On O'Reilly, Gerth and Van Natta dismiss "irrelevant" Media Matters, again dodging substantive criticism
On the June 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, authors of Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown & Co., June 2007) dismissed Media Matters for America as "irrelevant," asserting that "[n]o one takes them seriously." Gerth and Van Natta's comments were in response to host Bill O'Reilly's claim that the authors "have been attacked" by "that despicable website." O'Reilly quoted from two Media Matters items documenting factual inaccuracies in Gerth's and Van Natta's work -- neither of which the authors responded to substantively.
During the segment, O'Reilly quoted from a May 24 Media Matters item noting that Gerth has been the subject of harsh criticism by some fellow journalists for his previous investigative reporting on a number of subjects, including the Clintons, prompting Gerth to respond simply: "Well, as far as fellow journalists are concerned, they consider Media Matters irrelevant. We've been interviewed by dozens of reporters about our book. And they all uniformly say they don't pay any attention to Media Matters." O'Reilly then cited one of Media Matters' several items documenting Gerth and Van Natta's claim that Sen. Clinton first accused President Bush of "misusing" the Iraq war authorization in June 2006. This claim appeared in an excerpt of Her Way published in the June 3 New York Times Magazine, for which the Times refused to run a correction. Gerth and Van Natta claimed on the June 10 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press that no correction was necessary, despite the fact that Clinton accused Bush of misusing the authority as early as February 2004, as Media Matters demonstrated. Van Natta responded to O'Reilly by saying simply: "They've accused me of that. No one takes them seriously."
In recent media appearances, Gerth and Van Natta have similarly dodged questions raised by Media Matters regarding the factual basis for other claims made in their book.
From the June 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: All right. Now, Mr. Van Natta, you guys have been attacked by Media Matters, the dishonest far-left smear website. And I'm glad, because it takes the heat off of me. You know what I'm talking about here? For a couple of days, I didn't lead that despicable website.
Why do you think they went after you guys? I mean, some of the quotes are pretty personal. I mean, they went in and -- let's see. "Gerth" -- that's you.
GERTH: That's me.
O'REILLY: "Has been the subject of harsh criticism by fellow journalists for his previous investigative reporting on a number of subjects." And basically saying you're a hack.
GERTH: Well, as far as fellow journalists are concerned, they consider Media Matters irrelevant. We've been interviewed by dozens of reporters about our book. And they all uniformly say they don't pay any attention to Media Matters.
O'REILLY: Do you?
GERTH: No, I don't read it.
O'REILLY: How about you, because you've been attacked? Let's see what they say about Van Natta here. They don't like him, either. "Falsely claimed that Clinton first accused Bush of missing Iraq authorization in 2006." Saying you're a liar.
VAN NATTA: Yeah, they've accused me of that. No one takes them seriously.
O'REILLY: Is that right?
VAN NATTA: No.
GERTH: They tried to get The New York Times to -- we had an 8,000-word excerpt of our book on the cover of The New York Times Magazine. They tried to get -- desperately -- hoping to get maybe something corrected before Senator Clinton went on the national debate that Sunday night, to get a correction, and they didn't succeed.
O'REILLY: It's interesting. You guys both at one time -- and you still work for the Times, right? But you don't. But you're both New York Times guys being attacked by the left when The New York Times is a pretty left-wing newspaper. Do you see irony in that, Mr. Gerth?
GERTH: I spent 30 years at The New York Times, and there are all kinds of articles and viewpoints at The New York Times. I take them as they come and move on.
O'REILLY: All right. How about you, Mr. Van Natta?
VAN NATTA: We wrote a book down the middle. I mean, it's a rigorously reported book about her professional and political career. And we have new information in this book. Senator Clinton -- it's the book that Senator Clinton doesn't want you to read.
MM didn't print the Grand Finale, where BilldO and the Retardy Boys discovered that they're all "Registered Independents", and therefore, equally fair and balanced.
And speaking of hack journalists, is it considered normal for a journalist (or several, as suggested by Gerth and Van Natta), in the course of an interview to offer to the subject of their interview the journalists personal opinions about who pays attention to what media watchdog websites?
That was the telling part if they don't pay attention to MMFA, then wh are they privy to so many opinions regarding MMFA?
they watch this site like a hawk. Bet they have interns whose sole job is to watch this site and take down names.
Notice too that MMFA is irrelevant to these kind of hacks until it fits their agenda.
Just a month or so ago, MMFA were Soros funded free speech nazis who were out here taking down pundits daily.
A few thoughts:
---O'Reilly's an arrogant douche, the right's version of Brokaw, Jennings and Rather. They wouldn't admit they're lefties, O'Reilly won't admit he's a righty even though he goes after Democrats 90% of the time (my estimate).
---It's free publicity for MMFA, some of the most they've ever had I imagine. MMFA is milking it with this story, as a site very few people read should.
---Few take MMFA seriously because of, for example, the one question people around here refuse to answer every...single...time. Who are the conservative journalists at the broadcast nets and CNN? If you can't name them, why does this site exist? To prove Fox tilts right? The Washington Times? We know that already.
Of course, the main problem here is that as soon as a journalist or commentator defends the GOP even once, he is branded a conservative or Republican by people on this site. See Joe Klein's latest remarks on this topic for an example from a lifelong liberal, since you're incapable of trusting a silly conservative like me.
As we demonstrated on another thread last week, Chris Matthews is thought to be a shill for the evil Karl Rove. Why? The man worked for both Tip O'Neill and Jimmy Carter for cryin' out loud. There are people, and I'm not kidding about this, who will reply by saying "yes but he worked for O'Neill and Carter 30 years ago, that doesn't mean anything now". These people are known as fools, and intellectually dishonest cretins.
Because he occasionally has the stones to point out something stupid done or said by someone on the left doesn't mean he's not a liberal. Matthews is the guy who claims that terrorists "[A]ren't evil. they just have a different perspective." Conservatives do not say such things.
(Howard Dean: "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials" Concord Monitor, Dec. 2003.)
Dean, Matthews, Rosie O'Donuts, MMoore...all the people who try to justify terrorism are on the left. How embarrassing that should be--but is not--for you people. You're upset that O'Reilly's full of it. No kidding.
O'Reilly occasionally trashes Republicans, and by the lack of logic employed around here, that makes O'Reilly a Democrat.
He is not a Democrat. Matthews is, but so many on this site lie about him and then wonder why no one cares what MMFA says about anything.
Nice job! Among that rambling string of irrelevant rhetoric, you managed to sneak in Michael Moore's name again!
In order to reflect my admiration, I got you a little something. While someone of your seemingly limitless talents has few needs, I think this is something you can use: a definition of "topic". After you've enjoyed it, why don't you just go ask him for a pair of his soiled shorts to take with you and be done with it? Don't be embarrassed. Despite the disparity between his accomplishments and yours, Moore's a normal guy just like you.
And...you're welcome.
'On O'Reilly, Gerth and Van Natta dismiss "irrelevant" Media Matters'
That's the heading for this article, Neon. My first paragraph is about O'Reilly, who, interestingly enough is the guy whose name appears as the second word of this article's heading.
You might find it irrelevant that I, as a conservative, can't stand O'Reilly, but I disagree.
My second paragraph was about how MMFA is using this for all the publicity a low-traffic-ranked website like this one can. Since this makes no sense to you, I'll just have a good laugh and move on.
Last, I went out on a limb here and decided to explain, in my humble opinion, why MMFA is irrelevant to many people in the media, a choice you found to be a "rambling string of irrelevant rhetoric".
I explained why I think MMFA is seen as "irrelevant" because the word "irrelevant" is the 7th word used in the heading for this article.
I chose to use number "7" so Tex can chime in and claim it's actually the 8th word used, as long as you count Van Natta as two words. This will make Tex feel terrific, which is all I've ever wanted for him.
You win. I cede due to attrition. Your nonsense and rhetoric outlasted my patience. Congratulations. I look forward to your next Michael Moore tie-in.
That's ok Neon.
Not everyone is able to understand why someone would respond to an article about why some in the media find MMFA irrelevant with a theory as to why some in the media find MMFA irrelevant.
Hang on.
Where do you get the idea that MMFA is a low traffic site? If it were, O'Reilly would never bother attacking it. Some might say nothing is beneath his narcissism or that maybe he's had a few slow news weeks. But he's had a lot to talk about: immigration, for one.
Secondly, why should we believe anyone in the media, specifically O'Reilly or the "Retardy Boys" (I like that one), who refers to MMFA as irrelevant when they are the ones being attacked? Who else says MMFA is irrelevant? Is it someone who's been noted on the site? Is it someone who's got a book out that's getting gutted by someone else who understands notation?
MMFA traffic data:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=mediamatters.org
How many here use the Alexa toolbar? Did you know that if you don't use the Alexa toolbar, you're not counted as traffic, according to Alexa's website?
Brilliant stats, Roger. Were you aware of their qualifications? If so, why didn't you report that, too, in the interest of full disclosure? If not, why not? Do you bother to do comprehensive research, or just stop when it looks like things are going your way?
Tell me, is this the kind of information we can always expect from you, or was this an anomaly?
So what, who cares even if it's true? We've got O'Reilley's attention, we've got mORGAN's attention, we've got Limbaugh's attention, and we've got your attention. I'd say we're pretty effective, and that's all that really matters, isn't it?
Yes, you have my attention.
I'm glad we agree that this is all that matters.
Chris Matthews is clearly not liberal-- if he ever used to be-- and it's disingenuous for anyone to claim that people are "fools" to point out the fact. A lot can change in 30 years time and a big bank account.
MMFA is indeed listened to. You can tell by the defensive postures all of these sorts take when confronted by their inconsistencies and bias.
One thing that bothers me about all the righties here-- doesn't it ever bother you guys that MMFA will allow you to post, but most of the right-wing sites will censor out contrary opinion, or refuse to allow liberals to post at all?
Does that seem fair to you guys?
You cite no evidence that Matthews isn't a liberal, you just assume he is because, as you said: "A lot can change in 30 years".
Tough to find a counterattack to that kind of meticulously researched evidence.
I love this website.
Even if it is ranked # 437,261,640,753 out of 437,261,640,800, I'll get this site noticed!
What evidence would you accept? How about its utterly insane? How about the FACT he claims to have voted for Bush at least once?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505310005
we treat this guy [Bush] with respect. I happen to like him. I voted for him at least once
So how many liberals do YOU know that voted for Bush EVER?
Carl,
No, it doesn't bother me since that happens on all kinds of political websites, including this one.
I was banned at America Blog (it doesn't last forever, their i.p. address thingy only remembers you for so long) for simply mentioning Bob Shrum's book.
No swear words, no criticism of anyone, i just asked what people thought about it. John Aravosis decided it was better to ban me than explain his point of view. When I asked him about it in an email, this was his reply:
"you were being a dick. � �I've been running online communities for ten years, I can smell someone like you from a mile away.� You're trouble.� You're not a nice guy.� Now go away."
I think Yahoo added the question marks in translation by the way. No big deal, that's what closed-minded, cowardly people do. I'll post there again soon, and the next time I mention something Aravosis can't handle, he'll ban me for a third time."Few take MMFA seriously because of, for example, the one question people around here refuse to answer every...single...time. Who are the conservative journalists at the broadcast nets and CNN? If you can't name them, why does this site exist? To prove Fox tilts right? The Washington Times? We know that already."Roger
The name of the game is conservative misinformation. Specifically, conservative framing as misinformation is, has and will be the target of this site. One need not be a conservative to repeat conservative issues frames. War on Terror, tax relief, partial birth abortion, illegal immigration, free market are all examples of conservative framing when they and related conservative frames are mindlessly and not so mindlessly uttered by media, MMFA will be there to expose it.
In fact, your question was a fine, fine example of conservative framing. The question is structured to preclude the possibility that one need not be of a certain political bent in order to repeat conservative slanted questions and conclusions.
Your first point hit a nail on the head, HBL. As myself and others have explained over the last week, many of the articles Media Matters has posted about this book and these authors are here to document how these supposed neutral journalists and their objective book are anything but neutral and objective!
Non-partisan books would not be promoted by NewsMax. Their book was. Objective people don't dismiss objective criticism. These authors did and continue to do so.
In addition, I noted this quote from the interaction last night between Bill and the authors while I was watching it.
"Well, as far as fellow journalists are concerned, they consider Media Matters irrelevant. We've been interviewed by dozens of reporters about our book. And they all uniformly say they don't pay any attention to Media Matters."
I had to wonder how the topic of Media Matters came up. My guess? When legitimate journalists questioned these two authors, and brought up legitimate criticism, the authors said to them "did you get this from Media Matters?" All the journalists then said "No". They didn't pay attention to Media Matters. They came up with their objections all on their own. They noted the inconsistencies and the third hand gossip that has been denied by the second hand source all on their own.
Why else would Media Matters ever come up in the conversation?
O'Reilly is a journalist now? How'd that happen, because every righty tighty who defends him here keeps telling us he's a pundit, not a journalist so he doesn't have to research the facts!
And don't forget, this "pundit" label has somehow become a synonym for comedian, since every stupid, insensitive, vulgar and racist thing they say is quickly dismissed as a joke.
I petition that we call them puppets. After all, they can only repeat what someone else says, and someone is either pulling their strings or have a hand up their butts. <Cue Rush Limbagh's mocking of Michael J. Fox.>
VAN NATTA: "We wrote a book down the middle. I mean, it's a rigorously reported book about her professional and political career."
It would seem that by stressing how rigorously the book was reported (I'm sure the list of venues on their book tour has been exhaustive) rather than how rigorously it was researched, Van Natta would be reinforcing your proposal. Are publisher's hands more comfortable, I wonder? Do they wear gloves?
VAN NATTA: "And we have new information in this book..."
Not such big news, actually. Apparently, the little wooden prostate Guipetto carved for him is still healthy...
Did these two authors appear on a show that no one takes seriously to complain about a website that they and the host don't take seriously?
And if they don't take it seriously, why are they taking it so seriously?
As long as they keep spelling the URL right.
Gerth says he doesn't read Media Matters. If this is true, it's a shame. He really should.
seems he is allergic to facts...just like billdo is
Or perhaps the words are too big for him. (more than 4 letters, more than one syllable).
I find it interesting that BO'R, for all the vitrol he spews regarding MMFA, actually cited it as a lead-up to an interview question (negatively, but still, someone on his staff called it to his attention). It's obvious the Big Head has his staff on here everyday.
Yeah and no one pays attention to this site. Tell that to Imus.
Gerth and Van Natta's book proves once again that a fool and his money is soon parted.
It's obvious that the market's demographic shows there are plenty of fools to fleece. The prove of that is the likes of Gerth, Bill-O, Savage, Hannity, Coulter producing excrement for sale; they call it a book but we know better.
Why just today I read a bit of excrement; it's the one about how Raygun's take down the wall speech caused the Soviet Union to collapse.
There is no lie the right winges won't buy as long as it appeals to their vanity.
Not only is Media Matters not irrelvent to these guys, I'd say O'Reilly is as obsessed with you as he is with George Soros. It gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling to knowing you guys are driving him crazy. Well done!
As we have seen from numerous past poster, most of which come and go, MMFA's work continues to be irrelevant, tiresome, tedious and of little or no consequence. Yet they still come. They still post. They still take a big ol' hit from MMFA's irrelevant hooka to get their fix.
Yesterday, O'Reilly proved once again just how irrelevant MMFA has become. Here we have three "journalists" in a circle jerk before the nation's largest cable TV news audience all trying to reassure each other that MMFA is irrelevant and is not taken seriously.
So all you MMFA detractors, please, don't let us down now.
Overture of Irrelevance, from the top! And a one, and a two...
Karl Rove has taught his method well to others.
It involves turning a strength into a weakness by lying about the strength.
Lie that John McCain had a illegitimate black child when the truth is that he was kind and generous enough to adopt a dark-skinned child. The truth helped John McCain, so they had to lie about it to diminish its power.
Lie that Kerry's military record didn't shine when the truth is that despite his misgivings about our involvement in Vietnam, he fought bravely. If one fairly compared his military record with Bush's record, Bush would have been run out of Washington on a rail! Instead, they effectively turned one of Kerry's strengths into a weakness.
They're trying the same thing with Media Matters. It's very clear that they are scared to death of Media Matters, so critics unfairly smear them on a regular basis with allegations that Media Matters doesn't understand their mission well enough which causes them to post things they shouldn't. We've all seen those posts countless times. The opponents are so scared of Media Matters objective and factual criticism that they try to minimize that fact all the time. Rush tries to claim that Media Matters takes him out of context, but nothing could be further from the truth! O'Reilly says they're a smear site, but they post what he said verbatim. If the truth is a smear, then O'Reilly is a monkey's uncle.
They're scared to death. Before this book even came out, Media Matters, a great watchdog, was on this book and had already outed the author as someone who had posted partisan crap in the past. Irrelevant my foot. The more they try to claim that Media Matters is an irrelevant smear site, the more you know the site is right on and is getting under their skin!
And thus it all comes back to Karl Rove.
Don't ever change!
I'm a journalist and I pay attention to what MMFA says.
It may be just me, but Gerth bears an odd resemblance to Jeff Gannon... Jeff Gerth... I'm seeing a pattern here.
Only on weekends....
Well, if he did have the same night job as Gannon, I think I can guess the name he went by:
Jeff Girth.
Just to be clear, I hear Gannon likes girth, I mean Gerth...sorry.
I guess "relevant" is all relative. In the grand scheme of the entire media structure, I would agree that MMFA is not relevant. Neither is the Clinton book for that matter. I would guess less than 1% of the population has ever heard of this website and perhaps 1/100th of 1% has ever checked it out.
I would be curious to know a few things about the site, such as how many registered user names there are and how many hits per day on average they get.
Just one thought on MMFA's relevance...it doesn't hinge on popularity alone. Their contacts with major media outlets it probably as or more important. I.e., even if they aren't ultimately credited for their research, they can still have an impact.
Bruce & Chris:
The site that rates the traffic on the Internet sites is alexa:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=mediamatters.org
When I last checked, MMFA was the 22,715th most popular with a reach of less than 0.005% and sinking
Cool site. Thanks for pointing it out.
Wow, proof that TV popularity and net popularity don't always go hand in hand.
billoreilly.com: 69,574th place.
"22,715th most popular with a reach of less than 0.005% and sinking"
That's a lot of porn and Paris Hilton ahead of this site, but BilldO and the others are likely bigger fans of that stuff.
That's a lot of porn and Paris Hilton ahead of this site, but BilldO and the others are likely bigger fans of that stuff....by HuntingtonBeachLefty
Beach I think you may be onto something there ;-)
Looks like Faux News is doing even worse.
Chess:
Nope! At #572 with a reach of greater than 0.14%, Fox News is doing much better than MMFA.
FOX, MSNBC they are all the same, that is why I stopped watching them. There is no difference.
Tops among media watchdogs though, LOL.
That's probably due to the Friday afternoon gatherings here.
Fair enough but what does that say about Hannity, O'Reilly and Fownews?
To Clarify their sites rank even lower
When I last checked, MMFA was the 22,715th most popular with a reach of less than 0.005% and sinking...by MissouriShowMe
Wow, that surprises me. It makes one wonder why anyone mentions this site at all [O'Reilly, Limbaugh for example]...yet they do. Obviously those involved in politics are keeping track of this site. However, the general public is still pretty much oblivious.
Jeter, I’m not at all surprised by MMFA’s ranking. The general public seems pretty indifferent to politics, and they're pretty ill informed because of that, IMHO. Besides my cyber-pals here, there are only a few people that I know who follow politics as closely as I do. MMFA is a great outlet for those of us who do. We can bounce things off of each other and also get multiple perspectives and opinions. I think the MMFA threads are a great place for that. I have found that when election time rolls around my family, friends, and acquaintances will start asking me questions about candidates and their platforms because they know I follow politics closely. I try to offer them my political books, and news magazines to get caught up. Some just want to rely completely on my interpretation of things, and I honestly wish they wouldn't do that. Do you guys find that people do that with you?
Hey Lynn, that happens to me a lot too. Most of my family & friends, though they follow the news, are not as interested in the nuts & bolts of politics/policy/issues the way I am. So yeah I do get asked my opinion around election time too...actually it's already starting about the Presidential campaign ahead.
Of course I try to be fair & balanced ;-)
I've even suggested they check out this website.
I do. I am in a union and we as a group are probably a bit more politically aware than average but I have a reputation as a political junkie and I am with you I try to steer them to mags and books to explain the larger picture so they can make their own observations but many of them just want quick answers and once they guage me politically just want to rely on my observations. I am not that comfortable doing that
Fun with numbers.
So how does MM rank as a watchdog group?
http://www.alexa.com/browse/general/?&CategoryID=58666&mode=general&Start=1&SortBy=Popularity
Well, well, well, looks like it's number 1.
I suppose it's all in how you look at it, and how you want to spin it.
Media Matters doesn't try to be all things to all people. That's one of their strengths. They have a specific mission to accomplish, and by having that sharp focus, they've become very good at what they do.
They don't try to appeal to the masses. That's also one of their strengths. They do the legwork so that the truthful information can be disseminated by others. They aren't stuck in the hypocrite's role. In the Bible, Jesus talked about not parading your religion in front of others in a prideful way. They aren't trying to showcase their talents. They're succeeding in showcasing the deceit and dishonesty of many on the right!
Bruce, you're participating in the great lying technique taught by Karl Rove, and that is to try to turn your opponent's strength into a weakness.
It's laughable that these two authors and O'Reilly, on FoxNews primetime programming, are bringing up Media Matters and then saying that it's irrelevant. That's hypocrisy at its worst. Things that are irrelevant don't get mentioned. That's the definition of irrelevant! Instead, they mention this site on prime time!
It's even more laughable that the authors would claim that other journalists say that Media Matters was not important to them. Why would this site have been brought up at all if not for the authors false allegation that those journalists confronting them had gotten the info from this site? How else would Media Matters ever been mentioned in a conversation? If those interviewing journalists brought up a report they saw in Media Matters, then those same interviewers would not say that Media Matters is unimportant. The only logical scenario is that the authors of the book brought up Media Matters to those journalists who were interviewing them, and did so when the interviewers challenged them on some factual inconsistency, and the authors tried to ignore that inconsistency by attacking the messenger!
These are supposedly good quality reporters ... that's what they tell us.
Yet, when a good reporter is challenged on the facts, BY ANYBODY (even a website, regardless of its "Mission"), the first instinct is to DECONSTRUCT the criticism, point by point, and defend your reporting with FACTS and EVIDENCE ... debunking that criticism by showing that the good reporting holds up.
If you CANNOT DO THIS, if the criticism is valid, and you have no proper defense, the coward's fall back is to go AD HOMINEM, and simply dismiss the criticism as "unimportant".
This completely avoids discussing the actual issues and complaints. This brands you, as a "reporter", as a coward who has been caught lying.
Very few have attempted to take MMFA head on, point by point rebuttals. Those who have TRIED, have failed miserably. The FACTS do not help these rightwing propagandists.
I can't help comparing such conflicts with America's way of dealing with disputes: the TRIAL ... with rules of evidence, witnesses under oath, and a jury to judge credibility. If these guys were on trial on the TRUTH of their claims, with O'Reilly as their defense lawyer, the jury would find guilt easily, because it is NO PROOF AT ALL to simply say the witness against you ... nobody pays them any attention. You might as well walk into court wearing an orange suit and legirons, because this kind of defense is a LOSER. In other words, MMFA's claims stand unchallenged, because no evidence disproving them was presented for the jury's consideration; a jury would have NO CHOICE but to convict.
We also learned from this that O'Reilly doesn't understand the definition of irony.
<i>"But you're both New York Times guys being attacked by the left when The New York Times is a pretty left-wing newspaper. Do you see irony in that, Mr. Gerth?"</i>
On the off chance that Bill O'Reilly actually reads this site...HEY BILL! UP YOURS!
Bill up Yours!
Don't say that you are only going to get him excited. You know his history on how he likes to talk to women and what he wants them to put up them.
I think we can let O'Reilly know, again, that MM is "paid attention to" and there are a whole lot of us who do, by emailing him such. What is maddening to these guys who say MM is "irrelevant" is that it is their very own quotes, IN CONTEXT, with citations, that are exposed... not merely someone's opinion. As Truman once said, "I don't give them hell. I just tell the truth, and it feels like hell". Or something like that.
I thought O'Reilly put news outlets on notice if they quoted Media Matters. Will he put himself on notice now?
Interesting question,Sagra. It brings up others- Is it possible to put somebody on notice while not paying any attention to them?Wouldn't you need to "notice" something for it to be "on notice"?
And if BilldO is forced to put himself "on notice", will this make him relevant to anybody else, or will he just be doing some No-spin navel-gazing?
That is, if Bill O'Reilly notices himself in the forest, and nobody else is there to notice him, is he "On Notice"?
Be a ware.
We need more wares.
While yur at it, get a round tewit. I recently got one, and everybody needs to.
Gerth missed the point, resorting to ad hominem attacks on MMFA, instead of providing legitimate defense for the allegations.
By the way, mediamatters broke the Imus story, and has been quoted by the NY Times and the Washinton Post columnists, among others.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041201821.html
Don't forget to post a negative review of Gerth and Van Natta's book on amazon.com. You must have purchased a book in the past in order to post reviews, but i'm not sure. Try it.
I'm a jounalist working for a pretty major operation and a quick survey of my colleagues found MMFA is required reading everyday. (In fact they are a little annoyed you guys don't out more stuff up on weekends. Hint. Hint. )
Fox News (et. al.) hate MMFA because you are using facts to discredit them. It is that simply.
I am reminded of a scene from "Requiem for Heavyweight." When the fighter says he has been told he can no longer box, his sleazy manager responds: "Who are you going to believe, me or some doctor?"
Al, Are there other sites that are required reading by you and your colleagues?
Pardon me, but it seems to me that your bias is showing.
AA, you are absolutely 100% correct - the bias toward truth is undeniable, apparent to every observer. What kind of journalist is that?
Can he really help it if the truth has a liberal slant?
AA,
I respectfully offer you a challenge. In the posts made my MMFA that are not mentioning personal attacks or general insults to Democrats or Liberals, can you find errors?
Please post the links here after you have finished.
Fried,
I appreciate you asking the question, but am at a loss as to why you want me to answer it.
In my opinion, many times it is not what is posted, but what is not. I find most of MMFAs threads to be incomplete and/or slanted toward their very well known liberal/progressive political agenda.
Many times in the past I have listed links when supporting an alternate point of view. They generally are found through simple searches using google. I do not bother to keep to a list.
I know my response probably does not meet your respectful request. Perhaps next time?
AA:
Sure, whenever you find something that takes something out of context unfairly, I would love to see it. I guess I have not been around long enough to see those.
Check out the other thread about Broder. In it someone links to a previous MMFA discussion regarding Libby. I would characterize that thread as taking snippets out of context and using incomplete arguments to supposedly prove their biased viewpoint.
One of the links or the poster? I am not concerned about what the poster does, but I am concerned about the content of the site itself.
Fried,
I understand. I guess I did not make myself clear. Whoever it was, (and I'm too lazy to go find out and report back,) listed the MMFA link that you could visit.
That would have been me. Nerzog mentioned two of the most common myths about this case. I was replying to Nerzog's post.
I found a link that detailed ideas from Media Matters as to what they predicted would be the most common pieces of misinformation about the Libby case. I linked to that post from back in March, and copied and pasted the bolded first sentences from those 10 or so potential myths that Media Matters mentioned.
LeatherHelmet got taken to the cleaners on that thread, so maybe he's just a little sore and defensive right now. He's sure not right.
All I am saying is that MMFA is seen as a very credible source by journalists, Why should it not be? Everything is documented. Links are always provided and ANYONE (even the mean-spirtied and ill-informed) can weight in with their opinion.
That to you is bias?
(BTW: Newsbusters is also required reading. But while they scream about the "liberal media bias!" they often do so without providing documentation or facts to support their claim. As a journalist, I like facts.)
I agree that MMFA does provide supporting documentation and does provide a forum.
The point I was trying to make is that it seems to me that reporters/journalists should be finding their own facts from original sources and not relying on an agenda driven political website that exclusively only tells one side of the story.
That to me is bias.
You say journalist should be "finding their own facts."
A fact is a fact--there is no ownership involved.
True.
However, you left out 'from original sources'. Sounds to me like you are letting MMFA do your work for you.
Actually, I believe you do your own work. Unless you write an opinion column, I would think you would want to stay away from biased political websites as a rule. If you rely on them as required reading, it seems to me you run the risk of not getting the whole story but only one side of the 'facts'.
On the other hand, one does find out what is cookin' 'cross the internets; that is when journalism kicks in, the reseearch starts, and one seeks those famous two or more independent sources. By reading MMFA (and other worthy blogs) one need not awaken each morning with divinely inspired knowledge of what there is that gets people talking (or reading) this fine day.
I just heard an ad on MSNBC that Van Natta will be on Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight talking about the authors' allegations that the Clintons had a pact for Hillary to run for President for decades.
I hope Matthews holds his feet to the fire. I'm not hopeful because Matthews lets people skate without truly addressing a tough topic sometmes.
They say your known by your enemies, I think MM is way better then the quality of these clowns.
Integrity is an overrated quality for Fox.l
Some posters here are playing the it's irrelevant game the same irrelevant chant used against Jimmy Carter when he said Bush is the Worst President in History. Bushbots parroting the Rove line.
It doesn't matter if Media Matters gets one click. What matters is the one little boy that says the king is naked. What was the reaction to that little boy? Same as the one's you clowns are having which is reassuring each other not to pay attention to what the boy had to say.
I'll bet those of you posting here defending Bill-O and Gerth had your nose and lips pressed so hard against the television screen pretending that you are really are kiss a**. I'm sure Bill-O thinks you are.
Pretty funny!
I'd like to note that if one of the few here who regularly provide an alternate point of view were to say something similar in response, we'd be castigated and insulted to no end as attacking ad hominum. We are regularly castigated by many here for no other reason than we disagree with this website's conventional wisdom.
Do any of you MMFA supporters see the double standard as evidenced by Harle that I'm talking about? Frankly, I find it rather amusing.
anotheramerican,
There is no double standard on my part. I've worked for a newspaper long before the internet came into existence. In just about every paper there is a section set aside for the publication of letters sent by the public.
One thing I've noticed about this public section is when Bush became president a flood of letters started coming in on a regular basis blasting anyone who criticizes or disagrees with Bush's policies. When you look at it carefully these letters will only give room to those that march to Bush unconditionally.
In other words Bush is god and he can do no wrong. The very thing Bush believes about himself.
If one letter outs Bush for the fool that he is that one letter is equivalent to the boy that says the king is naked. The reaction of course is similar to yours anotheramerican which according to you the king is wearing fine clothes.
Media Matters isn't about themselves it's about pointing out the nakedness of the media. The same media that you are claiming to be wearing fine clothes.
One more thing I would like to point out to the public. After the no confidence vote failed Bush's comment was this: they can't tell me how to run my government.
My government? What Bush is saying is that this isn't government by the People for the People. He is sayin this is his government and not the People's. He is saying he is the Dictator aka Decider and here is his middle finger to the People of the United States.
Harle,
I assume you are talking about the Gonzales vote.
FYI: Bush is referring to the Executive Branch and his job as head of that branch. No need to get hysterical.
IMHO Congress should stop wasting it's time with these symbolic and non-binding votes that don't mean a thing. It is all political posturing by Harry and Nancy and everybody, (well almost everybody,) knows it.
Hey I heard that Harry's approval rating is 19%. I wonder what Pelosi's is?
Do you think that the executive branch has the power to turn the DOJ into a partisan tool without comment or notice from the people of the US or the other branches of government?
I honestly don't think we would be having this conversation if a democratic president was trying to do the very same thing. was trying to do the very same thing.
It's all the've got, AA. They can't get jack____ done in Congress, and they have to serve up something the media will dutifully cover as a distraction.
The people actually know this. Thus, the ratings for the Harries and Nancies even more dismal than Dubya's.
You miss my point completely. It is your personal vitriolic generalizations regarding anyone who disagrees with you that is part of the double standard here.
Not that I object to it, but whenever I or anyone else on the right uses the same literary license we are immediately pounced upon and called just about every name in the book. You've probably even seen some of the pre-emptive attacking posts before one of us even has a chance to chime in. It does not matter, but I just wondered if anyone on the left will acknowledge that. I just happened to use your post and your denigrating comments as an example.
How can you say that? There's nothin' but l-o-o-o-o-ove and tolerance here.
You better shutup and believe it, too.
Thats not all there is. There IS tolerance and intolerance. There is hostility and there is blatant ignorance. Its a fair cross section of the political arena except HERE liberals are well represented.
Please, post about 50 more items related to Gerth and Van Natta. I can't think of anything more important (for a Hillary spin campaign website).
Steve, guess you caught MMFA...damn, I guess you are just too smart for them..Okay, now what? Shut down the website...
But first, for all of those that don't care what MMFA has to say, their irrelavance, will you(Bill O. Rush etc.) stand in front of a mirror and say "Media Matters doesn't count" three times in a row and watch what happens........Nothing..it is still here.
Oh I suppose you'll next make fun of my ruby slippers?
Sic 'em Toto!
But I only have to click once and 'poof' it's gone.
;-)
one trick pony ex pat
boring....
The One Trick Pony is Media Matters. Or, more accurately, one candidate pony. Media Matters is free to print what they want, just as I am free to point out that it is not what it claims to be.
Wait, I think they are about to put up another important Gerth and Van Natta post.
ExPat
Can you please read all of the item titles for this week? Are all of them related to Hillary Clinton? You already know the answer to this question, so I'm a little confused about why your trying to pretend pretend that MMFA is all about HRC 24/7?
Yeah you are free to keep talking nonsense you cannot POSSIBLY back up. Its weak, its old, its tired and its BS but you are free to keep repeating it and repeating it and repeating it and repeating it until we are all irritatted and tell YOU what we think about THAT.
AA,
LOL! I see you point, but come on. MMFA, like any other website with anonymous posters, has some outrageous and crazy things said on their pages. One time, I went on a movie news website and there was a poster that went absolutely postal because the Silver Surfer was TOO SILVER!! Everyone thinks they are critics and/or political scholars. Of course there is a double standard here. But, doesn't that same double standard exist on any political/news website where there are comments?
Jhill,
Thanks for the response. You probably are correct about every website.
What intrigues me is that so many here self profess themselves to be liberal and/or progressive. They (as a group,) profess to be open minded and accepting of gays and illegal immigrants and others but at the same time show incredible hatred and intolerance for people with conservative points of view. To me that does not seem very open minded at all.
Hey, I enjoy a good riposte no matter who's the target. But if one has to put some sort of slam into every post and/or starts off every rebuttal with an insult, I decide in most cases not to take anything they say seriously.
Hey, I'm no angel, but I only reply to posts in the same vein as comments are made regarding my posts.
Okay, I'm starting to bore even myself.
Another American:
You are clearly confused. You say: "(Liberals and Progressives as a group) profess to be open minded and accepting of gays and illegal immigrants and others, but at the same time show incredible hatred and intolerance for people with conservative points of view. To me that does not seem very open minded at all."
Let me explain. We Liberals ARE open minded and accepting of gays, AND OF CONSERVATIVES, but we reject conservative hatred of gays. We wish for gays to be treated equally under the Constitutional imperitive of "equal protection under the law" -- AND WE WISH THE SAME FOR CONSERVATIVES -- but we REJECT conservative attempts to discriminate against gay people by fashioning discriminatory LAW.
The same is true of other groups and individuals with whom liberals have compassion, open mindedness, and tolerance.
We extend all those wishes for equal treatment to YOU, as a Conservative.
But there is no contradiction, no perverse irony here. PEOPLE, we wish treated equally and with respect. IDEAS and POLICIES ... such as the hateful and discriminatory ideas that come from the rightwing ... we have NO tolerance for.
GET IT? Tolerance for PEOPLE, YES. Tolerance for HATE? No.
Okay. I'll look for your rebuttal the next time one of your 'liberal' progressive friends send out the usual love note at this site expressing his 'open mindedeness' and tolerance for dissenting opinion.
What you SHOULD be watching for are the non-sequiturs and illogical arguments from both the liberal and conservative commenters here. That's what the prog/libs like me hate. We don't hate conservative ideals, just disagree with them, and are very welcoming to logical argument. Some of us even appreciate the occasional personal attack, but only when done artfully. Because the true open-minded prog/lib recognizes his own limited knowledge of any given subject, and is aware that he could at any time be countered by someone with that extra bit of information that sways the argument against him. And he appreciates the art of good writing, clever wit, and a solid chain of logic leading to a viable conclusion, and is quick to acknowledge it.
When confronted with your typical conservotroll, our patience draws thin. I personally don't have the stamina to begin a discussion at the level of fundamental reasoning when arguing an issue, nor do I have the patience to teach logic basics to those neophytes who jump onto a topic from the platform of echoed political rhetoric. (Think of the many "savages", and computer game "officers" who've come and gone or been re-aliased, among others.) I put too much thought into even my spelling and grammar - to make sure I use an economy of words to most accurately reflect my thoughts - to waste time whittling away at illogical foundations or trying to shake someone from their intellectual slumber. From my perspective, a basic smear-fest, a clash of wits and words, is all that's merited by these folks, and I've been known on occasion to oblige.
In summary, it's not the heat, it's the hubris.
Thanks, Neon. I can think of a few posters who should print your post out and tape it to their monitor.
Anyone who has started their post with "I didn't read the item", or goes on to prove that they didn't read the item or any of the previous posts.
Anyone who has ignored a successful rebuttal to the first in their list of 50 long-debunked talking points, then accused the responder of being afraid of the other 49.
Anyone who is constantly accusing others of ignoring the "substance" of their posts when they are repeatedly asked what the hell they meant to write.
Any (especially first time posters) comments that start with lololololo or hahahahahahahah, followed by Dittohead chants, and a second post asking why liberals are so mean when they're supposed to be sissies.
And anyone who seriously and regularly uses the words or phrases;
Liberals love taxes
vote to surrender
partial birth abortion
gay agenda
Islamofascist
activist judge
defeatocrat
death tax
Another American,
There are no posters here who accept illigal immigration.
See, that very sentence points out what is so common and sad with conservatives: It seems so many make comments which are just crazy. Maybe it's just too much Limbaugh and the Con lie machine. There seems to be a fairly large segment of the Republican party which has just lost touch with facts and reality.
You're right ...
When I make a well thought out post, something like: "O'Reilly is a gutless, dishonorable, contemptible, piece of sewage." O'Reilly--being so squeamish and easily offended--believes he's been smeared.
I've smeared him: Not Media Matters. Media Matters has just exposed him. Billdo is too dumb to even make the distinction.
The book Hillary doesn't want you to read? Apparently it is also the book no one wants to buy. Hoo-ha! I wonder if the authors would have been on if FOX perceived the book to be pro-Hillary? Where are the "insider" books on the GOP candidates? Do publishers just think they won't sell?
The fact that neither one of these hacks addressed the issues Media Matters raised is all the proof one needs that they are liars.O'Reilly can't help but mention Media Matters because his bloated ego demands it.I bet he checks the site everyday.He's never once put forth an even remotely convincing explanation as to why Media Matters is such a "despicable" web site.He simply can't stand having someone call him on his endless stream of lies.
If anyone feels that Media Matters is not telling the truth or smearing people,I'd LOVE to see the proof.Rather than hanging around pointing out the obvious fact that this is a partisan site,give me solid evidence that MM is lying.Prove to me for example that MM is somehow treating Bill O unfairly.I'm waiting...
"They don't pay attention to Media Matters."
Of course THEY (journalists) don't pay attention to it. Otherwise Media Matters would have no misinformation to disseminate.
So-call journalists Gerth and Van Natta are irrelevant-and so is their book.