Media Matters

[Blender Head]

Michelle Malkin...blasted the birthers.

In a post you made in the relevant CT thread, you posted this article by Malkin as her having 'blasted' the Birthers.

Except, it's more like a sprinkling of 'tsk, tsk' after attacking "Bristol Palin gave birth to Trig" conspiracists.

Here's what she said:

There may be the seed of a legitimate constitutional issue to explore here — how is the citizenship requirement enforced for presidential candidates, anyway? And at least Donofrio concedes that Obama was born in Hawaii. But a dangerously large segment of the birth-certificate hunters have lurched into rabid Truther territory. The most prominent crusader against Obama’s American citizenship claim, lawyer Philip Berg (who, not coincidentally, is also a prominent 9/11 Truther) disputes that Obama was born in Hawaii and claims that Obama’s paternal grandmother told him she saw Obama born in Kenya.

Berg and his supporters further assert that the “Certification of Live Birth” produced by Obama was altered or forged. They claim that the contemporaneous announcement in a Hawaii newspaper of Obama’s birth is insufficient evidence that he was born there. (Did a fortuneteller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?) And they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being part and parcel of the grand plan to install Emperor Obama and usurp the rule of law.

I apologize if its more of a stunning rebuke to Truthers than I've given her credit for.

 

[Cicero]

How did David Brock become a credible source for libs when he was an incredible source prior to 2002?

 

[Dancing David]

I am more interested in the reports than the people who do the reporting, or the editor in chief.

 

[corplinx]

I am more interested in the reports than the people who do the reporting, or the editor in chief.

I guess that is a basic difference between you and I. There are some people whose reports I just don't bother with because they have established a record of inaccuracy or deception.

Who here reads a Bill Krystol piece and judges it on its merits without thinking about the guy who wrote it?

The fact is, a report/article/etc is part faith sometimes. You rely on accurate reports to inform you because you are far too busy to run your own fact checks. The blogosphere has helped us weed out some sources whether its exposing Jeff Ganon or the Powerline/LGF crowd exposing sources like "green helmet".

Given the amount of time in the day, the amount of news in a day, etc, it simply isn't worth my time to spend my day reading the Washington Times and trying to judge each article by its own worth while forgetting the overall reputation of the paper.

These days, I mostly read Politico for that sort of news. Hard hitting, informative, and stories you just don't find on the big networks. However, even Politico is prolific enough that you simply can't read it all and fact check every story.

That's just my 2 cents and I don't dismiss anyone as being right or wrong for not discriminating.

 

[Cicero]

I am more interested in the reports than the people who do the reporting, or the editor in chief.

Brock was not afforded this distinction by libs before 2002.

 

[Brainster]

In a post you made in the relevant CT thread, you posted this article by Malkin as her having 'blasted' the Birthers.

Except, it's more like a sprinkling of 'tsk, tsk' after attacking "Bristol Palin gave birth to Trig" conspiracists.

Here's what she said:



I apologize if its more of a stunning rebuke to Truthers than I've given her credit for.

She's also the person behind Hot Air, where both Allahpundit and Captain Ed Morrissey (see the links at Media Matters) have been unstinting in their criticism of the Birther Brigade. Tactically it's smart to criticize the Birthers by tying them to the Trig Truthers; it says to conservatives, "Don't touch this; it's the same kind of nuttiness."

 

[Blender Head]

She's also the person behind Hot Air, where both Allahpundit and Captain Ed Morrissey (see the links at Media Matters) have been unstinting in their criticism of the Birther Brigade. Tactically it's smart to criticize the Birthers by tying them to the Trig Truthers; it says to conservatives, "Don't touch this; it's the same kind of nuttiness."

Ah, point taken.

 

[Dancing David]

I guess that is a basic difference between you and I. There are some people whose reports I just don't bother with because they have established a record of inaccuracy or deception.

Who here reads a Bill Krystol piece and judges it on its merits without thinking about the guy who wrote it?

The fact is, a report/article/etc is part faith sometimes. You rely on accurate reports to inform you because you are far too busy to run your own fact checks. The blogosphere has helped us weed out some sources whether its exposing Jeff Ganon or the Powerline/LGF crowd exposing sources like "green helmet".

Given the amount of time in the day, the amount of news in a day, etc, it simply isn't worth my time to spend my day reading the Washington Times and trying to judge each article by its own worth while forgetting the overall reputation of the paper.

These days, I mostly read Politico for that sort of news. Hard hitting, informative, and stories you just don't find on the big networks. However, even Politico is prolific enough that you simply can't read it all and fact check every story.

That's just my 2 cents and I don't dismiss anyone as being right or wrong for not discriminating.

Brock was not afforded this distinction by libs before 2002.

And again, I am not interested in the morals of the person who runs the organization.

The stories are cited and referenced. the nature of David Brock is not the issue. (At least for me, I do not read the editorials)

When they report that something is inaccurate, it is well cited and documented. Considering what passes for facts at times : Gordon Liddy stating there is a 'sworn deposition from Obama's step mother', when in fact there is not one, how does the political history of David Brock change that as being inaccurate?

 

[Upchurch]

I mention you repeatedly because I think you are too smart not to see what they did on the Fact Check. I know you try to be a non-confrontational and non-judgmental guy. You try not to demagogue. You try to find a reason to not label people as liars to keep your personal discourse high.

The fact check omission of fact is a pretty much a red flag. I get tired of the run around though.

I'm not saying they are perfect and don't make mistakes. But consider, when called out by Limbaugh for not including the whole store, what did they do?

They reported the fact that Limbaugh disagreed with their article and provided all the information that Limbaugh indicated that he thought was relevant. They gave the reader everything you think is the complete context in order to make up their own minds about what he meant. Is that dishonest or are they openly dealing with a counter-argument? I mean, they could have simply pretended Limbaugh's complaint never happened and stood by their original story, as is.

Now, you might argue that they gave the rest of the context on a different day in a different article, but that is exactly what you are using to defend Limbaugh: extra context given on a different day on a different show.

As if it is the job of anyone on this forum to go fact check the web sites that certain people hold dear. In Bolo's case, he could have used the "search" function and found 3 cases I've pointed out in the past. Instead he stuck his fingers in his ears and yelled "I CANT HERE U! SHOW ME TEH LINX!".

These are all actions of people who aren't really interested in the truth. If you aren't interested in it, then why would you even be posting in the thread or reading it? To defend MMfA? If you feel the need to defend MMfA, then why? Why does the knee jerk to defend them?

corp, don't be petty. You made the claims concerning MMFA. Whose responsibility is it to support that claim?

This is tough love and I am sorry you read as ad hom.

Perhaps our challenging your assumptions is another form of tough love that you read as laziness.

 

[Cicero]

And again, I am not interested in the morals of the person who runs the organization.

The stories are cited and referenced. the nature of David Brock is not the issue. (At least for me, I do not read the editorials)

Since the owner of a media publication is of no consequence to you, did you extend the same trust to the cited and referenced articles that Brock did for The American Spectator?

When they report that something is inaccurate, it is well cited and documented. Considering what passes for facts at times : Gordon Liddy stating there is a 'sworn deposition from Obama's step mother', when in fact there is not one, how does the political history of David Brock change that as being inaccurate?

But why are you interested only in the inaccuracies from the political right? What is your source for inaccuracies from the political left?

 

[Upchurch]

Brock was not afforded this distinction by libs before 2002.

Do the cons afford him this distinction now, Cicero?

 

[Cicero]

Do the cons afford him this distinction now, Cicero?

Cons? Does Brock have a following in penal institutions? What we do know is that when Brock was writing for a conservative publication, libs dismissed him and his work as utter ********. Now that he owns a left wing blog, libs consider both him and his work inherently trustworthy. Should Brock go back to his pre 2002 days, and conservatives embrace him and libs go back to despising him, then we will know the answer to that question.

 

[linusrichard]

Cons? Does Brock have a following in penal institutions?

Someone who routinely uses "libs" should not complain or feign misunderstanding when presented with "cons" as an obvious abbreviation of "conservatives."

 

[Dancing David]

Since the owner of a media publication is of no consequence to you, did you extend the same trust to the cited and referenced articles that Brock did for The American Spectator?

Can't say I haven't read them, are they cited the same way?

But why are you interested only in the inaccuracies from the political right? What is your source for inaccuracies from the political left?

I don't know, who do you recomend?

NPR is my main news source, followed by Yahoo.

 

[boloboffin]

AIM has been recommended in the thread, though I've only skimmed the site. They don't do the documenting that Media Matters does. They only do opeds.

FAIR is another site to look at.

http://www.fair.org/index.php

 

[Cicero]

Someone who routinely uses "libs" should not complain or feign misunderstanding when presented with "cons" as an obvious abbreviation of "conservatives."

Really? How do you know some might not mistake "libs" as an abbreviation for "Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy?"

 

[corplinx]

Now, you might argue that they gave the rest of the context on a different day in a different article

I might argue that publishing a "Fact Check" with misleading facts and omissions of relevant facts which they were aware of is deceptive and most likely intentionally so.

Fact Check. It either is or it isn't. In that case, it wasn't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

AIM has been recommended in the thread, though I've only skimmed the site. They don't do the documenting that Media Matters does. They only do opeds.

FAIR is another site to look at.

http://www.fair.org/index.php

AIM has been recommended? For fraud, perhaps. They are the Con's (see sig ) answer to MM, however, without any of the fact checking.

FAIR does a pretty good job of pointing out the media biases.

 

[Dancing David]

AIM has been recommended in the thread, though I've only skimmed the site. They don't do the documenting that Media Matters does. They only do opeds.

FAIR is another site to look at.

http://www.fair.org/index.php

FAIR is very interesting, I prefer the radio show Counter Spin. Fair usually reports what other people have reported so it is somehwat filtered.

 

[Upchurch]

I might argue that publishing a "Fact Check" with misleading facts and omissions of relevant facts which they were aware of is deceptive and most likely intentionally so.

Evidence of your claim (and it is your claim)?