Surrealism Strikes!

MRC Watch Dept. - A Thursday article from Politico notes, "Fox pundits can't decide whether to cheer or jeer Pamela Geller," the organizer of the Muhammad art contest in Texas that, Sunday, was attacked by two Islamist rightists. Throughout the week, there's been a fair amount of criticism in conservative circles of both that contest and of Geller, who co-founded the American Freedom Defense Initiative, an anti-Muslim hate group. Though the writers at the Media Research Center have written rather extensively on the coverage of the shooting and of Geller and her group, they have, as this blog has noted, suppressed this criticism from the right in order to portray elements of the press as liberal for offering the same sort of criticism.[1]

Today, Newsbusters, in response to that Politico piece, finally ran an article that acknowledged the existence of the conservative criticism but coming after a week of these shenanigans, the attempted spin by Melissa Mullins is surreal:

"Apparently, the people at Politico are shocked that Fox News is living up to its 'Fair and Balanced' slogan, claiming that the network personalities '…have seemingly been at odds all week over Pamela Geller.'  Oh my. Two different views – that’s almost unheard of!"

Moments that invoke the word "Orwellian" are, alas, significantly less than "unheard of" when dealing with the MRC.

--j.

---

[1] Thursday, for example, Clay Waters attacked an editorial in the New York Times which had argued that events like the Muhammad art contest "can serve only to exacerbate tensions and to give extremists more fuel,” but like the rest of the MRC writers, Waters declined to relay to his readers that Fox's top-rated host Bill O’Reilly had offered the same sentiment. So had ultra-right-wing radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham, Donald Trump, the Catholic League's Bill Donohue (whose articles are sometimes published by the MRC), and so on -- most of this happening on Fox through the week.

[This article was written for MRC Watch, a blog dedicated to a critique of the surreal work of the Media Research Center.]

Clay Muddies Waters on NY Times Rubio Story

MRC Watch Dept. - Most of the items on this blog deal, in one way or another, with the fundamental irrationality of the "media criticism" offered by the Media Research Center. The mailman who flew his gyrocopter into the capitol in an effort to raise awareness about money in politics posed no danger to anyone but the MRC's writers described him as having pulled a reckless stunt that endangered everyone in its path. Days later, Pamela Geller, who endangered everyone around her by holding a Muhammad art contest aimed at poking the hornet's nest of violent right-wing Islamist extremists, is praised by the same writers for standing up for "free speech" (a thing in which Geller doesn't even believe). When the contest was attacked, the MRC gang tried to scandalize every press outlet that reported the controversial nature of the event, even going so far as to object to Geller's group being described as "anti-Muslim," the uncontroversial fact that formed the would-be killers' motive. As noted on this blog, any reporter who tried to leave out every bit of information the MRC wanted suppressed would be unable to relay even the most basic facts of the story. There's no rhyme or reason to any of this. The MRC's overarching charge of a "liberal media" is a phantom and its writers are forced to indulge in whatever surreal distortions, double standards and doublethink are necessary to peddle this fantasy day in and day out to their very conservative audience -- reactionary confirmation bias as commerce.

Today, the New York Times ran an article about Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio and his place in a changing Republican party. It was co-authored by former National Review writer Jonathan Martin, it was quite favorable to Rubio and it appeared on the front page above the fold.

If you think this doesn't leave the advocates of the "liberal media" myth much cause to complain, you haven't met the MRC's Clay Waters. While conceding that the article was "rather positive toward Rubio himself," Waters griped that "the report and the surrounding headlines came down hard on the GOP as an old, stodgy, white party." Martin and co-author Ashley Parker wrote:

Republican voters are overwhelmingly white: The composition of the electorate in almost every contested state during the 2012 party primary was about 90 percent or more non-Hispanic white, according to exit polls.

Waters characterized these uncontroversial facts as "Martin rubbed in the GOP's demographic doom" and continues:

Back in March, Martin played the same theme of stick-in-the-mud Republicans by embracing moderate Jeb Bush, whom he viewed as helpfully lecturing his party that it 'must accept a changing country: that the path to the presidency will be found through appealing to voters who may not look like them.'"

Jeb Bush, the current front-runner in the 2016 Republican presidential race, has become a hate-figure on the far-right solely as a consequence of his refusal to race-bait on the immigration "issue" -- Bush's wife is Hispanic. This single departure from orthodoxy has led to his being denounced as a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only), a "moderate" and even a "liberal" but by any reasonable estimation, the notion that he's anything other than a very conservative Republican is strictly the domain of reactionary cranks. The GOP's problem with minorities, particularly Latinos, has led to a great deal of conversation within the party and in conservative circles. A faction of the GOP is as yet unwilling to forgo the political benefit that can still be squeezed from inflaming the anxieties and resentments of those who feel there are too many brown people with funny accents walking around and being catered to. As a senator, Rubio himself championed immigration reform only to see it ruthlessly torn to shreds by the right wing of his own party -- he ended up humiliatingly having to back away from the bill he, himself, had drafted.

Waters doesn't pretend as if this inter-party fight hasn't been happening. He doesn't even challenge any of the facts in the piece. His sole objection is that what he calls "the condescending theme of Republicans unprepared for a 'changing country'" -- a very real problem and one being addressed by a former National Review writer but one Waters doesn't want to acknowledge -- is on display in the New York Times.

And that's how the need to relentlessly feed the "liberal media" fairy tale ends up distorting a major propaganda coup for a conservative Republican candidate -- a pro-Rubio article by a sympathetic writer plastered on the front page of the New York Times -- into something bad.

--j.


[This article was written for MRC Watch, a blog that critiques the unfortunate work of the Media Research Center.]

Waters and Graham Crackers: More MRC Mush on the Muhammad Art Contest

MRC Watch Dept. - The cranks at the Media Research Center continue to grind out articles complaining about the coverage of the attempted terrorist attacks on the American Freedom Defense Initiative's Muhammad art contest in Texas. Los Angeles Times art critic Christopher Knight made a really obvious point:

"[AFDI co-founder Pamela] Geller and her claque pretend that they are the beleaguered defenders of a dire threat to 1st Amendment guarantees of free speech. Apparently we are not meant to notice that no attempt was made to shut down, censor or otherwise prevent their ugly art exhibition from taking place."

"....Other than those two amateur jihadis with assault rifles," interjected the MRC's Tim Graham. But to point out another of those really obvious facts, the 1st Amendment is a limitation on the power of government. Two Barney Fife-variety jihadis have no more power to revoke one's 1st Amendment rights than would some random stone in a forest. People who try to terrorize and kill other people are a problem but as long as the antagonist isn't the state, they're not a 1st Amendment problem. For all their carping on this matter, Geller and her American Freedom Defense Initiative cronies and apologists have at no point in any of this faced any effort to curtail their 1st Amendment rights.

Knight notes there's "no one to root for on either side" in this matter and no one comes out looking very good; Graham's characterization of this: "Knight can’t make any moral distinction between Geller and the terrorists."

Thursday, Clay Waters weighs in, going after some items in the New York Times. He slams the Times for double-standard-ism in declining to print cartoons of Muhammad while reprinting "offensive anti-Christian art," and while Waters' attribution to the Times of "eagerness" to reprint the latter is his own fantasy, he makes a fair point. He probably should have stopped there.

"The latest exhibition of the double standard," he instead continues, "involved the terror attack at a 'Draw Muhammad' exhibition in Texas Sunday night: the paper's pathetic response to the terrorist attack by two Muslim extremists," and then he fails to note in that response any actual example of double-standardism, despite tackling three different articles.

Waters starts with a Times story that pointed out Pamela Geller's "vitriol against Islam" and noted that local Muslim leaders had declined to demonstrate against the Muhammad art contest on the grounds that "there was no point protesting and giving her free publicity." By Waters' creative reinterpretation, this "drew propagandistic lines between bigoted Geller supporters and peaceful Texas Muslims." While this adds to the growing number of details about this story the MRC writers have, in effect, argued the media should suppress,[1] it doesn't even hint at any sort of double standard on the part of the Times.

Waters' next non-example is an article about Geller by Alan Feuer (whom Waters can't resist calling "notoriously shallow"):

"In typical hypocritical Times fashion, Feuer, a journalist who makes his bread on the First Amendment, is more scathing about Geller's sponsorship of free expression than on her would-be murderers."

Waters bolds some of Feuer's language to make his case: Geller has hosted "a long list of inflammatory events" like the Muhammad art contest, she went after a proposed Islamic cultural center in New York "with a typical blend of vitriol and media savvy," her blog attacks Islam "with language so venomous that PayPal, the service she uses to collect donations, once branded it a hate site." All pretty much basic, uncontroversial stuff. The lack of "scathing" commentary thrown at Geller's "would-be murderers" is hardly surprising; the article is about Geller, not them. It's unclear what Waters means by "Geller's sponsorship of free expression," as Geller has never offered any such sponsorship and, in fact, doesn't believe in free expression. Presumably, Waters meant this as a reference to Geller hosting those inflammatory events, in which case Waters' "hypocrisy" charge hinges, in part, on pretending as if those events, hosted by an org that is openly hostile to freedom, amount to "sponsorship of free expression."[2] And even if one did accept that Orwellian premise, where would there be any hypocrisy? Geller has a right to free expression but Feuer has no such right and can't criticize her?

That is what the MRC has effectively been saying in these many articles on this subject this week. They attack anything that can even remotely be interpreted as critical of the AFDI, to the point that if one were to bow to the MRC's complaining, it would actually be impossible to report even the basic facts of the story. The tale the MRC is spinning is that you have to love Geller or you're with the gunmen. That's made clear again by Waters' last non-example, an editorial from Thursday's Times which read, in part:

Whether fighting against a planned mosque near ground zero, posting to her venomous blog Atlas Shrugs or organizing the event in Garland, Ms. Geller revels in assailing Islam in terms reminiscent of virulent racism or anti-Semitism. She achieved her provocative goal in Garland -- the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to death by a traffic officer before they killed anyone.

Waters writes, "the paper blamed the target Geller, accusing her of bigotry and of inviting the attack." Geller's bigotry isn't something of which one must make accusations -- it's a matter of public record, no more debatable than gravity. When it comes to her "inviting the attack," Waters, as a retort, approvingly quotes one of Geller's remarks:

"Geller's response to similar criticism: '...that’s like saying the pretty girl was responsible for her own rape.'"

...an empty and completely idiotic comparison -- the "pretty girl" didn't do anything to deliberately provoke what happened to her. The correct metaphor in play here -- if one must resort to metaphors -- is poking a hornet's nest. Geller's intent can be inferred from the likely outcome of her actions. There are hardcore reactionary Muslims who are violently intolerant of criticism of their religion. Geller not only points this out at every opportunity, she throws rocket-fuel on the matter by inferring that all Muslims are like this and stages events that relentlessly attack their religion. One can only find her innocent of an intention to deliberately provoke a violent incident by arguing she's both an idiot and someone who doesn't even believe what she, herself, is saying.

The Times editorial says events like the Muhammad art contest "can serve only to exacerbate tensions and to give extremists more fuel," a point Bill O'Reilly and ultra-right-wing radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham made on Fox News Tuesday night (to date, the MRC has declined to relay this to its readers). The editorial ends:

Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.

Clay Waters can fume about "hypocrisy," but he can't find any more in this than he could in the rest. One can deplore both the terrorists and the trash they targeted and frowning upon the latter does nothing to justify the actions of the former. Just ask MRC founder Brent Bozell. If you're looking for double-standard-ism, he's a good place to start too.

--j.

---

[1] As this blog has noted repeatedly, the MRC has, among other things, attempted to scandalize the press for noting that the AFDI is "controversial," that its event was "provocative" (though MRC founder Brent Bozell would later use that same word to describe it), that it's "anti-Muslim" (even though that forms the motive for the would-be killers), and so on. Now, Waters would suppress the fact that local Muslims declined to protest in order to try to deny Geller and co. publicity. How, exactly, does the MRC think a working journalist supposed to report what happened?

[2] As this blog has noted repeatedly, the platform of the American Freedom Defense Initiative calls for, among other things, government surveillance of mosques, government closing of mosques that are found to advocate "jihad or any aspects of Sharia that conflict with Constitutional freedoms and protections," a ban on immigration of Muslims into non-Muslim nations and so on. You don't get to publish a platform like that then pose as defenders of freedom.


[This article was written for MRC Watch, a blog devoted to a critique of the dismal work of the Media Research Center.]

Bozell & Graham Do The Shuffle Over Anti-Muslim Hate Group

MRC Watch Dept. - On Monday, Scott Whitlock complained that the press was describing a controversial anti-Muslim hate group (the American Freedom Defense Initiative) as a controversial anti-Muslim group and he chose to spotlight some outlets that noted AFDI's designation as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. This led to a series of Newsbusters articles on the same theme[1] and by Tuesday night, Brent Bozell, the perpetually unhinged head of the Media Research Center, had tag-teamed with Tim Graham to offer his take on the matter. Bozell and Graham plunge off the abyss in their very first words:

"Liberals claim to be the world's boldest defenders of freedom of expression, which is, of course, nonsense. Here's another canard: Liberals also claim to be the most offended against anyone 'blaming the victim.' What liberals possess is an ideological system which identifies favored groups as victims, and supports squelching the free speech of anyone challenging them. One of those favored groups are Muslims."

Uh huh. Hold that thought.

A little background: Muslims consider any physical representation of their prophet Muhammad as blasphemy and on Sunday, the AFDI was holding a contest aimed at producing cartoons of Muhammad. The event was being held at the Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, a venue chosen because back in January, it had hosted a conference of Muslims "against terror and hate." As local ABC affiliate WFAA reported at the time:

"They gathered for a conference preaching peace, and stood united against the stereotypes...

'Whoever does these acts of terrorism, they don't represent us and they sure as heck do not represent me,' said Manal Abdulhadi, who attended the conference.

"She's referring to the killing of 12 people at a French satirical magazine a little more than a week ago by Islamic militants.

"Event organizers also condemned the attacks.

"'We consider these our enemies of Islam who are hurting Muslims and neighborly relations toward the world.'

"Inside the Culwell Center, it was a show of solidarity as everyone waved American flags."

Apparently, a gathering of peaceful Muslims who condemn terrorism was too much for the AFDI to bear. Its co-founder, the crackpot Pamela Geller, organized a protest of the event. Then Sunday's Muhammad art contest was, as the Dallas Morning News reported, "intentionally booked for the same site." And as the affair was winding down, a pair of gunmen turned up, intent on shooting up the event. Fortunately, they were killed by police before they caused any serious harm.

"So how did the press respond, ask Bozell and Graham? "Liberal journalists deplored AFDI's exercise of free speech and blamed the targeted victims for the attack."

My goodness! Where did this happen?

"Within hours, ABC described AFDI as 'notorious for its anti-Islamic views.' The shooters were not 'notorious,' the shooting targets were."

Even the, shall we say, less literate can do a Google search for the definition of "notorious" and get, "Famous or well known, typically for some bad quality or deed." While the AFDI is, in fact, notorious for its rabidly anti-Islamic views, the gunmen involved were entirely unknown to the public. Proof that bozells shouldn't try to use big words they don't understand.

"On the Monday evening news, all three 'objective' networks were repeating a leftist group's highly emotional 'hate group' designation."

And here, we get to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the group that so categorized the AFDI. Lindsey Bever of the Washington Post is slammed because, it's said, she "went to that same highly emotional leftist source for a smear." Bozell and Graham then drift away from the subject for a bit:

"NBC terrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann even claimed they [the AFDI] were not holding a free-speech event: 'These people are not standing by that principle, they're standing by the principle of hatred for other people. That's their guiding light. That's what they do. They are intentionally trying to provoke a response from the Muslim community.'

"This spin is obnoxious and offensive. By this standard, MSNBC spends most of its waking hours operating on the "principle of hatred of other people," people who define themselves as conservatives."

...except the AFDI portrays Muslims as reactionary, animalistic extremists who are violently intolerant of criticism of their religion. If those at AFDI believe their own propaganda, they were certainly trying to provoke an incident -- there's no other logical conclusion. Here's the spin Bozell and Graham deliver about AFDI's leaders:

"Activists like Geller and her partner Robert Spencer are making a provocative point about how free speech is being uniquely curtailed out of sensitivity to Muslims, who apparently 'earn' this sensitivity by being violent or making threats of violence."[2]

But, of course, no government agency prevented Geller and Spencer from holding their Muhammad art contest, just as no government agency has shut down their vile hate group in all the years it has operated. When a pair of would-be killers turned up to cause trouble, a lawman shot them down without the least concern about "sensitivity to Muslims." Bozell and Graham, whose overarching thesis, recall, is that liberals are "squelching the free speech of anyone challenging" their "favored groups," are advancing one of the MRC's patented right-wing versions of "free speech" that says a rightist's speech is being curtailed unless he's allowed to say whatever he wants without ever facing any criticism from other citizens exercising what is supposed to be their own right of free speech.

"...freedom of speech for criticizing Islam? There's apparently no room for that in America. They won't even show the cartoon."

To note the obvious, free speech doesn't include the right to have one's cartoon shown on the evening news, nor does it immunize one from being criticized by an NBC terrorism analyst, an analyst who was, by the way, entirely correct in noting the AFDI doesn't even believe in freedom. Its platform, as previously noted here, "calls for, among other things, government surveillance of mosques, government closing of mosques that are found to advocate 'jihad or any aspects of Sharia that conflict with Constitutional freedoms and protections,' a ban on immigration of Muslims into non-Muslim nations and so on." That, along with every other crazed and ugly thing ever uttered by the trash at the AFDI, is fully protected in the U.S. -- they enjoy all the freedoms they'd enthusiastically take from others.[3] The portrait by Bozell and Graham of an America where there's no "freedom of speech for criticizing Islam" bears no resemblance to the real thing.

The pair finally return to the SPLC:

"The Southern Poverty Law Center -- yes, that group that has also labeled the Family Research Center a 'hate' group for supporting traditional marriage, leading to an assassin using their 'hate map' to go to FRC's building and open fire, seriously wounding a security guard, with the intent to kill as many staff as possible, before being subdued.

"The leftist media know that. And still use SPLC as their source."

A fairly important point here:  the assertion that the FRC made the hate groups list "for supporting traditional marriage" is a direct and intentional lie, a defaming smear of the SPLC, just as is the ludicrous attempt to lay at the feet of the org the activities of that would-be assassin, as if the the SPLC's having noted the FRC's decades of hate somehow loomed larger than those decades of hate themselves. As the SPLC has made quite clear, the FRC made the list because of the group's promotion of anti-homosexual propaganda that is both defaming and entirely false. Not arguably false or a false that depends on interpretation but directly, demonstrably and incontrovertibly false. Because it would mean having to acknowledge literally decades of their wallowing in the worst sort of mendacity, all of it aimed at dehumanizing an entire class of persons (and would hinder their efforts to continue to do the same in the future), those from the FRC will under no circumstances address the real reason for their listing. To avoid the matter, they chalked it up to their opposition to gay marriage and their apologists at reactionary outlets like the MRC have followed their lead.

Bozell and Graham also smear the SPLC by describing its characterization of the AFDI as a "smear," depending on their own smear to discredit the org while they again refuse to address the reasons it so characterizes the AFDI. The material is readily available.[4]. Contrary to Bozell and Graham, one doesn't have to rely on liberals in this matter either. Conservative blogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs broke with Geller over her insane views. He paints a portrait of her as an obsessive, hatemongering dunce who hobnobs with racist terrorists; Geller has, in return, described Johnson as a "misogynist... in service of savages" and "now viciously pro-jihad." In 2013, Geller, Spencer and fellow anti-Muslim crackpot Frank Gaffney were banned from CPAC, the major righty shindig:

"Anti-Muslim activist and blogger Pam Geller said Saturday at a CPAC panel of rogue conservative activists that a board member of the group that puts on the annual conservative conference is worse than a terrorist killed by an American drone strike in Yemen.

"Geller said the reason she and the other panelists -- including fellow anti-Muslim activists Frank Gaffney and Robert Spencer -- were barred from CPAC because of the nefarious influence of board members Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.

"The three anti-Muslim activists have for years accused Norquist and Khan of being members of the Muslim Brotherhood and secret Islamist agents,but Geller took her rhetoric against Khan, a Republican consultant and former Bush White House official, to new heights today.

"'Am I saying that Suhail Khan is as bad as Awlack? He's worse!' she said, referring to Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen jihadi who was killed by a U.S. drone strike in 2011.

"She added that it was a 'crime' that she and the other panelists were not invited to CPAC, warning that the snub is a threat to the freedom of speech. 'Free men will have to resort to violence in the absence of the freedom of speech,' she added darkly.

"Spencer had his own anti-Khan tirade, encouraging activists in the room to 'go find him and take your picture with him.'

"Gaffney called Khan a 'prince of the Muslim Brotherhood.'"

The Anti-Defamation League has condemned the AFDI:

"Consistently vilifying the Islamic faith under the guise of fighting radical Islam, the group has introduced a growing number of Americans to its conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda... [A]ny organization or individual that opposes their efforts is dismissed as part of this Islamic conspiracy or compared to Nazi collaborators."

On Fox News on Tuesday, Bill O'Reilly himself called the AFDI's activities stupid and counterproductive and said the Muhammad art contest "spurred a violent incident." Right-wing radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham, appearing as a guest, agreed with him.[5] No reasonable person of any political orientation who has examined any real amount of this material could make any case that the SPLC's characterization is anything other than fair and accurate -- if anything, it understates matters.

But we're not dealing with the reasonable when it comes to Bozell and Graham or the Media Research Center. There, fairness and accuracy are the first casualty when it comes to the day's miserable work of defending enemies of freedom by sliming the liberals who criticize them as enemies of freedom.

--j.

---

[1] While the MRC gang has furiously objected to characterizing the AFDI as "controversial" or "anti-Muslim" or "notorious" or what have you, none among them have explained how the press could, if it chose to conceal these details, even report what happened -- this information the MRC wants suppressed formed the likely motive of the killers.

[2] Only a couple weeks ago, a mailman flew a gyrocopter into the capitol to try to bring some attention to the issue of money in politics. Though there was never any real danger to anyone, the MRC's writers went out of their way to describe it as a reckless stunt that placed in danger everyone in its path. In the Texas matter, the AFDI's decision to hold a blatantly provocative exhibition in the hopes of provoking an incident -- an incident that put hundreds of innocent people in direct danger -- is merely their "making a provocative point" about free speech.

[3] Even the Muslim community whose rights the AFDI would crush has spoken out in defense of her rights.

[4] Some of the info the SPLC has collected on AFDI co-founder Geller:

"Geller uses her website to publish her most revolting insults of Muslims: She posted (and later removed) a video implying that Muslims practiced bestiality with goats... Geller also has denied the genocide of Bosnian Muslims by Serbian forces in Srebrenica – calling it the 'Srebrenica Genocide Myth,' even though the Serbian government itself issued a state apology for the massacre. She wrote, 'Westerners are admitting to their role in something that didn't happen, and digging their own graves.'

"Geller will ally with virtually any individual or movement that expresses stridently anti-Muslim sentiments, no matter how otherwise repugnant. As a result, she has frequently rubbed shoulders with elements of white radicalism... Geller's anti-Muslim stance has... drawn the admiration of white nationalist and even neo-Nazi proponents on the extreme right – a rather remarkable feat, considering she is Jewish. She has been the subject of positive postings on racist websites such as Stormfront, VDARE, American Renaissance and the neo-Confederate League of the South.

"Geller was one of several prominent anti-Muslim activists cited by the Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik in the manifesto he posted online hours before killing 77 of his countrymen, mostly teenagers, at a left-wing youth camp in August 2011. In the wake of the attack, Geller downplayed the influence of her views on Breivik, making much of the fact that his screed had only mentioned her by name once. This conveniently ignored the manifesto’s dozen citations of her blog and 64 mentions of her SIOA partner, Robert Spencer. At the same time, Geller couldn’t help displaying some sympathy for Breivik’s actions against the young multiculturalists. 'Breivik,' she wrote, 'was targeting the future leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims.'

"Despite Geller’s willingness to publish outright lies (such as her baseless theories about President Barack Obama) and align herself with European racists and fascists, she likes to present herself as the voice of reason, unfairly tarred as an extremist.

From the SPLC's profile of Robert Spencer, AFDI's other co-founder:

"Spencer argues that radical Muslims, like Osama bin Laden, are interpreting the Koran properly. Peaceful and moderate Muslims, according to Spencer, either do not understand their own holy book or are faking their moderate stances. He depicts isolated incidences of extremism as normative and representative of the entire group. Critics have been quick to point out that Spencer’s argument requires an exceptionally narrow reading and that it exempts the Koran, hypocritically, from the benefit of interpretation granted to other religious texts, like the Bible. One example of this tactic can be seen in Spencer’s and Geller’s treatment of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the American-born project leader of the Park51 project aiming to build a mosque in lower Manhattan, near the site of the 9/11 attacks. By painting Rauf as a radical Islamist who was striving to build a 'victory mosque' to celebrate the destruction of the World Trade Center, the two leaders of SIOA sought to block the project while portraying all Muslims as radical – an assertion simply not supported by facts.

"Spencer also attacks individuals and organizations that claim to represent moderate Islam. This is most commonly done through accusations of those entities acting as secret operatives to destroy the West. Spencer engages in fear-mongering through steady reference to theories like 'stealth jihad,' eminent 'Islamization of America,' and the infiltration of Congress by 'Muslim spy interns.'

"Spencer is known to have associations with European racists and neo-fascists. However, he claims that his contact with them is merely incidental. On June 25, 2013, Spencer and Geller were banned from Britain after planning to attend a rally organized by the English Defence League, an anti-Muslim extremist group. According to a letter issued by the Home Office of the United Kingdom, 'The Home Secretary has reached this decision because you have brought yourself within the scope of the list of unacceptable behaviours by making statements that may foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.” Spencer’s response to the announcement was to accuse the British government of being a 'de facto Islamic state.'"

Visit the links for much more.

[5] While Bozell and his MRC now condemn as "blaming the victim" even perceived criticism of Geller in the wake of this incident, Bozell himself, back in January, had no trouble openly condemning French satirical publication Charlie Hebdo in the aftermath of the terrorist murders of its staff. In his current column, he rejects the obvious, that the AFDI was goading extremists; back in January, he agreed with the assessment of an Al Jazeera executive that "baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending moderate people as well." He called the material Charlie Hebdo published "a moral wrong":

"Well, you can defend a legal right; you cannot defend a moral wrong. Just because you have a legal right doesn't make it right. It's a moral wrong. What they're [the Charlie Hebdo staff] doing in insulting Islam, as these people were saying in al Jazeera – they were saying, they were goading – the terrorists. And some people are suggesting – well, that makes them apologists. No! They were goading the terrorists. Let's be make – let's be very clear about that. They were goading the terrorists."

As this article goes to press nearly 12 hours after that O'Reilly Factor broadcast, none of the MRC subdivisions have made a single mention of it.


[This article was written for MRC Watch, a blog dedicated to a critique of the work of the Media Research Center.]

Houck Sings A Different Tune on Coverage of Candidates [UPDATED]

MRC Watch Dept. - Last week when independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders formally entered the race for the 2016 Democratic nomination, his announcement was barely mentioned on the three major network evening newscasts, yet Curtis Houck (falsely) described the NBC "coverage" as "fawning" and NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell as gushing over Sanders, the candidate she had barely mentioned. Rather than comparing the near-non-coverage of Sanders to the extensive coverage offered his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, Houck complained that, "in contrast to the coverage Sanders has received thus far, the networks were far less warm toward any of the three declared Republican candidates." The three declared Republican candidates who, like Hillary Clinton but unlike Sanders, received full coverage of their campaign launches by all three network newscasts.

Monday, the entrance into the Republican race of retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former failed Senate candidate Carly Fiorina received similar short shrift on these same programs yet this time around, Houck sang a very different tune, complaining that the networks

"showed no interest in giving extensive to either candidate during their Monday evening newscasts with a combined one minute and 10 seconds of news briefs devoted to new 2016 candidates."

The networks, in his recounting, "downplay 2016 presidential announcements of Republicans... Clocking in with the least amount of time was the CBS Evening News... Meanwhile, NBC Nightly News clocked in with a measly 21 seconds of airtime..." And so on. Because his thesis is that Republicans were given short shrift, Houck avoids comparing the much more extensive coverage given to the other already-announced GOP candidates and instead compares the Carson and Fiorina coverage to the also-extensive coverage of Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The two events underscore the complete lack of seriousness with which those at the Media Research Center approach their work as media critics. There is a very real real problem illustrated by the raw data here. The corporate press is, as an institution, conservative and works to limit the range of opinions allowed in mainstream political discourse. It appears as if Carson and Fiorina may have gotten snagged (temporarily or otherwise) by this, treatment usually reserved for candidates like Sanders or, on the right, Ron Paul. Instead of tackling the very real problem in evidence (and because doing so would undermine the MRC's central project of portraying news media as "liberal"), Houck opts for a double standard and performs the intellectually empty gymnastics he needs to suit his pointless partisan ends. Too bad.

--j.


UPDATE (5 May, 2015) - On Tuesday, former Arkansas governor and failed 2008 Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee threw his own hat into the 2016 contest and he, too, was given very little coverage by the network evening newscasts. Over at Newsbusters, Curtis Houck again objected under the headline "ABC, NBC Barely Cover Mike Huckabee's 2016 Presidential Announcement." As before, Houck breaks it down by how many seconds the story ran. Using his chronometer (and setting aside that grading such things by the second can be rather silly in a situation like this), Huckabee actually received more coverage than Sanders from every network. CBS, which only mentioned Sanders' candidacy in a line tacked on to the end of an unrelated story, ran a full report on Huckabee, something none of the networks did for Sanders.


[This article was written for MRC Watch, a blog dedicated to a critique of the work of the Media Research Center.]

Press Describes Controversial Anti-Muslim Group as Controversial Anti-Muslim Group, Whitlock Objects

MRC Watch Dept. - On Sunday, two gunmen opened fire on a Garland, Texas venue hosting an event by the politically fascist anti-Muslim American Freedom Defense Initiative. The AFDI was holding an art contest judging drawings of the Prophet Muhammad -- the winner was to receive $10,000. Islam regards any visual depiction of the Prophet Muhammad to be a blasphemy, which, one would think, would remove any question as to the anti-Muslim nature of the event, even if one knew nothing more about it, but today, Scott Whitlock not only objected to the news networks' absurdly tepid suggestions it was an anti-Muslim event but also objected to any hint in the coverage of the nature of the AFDI:

"After armed gunmen opened fire at a free speech event in Texas on Sunday, all three networks on Monday chided the sponsor organization as 'notorious' or 'controversial.'"

...both of which are uncontroversial characterizations of the AFDI, which is openly, loudly, virulently anti-Muslim and perpetually mired in controversy as a consequence. As Whitlock's own quotes from the news stories make clear, there was no "chiding" involved in this. Indeed, some of the press outlets chided by Whitlock seemed to resist bluntly noting this information. On Good Morning America, host George Stephanoloulous asked, "How about the event itself? The organizers said it was organized to take a stand for free speech. Is it fair, also, to call it anti-Muslim?" As if this was even an open question. CBS This Morning reporter Omar Villafranca said "the group's president Pamela Geller has been accused of being anti-Muslim," as if this was anything other than an uncontroversial matter of public record.

Reporter Ryan Owens did much better when he correctly noted the AFDI is "notorious for its anti-Islamic views." Whitlock characterized this as "reporter Ryan Owens spun."

Whitlock cites part of a CNN article which quotes part of the AFDI's self-description from its own platform:

 The American Freedom Defense Initiative says it has several tenets, including:
• Freedom of speech, "as opposed to Islamic prohibitions of 'blasphemy' and 'slander,'" which quash open dialogue about jihad and Islamic supremacism, the group says.
• "The freedom of conscience -- as opposed to the Islamic death penalty for apostasy."
• Equal rights of all people, "as opposed to ... institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims" in Sharia law, or strict Islamic law.

Sounds like a bunch of freedom-fighters, eh? Because it would render rather difficult his effort to present as controversial reporters calling the AFDI "controversial," Whitlock declines to quote the rest of the article, which recounts the AFDI's controversial history, including its demagogic attacks on the "ground zero mosque" in New York and its efforts to place anti-Muslim ads in major metropolitan subway lines (" One ad depicted slain American journalist James Foley moments before he was beheaded by ISIS. The ad read, in part, 'IT'S NOT ISLAMOPHOBIA ... IT'S ISLAMOREALISM.").

While including that AFDI self-description and unequivocally calling the Texas event "a free speech event," Whitlock also declines to share with his readers the fascist political orientation of the AFDI, which, again, is a matter of public record. The group's platform, which has been publicly available for anyone to read for at least two years, calls for, among other things, government surveillance of mosques, government closing of mosques that are found to advocate "jihad or any aspects of Sharia that conflict with Constitutional freedoms and protections," a ban on immigration of Muslims into non-Muslim nations and so on. Pamela Geller, the org's founder, is a reactionary crackpot who, when not wallowing in insane anti-Muslim conspiracy theories[1] or hobnobbing with European fascists, calls for things like banning the burqa worn by Muslim women.

In brief, the AFDI cares no more about freedom than the murderous creatures who tried to shoot up its event.

--j.

---

[1] For example:

"The Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal in the West, according to an internal captured document entered into evidence in the largest Hamas funding trial in US history, “is eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.” All of the major Muslim organizations in the US are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. That is not a conspiracy theory, that is conspiracy fact."

Uh huh.


[This article was written for MRC Watch, a blog dedicated to a critique of the Media Research Center.]

Face the Nation Hosts Hate Group Leader; MRC Objects To Mention of Hate, Not Hate Itself

MRC Watch Dept. - Sunday on CBS News’ Face the Nation, something unusual happened. Host Bob Schieffer interviewed Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. That wasn’t the unusual part — Tony Perkins has been a fixture of news shows for years now. What was quite out of the ordinary was that Scheiffer actually noted that the FRC, which Perkins runs, has been cited as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

“I’m going to start with probably the most vocal opponent of same-sex marriage and that is Tony Perkins. He is the president of the Family Research Council. And, Mr. Perkins, I’m going to say this to you upfront: You and your group have been so strong in coming out against this– and against gay marriage that the Southern Poverty Law Center has branded the Family Research Council an anti-gay hate group. We have been inundated by people who say we should not even let you appear because they, in their view, quote, ‘You don’t speak for Christians.’ Do you think you have taken this too far?”

Schieffer made a rather serious error here: the SPLC doesn’t, as he suggests, designate the FRC as a hate group because of its strident anti-gay views. Rather, the FRC is so listed because of its long history of promulgating false propaganda against homosexuals. It’s a very important distinction because Perkins and his apologists have presented this designation as being, instead, a consequence of their promotion of “Christian values” and “traditional marriage.” Perkins demagogues the SPLC and doesn’t engage with the real reason behind the SPLC’s judgment. The corporate press, which regularly employs Perkins as a source, largely conceals this information as well, treating the FRC as a serious policy org. So Schieffer botched that set-up but he at least earns kudos for pointing out the hate-group designation, something those other outlets virtually never do.

Even this was far too much exposure for the MRC. The day of Perkins’ appearance, Jeffrey Meyer whined

“Schieffer apparently didn't see the irony of him scolding Perkins for saying that a national law legalizing gay marriage would result in an ‘open season on people of faith’ when earlier in the segment he told the FRC president that wanted to deny him the right to free speech and not invite him on the broadcast.”

Meyer’s grammatical error aside, perhaps someone should explain to the analysts at the Media Research Center that “the right to free speech” doesn't include the right to appear on Face the Nation.

Meyer chided Schieffer for displaying “some extremely sloppy journalism when he asked ‘[d]id you really say that justices who come down on the side of gays on this should be impeached?… Because there are reports to that affect’ despite Perkins denying ever making such comments.” But, of course, Perkins only denied making it after he was asked. He denied it (“No, I didn’t say that”); he denied it again; he denied it a third time. “I didn’t say anything about impeachment of the judges.” Meyer continued:

“Isn’t it the job of a news organization like CBS News to actually research things their guests have said rather than asking them to defend an alleged statement they made? Instead of doing some basic research on Perkins, Schieffer seemed more than happy to level baseless attacks at him while he clearly showed his displeasure with having to interview someone who doesn’t agree with his political agenda.”

Meyer of course offers no evidence that Schieffer has some “political agenda” in this matter but in saying Schieffer had leveled “baseless attacks” on Perkins, he flunked the very “basic research” test he’d slammed Schieffer for failing. Only a week before his Face the Nation appearance, Perkins had discussed the gay marriage case on a radio show with Jan Mickelson:

MICKELSON: Instead of doing what you implied could be done, that is, remove [the Supreme Court’s] jurisdiction… Congress could say “that was a ridiculous decision. We’re nullifying it and removing your jurisdiction. If you try it again, we’ll impeach your sorry keisters.”

PERKINS: I don’t disagree with you. I think you’re absolutely right.

Thursday, when a gaggle of right-wing figures sent a letter of protest to the president of CBS News, the MRC was there to pimp the cause:

“The letter slammed Bob Schieffer for his recent bigoted and biased remarks and put forward conservative support for Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins.”

The letter itself is a raving rant, pretty much boilerplate right-wing faux-outrage in which the signers amusingly declare that Tony Perkins does, indeed, speak for America’s Christians (something Perkins himself perpetually asserts, thus provoking the outrage) and that questioning him is an attack on same:

“The interview was more than sloppy journalism. It was an assault against Judeo-Christian people of faith.

“The work that FRC and its president Tony Perkins do to promote healthy families and traditional values is irreplaceable in our culture. To suggest, as Schieffer did, that FRC doesn’t represent Christians flies in the face of reality. The millions of Americans that we, the undersigned, collectively represent are proof of that.”

The signers describe the Southern Poverty Law Center as “discredited” — which is a lie — and says Schieffer used it “to smear the FRC,” which “is outrageous given that an SPLC supporter shot and wounded a security guard inside the FRC’s headquarters in 2012.”

Sensing a disconnect there?

As with every public comment by rightists in defense of the FRC on this matter, the letter smears the SPLC while utterly failing to address any of the substantive criticism it has leveled. The FRC has spent decades“purveying demonstrably false propaganda portraying homosexuals as subhuman degenerates, predatory pedophiles out to get your children, anti-family, anti-religious, disease-ridden junkie militants who live short, depressed lives, mentally deranged people who can be “cured,” who, as homosexuals, have no place in society. People who should be made illegal, both at home and abroad.” The letter writers don’t regard the FRC as a “radical group” for such activities; they slaps that label on the SPLC for merely pointing them out.

"CBS, however, continues to use them [the SPLC] as a ‘resource’ to smear upstanding Christians and Christian leaders such as Tony Perkins… CBS is now linked to the disgraced SPLC and anti-Christian bigotry.

"CBS, and Bob Schieffer in particular, should apologize on Face the Nation for using the SPLC to smear people of faith. If this does not happen, you will have made CBS and Bob Schieffer synonymous with the SPLC and the rabid anti-Christian bigotry that it represents."

Among the letter’s signers are crackpot conspiracist Frank Gaffney, Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association (another hate group), William Boykin of — what a shock — the Family Research Council, Gary Bauer, the former head of — you guessed it — the Family Research Council and L. Brent Bozell III, the founder and president of the Media Research Center.

Bozell couldn’t resist getting in some separate licks of his own, calling the Schieffer interview an "ambush" that went "beyond the pale" and endorsing the notion that Perkins speaks for America's Christians. Turning the world on its head, Karl Rove style, he raves:

“For CBS News to cite the SPLC as a resource is particularly outrageous given that one of the SPLC’s supporters shot and wounded a security guard inside the FRC’s headquarters a few years ago. Would it be okay if Fox News cited a white supremacist group to call into question a liberal group? Of course not."

Of course, the reason people object to the corporate press hosting FRC figures is that this really isn’t any different than hosting white supremacists and treating them as serious analysts. The SPLC has spent decades in a dedicated battle against white supremacist groups, which, in turn, lob at the SPLC the same kind of attacks as the FRC and its apologists — they make a poor target for the kind of Rove-style reversal.Bozell attempts.

Rather than a powerful right-wing lobby spreading a war of hate against a small minority, Bozell sees things like this: “This is another example of the left’s continued war against Judeo-Christian people of faith.” A dispatch no doubt filed from a gulag.

--j.

[Note: This article was written for MRC Watch, a blog dedicated to a critique of the Media Research Center]