Media Matters
- Thread starter boloboffin
- Start date
It means I'm not taking any right-wing rhetoric seriously anymore. It's just a rant, a joke, or both. Nothing worth arguing over.
Maybe one day they will begin to talk about something that has merit.
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
Did MediaMatters do a story on this? I'm not sure why they would. I did not realize that MediaMatters did analysis of regional media. Normally they seem to concentrate on national media so for them to cover nj.com seems kind of odd.
The fact that you are attempting to equivalence www.nj.com to FoxNews I also find odd.
Peephole
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,584
Uhm, the article is full of examples of Fox News airing the tape, whilst saying stuff like "
Do you really fail top see what is wrong with this?
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
I guess if FoxNews says they are attempting to fact check something that is as good as fact checking it. As long as you try to fact check by the time it goes on air there is really no need to have completed the fact check.
Is that really the journalistic ethic FoxNews defenders are promoting now?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
OOOOK, MM editorials are editorials not facts.
The major problem I have with conservative such-and-suches on this site who smear Media Matters is that they're basically involved in a grand effort to poison the well. Now I can almost hear the nattering from our resident brain expert that we responded similarly to the Daily Fail link.
No. The Daily Fail is well-known for not bothering to fact-check anything. Which means when the DC fire department and major media sites are saying one thing, and they've chosen the most sensationalist and insane claims, and are also off by two orders of magnitude, it's not really a surprise. It's basically business as usual.
Media Matters, on the other hand, is almost always factually correct in its fact checking articles. It in fact usually links to the video/article/transcript, then hilights the inaccuracies, then proves them to be inaccurate.
The conservative apologists then go into the world's biggest shell game. First, they posit that MM doesn't fact-check people's agendas who agree with them. Lets just say this is true, even though they have fact checked liberal pundits in the past.
Okay, so they only fact check conservatives. Conservatives then take this as proof positive that the fact check showed no real inaccuracies, because the source was biased.
It's a shell game. Biased sources are not necessarily wrong. Media Matters provides reliable, supported information with its factual inaccuracies. Conservative pundits are a bunch of liars, and the apologists would like us to forget this, becasue the people who point out the liars are lying have a low opinion of them. In conservative land, one can only point out that someone is lying if one respects and deeply admires the liar.
No. The Daily Fail is well-known for not bothering to fact-check anything. Which means when the DC fire department and major media sites are saying one thing, and they've chosen the most sensationalist and insane claims, and are also off by two orders of magnitude, it's not really a surprise. It's basically business as usual.
Media Matters, on the other hand, is almost always factually correct in its fact checking articles. It in fact usually links to the video/article/transcript, then hilights the inaccuracies, then proves them to be inaccurate.
The conservative apologists then go into the world's biggest shell game. First, they posit that MM doesn't fact-check people's agendas who agree with them. Lets just say this is true, even though they have fact checked liberal pundits in the past.
Okay, so they only fact check conservatives. Conservatives then take this as proof positive that the fact check showed no real inaccuracies, because the source was biased.
It's a shell game. Biased sources are not necessarily wrong. Media Matters provides reliable, supported information with its factual inaccuracies. Conservative pundits are a bunch of liars, and the apologists would like us to forget this, becasue the people who point out the liars are lying have a low opinion of them. In conservative land, one can only point out that someone is lying if one respects and deeply admires the liar.
Praktik
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,244
QFT. I can't count how many times, in debates of all kinds, people claim bias and then act as if that settles things.
Please show me an unbiased source. You can't. Cause they don't exist.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,957
One would think that they would know that if an Acorn employee's lips are moving, she's lying.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,957
Of course they didn't do a story on that. Why would they? It's an example of liberal media bias, so they won't touch it. On the other hand, as I pointed out they obsessed over Fox identifying Republicans as Democrats when said Republicans did something wrong.
Erm, Media Matters covers blogs, so the idea that they don't cover regional media is a bit silly. Nice try, though.
Both media outlets; obvious FoxNews is much bigger and more influential.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,957
Some more sterling "research" from the Media Mutts:
No research into any of the zany things Michael Moore's dad has said to date.
No research into any of the zany things Michael Moore's dad has said to date.
Sporanox
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 899
Peephole said:
Lurker said:
Brainster put it more cleverly, but the fact is the ACORN employee was the one that made the claim in the first place. Thus by even airing the video, according to your standards, Fox is promoting the murder claim and therefore committing bad journalism. That's hilarious. Also, the San Bernadino police report hadn't come out by the time of the initial reports - in other words, there was no proof to be found either way.
Also, I note both of you dodged the two instances where Fox actually did strike down the ACORN-originated murder claim - both were duly claimed as "promoting and failing to fact check" by Media Matters.
Dishonest?
Yes.
EDIT: Let me remind Peephole of this quote:
They did look into it.Glenn Beck said:
Last edited:
Wait a second. ACORN is fair game, but the people criticizing ACORN are suddenly off limits?
Holy double standard, Batman!
Sporanox
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 899
Has Bertha Lewis' dad been attacked?
Really, going after their parents smells like a ham-fisted attempt at equivalency.
Not really, since her dad was a noted wingnut at Clownhall.com.
She wasn't some random concerned citizen off the street.
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
So your position is media should air any comment by someone and the fact check can come at any time after the airing of said comment or not at all? OK.
As you said earlier, they aired the clip before the police report came out. Therefore, they aired it without fact checking, correct? The fact that they later saw the police report and amended their later broadcasting of that clip does not change the fact that they originally went with it without fact checking.
You really set yourself up to be punked quite a bit if you decide to air any and all outrageous comments made by people without bothering to perform a simple fact check. And it would be simple to find out her name, call public records and find out the name of her exes and then do a search on them.
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
Don't you find it odd that FoxNews only seems to make that mistake in "one direction"?
Erm, the point of their story is that FOXNEWS makes this error in assigning party membership and it is only one way. So they pointed out numerous instances of FOXNEWS making this error. What does the fact that nj.com making an error have to do with FOXNEWS habitually making their error? Nice try at misdirection, though.
Last edited:
Peephole
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,584
No they didn't. "Looking into it," means checking if the person is actually dead. If you can't get figure this out (even if you tried), you simply don't run with the story, you wait until you get actual confirmation.
Sporanox
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 899
oldhat said:
Are they ever?
Lurker said:
Glenn Beck said:
Peephole said:
Glenn Beck said:
I'm almost on board with your statement about journalistic ethics, but 1) I'm not sure what the ethics actually are for that and 2) if a Republican incriminated himself in this way, I wouldn't throw a fit if CNN ran it.
That's true, but you are probably confusing the fact that some see no reason to give any credibility or response to others when they demonstrate a bias that is so out of control, it flies in the face of all reality. It really does "settle things" on many occasions.