Media Matters

[boloboffin]

Thanks. That just based on what I've observed when I've visited MMfA. I am not a watchdog group and I don't hound their site recording their distortions.

The 2004 election coverage reneg and deletion is very damning yes. One of the other times I bothered visiting the site was during the "phony soldiers" debate where I found that they omitted information from their fact check on the topic that would be deflated the point they were trying to make.

The truly silly thing about that "fact check" was the facts omitted were available elsewhere on the site but when they put together their comprehensive review, they omitted the things which disagreed with their bias. Upchurch still thinks this is fine for some reason.

Again, I am not a watchdog group nor do I visit conservative sites which try to record the bias of the democrat sites. I don't care.

This reminds me of the Moyers special on Iraq war coverage Skeptigirl posted once. I took a glance at the transcript of the show and pointed out several distortions that were intentionally made. Instead of recanting with "oh yeah, thats a big red flag from someone whose supposed to be watching the watchmen", she challenged me to fact check the rest of the transcript.

Jeez people, my finding of glaring distortion (or deletion in the case of mmfa) is not your excuse to try to send me on a fact finding mission. I'm a normal guy with a wife, daughter, and a normal life. I am not going go make a catalog of problems with your treasured sources of misinformation because you can't think critically about them due to your confirmation bias.

Go do your own gosh darn fact check. (regards to Buckley and moderation that prevents me from doing that quote reference justice)

It is your claim. I'm asking you to back it up with links and evidence. You respond with another anecdote, say you don't care, bring up Bill Moyers (who's not associated with the site), and mention you have a life.

Well, you also have an easily demonstrated unsupportable bias.

 

[corplinx]

It is your claim. I'm asking you to back it up with links and evidence.

Go read the previous threads where I discussed the phony soldiers issue. Use the "search" function of the forum. You will find it on the main navbar between "New Posts" and "Tags". This is your thread where you want the truth about MMfA. I am an insult comic dog, not AskJeeves who retrieves your facts for you.

You might even still be able to find the 2004 election thread on the night of the election where I commented on their coverage while it was happening. That's is about as close as you will ever get to that, since it was in fact deleted. Meaning they deleted the evidence.

If you think I am lying about it or distorting what happened that night, feel free to record your complaint. However, my observation is the evidence. It was logged at the time.

 

[boloboffin]

Come back when you have links and evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I haven't examined AIM in any detail. I'm for the general goal of eliminating any misinformation, and I don't think liberal politicians are immune from putting it out there.

I did examine AIM in detail. They regurgitate the Republican talking points. They do little to nothing in the way of providing evidence based criticisms of any liberal positions, stories, etc.

I would love to see a true conservative equivalent to Media Matters but there isn't one that I am aware of.

As it turns out, the progressive sources are better at exposing the Dems's corruption than the Republics are. For example, there is a lot of concern among liberal sources regarding Senator Max Bauccus' campaign money coming from the medical insurance industry.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Given that Media Matters usually if not always links or quotes the full and complete text of the comments they are criticizing, I think they're one of the more honest partisan commentator sites around.

They do have the popular media problem of sucking at science though, and they put out a study of right wing media bias that didn't hold water methodologically:

Bohlmann, D. Harness, L., & Dudash, E. A. (2007) Topics in Media and Political Bias Through content analysis researched differences in topic selection for Sunday

Dudash, E., Waters, S., & Bourhis, J. (2007, November). Does Media Matter? Investigating Media Bias, Answering Bill O’Reilly, and Challenging Sunday Morning News Programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, Ill

 

[Dancing David]

You would have to be so hysterically left-wing that you are blind to the obvious in order to believe that Media Matters is anything but the essence of a left-wing propaganda machine. Just as I would not expect unbiased rational analysis from the Republican National Committee, I do not expect it of Media Matters. I don't know of anyone I know personally who is left wing who would even try to pass them off as anything but a tool of the DNC.

That doesn't mean Media Matters should be ignored - while a tool of political hacks everywhere, they occasionally do get it right (as we have observed from the Lou Dobbs thread). But it should be treated with the same suspicion as you would treat any source of political talking points.

By the way, copy and pasting Media Matters mission statement as proof? Yes, because political propaganda operations are always so open about their biases. I am sure the Daily Kos and the Free Republic would both post the same type of things about themselves.

Also, you should learn about burden of proof. If you would like to propose that Media Matters is the epitome of unbiased analysis and critical thought free of political agenda, post the evidence.

Finally, what does this have to do with conspiracy?

Where had MM reported inaccurately.

Hmmm, now they report only certain things (that is a bias), but where are they wrong in what they report?

 

[Dancing David]

Well, so far I'm rather disappointed. Mention or link to Media Matters and many people here react like Skekses after a Gelfling. With that kind of ill reputation, you would think some actual abuses could be documented.

Let's start simply then. No need to work at this. Tell me your first encounter with the lies at Media Matters. What did they do or say that was so very wrong that led you to consider that perhaps this was not a site to consult when seeking the truth about anything whatsoever?

If people want to see more bias and editorializing in newswatch, I suggest

http://www.rightwingwatch.org , they do report on the media but there is much more spin.

 

[Dancing David]

One of the more humourous cases of Media Matters showing its amateur and very ideological nature was the 2004 election. They had a lot of copy up about how they were monitoring which networks were calling the results and about how their own high standard for calling the victor was such and such. This was in response to perceived shenanigans about 2000 calls.

Instead of them calling the victor per state based on the criteria they stated, they just stopped calling states after it became obvious Kerry was losing and then DELETED the info about how they were calling it and stopped doing so.

After that situation, I just stopped caring about the bias, inaccuracy, and outright deceptions at MMfA since they demonstrated that when they are demonstrably wrong/biased they have no qualms about deleting the evidence. They put together selective context which Upchurch thinks is complete context and leads him to tout how useful they are. However, they showed me that they may delete their own context.

Media Matters except for Media Matters.

They really aren't even worth discussing. Its just a left leaning comfort food source for their ideas about the media like the MRC for the right leaning folks.

It is also entertainiment, as in the Glenn Beck meltdown on July 15, such entertainment.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907150016

You raise some good points but your blanket dismissal is interesting, so the things that right wing pundits say didn't happen, or MM doesn't report on itself and the left accurately.

 

[corplinx]

Come back when you have links and evidence.

I don't work for you. Use the "search" function. Don't give other people jobs you can do yourself and guise it under "he won't give me teh links!".

If you want to know the truth about media matters, go read the long history of political opportunist David Brock. Go read all the background material. Go find the instances where they show their colors. Go do the research. You are starting with the assumption that they are fine and challenging people to debunk your view of them.

Your assumption that a media watchdog group run by a tabloidal political hack (David Brock) is somehow more than just another partisan organ is the claim that really needs defending.

Where is the evidence that MMfA is anything more than that? And no, their own statements about what they are do not count.

SHOW ME TEH LINKS AND EVIDDENCES!!!!!

OH U WONT? DEN U MUSS BE WRONG< I WIN AT TEH ITNERNWETS!

 

[DavidJames]

SHOW ME TEH LINKS AND EVIDDENCES!!!!!

OH U WONT? DEN U MUSS BE WRONG< I WIN AT TEH ITNERNWETS!

Oh my. Even the 9/11 CTists aren't this pathetic.

 

[Upchurch]

I don't work for you. Use the "search" function. Don't give other people jobs you can do yourself and guise it under "he won't give me teh links!".

If you want to know the truth about media matters, go read the long history of political opportunist David Brock. Go read all the background material. Go find the instances where they show their colors. Go do the research.

C'mon, corp. You know how this works. If you make the claim, it's up to you to support it.

eta: ...or withdraw the claim.

If you want to know the truth about media matters, go read the long history of political opportunist David Brock.

What is that, ad hom?

You are starting with the assumption that they are fine and challenging people to debunk your view of them.

I can't speak for boloboffin, but how do you know that? How do you know that he didn't read the group and simply formed a conclusion that was different than yours?

Where is the evidence that MMfA is anything more than that? And no, their own statements about what they are do not count.

Hows about the fact that they provide the source material that they are fact checking, both in audio and/or visual as well as written transcript? Hows about the fact that they link to the source materials that supports their checks?

In other words, the evidence that MMFA is anything more than "just another political organ" is that they "SHOW TEH LINKS AND EVIDDENCES!!!!!"

You know, that stuff a skeptic is supposed to consider before drawing a conclusion (or to reconsider a conclusion based on provided evidence).

 

[Upchurch]

I finally remembered what corp's coup de grâce on MMFA was:

Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are "phony soldiers"

Limbaugh complained that they stopped the transcript something like a minute and a half to two minutes before the "full context" came around. MMFA was so diabolical and dishonest that they presented the entire last portion of the segment again with next segment that Limbaugh said was relevant, thus allowing people to make up their own minds whether it was or not. How dare they?!?

IMHO, MMFA made a pretty compelling argument that Limbaugh was talking about a previous caller and not Jesse MacBeth.

 

[Brainster]

One of the recent stories that Media Matters came up in was the story about how Fox News would consistently misidentify Republicans caught up in scandals (like Mark Sanford) as Democrats. Here's a story that won't make their radar, because it's not what they cover:

Assemblyman Daniel Van Pelt (R-Ocean), Hoboken Mayor Peter Cammarano, Secaucus Mayor Dennis Elwell and Jersey City Council President Mariano Vega are among those already brought to the FBI building in Newark. Jersey City Deputy Mayor Leona Beldini has also been arrested.

Nice of them to let us know the party identification of Van Pelt. What party do you think the other guys belong to?

Yep, all Democrats. Somehow that didn't seem relevant to the story, however.

 

[Patrick_R]

Media Matters was launched a time when the left wing in America was overly concerned with media conglomerates - automatically linking the corporation to the "right wing"

I don't think the media is really left or right, they're just trying to sell a product - information.

 

[boloboffin]

One of the recent stories that Media Matters came up in was the story about how Fox News would consistently misidentify Republicans caught up in scandals (like Mark Sanford) as Democrats.

OK.

Here's a story that won't make their radar, because it's not what they cover:

Media Matters clearly and openly professes partisanship in their mission statement. Do they lie and deceive by so doing? That is the question.

Pointing out what NJ.net did isn't providing evidence of deceit by Media Matters. But since you bring it up...

Nice of them to let us know the party identification of Van Pelt. What party do you think the other guys belong to?

Yep, all Democrats. Somehow that didn't seem relevant to the story, however.

Well, isn't the natural assumption that a random New Jersey official would be a Democrat? And by IDing one as a Republican and leaving the others unIDed, isn't there a clear implication that the rest are Democrats? Newspapers deal with column inches, and adding an ID to every one stretches that out. The worst that can be said here is that NJ.net put the Republican first to counter as best as they could the notion that this is a Democrats-only scandal... which, wow, admittedly hard to do when they list name after name after name after the only Republican in the mix.

But a case could be made for bias in this article, yes. But that's not Media Matters' purview, as you've pointed out. Not covering this isn't them being liars or deceptive. Knowing that Media Matters only goes so far is a good thing to know, but they themselves tell you this fact. How is that deceptive?

How is this justification for making Media Matters a byword for deceit, so much so that anyone who refers to it approvingly is thus fit only for being written off as a hopeless blind partisan?

 

[boloboffin]

Media Matters was launched a time when the left wing in America was overly concerned with media conglomerates - automatically linking the corporation to the "right wing"

I don't think the media is really left or right, they're just trying to sell a product - information.

Yes, and what Media Matters threatens is the reputation of various media figures and institutions as reliable sources for that information. They are partisans, and they choose to make the ground as free of conservative misinformation as they can, the better for liberal messages to take root. And, I would argue, the better for conservative messages free from misinformation to take root and grow as well (though they wouldn't be happy about it).

And, yes, I left off "free from misinformation" from "liberal messages" on purpose. The ire I see here is fit for organizations who make sins of commission, as it were. If Media Matters sins, it's on the side of omission, but they tell you and everyone up front that they are doing this. If they are scrupulous and aboveboard in how they go about their limited mission, which is what I see, they become a useful tool in the war against misinformation in general. If they were being deceptive in how and what they called "conservative misinformation", then that would be another thing altogether. That would be a sin of commission, and Media Matters would begin to deserve the ire with which it is met.

But what I also see is media figures who want to spread misinformation, and thus attack Media Matters as the devil itself. Conservative figures could use the inoculation of a group like Media Matters and make their message stronger in the long run. Instead, many simply attack it as being deceitful.

It's a war of reliability in information. The only way to judge that is by watching the quality of information coming from sources. That's what Media Matters is doing for conservative media sources. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

 

[Brainster]

How is this justification for making Media Matters a byword for deceit, so much so that anyone who refers to it approvingly is thus fit only for being written off as a hopeless blind partisan?

I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that because their focus is solely on cases where the media are perceived as unfair to Democrats or Liberals, when they point out that, say Fox misidentifies Republicans as Democrats when they are involved in scandals, they don't show the cases where Fox misidentified Democrats as Republicans. Why? Because they don't see it as worth covering. As a result we don't know whether there's any significance to the story that Fox misidentified a few Republicans as Democrats, because there's nothing to compare it to.

 

[Dancing David]

If the Glenn beck freakout was too much here is Superman Gordon Liddy on Obama's birth certificate:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907230042

 

[boloboffin]

I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that because their focus is solely on cases where the media are perceived as unfair to Democrats or Liberals, when they point out that, say Fox misidentifies Republicans as Democrats when they are involved in scandals, they don't show the cases where Fox misidentified Democrats as Republicans. Why? Because they don't see it as worth covering. As a result we don't know whether there's any significance to the story that Fox misidentified a few Republicans as Democrats, because there's nothing to compare it to.

Wouldn't the fair comparison be where Fox misidentified Democrats as Republicans when they are involved in scandals?

Does Fox trot out numbers showing how often that has happened? Since identifying R's as D's when involved in a scandal appears to be a frequent mistake at Fox, why wouldn't someone at Fox figure out how many times D's were misidentified as R's when involved in a scandal? Sounds like a great fact-based way to shut Media Matters up. Instead, they go for the "evil George Soros funded" BS.

And how hard is it to keep straight, Brainster? Mark Sanford, the head of the National Republican Governors Association - something everyone at Fox must know. And yet even he was (D-NC) at the much anticipated (and thus prepped for) press conference, even after his name had been in the news for an agonizing five days. Whether sloppy or intentional, it doesn't speak well for Fox's reliability as a news source.

 

[Upchurch]

Media Matters was launched a time when the left wing in America was overly concerned with media conglomerates - automatically linking the corporation to the "right wing"

America was overly concerned with media conglomerates in 2004?