Media Matters

[boloboffin]

This thread is to discuss the biases and/or objectivity of the left research website Media Matters. It is regularly excoriated here as a site to get information from because of a reputation I think is unfairly gained.

In particular, I'm referring to statements like this one:

Anybody who accepts what Media Matters says blindly is a fool, since they are just as willing to lie and distort to promote their left wing agenda as the right wing groups they critcise.(I particularly dislike their blind support for Castro Jr down in Venezuala).

I offer this thread as a chance to document claims like "blind support for Castro Jr" and any other places where people feel Media Matters lies and distorts to promote their left wing agenda.

Because I don't see it. I find Media Matters to be excellent at reporting the atrocities of what passes as conservative thought on the public airwaves these days and for providing adequate context to show they are not twisting the words of the people they pursue doggedly.

This is its "left wing agenda":

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

From what I see, they do this job in a scrupulous way. I'm really glad that many of you feel that you've seen enough to make Media Matters a byword for hypocritical bias in the media. Here's your chance to show it to me and others. Document Media Matters' atrocities.

 

[LightinDarkness]

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?

 

[boloboffin]

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.

Then it should be easy to document how they purposefully distort the truth or how they change the context of what people are saying to smear them. Until you do, you're blinding yourself.

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.

Sounds good to me. Got links?

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.

I didn't quote it as "proof". I quoted it as an opening premise. Feel free to post actual evidence to the contrary of that statement.

If, however, we find that Media Matters is fulfilling its mission statement in an aboveboard and scrupulous manner, then it should not be a byword for deceit in the media. There's nothing wrong with partisanship until you are willing to lie and distort for it. Show me that Media Matters does so instead of preaching me the gospel.

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.

I didn't make that claim so I will leave it to others to prove. Did you read their mission statement?

However, in the interest of beginning the dialogue, my first example is the Lou Dobbs birther news. And we agree! They got it right.

Your turn.

Finally, what does this have to do with conspiracy?

Nothing. I meant to post this in Politics and have asked to have it moved.

 

[Brainster]

Media Matters is every bit as unbiased as Accuracy in Media.

I find Media Matters to be excellent at reporting the atrocities of what passes as conservative thought on the public airwaves these days and for providing adequate context to show they are not twisting the words of the people they pursue doggedly.

Do they ever cover the atrocities of what passes for liberal thought on the public airwaves these days? Or are atrocious thoughts the sole province of the conservatives?

 

[boloboffin]

Do they ever cover the atrocities of what passes for liberal thought on the public airwaves these days? Or are atrocious thoughts the sole province of the conservatives?

1. That's not the job that they set out for themselves.

2. No one has made any claim of atrocious thoughts being the sole province of the conservatives.

 

[Upchurch]

I think you have to distinguish between MMFA's fact-checking and their op-eds.

Their op-eds often do show a liberal bias and, perhaps, even propaganda (with all the negative connotations). Their fact-checking, however, is often very well sourced and the checked material is given in full context.

 

[boloboffin]

I think you have to distinguish between MMFA's fact-checking and their op-eds.

Their op-eds often do show a liberal bias and, perhaps, even propaganda (with all the negative connotations). Their fact-checking, however, is often very well sourced and the checked material is given in full context.

Media Matters makes this distinction clearly on their website. Blogs and columns are written like blogs and columns, but the bulk of the website's efforts go toward the fact-checking and documenting of conservative misinformation. Even if they didn't concentrate on liberals or Democrats at all (and they most certainly do), focusing on eliminating misinformation from conservative sources is a good for society. The questions here are two: does Media Matters do harm to the discourse and is the harm more than the good it does? Both questions are judgment calls to an extent, but evidence can be presented, positions can be supported, and kneejerk condemnations and disclaimers can be filled out.

 

[linusrichard]

As far as I've seen, Media Matters mostly posts videos and/or transcripts, with minimal commentary accompanying. The transcripts and videos really happened, and are not rendered less accurate just because they are supplied by a source that has a liberal agenda.

I would also note that the transcripts that are posted, at least the ones I've seen, generally have far more context than is even necessary, which is a good way to be sure you're being honest.

If someone's going to quote the MMA commentary as some kind of source, they should be aware of the liberal bias. But what's the difference between saying "Hey, check out this Glenn Beck idiocy from MMA" and saying "Hey, check out this Glenn Beck idiocy from glennbeck.com," or "Hey, check out this Glenn Beck idiocy I taped off of Fox News," or "Hey, check out this Glenn Beck idiocy on this tape I found on the sidewalk"?

As far as Accuracy in Media goes, I'm not too familiar, but perusing their website, it looks like they have a totally different thing. AIM appears to publish opinion pieces, which are obviously going to be affected by bias. Which is fine, of course! But it's not the same as what MMA does.

 

[Upchurch]

As far as Accuracy in Media goes, I'm not too familiar, but perusing their website, it looks like they have a totally different thing. AIM appears to publish opinion pieces, which are obviously going to be affected by bias. Which is fine, of course! But it's not the same as what MMA does.

I agree. Apples and oranges.

In addition to the fact-checking component, MMFA largely focuses on media sources. Looking at the first page of their columns, all the articles as of this writing have something to do with media interaction with and effects on news events or with media figures. AIM, on the other hand, has an article entitled Is Obama’s Science Czar a Crackpot? What does that have to do with accuracy in media?

 

[boloboffin]

I agree. Apples and oranges.

In addition to the fact-checking component, MMFA largely focuses on media sources. Looking at the first page of their columns, all the articles as of this writing have something to do with media interaction with and effects on news events or with media figures. AIM, on the other hand, has an article entitled Is Obama’s Science Czar a Crackpot? What does that have to do with accuracy in media?

I was looking at the Crackpot article and they are talking down some of the wackier claims of conservatives themselves.

I'm all for someone correcting the excesses of liberal media bias out there. AIM doesn't do the kind of documentation work that makes up the bulk of the Media Matters site, but if they are working to cut back on liberal misinformation, then that's a good thing.

 

[boloboffin]

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?

 

[daenku32]

There are others as well. I sometimes enjoy reading Newshounds site for coverage of Fox News bias, but most of the time it is just depressing to see how biased the people at FN are.

A lot of blogs of course also pick up right-wing lies but I'd say MMFA does it pretty darn good.

 

[Praktik]

Cheers boloboffin.

Been following Media Matters since their inception and I too look forward to substantiation of the quoted claim in the OP - cause I also don't see it.

Identifying an organization as liberal - or conservative, does not therefore mean that they lie and distort in favour of their partisanship. You can be reasonable and fair and have strong political viewpoints.

And in Media Matter's case, its not so much that they're Democrat partisans, but left-wing ones. Which I think comes out fairly clearly in their work.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was looking at the Crackpot article and they are talking down some of the wackier claims of conservatives themselves.

I'm all for someone correcting the excesses of liberal media bias out there. AIM doesn't do the kind of documentation work that makes up the bulk of the Media Matters site, but if they are working to cut back on liberal misinformation, then that's a good thing.

So you are saying AIM's discrediting of liberal media is good even though they aren't credible?

 

[corplinx]

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.

 

[boloboffin]

So you are saying AIM's discrediting of liberal media is good even though they aren't credible?

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.

 

[boloboffin]

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.

OK, nice anecdote. Got any "bias, inaccuracy, and outright deceptions" you can actually demonstrate with links and evidence, you know?

For example, the idea of selective vs. complete context. Can you demonstrate that Media Matters is being deceptive by the level of context they provide? On a page that is right now currently available on their website? If they are that deceptive and evil, it must be there right now.

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.

I'm really pleased to learn that you've hardwired dismissal of Media Matters into your thinking process. If the 2004 election story is all you've got, I'm not surprised you prefer not to discuss it.

 

[Upchurch]

They put together selective context which Upchurch thinks is complete context and leads him to tout how useful they are.

We've been over this, corp. Your version of "complete context" requires stretching it over different episodes and multiple days or some such nonsense. Give it up already.

However, they showed me that they may delete their own context.

I've never seen that happen and, of course, there is nothing you could provide as evidence if something was indeed deleted. You make your untestable claim all day long and no one can prove you wrong.

Well done.

 

[corplinx]

We've been over this, corp. Your version of "complete context" requires stretching it over different episodes and multiple days or some such nonsense. Give it up already.
.

Ignoring all context which proves you wrong in other words.

 

[corplinx]

OK, nice anecdote.

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)