About us Login Get email updates
Jamison Foser
Print

The media's Glenn Beck problem

October 16, 2009 10:26 pm ET

It's no coincidence that when members of the media talk about the media these days, they tend to talk about two things: the supposed importance of right-wing media like Fox News, and claims that the rest of the media lean to the left. The two concepts are fundamentally intertwined and mutually reinforcing -- and deeply flawed.

It may seem odd that much of the news media would simultaneously pronounce itself guilty of liberal bias and spend the year after a presidential election won convincingly by the more progressive candidate talking about the importance and influence of a conservative cable channel whose viewership consists of about 1 percent of the nation. But both of those somewhat inconsistent media memes can be explained by journalists' frequent inability to see where the center of the country really is. That inability makes journalists think they are further left of center than they actually are (even assuming they are at all to the left of center). And it makes them inflate the importance of right-wing operatives masquerading as media figures -- people who would have far less influence if actual reporters stopped buying their nonsense.

Their hateful views and adversarial relationship with the truth place the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh on the far-right fringe of a party and movement that have lost the popular vote in four of the past five presidential elections and that holds only 40 percent of the seats in Congress. They are on the far-right edge of a party that is far to the right of the rest of the country.

And, it must be said, they do not tell the truth. They lie about things large and small. They lie to smear their adversaries, and they lie for no real reason at all. Their lies should disqualify them from ever being taken seriously. But instead, the media have decided that if anything they say turns out to contain a sliver of truth, everything they say must be paid immediate attention.

That's what happened when, after years of making absurd claims about ACORN -- remember the lie that ACORN was going to get billions of stimulus dollars? -- some conservative activists induced a statistically insignificant number of the organization's low-level employees to behave badly. The rest of the media rushed to cover the "scandal" -- and to beat themselves up for not having taken their cues from Beck & Co. sooner. The ombudsmen for the The Washington Post and The New York Times, for example, scolded their papers for being too slow to report on Beck-generated controversies and gave credence to conservative claims that the delay was the result of liberal bias.

What few journalists seem to understand is that once you accept someone like Glenn Beck as a legitimate media figure, it skews your view of the rest of the media. This is not a new phenomenon -- not by any means. More than two years ago, I argued that once you accept Ann Coulter, who calls John Edwards a "faggot," as a legitimate guest on shows like NBC's Today, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd -- who merely calls Edwards a "girl" -- seems positively reasonable. Thus the entire media discourse is shoved in the direction of its least legitimate participants.

That's how reporters -- and not just those on Rupert Murdoch's payroll -- come to see the non-Beck, non-Hannity "reporters" at Fox News as fair and balanced. The "news" division at Fox spreads falsehoods and right-wing nonsense round the clock, but many journalists have bought into the idea that while Fox's "opinion" hosts may be conservatives, the rest of the channel plays it down the middle. After all, compared to a crazy liar like Glenn Beck, Fox's "news" programs seem perfectly legitimate and impartial. But judged by any reasonable standard, they are nothing of the kind.

And, of course, if you believe that the rest of Fox News is, as Washington Post reporter Ed O'Keefe put it this week, "straight news shows," that affects how you view other news organizations. Just as America's Newsroom on Fox appears to play things down the middle in comparison to a dishonest demagogue like Glenn Beck, other news organizations appear liberal in comparison with America's Newsroom.

And that's how MSNBC -- which gives three hours of airtime each day to conservative former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough and another hour to Clinton-hating, liberal-bashing misogynist Chris Matthews, employs Pat Buchanan, whose very name has been synonymous with bigotry for decades, and regularly traffics in conservative misinformation and right-wing framing -- comes to be described as "liberal": simply because it also employs the only overtly left-of-center hosts in all of television news.

And that's how you end up with the perverse situation in which newspapers like The Washington Post are described by reporters at the Post and elsewhere as "liberal" despite hounding the Clintons for years over a phony real estate "scandal," harassing Al Gore for lies he didn't tell, handing the 2000 election to George W. Bush on a platter, and trading in their press passes for pom-poms during Bush's march to war with a nation that didn't attack us.

And so we have a poisonous media environment in which the "conservative media" consist of lying conspiracy theorists who are out to destroy President Obama and any other liberal they come across, and the "mainstream press" is considered "liberal" even as it "leans over so far backward to avoid the charge of left bias that it ends up either neutered or leaning to the right."

That's some range, isn't it? From right-wing liars who purposefully traffic in conservative misinformation all the way across the spectrum to frightened liberals who accidentally traffic in conservative misinformation.

That's the real problem with Glenn Beck and Fox News. It isn't that they misinform the 1 percent of Americans who watch their nonsense (the vast majority of whom already agree with them). It's that the rest of the media run to the right in response to Fox -- even while becoming more and more convinced that they are guilty of liberal bias.

Jamison Foser is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Foser also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web, as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook or sign up to receive his columns by email.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Bad News (October 16, 2009 11:41 pm ET)
      3 2
      Glenn Beck is not the Problem, it is the Main Stream Media's Back Bone.
      Joe McCarthy ran wild until one man stood up & put a stop to his Drone.
      Evil will always Prevail until the Righteous take a Stand.
      True Religion is found in the Hearts of all Men & not just in the HeartLand.

      Speak truth to power.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
      • Author by draftedin68 (October 18, 2009 11:55 am ET)
        4  
        CCM, not MSM

        IMHO, the correct term is Corporate Controlled Media.

        Follow the money.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by meatball (October 16, 2009 11:50 pm ET)
        1
      i work at a packing house [thats a place where cows are slaughterd and YOU get steak] for 25 years
      the facts of where people live went ...like the space shuttle ...way over your head

      good luck and peace to you
      Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (October 16, 2009 11:57 pm ET)
      2 8
      Mr. Foser, Sir. Are you referring to the same Chris Mathews above that said that someone should shoot Lush Rumball? Well, those weren't the exact words, but the words did still refer to violence. And I notice that you have never, over the years, commented on Oldermann's reference to gwb as a facist.
      One thing great about this country is that almost all of us are free to express our opinions, whether they reach the 1% considered Fox viewers or the less than that amount that visit here each week.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (October 17, 2009 12:35 am ET)
        6 1
        Oscar,
        I'm afraid your spat is not very convincing. Are you trying to say that Chris Matthews (whose words you don't even seem to know) has fomented violence on a level of the Beck-Limbaugh-Hannity-Fox News-Savage GOP filth machine, and the violence they've instigated against the president?

        You're smarter than this Oscar.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (October 17, 2009 12:29 pm ET)
          7 1
          No he isn't. He pulled out the "some people don't pay income tax" canard a few days ago, and he still believes in supply-side theory and deregulation after watching both fail right in front of him a few years ago.

          These days the only way to be conservative and vaguely smart is to reduce politics to a moral exercise completely separated from real-life effects and examples.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by fankolet (October 17, 2009 12:39 am ET)
        3 5
        My biggest my problem is... people are dying of hunger in this country (USA) people are losing their homes, jobs, health care, and some schools in this country are worst than those of my poor native country Haiti, which is ravaged with corruptions. i found it nearly impossible to beleive that the media doesn't see the real problem of this country. The Chris Mathews, the Rush Limbo, the Glen Beck to name a few are rich people who are getting to say outrageous thing. they are not JOURNALIST.I salute the JOURNALIST AT MM.ORG for its work IN denouncing them.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by John Stuebner (October 17, 2009 2:11 pm ET)
        3 2
        Before Hitler came to power the Germans were free to express their Opinion also, some followed Hitlers opinions and look what happened. Perhaps we should start drawing mustaches on Glenn BecK.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by 4termlimits (October 19, 2009 7:23 pm ET)
          3 4
          Just curious but didn't hitler control the media too? Hmmmm sound similar to the Obama campaign

          "One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters. ... We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it."

          Unlike the people on here that call Fox liarers but never write the lies or their source so they can be disputed, I'll provide my source. That was Anita Dunn and you can listen yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLR5jHlytRg
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (October 17, 2009 12:28 am ET)
      7  
      "...if anything they say turns out to contain a sliver of truth, everything they say must be paid immediate attention."

      Perfectly sums up the incredibly degraded state of our nation's media. Would anyone really expect much else from the Corporate Media?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by vonbargen9388 (October 17, 2009 12:49 am ET)
      6 1
      Every generation seems to have its becks or hannitys or limbaugh. There were, for example, Westbrook Pegler, H.L. Mencken, Morton Downey, Jr., Father Coughlin et al.
      Two things are different:
      First, the radio time available to those earlier demagogues was limited by the FCC rules and later, the Fairness Doctrine. Today it is almost impossible to travel across the country and not find them dominating AM and FM radio to the exclusion of balanced reporting, local or national. There are also more of them around.

      Second, the other media outlets, including the major radio and tv networks, did not multiply and intensify the reach of these nuts the way they do today. Instead of the news, we get an analysis of whatever three uneducated, bloviating jerks have said today. This in an era when we have three 24/7 so called "news" networks on cable, plus the usual mainstream media outlets.

      I think much of this is economic. Good journalism is costly and the networks and newspapers are losing money. Talking about beck, limbaugh et al is just as stimulating for the ratings as Anna Nicole Smith, Michael Jackson and the Octomom.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Jurgan (October 17, 2009 5:19 pm ET)
        3  
        You did not just compare the great H. L. Mencken to Rush Limbaugh. No way- Mencken was a giant compare to these clowns.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by News Corpse (October 17, 2009 2:14 am ET)
      8 3
      It is really important to keep making the point that the bias on Fox News is not just the primetime blowhards, as Fox PR likes to insist. The lies are peddled all day long.

      During the day people like Neil Cavuto, Stuart Varney, Carl Cameron, Megyn Kelly, etc., are just as right-biased as the nighttime crew. The mornings are filled by conservative morons like Steve Doocey and Gratchen Carlson. Executives like Michael Clemente and Bill Shine set the rightist tone for everyone else.

      White House correspondent, Major Garrett, wrote a book called: The Enduring Revolution: The Inside Story of the Republican Ascendancy and Why It Will Continue.

      Washington Managing Editor, Bill Sammon, wrote a book called: Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media.

      In fact, Fox News has become a conservative book promotion platform for their anchors and contributors. The myth that Fox does news during the day and editorials at night must be busted.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (October 18, 2009 3:12 am ET)
        3 2
        I watch enough Fox news to corroborate everything News Corpse just pointed out.

        Incidentally, I monitored Fox News all throughout the day before the election. Beginning at 5:00 A.M. every single program host and news anchor were endlessy hitting on the Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers stories. There was an unabashed tone of desperation in their reportage, being their last ditch effort to derail an Obama victory.
        Honestly, it was way over the line of "fair and balanced"

        The only fair and balanced coverage I can recall on Fox News was inauguration day, when they seemed to have declared a cease fire and allowed themselves some civility and respect for the occasion. Also, their coverage of Tim Russert's death was decent.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by National_Insecurity (October 17, 2009 2:46 am ET)
      7 2
      Journalists were never the cool kids in school, and I think they're still susceptible to both peer pressure as well as brow beating by people who seem sure of themselves and can play a good con.

      It's how guys like Karl Rove could scare reporters away from revealing the big lies, for example, the complete lack of W.M.D. found by the IAEA in 2002 & 2003 despite US DoD specific sites to investigate BEFORE the invasion, the lack of diligence in pursuing or securing potential W.M.D. and weapons sites during the invasion, as well as hesitating for nearly a year after the invasion to question the absence of W.M.D.

      Scott Ritter was just one of many sources who was not merely ignored, but completely dissed by the media. They never even conducted any due diligence into his claims to see if they held water.

      Karl learned to deceive the supposedly smart kids in high school debates by hauling in a handtruck filled thousands of debating cards. The smart kids had a couple dozen cards and were unnerved into believing Rove had thousands at his disposal.

      That's also why we get pack journalism with teeny-tiny incremental newsbreaks. Neither reporter nor editor want to "get ahead of the story."

      Rove isn't the leader anymore, but the lessons have been learned. Truth is just getting it's pants on while the lie is halfway around the world.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by draftedin68 (October 18, 2009 12:06 pm ET)
        5  
        Well said.

        Your "pack journalism" is my "ball-chasing puppies."

        If you handed a set of tools used by real journalists to most of the elite telepromter readers in the Corporate Controlled Media and sent them out to get the story, they'd fail miserably.

        If Edward R. Murrow came back and saw what was being passed off as journalism, he'd never stop throwing up.


        Report Abuse
    • Author by bluestate69 (October 17, 2009 5:43 am ET)
      6 3
      i have been thinking about this very topic. a very small percentage of people crashed town hall meetings and marched in the streets. by watching the mainstream media, you would think the whole country is revolting against obama, and by giving so much air time to these right wing wackos, you legitimize them, and make their movement stronger. it's the media version of self fulfilling prophecy.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by draftedin68 (October 18, 2009 12:08 pm ET)
        4 1
        Don't forget:

        Dean's SCREAM - Dean's SCREAM - Dean's SCREAM - Dean's SCREAM

        Report Abuse
    • Author by True Democrat (October 17, 2009 10:04 am ET)
      3 7
      Nice article, lacks any substance but does tell where the author stands on the division of our nation. This could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on which side you as a reader stand.

      Where there is fact, there is truth; for we never state fact unless it reflects the truth, to easy to dispute lies me thinks.

      Here lies the demise of the Democrat party. We spend to much time in the Grey Areas and do not seek to project truth.....

      Wish that it were not so. Sad to see our great party sink in such quicksand....
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (October 17, 2009 10:56 pm ET)
        6 2
        What are you babbling about? MMFA is only interested in the facts and projecting the truth. That's the whole premise of this site! It is sad to see ignorance such as yours.

        And this column? An editorial full of links (see the blue words? those are links to the supporting documentation of the points the author was making!) which as plenty of substance!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (October 19, 2009 11:01 am ET)
        4 1
        You just showed how ignorant you are . . . a "True Democrat" would not call his/her political club the "Democrat Party." The legal name of the club is DEMOCRATIC PARTY. I'm not a member of an political club, but I find the childish and peevish use of the term "Democrat Party" offensive as heck, just as I find the use of the term "Repugs" offensive. Grow up.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© (October 17, 2009 10:24 am ET)
      6  
      That's some range, isn't it? From right-wing liars who purposefully traffic in conservative misinformation all the way across the spectrum to frightened liberals who accidentally traffic in conservative misinformation.

      I think that is overly fair to the likes of the Washington Post.

      I believe they are happy to be accused of liberal bias.

      This gives them cover to whore for the corporations and K-Street lobbyists that they really care for even more than they already do.
      ~
      Report Abuse
    • Author by isabellakate (October 17, 2009 11:12 am ET)
      3 8

      I regret to say that Media Matters is guilty of everything Foser attributes to the right wing media, including bias in selection of stories. For example, I heard it said recently that George Soros identified Jews to the Nazis during WW2. I obviously didn't read this on Media Matters, but I would like to know why you didn't report it. A billionaire Nazi collaborator promoting liberal causes is some story.

      The story should also investigate how Soros became a citizen, if indeed he did, because Naturalization N-400 form requires applicants to state on oath if they have ever persecuted, directly or indirectly, any person because of religion or race etc. It also requires the applicant to declare whether he/she directly or indirectly worked with or associated with a government in any area,occupied by, allied with, or established with the help of the Nazi government of Germany or with any Nazi unit or agency.

      I hope you will investigate this as a matter of urgency and publish your findings. If true, it requires action by the appropriate Federal department. If untrue, the allegation should be shown to be false.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (October 17, 2009 7:48 pm ET)
        7 1
        The Soros story is more of the poster's writ than the sites. Unless someone in the media starts pushing it. You've accepted lies about Soros, enjoy what those lies give you.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by isabellakate (October 17, 2009 8:35 pm ET)
          1 4
          I have to confess I don't know what you mean by "more of the poster's writ than the sites". I heard the story either on the radio while driving or on television while I was busy in another room,so did not write down the name of the speaker. I would have thought Media Matters would have known about it and would already be investigating. If not, why not? If Media Matters needs help, I can probably make inquiries and find out who said it. Shooting the messenger isn't acceptable, eweston8542983.

          Your disinterest in whether or not the story is true speaks volumes about your own view of Nazi war criminals. I assume you think it is only worth extraditing a Nazi collaborator to Germany for trial when he is a an old, poor man even when Jewish witnesses present at the time of the alleged offense have said he was not the collaborator,as with the man (Ukrainian, I think) in his 80s recently deported. Before you ask. I do not know, nor am I related to or a member of the same ethnic group as,nor do I have any connection with,the deported man.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (October 19, 2009 12:26 am ET)
            4 1
            It's already been investigated, dum-dum. Why didn't YOU investigate it before coming here to make baseless accusations?

            He was 13 or 14 years old when he went to live with a non-Jew so that he could escape being sent to a concentration camp. The person he went to live with confiscated Jewish property.

            The young teenager was not a collaborator.

            And your writing and grammar are almost unintelligible, so you shouldn't criticize others for not understanding what the heck you're going on about!

            We're not 'shooting the messenger'. This "message" has already been debunked. We're denying you the right to repeat the lie in the hope that someone might think it true! There's no evidence that any regular poster here doesn't care whether it's true or not. However, there's clear evidence that YOU don't care that it's not true, so long as it smears someone on the right!!!!
            Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (October 17, 2009 8:59 pm ET)
          4  
          Some validated info on George Soros.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Indy (October 18, 2009 3:15 pm ET)
            5  
            Oh no here we go again. More WWII/Soros references. How about Bush's grandday's collaboration with the NAZI party.

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

            chirp..chirp.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by isabellakate (October 19, 2009 1:23 am ET)
              1 4
              Funny you object to the story I innocently related about George Soros when you are a practiced hand at inventing smears about Republicans.

              Prescott Bush was just an employee of W.Averill Harriman, prominent Democrat and later member of JFK's administration, whose bank Brown,Harriman,financed Thyssen,steelmakers to the Third Reich. Brown Harriman's assets were seized in 1942 under trading with the enemy legislation. Bush was not a Nazi sympathizer as you well know. On the other hand, President Kennedy's father did admire Hitler and advised the German Ambassador, after Kristalnacht, to go about the persecution of Jews quietly.

              I saw no reason to research the item I related about Soros because I thought it was new information which would be researched by the media. I am not a journalist. Today I found a report of a CNN interview with Soros. He explained the circumstances of the event which he said happened when he was 13 years old,Jewish and masquerading for his own survival as a Christian during the Nazi occupation. No reasonable person would hold a child responsible for collaborative acts performed under duress. The story I heard and commented upon was unfair and misleading.It mentioned neither his age nor that he was Jewish. It was about as truthful as your statement about Prescott Bush. Soros should correct it.





              Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (October 19, 2009 11:09 am ET)
                4 1
                You related a lie you heard on Fox without researching it. Soros' background is common knowledge for most folks. His total lack of connection with this site is also common knowledge, even to the folks on Fox who continue to push it to blind followers like you.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Indy (October 19, 2009 12:02 pm ET)
                4  
                I see so Prescott was "just following orders" in some clerical position and not a managing partner. Hmmm where have I heard that one before. And how much of the money did he return? Many industrialists admired Hitler until he started invading and killing. Remember the rest of the world was in a depression and Germany was booming. But to continue to support Hitler until the US government had to seize assets because of continuing support during the war is another story. I guess your references to Kennedy is supposed to be another "they all did it" example. Most Democrats at the time would be considered far right wingers today and I don't care that is besides the point.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by isabellakate (October 19, 2009 12:27 pm ET)
                  1 4
                  Prescott Bush was an EMPLOYEE of Averill Harriman's bank. HARRIMAN was a famous DEMOCRAT. The funds were CONFISCATED by the US government. Emphasis because you didn't get it. You are saying it was ok for Harriman to support the Nazis but not for Bush. That's really stupid. As is your comment that Germany was booming before WW2. Germany was devastated by runaway inflation of the kind we're going to be seeing here very soon.
                  Joe Kennedy was a Nazi supporter. I also said the sins of the fathers are irrelevant but you prefer to misrepresent me. Why bother responding?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (October 19, 2009 12:52 pm ET)
                    4  
                    Once more, with feeling.

                    You have already shown us many times that you don't have enough background knowledge to try to school us on what happened decades ago.

                    You have already shown us that you're trying to excuse the behavior of Prescott Bush by capitalizing the word "Democrat".

                    If it was wrong to do what Prescott Bush did, we are not excusing his bosses from our blame. That's something that YOUR side does, not ours. YOU are the one who is trying to excuse Prescott Bush's actions by claiming that a Democrat was also involved.

                    And Prescott Bush was NOT a simple employee. He was one of 7 Directors - highest level - and he was directly involved with the Thyssen part of the group - the German steelmaker! He continued that association after the USA declared war on Germany even.

                    You are thoroughly discrediting yourself here with your distortions of reality and your lack of complete knowledge about historical events!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by isabellakate (October 19, 2009 3:09 pm ET)
                        4
                      You are certainly spending a lot of your (paid) time trying to refute comments by someone without background knowledge! What a job. Someone really pays you for the tripe you write.

                      It's an honor to be discredited by fools, even if they think they have "complete knowledge of historical events". I doubt you can recall what you wrote two posts ago and you certainly haven't read what I wrote to other, slightly more civilized posters than you.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (October 19, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
                3 1
                A tale you "innocently related". Don't make us laugh.

                We aren't practiced hands at smearing Republicans. That's another lie from you. MMFA is practiced at catching Republicans acting badly. It's not a smear to tell the truth about someone. It's a smear to deceptively and dishonestly describe someone - like what YOU did about George Soros. You - smear. Us - not.

                And you saw no reason to try to verify your smear before you typed it here? And then you tried to claim that you didn't know how to look any info up in another post?

                We don't believe you.

                People who aren't educated enough to do some basic research on a topic, and are gullible enough to assume that what they hear on the radio is accurate SHOULD NOT come to sites like this and then try to educate others. If that's your pattern, please learn from this event, and do not do it again.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by isabellakate (October 19, 2009 3:30 pm ET)
                  1 4
                  "we are not practiced hands at smearing Republicans"...."we are not excusing his bosses from our blame." You must get paid by the word.

                  You are a practiced liar. I did not claim I didn't know how to look up information. I said I didn't bother.

                  I responded about Prescott Bush to Indy,not to you. Not too bright are you? We. Meaning we Democratic machine paid hacks, I suppose. What a con. This is a dumb propaganda site manned by low level semi-literates. Someone writes a post you don't like and then you do a joint hatchet job on it. You probably think that constitutes debate.

                  Doesn't say much for the Party's confidence level. No wonder President Obama's numbers are sinking. With you on his side they'll soon be at zero.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (October 17, 2009 11:09 pm ET)
        6 1
        You don't regret any smear you've made. You love wallowing in the mud, then throwing it to see where it will stick. You can't fool us.

        We know the real story about George Soros and his involvement the Nazi's as a young 13 yr old teenager.

        The allegation has been proven false many, many years ago. It gets proven false anytime anyone brings it up.

        Soros lived with an adult who confiscated Jewish property at the direction of the Nazi's. A 13 yr old can't be a collaborator

        We get uneducated people here all the time - it's the bain of this site's existence getting people who don't know what they're talking about trying to educate us! For someone who doesn't know what Soros actually did, and his age at the time, it's awfully suspicious that you know the name of the form that one supposedly has to fill out to become a naturalized citizen and the detailed info that has to be completed!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by isabellakate (October 18, 2009 5:50 pm ET)
          1 4
          I don't know what your conspiracy-laden psyche might find suspicious. I know about the N-400 form because I recently saw it on the USCIS website. Look it up,dummy. You'll find that "one" actually, not supposedly, has to fill it out to become a naturalized citizen. It requires a declaration about prior associations, in particular, with Nazis. Your comment is really ignorant.

          It's nice that "we" know the real story about George Soros and the Nazis and a pity you didn't provide some evidence instead of a sarcastic assertion.

          Why would you expect me to know it? How on earth would I have known what Soros did, his age, or anything else about him? I don't follow the lives of the ultra rich or of celebrities generally, unlike you, I gather. I first heard his name last year during coverage of the economic crisis when I saw him say on television that he supported legislation now, to stop other people making money in the same way he had been doing for years. It seemed just a tad hypocritical.

          You are really up yourself. "We" get really uneducated people here all the time. That sounds about right. Educated people usually eschew conspiracy theories, so clearly you are not one of them. You could certainly use someone to bring you up to scratch intellectually.

          What you really mean is you don't want anyone on "your" site who doesn't slavishly follow your political line, however undemocratic it might be.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (October 19, 2009 12:38 am ET)
            3 1
            MY comment is ignorant? I know that George Soros is not guilty of what you accused him of - you claim you don't know the facts about that, but you somehow know about the forms one supposedly had to fill out? That's not credible. One could not be fully informed about the forms and not know about George Soros without willfully trying to ignore the facts about Soros!!!!!

            I will NOT do the legwork for someone who was so eager to believe a smear of Soros, and someone who did absolutely NO research before coming to this site and leveling that smear.

            And you accuse MMFA of some misbehavior or some oversight, yet you failed that attempt in every way possible! MMFA is not a news source, nor is it investigative journalism! It deals with conservative media misinformation, yet you come here and accuse them of falling asleep on the job. It's like blaming the lighthouse operator because he didn't stop the Titantic from hitting the iceberg in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

            How would I expect you to know about Soros? There's this new thing, it's called the Internet, and you can look up almost anything about any public figure there! That might be how you could have looked it up BEFORE coming here, you ignorant person you! I mean, really, you're on the Internet typing here - how did you NOT KNOW that you could learn stuff about Soros on THE INTERNET???????????????????????

            Yes, we get uneducated people like you all the time on this site posting comments trying to educate us!!!! It's ridiculous and laughable that people like you think that you can throw out wild and baseless accusations, and then act all offended when your sham gets uncovered!

            And no, it doesn't mean that we don't want anyone on this site who doesn't follow our political philosophy. That's another common strawman argument used by uneducated people who come here and get their butts handed to them in a debate! No one dissed what you said because of the politics you hold near and dear. It's because what you said was wrong, a smear, easily disprovable, easily researched and debunked, yet you come here and act like you're here to open our eyes with this old news.

            You suck at this. Go take your first paycheck for posting here, and go find another dead-end job. You ain't any good at this. You weren't any good when you came here as PatrioticKate, and IsabellaKate ain't any better.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by isabellakate (October 19, 2009 10:24 am ET)
              2 5
              "One could not be fully informed about the forms and not know about George Soros without willfully trying to ignore the facts about Soros!!!!!"

              Because I have a passing acquaintance with immigration forms it follows that I must know about George Soros? I'm still laughing.

              You claim to be educated. If true,you should ask for a refund. You are a master of semi-literate abuse but incapable of coherent argument.

              You sure jump to conclusions. You would know about being paid to write on this site. It's the same logic you used unsuccessfully above. You are paid so I must be. Brilliant.

              Despite your paranoia, I am not PatrioticKate. I am responsible for my own contributions.I guess you didn't like hers either.You are a disastrous advertisement for Democratic party. You should consider the damage you are doing to the cause and desist.

              Your paranoia is out of control.Professional help is indicated.



              Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (October 19, 2009 11:13 am ET)
                4 2
                By the way, you are aware that the only thing that George Soros has really done wrong was to oppose GWB's re-election, right? Fox turned its ugly hate machine on him for that reason only. See, Soros bailed GWB out of his last oil business failure. He saw what a totally incompetent and intellectually lazy person Bush was at that time. He felt that Bush's continued influence on the government in our country would be disastrous . . . he was right.

                You might try doing more research into the lies on Fox, your rehashing of their talking points just serves to make you look foolish. BTW, if you think that watching Fox makes you a conservative, you are wrong. Nothing on Fox represents true conservatism.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by isabellakate (October 19, 2009 12:53 pm ET)
                  1 4
                  I was not aware that Soros opposed Bush's re-election. Why would I care? No-one in my family supported Bush until Democratic hatred became insupportable in his second term. I do not "rehash" Fox's talking points nor do I usually research media reports. Like most people I listen when it interests me and ignore it otherwise.
                  As I have already said, the story about Soros did not mention his age or his Jewish faith. I was interested because an 80 something Ukranian man was extradited to Germany to face collaboration charges despite the fact that Jewish people present at the time had given sworn evidence in prior court cases that he was not the man who persecuted them. I was curious that a poor man was deported while a rich one escaped scrutiny.

                  I would be interested to hear how you define conservatism. Democrats on this site have a real problem assuming that anyone who disagrees is ignorant/ill educated and to be patronized. The arrogance of many semi-literate contributors is astonishing. Looking foolish in their company is a badge of honor.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by bintx (October 19, 2009 3:42 pm ET)
                    4 2
                    I was simply telling you why Fox and the folks have made Soros their "devil." He opposed Bush because he knew what an incompetent bubba he was.

                    Before you state a ridiculously false story which is widely KNOWN to be false, you should check your sources.

                    I'm a long-time Republican voter for president. In fact, prior to the ridiculously irresponsible nomination of GWB in 2000, I had voted for every single Republican candidate for president since Nixon in 1972. I'm hardly a Democrat.

                    The "conservatism" represented by Fox and the folks on hate talk radio have absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to real conservatism. Conservatism is not about hatred, derision and divisiveness.

                    I'm not sure you should be so haughty with your comments. You were the one who apparently was semi-literate in your post. The information about Soros is very well known . . . well, to anybody who doesn't get their "news" from Fox and hate talk radio.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (October 19, 2009 12:37 pm ET)
                4  
                Did you read some of the other comments to you? Like "Seriously, CAN YOU READ?"

                I understand that getting put in your place probably wasn't fun. Too bad, so sad.

                I am not the person who jumped to faulty and inconceivable conclusions about this site, about George Soros, about Democrats in general, etc. That would be you.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (October 19, 2009 12:33 pm ET)
            2  
            Oh yeah, and you just 'happened' to be on the US Immigration Service website and just 'happened' to be looking at the form that one has to fill out to become naturalized?

            Yeah, that's believable. People who aren'tdo that kind of stuff all the time.

            One has to click about 4 links to find that form. It's not something one just stumbles across.

            And then there's the issue of guilt by association. Of course, in your black and white world, if one ever had anything to do with the Nazi Party, one is condemned forever to be associated with them. There's a difference between being associated with them because your fake godfather worked for them while living in an occupied country and actually doing dirty deeds for them yourself. I looked over that questionaire, and there's room to explain the circumstances of one's 'association' with the Nazi Party. Clearly some explanations won't pass muster, but many will explain and excuse minor 'associations'. You assumed that the the 'association' that Soros had with the Nazi's wouldn't allow him to qualify.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by isabellakate (October 19, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
              2 2
              You are lying again. I didn't say I stumbled across the US Immigration site. You said that. If you're pretending to be a lawyer, you don't cut it. If you paid for legal training,get a refund.

              I know it's complicated but if you calm yourself and try really hard to concentrate you should be able to understand.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (October 19, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
              4  
              If association with Nazis disqualified folks, then Pope Benedict would need to resign. He was not only a member of the Hitler Youth, he was a member of the German infantry.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (October 18, 2009 5:55 pm ET)
        6 1
        I regret to say that Media Matters is guilty of everything Foser attributes to the right wing media, including bias in selection of stories. I obviously didn't read this on Media Matters, but I would like to know why you didn't report it.

        Seriously, CAN YOU READ?

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

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

        Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by isabellakate (October 19, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
          1 3
          YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T READ YOUR OWN POST. Your second paragraph says that MM is dedicated to amongst other things, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the US media.

          You should be correcting the impression being given out about George Soros's youthful encounter with Nazism. What ARE you doing? Like a pack of rabid wolves, you are trying to devour the messenger. No wonder public support is waning.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (October 19, 2009 11:07 am ET)
        4  
        Why this is important is beyond me, but the facts are that Soros was 13 years old when he was approached by the Jewish Council to hand slips of paper to other children. He did this for two days and then went and asked his father what these slips of paper were. His father recognized them as notifications to Jews where they were to report. His father immediately sent him out of the city and had him pose as a Christian in order to escape the camps. It's common knowledge, but I guess, if you're watching Fox 24/7 you wouldn't know that.

        Two days of work which he had no idea what he was doing? Yeah, that's worthy of condemnation.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by isabellakate (October 17, 2009 11:18 am ET)
      3 8
      "MSNBC which gives [...]another hour to Clinton-hating, liberal-bashing misogynist Chris Matthews.."

      I can't believe you think Chris Matthews is not liberal. Anyone who gets shivers up his leg looking at President Obama could hardly be called conservative. Matthews was taken off MSNBC with Olbermann during the campaign for their slobbering bias towards Obama. I gave up watching MSNBC at that time because of Olbermann's vicious bias and Chrissy's apparent infatuation. I'll have to start watching Chris again. Perhaps he has remembered that journos are supposed to be impartial.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by vwcat (October 17, 2009 7:09 pm ET)
        6  
        you fall into the same trap and many on this thread. Matthews is not really an liberal or anything else but, what is seen as an independent.
        He likes some conservatives and agrees with some of their ideas.
        He likes some liberals and agrees with some of their ideas.
        And frankly, this is how the majority of the country is. they like ideas from both sides and pols from both sides but, are not 'true believers' of either one.
        The fact that he lives in Maryland and does a television programs means little. While Matthews worked for Carter, his bother was and is a republican.
        That is how real life is.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by isabellakate (October 17, 2009 9:11 pm ET)
          3 5
          I also agree with both conservative and liberal ideas. I was a liberal for most of my life. I was not an admirer of President Bush but the abuse heaped on him by the Left and Democrats shocked me profoundly. Something happened to what used to be the decent side of politics in those 8 years and it became so vicious that I no longer support it. Now I can only laugh when I am described as part of the far Right. It shows how far to the Left the Dems have moved. Sometimes I think I'm in Stalinist Russia.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (October 19, 2009 12:44 am ET)
            5 1
            There wasn't a lot of abuse heaped upon Bush in an unfair manner.

            That's like complaining that a mass murderer got a life sentence - such abusive treatment that killer received. Ah, no, he got what he deserved. So did Bush get what he deserved.

            Your claim to be an Independent is not reliable or believable.

            The vicious political party? That would be the Republican Party. They're the party who impeached a President, after spending more than $50 million dollars, for a lie about a sexual encounter. A lie about a sexual encounter is not a high crime or treason, and is not why our founding fathers put impeachment into the Constitution. You can't hardly get more vicious than that, but I could give you 20 other examples without breaking a sweat.

            You're so full of it it's coming out your ears.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (October 19, 2009 3:36 am ET)
            4 1
            I was not an admirer of President Bush but the abuse heaped on him by the Left and Democrats shocked me profoundly. Something happened to what used to be the decent side of politics in those 8 years and it became so vicious that I no longer support it.

            Good grief! Were you medicated from 1992 through 2000?

            Dirty politics didn't start during the Bush presidency, the Republican party wrote the book on dirty politics during the Clinton presidency!

            As for Bush, I suppose you thought Liberals should have ignored a President that LIED to start a war with a country that did not attack us, causing the deaths of over 4,500 American lives AND cost (at this second) over 6 BILLION dollars?

            And they should have ignored Bush's extreme mismanagement of this country's economy until we almost repeated the 1929 Great Depression?

            Paid no attention while Bush broke laws that are the basic foundation of this country?

            You probably think Liberals should have given Bush a freaking metal!

            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (October 19, 2009 11:14 am ET)
            4  
            The "abuse" was only in your mind. Government documents supported the criticism of GWB.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (October 18, 2009 3:36 am ET)
          4 1
          vwcat's description of Matthews is pretty accurate. Matthews has consistantly proclaimed his Keynesian economic philosophy and is not shy about proposing regulation of several industries. His politics have an ebb and flow quality that makes him hard to pin down ideologically.
          "This is how life is" is a nice codicil.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© (October 17, 2009 8:18 pm ET)
        5 1
        isabellakate, you might want to remember back when Chimpy McFailure staged his "Mission Accomplished" photo opportunity.

        In fact, I'll bet you don't want to remember that, because it would interfere with your regurgitation of right-wing propaganda.

        But click the link anyways, read it, and remember that even for brain-dead dittoheads, there is always hope.
        ~

        Report Abuse
        • Author by isabellakate (October 18, 2009 6:57 pm ET)
          1 5
          Thanks for the link but you must be confusing me with someone else as whatever I might be it could never be described as right-wing. So Matthews supported a president during a war. Big deal. Does one swallow a summer make?
          Your need to insult people is amusing. Did you have a deprived childhood? Dems don't seem to know how to behave when they win. You are not supposed to hate people who disagree.Your task is to convert them by reasoned discussion, although your post does show that you are probably not capable of reasoned discussion. I assume you are a Democrat. Then again, perhaps you are just a boring old Com left over from the 1960s.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (October 19, 2009 12:31 am ET)
            4  
            It wasn't just support, it was fawning over the man. It certainly didn't come across like he was saying it out of a sense of patriotic obligation or something. Besides, what about Matthews comments about Romney's shoulders or how McCain deserved to be President? How about his palpable disdain for Hillary Clinton? At what point does the "does one swallow a summer make" logic apply just as easily to Matthews' comment about Obama and the conclusion that he must be liberal?

            Matthews is probably neither a liberal nor a conservative, really. He's more likely a political junkie who acts on personal prejudices and a sense of what is effective packaging, rather than objective analysis of the issues.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by isabellakate (October 19, 2009 10:58 am ET)
                3
              Sorry. I wasn't that interested at the time. I assumed Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee and that she would win against McCain,with or without Palin. Unlike many on this site,I am not involved in politics. Like most lay people I only pay close attention when I think the country is in trouble.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (October 19, 2009 11:53 am ET)
                4 1
                I believe your excuse of ignorance. If that's going to apply to Matthews' treatment of Bush, though, then that suggests to me that you didn't pay attention during his Presidency. Is that the case? The discussions of whether a war was illegal, if his spying was unconstitutional, whether torture and extraordinary rendition are legal, or if the outing of a CIA agent is treason didn't make you think the country was in trouble, but accusations of socialism make your ears perk up?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (October 19, 2009 12:43 pm ET)
                4 1
                If you haven't been paying attention (and yeah, we could already tell that was the case) then you shouldn't come here and try to tell us that we don't know what we're talking about.

                If you haven't been paying attention to what MMFA does and why they do it and what they concentrate on, then you shouldn't come here and tell them that they're doing it wrong!

                If you havent' been paying attention, then start paying attention. Then you'll be able to have an intelligent conversation with others. Until that time, you should stop trying to educate others until you yourself become educated.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Handsome Pete (October 19, 2009 1:58 pm ET)
                3  
                Thank you for admitting that you're uninformed. Most of us had already come to that conclusion. Here's a hint: If you're ignorant on a subject, best not to discuss it like you know it, lest you look like a fool.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (October 19, 2009 12:47 am ET)
            4  
            Yeah, like saying that someone had a deprived childhood or suggesting that they're a communist isn't an insult?

            You're just a troll teed off because you didn't get away with your baseless attacks.

            And it's undeniable that you've spit out rightwing propaganda and not factual information.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by isabellakate (October 19, 2009 11:01 am ET)
              1 4
              Baseless attacks on whom? Are you crazy? Right wing information about Chris Matthews? I don't think you can remember your lies.

              And no. I don't consider calling someone a communist an insult. It's a political position and a bit of a joke which seems to be over your nasty little head.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (October 19, 2009 1:00 pm ET)
                4 1
                Here's your offensive and insulting paragraph.

                Your need to insult people is amusing. Did you have a deprived childhood? Dems don't seem to know how to behave when they win. You are not supposed to hate people who disagree.Your task is to convert them by reasoned discussion, although your post does show that you are probably not capable of reasoned discussion. I assume you are a Democrat. Then again, perhaps you are just a boring old Com left over from the 1960s.

                It's right here in black and white. I am stunned as to how you think you can run from the evidence just a few inches above! If you think that you can get away with your claim that your use of the word "Com" in the last sentence above isn't an insult, then you are delusional.

                And baseless attacks? Yeah, like your one on George Soros. Or like your one on Democrats in general that aren't supported by reality. Or like your baseless attack on MMFA, suggesting that they aren't doing their job properly. Like those baseless attacks. Rightwing propaganda? Your posts have been full of them.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by congero6189599 (October 18, 2009 9:13 pm ET)
        2  
        Don't let the truth get in the way of your closed mind. Here's Chris Matthews the "liberal" in his own words:

        Matthews' praise for Bush was at its most effusive when Bush gave his "Mission Accomplished" speech in 2003. Praising Bush's "amazing display of leadership," Matthews gushed:

        He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics. ... He's like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West. I remember him standing at that fence with Colin Powell. Was [that] the best picture in the 2000 campaign? ... The president's performance tonight, redolent of the best of Reagan ... He looks for real. What is it about the commander in chief role, the hat that he does wear, that makes him -- I mean, he seems like -- he didn't fight in a war, but he looks like he does. ... Look at this guy!

        Later that day, Matthews was back at it:

        We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton ... They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. ... We want a guy as president.

        More examples of the liberal Matthews in this article :
        http://mediamatters.org/columns/200812190012
        Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (October 17, 2009 12:16 pm ET)
      4  
      "the rest of the media run to the right in response to Fox"

      I'd say that's because the bulk of the people too stupid to abandon the entire media like what Fox is doing.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by juliajayne1 (October 18, 2009 11:36 am ET)
        7 1
        I contend that everyone should stop watching all cable and network news programs. That way you'd be better informed.

        Now would you be better informed as to all the garbage and gossip and pointless pettiness that passes as news? NO! But then you also wouldn't have to unlearn said garbage and gossip and petty factless items either. Because are you better for knowing these things? NO!

        And by gosh, you might also find news sources that report actual news.

        Our news media is little better that a propaganda machine. I'm talking about the MSM, of course. There are sources that can be relied on to report actual news. They just by and large aren't on the TV. On the TV you have the hyperbolic liars and cryers like Glenn Beck. You have the vitriolic and bullying Bill O'Reilly. You have the "never met a lie he didn't like" Sean Hannity. No need to go on.

        Some of the rest of the jerks are dealing in gossip about other news programs/personalities. Or are woefully unprepared. Or downright silly. Case in point, CNN doing fact checking on a SNL skit, but no fact checking on their own stories.

        So the absured meets the ridiculous.

        I have to agree that there are no news shows that feature real conservatives with uncrazy views. Yes, they exist. I see them on Bill Moyer's Journal. That's about the only place you can find a Bruce Fein or a Richard Brookhiser. And it's about the only place you can get good analysis of stories as well.

        Of course there's also print outlets that commit some of the same frauds. As well as online outlets. But thankfully there are a few good online outlets, print reporters and even a smidge of TV pundits erudite enough to listen to....Bill Moyers is one.

        And when it gets to the point where people have to get real news on their own country at the BBC, something is very, very wrong.

        I recommend truth.org for anyone who wants real news and analysis aggregated in one place. They do a terrific job. And you'll see stories you never hear about on the TV.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by John Stuebner (October 17, 2009 2:05 pm ET)
         
      I think I have figured out this new radical right, to the personalities it is all just a work. Just like in Pro-Wrestling to be a "HEAL" or the bad guy is simple just tell the people to shut up.

      Turn to the chubby lady in the front row and call her fat. People will hate you and you will be an automatic success. Find that popular, good looking, hard working and talented wrestler call him out, tell the crowd he's on roids, tell him he cant fight his way out of a paper bag. Call him a Pinko Liberal or a Commie (sound familiar?).They will hate you but they will not walk out of the arena, no. Hell no! They want to wait to see you get it 10 fold. They wont switch channels no way they want to wait for you to get yours. This in wrestling is all part of the show or the "Work". It started in the carnivals and the side shows of America and still takes place today. It is not only Wrestling however today the "Heals" are right here in front of us, we give them their ratings because we wont turn them off. They claim to have millions of viewers but are they fans? Viewing yes waiting to see the show and praying that someday yes someday the bad guy calling everyone evil will get his ! A fan some sure the ones who can not think for themselves.
      The problem is in Wrestling the good guy is in on it, it is pretend and the crowd , or at least most of them understands this. The ones who don't understand can get rather violent and upset. What this country is dealing with is real. Real Americans who don't make 23 million dollars a year like these personalities, are in dire straits. They need real help and real reform in Washington not a "Work"!



      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (October 19, 2009 11:16 am ET)
        3  
        "I contend that everyone should stop watching all cable and network news programs. That way you'd be better informed."

        AMEN!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by vwcat (October 17, 2009 7:02 pm ET)
      7 1
      funny how the media see people like Limbuagh and Beck as center right while anyone who is democrat as a raging far leftwing fringie.
      this is what we have to deal with.
      and why so much is going unreported and unchallenged.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by quantpro (October 17, 2009 10:19 pm ET)
        4
      After reading this tirade I think you protest too much. You don't hesitate to make up facts accusations and you don't see any hypocrisy discussing biased media. Keep preaching to the choir. Somehow it comforts me to see your anger. Makes me feel that not everyone is a drone. There's always been two sides to every issue. I'm not sure where the center in America is at this point but I am fairly certain you are not there.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (October 19, 2009 12:52 am ET)
        4 1
        I have to assume you're talking to the author with your comments, although it's not clear at all. MMFA hasn't made up a fact yet. They provide links to always back up what they say. They provide the context too.

        There's no hypocrisy in MMFA saying that they'll look at one aspect of the media and doing exactly that.

        Hypocrisy is rife on your side of the aisle though, from people who impeached Clinton and said he should resign, then had affairs themselves. That's hypocrisy.

        There are multiple sides to many issues, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts. Of course, you think that there are only two sides to every issue - how like most of the people on the right who can only see black and white and to whom nuance is just some fancy foreign-sounding word.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (October 17, 2009 10:29 pm ET)
      2 7
      Jamie, Jamie, Jamie....

      They lefty media is in the tank, just waiting for another flush to clear the flotsam from the bowl! They have to pay attention to survive and to see how America is so different from them, in their view of this country and this administration.

      Rush, Fox, Quinn, Beck and others have been kicking the snot out of mainstream media because Americans have known the disconnect that lefty, ie mainstream media, has from acceptable values of what this country is all about. They have understood that msm, or lefty media does not speak for them. They just aren't worth listening to.

      You complain that lefty media now focuses on conservatism that only represents one percent of the populace. You assume that if your shaky mathmatical conclusions are true, the other 99 percent are listening to lefty, ie mainstream media. I would beg to differ because of the simple loss of following in all lefty media, newspapers, magazines and television both cable and network. Your numbers just don't add up.

      The lefty media is responding because they can no longer deny the visible resistance to the leftward shift of this country, via the Tea Party, or 9-12ers or others. They see their crashing numbers and the demonstrations in DC, replicated in numerous locales, and they have to react to survive.

      Your accusations against conservatism, calling it poisonous or trafficking in misinformation are flaccid. American viewers, readers and listeners are smart enough to recognize the truth when they find it.

      This is a nice attempt, but completed in desperation. Lefty dreams are being exposed and Americans are rejecting them. The more they come to understand what lefties want, the tilt of this administration and how in bed the mainstream media is with what they find reprehensible the more the message of progressivism/socialism is repulsed. This article is just one more example of the left, whistling past the graveyard.

      Speaking truth to/about progressives
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (October 18, 2009 1:07 am ET)
        6 1
        Proudcon, oh my little proudcon...

        Why waste your time on so much typing if you don't have anything to say?

        Your vague complaints about what you "think" the "lefty media" is doing, or has done, or want to do, add up to exactly...nothing. Just like the vague, incoherent rantings of the corporate gasbags you listen to.

        If you want to make a point, or want to attempt to make a point, then use some concrete examples. At least we can have something to go on.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Indy (October 18, 2009 3:32 pm ET)
          3 2
          More Beck and his morning ZOO crew 9/12 and Tea Party references.

          http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/22/glenn_beck_two/


          Fabricated news by the very fake "News" propaganda organization that spawned them. As I've stated in on other response the right wing spent billions acquiring media outlets in the 90's do to republican pressure to deregulate ownership rules and Clinton's lack of spine. Now their crown jewel FOX is being set upon by the one thing they didn't get their corporate claws on. The internet and sites like this. Man that really gets their collective goat when they have to come here for an example of real old school freedom of information and see it all slowly going to waste since most of their current base are just now learning how to email and set the day and date timer on their big screen.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (October 18, 2009 3:51 am ET)
        3 1
        Holy cow ProudCon. What in heaven's name are you talking about?

        Reading here on Media Matters is pointless, as someone early noted, if you don't click on the links that provide the factual basis, research and context for the opinions expressed. And since you provide nothing to support your opinions, your arguments are pointless.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (October 19, 2009 11:32 am ET)
        2  
        You aren't a conservative, proud conservative. True conservatives DESPISE Fox's programming. You are simply a groupie.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jojo1040 (October 17, 2009 11:07 pm ET)
        3
      MSNBC's parent, GE, is hoping to land the contract for the F136 fighter engine which they hope to sell to the government to install in killing machines for the next 30 years. And they need MSNBC and NBC to help them with the democrats. And the F136 is just one of billions of killing machine contracts held by GE. Why are you nuts worried about an independent network you happen to disagree with when you are in bed with a monster.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (October 19, 2009 12:57 am ET)
        3  
        Like so many misguided fools on the right, if someone or some entity does something bad or disgraceful, it colors everything else they might ever have done.

        In real life, one sin doesn't condemn any man or any corporation.

        Our federal government has kept buying bigger, better, faster planes for our military since manned flight was discovered more than 100 years ago.

        For you to suggest that somehow GE is the boogie man for trying to get the contract to provide the next generation of flying machines that can kill is ludicrous! If you don't think that we should have a military ready to defend ourselves and attack others, then fine, go (figuratively) fight that battle. In the meantime, GE is not a monster for fighting for that military contract.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by donwelty (October 18, 2009 4:10 am ET)
      2 1
      If you watched all of the media programs and accepted all of them as presenting honest opinions, you would conclude that Fox news is on the attack most of the time to discredit most anything that Pres. Obama or his administration does and the other news organizations are less vehement and vicious. if you placed all of them on the political scale, you would probably conclude that the center is a lot further toward Fox news than the center of the country actually is. I would be pleased to think that most ordinary people would look at Fox news and conclude that it is, well, wacky.

      I don't think I can agree with your comments about Chris Matthews. From the way that your phrase your comments about him, you would think that it was right up there on the wackiness scale with Fox news. I have been watching Chris occasionally but not as a regular fan. I failed to detect the bias that you indicated about the Clintons.

      I think there exists another scale, another measuring instrument, by which the news organizations are better measured. The measuring instrument consists of two parts. The first part contains facts, and the second part contains logical inferences based upon those facts. Fox news tends to misinterpret facts, and therefore their logical deductions and inferences are weird to say the least. Other news-related organizations generally have a better grasp of the facts. Therefore, their opinions seem more reasonable and worthwhile.

      The opinion programs on MSNBC spend a lot of time pointing out the levels of wackiness at Fox news.

      Media matters, like all opinion organizations, is selective in what it presents. (As a result, you could say it was biased.) If you only listen to media matters, you probably would conclude that the only conservatives out there are crazy or they have no logical foundation for the thoughts. Unfortunately respectable conservatives seem to be very few and seem to have no media outlets.

      It is probably accurate to say that any news program is somewhat biased-- biased in the subjects it discusses and in what says. The issue is whether the news programs are truthful and whether their opinions logically follow.
      That's where Fox news breaks down.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by papa bear3 (October 18, 2009 11:52 am ET)
      2 1
      It is coming down to "branding" and we are missing the boat here by not recognizing that FOX may only have 1% of home cable viewers BUT in reality when you are out on the road and stop in a coffee shop, diner, barbershop, bus station, airport, train station, emergency ward, et al, invariably the station they have on is FOX.

      FOX, a three letter "brand" with its icons continually exposed serves as a constant reminder of a block of information that has been simply packaged for easy consumption.

      (again) to paraphrase Mort Sahl, "MSNBC, CBS, etc cater to those who read newspapers, FOX caters to those who deliver them."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Missouri Democrat (October 18, 2009 3:23 pm ET)
        3  
        The bad thing about it is this, this is starting earlier and earlier, not in the CCM. My high school aged son brought home his high school "newspaper", I say that because it's more like a glossy magazine with ads in it, rather than a real newspaper. The editorial in this edition was about healthcare reform it included 2 pics of people against healthcare reform and the editorial was biased to the right side of the spectrum. It had no mention of the other side of the debate for healthcare reform and no pics of advocates for healthcare reform. It mentioned that it was at a town hall put on my senator (McCaskill D(?)), I question theD behind her name as sometimes she acts like a blue dog D tather than a liberal D.

        It is sad for me to see this sort of bias in editorials and other stories in a high school paper when they are supposed to be taught to have no bias as a reporter. I was taught in the high school journalism course I took that there is to be no bias in reporting a story at all.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by isabellakate (October 19, 2009 12:03 pm ET)
          1 2
          Each side thinks "the media" is biased against the other. MM only goes after Conservative bias so bias must be ok if it's against the Right. Right?

          I agree that schools should not take political positions but did you object when a teacher trained first graders to sing adulatory songs about President Obama, making them (and him) look like some North Korean travesty?

          It is sad to see bias in editorials and sadder that people who pose as journalists choose not to distinguish between fact and opinion or, in some cases, are incapable of making the distinction.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (October 19, 2009 1:01 pm ET)
            4  
            MM only goes after Conservative bias so bias must be ok if it's against the Right. Right?
            No, websites can have a viewpoint without approving of unprofessional behavior that benefits that view.
            I agree that schools should not take political positions but did you object when a teacher trained first graders to sing adulatory songs about President Obama, making them (and him) look like some North Korean travesty?
            You do know that was part of a Black History Month event, right? Or were you not paying attention?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (October 19, 2009 1:13 pm ET)
            2 1
            Actually, no, each side doesn't THINK that.

            Uneducated people like yourselves have come to believe the liberal-biased media myth.

            MMFA doesn't ever try to claim anything about bias. They only talk about conservative media misinformation. Pearlene posted the Mission Statement about MMFA above - you might want to read it to educate yourself. I know, it's a strange concept to you - to educate oneself before you put your foot in your mouth, but believe me, it's a good process to follow. And your foot's been in your mouth so much in the past 24 hours that it must be all wrinkled and prune-like!

            Lies, distortions and omissions aren't okay. We have plenty of evidence every day of those things coming from the right. It's untrue that there's an equivalent amount coming from the left, either in quantity or quality.

            Singing a song during Black History month about the first black US President is not unusual or reprehensible. Having lyrics that mention the things that President is best known for is not offensive - it's exactly what the lyrics should have been. Posting info about healthcare reform and leaving off relevant contradictory information is reprehensible.

            Those two things are not equivalent, but as we often see from posters like you, you bring out the false equivalency argument when cornered.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (October 19, 2009 3:56 pm ET)
            2 1
            The only "side" I'm on is that of my country, just like the majority of the folks in this country. Most folks don't get into the phony "us v. them" game that has been created by folks like Rush, etc.

            Did it make GWB and the children who sang of his great deeds following Katrina at the Easter Egg Roll in 2006 "look like some North Korean travesty?

            What is really sad is that low information folks like you [even though you are really, really, really trying to affect intelligence] BELIEVE the crap that's being shoveled on Fox and hate talk radio. My suggestion is to turn off the television and radio and READ reliable NEWS sources.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by glatze (October 18, 2009 6:10 pm ET)
      3 1
      Fox News: The network for people who don't know any better.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by noneyabidnis (October 18, 2009 6:59 pm ET)
      2 1
      I have an answer to the Glenn Beck problem.

      Danny Bonaduce.

      Put him on MSNBC - and let him just go off.

      It would be absolutely priceless.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by noneyabidnis (October 18, 2009 8:40 pm ET)
      2  
      It's all just "Professional Wrestling". WWE. WWF.

      Real wrestling was boring. Who wants to watch that?

      It all started with WWF. Then Jerry Springer. Then "reality TV". The line between real and fake has been blurred to the point where even news falls into the gray area.

      Fox News even has a HD channel. Why does news need HD? HD is good for one thing - entertainment.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Obamalies (October 19, 2009 10:24 am ET)
        4
      The Author just doesn't get that they are the one out of the loop. No pretty language is going to change the fact that the majority of America doesn't agree with them. Just look at fox's ratings compared to all other networks.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (October 19, 2009 11:31 am ET)
        4  
        You mean like Smallville reruns on The CW? Those reruns have higher ratings than Fox's entire night-time programming combined.

        Fox's ratings are only significant when compared to other cable opinion networks. Most Americans don't WATCH the prime-time cable opinion programming.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by henslecd (October 19, 2009 11:31 am ET)
      1 3
      Using Chris Matthews as an example of MSNBC's willingness to employ "non-liberals" shows how completely off the charts leftist this website and the author are.

      Just because you call yourselves "centrist", doesn't mean you are.

      November 2010 is coming...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (October 19, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
        3  
        Chris Matthews isn't liberal. He voted for George Bush at least once. He has expressed his adulation of multiple Republicans in the past.

        We're fairly looking at reality here. You aren't.

        And in almost all off-year elections, the party not in power gains some seats, but your side will crow about it like it's something special and says wondrous things about your side. It doesn't.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Wa Mwab (October 19, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
      3  
      Our local newspaper has a column that gives you 30 seconds via phone or e-mail to state your raves and rants. I thought that was bordering on sick until I read what is printed in these comments. I now will enjoy my 30 seconds.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Connect

  • Email

    Receive Jamison's column by email.