Olbermann named Wash. Times op-ed writer "Worst Person" "runner-up" for Media Matters falsehood
On the May 9 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named conservative media consultant Phil Kent the "runner-up" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for repeating the debunked claim that philanthropist George Soros funds Media Matters for America through a variety of other organizations in an effort to "manipulate[] the media by stifling and smearing center-right political voices." As Media Matters noted, Kent wrote a May 8 op-ed for The Washington Times that echoed baseless assertions by Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. Olbermann cited Kent for "repeating the lie that the media watchdog group Media Matters for America is funded by George Soros, even though all funding records prove that it is flatly untrue." He added: "If this sounds like a repetition of the stuff Bill O'Reilly made up, that's because it is. The newspaper is now using as its sole source on a story: Bill-O."
As Media Matters documented, on the April 26 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed Media Matters' denial that it receives funding from Soros "is a total lie," noting that the Tides Foundation donated over $1 million to Media Matters in 2005. O'Reilly also claimed that "just by coincidence Soros' Open Society Institute [OSI] donated more than a million dollars to Tides in 2005," adding: "Figure it out." But, as Media Matters noted, OSI's donations to Tides were designated for specific programs, and Media Matters was not included on this list. Notwithstanding O'Reilly's falsehood, Kent's op-ed expanded on O'Reilly's theory, claiming that "the Open Society Institute has given over $17 million to the Tides Foundation between 2001 and 2005. Tides then shamelessly turns around and grants Media Matters $3.3 million between 2003 to 2005 (the latest available years its tax returns are available)." However, as with O'Reilly's claim, Media Matters posted portions of OSI's IRS 990 forms, showing that every dollar OSI granted to Tides from 2001 to 2005 was earmarked for specific recipients, of which Media Matters was not one. Soros has never given money to Media Matters, directly or through another organization.
Also on the May 9 Countdown, Olbermann awarded Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist Dick Morris the "bronze" in the "Worst Person" segment for asserting that MSNBC had biased the May 3 Republican presidential debate against former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. As Media Matters noted, on the May 7 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Morris claimed that MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who helped moderate the debate, had participated in "a deliberate act by Politico.com and MSNBC ... to hurt Rudy." During the show, Olbermann -- who anchored MSNBC's pre-debate coverage -- said: "First of all, we have the power to do that? Second, a deliberate act? Have you ever actually worked in television, Dick? Our only deliberate act was the desperate struggle to get the damn show on and off the air on time."
From the May 9 broadcast of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: The bronze to Dick Morris of "Fox Noise" again, claiming that because [Republican presidential candidates] Mitt Romney and John McCain both got slightly more time during last Thursday's Republican debate here on MSNBC than did Rudy Giuliani. This was a, quote, "deliberate act by MSNBC and Politico.com and Chris Matthews to deny Giuliani the nomination."
First of all, we have the power to do that? Second, a deliberate act? Have you ever actually worked in television, Dick? Our only deliberate act was the desperate struggle to get the damn show on and off the air on time.
The runner-up, Phil Kent, writing an op-ed in The Washington Times, repeating the lie that the media watchdog group Media Matters for America is funded by George Soros, even though all funding records prove that it is flatly untrue. If this sounds like a repetition of the stuff Bill O'Reilly made up, that's because it is. The newspaper is now using as its sole source on a story: Bill-O.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
Ah, here it comes....someone will site this as proof of collusion between Olbermann and MMFA. Gadzooks!
I would say it's evidence, not proof. But it is exhibit #165.
;-)
Any reasonable person would conclude mmfa and david brock are so far wedged up Soros' butt cheeks they can't see the light of day.
No, no, no.... it's OBVIOUS that Soros is funding MSNBC....
Heh. The flowchart just got a little more complicated.
More seriously, what's with this fear of Soros by O'Reilly et al? It seems that someone who has lived the extremes of facism and communism would have a valuable perspective to offer. Most of the criticism I've read amounts to "Ooooo Soros." Ummmm....ooookay.
It's not a collusion, it's more like a newlywed couple sitting in the park feeding each other grapes back and forth.
One of Keith's jilted girlfriends reported that his shorts said "made in Budapest" on the inside label.
I'm not sure what that means, but there's a connection somewhere.
No more than Rupert Murdoch and Bill O'Reilly shacking up together...
Okay, that was a horrid, horrid thought.
Rupert loves the loofah. Eeewwh. I just gave myself the willies.
I'm wondering how different my own marriage would have been if I had gone to the park with my wife and done that.
OUCH!! Every one who reads the Wash. Times should be pausing and reconsidering their subscription decision...
Anyone who knows anything about the Washington Times and still reads it is beyond hope, I fear.
"Kent's op-ed expanded on O'Reilly's theory, claiming that "the Open Society Institute has given over $17 million to the Tides Foundation between 2001 and 2005. Tides then shamelessly turns around and grants Media Matters $3.3 million between 2003 to 2005" (My bold)
Would it make them happier if Tides showed a little shame? I guess thre's some reason for shame there, but I hate to ask what it is, as it might get Wesley and Injector back on their crazy Slanderwagons.
My first car was a Slanderwagon. They were great ol' machines. Back in the days when you could actually work on them yourself, under an old cottonwood tree.
I got mine for free, from a co-worker. He started it up, then I hopped in the drivers seat and drove it home. That's when I fell in love with it. I liked the feeling that I was a better person driving it, and the noise it made in the neighborhood definitely got the attention of all the chicks.
It died shortly after I lost my job, so one sultry summer day, I called up a couple of buddies, and we resurrected the old beast. I took the brakes off because I figured once I got it going, I wasn't going to want to stop it anyway. I removed the mufflers to make it louder and to improve the mileage I could get out of it. Long story short, in one summer afternoon, we had that baby humming all over town.
These days it seems you need to have a computer degree to keep a the new ones running. And there are so many Slanderwagons on the road, that the chicks don't hardly even notice any more. Naw, those good old days - when you could keep one going with just a phone and a few buddies - are long gone.
I still have my old one, it's rusting away at the end of the dead grapevines. Sad to see the old girl like that after all the work I put into her. But I have to admit, I've had my eye on one of those new Mini-Rumors. A blue one, I think.
Stories are fun... I like stories...
Neon paints a whimsical wonderful word picture.
Did I ever mention how I acquired my Ford Aspersion?
<bgmusic src="doobie_brothers; long_train_runnin">
It all happened back in '75. I was just finishing my shift at the Orange Julius stand down at Cinderella City mall, about to head over to May D&F to pick up my new Angel Flights and pick up a bottle of Charlie for my girlfriend...
Did she let you get to first base on the ferris wheel over at Elitch's?
The ferris wheel scared me. But I did get my chance on Mister Twister.
Of course, that was before I discovered that the real party girls were all over at Lakeside.
And Pithaughn, who besides you and me have any clue what we're talking about?
Well, I'll need suggested alternatives then. Because I like to get my news from different perspectives, and my Times was the balance to my New York Post.
Actually, I think The Star has more journalistic integrity than the Washington Times.
- "repeating the lie that the media watchdog group Media Matters for America is funded by George Soros, even though all funding records prove that it is flatly untrue." - Olbermann
mmfa has debunked nothing. They have only released financial data covering OSI/Tides for 2004/2005 and CAP for 2005. They have not released "all funding records".
It looks like mmfa has gone to the Dean Smith playbook...gone to the four corners offense and trying to stall this one out.
Picky, picky.
So, what you're saying that Soros has directed funded MMFA the past two years only and indirectly the previous years?
Why does this even matter? Why is it even an issue?
- So, what you're saying - monkeyboy
I'll write what I'm saying in my own words, thank you.
So, Olbermann tells an outright falsehood and it falls under the category of "picky picky"?
For the umpteenth time...it matters little to me that Soros funds mmfa. What does matter is the mmfa's credibility. They have rope-a-doped this issue constantly...while dribbling out a little financial evidence to back their claim.
Show all the funding records and this one will be history.
We haven't really seen much in the way of evidence from the prosecution either, have we?
Are O'Reilly's red arrows still winning you over?
- Media Matters has also received no funding from the Democracy Alliance, which does not itself make grants. - mmfa
- And the Democracy Alliance, just so you know, we are a funder. We are not out there developing ideas and policies. We fund organizations that hopefully are. - Rob Stein, Founder of Democracy Alliance.
They should get their stories straight...
Even if they do get the story straight, how does this prove that MMFA gets money from Soros?
From the same transcript...
ROB STEIN: The Alliance doesn’t have resources to give to anybody. We do not give money to specific organizations. We have a very small thing called an “innovation fund” that makes very small grants to (c)(3) organizations. But other than that, the major funding that comes from Democracy Alliance partners comes directly from the partners themselves, personally.
You're either not reading everything, Wesley, or you're cherry-picking.
The cherry picking comes from mmfa...you've quoted the only statement they chose to make...I quoted the rest from the transcript that they failed to share.
They chose to make? You mean chose to quote?? However, the quote I provided isn't even the same one used by MMFA.
It seems Stein lays out the situation pretty clearly there. Your quotes failed to provide complete context. The cherry-picking was yours.
Are we done or are you now going to ask who's telling the truth...Stein or Stein?
- Media Matters has also received no funding from the Democracy Alliance - mmfa
- So we don't publish a list of organizations. The major media organization that has been publicly identified is Media Matters. But there are some others, now, that we have funded. - Rob Stein
You tell me.
Oh, one thing about that "innovation fund." Apparently, as of September of 2006, it wasn't even functioning. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061016/berman/5
But by you're own admission: You care little, but question MMFA's credibility. Thus, by virtue, if you already question MMFA's credibility, you won't take much stock in any information that the organization puts out in the first place.
So, if you care so little, then why do you DEMAND that MMFA (in which you question their credibility) to present evidence?
They can't show all the funding records because it would show Soros' involvement with MMFA among other left wing political causes. Lots and lots of money. Apparently he has some issues stemming from his growing up in Nazi-controlled Hungary. Maybe counseling could help. Who cares who he funds, except what I have seen so far is it is an attempt to sway a society and he is using radical groups who think his way to do it.
Slam away!
"Slam away!"
Your not worth it.
Ah no it does count as debunking to show that someone cannot back up their baseless assertions. The accuser does not get to make accusations they cannot substantiate then demand the accused prove otherwise.
You haven't been keeping up.
[link to mediamatters.org]
I've kept up just fine...this link does not show all the funding records of mmfa.
The burden of proof is on O'Reilly and Kent. Maybe they can team up and get their lawyers to issue a subpoena for the records you so desperately desire to see.
Or maybe you can that genius Glenn Beck on the case and have him go one-on-one with David Brock. I can see it now:
"...And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working for George Soros.'
And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an employee of Soros, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of rightwing nutjobs like myself will feel that way."
From the item above;
"the latest available years its tax returns are available"
Yes, they have been dishonest in not using records that are not available.They've also excluded hallucinations, Bill O'Reilly charts, and instances of slander that have not occurred.
Nice catch.
For only two organizations...
Soros has not directly provided money to Media Matters.
The only "evidence" is that some other organizations "laundered" Soros' money, and so the only evidence that needs to be provided to debunk that "evidence" is that intermediary's organization's funding and arrangements with Soros.
That's a good start.
IF you're playing the guilt by association game... consider this: The Bush family has had oil dealings with Saudi Arabia, which has funded Sunni insurgents in Iraq... Does that make the Bush family supporters of the insurgency inside Iraq?
You've veered off course again. I don't associate any guilt with Soros funding mmfa...I do find it strange...the lengths that mmfa has gone to deny that.
Even more strange than Fox Nothing Channel Prosecutor O'Reilly have to repeat it over and over again on his show?
*having* to repeat...
Especially when there's nothing to deny.
For some of the organizations, Soros gave the start-up money.
Then the organizations gave the money to Media Matters.
Media Matters would have to prove that Soros segregated his money out of the money that went to them. You have the burden of proof completely backwards.
Why does MMFA have to prove anything? O'Reilly, along with you and others, are leveling the accusation of an evil plot by Soros to take over the world by funding MMFA. Why does the burden proof fall on MMFA?
Every time O'Reilly has leveled a new incarnation of the same accusation, MMFA has taken the opportunity to answer it. This is the same kind of opportunity I'm sure you would welcome if you were accused of, well, anything. MMFA answers his charges without the name calling, fear-mongering, and doom's-day hyperbole. They're not using TV or radio airtime to throw a fit and insist they're right (unless I missed it).
Are you suprised? They use the same argument on criminal cases. In their world the burden of proof doesn't rest with the accuser, the burden of proof rests with the accusee. Hmmm, what other fascist country had a court system like that again?
NO, again you do not get to reverse the burden of proof no matter how often you wingnuts try to get away with that it is not a valid debate technique. YOU would have to prove that Soros gave money to these organizations then DIRECTED them to give it to MMFA. For this to even make sense you need to explain why if Soros wanted to give MMFA money he wouldnt just WRITE THEM A CHECK.
Maybe there's some lost video footage of Soros parking an armored truck in front of the MMFA headquarters.
How 'bout sharing some of this well traveled money that's going in every direction to some of MMFA's hard fought posters who are down here in the trenches fueling this website and keeping it hummin' along? Huh?
(oh that's right, some think I get paid already)
That is one possibility, you being paid (you never did answer btw)
The 2nd option is that you have no life. You seem to be on MMFA 24/7 waiting in wings to unleash a steady stream of complaints about posters and comments, waiting to de-rail topic, or (my personal favorite) your famous and fun to mock "why is this here?" post.
3rd option is your just a masochist.
Option 2 and 3 could actually be a combo now that I think about it.
Let me take each option, one by one.
Option #1) I never intentionally answered your question, that is why you have never received an answer.
Option #2) I do have a life. It's being here 24/7 to mock your posts which are a steady stream of lifeless irrelevancies.
Option #3) Let's just say the biggest beatings of my day don't come with any of you around.
Tommy, you kinky little devil.
Did someone skip his prune juice this morning?
"steady stream of lifeless irrelevancies" Would that be like your "why is this hear" posts, quoting MMFA mission statement like a broken record, or your consistent attempts to divert conversations away from topics?
You didn't get the gist of my masochist comment. Why would you spend so much time on a site that you have such obvious distain for?
I wonder how many people [read that as voters] know or care about this little *battle*
Well if nothing else MMFA's little buddy Keith gave them some free publicity.
Soros must be a really evil fella to get the Right into such a tizzy;-)
Funny, but other than the usual suspects, I don't hear anybody talking about this...
Is this that important?
NO, but it's fun to watch. Personally I'm waiting for BO to pop a blood vessel on air.
Anyone that would make this funding link, i.e. O'Reilly, as some dangerous and nefarious story that anyone other than him finds important, is nuts.
And anyone that would highlight any related idiocy as some worst person nominee, i.e. Olbermann, even on his ridiculous show filler segment, is equally nuts.
Have you ever sat in business class before? I love it. They bring out champaign and these warm nuts while the plane is still parked at the boarding ramp. You've gotta try it sometime.
Only liberals can afford business class. I'm in the back and all I get are nuts tossed at me by a not so warm flight attendant.
You guys are talking about the airlines, right?
I hope to fly on a real fully-enclosed plane some day. Though I still don't know how they keep those big things up there with only one set of wings and no propellers.
Neon, I just got a 4.0 in Physics I can tell you how planes stay up with one wing and no propellers.
Its simple really, due to the acceleration of the jet's engines, magical pixies are excited and alter reality with magical dust and this allows the pilots (who flap their arms) to lift the plane off of the ground.
See simple. Science is fun
Hey Tommy-I'm a liberal and apparently as broke as you are.
Gee, 1st we're poor deadbeat welfare queens, now we're rich elitists. Me, Just a good ol' middle class american who gets his flights paid for by the company I work for! The best way to fly!
Personally I am not comfortable taking flights of fancy. I still think floating steel on WATER is an unnatural act.
<!-- new -->Only liberals can afford business class.
I'm confused...I thought it was only the conservative approach that gave everyone the opportunity to realize the American dream. So why are only liberals succeeding? despite 6 years of minority status?
Ahhhhhhhhh..........Hello............George Soros.
That reminds me of Radar trying to impress a nurse on M*A*S*H. Ahhhhh...Bach!
But I get it...everything connects back to Soros' secret society. It's kind of like Clinton's d*ck! I'm sure both are to blame for all of our ills. It's up to everyone else to prove me wrong.
We all know Olbermans worst person segments are mostly tongue in Cheek. What's the big deal? I think Olberman was more amused at the fact that BO was used as a "source".
I have noticed that the only dirt BO seems to be harping about is funding. What about MMFA taking him "out of context" and "smearing" him? Maybe he decided it wasn't such a good idea to keep drawing attention to his comments.
O'Reilly goes on tangents that obsess him for awhile - right now it's flow charts and funding........tomorrow it will be back to the old smear and hatred whine of his.
While you never leave the "Why is this here" whine.
I guess what's going on here is that the Flying Monkeys have set up Soros as this big Boogey Man in the minds of the Republican base, sort of like they did with all things French back in 2003. Since Soros is so laden with "liberal cooties" anything he touches is suspect, at least in the mind of the troglodyte. Apparently, MMFA has learned that ignoring a Right Wing Lie gives it room to grow...hence their seemingly inordinate attention to this otherwise trivial matter.
But, that's just a guess.
Nerzog,
You may be right, food for thought.
But I think it's far more personal between O'Reilly and this website, and O'Reilly is just using Soros' name at the moment to stick it to MMFA, as evidenced by the bottom of his infamous flow chart. Neither can stand each other for reasons known to us all.........bottom line, it's a childish fued between adults that they should just take to the playground instead of the "he said, they said" screaming match.
Ugh, Olbermann is quickly becoming the OReilly of the left. I hope he figures out he likes sports better again, and just goes back to that full time.
I mean, seriously. A. He's not telling us anything we don't know....B. He's dropping down to the level of folks like OReilly....and C. Dude, somebody, somewhere, had to have said something more insulting than the Wash Times Op Ed about MMfA.
Anybody see Sharpton's jab at Romney? It's more of an interreligious thing than a public discourse thing, but still heaps onto Sharpton's skeleton pile.
At least Sharpton isn't escaping criticism for it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/stop-the-presses-al-shar_b_48027.html
Wow, on a site like Huffington too. Hope for the lefties yet.
If we passed a Constititutional Amend. that said the president doesn't have to be a native Merican, Blair probably has 8 good years left in him.
Yeah but he hasn't been truly chastised till Keith gives him a "Worst Person In The World Award"
Keith?
The chances of that happening are probably near nil, the chance that, if it does happen, it would show up on MMFA are several negative points below that.
Yeah, I love watching people from different churches call each other silly for believing the wrong story.
As far as KO being the BO of the left, he has been getting a little wacky lately, but the difference is KO's is deliberate wackiness, and he's usually telling the truth while BilldO doesn't realize how wacky he is and is generally lying.
Yeah. It's weird to see what your kindergarten teacher told you not to do happen to adults like Olbermann: "React to the bullies, you go down to their level..yada yada yada.."
HBL, you're right. The BIG difference is that Bill O takes himself seriously. Olbermann gets serious occasionally, but I don' t think anyone can make the argument that the "Worst Person" segment is meant as anything but satirical commentary.
MMfA could. They take every joke Rush makes and make a mountain.
But Rush is one of most importan men in America....... he even said so himself.
Are you really that dense? I'm sure MMFA doesn't take "every" joke uttered by Rush (which would be what... two or three a day? — THAT was a joke) and rebroadcast it here.
Rush says a lot of hateful things and when he's called to task on it, he says he's just joking... the next day. My personal rule: If you have to explain to someone that it was a joke... then it wasn't very funny or a good joke to begin with.
in order for something to be a joke: It has to be funny. Mocking Michael J. Fox about his disease isn't funny. Calling Obama a "Halfrican" and playing a song that calls him "the magic Negro" isn't funny. It may be funny to Rush, and his narrow audience, but the humor is lost to me.
Wesley -
There's a problem with your argument. You accuse MMFA of not releasing forms. However, IRS 990s are already public information! If you're convinced MMFA has something to hide, go to http://www.guidestar.org and knock yourself out.
MMFA has posted sections of 990s relevant to rebuttal of specific accusations. That they haven't made every 990 they and every doner has ever filed is meaningless.
Are we done now?
- why do you DEMAND that MMFA (in which you question their credibility) to present evidence? - monkeyboy
I'm not demanding anything...but I will continue to comment as long as mmfa continues to post their assertion about Soros funding...without providing evidence to back up their claim.
They are the keeper of the buckskin...they have the records...simple matter to clear this up.
But they have backed up their claims, Wesley.
They claim that Soros hasn't given them any money laundered through another organization. They then provided proof of that.
Nope...uh uh.
They have released "selected" records...not all the funding records as Olbermann claimed.
Okay... it's a comment, but it becomes a demand when you refuse to believe the evidence presented, and you already disbelieve whatever MMFA has to say in the first place.
- when you refuse to believe the evidence presented - monkeyboy
Wrong again...I believe the OSI/Tides for 2004/2005 and the CAP for 2005.
What I don't believe is those are the only records. If they can release "selected" records"...they can release all the records. When mmfa backs up their denials with all the facts...I'll gladly stand corrected.
I'll try this again...
THERE IS NOTHING TO BE "RELEASED!" IRS 990S ARE ALREADY PUBLIC INFORMATION!!!
Ok? Is that clear enough? If you can't find the one you want online, then ask the IRS or the State Atty General.
Sheesh.
- So we don't publish a list of organizations. The major media organization that has been publicly identified is Media Matters. But there are some others, now, that we have funded. - Rob Stein, founder of Democracy Alliance.
You're missing some important context. By "we," Stein was referring to members of Democracy Alliance, not the organization. This is clear if you read more of that transcript and other statements by Stein.
DA reasearches various other organization and provides donation recommendations to its members. In turn, members, if they choose, provide donations directly to those other organizations. DA makes no donations. Donations to DA fund its own administration.
- A partner is someone who has committed to pay an administrative fee to cover the cost of the Alliance and then to make some minimum commitment of a couple hundred thousand dollars to fund organizations the we recommend. - Democracy Alliance
- There has never been a decision not to fund the DLC. There was a decision to fund some other things first. One of these days, DLC might be a candidate for funding. We only funded twenty-three organizations.
No sale...just more hair-splitting and word-smithing...like the mmfa defense of Soros funding.
Did you not even read what you posted? DA recommends organizations for funding to its members. Members make donations directly to the recommended organizations. (Note that members need not donate to every recommended organization.)
Has DA recommended Media Matters? Absolutely. Has Soros subsquently written a check to MMFA? Hmmm, the burden of proving he hasn't is extreme...but I sure can't see any evidence he has.
Feel free to keep digging though...maybe Soros bought Brock a cup of coffee or something.
Well I see that you have circled all the way around to that worn out "smoking check" defense.
My contention is that mmfa receives Soros money...directly or indirectly...and has never been that Soros had to write a check to see that his money goes to them.
Soros and his partners have fingerprints all over mmfa...unless they choose to dispel that notion with their funding records.
"My contention is that mmfa receives Soros money"
-----
And MMfA says your contention is pure bovine excrement.
They have made their case far better than you have yours.
ROFL Oh my! Should I type more slowly? Would that help?
One last time before I have to make like a baby and head out...
You are misinterpreting selected quotes from Stein. Other quotes from Stein - and not just MMFA - clarify how Democracy Alliance operates. Except for limited grants from its "innovation fund" - which isn't even clear to be operational - DA makes no direct contributions.
...and that's about as clear as I can make that.
What is clear is this:
Bring a minimum of $200k to DA and they will tell you where to send the check.
Stein stated that they funded 23 organizations...mmfa says they don't fund anyone.
The VP of OSI stated that Soros is active in the Democracy Alliance and concerned about its funding operations.
mmfa said they have never received funding from DA...the link provided by neondesert clearly debunked that statement.
Read the entire report and make up your own mind...while waiting on mmfa to dispel the rumors.
I contend Wesley has donated annually to NAMBLA. Until Nambla releases all their records proving otherwise, I'll continue to believe my contention. And according to Wesley logic, I'm justified.
Wow...Deja Vu. Remember when the troglodytes kept demanding John Kerry's service records, even after they had been released?
WOuldn't it be easier for you to just prove to us that they are lying. YOu haven't proved anything and yet you continue with the accusations. What makes you so certain? Where's your proof?
At least MMFA was courteous enough to humor you and provide actual evidence. YOu have yet to provide one spec of evidence that supports your claim.
You're off target...I am not making accusations like this was the Scopes trial. I am stating my opinion that they receive Soros money...directly or indirectly.
Day after day mmfa keeps printing the same denials...and offering scant proof. If they want to drone on with that stance...then I can drone on with my opinion.
Their defense is pretty flimsy...Olbermann is flat out wrong that "all funding records" prove their point...they haven't released all their records.
mmfa states that Dem. Alliance does not fund organizations...when Rob Stein, the founder, says just the opposite...one of them is inaccurate.
Records...real simple.
Knock, knock, knock. Anyone home?
Hello?
Hello?
YOU'LL HAVE TO SPEAK UP, I CAN'T HEAR YOU...
Hmmmm. I guess the phone's dead...
Wesley, you keep saying that MMFA is lying. You sound just like Bill O. All talk BUT NO PROOF!
If what you are saying is true THEN PROVE IT! otherwise stop whining and move on.
Ok bigshot...here's your chance.
mmfa says Democracy Alliance doesn't grant funds to organizations...
Democracy Alliance says they do fund organizations...
Who's telling the truth?
So you say you're not a Grape fruit molester? Prove it!
Okay, HotRod. Here's the research you didn't do:
Democratic Alliance details
Distribution
In other words, the money donated to Democracy Alliance goes directly to administrative costs, and those members of DA (Soros is one, his son is another) go out and raise money for DA which then distributes it to groups among whom is MMfA.
Summary: Soros has no individual control over distribution of funds from DA, and it's not his money, but he does have a say equal to several other members to whom DA collected funds are distributed. Ergo, MMfA is accurate (if not transparent) and critics are simplifying what they really want to criticize.
So, NOW can we concentrate on something more important?
Such as: What do you find so attractive about grapefruit?
Thanks...now we're getting somewhere. mmfa is clearly funded by groups which are steered directly or indirectly with help from Soros.
mmfa has continually made flimsy defenses of this Soros funding and influence...and following is one of the reasons why I don't exept their simple statements of denial...without some proof.
- Media Matters has also received no funding from the Democracy Alliance - mmfa
Your links clearly state that mmfa received $250k from Dem. Alliance. mmfa is being less than honest when addressing the influence and funding from Soros.
Can you prove that Karl Rove isn't using taxpayer money to pay Rush Limbaugh?
Yeah yeah yeah...
But whaaaat aboooout the grapefruit?
Your links clearly state that mmfa received $250k from Dem. Alliance.
No they don't.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607190002
Wesley, this article dates back to July 19, 2006.
I'm not sure where your getting your information from BUT, you know I'll just quote it:
"Over the course of two segments during the July 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly falsely attacked the Democracy Alliance, an organization of donors formed to support progressive groups, and the recipients of funding from Alliance donors, such as Media Matters for America, as a "left-wing Mafia" dedicated to "nefarious purposes."
"mmfa says Democracy Alliance doesn't grant funds to organizations..."
Do I smell a strawman or can you provide the link to an MMFA article that clearly states that.
"They have released 'selected' records...not all the funding records as Olbermann claimed"
Do I smell ANOTHER strawman or can you provide the link to substantiate that... Take your time, but I can tell you, ALL IRS forms are public. You want something else (bank statements, records, etc...)? You need probable cause with supporting evidence and a subpoena. I ain't no lawyer, but I can tell you.. the BURDEN OF PROOF is definitely on you. Good Luck. You know, wth your <oxymoron>opinion-based evidence <\oxymoron> that you proclaim so loudly. By the way, theres a difference between - in case you were smart enough to go there - "EXPERT" opinion and "BILL O REILLY TOLD ME SO" opinion. One MAY hold up in a court of law, but the other will surely get you laughed out of the courthouse (just like when a certain news organization tried to copyright a particular "slogan"). Which one are you? Figure it out.....
"mmfa says Democracy Alliance doesn't grant funds to organizations..."
I will concur having seen a prior MMFA article which states that. It's based on a quote from Stein, which is a different one than the one I quoted on this topic. I.e., it's not just mmfa says but Stein says.
The problem is that Wesley is misrepresenting other quotes from Stein. So, he's got Stein apparently contradicting himself. However, if one reads the full context of the quotes Wesley has provided, there's no contradiction at all. (I'll grant that some of the quotes from Stein are confusing; but that's no excuse for remaining delusional about what Stein meant.)
meant to say IRS records
mma has released...on this forum...a few selected records.
If they want to clear up the matter...and I suspiscion that they don't...this is the forum to release the entire record and prove their case.
Until then...no soap.
Gosh, Wes. There's lots of ways to protest, but why not a hunger strike or something that's not so offensive to those around you?
MMfA: Please release your records before Wes gets too gamey, huh?
I think Wesley is clinically insane. There, I have made a contention. Wesley, please release all the paperwork that says you are not, remembering that it is, of course, impossible to prove a negative, juat as you are asking MMfA to do.
I won't even mention the details of the contentions on the Internet about Wesley and the poodle, because they aren't germane to this case, but he never proved that wrong, either.
Also, what about the grapefruit?
mmfa does not have to prove a negative...just be transparent and publish their financial records on this site...that will answer the Soros question.
Until then...their quaint denials don't hold have much validity...especially after the claim that they haven't received funding from Democracy Alliance...contrary to what Rob Stein, the founder of DA, said about the issue.
"...especially after the claim that they haven't received funding from Democracy Alliance...contrary to what Rob Stein, the founder of DA, said about the issue"
If Stein screwed up or misspoke or was vague in his speech thats all well and good. But I thought MMFA was the one (or both) denying the funding (FROM DA, lets get antsy here), according to you. Please read the link I provided in my previous comment - before the correction you nitpicky S.O.B! :) - and the bold in the quoted portion after. If MMFA was trying to conceal funding from DA, then clearly, they weren't doing a good job because they stated that they received funding from DA. Case closed.
- If MMFA was trying to conceal funding from DA, then clearly, they weren't doing a good job because they stated that they received funding from DA. - dtrain
- Media Matters has also received no funding from the Democracy Alliance - mmfa
More waffling and half-truths from mmfa on their funding...thanks for the link and the help.
But what about the grapefruit?
grapefruit! grapefruit! grapefruit!...
Well Chuck Brooks(Looney Toons) knew a cat that liked grapefruit above all other foods. When done he would occasionally wear it as a hat. He also liked to go for swims in the ocean and steathly swim up to people. This is what liking grapefruit can lead to. Be on guard!
You've been takling to that chipmunk haven't you. Damn they used to stay bought. In any case I insist that the concent and abuse were mutual. (bylavial frikative for effect)
Its my contention you molest small furry animals. Unless you prove you dont I will continue to bray my opinion you do.
Echo, echo, echo oo o o,
Is is is , any any , one one , in in , there there? Bill, bill ill, Rush rush ush sh?
Sorry lame attempt to mimic right wing echo chamber. I guess it is hard to tell to those in the echo chamber that they are indeed in it.
i have to admit that was kinda funny pithaugn.... :)
Olbermann's last comments were quite ironic, seeing that HIS sole source of information about "Bill-O" is Media Matters!
Can someone explain why George Soros should or should not be allowed to provide funding for MMFA? What's the bfd?
Why Is Bill Afraid
Bill O'Reilly must be really fearful of George Soros. He uses every opportunity he can to fight what Soros stands for. So why is Soros so important to O'Reilly?
Could it be Soros has the means to bring the false conservative ideology down? In this case, money is the root to the truth. Yes, when you are not dependent on money from those who lie, you can speak to the wrongs they do. They can't hurt him with the dollar.
Could it be O'Reilly is afraid of the negative press the Republicans and Bush is getting will move to right-winged media? Fox, and the Fox wantabees, do a lot to distort facts and to deliver the Bush line. Common sense holds, if Americans are tired and fed up with conservative support for this war, they will be fed up with the medium that delivers the lies.
Whatever the case, I know America is finally "connecting the dots" to how we got into this war and what is being done to keep us into the war we now know we were tricked into supporting.
Joseph