Newsbusters accuses Media Matters of “defamation”; doesn't seem to know what the word means
February 16, 2009 10:49 am ET by Jamison Foser
Newsbusters associate editor Noel Sheppard is unhappy with Media Matters work debunking Betsy McCaughey's latests health care falsehoods. Here's Sheppard:
[T]he leftwing shills at Media Matters for America ... began publishing -- and, of course, disseminating -- defamatory articles about McCaughey and all those having the nerve to quote her here, here, here, and here. Yes, four defamatory pieces about McCaughey in three days. I guess this is what America can count on from this George Soros-funded propaganda machine anytime anyone has the nerve to criticize an Obama-supported bill.
That's all Sheppard said about us. He refers to our items as “defamatory” twice in two sentences, but doesn't offer so much as a hint at what we might have gotten wrong. It doesn't seem to have even crossed his mind that it might matter whether what we wrote was true or not. (It was.) It's like he chose the word “defamatory” simply because he had heard it on TV once, and it sounded bad.
Indeed, in his entire post, there isn't a single effort to determine or demonstrate who is right: McCaughey or the numerous people who have pointed out her falsehoods.
Instead, he just calls Keith Olbermann names (“disgraceful”) and asserts defamation without bothering to make a case. The closest he comes is linking to McCaughey's resume, as though that ends the discussion. I would imagine that even Noel Sheppard can figure out that having an impressive resume doesn't mean you're right. If he thinks real hard, he might even be able to think of someone with such a resume whose claims he would not assume to be true.
Given that Sheppard is associate editor of the conservative movement's preeminent media criticism organization, you'd think he would understand that pointing out factual errors and distortions in news reports isn't “defamatory.”
Then again, Newsbusters seems to spend as much of their time making factual errors and distortions as they do correcting them.
Typical whining right-wing shills...when all else fails, just attack the messenger. Facts and reality are not needed with that crowd. They took a page right out of the cowardly approaches used by Drugbaugh and Faux.
Hilarious. It's all positive/negative with conservatives and the media. True/false was abandoned long ago.
You missed a couple of things. In this piece, Sheppard revisits the oft-repeated lie that MMFA is funded by George Soros (it's not).
He also seems oblivious to the fact that, even if MMFA was funded by George Soros (it's not), that would do absolutely nothing to bolster his claim that the MMFA piece in question is either incorrect or defamatory.
To sum up, Sheppard re-tells a long ago debunked lie (Soros funds MMFA) that wouldn't further his case even if it were true. He does this in the name of media criticism. I don't think media criticism is Sheppard's only weak suit. He also has issues with reading comprehension and critical thinking.
OK, please explain to me how it was debnked:
It is indirectly funded by Soros. Media matters is funded by the Center for American Progress, which is in turn funded by Soros. Lets look for some references....
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150 provides you entire map of the funding of this place
And: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_American_Progress
Oh and interesting part there:
Center for American Progress is funded in part by individuals who are members of the Democracy Alliance.
In 2006, the Center for American Progress was given a three-year, $3,000,000 grant by George Soros' Open Society Institute to be used for "general support". [
Newsbusters does nothing to take apart the MMFA argument at all, they don't refute it, they just attack the messenger, which is par for the course. When you can't refute, attack.
It really is quite lame...
It shows a great intellectual dishonesty and cowardice that is really at the heart of conservatism.
Conservatives really are afraid to step in the ring (fair and square) and argue their ideas.
There's a great childishness here, and, unfortunately, cowardice.
For what its worth MMfA.....
Could you not sue these characters for making such defamatory statements such as these when it is not true?
If anything elese... it would certainly put them in the position of having to defend their alegations against you publicly or back-tracking to where they would have to stop lying so darn much about you!
Then again... NewsBusters is a pathetic website... I've been on it before... I firmly believe The Onion has more credibility in reporting facts than they do!
[T]he leftwing shills at Media Matters for America ... began publishing -- and, of course, disseminating -
I love the 'disseminating'-- just when does MMFA do that? But by writing about it, he is !
Decrying the "Liberal Media" has been a cottage industry for many years - a make-work project for otherwise unemployables. Didn't you know the only reason Mr. Obama was elected President was that the media were "in the tank" for him?
Mr. Sheppard is a thin-skinned fool who believes because he aserts something it is therefore a fact. He had proven time and time again he can not read and fully understand many of the articles he writes about And because NewsBusters [sick] plays to similar thinking right wingnutz, he doesn't have to actually make a case for what he says. He just says it - and that's enough!