On Monday, the night crew made it return as Nicholas Fondacaro and I will be serving as co-hosts for the week with Tim Graham out of the office. I led off with the liberal media’s lack of coverage on Hunter Biden’s corrupt art career (despite tough questions for the White House from some of their own reporters). I also touched on Carl Bernstein’s latest meltdown about Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson being harassed in public (which made Joy Reid a little too happy) before Fondacaro joined the conversation to catch him up on all that he missed out on during his week off. Tune during the second half to hear Fondacaro’s explanation of why Bernstein reminds him of Rebecca Black. And at the end of the show, we announced that we’ll be have not one, not two, but three special guests join us for Wednesday’s podcast. Listen below or wherever you get your podcasts.
Big Tech’s Online Freedom grade actually got worse in the second quarter of 2021, despite an appalling first quarter report card with a grade of “F.” Facebook led the plunge to yet another “F” for the industry intent on censoring conservative content. Twitter, Amazon, Apple, Google and YouTube joined Facebook in their authoritarian crackdown on conservative speech and anyone who questioned the lockstep leftist narrative. For the latest incidents of censorship, check CensorTrack.org. The two biggest censorship stories of this quarter involved further censoring former President Donald Trump, and restricting content related to COVID-19. The first quarter ended with Facebook in the midst of its appeals process to determine whether Trump would be allowed back on. The site’s response to the Oversight Board’s ruling was abysmal. Facebook had to eat crow this quarter when the Wuhan laboratory leak theory began gaining traction. The platform said it would stop censoring content concerning the origins of COVID-19 “in light of ongoing investigations.” Twitter, on the other hand, initially refused to say if it would stop censoring laboratory leak content. Amazon reportedly banned America’s Frontline Doctors from using its Amazon Web Services (AWS) product over the group’s views on COVID-19. Google continued to manipulate search results to discredit the Wuhan laboratory theory even after the White House announced an investigation into it. Additionally, it expanded its censorship efforts this quarter, moving into censoring Google Docs that contained COVID-19 related information. Big Tech’s censorship efforts did not stop with silencing users over COVID-19, however. Among Twitter’s worst incidents, it not only permanently banned Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe, it also suspended multiple accounts just for tweeting Trump’s statements. Apple may have reinstated Parler to its App Store, but Parler claimed Apple forced it to start censoring content to Apple’s standards. That is not a win for free speech. Some of YouTube’s lowlights include censoring Christian author and radio host Eric Metaxas, a speech by a sitting U.S. Senator, and no quarter would be complete without another swipe at conservative commentator Steven Crowder. The Media Research Center’s Free Speech America once again graded Big Tech using five categories, culminating in an overall grade for each company’s Online Freedom. The five areas included: Free Speech, User Transparency, Bias, Responsiveness to User Complaints and Fact-Checking. More freedom and less restriction is the only model that celebrates American principles and treats users as adults who can make their own decisions. Big Tech continued to demonstrate through its actions that it does not support American principles of free speech. When even major leftists like comedian Bill Maher call out Big Tech for suppressing freedom of speech, it is clear that there is a big problem. This quarter, Big Tech earned a collective “F” for the second quarter in a row. Facebook declined in three categories and its overall Online Freedom grade, while both Twitter and Apple fell to “F”s in User Transparency. No platform improved in any category this quarter. FACEBOOK Overall Grade: F Facebook continued to silence Trump, with its Oversight Board temporarily upholding his ban. The Oversight Board kicked the overall decision back to Facebook and gave the company six months to determine the former president’s future on the platform. Facebook gave Trump an added two-year suspension, and said it will assess the decision to ban him when those two years have expired. It also infamously removed a “Jerusalem Prayer Team” page with “75 million followers” after the page was allegedly targeted by “radical Islamic organizations,” according to the group’s founder Dr. Michael Evans. Facebook was forced to stop blocking content about the COVID-19 Wuhan Lab leak theory this quarter, yet the platform refused to touch left-wing political influencers and organizations with real histories of promoting violence. Free Speech: Facebook set new rules on “Heightened Penalties for Public Figures During Times of Civil Unrest and Ongoing Violence” and used them to extend Trump’s suspension to two years. The platform removed the page of pro-life nonprofit LifeSiteNews. Facebook blocked users from linking to a New York Post story that reported on Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors reportedly purchasing her fourth home for $1.4 million. Fact-checkers have also continued to run rampant on Facebook’s platform. Facebook pages with posts that receive fact-checks suffer from a limited reach in response to fact-checks, until the posts are removed. AP News fact-checked a graphic from the Media Research Center on Facebook that explained what the Democratic Party’s H.R. 1 election bill would do to the country. The biased news outlet falsely claimed that the graphic was “missing context.” Grade: F User Transparency: Facebook’s Oversight Board rebuked the platform for how it handled banning Trump. Facebook did not hold Trump’s suspension to the same standard as normal penalties against other users. The Oversight Board stated: “Unfortunately, the lack of transparency regarding these decision-making processes appears to contribute to perceptions that the company may be unduly influenced by political or commercial considerations.” The Oversight Board directly called out Facebook for inadequately implementing its policies equally to every user. As a result, Facebook claimed that it would increase transparency in June. The platform published information about how its strike system operates but did not provide many specifics regarding what content will or will not receive a strike. It also planned to provide “more context” to some pages, and will label some pages as “satire,” or a “fan page.” Grade: D Bias: Facebook has a notorious history of banning conservatives and conservative organizations while still allowing leftists and foreign propaganda outlets to use the platform for their political agendas unscathed. In the past quarter, Facebook suspended Trump for two years and removed the page of the pro-life nonprofit LifeSiteNews. The company has also reportedly refused to donate political contributions to elected officials who did not vote to certify the 2020 presidential election, which included eight Republican senators and 139 House Republicans. Meanwhile, political contributions will resume as normal for Democrats. Additionally, Facebook blocked the link to a New York Post story that criticized Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors for reportedly purchasing her fourth home for $1.4 million. In comparison, Facebook still allows far-left political influencers on the platform despite their egregious actions. Grade: F Responsiveness to User Complaints: At the request of Facebook’s Oversight Board, the company introduced new policies regarding how it handles the accounts of politicians. Rather than support free speech, Facebook banned Trump for two years but still managed to implement new rules for politicians that meant greater censorship. In the past, Facebook allowed the posts of politicians to remain active for “newsworthiness” even if they broke some of the platform’s rules. However, the company has decided to censor politicians now as they do normal users. And despite users complaining about Facebook censoring discussions regarding COVID-19 and vaccines, the company has appeared to double down. Alleged Facebook insider Morgan Kahmann went public in an interview with Project Veritas to reportedly expose Facebook’s new system to crack down on COVID-19 vaccine criticism. While Facebook appears to respond quickly to its Oversight Board, the company ignores the concerns of average users. Grade: F Fact-Checks: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Facebook and its fact-checkers censored claims that COVID-19 was manufactured in a laboratory in Wuhan, China. However, Facebook backtracked on that decision in May as the laboratory origin became a more widely accepted possibility. PolitiFact quietly retracted one of its fact-checks about the laboratory leak theory. The fact-checker originally issued a “Pants on Fire” rating on an article mentioning an interview that Fox News host Tucker Carlson had with Chinese virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan. She said that COVID-19 was “created” in a lab. USA Today, another of Facebook’s fact-checkers, updated one of its fact-checks of the theory in a similar manner. The possibility of COVID-19 originating in a laboratory always existed, but Facebook and its fact-checkers appeared content acting as a mouthpiece for the Chinese Communist Party. Grade: F TWITTER Overall Grade: F Twitter continued to be one of the worst platforms for censorship. Twitter shut down multiple accounts in Q2 for sharing statements released by Trump, who the platform banned in Q1, claiming the accounts were a form of “ban evasion,” a violation of Twitter’s policies. Twitter also explained that because it has “permanently banned” Trump. It won’t even allow his archived tweets on the platform in any form. Free Speech: Twitter permanently banned Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe this quarter after having banned Project Veritas in Q1. The platform also issued temporary suspensions to The Post Millennial journalist Ian Miles Cheong, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), and sports commentator Jason Whitlock. Whitlock’s suspension was one of several similar incidents related to the story of Black Lives Matter leader Patrisse Khan-Cullors purchase of a new home that Twitter and other platforms actively worked to suppress. Twitter also went after an anti-Critical Race Theory account and California’s GOP Chairwoman, Jessica Millan Patterson. Once the COVID-19 Wuhan laboratory leak theory gained traction, Twitter initially refused to say if it would stop censoring content related to the theory. Grade: F User Transparency: Some things don’t change. Twitter often does not provide a reason for taking action against a user, or does not provide information as to which specific tweets were in violation. At other times, their explanation didn’t make sense, and no clarification was provided.Twitter made a massive attack on transparency this quarter and stated that it would not allow any archived tweets from Trump to appear on its platform since his account is permanently suspended. This quarter also saw the launch of Twitter Blue, a new paid subscription service. The company admitted in its FAQ that the subscription is not refundable if a paid account is suspended. Worse, the subscription will also have to be manually cancelled in the event of an account suspension or charges will continue to recur despite the suspension. Twitter’s guidelines remain vague and subjective, guaranteeing biased enforcement. Grade: F Bias: Twitter once again censored many conservatives in Q2. The platform was highly biased in the enforcement of its policies. Twitter has falsely claimed that it acts to prevent bullying and incitement or glorifying of violence. The Post Millennial editor-at-large Andy Ngo cataloged numerous tweets against him that were not censored — at least not before he pointed them out. It also did nothing to prevent the posting of Representative Maxine Waters’s (D-CA) comments encouraging George Floyd protestors to “stay in the street” and “get more confrontational.” It banned a New York Post exposé on Hunter Biden in Q1, claiming that it was based on “hacked materials,” a claim that proved false. Then Twitter allowed the posting of an article that actually did rely on hacked materials in Q2, in addition to reporting by ProPublica based on leaked tax returns. Twitter also failed to fact-check leftists when they propagate fake news. Grade: F Responsiveness to User Complaints: There were reports that Twitter refused to take action against accounts reported for harassing women. Twitter finally agreed to require ‘80s pop star Richard Marx to delete a tweet in which he celebrated Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) neighbor’s violent physical attack on him only after Paul made enough noise about it. Twitter also finally caved to pressure and censored the Hamas Political Bureau chief, Ismail Haniyeh, amid fighting between Palestinians and Israel. But it refused to censor the Ayatollah Khamenei, leader of the world’s largest exporter of terrorism — Iran. Grade: D Fact-Checks: Twitter’s version of a fact-check is less intrusive than Facebook’s, typically consisting of a linked warning label that appears below the tweet. The site admitted that “in most cases,” when such a label is used, the platform will also “[r]educe the visibility of the Tweet on Twitter and/or prevent it from being recommended.” The fact-check pages that are linked are typically not one “authoritative” article written by a fact-checking organization as Facebook’s are. Rather, Twitter has created pages that are a roundup of many articles and tweets about the topic, though nearly all of them come from left-leaning sources. Twitter continues to use these most heavily for COVID-19 related tweets, even when the user is linking to official sources in the tweet. In some cases, when the warning label is utilized, Twitter will also restrict the ability to like or share the tweet, as was done in at least one case this quarter related to a COVID-19 vaccine injury report. Grade: D AMAZON Overall Grade: F Amazon has continued to censor products in Q2 challenging its preferred narratives — especially books — following a Q1 rife with censorship and anti-conservative bias. In Q1 Amazon quietly altered its policy “to explicitly forbid books that promote ‘hate speech,’” according to Just The News, “a major rule change that could be used to rationalize action against a broader range of books sold by the digital retail giant." This opened the floodgates for the massive online marketplace to continue its modern day book burning of works written by conservative authors. Some have also accused Amazon of deleting negative reviews of books written by famous liberals to help pump up their performance on the company’s marketplace. Others have suggested Amazon deleted reviews it doesn’t like. Amazon’s cloud-computing arm, Amazon Web Services (AWS), reportedly banned nonprofit, America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS), from using its services for challenging the company’s liberal orthodoxies on the coronavirus. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post, which happened to halt its presidential fact-checking program under the Biden Administration during Q2. Free Speech: Amazon temporarily blocked sales of yet another book from its massive digital marketplace about the excesses of transgender ideology in Q2. This came after Amazon’s contentious removal of Ryan T. Anderson’s book, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment,” in Q1, which is also critical of the contemporary transgender movement. After Maria Keffler spoke with the Christian Post about Amazon’s block on her book, “Desist, Detrans, & Detox: Getting Your Child Out of the Gender Cult,” Amazon reportedly sent her an email indicating sales of her book had been blocked in "error." The alleged website for Andrew Meyer from the ‘Don’t Taze Me Bro’ meme stated in a blog that Amazon temporarily banned sales of the book “Don’t Taze Me Bro: Real Questions, Fake News and My Life As a Meme.” The blog further stated that Amazon told Meyer it had done so in “error.” The purported website of telecommunications consultant Martin Geddes accused Amazon in a blog of having removed a book by Geddes titled "Open Your Mind to Change - A Guidebook to the Great Awakening." The book discusses politically incorrect topics like the deep state and fake news. But, it’s not just sales Amazon is going after. The company suspended multiple ads for the Media Research Center’s own CNSNews.com Commentary Editor Rob Shimshock’s new book, “Nightmare Crescendo: Breaking the Chokehold of Woke Capital” for containing controversial topics, having incorrect capitalization and improper usage of the word “whose” only after he began targeting his ads to a larger audience and with more key terms. Others on Twitter have accused Amazon of censoring books from conservative authors on the platform this quarter as well. AWS took the same action against the heavily criticized and censored AFLDS in Q2, as it did to the free-speech focused social network Parler in Q1. Amazon banned AFLDS from using AWS’s web hosting services, the same as it did to Parler, essentially wiping their website off the internet until AFLDS was able to find an alternative solution. Grade: F User Transparency: At least two of the books Amazon removed this quarter were reportedly taken down in “error,” and a bevy of other conservative books were also reported as unavailable for purchase on its digital marketplace for periods of time. Amazon’s reported explanation, according to The Christian Post, that it was an “error,” does not contribute to user transparency. Additionally, Amazon could provide greater detail when explaining why books have been taken down, whether in error or not. Further eroding Amazon’s transparency, it came out in April that Amazon had co-hosted an event in November of 2020 where Renwei Electronics received what BuzzFeed News described as a “warm welcome.” According to BuzzFeed, Renwei’s “smart prison” system is used to track prisoners in China’s Xinjiang region, “where more than 1 million Muslim minorities have been locked up.” At the event, Renwei was noted as one of six “outstanding entrepreneurial companies,” and was allowed to give a speech to some of China’s top investors. Grade: D Bias: Nearly all of the reports of banned books from this quarter were conservative books. While books removed in “error” were often reinstated within days of the public complaints about the incident, the comparatively minimal number of leftist books that endured such treatment demonstrates clear bias. Amazon also clearly displayed its bias for woke culture when it began pushing native advertising about its “inclusive health benefits and a comfortable wage” using a transgender employee named Luv-Luv. In the ad, Luv-Luv pointed out that Luv-Luv joined Amazon for the health benefits it offered transgender people. “Amazon has paid for four surgeries for me. That’s probably over $210,000,” Luv-Luv remarked in the ad. Grade: F Responsiveness to User Complaints: Amazon has shown that it is quick to respond to the complaints of authors when their books appear to have been removed from its marketplace, as it did for Keffler and Meyer. The answer may or may not be something that the author agrees with, but rarely does Amazon remove someone’s book listing without also alerting them that it has done so. However, it could provide greater detail when explaining why books are taken down, whether in error or not. Grade: F Fact-Checks: N/A APPLE Overall Grade: F Apple is another Big Tech company that actually got worse in the second quarter.It agreed to reinstate the Parler app to its App Store, but with stipulations. Parler must employ content moderation to Apple’s satisfaction, amounting to forced censorship, Parler reported. Apple neither confirmed nor denied this, contributing to its falling User Transparency grade this quarter. Free Speech: Apple reinstated Parler, but censored free speech in the process. Mark Meckler, formerly the interim CEO at Parler, said Apple’s version of the app includes censorship. Meckler told Stuart Varney of Fox News that Apple “required” the app to "censor content that is aimed at peoples’ inherent characteristics, immutable characteristics; race, gender, sexual orientation" before agreeing to approve it. The tech giant also allegedly cut ties with Antonio García Martínez, a former Facebook employee and author of the memoir Chaos Monkeys, just a few weeks after Apple hired him. The company took action after its employees accused Martinez of being a potentially unsafe misogynist and cited bits and pieces of his book as evidence. Martinez maintained in a Twitter thread that Apple, “actively recruited” him and that the company was “well aware” of the distinction between his literary and professional “personas.” Grade: F User Transparency: Apple has not put out a statement confirming or denying whether it required Parler to censor certain content on the iOS version of the Parler app. The company also defended its decision to fire Martinez when it told Bloomberg News that “[b]ehavior that demeans or discriminates against people for who they are has no place here.” Martinez, however, responded in a tweet saying that Apple’s implied allegations of objectionable behavior while working for the company are “categorically false.” Grade: F Bias: Apple’s bias is obvious. It removed the Parler app from its App Store in the first quarter over claims that the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was organized on the platform. However, it was later reported that much of the organizing occurred on Facebook. Apple took no action against Facebook’s App Store status and didn’t force the company to amend its moderation policies to address the issue. Instead, Apple forced Parler, which brands itself as a free speech platform, to create a censored version of its app in order to regain App Store approval. Grade: F Responsiveness to User Complaints: Apple responded to user complaints by reinstating the Parler app. It almost made things worse. The company did little to explain its app review process until mid-April. Apple then responded to a letter sent three weeks earlier by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) asking Apple to answer for its actions. Apple defended the mere 24-hour window it gave Parler to respond to its content removal requests, citing alleged previous compliance failures and “the egregiousness of the violations and ongoing potential for further harm.” Apple claimed that after the 24-hour period, “Parler did not communicate a sufficient plan to improve its moderation of user-generated content in the app.” Grade: D Fact-Checks: N/A GOOGLE Overall Grade: D Google might not be the first company to come to mind when thinking about Big Tech censorship, but the search engine is capable of devastating tactics. Google Drive interfered with a doctor or an entire group of concerned citizens by meddling with their ability to share documents amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Google has been historically secretive about the workings of its search algorithms but is transparent about catering to the ever-changing whims of political-correctness in language policing. Free Speech: Google Docs restricted Dr. Vladimir Zelenko in June, the first doctor to advocate for alternative COVID-19 treatments, from sharing six different documents. Users received a terms of service note when the doctor tried to share the documents with them. “We're sorry. You can't access this item because it is in violation of our Terms of Service,” the Google alert explained. It was unclear what rule was broken. COVID-19 was a major theme of Google’s subtle, but censorious policies in 2021. “Google is blocking access to a PDF document that has compiled 106 pages of screenshots of mainstream media reports about people who have allegedly experienced negative side effects or died after taking a COVID-19 vaccine and social media testimony from those who have alleged adverse vaccine reactions,” Reclaim The Net reported April 23. In a move that may be a warning of things to come, Google also launched an “Inclusive Language” warning program in late May. Even after the White House announced it would be investigating the Wuhan laboratory leak theory, Google continued to manipulate search results to prevent the further spread of the theory. Grade: F User Transparency: Google’s censorship is more underhanded than other Big Tech companies because it is a search engine. Conservative commentator Dana Loesch said links shared in a live discussion in late April were deleted: Loesch accused Google of deleting "every single link" and "especially any links to [her] newsletter" from her radio show's live discussion. Loesch posted a screenshot on Twitter from what she described as "the heavily Google-policed live discussion" that showed random links posted to the discussion by her staff that got deleted. Google’s willingness to embrace PC ideology was on display when it announced in May that “gendered” language in Google Workspace apps would trigger warnings such as: “This indicates gender. If you would like to choose gender inclusive phrasing consider: chair, chairperson.” The new warnings followed Google’s recently updated documentation policy, which advised developers to avoid “ableist” and gendered phrases, even in tech jargon. Grade: D Bias: Google’s opposition to online freedom often manifests itself as bias by omission.Conservative commentator and Grabien Media founder Tom Elliott posted screenshots in late May that showed the purported results of three different search engines when using the term “rand paul” in the respective search bars. The search was reportedly made after Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) was sent a suspicious package with an image of a gun pointed at his head. Among Bing, DuckDuckGo and Google, Google was the only search engine with no articles in the search results about the incident featured in the screenshot. Luke Rudkowski, founder of the independent news outlet We Are Change, encountered a similar disparity. He posted screenshots in April after reputedly searching “Riots today” on DuckDuckGo and Google. The screenshot of DuckDuckGo’s results showed race riots in Minnesota. The screenshot from Google showed results concerning past riots in Brixton, UK and the Capitol Riot. Grade: F Responsiveness to User Complaints: Google has shown at least some willingness to play ball, but on unfair terms. “On Monday, Alphabet Inc.’s Google also indicated it would allow Parler back on the Google Play store if the app meets guidelines,” Bloomberg reported. The same article attributed a statement to Google: “Parler is welcome back in the Play store once it submits an app that complies with our policies.” Bloomberg then recounted, “The company added that the app had remained available on Android via other channels despite the January removal from Google Play.” Grade: D Fact-Checks: While Google does not use fact-checks like Facebook, it does rely heavily on Wikipedia for content that is provided in “knowledge boxes” above search results. A study found that only one-third of Google searches result in clicks, in part due to the knowledge boxes that seemingly provide the information sought. However, Wikipedia’s co-founder Larry Sanger has called out the platform for being heavily biased in the past. Grade: D YOUTUBE Overall Grade: D YouTube has a famous history of censoring creators and does so on a massive scale. Conservative commentator Steven Crowder voiced his concerns as early as 2019 after reading YouTube policy updates that a “purge” on YouTube was imminent. His concerns have since been justified. YouTube channels are given multiple warnings or “strikes” for alleged policy violations, regardless of whether conservatives agree with the merit of those policies themselves. YouTube embarrassed itself by having its CEO accept an award from a company that is publicly supported by YouTube. Free Speech: In early June, Christian author and radio host Eric Metaxas tweeted that YouTube purged content from his channel. The Louder with Crowder team said in mid-May that YouTube suspended conservative commentator Steven Crowder’s channel for two weeks and issued a second strike against it. YouTube had also previously participated in censoring content concerning the origins of COVID-19, and it is unclear whether it has stopped, as the company seems not to have made a statement about it. Antonin Scalia Law School Professor Eugene Kontorovich in May told the Media Research Center (MRC) that YouTube removed video of an interview he did on RT, a Russian propaganda outlet, saying that YouTube told him that a "team" of reviewers "think" the video violated the platform's guidelines. YouTube also took down a speech by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and suspended his account for a week. YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki was quoted in a promotional video for an event explaining, “I also really care deeply about the freedom of expression.” However, she also admitted YouTube “removed nine million videos last quarter and almost all of them – over 90 percent – we removed with machines, which is good because it means if there’s content that’s violative, we find that really quickly.” Grade: F User Transparency: YouTube is known for being up-front about the fact it censors via frequent reports. YouTube explained in early April that it created the new Violative View Rate (VVR) as part of its Community Guidelines Enforcement Report. YouTube claims that VVR helps leadership “estimate the percentage of the views on YouTube that come from violative content.” Wojcicki touted the move as a shift toward “more transparency around the effectiveness of our systems.” However, at the same time, YouTube has strongly denied that its systems or moderators have biases that impact the platform. Wojcicki appeared at the Poland-based Impact ‘21 conference in May and denied YouTube’s increasingly blatant censorship of conservative voices online, making the absurd claim that when humans create algorithms, their biases aren’t coded into the algorithms: “We build systems. The systems have no concept of political view or bias.” Even Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) commented in 2019 that algorithms contain “inequities” that “get translated… if you don’t fix the bias, then you’re just automating the bias." YouTube made a public mockery of itself after Wojcicki received a free speech award from an event listing YouTube as the top ranking “Signature Sponsor.” “After an unprecedented year of YouTube censorship, the Freedom Forum Institute, a group which states that its mission is ‘to foster First Amendment freedoms for all,’ has given YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki a Free Expression Award,” Reclaim The Net reported April 16. Grade: D Bias: Susan Wojcicki may deny that YouTube has a liberal bias, but the platform’s record proves otherwise, particularly by targeting conservative commentators like Crowder and Metaxas. Big Tech platforms are famous for censoring conservatives allegedly by mistake. However, YouTube reinstated the anti-conservative, anti-free speech operation known as Right Wing Watch (RWW) after leftist backlash, claiming the ban was an accident. It appeared that once YouTube was put on notice that the RWW channel was using conservative video clips in an attempt to discredit and deplatform conservatives, it was quick to apologize and reinstate the channel. A change in YouTube’s ad policy this quarter left the door wide open for bias. While its new ban on masthead ads for alcohol sales, gambling and prescription drugs should be immune from bias, the ban on election and political ads, according to reporting by Axios, will be subject to a case-by-case review if they are determined to be “political in nature.” Grade: F Responsiveness to User Complaints: YouTube has been at least somewhat reliable when asked for feedback. When contacted after Metaxas claimed to have been censored in June, a YouTube spokesperson responded the next day, explaining: “We terminated the Eric Metaxas Show channel in accordance with our longstanding three strikes system. Specifically, we removed content that violated our policies on COVID-19 medical misinformation and presidential election integrity.” To YouTube’s credit however, it does maintain a Twitter account, TeamYouTube, that directly addresses user concerns. Even so, the account sometimes fails to respond to major inquiries, such as this one asking: “Can you please reinstate @RebelNews and @Infowars to YouTube monetization?” Grade: C Fact-Checks: YouTube posts fact-checks directing users to one of the worst sources of misinformation: Wikipedia. A video from conservative commentator Scott Adams, famous for his Dilbert comics, was fact-checked for briefly mentioning QAnon theorists. He discussed Big Tech’s purge of QAnon theorists late in a May 26 video. YouTube included a fact-check box linking to Wikipedia beneath his video that explained: “QAnon, or simply Q, is a discredited far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic pedophiles run a global child sex trafficking ring and conspired against Trump during his term in office. QAnon is commonly described as a cult.” All for a cartoon. Conservative commentator John Stossel has also been slapped by fact-checks leading to Wikipedia. Stossel published a video, “The Climate Censors,” on June 8 describing how liberals are using Big Tech to censor conservative perspectives on climate change into oblivion. YouTube’s Wikipedia-linked fact-check explained: “Climate change includes both global warming driven by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases and the resulting large-scale shifts in weather patterns.” One of Wikipedia’s founders, Larry Sanger, posted a blog condemning the platform he created for being “More One-Sided Than Ever.” He accused Wikipedia of writing “obviously one-sided whitewash” to protect then-Presidential candidate Joe Biden. Grade: D Parler, Rumble, Gab and Others When conservatives rightfully called out Big Tech platforms for censorship and suppression of free speech, a common refrain from the left was that they should start their own platforms. Several alternative platforms have stepped up to the challenge, some claiming to hold to free speech values: Parler, Rumble, Gab, FreeTalk and CloutHub. But it turns out the left — and Big Tech — were not serious about their challenge to free speech-loving Americans. Even after some of the more prominent startups, like Parler and Gab, began to grow, Big Tech has censored them and attempted to shut at least one of the new alternative platforms down. Given how new these alternative platforms are, there was not much data on how they moderate content. Parler relaunched in Q2, with new hosting for its web site. It also submitted to Apple’s moderation requirements to gain approval for its iOS app to be restored, according to the platform. Google has yet to allow the app back in its Google Play app store, but it can be “sideloaded” onto Android phones. Odysee, a YouTube alternative, appears to have acquiesced to Apple’s anti-speech actions. Users have said the platform blocks searches of certain subjects, like “COVID,” and displays a message that “This search term is disabled to comply with iOS content guidelines.” Blocked searches are still available on the web platform. Given the relative newness of many alternative platforms, MRC Free Speech America did not assess grades for them this quarter. As more data become available on new platforms, they may be added to future report cards. Newer platforms that may be monitored include but are not limited to: Parler, Rumble, Gab, CloutHub, MeWe, FreeTalk, Telegram and Odysee.
The Biden administration has continued its war against what it considers COVID-19 misinformation. Now it decided to frame the pro-censorship fight as a battle for “equity.” U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy panicked about the threat of COVID-19 and so-called “misinformation” online in a July 22 address, according to Reclaim the Net. Murthy claimed that misinformation, rather than the virus, threatens peoples’ health. “‘Misinformation is a threat to our health, and the speed, scale and sophistication with which it is spreading is unprecedented,’” Murthy said, according to Reclaim the Net. “‘I will not hesitate to say that and to call for greater accountability and action to address health misinformation.’” Of course, it’s not a leftist policy unless there is a woke angle. “‘We recognize that equity must be at the center of our work to confront health misinformation. Here’s why: Because unequal access to the health care system, education and technology, means that some people have less access to accurate health information than others,’” said Murthy. “‘And when those people instead encounter health misinformation, it can worsen their health outcomes, which exacerbates health inequity in what becomes a vicious cycle.’” Apparently, inequality has become “inequity,” and the goalposts have shifted once again. Murthy also mentioned his recent report, which listed eight censorship recommendations for Big Tech platforms: “‘Last week, I issued a Surgeon General’s Advisory to call the nation’s attention to the threat of health misinformation. Since then, we have continued to emphasize what individuals can do to stop health misinformation in its tracks. That includes asking everyone to raise their own bar for sharing health information by checking to make sure it’s backed by credible scientific sources. As we say in the Advisory, if you’re not sure, don’t share.’” The Biden administration has flip-flopped multiple times on its COVID-19 misinformation policies. Initially, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki claimed: “[D]ecisions to regulate or hold to account any platform would certainly be a policy decision, but in the interim, we’re going to continue to call out disinformation and call out where that information travels.” Later, however, Psaki said that Murthy’s office was “flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.” She also said the administration has a four-point plan to restrict COVID-19 content it didn’t agree with. The day after, she attempted to claim that the Biden administration has not asked Facebook to block posts. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
Cybersecurity experts have urged corporations to create a program that allows people to rat out everyday citizens to their employers for what they consider offensive behavior online. Cancel Culture and Big Tech are a match made in hell, as cybersecurity experts call to target the livelihood of internet users who get too edgy online. “The initiative, called Respect in Security, was launched on Tuesday by two cybersecurity experts. According to the founders, several companies have already signed up,” Reclaim The Net reported. “For a lot of people, it’s a no man’s land,” founder Lisa Forte and Red Goat Cyber Security employee told the BBC. “It can feel like the platforms do nothing, the police don’t do a lot, lawyers are expensive and the publicity legal action generates can be negative.” The BBC reported that co-founder and Trend Micro Vice President Rik Ferguson said “many companies had anti-bullying policies but they tended to focus on internal behaviour.” In what may be a reference to his Respect in Security program, he wrote a few weeks ago: “Inside my ‘Projects’ email folder resides a subfolder called ‘Kill Trolls’ and it is now only a couple of weeks away from becoming a real thing (sadly not with that name).” Free speech advocates concerned about Ferguson and Forte’s work may have good reason to be. Forte explained her clear fix for people saying offensive statements via the internet: “The best solution we have, if the culprit is identifiable, is to approach their employer.” The official Respect in Security website included a Corporate Pledge listing a series of principles such as: “We will work to eliminate harassment, to include all employees, partners, customers, and interactions. Any form of harassment, even when not unlawful or directed at a protected category, will not be tolerated. “We will not tolerate, condone, or ignore any form of harassment no matter where it occurs, or the personnel involved. “We will ensure that staff members are not asked to operate in unsafe organisational or social environments.” Ferguson’s politics are openly left wing. He tweeted in early July that “I left the UK because of #Brexit. He has also compared former President Donald Trump and Republicans to fascists, and said that terms like “Blacklist” or “Black Market” imply our culture is racist. Trusting somebody like that to judge what is or isn’t offensive behavior may be a bad call. Curiously for someone so against harassment, he posted an image of what appears to be a private residence, saying: “FBI Dir. James Comey's house today sports a Trump sign.” What makes Respect in Security different is that it is concerned with behavior of employees between companies. In a hyperbolic age of Cancel Culture, such measures could lead to employees complaining about their co-workers for voicing or having the wrong opinions. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representative and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
PolitiFact’s aggressive defense of Biden and Harris popped up again on Friday. They tagged it as “False” for a Tik-Tok video that “Says Joe Biden and Kamala Harris distrusted COVID-19 vaccines.” The quotes in the video are all accurate, but they caused Facebook to flag the video as “Missing Context.” As in – the editing is too negative for their liking. Once again, they’re not “fact checking” – they’re context checking. The short summary in Tom Kertscher's article proclaimed “Video clips appear to show Joe Biden and Kamala Harris raising doubts about COVID-19 vaccines, but they were raising concerns about the rollout by then-President Donald Trump, not the vaccines themselves.” [Emphasis mine.] THAT is not accurate. If you suggest someone shouldn’t trust the vaccine until something happens – in this case, until the Democrats are elected – you’re sowing distrust in the vaccines. They bolded the part the "False" video includes. Many remember Kamala Harris in the vice-presidential debate: "If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it." A Biden critic might giggle that PolitiFact thought it was more contextual for Biden to champion vaccines "free of politics," which certainly didn't represent their don't-trust-them campaign. In a September 27, 2020 video call with the AFL-CIO, Biden said: "Charting a clear path of science-based vaccines, free from politics. I get asked the question: ‘If the president announced tomorrow we have a vaccine, would you take it?’ Only if it was completely transparent, that other experts in the country could look at it, only if we knew all of what went into it. Because so far, nothing he’s told us has been true." You can see the videos aren't wildly out of context. They might lack the Trump critique. In a video for a black and Hispanic journalists convention on July 6, 2020, Biden said: 'People don’t believe that he’s telling the truth, therefore they’re not at all certain they’re going to take the vaccine. And one more thing: If and when the vaccine comes, it’s not likely to go through all the tests that need to be done, and the trials that are needed to be done." Biden was casting doubt on any vaccine that could be ready before the election, which isn't "free from politics" He said in a September 2, 2020 TV interview: "Enormous pressure put on the CDC not to put out the detailed guidelines. The enormous pressure being put on the FDA to say they’re going, that the following protocol will in fact reduce, it will have a giant impact on COVID. All these things turn out not to be true, and when a president continues to mislead and lie, when we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK’? I’m not being facetious." But Kertscher concluded: The video was selectively edited to leave out the context of their statements. Their full statements show they were raising doubts about Trump’s trustworthiness, his ability to roll out the vaccines safely and the risk of political influence over vaccine development. We rate the video False. This is part of the same pattern we found in a study of PolitiFact after the first 100 days: Biden was fact-checked 13 times, but attacks on Biden were fact-checked 106 times.
En el noticiero del jueves, Univisión volvió a abogar por una reconciliación presupuestaria a prueba de filibusteros como el medio para legalizar a millones de inmigrantes indocumentados (ver aquí y aquí). Este último empuje se dio durante la noticia titular sobre la reunión que sostuvo la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris con activistas de inmigración para discutir DACA. Vea como la presentadora Patricia Janiot no pierde el tiempo en enmarcar el informe: "Vamos a iniciar con la reunión que mantuvo la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris en la Casa Blanca con activistas y jóvenes dreamers para enviarle un contundente mensaje al congreso que llegó la hora de legalizar a cientos de miles de soñadores": PATRICIA JANIOT, PRESENTADORA, UNIVISIÓN: Hola qué tal, les saluda Patricia Janiot. Este jueves vamos a iniciar con la reunión que mantuvo la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris en la Casa Blanca con activistas y jóvenes dreamers para enviarle un contundente mensaje al congreso que llegó la hora de legalizar a cientos de miles de soñadores. (....) JANET RODRÍGUEZ, CORRESPONSAL DE LA CASA BLANCA, UNIVISIÓN: El compromiso de Harris y el presidente Joe Biden ahora es apoyar que la legalización de millones de inmigrantes indocumentados se dé a través del proceso de reconciliación presupuestario en el congreso, la única forma viable de lograr una legalización este año. (....) JANIOT: Y, ¿cómo va avanzando el proceso de reconciliación del presupuesto por el cual se podría lograr la legalización de estos jóvenes y de millones más? RODRÍGUEZ: Patricia, al momento el senado está redactando lo que incluiría ese presupuesto que podría incluir una vía a la legalización. Pero se… verdaderamente aún faltan muchos votos críticos para determinar si los demócratas podrán usar esta maniobra política para legalizar a miles, millones de inmigrantes indocumentados, y esto podría dilatarse, Patricia, hasta el mes de septiembre. Según informó Janiot, el mensaje apremia porque un "juez de Texas declaró DACA ilegal y prohibió las nuevas solicitudes para quienes quieran acogerse a este programa de protección migratoria". Sin embargo, en el informe no se mencionó que el programa de Consideración de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA), creawdo por el gobierno de Obama, nunca ha sido legal, y a la fecha, aún no ha resuelto el problema que supuestamente resolvería; es decir, para dar a los beneficiarios la ciudadanía estadounidense. Aunque Univisión entrevistó a la activista de élite Lorella Praeli de Community Change Action (quien anteriormente sirvió con la ACLU, la campaña presidencial de Clinton de 2016 y United We Dream), fue la propia Janiot quien abogó por la "maniobra política para legalizar a miles, millones de inmigrantes indocumentados ", mientras la corresponsal de la Casa Blanca Janet Rodríguez resumía el esquema de inmigración a través de la reconciliación que forma parte del proyecto de ley de infraestructura de Biden. Janiot lanzó un último dardo para ganar puntos a favor de la medida, cuando preguntó: "Janet…Y, ¿cómo va avanzando el proceso de reconciliación del presupuesto por el cual se podría lograr la legalización de estos jóvenes y de millones más?". La respuesta de Rodríguez concedió a una (muy) posible derrota: "Verdaderamente, todavía hay muchos votos críticos para determinar si los demócratas podrán usar esta maniobra política para legalizar a miles, millones de inmigrantes indocumentados, y esto podría retrasarse, Patricia, hasta septiembre". Este informe comprueba una vez más que Univision no es otra cosa que un PAC izquierdista en defensa de la inmigración con una licencia de transmisión. ¿Quién auspicial el sesgo en los medio en español? Anunciantes como AT&T. Escríbales aquí para dejarles saber su opinión. Oprima en "Expand" para leer el segmento complete arriba mencionado: Noticiero Univision July 23, 2021 PATRICIA JANIOT: Hola qué tal, les saluda Patricia Janiot. Este jueves vamos a iniciar con la reunión que mantuvo la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris en la Casa Blanca con activistas y jóvenes dreamers para enviarle un contundente mensaje al congreso que llegó la hora de legalizar a cientos de miles de soñadores. El mensaje ha cobrado urgencia porque un juez de Texas declaró DACA ilegal y prohibió las nuevas solicitudes para quienes quieran acogerse a este programa de protección migratoria. Janet Rodríguez está en Washington y nos dice cuál fue el desenlace de esta reunión. KAMALA HARRIS: Diana would you please share? JANET RODRIGUEZ: Diana Bautista hoy tuvo que hablar con la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris desde su casa en California. La joven solicitó el beneficio de DACA hace unos meses pero sigue indocumentada por el fallo de un juez federal en Texas que frenó las nuevas solicitudes al programa, incluyendo la suya. DIANA BAUTISTA: ...una causa de mi ansiedad, mucha gente no entiende eso y eso es algo que yo compartí con la vicepresidenta. RODRIGUEZ: Sentados a la mesa con Harris estaban beneficiarios de DACA y activistas como Lorella Praeli que llevan años luchando por una solución permanente para cientos de miles de jóvenes soñadores. LORELLA PRAELI: Me quedó a mí muy claro en esta reunión que la vicepresidenta está comprometida y nosotros como comunidad, como organizaciones de abogacía vamos a encargarnos de que no sea una promesa en vano. RODRIGUEZ: El compromiso de Harris y el presidente Joe Biden ahora es apoyar que la legalización de millones de inmigrantes indocumentados se dé a través del proceso de reconciliación presupuestario en el congreso, la única forma viable de lograr una legalización este año. HARRIS: ...so we will be tireless in fighting for a pathway to citizenship... RODRIGUEZ: Lucharemos incansablemente por esa legalización, dijo la vicepresidenta. PRAELI: Nos… fue muy clara. Esto va a ser muy difícil porque hay muchas personas que están en nuestra contra. RODRIGUEZ: Harris invitó al grupo para llamar la atención sobre los retos que representa el fallo de la corte de Texas que deja alrededor de 80,000 nuevos solicitantes de DACA en limbo. Erika Ayala nos cuenta que en la reunión no se hicieron promesas, sólo se reafirmó el compromiso del gobierno de apoyar su causa. ERICA AYALA: Ya es tiempo de que el congreso, el vicepresident y el presidente hagan algo por nosotros. JANIOT: Janet, gracias por este informe. Y, ¿cómo va avanzando el proceso de reconciliación del presupuesto por el cual se podría lograr la legalización de estos jóvenes y de millones más? RODRIGUEZ: Patricia, al momento el senado está redactando lo que incluiría ese presupuesto que podría incluir una vía a la legalización. Pero se… La respuesta de Rodríguez, sin embargo, permitió una (muy) posible derrota: "Desafortunadamente, todavía hay muchos votos críticos para determinar si los demócratas podrán usar esta maniobra política para legalizar a miles, millones de inmigrantes indocumentados, y esto podría retrasarse, Patricia, hasta septiembre". Regreso contigo. JANIOT: La espera continúa. Gracias, Janet.
Friday’s opening ceremonies for the Tokyo Olympics provided more painful truth for Big Sports. The U.S. television audience for the event was the lowest it’s been in the 21st century, further indicating how badly Americans are rejecting woke sports. Coming on the heels of the shrunken TV audiences for the NBA Finals and Major League Baseball All-Star Game, the Olympic opening ceremonies drew just 16.7 million viewers. NBCUniversal reports this is the worst audience for the event in 33 years, down a whopping 36 percent since the 2016 Rio Games and 59 percent from the 2012 London Games. This disaster lowered the previous low-water mark of 21.6 million viewers for the 1992 Barcelona Games. Making lemonade out of lemons, The Hill bragged that this ratings debacle was “the second-most watched standalone primetime entertainment telecast since the pandemic began in March, excluding post-Superbowl coverage.” NBC ignored the larger story by focusing on its increased streaming audience. NBC is airing 7,000 hours of Olympics coverage via multiple television networks and its streaming service. The question is: will many people be watching? None of this is surprising. A few days ago, Zeta Global uncovered some alarming numbers demonstrating just how much contempt Americans have for big-time sports right now.: “More than 60 percent of Americans were unable to express excitement or interest in the summer games, and at least 45 percent of Americans confirmed they are NOT looking forward to the games in any capacity.” As a result, Zeta Global predicted these Olympics would attract the smallest TV audiences of the century. A second research group, Ipsos, announced that 68 percent of Americans are opposed to athlete protests. Including kneeling and wearing social justice slogans. They’ve seen more of this aberrant behavior than they want to see, and Olympic athletes have already protested and demanded the right to protest without restrictions during the Tokyo Games. Additionally, Ipsos found that respondents indicated they feel proud of their country when U.S. Olympians do well. However, that's not happening now. Just 29 percent of Republicans and 39 percent of Democrats are even interested in watching these Olympics. Which brings us to the USA’s NBA basketball mess. Team super woke USA suffered an embarrassing loss to heavy underdog France Sunday. But, hey, at least the NBA’s Social Justice Coalition is working hard toward policing reforms (as indicated by a PSA during the recent NBA Finals. Thank goodness for that! Not. The Tokyo Olympics were delayed for a year because of the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic last year. During those 12 months, social justice warriors in sports have only given fans fewer reasons to watch when the Games finally arrived this summer. For many fans, they’d seen enough outrageous behavior to determine they wouldn’t tolerate any more of the same. Last Tuesday’s kneeling by the U.S. and other national soccer teams may have just reinforced fans’ decisions for tuning out of the opening ceremonies.
With COVID cases, violent crime, inflation, and illegal immigration all on the rise after the first six months of Joe Biden’s presidency, it’s no surprise that pessimism about the country’s future has surged in a new ABC News/Ipsos poll released Sunday morning. However, rather than provide full coverage of this bad news for the Democrat in the White House, the liberal network only managed a paltry 91 seconds of air time divided among three broadcasts on Sunday and Monday. “Our new ABC News/Ipsos poll out this morning, it shows a significant drop in optimism about the direction of our country over the next year,” co-host Whit Johnson announced on Sunday’s Good Morning America. He noted the size of the plummet in America’s mood: “Take a look here, only 45% of those polled are optimistic, that’s down 19 points from May, when it was 64%.” Turning to ABC News political director Rick Klein during the 48-second discussion, Johnson searched for a reason: “Rick, what are the key factors behind all of this?” Klein explained: “Crime and fears around gun violence are a piece of this, as are things like immigration, inflation and, critically, the pandemic. We saw in this poll President Biden’s approval rating on handling of COVID down nine points. That’s just since April.” Klein particularly worried about the political impact on the Democratic Party: “The country is in a much different place than it was just a few months ago and President Biden and the Democrats should see that as blaring warning signs.” Despite those “blaring warning signs,” on This Week, moderator and former Clinton White House hack George Stephanopoulos at first tried to hype the new poll as good news for Biden: “President Biden has hit the six month mark in office, holding majority support from the American people. Our brand new poll with Ipsos also shows that 52% of Americans believe that Biden is following through on his campaign promises.” The host could only manage 15 seconds on the negative finding for the President and his party: “But it also shows that most Americans are pessimistic about the year ahead, a dramatic 20-point swing from optimism in May. As the country faces an array of challenges – a resurgent coronavirus, rising crime, inflation, our politics as divided as ever.” On Monday’s GMA, Stephanopoulos again briefly brought up the polling data: “And, Rachel, we have a new poll out that shows a pretty dramatic drop in optimism among the American people over the last couple months.” White House correspondent Rachel Scott responded: Yeah, and this number is actually down 20 points since May, George. Our latest poll showing that the majority of Americans, 55%, say that they’re actually pessimistic about the direction of the country. And President Biden also seeing his lowest approval ratings for his handling of the pandemic, with just about 60% of Americans approving of his response, George. That exchange amounted to just 28 seconds. In contrast, the show later devoted two minutes and 21 seconds, or 141 seconds, to singer Jennifer Lopez getting back together with actor Ben Affleck. Not only was that five times more than the polling coverage during Monday’s broadcast, it was nearly a full minute more that the total air time the network provided to the poll over 24 hours. Beyond trying to downplay the bad news for Biden by barely mentioning it, the tone of the very limited coverage was that the President was a victim of circumstance rather than being responsible for the problems facing the nation. The tiny amount of time devoted to Americans being pessimistic about the future under Biden was brought to ABC viewers by Google and Dell. You can fight back by letting these advertisers know what you think of them sponsoring such content. Here is a full transcript of the limited polling coverage on July 25 & 26: Good Morning America 07/25/21 8:34 AM (...) WHIT JOHNSON: I do want to turn to another topic, though. Our new ABC News/Ipsos poll out this morning, it shows a significant drop in optimism about the direction of our country over the next year. Take a look here, only 45% of those polled are optimistic, that’s down 19 points from May, when it was 64%. Rick, what are the key factors behind all of this? [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: America Less Optimistic? ABC News /Ipsos: 45% Optimistic About the Future] RICK KLEIN: Yeah, Whit, really striking. Crime and fears around gun violence are a piece of this, as are things like immigration, inflation and, critically, the pandemic. We saw in this poll President Biden’s approval rating on handling of COVID down nine points. That’s just since April. The country is in a much different place than it was just a few months ago and President Biden and the Democrats should see that as blaring warning signs. These things are changing, and they are changing fast, in a whole lot of different directions. (...) This Week 07/25/21 9:01 AM (...) GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: As we come on the air this morning, President Biden has hit the six month mark in office, holding majority support from the American people. Our brand new poll with Ipsos also shows that 52% of Americans believe that Biden is following through on his campaign promises. But it also shows that most Americans are pessimistic about the year ahead, a dramatic 20-point swing from optimism in May. As the country faces an array of challenges – a resurgent coronavirus, rising crime, inflation, our politics as divided as ever. (...) Good Morning America 07/26/21 7:16 AM (...) GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Rachel, we have a new poll out that shows a pretty dramatic drop in optimism among the American people over the last couple months. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Optimism Falling; New Poll Shows Growing Concern Over Direction of Country] RACHEL SCOTT: Yeah, and this number is actually down 20 points since May, George. Our latest poll showing that the majority of Americans, 55%, say that they’re actually pessimistic about the direction of the country. And President Biden also seeing his lowest approval ratings for his handling of the pandemic, with just about 60% of Americans approving of his response, George. (...)
According to CBS guest William Rhoden, arrogant Team USA need to be “humbled," and maybe losing several medals at the Olympics was the way to do it. Appearing on CBS This Morning, Monday, the liberal sports journalist derided the opening ceremonies as too nationalistic, saying they reminded him of “white nationalism.” Seeming to root against the U.S., the former New York Times columnist took pleasure in the American basketball team’s struggles: “Well, I think we should be humbled. You know, I mean, this whole last year in this country — it's about entitlement and privilege. Nobody epitomizes that more than basketball.” He then explained how even the opening ceremonies have been ruined: “My favorite part was going for the opening ceremonies.” Rhoden offered an ugly comparison of athletes to the disgusting violence seen at the January 6 riot: Then I realized, you know, man, particularly after the last four years, I had it wrong. Nationalism is not good. We've seen the rise of white nationalism. Nationalism is not good. And also, this whole idea -- I keep thinking back on the Capitol riots, and I saw a lot of, you know, U.S. flags. Rhoden, who is now with The Undefeated website, was triggered by so much flag waving: So now when I see the flag and the flag raised, what — what, what, what America am I living in? You know, are the ones that don't think, you know, we should be here? The ones that think that we should shut things down? The ones — so I just think that this is a very — these Olympics should be a time of soul searching and winning sometimes is antithetic to soul searching. He’s not the first journalist to needlessly make the Olympics political. The MRC’s Geoff Dickens on July 21 offered a round-up of the most outrageous Olympic outbursts. Click here to read. The trashing of American athletes was sponsored by Progressive insurance. Click on the link to let them know what you think. A partial transcript is below. Click “expand” to read more. CBS This Morning 7/26/2021 8:05 ANTHONY MASON: It’s been a conspicuously slow start for the U.S. in a couple areas. Should we be surprised? WILLIAM RHODEN (The Undefeated writer at large): Well, I think we should be humbled. You know, I mean, this whole last year in this country — it's about entitlement and privilege. Nobody epitomizes that more than basketball. Because we're just supposed to win the gold. GAYLE KING: We are, Bill, supposed to win the gold. RHODEN: Well, not anymore. Not — KING: Is it entitlement? RHODEN: Well, it is. We sent in the Marines in 1992. Michael Jordan and all that as a reaction to losing. Now we send in the Marines. And then I'm saying, “Okay, after the rest of the world catches up -- now who do you send?” And that’s who we are sending now. Luka Doncic just hit 48 points. MASON: Well, the NBA MVP of the NBA finals is from Greece. RHODEN: I just think across the board, I think we just need some humility. I know that's antithetic to what we're about here. So -- I think everybody's “Oh, it was a wake-up call.” It was more than that. This is a living nightmare. ANTHONY MASON: Do you think the U.S. Can still win gold in basketball? RHODEN: They probably will. I was asking myself yesterday, saying probably, “Why are you saying that?” And it's because we're all used to it. ... GAYLE KING: Do you look at the Olympics differently now? Do you even think we should be -- it should be happening? RHODEN: Yeah, yeah. I've got about five of them. I was telling you my favorite part was going for the opening ceremonies. KING: I love that too. RHODEN: I love the opening ceremonies. March of countries. Then I realized, you know, man, particularly after the last four years, I had it wrong. Nationalism is not good. We've seen the rise of white nationalism. Nationalism is not good. And also, this whole idea -- I keep thinking back on the Capitol riots, and I saw a lot of, you know, U.S. flags. ANTHONY MASON: Right. RHODEN: So now when I see the flag and the flag raised, what — what, what, what America am I living in? You know, are the ones that don't think, you know, we should be here? The ones that think that we should shut things down? The ones — so I just think that this is a very — these Olympics should be a time of soul searching and winning sometimes is antithetic to soul searching. ... MASON: Do you think they should have canceled the Olympics? RHODEN: Yeah. Ideally -- of course they should have canceled the Olympics. JERICKA DUNCAN: Wow. RHODEN: But our highest value now is money. Everything is being driven by money. So they're telling fans, athletes, “Roll the dice, because we are going forward.”
On Monday’s The View, conservative Meghan McCain called out her fellow co-hosts and the left for rationalizing Fox News host Tucker Carlson being harassed while he was on vacation with his family. Calling it “indecent”, “gross” and “dangerous” she reminded her peers that if they thought this was okay, they should be fine with people on the right publicly harassing them as well. Joy Behar and Sunny Hostin were the first to respond to the viral video a Montana man recorded of himself confronting Carlson with nasty accusations. While both hosts admitted they didn’t like the idea of public figures being harassed while on vacation, they also seemed to argue that he deserved it. Behar remarked, “I mean, he figured everybody is there on his side, but when you are spewing lies that cost people their lives, actually no place is safe for him.” She accused Carlson of being more concerned with “ratings” than viewers’ lives because of his vaccine commentary. She also claimed the man wasn’t a “threat” so “you can't really fault him on that end.” For her part, Hostin argued Carlson had encouraged public shaming of masks on his show so she “wasn’t surprised” he was getting shamed by others. Afterwards, McCain was ready with a reality check for her co-hosts, reminding them that people hated them as much as others hated Carlson: As incendiary as many people find Tucker Carlson, they find the women on this show equally incendiary for different reasons. So if it's okay and should be expected, maybe there’s an expectation that wherever we go it's okay for people to come up to us and scream things and say things. McCain went on to blast Democrats like Maxine Waters for encouraging this “dangerous” trend that could and has led to violence, pointing out the Steve Scalise shooting and Carlson’s family being targeted by a mob outside their own home. She again reminded her co-hosts’ that their soft acceptance of this intolerance could put them in Carlson’s shoes one day, calling it a “very very slippery slope:” Maybe you guys thought that man was being polite. I thought he was being a total jackass and incredibly rude, and we're living in a time when people like Steve Scalise are being shot, and wounded to the point where we don't know if he's literally going to survive and now he has to walk with a cane because there are people who just aren't in control of themselves and aren’t in control of their mental health and they want to take out aggression on public figures. It’s incredibly dangerous. I thought it was incredibly dangerous when Maxine Waters said we should go up to public figures and get up in their faces. I think it's a very very slippery slope. I know how much people don't like Tucker Carlson. People don't equally like Meghan McCain, Joy Behar, Sunny Hostin and Whoopi and Sara. When you’re putting your opinion out there, you’re marking yourself a target. I now feel in my life Ben and I have to talk about what restaurants I feel safe going to, I think about what places I feel comfortable taking liberty to, I have to think about what kind of neighborhood I’m living in. Tucker Carlson's wife once barricaded herself in their home in their pantry because so many protesters were outside their home, here in Washington, D.C. to try and accost them. This isn't normal, and I think any rationalization that this is normal or should be accepted in the United States of America is not only indecent, but it's beyond the pale of what should be--any expectation of any kind of decorum in a society like the United States of America, and anyone who tries to rationalize it is gross, and that man should apologize to Tucker Carlson. The View is sponsored by Ensure, contact them at the Conservatives fight back page here. Read the transcript below. The View 7/26/2021 WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Right. Meghan, is this the kind of confrontation that is ever justified? MEGHAN MCCAIN: You know, I know you've experienced this too, Whoopi because you've experienced something similar when we were working together on this show, and I won't say what happened, but you had an incident where people were coming up to you and we were all scared. Um, I think the problem with any kind of rationale of this being okay is there's this Winston Churchill quote that says just because the crocodile is eating them doesn't mean it's not going to be eating you next. As incendiary as many people find Tucker Carlson, they find the women on this show equally incendiary for different reasons. So if it's ok and should be expected, maybe there’s an expectation that wherever we go it's okay for people to come up to us and scream things and say things. Maybe you guys thought that man was being polite. I thought he was being a total jackass and incredibly rude, and we're living in a time when people like Steve Scalise are being shot, and wounded to the point where we don't know if he's literally going to survive and now he has to walk with a cane because there are people who just aren't in control of themselves and aren’t in control of their mental health and they want to take out aggression on public figures. It’s incredibly dangerous. I thought it was incredibly dangerous when Maxine Waters said we should go up to public figures and get up in their faces. I think it's a very very slippery slope. I know how much people don't like Tucker Carlson. People don't equally like Meghan McCain, Joy Behar, Sunny Hostin and Whoopi and Sara. When you’re putting your opinion out there, you’re marking yourself a target. I now feel in my life Ben and I have to talk about what restaurants I feel safe going to, I think about what places I feel comfortable taking liberty to, I have to think about what kind of neighborhood I’m living in. Tucker Carlson's wife once barricaded herself in their home in their pantry because so many protesters were outside their home, here in Washington, D.C. to try and accost them. This isn't normal, and I think any rationalization that this is normal or should be accepted in the United States of America is not only indecent, but it's beyond the pale of what should be--any expectation of any kind of decorum in a society like the United States of America, and anyone who tries to rationalize it is gross, and that man should apologize to Tucker Carlson.
Media Research Center Founder and President Brent Bozell appeared on Fox Business on Monday and demanded that journalists do their jobs and investigate the “brazen” “corruption” of the Biden family. Talking to Varney and Co. guest host Ashley Webster, Bozell insisted, “The media really needs to investigate what's going on with this family that they are so brazen in this kind of corruption. I've never seen anything like it.” Bozell was reacting to the news that “artist” Hunter Biden may be selling his paintings for as much as $500,000 and will be meeting with potential buyers. Regarding the scant media coverage, the MRC President condemned, “I am in disbelief over not just the magnitude, but the sheer brazenness of both Hunter Biden and his father when it comes to scandals.” Bozell also discussed Facebook, yet again, getting caught censoring: “Facebook is a mess. They don't know what to do next. They keep getting caught censoring conservatives. Now you find out they are working with the Biden administration.” The full transcript of the segment is below. Click "expand" to read more. Varney and Co. 7/26/2021 11:21 ASHLEY WEBSTER: Let's look at this if we can. A CNN panel agreeing that Hunter Biden art sales are a problem for the White House. Roll the clip. [Clip from CNN.] WEBSTER: I find it hard to believe they agree it’s an ethics problem. Let’s bring in Brent Bozell. Brent, good morning. Look, even the left has issues with these art sales. What do you say? BRENT BOZELL: Well, credit to CNN for doing that piece and they were very hard-hitting too. Credit to CBS and ABC each doing a report, a mild report. But you know, Ashley, they are not coming anywhere near the focus that this story needs to have. I am— I am in disbelief over, not just the magnitude, but the sheer brazenness of both Hunter Biden and his father where it comes to scandals. You have Burisma with $50,000 going to buy access with his father, the Vice President. Go ahead, Mr. President. Go ahead, Hunter Biden. Sue me if you would like. And then you have going into the laptop with Hunter Biden is setting or trying to set up this secret company — or trying to — with the Chinese to buy access with his father with 10 percent of the company going to his father. Go ahead Mr. President, go ahead Hunter Biden, sue me for defamation on that one. And now you have got this art sale where suddenly Hunter Biden has become an artist and suddenly he selling this for $500,000 and then, and then, and then they insist to the public that it's an undisclosed buyer and now, we find out he's meeting with the guy or whoever it is. Now to be serious, Ashley. The media really needs to investigate what's going on with this family that they are so brazen in this kind of corruption. I've never seen anything like it. WEBSTER: Day after day Donald Trump was, you know, assailed to using his position to profit. It was a day in and day out but silence for the most part on this. But anyway, Brent, I want to move on. A new report says Facebook will now allow users to post the phrase “Death to Khamenei” and this, of course, is amidst protest in Iran. But why does Facebook need to be pressured into allowing free speech is my question to you. BOZELL; Facebook is a mess. They don't know what to do next. They keep getting caught censoring conservatives. Now you find out they are working with the Biden administration to censor anyone who questions the vaccine. You are talking about tens of millions of people. As I have been saying this is not just a speech control. It's a thought control. Now, they do that, but then they turn around overseas and do something completely different in Iran. You know, if it were just to get out of the censorship business altogether, just get out of that business altogether. Let the public decide what to do on this except for egregious felonies, obviously, but get out of that business. They wouldn't be on the front page. WEBSTER: Absolutely. Brent, as always great stuff. I wish we had longer, but thanks for joining us with your thoughts.
On Sunday morning, two MSNBC hosts -- Ali Velshi and Jonathan Capehart -- promoted a discredited smear against Texas Republicans that they have moved to bar schools from condemning the Ku Klux Klan. Ali Velshi -- who is also a senior business correspondent for NBC News -- brought up an NBCNews.com story hyping the issue. Speaking with race-obsessed contributor Eddie Glaude, Velshi recalled: We talked about the 1619 Project and Nikole Hannah-Jones and a sort of fuller look at American history. And then it became an attack on Critical Race Theory, and now, in Texas, the Senate has passed a bill that would remove a requirement for public school teachers to teach that the Ku Klux Klan is morally wrong. He then added: We're going down some weird roads in this country, and part of me doesn't want to take something like that seriously because we have books and we have the internet. Except we've got books and we've got the internet, and we've got vaccine deniers. We've got people denying women their rights. And so I don't know. What do you do with this stuff? Glaude fretted that, because Texas is such a populous state, school textbooks of other states might also be influenced by decisions made in Texas, and then tied the issue to an alleged fascist menace in America: Look, there are folks screaming, "You will not replace us!" There are folks worried about -- Tucker Carlson and others who are worried about demographic shifts, and they're panicking. And they're also worried about kind of being displaced in history -- being made to be monsters. This is the stuff -- the logic of fascism. We need to understand it. In fact, National Review editor Rich Lowry earlier last week already exposed the dishonesty by liberals on the matter since the issue was that Democratic state legislators wanted to make changes to the state's education curriculum while Republicans argued that the curriculum was already adequate and opted not to change it. The state will not suddenly start barring schools from teaching about such important parts of U.S. history which are already being taught. About an hour later on The Sunday Show, as Capehart interviewed civil rights attorney Lee Merritt, who is also running for attorney general of Texas as a Democrat, the MSNBC host also misleadingly brought up the issue by citing a Huff Post article on the subject: You talked about, you know, setting sights on the books that, you know, students consume. There's a study in Huff Post: "Texas Senate Bill Drops Requirement That Ku Klux Klan Is 'Morally Wrong.'" I would love -- as a permanent civil rights attorney, just hold forth on your feelings about that particular bill. Capehart gave no pushback when Merritt suggested that Republicans are trying to "promote the Ku Klux Klan." The distortion of reality is reminiscent of the liberal media a decade ago repeating dishonest claims by liberal activists when Texas education leaders revised the state's curriculum for its primary schools. This dishonesty from MSNBC was sponsored in part by Generac. Their contact information is linked. Transcripts follow: MSNBC's Velshi 7/25/2021 9:56 a.m. Eastern ALI VELSHI: Eddie, I want to go back to your initial comment about an assault on seriousness. You know, we first, at first, we talked about the 1619 Project and Nikole Hannah-Jones and a sort of fuller look at American history. And then it became an attack on Critical Race Theory, and now, in Texas, the senate has passed a bill that would remove a requirement for public school teachers to teach that the Ku Klux Klan is morally wrong. We're going down some weird roads in this country, and part of me doesn't want to take something like that seriously because we have books and we have the internet. Except we've got books and we've got the internet, and we've got vaccine deniers. We've got people denying women their rights. And so I don't know. What do you do with this stuff? EDDIE GLAUDE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, you have to take Texas very seriously, Ali, because of the size of the state and its impact on school textbook purchasing. It has an impact on content on school books in McMillan Press and the lot, so this is really, really key. Look, there are folks screaming, "You will not replace us!" There are folks worried about -- Tucker Carlson and others who are worried about demographic shifts, and they're panicking. And they're also worried about kind of being displaced in history -- being made to be monsters. This is the stuff -- the logic of fascism. We need to understand it. And I want to be very, very clear here, Ali. The problem isn't just simply loud racists -- those folk are easily identifiable. The problem rests with those of us who are willing to be silent in the face of all of this, going back to our last segment. So this is just simply another front being opened where folks are trying in some ways to reassert the lie -- the lie about this country -- the lie that it must remain in the vein of old Europe to maintain their hold on power. That's all it is, Ali. (...) MSNBC The Sunday Show 7/25/2021 10:52 a.m. Eastern JONATHAN CAPEHART: You talked about, you know, setting sights on the books that, you know, students consume. There's a study in Huff Post: "Texas Senate Bill Drops Requirement That Ku Klux Klan Is 'Morally Wrong.'" I would love -- as a permanent civil rights attorney, just hold forth on your feelings about that particular bill. LEE MERRITT, TEXAS DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEY GENERAL CANDIDATE: Listen, I want people outside Texas to understand how dangerous this is. One out of 10 children in America are educated in Texas. It leads the nation in our education, and right now it's trying to wash -- I'm sorry, it's trying to whitewash our history, promote the Ku Klux Klan as an organization that I guess was of neutral morality when it wasn't. We should be able to teach in our history what was evil. And I come from a classroom setting. I began my career as an educator with Teach for America in Hoboken, New Jersey and Atlanta. And to have this kind of governmental, partisan influence over what we teach our children is the height of anti-democracy.
Do you believe in life after Trump? Cher sure doesn’t and she seems to think he’s coming back to kill America if Democrats don’t win in 2022. On Saturday, the legendary diva took to Twitter with an angry, belligerent rant against the GOP, Trump, and “new draconian, racist” election integrity laws. In her all-caps, emoji-filled tweets, Cher fixated on Sam Cooke’s 1964 Civil Rights anthem “A Change Is Gonna Come,” which she said made her cry. So, basically, she’s just another leftist catastrophizing state laws securing the vote into “Jim Crow 2.0” or “Jim Eagle.” Without evidence, the singer claimed that a third of Americans are “ripping freedom from” those who are black, brown, old, and poor. Projecting her own hatred and unhinged racial lens, she asserted Republicans “can’t win [the] democratic way, so they’ll do it by white dominance. Instead of ideas they have hate.” If Republicans can’t win the democratic way, how do they have control of 61 of 99 state legislative chambers and thus the ability to create and pass voting laws? “Trump will kill [America] if we don’t vote in ’22,” she raged, bizarrely referencing the midterm elections in which Trump is not on the ballot. All of this mishmash was written along with a gif labeled “This is what treason looks like” with rotating images from the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Later in the day Cher repeated her plea, calling for all to “stand shoulder [to] shoulder with [black] brothers [and] sisters, with every disenfranchised Democrat, in every state which has new draconian, racist laws.” Why does she assume that every black person marches in lockstep with the Democrat Party and what specific provisions in these laws could she possibly think disenfranchises anyone who can legally vote? Shockingly, she never says. Again, without evidence, she claimed these “Republican laws” are “aimed at wiping Democrats off [America]’s map [for]ever” before urging everyone to “Vote [Democrat] 2022.” The message was quite muddled, but if I’m going to steelman her insane argument, I’d say maybe she meant Democrats need to gain a big enough majority in Congress to pass H.R. 1, the so-called “For the People Act,” because otherwise somehow Democrats will be disenfranchised by GOP state bills and then Trump will win in 2024, thus killing the country. This is, of course, ridiculous, but Cher is no doubt simply listening to the media whose coverage of Republican state election laws has been 96% negative. The media have been completely biased in their coverage of the election security laws in state after state. Meanwhile, the Democrats’ attempted power grab to federalize state and local elections, key aspects of which are incredibly unpopular, gets media support. As for Cher, the entertainer has a history of writing inflammatory tweets, especially involving Trump, then deleting them so we’ll see if these ones last or if she’ll wish she “could turn back time” by erasing them.
Washington Post religion reporter Michelle Boorstein offered a tart tweet: “A Catholic newsletter promised investigative journalism. Then they outed a priest using Grindr data.” Clearly, they’re implying one is journalism, and one is not. The website is called The Pillar, run by "muckrakers" Ed Condon and J.D. Flynn, and it's too conservative for the Post. This story was spread across two pages of the Sunday paper. Their liberal bias is plain: they think it’s investigative journalism when you find Catholic priests abusing children, but when you expose top church officials (who take a solemn vow of celibacy) prowling around for gay sex on an app, that’s just a lifestyle choice. As Boorstein summarized for the so-called “mainstream” press: Six months later the Pillar broke the kind of story mainstream news organizations would be unlikely to touch: They said they had obtained commercially available data that included location history from the hookup app Grindr, and used it to track a high-ranking priest from his offices and family lake house to gay nightclubs. This is a bit comical. "Mainstream news organizations" like the Post jumped all over completely unproven rape allegations against Catholic judge Brett Kavanaugh. They never proved one. Then they slimed Amy Coney Barrett as a self-loathing Catholic woman. Conservatives are fair game for all kinds of sleazy "investigative journalism" that assassinates character. Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill was not just "a priest" -- he was the executive secretary for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, responsible – among other things – for setting church policy on sex abuse. But the Post called this a “mud fight” among Catholics, where one liberal Catholic described it as “a witch hunt aimed at gay Catholic priests.” It’s not a witch hunt when you find a witch. The media think a celibacy requirement is archaic, so it’s not journalism to call attention to violators Let's just take Boorstein's accusatory language and turn it back on the liberals. And in the growing conservative Catholic media scene, their newsletter and its takedown of Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill represents a new power and boldness of those demanding their church be purged of leaders who they see as too permissive on issues like abortion, gender norms and sex outside of heterosexual marriage. When The Boston Globe under future Washington Post editor Martin Baron went after Catholic sex abuse in Boston, they were working to purge the church leaders they saw as too conservative on issues like abortion, gender norms, and sex outside of heterosexual marriage. There was definitely a political agenda behind the journalism. At the Catholic News Agency, the pair [Condon and Flynn] quickly stood out for being the rare right-leaning Catholic journalists aimed squarely at the hierarchy and holding it accountable. Both regularly sprinkle their tweets with references to church law and confidently — some say cockily — tout their own interpretations as the most pure and accurate. As if Washington Post journalists don't cockily tweet their own interpretations of politics as the most pure and accurate? Come on! And the Marty Baron-boosters don't like "holding the hierarchy accountable"? Not when they might be friendly insider sources, apparently. Finally, Boorstein noted Condon and Flynn "say their journalism is in the service of Jesus Christ. Some Catholics agree; others, even fellow conservative Catholic journalists, worry the pair also see themselves as a kind of prophet, judge, jury and executioner." Can we go back to Kavanaugh and Barrett? Or Clarence Thomas? Or anyone else the Post wanted to cancel? Flashback, 2012: On the front page, Michelle Boorstein went after a priest...who denied communion to a lesbian who self-identified as a Buddhist. [Hat tip: Matthew Balan]
On Friday's The Beat show on MSNBC, host Ari Melber had liberal celebrity and climate activist Bill Nye, on the show to help sow seeds of fear in the audience over recent extreme weather events. Nye blamed the extreme events on manmade climate change, and urged viewers to vote in the midterm elections to keep the political status quo -- that is, Democrats in control of Congress. As Melber set up the segment, Melber vaguely referred to "scientists" who claim that climate change is an "existential threat," and played up President Joe Biden's plans on the issue: President Biden says a priority is addressing climate change. Senate Democrats now planning what should be a party-line vote on the $3.5 trillion package that includes a push to get the U.S. on100 percent clean energy by 2035. Scientists say this is clearly becoming an existential threat. We're living through it this summer with evidence piling up every day. He then showed several clips from news shows hyping the recent disasters -- including wildfires and flooding -- ending with a clip of late night CBS comedian Stephen Colbert suggesting that "we're all gonna die." Here's Colbert: "The sun is glowing red in New York. (editing jump) You know what they say, 'Red skies at night, sailors delight. Red sun in the sky, we're all gonna die.'" Smiling, Melber quoted Colbert's "We're all gonna die," and then brought aboard Nye as a guest, asking him if these weather events have been caused by climate change. Nye firmly answered in the affirmative: Well, of course. Yes, we would all say that. Now, it is very difficult to connect a single event like the heat dome -- as it was called in the Pacific Northwest -- with a climate model. This would be a computer model full of numbers with vorticity and fluid mechanical equations is quite complex, but with super computers -- people running the models -- it's becoming clear that these events certainly are consistent with predictions. After the two spent a while fretting over the hesitancy by many to receive the vaccine for COVID-19, Nye hinted that viewers should vote Democratic next year: I know we're on MSNBC, and my concern always -- it's great to see you, thank you for having me on -- my concern always is that we're preaching to the choir. I know the other side watches this show, but, everybody, you've got to vote in the midterms. This has to be a different kind of midterm where the status quo is maintained instead of reversed or pushed back against. We've got to be on that. And you -- I know people on the other side don't agree with me on all sorts of things, but, look, you guys, this COVID thing is very serious -- climate change is very serious. This episode of The Beat was sponsored in part by Power Swabs. Click on the link to let them know what you think. Transcript follows: MSNBC's The Beat July 23, 2021 6:22 p.m. Eastern ARI MELBER: President Biden says a priority is addressing climate change. Senate Democrats now planning what should be a party-line vote on the $3.5 trillion package that includes a push to get the U.S. on100 percent clean energy by 2035. Scientists say this is clearly becoming an existential threat. We're living through it this summer with evidence piling up every day. CLIP OF UNIDENTIFIED SKY NEWS REPORTER IN RUSSIA: Deep in science, the Arctic Circle, where outside at the moment it was hot enough to sunbathe. LONNIE QUINN, WCBS-TV CHIEF WEATHER FORECASTER (from CBS This Morning): This is dramatic, right? This is going back to last week in Germany. They're referring to that as a one in a thousand year flood. MIGUEL ALMAGUER, NBC NEWS REPORTER (from NBC Nightly News): -- burning hotter, faster and more explosive than ever before. ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC HOST: -- haze from the western wildfires now sweeping across the U.S., sparking the worst air quality alerts in 20 years. STEPHEN COLBERT, CBS's THE LATE SHOW: The sun is glowing red in New York. (editing jump) You know what they say, "Red skies at night, sailors delight. Red sun in the sky, we're all gonna die." MELBER: "We're all gonna die." Happy Friday, I'm joined by Bill Nye, the Science Guy, involved in so many projects, including, check it out, author of The Great Big World of Science. Thanks for being here. ... People are feeling the extreme weather. Is it primarily caused by climate change? BILL NYE, BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY: Well, of course. Yes, we would all say that. Now, it is very difficult to connect a single event like the heat dome -- as it was called in the Pacific Northwest -- with a climate model. This would be a computer model full of numbers with vorticity and fluid mechanical equations is quite complex, but with super computers -- people running the models -- it's becoming clear that these events certainly are consistent with predictions. MELBER: Yeah, and the things that are happening can be experienced, you know, in person, and so that's what we call in the media -- we call that a local news story, right? And then you have the larger -- go ahead, Bill. NYE: Yes, the old saying, "All politics is local" -- pretty soon, it'll be, "All climate is local." And everybody, this is a very serious problem. We've been talking about this a long time. And I think part of it -- which is for me connected to the problems we're having right now with people getting vaccinated -- is people are scared. People are frightened, and I understand it's a scary thing. As I like to say, if you like to worry about things, you're living in a great time. (...) NYE: I know we're on MSNBC, and my concern always -- it's great to see you, thank you for having me on -- my concern always is that we're preaching to the choir. I know the other side watches this show, but, everybody, you've got to vote in the midterms. This has to be a different kind of midterm where the status quo is maintained instead of reversed or pushed back against. We've got to be on that. And you -- I know people on the other side don't agree with me on all sorts of things, but, look, you guys, this COVID thing is very serious -- climate change is very serious.
On his MSNBC show this morning, host Jonathan Capehart managed—with help from one of the fleeing Texas Democrat state reps—to smear law Texas state troopers, "rural cops," and Republicans at large, as potentially violent vigilantes. Capehart teed up Jarvis D. Johnson—one of the Texas Democrat state representatives who have fled to DC in an attempt to derail adoption of voting laws—to say that he has told his son not to drive because he fears "retaliation" by state troopers, "rural cops" or some "fanatic of the Republican Party" taking the law "into their own hands. This in response to Gov. Greg Abbott's announcement that he would have the fleeing reps arrested when they finally return to the Lone Star state. Johnson made it sound as if Governor Abbott's call to have the skedaddling Democrats returned to Austin was improper. But as even the liberal Austin-American Statesman acknowledges, "Texas House rules state that absent legislators can be arrested by the sergeant-at-arms or somebody appointed by the sergeant-at-arms and returned to the House floor," to perform the duties for which they were elected and continue to be paid. Here's some of the exchange: JONATHAN CAPEHART: I was just saying to Reverend Al and also to the audience about something you and I talked about during the special, and that is, the threats that you have been receiving since leaving Texas and being in Washington. And one of the things you told me is that you have told your son to not drive in Texas, because of your concern about retaliation on the part of Governor Abbott against you. Can you just talk a little bit about that? JARVIS JOHNSON: The governor put out the call and he said that he was going to round us up and corral us up and bring us back. And we've watched all across this country when there's a leader that does something like this, that there are people in their party that will take this and run with it. ... And so, my son drives my car, which has state plates. And I just don’t want some rural cop, or some fanatic of the Republican Party that listens to Governor Abbott, as they say they need to bring us back because we're fugitives. Capehart naturally never questioned Johnson about how the Texas reps' DC junket has turned into a Covid super-spreader. And far from challenging Johnson—who was in effect accusing Texas law enforcement and Republicans at large of potentially acting like violent vigilantes—Capehart emitted a loud "wow" in response, thanking Johnson him for his appearance. MSNBC's Jonathan Capehart teeing up a fleeing Texas state rep to say he has told his son not to drive because he fears "retaliation" by Texas law enforcement or a Republican "fanatic," was sponsored in part by Dell and Citi. Here's the transcript. MSNBC The Sunday Show 7/25/21 11:21 am EDT JONATHAN CAPEHART: We lost our connection to state representative Jarvis Johnson, but one of the things I wanted to ask him about was something I talked to him about, about the special Lawrence O’Donnell and I did back on Monday, where I asked him about the threats he’s been receiving since leaving Texas for Washington. And he told me that one of the things that he has told his son, he has told his son to not drive in Texas because he’s afraid of retaliation by state troopers. I understand state representative Jarvis Johnson is back. I want to — is he there? Can we put him on screen? Okay. Great. State representative Jarvis Johnson, I was just saying to Reverend Al and also to the audience about something you and I talked about during the special, and that is, the threats that you have been receiving since leaving Texas and being in Washington. And one of the things you told me is that you have told your son to not drive in Texas, because of your concern about retaliation on the part of Governor Abbott against you. Can you just talk a little bit about that? JARVIS JOHNSON: The governor put out the call and he said that he was going to round us up and corral us up and bring us back. And we've watched all across this country when there's a leader that does something like this, that there are people in their party that will take this and run with it. ... And so, my son drives my car, which has state plates. And I just don’t want some rural cop, or some fanatic of the Republican Party that listens to Governor Abbott, as they say they need to bring us back because we're fugitives. And so I've had to say that to my son. Because we do understand, I understand, what relationships are with police officers and black males, and I do know what's going on with most of the Republican Party, when they want to take the law into their own hands and act as the hero and say, 'we rounded one up.' And I don't want that mistaken identity, and I certainly don't want my son put in that situation. And so, unfortunately, they don’t understand what me as a black father have to go through. And as I talk to my son almost daily about, make sure you get a ride from someone else. But for a whole week he didn’t even go to work. He couldn’t go out. CAPEHART: Wow! Texas state representative Jarvis Johnson, thank you very much for coming to The Sunday show.
On last Sunday’s Reliable Sources, author Michael Wolff admonished host Brian Stelter for his show having “all the people saying the same old stuff….You're incredibly repetitive. It's week after week.” This Sunday, it’s exactly the same, with Stelter bringing on “legendary investigative journalist” Carl Bernstein for what feels like the 37th time calling Trump a deranged madman. Oh, but today he’s a domestic “war criminal,” for “slaughtering” Americans with the coronavirus. Stelter bemoaned "one man's narcissism wreaking havoc with an entire political party" (incredibly repetitive) with asking Bernstein for his hot take (incredibly repetitive): “I think we need to calmly step back and maybe look at Trump in a different context. He is America’s, our own American war criminal” – @CarlBernstein on CNN’s @ReliableSources. pic.twitter.com/YTfqJ7wsXr — Brent Baker (@BrentHBaker) July 25, 2021 BERNSTEIN: I think we need to slow down a bit and deconstruct some of the things that you've just laid out there. The first thing is I'm not a psychiatrist, and God knows all of us may have a degree of narcissism. But when you're talking about Trump, we're obviously talking about a kind of delusional madness, such as General Milley was talking about, that is on a scale and a scope that we have never experienced in an American president in our history. I think we need to calmly step back [!!] and maybe look at Trump in a different context. He is our own American war criminal of a kind we've never experienced before. What he has done, and what he continues to do -- STELTER: You just said war criminal. What do you mean, war criminal? BERNSTEIN: I did. In international law, there have been, quote, crimes against humanity. I think what we're talking about, Trump's crimes as an American war criminal in his own country that he has perpetrated upon our people, including the tens of thousands of people who died because of his homicidal negligence in the pandemic, putting his own electoral interest above the health of our people when they were slaughtered in this pandemic. Looking at his actions in terms of fomenting a coup to hold onto office in which the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has now compared Trump -- not the press, not reporters comparing Trump to Hitler, but rather the head of the American military comparing him and his movement to brown shirts, to the Reichstag fire. This is a huge wake-up call to this country when General Milley, the head of the American military, has said this. It fits as a piece with something so extraordinary in our history, it's not political. Trump is not just political, he transcends the political, and we need to start looking at his crimes in that context. We could go on, but this is just the same unhinged Trump analysis, week after week, incredibly repetitive. And it remains bizarre that somehow Trump has killed tens of thousands, and CNN never suggests Andrew Cuomo "slaughtered" a single New Yorker by moving COVID-infected people into nursing homes. The double standard in this overwrought mess is ridiculous.
Almost three years have passed since Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation and the left still can't let it go. The most recent example was Tiffany Cross, host of MSNBC's The Cross Connection, declaring that Kavanaugh exhibited "privilege" and "white man rage" while defending himself of sexual assault. The genesis for Cross's remarks was a recent New York Times report that said the FBI received 4,500 tips, which led Democrats to decry the investigation as "a sham." Cross agreed. "It turns out that the FBI's background check into Brett Kavanaugh was pretty much a sham, okay. So the FBI revealed this week it received over 4,500 tips during Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation, but only conducted ten, ten people, additional interviews." Both the Times and Cross omitted why. National Review quoted Mike Davis, former chief counsel for nominations, as saying "Every whack-job in the world called into that thing. That's why there were 4,500 [tips]." Of course a public tip-line was abused by people with a political axe to grind. Nevertheless, Cross teed up lawyer and reality TV personality Amrit Kapai to respond the NYT's incomplete report, "This is kind of ridiculous and there really is no recourse. But, Amrit, as an attorney, I'm curious your thoughts on this entire thing." After Kapai condemned the FBI for serving the White House and "the American people," Cross returned to cue up a clip of Kavanaugh's September 27, 2018 hearing, "I have to tell you, Felice [Leon], the privilege of this guy during his confirmation hearing, we saw white man rage on full display for everybody, and he had the temerity and the privilege to talk about how much he loved beer. Take a listen and we'll talk about it after the sound bite." "Privilege" is an interesting word choice considering Kavanaugh was asked question he would rather not have been forced to answer: RACHEL MITCHELL [INVESTIGATIVE COUNSEL]: Did you consume alcohol during your high school years? BRETT KAVANAUGH: Yes, we drank beer, my friends and I, boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer, I still like beer. Liberals presented Kavanaugh as a serial teen rapist, and then they wondered why he was angry. They're still presenting him as an entitled white bully. Cross sneered and said "I mean, you know, he kind of painted this picture of me, Toby, Opie, we would all hang out after school. I think a lot of us watched that and saw right through that. We all know a Brett Kavanaugh, we all went to school with a Brett Kavanaugh. We all worked in a cubical next Brett Kavanaugh in our life. It’s kind of ridiculous." The Saturday edition of The Cross Connection was a real doozy, before trying one more time to smear Kavanaugh's reputation, this same panel declared being pro-life to mean "treating women like "incubators with mouthparts." This segment was sponsored by Citi. Here is a transcript for the July 24 show: MSNBC The Cross Connection with Tiffany Cross 11:05 AM ET TIFFANY CROSS: It turns out that the FBI's background check into Brett Kavanaugh was pretty much a sham, okay. So the FBI revealed this week it received over 4,500 tips during Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation, but only conducted ten, ten people, additional interviews. This is kind of ridiculous and there really is no recourse. But, Amrit, as an attorney, I'm curious your thoughts on this entire thing. AMRIT KAPAI: Why am I not surprised by this? You know, I recently read an article which basically analogized the White House as the client of FBI, and being a practicing attorney, I know that when you have a client you do whatever is possible to advocate for your client and to meet your client's expectations and to get them what they want. The White House is not the client of the FBI. The American people are. It is our taxpayers' money that is paying for the FBI and they need to do their job. They should have done it for us. You are appointing a person to the highest court of the land to advocate or adjudicate our rights, the American people. We are the client. It was not the White House and it should not have been handled that way. But I'm not surprised. I'm just utterly disappointed by how the system has wronged us in this way. CROSS: I have to tell you, Felice, the privilege of this guy during his confirmation hearing, we saw white man rage on full display for everybody, and he had the temerity and the privilege to talk about how much he loved beer. Take a listen and we'll talk about it after the sound bite. RACHEL MITCHELL: Did you consume alcohol during your high school years? BRETT KAVANAUGH: Yes, we drank beer, my friends and I, boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer, I still like beer. CROSS: I mean, you know, he kind of painted this picture of me, Toby, Opie, we would all hang out after school. I think a lot of us watched that and saw right through that. We all know a Brett Kavanaugh, we all went to school with a Brett Kavanaugh. We all worked in a cubical next Brett Kavanaugh in our life. It’s kind of ridiculous.
Filling in on Friday's The ReidOut on MSNBC, host Tiffany Cross led a one-sided discussion to decry Mississippi's effort to promote rights for unborn babies by trying to get the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Invoking the Hulu series The Handmaid's Tale, Cross derided Justice Amy Coney Barrett this way: "There's a real live handmaiden on the Supreme Court. It feels like we're 10 minutes from living in Gilead." The host fearmongered about an America without abortion clinics and hinted that it would be fine if abortion clinics were as widespread as Starbucks coffee shops. Cross opened the segment by complaining that Republicans have been arguing that Americans have a right to not get vaccinated even while opposing legal abortion, and then gave a forum to two pro-abortion guests to defend the practice. After Planned Parenthood president Alexis McGill Johnson complained that women would have to go to more effort to reach an abortion provider if Roe v. Wade were overturned, Cross jumped in to paint a dire picture of an America that protects unborn babies: Yeah, I mean, I'm just going to be a little more graphic so people understand, I mean, we're going back to coat hangers and seedy hotels and women being killed by bootleg, you know, seedy doctors claiming to be able to help them. That is not what we want in a society that claims to care about women. Maria, I will tell you, the thing that really bothers me is this is not about the protection of fetus or children. She further took a shot at Mississippi as she added: Mississippi, according to U.S. News World and Report, they rank dead last in health care. In the economy, they rank 48th. They also rank 48th in infrastructure. This is from the same crowd -- the Republican conservative crowd -- who cheered on kids in cages, who said, "We don't care about people showing up at the border -- desperate mothers and children seeking refuge -- how can we take them seriously when it comes comes to agency over our own bodies? After Johnson misleadingly claimed that Roe v. Wade is popular with the public, Cross made a crack about the conservative religious views of Justice Barrett: When it comes to the Supreme Court, I'm terrified that the Supreme Court may actually overturn Roe v. Wade, I know this argument has been going on for a long time. There's a real live handmaiden on the Supreme Court. It feels like we're 10 minutes from living in Gilead. Do you think the Supreme Court will take up this case and potentially overturn a law that was so consequential in 1973? She soon wrapped up the segment by theorizing that abortion clinics would be as commonplace as Starbucks if men also became pregnant: "I venture to say, if men could get pregnant, perhaps abortion clinics would be like Starbucks everywhere." This episode of The ReidOut was sponsored in part by Fubo TV. Their contact information is linked. Transcript follows. Click "expand" to read more. MSNBC's The ReidOut July 23, 2021 7:22 p.m. Eastern TIFFANY CROSS: Oh, yeah, the right has been all about "my body, my choice" when it comes to vaccines and masks, but conveniently that personal freedom does not apply to abortion. They've been trying to overturn Roe v. Wade ever since abortion became legal in 1973. And now, thanks to Trump and Mitch McConnell's successful efforts to install conservative justices on the Supreme Court -- and lower courts quite frankly -- they may finally get their chance despite the fact that a majority of Americans support abortion rights. In a filing yesterday, lawyers for the state of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade as well as a later case -- Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Now, they wrote that the case for overturning Roe and Casey is overwhelming. ... But Mississippi is far from the only state where Republicans are trying take away a woman's right to choose. This year alone, 97 abortion restrictions have been enacted in 19 states, and 10 states have laws banning all or nearly all abortions. Now, those laws would be triggered if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Joining me now, Alexis Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America; and my pal, Maria Teresa Kumar, president and CEO of Voto Latino. Ladies, I'm so happy to have you here. You know, I'm going to start with you, Alexis, because I don't think people understand that you are not going to force a woman to carry a child to term if that is not her choice. I want you to take a moment and explain to our viewers what a society looks like when abortion is outlawed everywhere. ALEXIS MCGILL JOHNSON, PRESIDENT & CEO OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Oh, well, you're absolutely right. I mean, it is, it is not going to stop people from seeking access to abortion, it means they will have less access to safe abortion. It means they will have to travel, you know, many miles out of state in to other states with other restrictions. If Roe is overturned because of this -- this case -- and clearly Mississippi's attorney general has said the quiet parts out loud -- what we are looking at is roughly 25 million women living in approximately 26 states that are poised to outlaw abortion outright, and so it continues to mean that our control over our bodies -- this is always about our control, right? It's never been about choice. It's been about whether or not we can control or the state can control our bodies to force pregnancy in cases where people decided that they did not want to be pregnant. CROSS: Yeah, I mean, I'm just going to be a little more graphic so people understand, I mean, we're going back to coat hangers and seedy hotels and women being killed by bootleg, you know, seedy doctors claiming to be able to help them. That is not what we want in a society that claims to care about women. Maria, I will tell you, the thing that really bothers me is this is not about the protection of fetus or children. Mississippi, according to U.S. News World and Report, they rank dead last in health care. In the economy, they rank 48th. They also rank 48th in infrastructure. This is from the same crowd -- the Republican conservative crowd -- who cheered on kids in cages, who said, "We don't care about people showing up at the border -- desperate mothers and children seeking refuge -- how can we take them seriously when it comes comes to agency over our own bodies? (...) MCGILLIS: Well, I think it is about the will of the people, and I actually think polling in this regard actually can be very instructive because we know that 80 percent of Americans believe that Roe should be the law of the land, and there is literally no state where banning abortion is popular even in these states that are putting up the most unconstitutional blatant restrictions on access to abortion. (...) CROSS: When it comes to the Supreme Court, I'm terrified that the Supreme Court may actually overturn Roe v. Wade, I know this argument has been going on for a long time. There's a real live handmaiden on the Supreme Court -- it feels like we're 10 minutes from living in Gilead. Do you think the Supreme Court will take up this case and potentially overturn a law that was so consequential in 1973? (MARIA TERESA KUMAR) CROSS: I venture to say, if men could get pregnant, perhaps abortion clinics would be like Starbucks everywhere.
When CNN's Oliver Darcy takes the wheel of their "Reliable Sources" newsletter, it seems to begin with a raging editorial. On Friday night, it came under the headline "How Fox race baits." That's interesting. This came about 24 hours after CNN's Don Lemon suggested to President Biden the Republicans wanted to make black voters count jelly beans before they could vote. Darcy's theory was Tucker Carlson wasn't the only horrible race baiter at Fox: While Carlson engages in bald-faced race baiting, Fox as a network also works to cater to the fears of White America. And programming in that vein has increased recently, engraining itself into the channel's core DNA. Fox understands the panic rippling through White America — it should, it helped create it — and exploits it for profit. Instead of using its platform for good-faith discussion and debate about race, the network chooses to demonize those seeking to have it. It presents a terrifying world to viewers and then tells them, repeatedly, that it is the only entity in society standing up to the nefarious forces that seek to destroy their way of life. This is the subject of my latest story for CNN... [Emphasis his.] Darcy used the Left's official leading Fox-banning organization to claim Fox was over-covering critical race theory in our schools. His partner in censorship was NAACP president Derrick Johnson, as he quoted: "They play to the lowest common denominator of white fear," Johnson said of Fox. "They peddle fear at a level that causes harm to communities. ... They peddle fear starting from the morning shows and all throughout the day." "I wish it could get banned, quite frankly," Johnson said. "Because it creates more intolerance and more racial instability." Johnson also claimed "If you think about the average person who consumes Fox News, their sense of reality is disconnected from facts...It is disconnected from allowing different people to exist." Now let's revisit Mr. Reality's public statement on January 29, 2019 on actor Jussie Smollett's fake hate crime: “The recent racist and homophobic attack on acclaimed actor and activist Jussie Smollett is troubling. The rise in hate crimes is directly linked to President Donald J. Trump’s racist and xenophobic rhetoric. It is dangerous for any society to allow a tone of divisiveness and hatred to dominate the political discourse." Glad I kept my NAACP PR e-mails! Naturally, Darcy also pointed out Fox's audience is overwhelmingly Caucasian: "When watching Fox, it's worth remembering that most of its audience is made up of one racial group. White people made up 94% of Carlson's audience from January 1 to July 7. Only 2% were Black. For comparison, over the same six-month period, CNN's 8 p.m. hour had an audience that was 25% Black and the audience for MSNBC's 8 p.m. hour was 27% Black. Both of those audiences were 66% White."