December 22, 2008

Just plain stupid, willfully ignorant or lying their butts off?

Three recent Media Matters stories

First up: Lou Dobbs spin on global warming:

Despite overwhelming evidence of human-caused global warming and warnings by experts that short-term weather conditions are not evidence for or against its existence, Lou Dobbs said during the introduction of his December 18 CNN show: "And tonight, unusual winter storms are dumping snow in unusual places across Western states, and a huge snowstorm is headed toward the Northeast. This is global warming?" During his segment on the issue, moreover, Dobbs hosted Heartland Institute senior fellow and science director Jay Lehr without disclosing that Heartland receives funding from the energy industry and without challenging Lehr's assertions that "[t]he last 10 years have been quite cool" and that "the sun" -- rather than humans -- is responsible for recent climate change.
Next: Rick Warren's lies about Prop. 8 (and Ann Curry's lousy reporting):

During her December 19 Dateline NBC report on Rev. Rick Warren, after noting Warren's support for California's Proposition 8 -- which amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage -- co-host Ann Curry reported that "Warren says he joined the fray out of a concern that if Proposition 8 wasn't passed, pastors would lose their right to preach about the biblical definition of marriage." Curry then added, "But many constitutional experts say that fear was totally unfounded, and gay rights leaders saw Warren's stance as an infringement on their civil rights." As Media Matters for America documented, while previewing her interview with Warren the day before, Curry uncritically reported that Warren "was worried that this Proposition 8 would prevent him from getting up on the pulpit and speaking out against same-sex marriage," echoing the falsehood that had Proposition 8 not passed, members of the clergy could have been restricted in what they could say in the pulpit and could have been forced to perform same-sex marriages.
Lastly: They take on Chris Mathews' long record of biased and offensive "reporting" and general mendacity:

Chris Matthews' interest in the Pennsylvania Senate seat currently held by Republican Arlen Specter raises the possibility of something that is all too rare among the nation's media elite: accountability.

It has long been clear that if we applied to journalists who cover politics the standards they purport to apply to politicians -- truthfulness, judgment, being in touch with regular Americans, and so on -- many of them would fare quite poorly.


None of this has ever seemed to get Matthews into much trouble with his bosses at MSNBC, who are reportedly interested in keeping him around after his contract expires next year. But if he runs for the Senate, with no record to run on other than years of television transcripts, he may soon find that Pennsylvania voters are less indulgent of his cheerleading for Bush, his near-constant ridicule of Democrats, and his frequently offensive treatment of women.



Jason Cable said...

Now, I have never been a Rick Warren fan, but this is beyond anything I've ever heard. What is this, the Hatfields versus the McCoys? If the LGBT get to marry then little Ricky Warren doesn't get to preach about "traditional marriage." If the LGBT get their rights taken away we are denied 1,000+ federally granted rights given to married folk.

My question, which is worse: 1.) Rick Warren's preaching subjects or 2.) FULL equal civil rights treatment for those in the LGBT community?!?!??!

Also, I AM a fan of Lou Dobbs, but that is just another one of CNN's lovely "unbiased and fair political reporting" snafus.

Maria said...

The real point is that it's completely FALSE that if Prop 8 didn't pass -- if gay marriage had been allowed to stand -- that somehow that would dictate what churches could preach let alone who they had to marry.

One had absolutely nothing to do with the other.

it was just a LIE pushed by Warren and others.

EdHeath said...

I think you are absolutely right, Maria. I suppose Warren was saying it to whip up his congregation. Why don't the media question these things when they come up? Shouldn't Ann Curry be patiently explaining that seperation of church and state goes both ways, and short of actively advocating violence the government is not going to tell a church what to say.

As far as Lou Dobbs goes, we are apparently in a La Nina year (maybe the last two years). So, yeah, there is some colder weather, in some unusual places. In fact, I read in one place that the increased frequency of El Nino and La Nina might be caused by global warming ( If I can find this stuff in the sapce of a minute, what's Lou Dobbs' excuse?

Sherry Pasquarello said...

i think that deep down inside some(american) christians, is the desire to be like the the early christians , percecuted but without all that pain and death stuff, nothing TOO inconvient.

so they look for things like gay marriage and the "war on christmas"

to get all puffy and put upon about.

and people like warren make big money egging them on.

Bot said...


There are many instances of religious liberties of individuals who dared speak out against a homosexual lifestyle being violated. Let me quote a few:

Case 1:
David Parker, a Massachusetts parent, was arrested when he tried to prevent his kindergartener from being exposed to pro-gay marriage books.

Case 2:
In the case of Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, the California Supreme Court ruled that a physician was required to perform artificial insemination for a female lesbian client or face loss of right to practice medicine.

Case 3:
In June of 2008, the University of Toledo summarily fired Crystal Dixon -- a high-ranking administrator and an African-American -- for writing a letter to the editor objecting to the comparison of "gay rights" with the civil rights struggles of African Americans.

Dixon simply wrote:

"As a Black woman... I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended."

As a result of this personal letter and exercise of her First Amendment rights she was fired.

Case 4:
Boston public school teachers were threatened with termination if they failed to portray same-sex marriage in a positive light.

Case 5:
Canadian pastor Stephen Boisson was ordered by the Alberta "Human Rights" Commission to publicly apologize for a letter to the editor denouncing the homosexual agenda as "wicked" and stating that: "Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights." He was then given a gag order to "cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.

Case 6:
In April 2008 Elaine Huguenin, owner of Elaine Photography, was fined over $7000 by the state Human Rights Commission of New Mexico for refusing to photograph the 'commitment ceremony' of Vanessa Willock and her partner. She based her refusal on the fact that it was against her religious beliefs to do so.

Case 7:
STOCKHOLM, July 5, 2004 ( - Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, was sentenced to one month in prison by a Swedish court, for inciting hatred against homosexuals. Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached in 2003 citing Biblical references to homosexuality.

Case 8:
LEXINGTON, MA, October 8, 2008 ( - The United States Supreme Court left intact a lower court ruling that allowed Massachusetts schools to promote homosexuality in the classroom without telling parents or allowing them to opt out.

Case 9:
London, Jun 7, 2008 / 09:32 pm (CNA).- A Catholic adoption agency in Britain has ended its service of placing children in new homes because a new anti-discrimination law forbids the agency from turning away homosexual couples. A Minister of Parliament has said the new law "smacks of a secular attack on the Catholic Church."

Case 10:
On Mar. 10, 2006 Boston Catholic Charities decided to pull out of adoption services after a century of service, rather than comply with Massachusetts law that requires adoption agencies not to discriminate against homosexual couples.

Case 11:
In October of 2007, the Boy Scouts of America 'Cradle of Liberty' Council was given eviction notice from their headquarters in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia. The building was originally built in 1928 by the Boy Scouts and has been maintained by them ever since. The eviction is a result of the stand of the Boy Scouts against allowing homosexuals to be part of the organization's leadership, and is spearheaded by openly homosexual city solicitor Romulo L. Diaz, Jr.

Case 12:
The Methodist Church's Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersey was stripped of its tax-exempt status for part of its property after it refused, for religious reasons, to allow a lesbian couple to hold a "civil-union" ceremony at a pavilion on the camp's property.

Anyone who says that this issue is just about allowing same-sex couples to get married is either ignorant or lying.

Clyde Wynant said...

Even the concept of a "mega church" scares me. Whatever the Reverend is selling, I'm not buying...

OK. I'm an atheist, but I do believe in the "golden rule," and as far as I can tell, "do unto others" includes letting them live their lives as they wish...not as you wish.


Maria said...


First, we're talking about a proposition in California (not Sweden, Canada or the UK).

More importantly, you say you're giving instances of "religious liberties of individuals who dared speak out against a homosexual lifestyle being violated."

1) How would gays being allowed to marry in any way violate the "religious liberties of individuals who dared speak out"? Name ONE way.

2) Warren FLAT OUT LIED when he said that if Prop. 8 didn't pass pastors would lose their right to preach about the biblical definition of marriage.

What Prop 8 did was ban gay marriages in California.

That is it. And, that is way too much.

It is almost, *almost* comical that you try to excuse violating the civil rights of gays by some imaginary infringement on your ability to be a bigot.

The only rights that are being violated here are the rights of the LGBT community.

And, I have to almost laugh that you use the "lifestyle" word in doing so when the only "lifestyle" prop 8 affected is the ability to have the lifestyle of a married couple.

EdHeath said...

Bot, the world is a bit more complicated than you say. David Parker, for example, was arrested for criminal trespass for refusing to leave a meeting with school officials over this gay book business, not because of the books themselves. As for the University of Toledo, Crystal Dixon was a high level administrator in Human Resources and expressed contempt publicly for gay rights. That would have an obvious chilling effect on whether gay employees would feel they would have an effective advocate for their jobs. Besides, private employers can fire employees for any reason, as long as the employer does not discriminate against the employee for a recognized reason (i.e. firing her for being black or woman; firing her for being a public bigot is perfectly acceptable).

You cite examples from around the world (even though we are talking about the US) of straight people who essentially want to be able to express their contempt for homosexuals. I assume you would object if I called African Americans sub human or said women have inferior intelligence. I also assume you have religious reasons for complaining about the enforcement of anti-discrimination (I may be wrong about that, you don’t explain why you defend bigotry). The same Constitution that defends your rights to have bigoted religious views (if you do) also defends Rick Warren’s right to say whatever he likes about gay marriage from the pulpit, as long as he does not advocated specific political action (then his tax exempt status is, rightfully so, in jeopardy) . Which is to say that Rick Warren was wrong in general, although if gay marriage had been upheld as legal in California, Warren would have had some restrictions on what he could say, such as if he wanted to endorse a particular candidate. But regardless Warren could have and can still condemn gay marriage as an abomination in the eyes of his lord. The final reckoning for that will be between him and whatever (it would be funny for him if the Muslims turned out to be right).

Jason Cable said...

I probably didn't give enough info in my post... I'm against these crazies who are equating the 'preach-ability' of 'traditional marriage' with MY (LGBT) rights. It disgusts me. Our rights were taken away in CA. This holiday season, let us remember what Christianity stands for: loving, caring, helping, and accepting ALL PEOPLE!