Media Matters' war against Fox

Two things:

1) Where in the OP is there anything about MM being a 501(c)(3)? The whining of the Politico folks has nothing to do with that, but with the fact that MM is exposing problems with Fox
2) It's been a while since I've read MM, but I seem to remember their mission statement to be something about exposing conservative lies in the media. They've never pretended to be fair and balanced like Fox does. Given that, what would Fox expect? According to them, everyone else in the media is liberal, so if the mission is to address problems with conservatives in the media, they should be the only ones!

Fox wants to eat its cake and have it, too. They want to claim they are special compared to everyone else, but then complain when people view them differently from everyone else.
 
pgwenthold said:
Two things:

1) Where in the OP is there anything about MM being a 501(c)(3)? The whining of the Politico folks has nothing to do with that, but with the fact that MM is exposing problems with Fox
Click to expand...
No where but again Google is your friend:
Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a progressive media watchdog group which describes itself as "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Set up as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization,
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

Sounds like they are really getting into a grey area with this latest campaign in terms of violating the 501(c)(3) restriction regarding politics
 
Political tactics haven't changed for thousands of years ... and yet 34.56% of JREF members still seem confounded by them...

Or, is it like Captain Renault said in Casablanca: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling [politics] is going on in here!"?
 
Neally said:
No where but again Google is your friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America
Click to expand...



Which has nothing to do with my comment #1.

The issue of MM being a non-profit organization was brought up in this thread, and is not the basis for the whining in the article in the op.

They are crying solely because MM is exposing Fox's problems.

Bringing up their 501etc status here is merely an attempt to legitimize their whining.

If you want to discuss the limits on non-profits in political matters, start a different thread, sure. But don't pretend it has anything to do with the article or the topic brought up by the OP.
 
spaaron22 said:
If Fox wasn't so dishonest and inaccurate, would there be such an entity?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't there be?

Second, is Media Matters dishonest and inaccurate?
Click to expand...

Yes. But even worse, they're ineffective. They're a money pit for their donors. Despite costing many millions of dollars, their influence is negligible. They have no real impact on any public debate. Even if you agree with everything they say, their impotence alone is damning.
 
Ziggurat said:
Why wouldn't there be?
Click to expand...

My initial thought was:

If there's no bug, there's no need for an exterminator. How can a website point out so many inaccuracies if so many do not exist?


Then again, sites like InfoWars and Merola create inaccuracies and dishonesty to attack what they claim is inaccurate and dishonest. So, I guess they could still exist.
 
spaaron22 said:
My initial thought was:

If there's no bug, there's no need for an exterminator. How can a website point out so many inaccuracies if so many do not exist?
Click to expand...

What makes you assume that they exist because of the prevalence of right-wing lies? Because they say so?

They exist because their left-wing donors want to attack right-wing media. That may be easier to do if that media is full of lies, but the imperative doesn't come from the lies, it comes from the partisan divide between left and right. And in a partisan environment, some people (on ALL sides) will lie. Including people (like Media Matters) who are supposedly dedicated to exposing lies. So they'll always be able to justify their claimed raison d'etre.
 
spaaron22 said:
If Fox wasn't so dishonest and inaccurate, would there be such an entity?

Second, is Media Matters dishonest and inaccurate?
Click to expand...
No and No and NO. Wouldn't be needed. Also wouldn't be needed if the Dems we elected would start getting on message and hammering the republickers on the evil they did/do/are trying to do.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::jaw-dropp:(:(:mad:
 
spaaron22 said:
My initial thought was:

If there's no bug, there's no need for an exterminator. How can a website point out so many inaccuracies if so many do not exist?


Then again, sites like InfoWars and Merola create inaccuracies and dishonesty to attack what they claim is inaccurate and dishonest. So, I guess they could still exist.
Click to expand...
Part of their proclaimed purpose is to show "bias," which probably will never go away, and certainly not in the eyes of the beholder. So if FNC on Friday announces their existence was all a big April Fools Day joke and starts broadcasting only professional bowling, MMFA can still find plenty of material from the mainstream.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I heard a guest on the Hannity radio show talking about how "the left" only smears it's opposition and wants to silence dissent......

This reminds me of the religious right crying "persecution" when it is criticized for persecuting homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Don't you know that some animals are more equal than others?

I doubt they would be very keen on non-Christian creation stories being taught in science classes even though they want their own nonsense there. Some religions are more equal than others too.
 
Ziggurat said:
What makes you assume that they exist because of the prevalence of right-wing lies? Because they say so?
Click to expand...

It's more that they thrive off of the inaccuracies rather than exist for them. Without so many stories to cover, I don't know if there'd be enough credible content to present.
 
spaaron22 said:
It's more that they thrive off of the inaccuracies rather than exist for them.
Click to expand...

How do you define "thrive" in this context? Because if it's in terms of being able to pay the bills, then no, they thrive on donations.

Without so many stories to cover, I don't know if there'd be enough credible content to present.
Click to expand...

They also present content which isn't credible, so that's hardly an obstacle. Plus, they don't matter. Hardly anyone actually pays attention to them. They make no real difference. So why would it even matter if they were short on content?
 
Ziggurat said:
How do you define "thrive" in this context? Because if it's in terms of being able to pay the bills, then no, they thrive on donations.
Click to expand...

This is actually to their credit. They are not prevented from disclosing information that would financially hurt benefactors.

Have you ever noticed the ads for oil rig builders of Fox Boobs and even the MSM news casts? Why would anyone buy advertising time for things that the viewers can't run out and buy, if not to reward their puppets for being good spokesmodels?

People actually care enough about MM and what they do to support the effort without getting something of monetary value back from the dollar spent. Can Fox Boobs say that?

They also present content which isn't credible, so that's hardly an obstacle. Plus, they don't matter. Hardly anyone actually pays attention to them. They make no real difference. So why would it even matter if they were short on content?
Click to expand...

As opposed to Hannity, Bile-O, Michael Wiener, Malkin, the Coulter Critter and the Rushblob who immediately divorce themselves from any objective reality the minute their gums start to flap.
 
leftysergeant said:
As opposed to Hannity, Bile-O, Michael Wiener, Malkin, the Coulter Critter and the Rushblob who immediately divorce themselves from any objective reality the minute their gums start to flap.
Click to expand...

I never claimed any of them was a paragon of truth. But unlike Media Matters, they actually have some influence.

The Media Matters donors are flushing their money down the drain. It doesn't matter how much you agree with their message, they aren't getting that message out successfully. Nobody actually cares what Media Matters has to say about anything.
 
I must admit, I don't trust media matters as a source of information. They are entertainment and if I see something, I'll go to sources to make my own conclusions.
While I have in the past, I try to avoid using them as a source.
 
Per the IRS, a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization is "may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

The argument that their putative war against Fox news would threaten their tax exempt status would be the assertion by MM that Fox News is affiliated with the GOP and that their attack on Fox News is thus their attempt to attack a political party, which (it would then be argued) is the functional equivalent of participating in campaign activity against GOP candidates. If there is actually an official political race going on (ie declared candidates, etc) then I think that the argument is a good one and MM would be risking it's tax exempt status.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom