About This News Site – Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.
View their full site: https://newsbusters.org
Pregnant #MeToo Model Emily Ratajkowski 'Traumatized,' ‘Scared of Having a Son’
by Alexa Moutevelis on October 27, 2020 at 3:00 pm
Feminist model Emily Ratajkowski announced her pregnancy in an essay in Vogue published on Oct. 26. It’s a fascinating study in how a progressive pro-abortion white feminist dedicated to the #MeToo movement wrestles with the contradictions inherent in the intersection of pregnancy and the liberal orthodoxies of gender and race. To give you an idea of how ultra-leftist Ratajkowski is, this is the Bernie-supporting woman who declared Hillary Clinton “pretty extreme and very, very, you know, to the right of where I'd like to see the party headed” during the 2016 primary. Any radical left-wing Hollywood action that’s been taken in recent years, Emily has been there, from getting arrested at an anti-Brett Kavanaugh protest to marching with Black Lives Matter. So, it’s no wonder that she would obsess over the implications of the gender of her child, complaining, “I don’t like that we force gender-based preconceptions onto people, let alone babies,” and ranting about “the undeniable constraints and constructions of gender.” When people ask her and her husband about the sex of their baby, she writes: We like to respond that we won’t know the gender until our child is 18 and that they’ll let us know then. Everyone laughs at this. There is a truth to our line, though, one that hints at possibilities that are much more complex than whatever genitalia our child might be born with: the truth that we ultimately have no idea who—rather than what—is growing inside my belly. … I like the idea of forcing as few gender stereotypes on my child as possible. But no matter how progressive I may hope to be, I understand the desire to know the gender of our fetus; it feels like the first real opportunity to glimpse who they might be. Hmmm, so maybe gender is more than just a social construct? Later, when she writes about how her body is changing, she notes, “My husband has no physical symptoms in ‘our’ pregnancy, another reminder of how different a woman and man’s experience of life can be.” Ironic that just as she is gaining new appreciation for the uniquely feminine ability to sustain life and give birth, she is committing heresy as woke scolds will no doubt come out of the woodwork to say, “Men can experience pregnancy, too!” Even her contemplations of who her child will be betray the pro-abortion line. Her love for Planned Parenthood comes out when she uses the sterile phrase “our fetus,” but she ultimately can’t help but embrace pro-life language, concluding, “I’m already learning from this person inside my body.” Amazing what a clump of cells can teach you! Still, Ratajkowski draws harsh conclusions from the feminist theory she has been fed all her life and believes in. She worries about having a girl because “I still fight subconscious and internalized misogyny on a regular basis,” but she’s “scared of having a son” because of #MeToo and white male privilege: I’ve known far too many white men who move through the world unaware of their privilege, and I’ve been traumatized by many of my experiences with them. And boys too; it’s shocking to realize how early young boys gain a sense of entitlement—to girls’ bodies and to the world in general. I’m not scared of raising a “bad guy,” as many of the men I’ve known who abuse their power do so unintentionally. But I’m terrified of inadvertently cultivating the carelessness and the lack of awareness that are so convenient for men. It feels much more daunting to create an understanding of privilege in a child than to teach simple black-and-white morality. How do I raise a child who learns to like themself while also teaching them about their position of power in the world? The psychosis that white guilt has plagued mothers with is shown even more clearly in the next paragraph. How much is society training people to hate white men? Ratajkowski writes of a friend who cried and grew to resent her husband when she found out she was having a boy. My friend who is the mother to a three-year-old boy tells me that she didn’t think she cared about gender until her doctor broke the news that she was having a son. She burst into tears in her office. “And then I continued to cry for a whole month,” she says matter-of-factly. After a difficult birth experience, she developed postpartum depression and decided that she resented her husband more than she’d ever imagined possible. She told me she particularly hated—and she made an actual, physical list that she kept in her journal, editing it daily—how peacefully he slept. “There is nothing worse than the undisturbed sleep of a white man in a patriarchal world.” She shakes her head. “It was hard to come to terms with the fact that I was bringing yet another white man into the world. But now I adore him and can’t imagine it any other way.” She also eventually learned to love her husband again. The sound of his perfect sleep next to her at night is now tolerable. Ratajkowski doesn’t really have anything to say about that, no exploration of the consequences of liberalism ad absurdum or what she can learn from it. There are a lot of half-baked musing that almost sound meaningful in this essay, if only she would connect the dots and repudiate the poison of an ideology that rejects the differences between men and women, denies the humanity of the unborn, and teaches white women to hate their husbands and sons. Who knows? Maybe motherhood will moderate this radical and one day her scattered thoughts will give birth to something more fully formed and mature.
Twitter Launches Unprecedented Censorship of Trump Tweet Critical of Mail-In Votes
by Alexander Hall on October 27, 2020 at 2:33 pm
Twitter has “fact-checked” the president’s tweets and put them behind filters before, but now users themselves are blocked from showing their approval. Twitter censored President Donald Trump’s October 26 tweet regarding "Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots," claiming it spread information about the election that "is disputed and might be misleading." In an unprecedented move, users cannot share or like the Tweet. When users click on the “Like” button, Twitter sends a pop-up explaining: “We try to prevent a tweet like this that otherwise breaks the Twitter Rules from reaching more people, so we have disabled most of the ways to engage with it. If you want to talk about it, you can still Retweet with comment.” Upon trying to retweet the post, Twitter sends another pop-up that requires the user to click through again to quote-tweet. The pop-up urges the following: “Learn how voting by mail is safe and secure.” When users click through that pop-up to share it as a quote tweet, Twitter leaves a label beneath users’ posts by default. The label states: “Some or all of the content shared in this Tweet is disputed and might be misleading about how to participate in an election or another civic process. Learn more.” Essentially, Twitter has reduced Trump’s supporters from being able to endorse the tweet with “Likes,” and made it susceptible to being ratioed. Getting “ratioed” is Twitter slang for when a user is publicly humiliated on Twitter for having a Tweet receive more critical comments than likes because it ran afoul of the community at large. “Generally speaking, the more replies a tweet gets over likes or retweets, the worse it is,” Merriam-Webster’s Words We’re Watching blog explained. Big Tech has a history of censoring Trump and fellow conservatives for critiquing vulnerabilities of mail-in voting. This trend arguably began when Trump was fact-checked by Twitter for condemning “Mail-In Ballots,” stating, “There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent,” this past May. Twitter reportedly suspended Trump Campaign National Press Secretary Hogan Gidley for criticizing mail-in voting. Gidley had tweeted about “receiving an envelope in the mail that was addressed to someone else, by the name of ‘Daniel’” and criticized the integrity of mail-in voting, according to Fox News. There are numerous examples of liberal outlets questioning the safety of mail-in voting during past elections. The New York Times wrote in 2012: “votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show,” in an article headlined “Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises.” Slate acknowledged in a 2016 piece headlined “Voter Fraud Exists. Republican Restrictions Won’t Stop It,” that “The vast majority of voter fraud prosecutions touted by conservative groups like [T]he Heritage Foundation involve absentee ballots that were illegally cast. And the only voting fraud schemes with the potential to actually swing elections involved mail-in ballots.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact Twitter: (415) 222-9670, Facebook, Twitter or mail to 1355 Market Street Suite 900 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.
Michael Bloomberg Gives $20M to Down-Ballot Races Focused on Climate
by Joseph Vazquez on October 27, 2020 at 2:30 pm
There doesn’t appear to be an end in sight for the hundreds of millions Bloomberg News owner Michael Bloomberg is willing to spend to buy the U.S. election for Democrats. The liberal billionaire’s new schtick is elevating Democratic candidates down-ballot who are like-minded with his extremist vision on climate change. Specifically, Bloomberg is dumping an “additional $20 million into this election cycle, flooding the airwaves in North Carolina, Texas and Arizona to promote down-ballot candidates who share his views on climate,” according to Axios. The outlet noted that this cash dump is “on top of the $100 million he pledged last month to help Joe Biden win Florida.” This is also on top of the $60 million Bloomberg pledged to help Democrats to strengthen their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in November, the more than $1 billion he spent on his failed Democratic presidential campaign, the $18 million he shifted from his failed campaign to the Democratic National Committee, and the $35 million pledge he made to fund the data consulting firm Hawkfish to help Democrats. According to Axios, “With Democrats flush with cash at both the presidential and congressional level, Bloomberg is looking for returns further down the ballot, investing in races that are flying below the national radar.” The outlet cited Bloomberg’s Beyond Carbon Victory Fund campaign manager Brynne Craig, who stated: “‘These may not be races that you’ve heard of, but they are where we thought we could make a difference." She continued: “‘These offices play roles that could help each of their states combat climate change.’” The Fund is reportedly putting $8.5 million “into TV, radio and digital advertising to support Democrat Yvonne Lewis Holley for lieutenant governor of North Carolina.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact Bloomberg News at email@example.com and demand it release a statement isolating itself away from its owner's extremist eco-political activities.
IRONY: NY Times Accuses Conservative Outlets of Spreading Misinformation
by Clay Waters on October 27, 2020 at 2:25 pm
News and opinion the New York Times doesn’t want circulating are conveniently dismissed as “disinformation.” Recent proof: An October 22 lead National Section story by Patricia Mazzei and Jennifer Medina from Miami: “Fake Political News Aimed at Latinos To Suppress Vote – A disinformation system that portrays the Black Lives Matter movement as evil threatens to drive down voter turnout.” Surely the Times would agree that anti-Semitism is evil and also agree that there’s too much of it in the BLM movement? A radio host claimed a BLM co-founded practiced “brujería,” or witchcraft. It was not enough for the Times to roll its eyes at such talk radio guff -- it had to condemn it as capital-R “racism” meant to drive an electoral wedge between Latinos and blacks. By repeating the racist tropes on the radio, Ms. [Carines] Moncada spread it beyond her 45,000 Twitter followers and into South Florida’s mainstream broadcast media, a worrying circle of misinformation targeting Latino voters in the nation’s biggest presidential battleground state. Meanwhile, conservatives were villains and liberals were hand-wringing. But the outright disinformation -- the deliberate spreading of falsehoods -- is coming almost exclusively from conservatives, researchers say, including from a crop of right-wing Spanish-language websites that are designed to look like nonpartisan news outlets. Liberal activists and experts have struggled to keep up with an accurate response, in part because of language barriers and because so much has been spread in private, closed groups. Luckily (?), a liberal media nonprofit has teamed up with two liberal Spanish networks to fight such right-wing lies, er, opinion: Last month, the media nonprofit Poynter Institute announced a collective that included the Telemundo and Univision networks to combat misinformation on the messaging platform WhatsApp. Relatedly, tech reporter Kevin Roose made Sunday’s front page with a hit piece on the Falun Gong-associated newspaper The Epoch Times, “How an Obscure Newspaper Became a Bullhorn for the Far Right.” Roose even seemed irked by the paper’s opposition to Communist China. To top it off, Tiffany Hsu’s story in Monday’s Business section smeared popular mainstream conservative media outlets to discredit their reporting in the week before Election Day: “False Voter Fraud Stories Are Churning on Conservative News Sites.” Yes, the paper that brought you nonstop Russia-gate is accusing other outlets of phony stories. Tsu smeared a prominent conservative newspaper and magazine using weak, indirect evidence and slippery wordplay that required multiple leaps of bad faith to believe. In the final stretch of the 2020 campaign, right-leaning news sites with millions of readers have published dozens of false or misleading headlines and articles that effectively back unsubstantiated claims by President Trump and his allies that mail-in ballots threaten the integrity of the election. With evasive wordplay, Tsu over-"weighed" the import of isolated headlines to hint that these are conspiratorial conservative outlets not to be trusted: The Washington Examiner, Breitbart News, The Gateway Pundit and The Washington Times are among the sites that have posted articles with headlines giving weight to the conspiracy theory that voter fraud is rampant and could swing the election to the left, a theory that has been repeatedly debunked by data. Tsu gathered up scattered stories to make her ideological point. Another right-wing site, Daily Wire, posted a Sept. 24 article about ballots in Pennsylvania under the headline “FEDS: Military Ballots Discarded in ‘Troubling’ Discovery. All Opened Ballots were Cast for Trump.” Headlines on the same issue in The Washington Times were similar: “Feds investigating discarded mail-in ballots cast for Trump in Pennsylvania” and “FBI downplays election fraud as suspected ballot issues found in Pennsylvania, Texas.” A Washington Times opinion piece on the matter had the headline “Trump ballots in trash, oh my.” Several days after the reports, neither Daily Wire nor The Washington Times appeared to follow up with articles on the announcement from Pennsylvania’s elections chief that the discarded ballots were a “bad error” by a seasonal contractor, not “intentional fraud.” Mr. Trump cited the discarded Pennsylvania ballots several times as an example of fraud, including in last month’s presidential debate. Wait: How does what Pennsylvania’s election chief said contradict those headlines, none of which actually read “intentional fraud,” despite how a quick reading of Tsu’s story would imply? And isn’t this “bad error” pretty disturbing in itself, no matter the intent? Incidentally, if NewsBusters devoted itself to all the bad stories the Times has printed but never taken back, nothing else would ever get done. The paper has long worked overtime to debunk any hint of problems with mail-in voting (never mind its own reporting and that of other liberal outlets).
Gwyneth Paltrow Rooting For BLM To Smash ‘Patriarchy Of White Men'
by Sergie Daez on October 27, 2020 at 1:48 pm
According to an article on boundingintocomics.com, Gwyneth Paltrow praised Black Lives Matter because the group is “destroying the ‘paradigm of patriarchy of white men.’” In an interview with Adobe Max, Paltrow claimed, “I think we’re laying the groundwork for the change, I think the #MeToo movement was a big part of that change, I think Black Lives Matter is part of that change, I think what we are saying collectively as a culture and as a society is, ‘We are done with that paradigm of patriarchy of White men.'” She also said, “And I think patriarchy itself — it sort of feels like it’s cracking and is starting to embrace a much wider variety of voices and races and genders.” Aside from the fact that patriarchy can’t embrace other genders because it is literally governance by males, how does America have a paradigm of patriarchy of white men? We had our first black president. A woman came within an inch of the presidency. We’ve had African-American and Hispanic Supreme Court Justices. Asian-Americans have sat in congress before the 21st century even began. Similarly, women have held offices in congress since the 20th century. That’s everybody covered, right? Paltrow, who was a victim of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual criminal behavior, supports BLM because she believes that it will help the next generation of women. “And it’s good that it’s happening systemically, because I’ll tell you, by the time my daughter is in the workforce, like, those girls are not going to stand for it.” It is good to fight sexism in the workplace, but isn’t there a better weapon to use than a lawless, America-hating organization like Black Lives Matter? Paltrow had already expressed support for BLM in June in a lengthy Instagram post, saying “BLACK LIVES MATTER. The movement for black lives is about preserving BLACK LIFE. There are real systemic barriers to the safety and preservation of black life. It’s about dismantling a system that is unfit to serve black and brown birthing people.” (“Birthing people?”) That’s great news . . . for MS 13. Dismantling the police, as BLM says is its goal, means drastically reducing the safety and preservation of all lives, no matter the race. It’s not that hard to figure out. Goop, Paltrow’s wellness company, has also been politicized. The company website has a statement supporting Black Lives Matter and several fundraising groups that help arrested people pay bail. The statement starts with “Black lives matter. It’s worth repeating—until the day it never needs to be pointed out again. The most recent examples of police brutality are heart-sickening, devastating, and impossible to ignore if you’re a human being. But it’s not new; it’s everyday life for people of color.” For all their emphasis on black lives mattering, they don’t bother to talk about Planned Parenthood that much. The organization is a big killer of black lives, probably more so than the police. The statement also said that ““We’re all here trying to do the same things—support our families, thrive at work, fall in love, take care of ourselves, learn, feel, live, and die—but so many of us in this country live a totally different reality, without those basic freedoms.” You want to complain? Try the African-Americans before 1865. They didn’t have any basic freedoms. Good thing the film Antebellum is just a fantasy. “If you’re white, that means being aware of the privilege that you’re born into and walk around with, and then using it to break down the barriers between us. And all of us—today, this week, every single day—can be part of the change. There are so many ways to meaningfully show up: standing up for what you believe in at a protest, donating, and educating yourself on how to better support Black friends, neighbors, and businesses.” Are they saying that they want white people to do the cringey acts of self abasement like Ryan Reynolds and Matthew Stafford did? Ew, no thanks. Paltrow’s fight against white patriarchy is futile for two reasons. First, white patriarchy isn’t as prevalent as people think. Secondly, using Black Lives Matter, a lawless organization, to fight white patriarchy is like using hitmen to eliminate one’s enemies. There’s no use in fighting evil if one uses evil methods.