"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
I generally avoid using this column to reply at length to Media Matters' conservative critics, in part because there tend to be more important topics than "why Jonah Goldberg is wrong about Media Matters" and in part because his arguments are often so self-discrediting as to make rebuttal unnecessary.
But the recent spate of right-wing attacks on Media Matters deserves scrutiny for what they reveal about the attackers themselves. Just as this week's swift-boating of a 12-year-old revealed more about the Republican operatives and conservative activists behind the smear campaign than about the merits of SCHIP, Goldberg, Tucker Carlson, and others who have taken aim at Media Matters in recent days have succeeded only in demonstrating their own stunning indifference to fact and reason.
Yesterday, Daniel Henninger used his perch as deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page to suggest that Media Matters favors government suppression of speech. In doing so, he exposed his own double standards. Complaining about Democratic senators' criticism of Rush Limbaugh for his recent suggestion that members of the military who oppose the Iraq war are "phony soldiers," Henninger wrote:
If you are Media Matters, if you are a man or woman of the Left, does state pressure on someone's political speech discomfort you? Or is it a welcome, even defensible, repression of harmful right-wing speech?
Well, as a "man of the Left," yes, state pressure on political speech discomforts me. That's why I wrote the following in response to the U.S. Senate's formal condemnation of MoveOn two weeks ago:
Whether one agreed with the substance of the MoveOn ad or found the wording offensive, there should be something disconcerting about a government body formally condemning private citizens for criticizing the government.
Surely journalists, of all people, should recognize how chilling it is for the Senate to take such action. But I can find not a single journalist who has made that point, or even raised the question of the appropriateness of such a government action in a free society. Nor did most of the news reports about the vote include necessary context. I have not seen a single news report, for example, that told readers how frequently the United States Senate condemns citizens for speech acts critical of the government. I suspect (and hope) it is quite rare. But that context was absent from media coverage of the vote.
Oddly, Henninger didn't mention the formal congressional condemnation of MoveOn's political speech in his column criticizing us. But surely, given his apparent discomfort over the criticism of Limbaugh by some Democratic senators, Henninger must have recently written a column denouncing a formal congressional vote condemning MoveOn, right? No. No, Henninger did not.
The contrast could not be more clear: Henninger is outraged that Democratic senators criticized Limbaugh for his "political speech." But he has expressed no such outrage that the House and Senate both actually voted to condemn MoveOn for its political speech.
Media Matters has not taken a position on the congressional resolutions condemning MoveOn (which were voted on) and Limbaugh (which was not), just as the organization does not take a position on the vast majority of congressional votes. I can't think of an actual vote on which we have taken a position. Speaking only for myself, I find the idea of a resolution condemning Limbaugh for his speech as troubling as I found the anti-MoveOn resolution. (On the other hand, if Congress wants to do something about Limbaugh being broadcast on Armed Forces Radio at taxpayer's expense, I'm all for that.) I have friends and colleagues who disagree with me on that, and who make good arguments -- arguments often based on the importance of consistency. If Congress is going to condemn MoveOn, they argue, Congress should condemn all similar speech. That's a compelling view, and an honest and consistent and respectable one.
Henninger, on the other hand, wrote an entire column about "Rush Limbaugh's speech rights" and how they are threatened by criticism from members of Congress, while not once mentioning that Congress actually voted to condemn MoveOn for exercising its speech rights -- and despite his transparent double standard, he suggests that this demonstrates there is something wrong with Media Matters! He uses it to suggest Media Matters believes that "anything the right does is bad and should not be tolerated; anything the left does is good and should be welcomed." Switch around the words "right" and "left," and you have a perfect description of Henninger's own reaction to the MoveOn and Limbaugh controversies. Henninger displays the very traits he condemns.
Henninger's column was quickly followed by an Investor's Business Daily editorial headlined "The Plan To Rein In Free Speech." IBD, following in Henninger's footsteps, accused Media Matters of a "radical, anti-free speech agenda."
IBD's 1,100-word editorial purported to expose Media Matters' allegedly radical agenda and contemptible tactics. It accused us of being a "nuisance" group, of making "silly" claims, of having "screamed" about Limbaugh, of being guilty of "distortion," of lacking "facts" to back up our claims, of "branding all mainstream media reporters who don't toe its radical line as hopelessly right wing," of "maintain[ing] a de facto McCarthy-like blacklist," of "angry rants," and more.
But here's something Investor's Business Daily didn't do: it didn't quote a single statement from Media Matters to back up its claims. In 1,100 words accusing us of making silly claims, IBD quoted not one such claim. In 1,100 words accusing us of being "angry" and having "screamed," IBD quoted not one such "rant." In 1,100 words accusing us of "distortion," IBD provided not one example. In 1,100 words accusing us of lacking "facts" to support our claims, IBD provided none to support most of its claims. Like Henninger, Investor's Business Daily simply displayed the traits it accused us of possessing.
Then again, it might not have mattered much if IBD had quoted us; it may well have misrepresented our words anyway. Here's how IBD presented Rep. Henry Waxman's office's denial of an American Spectator report that it is investigating Limbaugh and other "right-wing commentators": "Of Limbaugh, it said: 'There is not now nor has there ever been any investigation of this subject,' suspiciously using the present tense as Bill Clinton once did to parse his own scandal denials."
Waxman's office said, "There is not now nor has there ever been any investigation of this subject." IBD characterized that as "suspiciously using the present tense," suspiciously ignoring the third of the sentence that referred to the past.
For the record, Media Matters does not "brand[] all mainstream media reporters who don't toe its radical line as hopelessly right wing," as IBD falsely claimed. Media Matters focuses on the content of news reports, not on trying to ascertain the intent behind those who report them.
When we critique, for example, The New York Times for getting something wrong, we do not say that they are conservatives. We simply say that they have gotten something wrong in a way that helps conservatives, or hurts progressives. We generally don't try to read their minds to guess why they did so. (There are, to be sure, obvious exceptions: we don't pretend that Rush Limbaugh is anything other than a conservative propagandist.) The items that we post each day very rarely say anything at all about the motivations behind the misinformation we identify, for the simple reason that we don't know what the motivations are.
This is one of the basic principles behind what we do. So much so that when In These Times magazine asked Media Matters to contribute a cover essay about "Five Ways to Combat Conservative Media" for its April 12, 2005, issue, the very first words I wrote were "Stop talking about 'bias' ":
1. Stop talking about "bias."
Inaccurate, distorted and misleading news reports that further a conservative agenda or undermine progressive ideas dominate our newspapers and airwaves. But this isn't necessarily because reporters or media outlets are biased towards conservatives.
For every Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, there are dozens of reporters who don't have an ideological axe to grind, but whose work contains conservative misinformation anyway.
[...]
The Right has spent decades framing the debate over media coverage as one of ideological bias, and it has worked for them. But that's an overly simplistic view of the media. Rather than mimicking conservatives, progressives should recognize that we can't read reporters' hearts and minds -- but we can read their articles and columns.
Investor's Business Daily's claim that we "brand[] all mainstream media reporters who don't toe its radical line as hopelessly right wing" is not only false, it is also a perfect illustration of the way many conservative media critics have historically operated. They don't assess the content of news reports on its merit; they simply assert that it must be flawed, because it came from the "liberal media."
Nearly two years ago, I used a column by one of the leading conservative media critics to illustrate the difference in approaches taken by Media Matters and many of our counterparts on the right:
In a December 5 column, Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid wrote:
I didn't need to read any transcripts of the Chris Matthews MSNBC Hardball show to know what's he's been doing. It's a safe bet he was hyping some Bush-related "scandal." The former Democratic congressional staffer does what he does best -- make Democrats into heroes and Republicans into villains.
Kincaid didn't even need to look at what Matthews said; he just knew Matthews was making "Democrats into heroes and Republicans into villains."
At Media Matters, we go the extra mile and actually read and watch the news reports we critique. It isn't quite as fast or easy as simply making things up, but we think it's worth it. And because we put in the effort, we found that -- rather than making "Democrats into heroes and Republicans into villains" -- Matthews has recently called those who dislike Bush "real whack-jobs," gushed that Bush "glimmers" with "sunny nobility," derided Democrats as "carpers and complainers," and smeared Democrats.
Investor's Business Daily is correct to suggest that it would be wrong to attach a dismissive label to all reporters who don't toe an ideological line. That's why we don't do it. But IBD -- and countless other conservative media critics -- do it all the time. Almost exactly a year ago, for example, IBD ran an editorial titled "Can You Trust The National Media?" IBD explained:
In July and August 2004, leading up to that year's presidential election, we ran a series of editorials on bias in the mainstream media. In view of the fact that the situation hasn't changed, and may have worsened heading into the Nov. 7 election, we are repeating the series over the next several days.
[...]
But can you trust and rely on our national news media? Are they presenting the whole story, unbiased, evenhanded and objective? Yes, if you are a liberal Democrat.
[...]
The crucial question now is: At a time of war and future terrorist risk to our country's safety and open way of life, will the liberal media's bias help defend and protect us or weaken and undermine us?
IBD's multi-part editorial series about the "liberal media's bias" comprised nearly 4,000 words. And yet it included not a single direct quote of a single flaw in a single news report. IBD spent those nearly 4,000 words cataloguing allegations of bias, rather than examples of specific flawed news reports.
Again: Investor's Business Daily demonstrates the very traits it falsely accuses Media Matters of possessing.
IBD ended its series by suggesting that the media right itself by following conservative media critic Bernard Goldberg's "12-step program." The final of Goldberg's suggestions approvingly reprinted by IBD? "Stop taking it personally. Take Benjamin Franklin's words to heart: 'Our critics are our friends; they show us our faults.' "
That's what Investor's Business Daily said about conservative media critics. Unfortunately, IBD doesn't apply that sentiment consistently.
The Henninger and IBD attacks are only the most recent deeply flawed news reports criticizing Media Matters. Last weekend, the New York Post published a 2,000-word hit piece by Jonah Goldberg. Like IBD, Goldberg didn't contest much of the actual content of our website: Direct quotes from Media Matters' site account for only 20 words in the article.
Goldberg wrote that Media Matters "tried to paint Bill O'Reilly as a racist dunderhead by slanderously distorting his comments about having dinner in Harlem."
"Slanderously distorting" sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? But Goldberg didn't actually quote what Media Matters said or wrote that was supposedly "slanderous"; he merely asserted that we slandered O'Reilly by "distorting his comments." No proof, just assertion. (In an info box accompanying the article, Goldberg wrote that "Media Matters posted the quotes, saying they were 'ignorant and racially challenged.' " It was one of the very few times Goldberg bothered to quote Media Matters in his hit piece, and he got it wrong. In fact, the quote wasn't "ignorant and racially challenged," it was "ignorant and racially charged.")
Goldberg asserted that Media Matters "churns out polemic and spin gussied-up as media criticism." But his article is little more than polemic and spin -- he doesn't quote Media Matters work directly in order to point out flaws; he simply makes broad assertions. Compare that to, for example, this item about MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Media Matters quoted a specific statement Matthews made, then pointed out specific facts that contradict that statement. So: who is guilty of "polemic and spin" and who is engaged in fact-based criticism?
On the October 3 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson interviewed Media Matters Senior Fellow Paul Waldman. Introducing the segment, Carlson had said: "What is Media Matters' version of the Rush Limbaugh controversy? Joining us now, senior fellow and director of special projects at Media Matters, Paul Waldman." He began the show by giving a summary of the Limbaugh controversy, then saying "So, who is telling the truth? Who's right? ... In a moment, General [Wesley] Clark will join us, as will a representative of mediamatters.org, the blog that started this tempest."
But Carlson didn't ask Waldman a single question about Limbaugh or Limbaugh's comments. Not one question. Instead, he almost exclusively asked Waldman about Media Matters and about Waldman's qualifications as a media critic. He repeatedly described the organization as "shills." And when Waldman tried to address the issues the segment was ostensibly about -- "What is Media Matters' version of the Rush Limbaugh controversy?" "[W]ho is telling the truth? Who's right?" -- Carlson interrupted him to make assertions about Media Matters' motives:
WALDMAN: We are a progressive group.
CARLSON: Then why would I care what you say? You're helping to elect a party.
That exchange is telling: Tucker Carlson doesn't care what Media Matters says solely because we are a progressive organization. As Waldman explained, we provide audio and video evidence, transcripts, direct quotes, and other evidence to support our items. But Carlson says he doesn't care about any of that, because we are a progressive organization.
Media Matters has never hidden the fact that we are a progressive organization, and we see no reason to do so. We announced it in the very first sentence of the open letter from David Brock that we posted on our website upon launching in 2004. Just as we focus on the content of the news reports we critique rather than on trying to ascertain the motives of the journalists in question, we believe our work speaks for itself. We provide factual refutations of specific flaws in specific news reports. People can assess those facts for themselves. We provide audio, video, and transcripts so people can assess the validity of our criticism for themselves. When we get something wrong -- and, with thousands of items posted to our website, it is inevitable that we will on occasion -- our readers can see it for themselves.
The fact that we are a progressive organization isn't particularly relevant in assessing the typical Media Matters item. Take that Chris Matthews item noted above, for example. We quoted Matthews making a claim about public opinion. We posted video of him doing so, so readers could assess whether we had accurately quoted him. We provided details of several public polls that undermined Matthews' assertion. We included links to the polls in question so readers could assess whether we had accurately represented the results.
But Tucker Carlson seems to think that none of that matters -- that the only thing he needs to know is that Media Matters is a progressive organization, so he has no reason to care what we have to say. Just as AIM's Cliff Kincaid didn't need to watch Chris Matthews to "know" that Matthews had been attacking Republicans and touting Democrats, Tucker Carlson apparently doesn't need to assess any evidence to dismiss our work. Incredibly, during the same segment, he referred to Waldman as a "hack." As with Henninger and Investor's Business Daily and Goldberg, Carlson accused Media Matters of something that seems to better describe himself.
That attitude isn't unique to Carlson. The spate of recent attacks by conservative journalists on Media Matters have been light on specific rebuttals of specific Media Matters items, but they have been chock-full of efforts to "expose" the political and ideological ties of Media Matters and its staff -- typically using biographical information we have deviously hidden in the "About Us" section of our website.
Writing for National Review, Byron York was even more explicit than Carlson: "[I]ndependent-minded critics who look at Media Matters might conclude that its political motivations are simply too strong to merit serious consideration."
That's one school of thought, as we have seen. Another is that our work -- like the journalism we critique -- should be judged on the merits of its content; that it wouldn't much matter if our work was written by a committee consisting of George Soros, Bill Clinton, and Jane Fonda, as long as it was factual and accurate.
Although York listed prior political work of several Media Matters staffers, and Carlson seemed to find it significant that Waldman has not worked as a journalist, neither mentioned that there are more than a dozen Media Matters employees who do have journalism backgrounds. Our staff includes people who have taught classes about the media, who have earned journalism degrees, who have written books about the media, and who have worked as journalists. Media Matters staffers who do not have journalism backgrounds have a range of expertise and training in communications, policy, politics, economics, law, and more. Our staff also includes people who have worked for George W. Bush and John McCain.
In short, Media Matters staff has at least as much standing to critique the media as does someone who suggests, as did Carlson and York, that it is adequate to consider only the source of a statement and not the factual basis of the claim.
In indicating that Media Matters shouldn't be taken seriously because we are an avowedly progressive organization, Carlson and York -- like Henninger, IBD, and Goldberg -- purported to diminish our credibility, but only ended up damaging their own. They suggested that Media Matters should be assessed based on who we are, rather than on the merits of what we say.
MMFA, you are the messenger. And you know what wingbats do to the messenger. They stoop as low as to attack a boy, you are fair game. But as far as I'm concerned, titular credentials matter little as long as you're doing the job. And it is a job that needs to be done since journalists have abdicated their responsibilities.
Julia,
I second that one......
Keep up the great work MMFA!
The only thing that MMFA should worry about is the weak-minded followers of the right-wing part of the media......
These people are the ones that are the biggest danger to all that is decent and truthful about what the media should be about.
The likes of Fox Noise, Rush and Ann, their collective motivation is profits, whether good or bad or ugly, at least its a reason (twisted as it may be) to do this kind of crap reporting and infotainment
As for those that blindly follow it and don't question it and then come here with names like BillyBob and Bruce1Ace to simply show their collective hate or ignorance of the truth in media and how it helps only in destroying the fabric of this great country!
I can't see a legitimate motivation for these types of people....
My motivation is to bring my point of view and possibly some balance to these threads. That's it. You're always welcome to respond to me and tell me why you think I'm wrong as opposed to resorting to the drive-by nonsense that you just posted.
although we frequently [and sometimes vehemently] disagree, i would never put you in the category of someone like billiybob. i think he's just one of the quick cheap shot artists who makes a few flaming posts and then returns under another name. but there are a good number of conservatives who i would never accuse of doing that. i'm sure we will have more arguments, but that does not mean you are not welcome here.
Bruce,
I think you know how I feel, but I appreciate your posts even when we disagree. I don't share the captain's opinion about you.
Thanks both to you and mefirst for good, honest debate.
You're putting Bruce in the same category as BilliyBob? Holy Jeebus.
I don't agree with Bruce all the time, of course, but the distinction is that those discussions are reasonable. There's intellectual honesty there. I don't think I've ever seen anything he's said that would put him anywhere near the same ballpark as Billiybob's type.
If your attitude is that all conservatives are hateful or ignorant, then you're just being prejudiced.
I agree 100% Bruce is possibly the most reasonable conservative on this site. He is more reasonable than many of the liberals here. The argument could certainly be made he is more rational than I am.
Ok..... so I messed up on placing you Bruce in the same aisle as Billy.....
I based it on only a few posts that I saw of yours over this last week, for this, I do appoligize.
I guess perhaps I have become cynical in my differences to right-wing talk and admit that I didn't look at many of your prior postings and based my post on just those few....
Seeing that Brabantio & Solon have defended you, I have read plenty of their prior posts, I will take them for their words on you.
Again, I appoligize for the lazyness Bruce
captfoster2
I appreciate that. And thanks to Brabantio and Solon for the kind words as well.
I've always thought of you as an honorable and worthy opponent Bruce.
We don't often agree but we do understand. I think that's what were all here for.
Of course. And I appreciate CaptFoster's reevaluation.
Classy retraction CaptFoster2. I appreciate both the ability to give a second look and the confindence you have shown in Brabantio and my opinions. Again very classy
In attempting to make sense of otherwise inexplicable behavior, sometimes it helps to Google the symptoms, and to see if anything pops up.
Why do some Americans vote AGAINST their own best interests, against the interests of their own family? Why do Republican voters ignore the RESULTS of Republican rule on this nation, the mountains of debt, the war with enormous cost in lives, injuries and treasure, with totally incompetent civilian leadership and no end in sight? What explains the abandoning of the idea of helping one’s neighbor, providing help for human beings in need? How could it be considered “good” to cause widespread suffering here at home and indeed around the globe, while having a singleminded goal of further enriching the already very wealthy? What would cause a human being to abandon their souls and humanity, to daily embark on attempting to defend the rightwing and their leadership?
In vampire mythology, there is a creature called a “familiar.” This is an animal-shaped spirit who serves a master in return for a promise of immortality. (A “promise” made by a soulless creature is, of course, an EMPTY promise, but sheer greed blinds the familiars to the almost certain betrayal which awaits them. They WANT to believe, and so they DO.) Typically, familiars serve their owners/masters as domestic servants, farmhands, spies, and companions, in addition to helping bewitch and/or defeat enemies. Familiars have forsaken free will and are nothing more than tools of their masters.
This, of course, is mythology. The psychology at work, however, is all too familiar (pun intended) to human nature. Some are born to SERVE. Some seek “leadership” which they think is “strong”, and choose to do the bidding of their chosen master. Throughout history, this phenomena can be seen in the support given brutal dictators in their rise and reign.
FREEDOM is just too frightening to some people. They can’t handle it. Instead, they choose to let others make their decisions FOR them, to invest their trust in a paternalistic tyrant who is able to “push their buttons” by massaging their resentments and fears, their bigotry and hatreds, and extend the “promise” of an ascent to the “ruling class” to those that serve loyally. Part of the attraction of this promise is that the “losers” will suffer greatly.
This is indeed the mindset of those who SERVE the rightwing leadership. My only question is, is Robert Novak a familiar, or is he one of the masters?
which is why all this nonsense about soros funds mmfa, hillary created it, yada yada yada, is just....nonsense. soros has nothing to do with the fact that o'reilly said he "couldn't get over the fact" that there could be a nice black owned restaurant in new york and black people could behave at dinner. or that limbaugh called soldiers who oppose the war "phony soldiers".
So who's lying? Hillary said she pais a role in starting MMFA and other far-left groups.
Is there a point in that post?
Well first of all, you. Hillary never said anything about playing a role in starting "Far left" groups.
You may have the mistaken belief that Fox News represents the center in American politics which would certainly skew your vision of what the far left really is. Get over that and there may be a chance for productive dialogue.
thanks kozakid. i say that what hillary has said has nothing to do with the words uttered by o'reilly and limbaugh and....you come on and talk about hillary. which means you can't contest the point about o'reilly.
Since when has he ever tried to rebut ANYTHING. He is a troll. Its all offtopic repititions of hivemind talking points. Actual rebuttals would take higher brain function. Koza isnt capable, he doesnt have the requisite equipment
It burns, it burrrrnns!
What do roaches, blood-suckers and other assorted vermin (real and mythological) have in common?
They screech and scurry when purifying light floods over them.
And, true to form, the loudest screechers are the worst of the lot.
More light MMFA, more light!
But the recent spate of right-wing attacks on Media Matters deserves scrutiny for what they reveal about the attackers themselves. Just as this week's [link to www.nytimes.com] title="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=login&oref=slogin">swift-boating of a 12-year-old revealed more about the [link to thinkprogress.org] title="http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/11/mcconnell-staffer-smear-graeme/">Republican operatives and conservative activists behind the smear campaign than about the merits of SCHIP, Goldberg, Tucker Carlson, and others who have taken aim at Media Matters in recent days have succeeded only in demonstrating their own stunning indifference to fact and reason
Swift boat politics at its best, the GOP machine is getting primed and ready for 08. Keep up the good work MMFA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It would be enlightening if the MSM and their pundits spoke about the issues brought up by MMFA. But they are frightened by these truths, it limits their broad statements if facts don't bear them out (the stock and trade of Fox News and right wing radio).
I was particularly surprised by Matt Lauer, who does cooking segments, costume dress-ups and the shilling of products while calling it feature reporting, go after Paul Waldman in the O'Reilly flap. There seemed to be true fear in his defense mechanisms.
Congrats MMFA, keep shining the light.
i did not see lauer do that. but i have seen him interviewing bill kristol several times on the today show. first, why would a guy from fox be on, by himself? two, i thought he got a softball treatment from lauer.
The fact Media Matters takes whole manuscripts & tapes and presents them in that format worries the radical right to no end.
Because radical right ideology can not flourish unless lies & distortions go un-criticized. Half-truths, embellishments & fabrications must be retired to the shadows ASAP in order to keep the far right sheep perpetually confused, agitated & fearful.
The last thing Limbaugh, BillO, Lil' Tucker, Fox Noise, etc. wants is for people who do not agree with them to have unedited access to their inane ramblings. (Steven Colbert put it more eloquently).
does the fact that someone (cliff Kincaid), working for an organization called "accuracy in media" states that he needn't read a transcript of a media production, to opine on it, qualify as true irony? or is it just rain on his wedding day?
people want to know, dammit!
Did anyone read that Jonah Goldberg article? He misquoted just about everything having to do with MMFA. What a freaking dork. These guys must really be scared to resort to either blatant lying or tremendous (an intern would be fired for it) sloppiness.
But Carlson didn't ask Waldman a single question about Limbaugh or Limbaugh's comments. Not one question. Instead, he almost exclusively asked Waldman about Media Matters and about Waldman's qualifications as a media critic. He repeatedly described the organization as "shills." (from above)
Poor Waldman. He came on a program to smear Limbaugh, and Tucker Carlson forced him to admit that HRC was a liar.
Maybe next time Waldman will be careful before trying to take on that tough hombre.
VIDEO
(disclaimer: although I have previously mentioned this topic, this is the first time that MMFA has noted Waldman's appearance on the Tucker Carlson program)
Tucker was actually surprisingly good there - although it is pretty funny how he speeds up his talking when he is talking to someone he doesn't like. It is like he is on helium. At least he let Waldman talk, which is pretty surprising on a talk-show these days.
Hillary was wrong in her statement and Tucker demonstrated that pretty well. I can think of much worse things to be wrong about of course.
Hey, genius? Nowhere in that newsbusters (now there's a really really credible organization without a political agenda...) video does Waldman admit that, quote (your words) "Hillary was a liar". Or anything close to it.
I, myself supported and helped Media Matters start. So did lots of people here.
That's what Waldman was basically saying.
That doesn't mean that I or any of us founded Media Matters.
And nowhere except in your very tiny delusional moronic brain did Waldman come on to "smear" Limbaugh. Unless you call quoting Limbaugh's own words as "smearing" him. In that case, complain to Limbaugh. You're making a fool out of yourself again.
wingnuts hear what they want to hear....but in any case, hillary was trying to pad her progressive resume'....i wasnt going to vote for her anyway, so who cares
Wow! That's alot to read but enjoyed every word. Let's face it you are up against Fox news and Roger Aile. They are the official news agency for the GOP. Now I can't back that up with facts, it's just my opinion. Please continue to report on them as it is getting you more publicity. I copy articles and send them to people in my family and work to show them how they aren't getting real reporting from the major news networks, especially Fox. So the more they try the more they cry.
mike in oregon
Beautiful work
Waldman's appearence and an examination of, yes I read the column. And?
I appreciate that MM's advice to In These Times was to stop talking about bias.Because it's all speculation and motive, it is not nearly effective as dealing with the facts.
This was the issue that was so difficult for conservatives to understand a while back regarding the survey of journalists and how they voted.
Putting aside the fact that the survey was conducted on a tiny fragment of all journalists (yeah, I always give the rightys a handicap), the results showing that , among a group of educated people well versed in current events,there was a tendency to be more liberal, was good enough logically for the right to claim liberal bias.
No facts, no examples, no evidence of that bias, just the assumption that if a reporter voted Democrat, they must be adjusting their writing to promote that party.
I think we need a few new words for "projection", it's getting to be such a tired cliche when talking about Republicans and their media servants.
I have the feeling that if many righty posters comment on this item, most will not have read it. To Billybob's credit, he at least seems to have skimmed it in order to find an excuse to post a diversion as clumsy as Tucker Carlson's diversion with Waldman.
I wish he'd put that much effort into trying to understand the article.
"Waldman's appearence and an examination of, yes I read the column. And?"
I don't think this has enough verbs.
It was late, most of them had gone to bed. I thing I'm more at risk to acusations of using punctuation primitively.
Thought it was a very good column I agree with it and Beach about the bias calls. To not allow them to pass as real arguments.
Tucker Carlson is a joke and that observation is based on occasional observation of what I've heard on his show. He, as so many on the right, deal in innuendo and obfuscation. They distort without clarifying anything. Anyone who attacks or challenges their point of view will be met with a personal attack and not an attck on the merits of the argument at hand. The left is not allowed the considerable leeway given to the factual inaccuracies and distortions of these right-wing journalists.
Tucky was on Bill Maher's show and was gasping for air. The guy's got nothing but bluster and loudness. He tried talking above Paul Krugman a few times and Paul just kept talking at an even keel until Tucky finally shut up. But then Paul Krugman actually had something of substance to say.
I love how MM calmly states the facts and remains above the fray, while the conservatives foam at the mouth. I have enough bias to say this: progressives are the GOOD GUYS!
Examples? Evidence? Proof? These guys don't need no stinkin' PROOF!
Think of what they're doing. Are they making a case that Liberals are evil and dominate the media? No sir! The target audience already BELIEVES that, and no proof is required.
Are they going to attempt a point-by-point REBUTTAL, and will that boost their own credibility? Well, it MIGHT boost their credibility, if that was what they were trying to do. But that would be hard (if not impossible), and it's UNNECESSARY.
What's being done here is "maintenance". The audience is, for lack of a better word, made up of "DITTOHEADS", Limbaugh's word for his loyal fans. The don't need convincing, they just need their regular "FIX".
It's an extremely "LOW FACT" diet, because the craving is for that heady hit of HATRED. Served up with paranoia, some fearmongering, and the right amount of BRAVADO, it's the daily diet for the dittohead. It's like the team PEP RALLY, where there is absolutely no need to cite the statistics of the home team OR their rivals. Team records or individual player stats are wholly irrelevant to the PEP RALLY, and in fact are distractions from the job at hand; to whip the fans into a frenzy.
FACTS are hard, cheerleading propaganda is bone EASY. But it cannot be neglected. It must be maintained, with daily doses of jingoism, bigotry, and soothing words of absolution for the rightwing soul. It's not your fault, dittoheads, it's the LIBERALS. No matter what anger you're feeling, it is caused and aggravated by Liberals. No matter what resentment you harbor, the Liberals are the root cause. Doubts? Caused by Liberals. Inadequacy, self-doubt, anxiety? All caused directly by Liberals.
It's a mistake to EVER expect rightwing propaganda to be FACT-BASED, or indeed to even contain a hint of FACTUAL CONTENT. It is unnecessary to the exercise. The prostitute feels no compunction whatsoever to even try at a show of TRUE LOVE; they know their job is to simply get the John off, and that's their ONLY job. The cardinal rule is, "no kissing" ... that's too intimate, too personal, too REAL. There is only the goal of getting the payoff. Whip that dittohead into a frenzy; no REALITY required.
Doesn't this explain everything mentioned in this thread? Yes, it does.
There is a very simple and non-partisan truth about the mainstream media that everyone can get behind: the media is breathtakingly stupid, and it's never going to get better.
Turn it off and get your news from places that are actually in the news business. As the number of viewers decline, the talking heads won't change their ways. They'll just talk into the emptiness.
If a gaggle of morons sit at a table spouting group-think and nobody is there to listen, do they make a sound?
Dear Media Matters,Daniel Henninger is so wrong on what he wrote,and it is sad we even have to answer this dripple nonsense. When you put people on the airwaves with no true sense of the value the of life and what they are saying prolongs killing and then you ask us not to critise them you mister Henninger - you can go to hell.
Joseph Capp
The traditional media and their pundits are clearly ramping up their attacks on Media Matters. Bill O'Reilly seems to have become particularly unhinged about you all. Which is a sign that you're effective and becoming a stronger force.
Thanks for the good work and keep it up.
Ah, every time I feel depressed about having to spend 8 years of my life under the reign of George II, it's always good to think how I also get to see brilliant websites like MM and a few others tear into the right using little more than the right's words.
Bill-O, Carlson, York...whoever, how can they possibly expect to be taken seriously if they keep going on tirades about how unfair and deceptive MM is when they almost NEVER cite a single example from MM itself. I guess they just long for the days of never being held accountable for what they say.
Harry Truman when asked why he gives the Republicans hell said "I just tell the truth about them and they think it's hell". This is what media matters does to all the right wing liars and explains their extreme reactions. The truth you present is their their worst nightmare - KEEP DOING IT!
I can't wait to read more of your material, you sound like a genius. The elimination of all who don't agree with your world view. What a terrifically new anmd novel idea. Thanks for breaking this new ground. Idiot.
I agree, Bruce. Eliminationist garbage.
Steinj, please don't think that the posts by Bruce and I are intended for you. There was a post that was deleted and ours are in response to it.
hotnuke is an idiot, whoever he is and whatever his motives are. i don't think anyone here would endorse what he is saying.
Looks like he got a deserved flagging. Exit stage digital.
Jamison,The fact that they keep talking about you means that you are doing a good job. Thanks!
Two weeks after Media Matters lied about Rush Limbaufh's "phony soldiers" comment, Jamison Foser, who never spent a day in uniform, attacks 250+ Vietnam veterans.
Hypocrites.
BTW, Limbaugh kicked MMFA and Harry Reid's butt this week by placing the Democrats' letter of protest on eBay. The proceeds from the sale are going to a veterans' charity and Limbaugh challenged the 41 Democrat senators who signed the ridiculous letter to match the winning bid and give to the same charity.
Limbaugh made fools of MMFA and the Democrats.
Media Matters didn't "lie" and they didn't "attack" veterans. But hey--we understand how much you *heart* Rush. Love is blind.
Back it up. pal. I've been out sick so maybe I missed where Mr. Foser insulted Vietnam Vets.
I'm sure if he had, one of the many of the regulars here who served in Vietnam would have torn him a new one.
But being regulars, we know that he'd do no such thing.
The only people who've ever insulted me are the Cons and Republican Chickenhawks who think nothing of throwing veterans who disagree with them under the bus.
And I know of a company that sells patriotic depends for the flag waving bedwetter. I could give you the number to call.
Here we have it the official Limborg hivemind position. In its usual delusional glory. Credible ONLY to the truly assmilated and brainwashed. Perhaps some day they can be reclaimed to reality and join us on Planet Earth
RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS POSTS - PART 1
And you know what wingbats do to the messenger. They stoop as low as to attack a boy, you are fair game.
- juliajayne / Friday October 12, 2007 08:45:30 PM EST
RESPONSE: The first part of your post simply asserts you like what MMFA does. Then you proceed to attack conservatives by insultingly referring to them as "wingbats" for "attacking" a "boy". I am assuming that you are referring to Graeme Frost. The fact is that conservatives DID investigate the claims made by the Frost family. However, (and thank Almighty God for the internet bloggers!) as Jon Henke points out, the left went out of their way to insult and attack Noah McCullough, who was GWB's poster boy for Social Security reform.
--- START QUOTE ---
SCHIP histrionics Posted by: Jon Henke on Thursday, October 11, 2007
I also note with some amusement that Lefties defend their initial use of the kid by pointing out that Republicans brought out a kid to help sell the Social Security in 2005. Joan Walsh claims "Atrios notes that nobody went after nine-year-old Noah McCullough when Bush made him a poster boy for privatizing Social Security." Well, funny you bring that up, because that's not the way I recall it. There was... * Jesus' General and TBogg, who made sexual references to the kid... * Kewpie, who called him "a budding young fascist" and "dumb"... * DadaHead, who said the kid was "in desperate need of a good ass-kicking..." * Democratic Underground, where commenters wrote quite a lot of things that I don't care to reprint... * Salon's What Would Dick Think, Daily Kos and Atrios, who called the kid "Cousin Oliver" * And, at Ezra Klein's own blog, Melissa McEwan said his appearance was "indicative of a desperation reserved for policy proposals that are ready for the graveyard"... But other than that, they didn't go after him at all.
--- END QUOTE ---
Enough said on this topic.
Now for -
or that limbaugh called soldiers who oppose the war "phony soldiers".
RESPONSE: As much as MMFA supporters want to applaud themselves for using FACTS, the criticism of Rush Limbaugh was based on an INTERPRETATION of his comments. You cannot find a quote where RL actually states that 'all soldiers who oppose the war are phony soldiers.' Rush did use the term 'phony soldiers', but in less than 2 minutes Rush qualified the term to include people such as Jesse Macbeth. MMFA might have a valid criticism of Rush. But the original topic at MMFA did not include the part where Rush mentions Jess Macbeth. Why? What is the agenda? It is obviously not just about "facts".
(CONTINUED ON NEXT POST)did any progressive bloggers stake out McCullough's home or spread falsehoods about his family's financial situation....and again, using comments left on an open blog like the dem underground, is not evidence of a smear campaign....
and returning to lie about el druggo's comments does not become you. he used the term phony soldiers in response to a caller stating that the media never talks to real soldiers...the caller said never and qualified that by saying real soldiers support the mission....
el druggo noting the story of macbeth was used to show an example...thereby stating that all soldiers who speak out against the war, or who report attrocities are exactly like macbeth.
You're actually making my point. Earlier in this discussion topic the MMFA supporters were beating their chests and bragging that all they do is post FACTS. I've already pointed out that the criticism of Limbaugh was not based upon his words, but instead was an interpretation of what he meant by phony soldiers.
Your response was to offer another (inaccurate, by the way) interpretation of what RL meant. In fact, RL's response was merely to amplify the callers statement about how the media talk to soldiers who come up "out of the blue".
Now, in less than two minutes RL clarified his statement about what he meant by "Phony soldiers". You may have a reason to doubt RL, but why was that part not included in the original MMFA post on the topic?
(and I'll just ignore the use of "el druggo" - another 'just the facts' post by an MMFA supporter!)
Your response was to offer another (inaccurate, by the way) interpretation of what RL meant. Billybob
May I suggest that before each of Rush's shows you have a disclaimer that states 'please disregard the audio and transcript, the interpretation of what Rush means to say will be available after the show'. It might help those of us who listen to the audio and read the transcript. I mean since what he says is really not what he means. I know you guys have to do that mind reading, Madam Cleo stuff. I guess we simple folks will just have to wait a day until you guys send out the 'interpretation of Rush's show #?' OK. By the way I imagine that job as a translator for Rush must keep you pretty busy.
Sure Billybot. IF I were braindead and assimilated I might buy that too. That is I might buy whatever Rush told me to buy. Except it makes ZERO sense. For the reaon you noted. He AGREED with the caller and called the soldiers phony, and that as the caller said THE PRESS NEVER TALKS TO REAL SOLDIERS. The caller THEN went on to say REAL soldiers WANT to be in Iraq. So for this to even come CLOSE to making sense the would have had to be a REAL media presence of those phony soldiers, the ones tha pop up out of the blue. The ones like MacBeth. Except I had never heard of the guy Limbaugh claimed the left lionized. We then challenged all of you guys to cough up this huge media coverage of these guys. You couldnt do it. It didnt exist. Therefore it the explanation cannot POSSIBLY make sense. ONLY a brainwashed member of the LIMBORG could take it seriously. Not to mention the caller himself defined what he meant by phony soldiers. He said REAL soldiers WANT to be in Iraq. So you keep repeating the already long debunked propaganda but its not going to convince anyone who hasnt already been assiliated and they already believe whatever Limbaugh tells them to believe. Ya got nothin. You never do.
Limbaugh says he was talking about this MacBeth character but no one in the MSM that I know of has ever talked to this guy or someone like him. But I do know the MSM talks to anti-Iraq War vets.
And this talk of MacBeth being lionized by the left is nonsense because no one on left has ever heard of him.
You're actually making my point. Earlier in this discussion topic the MMFA supporters were beating their chests and bragging that all they do is post FACTS. I've already pointed out that the criticism of Limbaugh was not based upon his words, but instead was an interpretation of what he meant by phony soldiers.
You have it reversed. I wasn't based on an interpretation of his words; it was based on his actual words.
Your response was to offer another (inaccurate, by the way) interpretation of what RL meant. In fact, RL's response was merely to amplify the callers statement about how the media talk to soldiers who come up "out of the blue".
My sister was in Iraq for a year. If she suddenly went on television would she be one of those "phony soldiers"?
Now, in less than two minutes RL clarified his statement about what he meant by "Phony soldiers". You may have a reason to doubt RL, but why was that part not included in the original MMFA post on the topic?
He clarified his statement while still on the phone with the caller:
The caller says real soldiers are "proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country." Right now I don't think a majority of soldiers in the military would agree with that statement except for the proud to serve part. So he actually called the majority of troops phony soldiers.
Limbaugh responds with the real soldiers "joined to be in Iraq" so the phony soldiers are the ones who didn't sign up to be in Iraq, i.e., Pat Tillman.
You have it reversed. I wasn't based on an interpretation of his words; it was based on his actual words.
"Actual words"? Well, then, show me the actual quote where Rush Limbaugh says - word for word - "All soldiers who oppose the Iraq war are phony soldiers."
You said it was based on his words, right? Well, show me the exact words.
what a ridiculous argument. he said it was based on his words. he did not say that limbaugh said that exact phrase. but if you contend that was not what limbaugh meant, then you explain who limbaugh was discussing with that caller.
When Gore said he "took the initiative in creating the internet", all we heard was that he claimed to have invented the internet. Create and invent have somewhat similar meanings, so there was really no difference, and it was supposedly fair to say that was what Gore said. But if Limbaugh didn't say "All soldiers who oppose the Iraq war are phony soldiers" word-for-word, well, obviously we can't possibly criticize him for anything.
I don't know why we didn't try this when John Kerry made that joke about Bush. "Show me the actual quote where John Kerry says - word for word - 'The troops are stupid'".
Yes, surely conservatives would have found that to be a compelling argument.
"the criticism of Rush Limbaugh was based on an INTERPRETATION of his comments"
Yeah. Wow. How profound.
Just imagine. People heard Limbaugh speak, read his words, and interpreted comments so as to understand them. And then they criticized him.
Gosh, how unfair.
See-that's what happens with comments, Einstein.
-Comment spoken
-Comment listened to and interpreted by listener.
As an example, I interpret your comments to clearly understand that you are a closed-minded, right-wing person with a transparent affinity for twisting, cherry-picking and misrepresenting, prone to being trite, flippant (and then expecting to be taken seriously) and willfully ignorant.
My interpretation.
my response to you is the same as what I said to bacci40 (above)
That's a non-response.
You obviously have some kind of *thing* for Rush Limbaugh that brings you here to do contortionist-like apologetics on his behalf. Hope he sends you a box of cigars.
Please don't bother to "respond" again unless you actually read what I wrote.
golly, dave_chicago -
I'm so sorry I slighted your brilliant post. Here, let me offer these responses to your brilliance with all the seriousness you deserve:
YOU SAID: Gosh, how unfair.
RESPONSE: Oh, really?
YOU SAID: See-that's what happens with comments, Einstein.
RESPONSE: Oh, really?
YOU SAID: As an example, I interpret your comments to clearly understand that you are a closed-minded, right-wing person with a transparent affinity for twisting, cherry-picking and misrepresenting, prone to being trite, flippant (and then expecting to be taken seriously) and willfully ignorant.
My interpretation.
RESPONSE: Oh, really?
You see, david, your post was just a series of smart-ass personal attacks and sarcasm. And then your petulant "RESPOND TO MY POINTS" whining only makes me laugh. The fact is that when you take out the insults there is practically no content to your post. In fact, that is true with many of the left/libs at MMFA. That's all right, but when you get all huffy about it I almost split my sides with laughter.
Anyway, my original point still stands. The criticism of Limbaugh was based upon NOT the actual words you quote, but upon a slanted interpretation of RL's use of the words "phony soldiers". This is NOT an argument over FACTS. And my final question never gets answered by you or any other MMFA supporter - if MMFA is only interested in the objective facts, why didn't the original topic on Limbaugh's "phony soldier" comment include the clarification (which came less than 2 minutes later, for Gawd's sake!) on Jesse Macbeth?
(clarification: I, in fact, know already know why MMFA uses selective, slanted and biased quoting, but I'm willing to listen to a defense of it.)
"You see, david, your post was just a series of smart-ass personal attacks and sarcasm."
Do tell? Was it really????? I hadn't realized.
if MMFA is only interested in the objective facts, why didn't the original topic on Limbaugh's "phony soldier" comment include the clarification (which came less than 2 minutes later, for Gawd's sake!) on Jesse Macbeth?
What does MacBeth have to do with Limbaugh calling troops who want to withdraw "phony soldiers"?
RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS POSTS - PART 2
- draftedin68 / Friday October 12, 2007 08:52:10 PM ESTRESPONSE: Needless to say, if a conservative posted a similar rant the left/libs would start hitting the flag button. But I'm happy that draftedin68 is having fun!
- DorisRussell / Friday October 12, 2007 09:05:15 PM EST
RESPONSE: DorisRussell cites Paul Krugman who complains about unfair attacks by conservatives. Well, I guess you can say that Krugman is an expert on unfair attacks. But PK is obviously a highly partisan guy - SO MUCH FOR 'JUST THE FACTS'!Congrats MMFA, keep shining the light.
RESPONSE: This is just a self-congratulatory "We are the ONLY ONES know that real Truth with a capital 'T'" posts. It might be a belief, but it's not a "FACT". And when conservatives make such sweeping claims for having "God's infinite knowledge", they deserve the same criticism.
The fact Media Matters takes whole manuscripts & tapes and presents them in that format worries the radical right to no end.
- daganium4595 / Friday October 12, 2007 09:37:25 PM EST
RESPONSE: As I have already noted (above) with regard to Limbaugh, the transcripts at MMFA are often selectively edited. You frequently see the ellipses used to skip whole sections of transcripts. I often have to go to the original source to find what MMFA leaves out. The giveaway for how biased the editing at MMFA is when they use selective quotes to give context to liberals and then turn around and do the same thing to cut out parts of the transcript that would benefit the conservative.
does the fact that someone (cliff Kincaid), working for an organization called "accuracy in media" states that he needn't read a transcript of a media production, to opine on it, qualify as true irony? or is it just rain on his wedding day?
people want to know, dammit!
This is a fair question. It's always a good idea to check the source. So let me ask, is it also wrong for Senators and Congressmen to complain about Limbaugh without going to the original recording of the program? Or was it OK for them just to rely on MMFA "reports'? Furthermore, do YOU go to the original sources, or do you just believe whatever MMFA posts on their website?
- billiybobjones7678 / Saturday October 13, 2007 12:02:30 AM ESTRESPONSE: A very thoughtful and wonderful post. How could anyone disagree!
Examples? Evidence? Proof? These guys don't need no stinkin' PROOF!
OK, Tex. I've just taken the time to reply to a bunch of left/libs with evidence, proof and logic.
I can hardly wait for the thoughtful and logical replies.
(FINISHED)
I've just taken the time to reply to a bunch of left/libs with evidence, proof and logic. (Bilybob)
No, those were opinions,many of them factually wrong
I can hardly wait for the thoughtful and logical replies. (Bilybob)
You probably won't get too many, as most of your points have been proven inaccurate quite a while ago
(FINISHED) (Bilybob)
You were finished about a week ago, when you surrendered and admitted to being a liar.You're just the only one who seems to not be aware of the fact that you're finished.
I will say you are #1 in one category,in that you do take more words(mostly copied and pasted) to say nothing than anyone I've ever seen.
But keep up the good work.
huntingtonbeachlefty.-
Dealing with you makes me feel lik Michael Palin (in the famous Monty Python - Argument Clinic skit ) trying to pay John Cleese for an "argument"...
(quote) "an argument's not the same as contradiction"—("Simply saying 'No it isn't' isn't an argument." "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!")
(end quote)
If you want to actually counter any points I make, feel free. If you merely intend to gainsay and repeat the same stuff every time, then you're on your own. I normally don't hit the flag button, but obviously, you fit the category of "abusive" for this site.
It's OK BBJ, notwithstanding the fact you bought El Rushbo's revisionist defense and, got your clock cleaned on this web site on this issue, the MSM has played right along as MMFA has shown. El Rushbo skates away again. So you can let it go now.
Remember, on the EIB, truth has a liberal bias.
Well, Rog, Max and Bibbybob sure do like to proffer a lot of words. I don't actually read the stuff, but the volume is very impressive. I wonder how many of them it takes to screw in a lightbulb in Rush's toity.
Except for the rare unintentional humor, Rog's posts are just too dang boring to read.
ThankYou Huntington...
You've been very kind to BillyBob, who has disgraced himself yet again. You've been very fair to him, and so expressed the finest liberal values,
BillyBox is an easy target, but you've treated him with a measure of respect. He deserves no respect, but you've afforded him some. God Bless liberals; God Bless Jamison Foser!
finest liberal values (?!?!?!)
Oh man, please stop. My sides are just aching. As HRC might put it: cackle cackle cackle!
Yes, liberal values, that is NOT the conservative values of contant lying starting wars of agression and mindlessly repeating whatever the Oxymoron TOLD you to think.
Thank you for noticing, Conservative Fungus. I was really pulling for BJ under his latest name, hoping that he'd try to kick it up a notch. Conceding points that were false, ignoring his avoidance of the topics, I really wish there were more than the handful of decent conservative posters here, it would be so much more fun.
Unfortunately, BJ seems to have given up, resorting to imaginary scenarios where others are not posting substance, and he's actually presenting an argument.
I have to wonder what these GOP Phoenixes do in between screen name changes. Is there a lot of studying and practicing with puppets where they think the next appearance with the same BS is going to be a winner?
It's a weird combination of boring and fascinating.
The denial of the conservative right wing is based in their need to judge and control the stories, events, and outcomes, so they can feel powerful and in charge of the outcomes.
Much of their energy is spent in this endeavor so I have no doubt that they feel they are working very hard as it take an enormous amount of energy to maintain a false hood.
These individuals are terrified by the truth because it blows the lid off their secret control fantasies. They have no other choice than to attack the messengers of facts. The more power the truth holds and the louder it becomes the more angry and determined they become to refute it.
The only thing that rivals the ridiculous tide of feigned outrage they employ is the length with which they will go, outside the bounds of reality, to slander and distort from the actual facts which are beside the point of their mission.
This subconscious need to control does not consider the nature or facts but operates on it's own volition and can not be reasoned with or out maneuvered with truth.
When motivation is based entirely on maintaining this power relationship, truth is neither the point nor an ally.
Any individual or organization that confronts the psychological pathology of the right will face an avalanche of hate and propaganda weaponry as if the outcome were life and death.
The right pathology is in a fight to the death. The truth to them is death because it threatens to unmask who they really are. Beneath their anger, self righteous lies and bravado are damaged people who gravitate to each other for protection and camaraderie.
To them the left is an evil that would expose them and destroy them. It's ironic that their own pathology actually creates that reality and they are doomed to repeat it as long as they remain unconscious to the truth of it.
Shame really.
We really are all in this together.
MMFA is even more needed now than The Progressive was in the 60's. Keep it up.
rdirkse
Great point. The Progressive magazine and MMFA do pretty much the same thing.
I'm only glad that someone has finally admitted it!
you give inane a new meaning.
Not all speech is equal The purpose of free speech protection is to allow criticism of the government by the less powerful. Limbaugh's "phony soldier" comment is different from the moveon ad in an important respect. The moveon ad was a criticism of the government by a private group. Limbaugh's comment was an attack on US citizens for exercising their free speech rights to oppose government policy. Based on the fundamental values of this society it is perfectly appropriate to condemn Limbaugh's anti free speech statement while supporting the right of moveon to criticize the government.
The short version of this is that these nitwits attack MM for accurately reporting their own words - in context. The pattern is also simple - argumentum ad hominem. Since they cannot attack the message, they attack the messenger.
One thing mediamatters will never be a sharp enough or astute enough watch group to appreciate...here's another example...is why on earth Turkey has suddenly been put in the diplomatic dog house.
They must assume the White House is just drawing slips of paper at random from a hat.
Well, it wouldn't be the weekend without another nonsensical post from WRITINGINCOHERENCE. For the last time, MMFA exposes right-wing mis-information in the media. They ARE NOT a White House watchdog, keeping track of every step (mis-step rather) the bush (lowercase intentional) administration makes. Thanks for playing.
Why be down on Turkey, it's not even November.
Armenians in Iraq is why. They are under our protection. Turkey is starting to be violent towards them and may attack with military action shortly. Will we defend them against Turkey?
What's fascinating here is just how much Media Matters has managed to completely unhinge the usual rightwing blowhards -- simply by reporting their own statements, verbatim!
I must admit that I've been skeptical of the MM approach -- i.e. reporting the lies and distortions of the right (and the lazy, dishonest reporting of the corporate media) in a calm, neutral and almost boring editorial voice. My sense was that these guys are far too cynical and know their audience far too well to be bothered by the truth. But I have to admit, it finally appears to be working. And it's driving the polecats completely around the bend.
I think that the brighter ones understand that the inane, hateful, bigoted nonsense they spew as red meat to their brainwashed audience really will not stand up that well when heard or read by rational people who actually think for themselves. Those people will decide for themselves what was meant instead of waiting for their screechmonkey heroes to tell them what to think about what they said. They are probably right about that. The red meat their core audience wants probably will seem demented to actual rational human beings. At the very least heartless, stupid or bigoted
I guess we could never guess why there are such diplomatic reprisals for no state reason, dredging up ethnic-cleansing crimes...of all things munky should be pretending to admonish...because the media watch wizzards of mediamattered are too infatuated with frivol.
Yes, liberal values, that is NOT the conservative values of contant lying starting wars of agression and mindlessly repeating whatever the Oxymoron TOLD you to think.
Sol, please add "charitable contributions" to your list of conservative values. Cons give huge amounts to charity like O'Reilly who gives millions every year and look here
http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-Harry-Reid-Rush-Limbaugh-Smear-Letter_W0QQitemZ260170172469QQihZ016QQcategoryZ4105QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
What a great idea......
I was wondering why all things "Limbaugh" suddenly vanished from MMfA.
You dont really take things I say like that seriously do you? It is a response, in kind, to someone who denigrated the very idea of liberal values. There are MANY REAL conservative values. The Bush administration does NOT represent traditional conservative values. They are more like radical statists. There is something good to say about holding on to tradition. I respect traditional conservatives. I have said so many times. I disagree with them but thats all. Someone that puts tweak in his name ought to understand the tactic I am employing.
"i was wondering why all things 'limbaugh' suddenly vanished from mmfa". scroll up a little, rocket scientist, you'll find his name mentioned in this very article.
Hmmm..I agree.
Ha. You are so full of partisan hate, that you do even know the difference between condemning the words of an ad, and not the group, which congress did. To condemning a persons words and the person himself, as the dems sadly attempted, and were so weak they couldn't get even a vote on it. How sad.
Media Matters and Harry Reid get pimp slapped by Rush.
He who laughs last.....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301656,00.html
So because some rich Rush fan is bidding on this letter, that means that the criticism against Rush isn't valid?
Interesting conclusion there.
So Rush smears the troops, in addition to cheerleading for an administration who has continually disrespected the troops. Reid and others (try to) call him out, and Rush wants the troops to take a payoff of 40k (how many seconds in Iraq?) to accept his insult.
Having friends and family in the military, I try not to be too judgmental about the decisions they make, but anybody in the military who feels anything but contempt for the Oxymoron is, IMO, an imbecile.
Love the way you guys strut your delusions. The hivemind speaks sending in another assimilated moron
The military was asked who they wanted to hear on Armed Forces Radio and the majority actually wrote in Rush Limbaugh. These men and women have a right to hear what they want to hear. Also, NPR is on 24/7 as are many other Liberal shows. I hope Media Matters is not for the fairness doctrine. Liberal views are given much time on CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC....
Dude,
You fail to mention the Senate resolution in support of General Petreaus did not mention MoveOn by name nor did the resolution take any action.
The Senate resolution against Rush Limbaugh mentions him by name and it takes action. They wrote his employer.
Are you so blind you can't or don't see the difference.
Silence Dogood