Media Matters

[corplinx]

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

See above.

 

[SezMe]

Now that he owns a left wing blog, libs consider both him and his work inherently trustworthy.

One would have thought you would have worn out that extremely broard brush by now - lord knows you use it enough.

 

[corplinx]

Alright, I'll paste it again. With bolding for those without reading comprehension.

Washington, DC - As the controversy over Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comments continues to grow, Media Matters for America would like to highlight the falsehoods that Limbaugh, America's top conservative talk-radio host, has used to claim that he was taken out of context.

Limbaugh claims he referred only to Jesse MacBeth, but smeared other veterans

Misinformation: On September 28, Limbaugh asserted that his "phony soldiers" comment was a reference to Jesse MacBeth, who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran.

Fact: Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment. Indeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment.

So, they admit he mentioned it within minutes of the comment (so yes, it was even in immediate context). Elsewhere on the site, (but omitted from the "Fact Check"), they mention that MacBeth was a topic of the show that week already. However, MMfA frames their fact with "at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment."

This is clever deception. If you remove the bolded part from that piece, it becomes a flat lie. But by cleverly inserting the date, MMfA is able to conclude that the he was talking about MacBeth was "misinformation". It had been mentioned prior, it was mentioned immediately after. Somehow, MMfA (and Upchurch) conclude it is isn't in context.

 

[Upchurch]

Alright, I'll paste it again. With bolding for those without reading comprehension.

You're avoiding.

Alright, I'll paste it again for those without reading comprehension.

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.

 

[boloboffin]

"phony soldiers" - plural.

Jesse Macbeth - singular.

Who else?

 

[SezMe]

Fact: Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment. Indeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment.

So, they admit he mentioned it within minutes of the comment (so yes, it was even in immediate context).

I don't think 1:50 is necessarily "immediate" context. What would be important is what Limbaugh was talking about in that interim period. I remember hearing it live (yeah, I listen sometimes) and heard no connection between "phony soldiers" and MacBeth. Actually, as is true in cases like this, I thought his after-the-fact attempt at rationalization to be worse than the original comment.

 

[corplinx]

"phony soldiers" - plural.

Jesse Macbeth - singular.

Who else?

The ones he sees in an Oxycontin induced hallucination? I really don't care. However, for MMfA to say he wasn't talking about Jesse MacBeth based on the "fact" that he hadn't talked about MacBeth prior to the comment, is false and misleading.

 

[corplinx]

I don't think 1:50 is necessarily "immediate" context. What would be important is what Limbaugh was talking about in that interim period. I remember hearing it live (yeah, I listen sometimes) and heard no connection between "phony soldiers" and MacBeth. Actually, as is true in cases like this, I thought his after-the-fact attempt at rationalization to be worse than the original comment.

Possibly true. However, the facts are:
a. it had already been a topic of the show that week
b. he mentioned it immediately after

Now, my guess back then was "he was just talking out of his butt to fill air time" which I think is the occam's razor approach. However, I clearly can't "prove" my assertion since it would require psychic powers.

On the other hand, MMfA's assertion that he smeared all soldiers who don't agree with the war is unsupported. Their "Fact Check" where they claim Limbaugh wasn't talking about MacBeth is misleading and basically disinformation. I don't think he had MacBeth in mind when he said it, however, their portrayal is still inaccurate.

There is a difference between pointing out their misinformation and supporting Limbaugh's excuses. I don't think you have to get in bed with the fat man to point out that their "Fact Check" was basically a defense of their own smear.

 

[SezMe]

Now, my guess back then was "he was just talking out of his butt to fill air time" which I think is the occam's razor approach.

On that we are in accord. Running one's fat lip for 2+ hours every day has to include an awful lot of filler that contains virtually no meaningful content whatsoever.

 

[Cicero]

One would have thought you would have worn out that extremely broard brush by now - lord knows you use it enough.

I could never compete with Skeptigirl's "neocon" usage.

 

[SezMe]

You're right, Cicero, she ain't got a prayer.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

I don't think he can provide evidence. It's all in his head.

 

[Cicero]

You're right, Cicero, she ain't got a prayer.

But she does have a wing, a left wing.

 

[Brainster]

I got quite a chuckle out of this post by Media Matters' Eric Boehlert:

A President was killed the last time right-wing hatred ran wild like this.

That being John F. Kennedy, who was gunned down in Dallas, of course.

Of course, Boehlert's argument runs a little afoul of history when you consider that Kennedy was gunned down by a left-wing extremist who had emigrated to the Soviet Union and headed up the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee".

 

[daenku32]

I got quite a chuckle out of this post by Media Matters' Eric Boehlert:

A President was killed the last time right-wing hatred ran wild like this.



Of course, Boehlert's argument runs a little afoul of history when you consider that Kennedy was gunned down by a left-wing extremist who had emigrated to the Soviet Union and headed up the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee".

I can only imagine that right-wingers cannot be taken seriously. After all, if they actually followed up their rhetoric with equal action, there would be quite a bit more violence. The plot against Obama right before the elections, the casual references to a likely assassination, the record number of death threats, and there is nothing to be worried about?

Looking around, there have been killings already. Dr Tiller, Adkisson's shooting rampage in the Unitarian Church, numerous other "lone wolf" killings...

Maybe it is just that conservatives run on permanent Internet Rage mode. They keep ranting and raving the most extreme things they can think of, knowing that they don't have the backbone to actually follow through. Which I suppose is a good thing.

 

[Sporanox]

I can only imagine that right-wingers cannot be taken seriously. After all, if they actually followed up their rhetoric with equal action, there would be quite a bit more violence. The plot against Obama right before the elections, the casual references to a likely assassination, the record number of death threats, and there is nothing to be worried about?

Looking around, there have been killings already. Dr Tiller, Adkisson's shooting rampage in the Unitarian Church, numerous other "lone wolf" killings...

Maybe it is just that conservatives run on permanent Internet Rage mode. They keep ranting and raving the most extreme things they can think of, knowing that they don't have the backbone to actually follow through. Which I suppose is a good thing.

Complete red herring combined with a healthy dose of appeal to fear with your "conservative killings" rhetoric. Of course, you then backtrack with "they don't have the backbone to actually follow through," neatly folding your argument.

Crazy people will do crazy things no matter what the rhetoric in the air. Remember that pro-life activist shot and killed a few days ago? Nobody's blaming the entire left for that.

 

[Sporanox]

Evidence for the OP:

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200909170033

1) The fact check notes several rhetorical excesses by conservative individuals/fringes while essentially ignoring like offenses by liberals - the use of the blanket term "conservatives" may also be a converse fallacy of accident.

Between the liberal fantasies about Brownshirts at town halls and the conservative concoctions of brainwashed children goose-stepping to school, you'd think the Palm in Washington had been replaced with a Munich beer hall.

What in the world is Time talking about? This is a grotesque false equivalence. Conservatives have been yelling about President Obama being a secret Kenyan bent on sending granny to the Death Panel, comparing him to Hitler and Mao and Stalin and who-knows-who-else -- and that, apparently, is matched in intensity and paranoia by liberals pointing out this unhinged behavior? Insane.

Several liberals have, in fact, used plenty of radical rhetoric (including the word brownshirts), which should be obvious to anyone doing cursory research:

A) http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/19/democrat-grassleys-fear-of-euthanasia-in-obamacare-is-an-act-of-treason/

B) http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/13/nineteen-minutes-in-a-car-with-harry-reid/

LAS VEGAS – Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, was having second thoughts – or was he? – about the way he had characterized people who are disrupting town halls with "lies, innuendo and rumor," and not letting others speak. They are, he had said, "evil-mongers."

C) http://www.columbian.com/article/20090806/NEWS02/708069952

"What we're seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics," Baird, D-Vancouver, said in a phone interview. "I mean that very seriously."

D) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/08/09/ST2009080902445.html

"I'm trying to control the event," Hill said, shortly before an informal discussion with a dozen business people at the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. "What I don't want to do is create an opportunity for the people who are political terrorists to blow up the meeting and not try to answer thoughtful questions."

2) They write that Beck stated an ACORN woman committed premeditated murder, leaving out the word POTENTIAL (which Beck used) and the further comment "I'm not the jury." In other words, Beck never passed judgment.

Well, not every day. See, on Tuesday, Beck aired a video of an ACORN worker saying she had killed her ex-husband and then went on a prolonged rant about ACORN employing someone who was guilty of "premeditated murder." Turns out that wasn't quite true.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a jury, but gosh even to me it seems like this is a potential admission of murder. And the way she was describing doing some "groundwork" beforehand, you know, so everybody in town knew exactly what was going on - a case might be made for premeditated murder. In fairness, I don’t understand people who stay in abusive relationships. I don’t. I get it. I get it. And maybe a jury might conclude that it was justifiable homicide. I don’t know but we haven’t been even able to confirm from the state of California whether Theresa’s husband from ten years ago was killed. Or if he’s dead. Or if she even had a husband. Did she make the story up? I don’t know. Nobody is asking questions.

3) They then cite "You know it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families? Took me about a year," leaving out the qualifier after the statement ("only about ten of them")

It goes on like that for a while. But one thing Time didn't mention? This famous Glenn Beck statement: "You know it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families? Took me about a year."

Seems like if you're going to devote two full paragraphs to Glenn Beck's tearful remembrance of September 11, maybe you should note the contempt -- hatred, even -- he has expressed for the families of the people who died that day. Doesn't it?

you know it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families? Took me about a year. And I had such compassion for them, and I really wanted to help them, and I was behind, you know, "Let's give them money, let's get this started." All of this stuff. And I really didn't -- of the 3,000 victims' families, I don't hate all of them. Probably about 10 of them. And when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, "Oh shut up!" I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining. And we did our best for them. And, again, it's only about 10.

Unfortunately for Beck, some aspects of the Media Matters critique are true - but that isn't the point of this thread. I feel this article has demonstrated their clear bias.

 

[mhaze]

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.

It's a left winge hack/smear site , of course.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009...defend-acorn-by-attacking-the-messenger-1.php

 

[Peephole]

Note that these last two posts are all links to Media Matters blogs, not their fact checking research.

 

[Sporanox]

Note that these last two posts are all links to Media Matters blogs, not their fact checking research.

Unfortunately, the blog section is often cited by liberals as a fact check. Here's something from their "research" section:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200909160039

On September 15 and 16, Fox News devoted significant programming to conservative filmmaker James O'Keefe and TownHall.com columnist Hannah Giles' video of their interactions with an ACORN worker, who claimed she murdered her husband and gave advice on how to run a brothel, but stated after the video was released that she had merely been attempting to "shock them as much as they were shocking me." In running with the video, Fox News hosts frequently promoted the fake claim that the ACORN employee killed her husband without fact checking the allegation or indicating that they had contacted ACORN for a response.

Taking Media Matter's own quoting and documentation...

1) Glenn Beck says the confession may indicate potential murder, clearly discusses his own fact checking efforts

Beck: "I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a jury. But, gosh, even to me, it seems like this is a potential admission of murder." After airing video of Kaelke stating that she shot her husband, Beck stated, "This is twisted, bizarre, macabre -- I mean, is this theater? I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a jury. But, gosh, even to me, it seems like this is a potential admission of murder. And the way she was describing doing some groundwork beforehand, you know, so everybody in town knew exactly what was going on, a case might be made for premeditated murder." Beck later added, "[W]e haven't been even able to confirm from the state of California whether Tresa's husband from 10 years ago was killed, or if he's dead, or if she even had a husband. Did she make the story up? I don't know. Nobody's asking questions."

2) Only in Media Matters' world can refuting a claim count as promoting a claim

September 16, morning: Fox & Friends. On Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson asked of the employee during the 7 a.m. hour, "She killed somebody?" Carlson had earlier reported, "According to ACORN, he's still alive."

3) Apparently, this also counts as promoting and not fact checking a claim

CARLSON: Well, yeah, basically that she was playing along in a game after the fact. We are not really sure about the details yet, including whether or not she actually did kill her husband. That is still unknown at this time.

KILMEADE: I believe she didn't. The husband is still around.

CARLSON: OK.

DOOCY: Right, he's alive and living in Barstow

Findings:

1) Only Beck's clip can be accused of promoting the murder claim, if you count "I don't know if it's true" and airing Kaelke's own words as promoting a murder accusation

2) The other clips in fact did not promote the murder claim, instead striking it down by airing the results of their fact checks.

3) Fact-checking work was done before ALL the clips

In fairness, Hannity's segment is as follows:

Hannity: "he's on tape admitting that she plotted to kill and had her husband killed, but we don't know if it's true yet." Hannity asked Giles, "Have you ever checked to see if in fact she had a husband that was killed?" Giles stated, "[W]e're working on that." Hannity later stated, "So she's on tape admitting that she plotted to kill and had her husband killed, but we don't know if it's true yet." During a later segment, country music singer John Rich said, "[W]hat kind of screening process are they going through that they let a lady who admits to killing her husband standing right there?"

Promotion standard: perhaps, if you count admitting "I don't know" as promotion

Fact-checking: Giles mentions a fact-checking effort. Only clip that does not indicate a Fox-based fact check

Conclusion:

In running with the video, Fox News hosts frequently promoted the fake claim that the ACORN employee killed her husband without fact checking the allegation

1) Two of the four clips cited do not promote the claim whatsoever; the other two probably don't promote the claim given that they simply repeated what Kaelke said herself

2) All of the clips demonstrate a fact-checking effort going on, except for Hannity's, which nonetheless demonstrates Giles' fact check

Therefore, this piece is dishonest in asserting that Fox "frequently" promoted the claim and did not fact check.