutism rather than respond to what Stelter said:

Brian Stelter returned to CNN on Friday when he joined The Source host Kaitlan Collins to continue his book tour and, just like old times, bash Fox News as the GOP's agenda setter while ignoring how the rest of the media helps set the left's agenda.

Collins noted that Rupert Murdoch is set to step down and wondered “How different does his media empire, not just Fox, but everything, look after that?”

After going on about the future of media more generally, Stelter eventually got to the specifics of Fox, “It's almost as if the energy has moved away from him. Although I think it's important to note, Fox is still the beating heart of the GOP. And that's where, for better and for worse, the narratives are still set.”

As opposed to the rest of the media, where narratives set for the left.

[...]

Stelter wasn’t buying the idea that Trump and Fox are distancing themselves from each other, “In a primary, he would argue that. But come general election, they'll be in Trump's corner.”

And CNN, and the rest of the media, will be in Biden’s corner.

Grahamm returned for an attempted gotcha in a Nov. 16 post on Stelter's appearance on NewsNation, where host Dan Abrams tried to get Stelter to unquestionly buy into Israeli propaganda:

Ex-CNN host Brian Stelter is ubiquitous on liberal TV networks and podcasts right now, selling his latest Fox-frying book Network of Lies, but one TV interview really stands out. He appeared on Tuesday night's Dan Abrams Live, and instead of delighting in the Fox hatred, Abrams pressed him on a raft of challenging media questions. Stelter stumbled throughout, but the most embarrassing part was claiming no host at CNN was partisan.

Stelter could have pointed at himself. But he thinks he and Jim Acosta were just "truth telling."

Up first? Abrams asked about the petition of Israel-hating journalists insisting news accounts must smear Israel as guilty of "genocide," "apartheid," and "ethnic cleansing." Stelter said these are "progressive writers" who might not be in news rooms, but they should push their "standards and practices" squad to explore it. Abrams shot back that "genocide" is not reality, but Stelter wouldn't commit. I wouldn't sign it, he said, but he wouldn't condemn it as not factual.

"That's a cop-out answer," Abrams said.

Graham continued to portray Stelter as the idiot for not biting on Abrams' gotcha questions:

Then came the one that drew the most attention. Who is the most partisan host on Fox? He said Maria Bartiromo, and Abrams said she's become a "fringe player." What about MSNBC? Stelter noted he was on Joy Reid's show, and she said Trump has an "authoritarian streak," which Stelter agreed on. But he tried to say she has a "point of view," a "perspective," not a bias. What about CNN? Abrams said CNN is the most dishonest network in denying it's biased. "Do you think there are any people on CNN who are overtly biased, whatever word you want to use that isn't offensive?" 

"I really truly don't," he said, "and they fired me!" He said feel free to send him comments at his email (bstelter@gmail.com). What about Jim Acosta? Stelter said "I think Jim is telling the truth, I really do!"

Graham said absolutely nothing about the content of Stelter's book other than to whine that is "Fox-frying." He whined further in a Nov. 19 post:

Taxpayer-funded PBS and NPR loathe Fox News like all leftists do, and both promoted ex-CNN host Brian Stelter's second Fox-bashing book Network of Lies. On Thursday, PBS NewsHour anchor Amna Nawaz ran Stelter through his usual talking points about Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, but concluded with the Big Picture, as reporters panic about how their coverage of Donald Trump won't prevent his re-election:

[...]

Stelter thinks there's someone out there who hasn't heard their incessant Trump warnings: "I would like to see the coverage amped up quite a bit on that front in order to help people who are not news junkies. I feel like I know what's going on, but most people are tuned out right now about the 2024 election. It's time to tune in."

On Tuesday's Fresh Air talk show on NPR, Stelter blabbed for more than a half-hour on the same points. Host Terry Gross mocked Tucker Carlson's exit: "Well, if Lachlan is focused on advertising, I mean, Tucker Carlson's extremism cost the network a lot of money. A lot of the sponsors pulled out. They had to rely on My Pillow (laughter) for - as a primary sponsor." 

As opposed to NPR, where we are the involuntary sponsors.

Graham's whataboutism continued: "It's funny sometimes that NPR people ask what Fox News shows are like, as if they have never seen it for a minute in their lives." As if the hate-watching of non-right-wing media the MRC does to cherry-pick clips could be consider real viewing.

The MRC's Google-Haters Exchange Complements With Anti-Google 'Researcher'
Topic: Media Research Center

Another front where the Media Research Center is fighting its war against Google is through calling in a fellow Google-hater for backup. Catherine Salgado touted that attack on Google in a  Nov. 29 post:

A new website launched this week for the purpose of exposing Google’s leftist bias and making the tech giant accountable to the public.

Tech Watch Project announced its America’s Digital Shield website in an X (formerly Twitter) post Sunday. The website is a tool launched to bring accountability to anti-free speech giant Google. TechWatch exists because of the work of psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein, who has long accused Google of trying to influence elections through search engine manipulation, a reality which concurs with MRC Free Speech America’s research.

In its X announcement, Tech Watch quoted Epstein to explain the new site’s purpose, “JUST IN: AmericasDigitalShield.com is live. ‘THIS is how you make #Google accountable to the public. THIS is how you get them to stop MANIPULATING OUR ELECTIONS & INDOCTRINATING OUR CHILDREN.’  - @DrREpstein.” Tech Watch’s website explains that its areas of focus include “Manipulation of Our Elections.”

Epstein, if you'll recall, is the anti-Google "researcher" whose work has been discredited as biased and shoddy. Nevertheless, the MRC loves Epstein because he advances conservatively correct narratives; note that Pariseau boasted that Epstein's work "concurs with MRC Free Speech America’s research." She went on to fluff:

America’s Digital Shield professes to capture “ephemeral experiences” online and to expose Big Tech, including by exposing inappropriate content on YouTube and tracking Google’s, Yahoo’s and Bing’s search engine bias. The site even has a list of elections it claims were “flipped” by Google and topping that list is Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential win. A Media Research Center poll previously found that Big Tech censorship altered the 2020 election results in Biden’s favor.

We've documented how that MRC poll was biased, as it was conducted by the polling firm founded by Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway.

The MRC and Epstein later engaged in mutual fluffing, as documented in a Dec. 21 post by Salgado:

Psychologist and researcher Dr. Robert Epstein and MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider exposed how Google sways and manipulates U.S. elections.

Schneider and Epstein spoke at an election integrity seminar organized by attorney Cleta Mitchell to help conservative leaders understand the threat mounted by Google. Schneider showed the results of Google’s search result manipulation in favor of Democrats, especially President Joe Biden. Dr. Epstein explained how Google and YouTube change voters’ minds through “ephemeral experiences,” expressing his goal of “shining a light on Google” to stop its election interference.

Schneider discussed MRC Free Speech America’s Google studies, describing the tech behemoth as “the fount of all evil.” Schneider referred to MRC’s 2022 election study showing how Google search results favored Democrat candidates in key midterm Senate races, burying GOP campaign sites in 83 percent of the races. He then explained MRC’s multiple 2023 studies exposing Google’s search result bias burying Biden’s presidential opponents’ websites ahead of each GOP debate. Republican candidates’ websites in particular did not appear on the first page of results.

Dr. Epstein called MRC’s work “rock solid.” Epstein also claimed to go much deeper in the amount and type of data he and his team have collected, with custom software that collects anonymized data from the computers of hundreds of “field agents.”

The fact that Epstein thinks the MRC's shoddy and partisan work is "rock solid" is disqualifying by itself. As we documented regarding the MRC's 2022 attacks, the MRC manufactured a search phrase without providing any reason for its preferred search results to have come from it, falsely portraying that as election manipulation. When others pointed out the shoddiness, the MRC offered nothing substantial in response beyond complaining it was criticized. Of course, Schneider wild smear of Google as "the fount of all evil" demonstrates even more that the MRC's war on Google is partisan, not based on credible research.

Salgado continued to pretend that Epstein's so-called research is credible:

In 2016, 2018, 2020 and 2022, Epstein said that he and his team recorded thousands and then millions of these ephemeral experiences. Algorithms are not objective as people imagine, but are programmed a certain way, Epstein explained. Studies conducted by Epstein found a 40+ percent shift in favor of a candidate based on Google’s search engine bias. On his new platform, which collects Google ephemeral experiences data in real-time from politically balanced “field agents” around the country, Epstein keeps a list of elections he says were flipped by Google. The 2020 presidential election is included on his list of flipped elections.

As we've also noted, Epstein's "research" on the 2016 election was based on just 21 undecided voters, making it a tiny sample that no judgment could legitimately come from. Salgado concluded by lecturing:

Epstein’s team has built a “large-scale, permanent system to capture ephemeral content on a massive scale in all 50 states and shine the light on Google and other companies so that they will stop.” Because, unless Google’s election meddling can be discouraged, as both Schneider and Epstein demonstrated, America will not have free and fair elections.

Epstein's history of dubious research does not engender trust in his alleged "large-scale, permanent system." And the fact that the MRC is so wholeheartedly teaming up with Epstein to the point that they fluff each other in public shows the shoddy partisanship of the entire enterprise. Remember, the MRC's definition of "free and fair elections" are only the ones in which right-wingers are the victors.

MRC's Stelter Derangement Syndrome Continued During The Fall
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center is in a continual state of Stelter Derangement Syndrome -- never mind the fact that he lost his CNN show more than a year ago. Alex Christy was the sufferer in a Sept. 19 post:

Former chief media correspondent for CNN, Brian Stelter, joined MSNBC’s Ari Melber on Friday’s edition of The Beat to talk about his old employer, the media as a whole, and to proclaim that the industry’s job is to be “louder than the liars” who attack them.

Melber wondered, “So, has CNN, in your view, lost its way? And were they wrong in some of the programming decisions they made, including regarding yours?”

Stelter replied that he didn’t think so because, “there's a big difference between a management regime versus CNN as an institution. And that's true for lots of media companies. When you're reading the newspaper, you’re reading a website, you hate an article, you hate a column, judge that one column. Don't judge the entire institution and that's what I would say about CNN or any other big media brand.”

That would make more sense if you were talking about the op-ed pages or an opinion-based publication, but not for the allegedly straight-news outlets like CNN or MSNBC. When the news section repeatedly makes the same mistakes, blaming individuals covers up systemic problems.

Christy would never make that comment about Fox News, even though the problem he ascribes to CNN and MSNBC is much worse there. He continued to whine:

As for attacks on the media, “This torrent of lies directed at an institution that's trying to get to the truth and, Ari, that's why we need this kind of coverage all the time to try to figure out the best path to being louder than the liars. That's our job. We are supposed to be louder than the liars.”

That also contradicts Stelter’s earlier statement. On one hand, Stelter wants people to criticize individuals, not outlets, but here he is urging the entire industry to adopt certain standards. At the same time that standard of claiming something is true simply because the media said it is, is why the industry is facing a “torrent” of criticism.

Christy himself is a walking contradiction because he refuses to hold Fox News to those same standards.

Brad Wilmouth served up a torrent of whataboutism in a Sept. 26 post after Stelter called out Fox News' history of division on the occasion of Rupert Murdoch's retirement:

Is there anything stranger than crusading leftists on CNN and MSNBC blaming Fox News for dividing Americans? Soon after CNN anchor Abby Phillip attacked Fox News for "outrage porn," MSNBC's The Sunday Show offered ex-CNNer Brian Stelter blaming Rupert Murdoch for dividing America, pitting neighbor against neighbor. 

Name-dropping the title of his new anti-Fox book, Stelter excoriated the outlet as a "Network of Lies" and laughably claimed that Fox, unlike the pro-Biden media, is "not rooted in reality."

The segment was remarkable, coming on the same fulminating cable network that has a substantial history of trafficking in vitriol against conservative public figures, even in this segment. Host Jonathan Capehart recalled congressional Republicans who are resisting a budget deal as he segued to the issue of Fox's future:

But if you zoom out, you can see the real roots of Republican craziness. One of the key factors, media mogul and architect of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, who announced he is stepping down as chairman this week. As a column in The New York Times noted, Rupert Murdoch's empire used passion and grievance as fuel and turned it into money and power.

There's no "passion and grievance" in MSNBC and in Capehart's performance?

At no point did Wilmouth make any attempt to actually respond to what Stelter said.

It surely must have pained Nicholas Fondacaro to admit that Stelter actually echoed right-wing talking points in an Oct. 20 post:

“There is no defense here.” Even CNN’s former media janitor Brian Stelter couldn’t find it in him to throw rhetorical sawdust on the liberal media’s regurgitation of Hamas propaganda and misreporting of the blast at a hospital in Gaza. In a Wednesday appearance on NewsNation’s Dan Abrams Live, Stelter ripped into the media for their “atrocious” coverage of the blast and said they lacked “common sense” when they parroted unbelieve death toll numbers Hamas gave them, just minutes after it occurred.

“Hamas is not a credible source for information period. And yet, so many in the media treat them as if their statements just as reliable as any other government statement,” host Dan Abrams emphasized as he was leading into his interview with Stelter.

Stelter noted that he’s usually the one defending the media, but this time “there is no defense here.” “This was an atrocious series of mistakes by many different major newsrooms all around the same time on Tuesday,” he decried. Worse yet, he warned: “I don't think there's been a follow-up or accountability to make sure doesn't happen again.”

[...]

He concluded by lecturing his media colleagues on how they should be like doctors and “do no harm” when reporting from disaster areas, both natural and manmade. “Don't make a terrible situation worse. War is already Hell. It should not be made worse by misreporting,” he said. “But I fear that on Tuesday the media made a bad situation worse. They actually did harm as opposed to trying to the opposite.”

It probably helped that Stelter said this on NewsNation, which the MRC loves to pretend isn't biased despite its clear right-leaning slant. But if Stelter had targeted his remarks at Fox News, Fondacaro would be in a rage, since criticism of Fox News is not allowed.

Indeed, when Stelter released a new book criticizing Fox News, the MRC once again went into full derangement mode. More on that soon.

MRC Still Pushing Bogus And Partisan Attacks On Google Search Results
Topic: Media Research Center

Google is continuing its partisan war against Google over the search results it manipulates to claim that the results are somehow biased. MRC executive Dan Schneider touted that shoddy and biased work at a forum, as documented in an Oct. 10 post by Luis Cornelio:

MRC Vice President Dan Schneider raised the alarm about Google’s ongoing election interference ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

Speaking at an Oct. 5 forum on Big Tech’s bias at the Paley Center for Media, Schneider highlighted an MRC Free Speech America bombshell report that unveiled how Google is once again burying Republican presidential campaign websites. Schneider warned that Google poses a threat to democracy in America through censorship. “Google’s probably the most effective at controlling and manipulating information,” Schneider said before warning that this censorship scheme presents a “real danger.”

“Our whole system of government is that each of us is to participate in this American experiment of self-government,” Schneider stated at the James P. Jimirro Media Impact Series forum. “But that only can take place if we have access to information, and when we've got a handful of people deciding what information should be accessible and what information should be hidden — like the campaign websites of several candidates on both sides of the aisle — that becomes a real danger.”

Our report, as detailed by Schneider, showed Google is out to get the most popular Republican candidates, going as far as highlighting the long-shot candidacy of Democrat Marianne Williamson and then-Republican candidate Will Hurd. “There was no Donald Trump, no Ron DeSantis, no Nikki Haley, no Vivek Ramaswamy, no Tim Scott,” Schneider said of the Sept. 27 MRC exposé. “We've been doing this for quite some time, and the search results remain the same.”

In fact, that "bombshell" is based on search terms that no normal human would use, seemingly chosen because they returned politically exploitable results, not because they were chosen through any sort of rigorous scientifc analysis. They also inject their own bias into the proceedings, using the word "Democrat" instead of "Democratic," which further invalidates their results.

Just as it had done before the first two debates -- and with an apparent need to try and run up the score for partisan purposes -- the MRC performed this biased exercise again before the third one, as Gabriela Pariseau wrote in a Nov. 8 post:

Republicans are about to have their third presidential primary debate, but Google continues to bury their campaign websites in search results.  

Google's search engine once again favored Biden in searches conducted by MRC Free Speech America one week prior to the third Republican presidential primary debate. MRC researchers broadly searched for “presidential campaign websites” as well as four additional searches specifying the party affiliation of even the third-party candidates. Google continued to bury Republican candidates’ websites if their websites showed up on the first page of results at all. Meanwhile, Google’s AI chatbot previously — and with clear bias — ranked the presidential candidates when asked, but following the release of an MRC study on Bard, it is now staying mum.

In a search for “republican presidential campaign websites,” Google did not produce a single Republican candidate’s website. Shockingly not even Donald Trump’s website appeared even though he is polling above 50 percent according to all major polls. The search did come up with results for Marianne Williamson – who is running as a Democrat – and recent Republican dropout Will Hurd - who ended his presidential bid nearly a month ago after weeks of polling at zero. 

The campaign websites of Republican candidates Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott and Chris Christie were nowhere to be found on the first page of Google’s search results.

[...]

Google had no problem retrieving incumbent President Joe Biden’s or Williamson’s websites in a search for “democrat presidential campaign websites,” as they appeared as the first and third results respectively. In fact, Williamson’s website somehow managed to appear on the first page of results for nearly every search, including a search for “independent presidential campaign websites.” 

When MRC researchers searched for “independent presidential campaign websites” neither Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s website nor Cornel West’s website appeared on the first page of search results even though they are the only two running as independents. Similarly, Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver’s website did not appear in Google’s first page of search results when MRC researchers searched for “libertarian presidential campaign websites.”

As before, these are searches that no normal human would perform. Pariseau also injected her own partisan bias into the work with the phrasing "democrat presidential campaign websites"; right-wing activists like those at the MRC have spent years trying to forcibly rename the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party" for the lulz. Pariseau also made sure to qhote her boss spouting the company narrative:

It seems Google is joining the charge in creating hurdles for Trump. “Much like New York Attorney General Letitia James, Google appears to be doing everything it can to make sure Trump isn’t a recognized candidate for the 2024 presidential election,” said MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider.

Pariseau lazily repeated her work before the fourth debate for a Dec. 5 post:

Google continues to prop up Biden and bury his opponents’ campaign websites in search results, according to the results of MRC Free Speech America’s newest study.

For the fourth time in a row, Google's search engine has once again favored Biden in searches conducted by MRC Free Speech America one week prior to the Republican presidential primary debate. MRC researchers broadly searched for “presidential campaign websites” as well as five additional searches specifying the party affiliation of even the third-party candidates. Google continued to bury Republican candidates’ websites if their websites showed up on the first page of results at all.

In a search for “republican presidential campaign websites,” Google did not produce a single Republican candidate’s website. Shockingly not even former President Donald Trump ’s website appeared even though he is polling above 50 percent according to all major polls. The search did, however, come up with results for Marianne Williamson – who is running as a Democrat – and recent Republican dropout Will Hurd - who dropped out of the race in October after weeks of polling at zero. 

The campaign websites of Republican candidates Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley and Chris Christie were also nowhere to be found on the first page of Google’s search results.

Again, Pariseau used the inaccurate and biased term "democrat presidential campaign websites," and again, she did not explain what normal human would conduct searches like these or why the results purportedly constitute "election interference," as she claimed in her headline.

MRC Whines That John Oliver Called Out Elon Musk
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center no longer wants to talk about Elon Musk's anti-Semitic leanings, or his vulgar attack on advertisers who don't like their ads on Twitter (well, X) showing up next to neo-Nazi content, or his many other controversies. It will, however, complain at length about John Oliver saying mean things about Musk. Tom Olohan was stuck with that duty in a Dec. 19 post:

Oliver engaged in fear-mongering about Musk’s management of X (formerly Twitter) after referring to Musk as a “less f*ckable reimagining of Billy Zane’s character from the Titanic” during the Dec. 17 edition of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. The leftist comedian went out of his way to minimize the actions of the censorship regime that preceded Musk’s purchase of X, insisting that they were merely “struggling with the impossible job of content moderation” rather than conspiring to censor conservatives. 

In the same monologue, Oliver whined about the dissolution of Twitter’s infamous “Trust and Safety” council, while ignoring the suspension of accounts such as The Babylon Bee for acknowledging biological reality and scathing scandals like the suppression of the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop scandal. Instead, Oliver suggested that the authors of these authoritarian decisions had been too lenient and panned The Twitter Files that exposed them.

Yes, Olohan is trying toreframe right-wing transphobia as "acknowledging biological reality." And as we've noted, the New York Post offered no independent proof of its Hunter Biden laptop story when it was released, so there was good reason to take caution in promoting it given the Post's status as a pro-Trump shill. Olohan further cheered that Musk is letting anti-transgender hate spread on Twitter:

Oliver did not mention most prominent accounts censored before Musk bought the platform but resigned himself to attacking Musk for restoring podcast host Alex Jones and “white supremacists” to the platform.

Since Oliver insisted that there was no conspiracy to silence conservatives, he completely ignored the censorship of biological reality before Elon Musk changed the platform’s rules to allow “deadnaming” and “misgendering.” Nevertheless, Oliver ranted that a “transphobic documentary” &mdash What Is a Woman? — was promoted by Musk on the platform.

Olohan whined further about Oliver's tweak of Musk:

Earlier in Oliver’s obsessive monologue, he mocked Musk for the outfits he wears to events, calling Musk a “less f***able reimagining of Billy Zane’s character from the Titanic.” 

NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham delivered a broadside against Oliver for this attack: “John Oliver is just gross. "F---able" is vulgar and dehumanizing, and if he thinks he fits that word, he's delusional.”

And, really, that's it -- those are the only two things that really bothered Olohan out of a 27-minute-long segment. He made no mention of other things Oliver brought up, such as how anti-Semitism has grown on Twitter since Musk's takeover, Musk's firing of most Twitter employees with an emphasis on getting rid of anyone who has criticized him, and his concluding comment that Musk is "a guy who was so desperate to be perceived as cool and funny on the internet, that he paid $44 billion to make it happen, only to discover that he still somehow couldn’t afford it."

Then again, Musk is still reportedly seething over Oliver's takedown of him, so look for the MRC to do even more whining about Oliver on Musk's behalf.

MRC Tries To Portray Intersex Athlete As Transgender
Topic: Media Research Center

You don't have to be a transgender person to incur the wrath of the Media Research Center -- merely being a female with high testosterone is reason enough. In 2022, for example, the MRC's John Simmons falsely claimed that soccer player Barbra Banda is transgender when, in fact, she is a biological female with a high testosterone level. Clay Waters had a similar meltdown over a not-transgender athlete in a Nov. 7 post:

Tax-funded PBS continues to push transgender issues: Amanpour & Co. on PBS Saturday morning featured Olympic runner Caster Semenya talking about her new book.

Semenya, who identifies and competes as female, is admittedly a special case. “She” is not a transgender and has had no kind of chemical surgery. Semenya was born with male XY chromosomes (females are XX) and the testosterone levels of a male. By her own admission “she” has no uterus or fallopian tubes and does not menstruate. Her condition is popularly described as “intersex.” She runs and wins medals as a female athlete.

Golodryga and Amanpour’s producers bypassed the inconvenient biological truths, cynically using Semenya’s case to leverage acceptance of biological males competing in female sports. The host wholly skipped the chromosome factor, an unchangeable trait that marks out Semenya as a biological male. Then again, science is not the strong suit of the transgender lobby.

(Semenya’s new book has been hailed in the usual left-wing quarters.)

Of course, Semenya is not transgender, though Waters wants you to think she is (even though he insisted on putting "she" in scare quotes). He continued to rant:

Semenya basically admitted she wasn’t a biological woman.

Semenya: ….For me, those who don't know, you know, the differences in my body, I'm born a woman, but I'm a woman with, no uterus, no fallopian tube. I don't go through menstruation and stuff like that….I have high elevated testosterone, but it does not really play a role in my training or role in my performances….

High testosterone has undoubtedly played a role in Semenya’s achievements.

The host fawned.

He continued to rant that Semenya should be lumped with "biological males competing in women’s sports" even though she's not a biological male.

Waters tried to accuse PBS and host Bianna Golodryga (whose first name he didn't even bother to say) of being "trans-obsessed," but it's clear that Waters is the trans-obsessed one by misleadingly trying to hang that label on Semenya and his usage of "transgender" as a noun.