Ed Right Wing Watch

[Cleon]

It means that Hillary started and supports media matters

Media Matters was started by David Brock, not Hillary Clinton.

and it in turn strongly supports her and her campaign.

In fact, the guy that runs media matters gave dozens of interviews when the Hillary Clinton email sever scandal came out.

Basically mm is Hillary's unofficial propaganda/attack site.

They certainly have a Democratic bias, and they defend Clinton against Republican attacks - as they do for all Democrats, as far as I can tell.

I'm underwhelmed by the evidence for your claim.

And if you try to imply for a second that I'm a Hillary supporter, you get the laughing dog.

 

[Kestrel]

The so called Clinton email scandal is the continuation of a fishing expedition that has yet to catch a fish.

Yes, Media Matters has a political bent. But unlike most of the right wing sites, they don't just make up rumors and post them as fact. They back up their claims with evidence and sources.

 

[The Big Dog]

Media Matters was started by David Brock, not Hillary Clinton.

You may wish to take that up with Hillary:

“We are certainly better-prepared and more focused on taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely,” said then-Sen. Hillary Clinton at a progressive conference in Chicago in 2007. “We’re really putting together a network in the blogosphere, in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress.”

They certainly have a Democratic bias, and they defend Clinton against Republican attacks - as they do for all Democrats, as far as I can tell.

I'm not sure that claiming that they defend "all Democrats" takes them outside the realm of propaganda sites.

Curious though that you said "republican attacks." Media Matters went after the New York Times hammer and tongs for having the temerity to question Hillary's email practices:

David Brock, founder of the liberal Media Matters watchdog and a Hillary Clinton loyalist wants New York Times 'correction' on Hillary emails report

Now if you are going to tell me that the New York Times is a Republican institution, be prepared for the "laughing dog" as you so eloquently put it.

 

[Cleon]

You may wish to take that up with Hillary:

“We are certainly better-prepared and more focused on taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely,” said then-Sen. Hillary Clinton at a progressive conference in Chicago in 2007. “We’re really putting together a network in the blogosphere, in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress.”

You may take Hillary's claims at face value; I do not. She has a history of "misremembering" things and exaggerating her role in events. I'm surprised you don't know that.

Especially in this case when it's a matter of public record that MMFA was founded by David Brock, not Hillary Clinton.

Curious though that you said "republican attacks."

...

I'm even less whelmed.

 

[Butter!]

Hilary Clinton didn't start Media Matters. She helped advise it in its early stages. David Brock started it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America#Funding_and_staff

 

[The Big Dog]

You may take Hillary's claims at face value; I do not. She has a history of "misremembering" things and exaggerating her role in events. I'm surprised you don't know that.

Uh Ok.....

Interesting that you deleted the sentence in my post about Brock going after the New York Times, tho.

I consider media matters as authoritative as 911 Blogger, but if you want to cite it, ain't nobody gonna stop you. Just don't be surprised if people are "underwhelmed" with your arguments.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hilary Clinton didn't start Media Matters. She helped advise it in its early stages. David Brock started it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America#Funding_and_staff

Indeed as I noted, Hillary said she helped to start.

 

[Butter!]

Indeed as I noted, Hillary said she helped to start.

Advising isn't quite the same thing in my mind, but whatever, I guess it's open to interpretation.

 

[Beerina]

I'm not, Right wing watch is infamous for cherry picking nonsense and presenting it without context for the sole purpose of stirring up the internet outrage machine, and this is another classic example, taken (of course) to the next level by an incendiary headline about "fantasizing" about rape and murder.

So it's the leftist version of Breitbart or Drudge?

 

[DavidJames]

I consider media matters as authoritative as 911 Blogger

911 Blogger has been shown to not be a good source of information because what it publishes has been repeatedly shown to be wrong.

You continue to refuse to address the content of what MM publishes, therefore what you "consider" is irrelevant and an apples and oranges comparison.

What you are doing is a classic example of an ad hom fallacy.

 

[The Big Dog]

What you are doing is a classic example of an ad hom fallacy.

Actually it is not fallacious, because I am addressing the lack of credibility of media matters

 

[Butter!]

Actually it is not fallacious, because I am addressing the lack of credibility of media matters

But you haven't identified it. What isn't credible? They source their claims...

They have a spin, but it appears their purpose is to aggregate stories that fit that spin (much like a million other news sites, networks, what-have-you), not to just make things up.

 

[The Big Dog]

But you haven't identified it. What isn't credible? They source their claims...

They have a spin, but it appears their purpose is to aggregate stories that fit that spin (much like a million other news sites, networks, what-have-you), not to just make things up.

This should be fairly obvious. A grossly biased person can source their claims, but is still not credible because they fail to address or disclose contradictory evidence. Plus, media matters has a tendency to cite themselves as a source.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ok, I am off to run a little experiment. see ya later!

 

[The Big Dog]

So it's the leftist version of Breitbart or Drudge?

we'll see

 

[fuelair]

People read Right Wing Watch for the same reason people watch Little Booboo and Duck Dynasty

Trainwrecks have an entertainment value all their own. Also I think here on a skeptic's board, we all know a little bit of the enjoyment of mocking the "kook", and the far-right is nothing if not kooky, and the machine they've built themselves churning out their propaganda is wonderful at giving us a constant stream of new "kook nuggets" to enjoy and share with our friends.

Also I think to the extent they uncover shameful behaviour, there's also a bit of the (very appropriate) shaming ritual going on (when Right Wing Watch uncovers abject racism or boorish behaviour).

So take your pick, as always, there's a confluence of motivations.

Thath Honey-Boo-Boo, mithter!!!

 

[Butter!]

Plus, media matters has a tendency to cite themselves as a source.

Really? Wow, that's pretty egregious. Do you have an example of this you could link when you get back?

 

[Cleon]

Uh Ok.....

Interesting that you deleted the sentence in my post about Brock going after the New York Times, tho.

Why, it's almost as "curious" as my use of the phrase "Republican attacks!"

I consider media matters as authoritative as 911 Blogger,

I'm sure that you do. However, most people don't gauge their opinions by yours.

but if you want to cite it, ain't nobody gonna stop you. Just don't be surprised if people are "underwhelmed" with your arguments.

Have you known me to cite Media Matters?

 

[The Big Dog]

Why, it's almost as "curious" as my use of the phrase "Republican attacks!"

Ok.

 

[DavidJames]

But you haven't identified it. What isn't credible? They source their claims....

And he won't because, as avid readers, we know he can't or he would have. He "skeptical" analysis of MM is it's a biased source because, it's a biased source.