Wash. Times op-ed expanded on O'Reilly's false attacks on Soros and Media Matters
SUMMARY: In a Washington Times op-ed, conservative media consultant Phil Kent made a series of false claims about the sources of Media Matters' funding, some of which had been debunked previously, including the incorrect assertion that George Soros has given money to Media Matters.
In a May 8 Washington Times op-ed, conservative media consultant Phil Kent claimed that "few journalists dare to criticize" Media Matters for America "or its bankrollers for fear of inviting attacks upon themselves." Kent repeated the debunked claim -- recently propagated by Fox News host Bill O'Reilly -- that philanthropist George Soros funds Media Matters through the Tides Foundation, the Democracy Alliance, and the Center for American Progress so that he might "manipulate[] the media by stifling and smearing center-right political voices." As Media Matters has explained several times, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization.
On the April 26 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed Media Matters' denial of receiving funding from Soros "is a total lie," noting that the Tides Foundation donated over $1 million to Media Matters in 2005. O'Reilly further stated that "just by coincidence Soros' Open Society Institute [OSI] donated more than a million dollars to Tides in 2005," adding: "Figure it out." Kent 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 MediaMatters $3.3 million between 2003 to 2005 (the latest available years its tax returns are available)." In fact, OSI's IRS 990 forms (to which Kent referred; see PDF screenshots below) show that every dollar OSI granted to Tides from 2001 to 2005 was earmarked for specific Tides-related programs and entities, and that Media Matters was not included on the list.
Also, Kent's claim that OSI gave Tides "over $17 million" from 2001 to 2005 is incorrect, according to the 990s, which show that from 2001 to 2005, OSI approved grants to Tides Foundation programs or entities totaling $13,216,947.71. Of those grants, all were paid in full in that time period except for a May 23, 2005, grant to the Death Penalty Mobilization Fund for $150,000, of which $75,000 was paid in 2005. Several grants were paid over the course of two to three years. These grants, however, appeared in the 990s for the years they were approved and for the years in which they were paid, (i.e., a $595,000 grant approved in 2001 and paid in 2002 appeared in two 990 forms). It is possible that in arriving at his total, Kent failed to account for the fact that the same grants appeared in separate 990s. However, even if one were to assume that they did represent new grants, the total is still just over $16.1 million.
Kent continued: "The leftist Center for American Progress receives grants from Tides and Mr. Soros and, you guessed it, funnels it into MediaMatters. And yet another group called the Democracy Alliance, funded by Mr. Soros and other limousine liberals, donates to MediaMatters." According to the available 990s, OSI issued just two grants to the Center for American Progress (CAP), both in 2005 (990 screenshot here). According to the 2005 990 form, OSI granted $150,000 to CAP's Faith and Public Life Resource Center; and approved, but did not pay, a $110,000 grant to Campus Progress. Media Matters received no funding from CAP in 2005.
Media Matters has also received no funding from the Democracy Alliance, which does not itself make grants. Democracy Alliance founder Rob Stein explained during a November 30, 2006, forum hosted by the Hudson Institute titled "How Vast the Left Wing Conspiracy?":
STEIN: It's very important to understand that the Alliance does not take in any money to distribute to groups. The money we take in pays our administrative costs. We are not a 501(c)(3). We are a taxable nonprofit organization. We recommend to our partners, and our partners then make decisions which organizations to support, and they are fully informed -- we have very good counsel -- of all the legal requirements of disclosure and limitations that come with supporting any of those types of vehicles.
The Washington Post reported on July 17, 2006, that the Democracy Alliance "endorse[s]" specific organizations and serves as a "cooperative for donors, allowing them to coordinate their giving so that it has more influence."
While Soros is identified as a member of the Democracy Alliance, he has never given money to Media Matters through the alliance or otherwise.
According to Kent's bio on PhilKent.com: "A veteran award-winning journalist, Phil was an editorial writer, editorial page editor, and political columnist for The Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle for 25 years. In 1981-82, Phil served in Washington, D.C., as press secretary and public affairs advisor to the late U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.). After his tour of duty in the nation's capital, he returned to The Augusta Chronicle as editorial page editor and traveled extensively around the globe and filed columns."
A reporter quoting O'Lielly as a reputable source of information is a complete idiot... and a fraud...
With so many repeated instances of misinformation given by the media, why doesnt MMFA publicly disclose who they DO receive their funds from to stifle any argument.
If theres nothing to hide why not show it all to prove them all wrong rather than just saying "No We Don't!"
You know as well as I do that if MMFA were to release a listing of its contributors, all the pinhead conservatives out there would use that as a "hit list" to go after and harrass MMFA's supporters.
But thats my point, they are taking a defensive position where they will always be proded and probed rather than making a statement like "This is who we are and how we do what we do" hit-list or not, it would provide a preimptive stike.
No matter what the ties, the public should be more content with the honesty and if any of those ties are that bad, well then they shouldnt be allowed to be called the "media watchdog". Something more like "media lapdog" would be a better description.
Sorry, I beleive that the information should be out there to let everyone decide rather similiar cloak and dagger tactics that MMFA complains that the repubs use.
if a privite citizen contributes to something like MMFA how is it any of your bisiness what their names and addresses are? To date nobody has proven any of the 'prods' as you would like to call them, lies to everyone else is proof of anything.
I'd be more interested in seeing the financial ties between the Cato institute, Independence Institute, Club for Growth, etc and media outlets AND politicians.
Attn Media Matters-With all due respect, it's time you file a lawsuit or pretty much get off this urin----ing contest.
Agree, if it's such a thorn in their side, or so ridiculous.....forget it. Otherwise do something about it, if it's so offensive.
It's not offensive, it's MISINFORMATION. Imagine a film noir David Brock. "It's my job, that's what I do."
Uh...
They are doing something about it. They're exposing it.
For authoritarians, nothing is being done until the Law is involved.
...or the military.
Dumb-ass conservatives telling lies...
are always offensive.
It may be a ****ing contest. But I think two questions are warranted...
Who's calmy standing near the toilet?
And...
Who's ****ing all over himself on cable TV?
I asked the same thing, but a law suit would expose the financial records of MMFA. They are probably confidential . I wish they would sue FOX and O'Reilly also, these lies are disgusting now the Washington Times starts spewing lies.
I note that Mr. Kent never claims to have worked as a reporter. No surprise there. He can't even add up numbers on 990s. If someone handed him a real story he'd probably drop it on his foot.
Clearly MMFA has these guys worried. The sheer amount of time they spend ranting about "smears" must warm David Brock's heart.
Will THIS be enough information for Bill O, Wesley and Rhino?
I don't think soooooo
The links appear to be malformed.
Are you golfing or making sausage?
Pearlene,
Are you asking Rino and other skeptics to not "connect the dots?" We already know Rino refused to "connect the dots" when the Snow story about Bush not linking 9/11 to Iraq was posted. He claimed that Bush needed to say explicitly that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 for there to be a connection. Therefore, Rino would NEVER connect Soros to Media Matters, would he? SARCASM INTENDED!!!!
You are right, what was I thinking.
Mr. L.,
As we would say in the Burgh to these INVESTIGATIVE types, O'Reilly and Phil Kent et al....Yunz ain't got no real info n'at.(Translation: You have no real facts and that.) Hey, nobody says we speaks gooderest English but we always have factual basis for our agreements/disagreements. We ain't no crybabies like O'Reilly and the Dallas Cowboys.
P.S. Repeat...Bill O'reilly and his staff couldn't find Shaquille O'Neal at a midgets picnic.
Bill O'Lielly needs to 'red up his studio because he's going to get canned n'at... Hey, Prince- how classic would it be if Bill had to take a ride on the 61C from 'dntown through Grin'fild, past the old still'mills and to Kennywood and back... with all the crazy 'yinzers yammerin' away at him... makes me chuckle..
I could care less who funds MMFA. Even if George Soros threw a few bucks their way what would it prove anyway? That a progressive billionaire funds progressive causes. Wow stop the presses!
If MMFA says they aren't funded by MMFA, that's good enough for me because quite frankly I don't see what the big deal is to begin with.
Now where's Val with the beer?
Tommy, any shrimp on today's buffet menu? Please save some for me, Beach & Val today ;-)
CORRECTION!
Mmmmm I wrote:
If MMFA says they aren't funded by MMFA
I meant to write:
If MMFA says they aren't funded by Soros
Maybe I don't need a beer ;-)
Too late Jeter, you wrote it.
You can now be used as a source by those pointing out the dastardly connection between MMFA and MMFA, which will produce a chart needing far fewer arrows than previous charts.
MMFA ----> MMFA (repeat)
The Soros-->Media Matters accusations seem destined to take their place alongside such things as 'the WMDs were moved and buried in Syria' or 'Hillary really did murder Vincent Foster' or 'Bush planned 9/11'.
You're never, ever going to convince a certain segment of the population otherwise, no matter how much contradictory evidence you present.
In fact, the more you rebut the accusation with evidence, the more they perversely feel justified in calling you "guilty".
The cycle: 'I accuse you of______', followed by the denials, the proof and the evidence, followed by 'Well, because you are denying it so heatedly, you must be guilty'.
But an op-ed in a major newspaper like the Times needs to be held to a higher standard. They ought to know better, should do better, and they need to be held accountable, like we're doing here.
I guess I don't understand why these people feel compelled to make the Soros-MMFA connection in the first place. Media Matters already admits it is one-sided, just say that and move on.org with the show already.
Exactly. It's not like we're here to get both sides to any story.
"Exactly. It's not like we're here to get both sides to any story."
There's only *1* side of the story when the story is a lie! The truth is the ONLY side.
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Got it.
If you only did really get it.
The point O'Reilly is making is the power one man, Soros, with enough money can fund sites like this and lead people like you to believe what he wants you to beleive thus controlling your vote which he is doing.
That only can happen to blindly partisan liberals with no mind of their own, there are none of those types here.
Soros is controlling my vote? That guy has some serious reach. Where's that bar everyone's been talking about on the other thread?
Someone somewhere sometime said something that led you to believe what you believe. It could happen to some one that stumbles onto this site. Sites like this give the week and closed minded a place to gather and try to buttress a slanted belief that, in the end, will give Hillary more power. And the kool-aid is free. Hell, I figured this out and I'm drunk.
You have such a low opinion of the right leaning posters here.
What do I believe? Do enlighten me please.
Unlike, say, Sun Myung Moon, who owns the Washington Times. That's perfectly OK.
How much money do you think it takes to fund a "site like this?" I mean, you could kludge something using Blogger that's pretty close to the "sophistication" of mediamatters.org - and that's free.
You'd think Soros could afford a comment interface that works...
Amen to that Val,
MMFA needs better forum software with "edit after posting" features.. That would take at least 15% of the "name-calling because of bad spelling or mis-typing" post off of here..
Besides if Soros wants to throw away his money, let him... hehe..
That would be a horrible idea. Can you imagine if you were able to delete parts of your post after people had already responded to them? It's going to be "Show me where I said that..." all the time.
What they should do is bring back the "newest-to-oldest" listing, though, and the timestamps that show a particular thread. When a thread goes over to another page there's often no way of telling who someone is responding to.
I stand corrected.. I guess I wasn't thinking of how to abuse it.. Good idea on your end..
The good news is, Val, MMFA is hiring despite the terrible economy. And they are hiring a web editor so you can take care of all these problems. Thanks.
http://mediamatters.org/about_us/jobs/
How can Soros control my vote when the right wing is doing everything in their power to deny my vote?
Tell me about it. Whenever I go vote, I have to pass through a brigade of armed rightwingers blocking polling places to make sure I vote with them, or I'm not allowed in.
Don't worry Tommy.. pretty soon we'll have to watch Al-Gores movie before we are allowed in.. Just to get our minds right..
that would be "minds left".
good call Snoopy... my bad..
Wow! Your right wingers are aggressive. Where I'm from, they're much more subtle. They provide my district with machines that don't work correctly, punch ballots in the neighboring district "disappear" for a few hours before they're counted after being driven by Republican volunteers, and my neighbors are told they're felons when they're not. All that is after my voter's registration was rejected for not being on the correct weight of paper.
The point is men like Bill, Sean and Rush with enough power (Radio and TV time) leading people like you to believe what he wants you to believe thus controlling your vote. Right?
Yes. My wife noticed the other day that I was under a hypnotic trance after watching Hannity on Fox and rushed me to the hospitle. DR. Al Gore was there and snapped me right out of it. It was close there for a while.
Oh, as always he is confused. He meant to talk about Richard Mellon-Scaife and his Arkansas Project and how he fund fright-wing radio and TV to spread lies, inuendo and mis-information.
I think it's fairly obvious that the false accusations are a right-wing effort to equate nefarious goings-on with Media Matters, and thereby diffuse MM's effectiveness and diminish its voice.
The purpose isn't to show that MM is "one-sided". The purpose is to weaken credibility. The tactics are close-cousins to the ones used by the SBVT creeps on John Kerry.
Exactly (again). Because when one is admittedly "one sided", then their effectiveness is already diminished.
I don't agree; I don't see anything to gain in arguing with you, Tommy, with all due respect.
Dave, Fair enough. Your honesty is appreciated. We agree to disagree.
"Exactly (again). Because when one is admittedly "one sided", then their effectiveness is already diminished."
Once again...when the story is a LIE there IS only 1 side - the side of the truth.
What?
Media Matters concentrates on one facet of the multitude of information being spewed out today, and that makes them somehow less effective?
That makes no sense.
St Jude Childrens Hospital is less effective than other health care organizations in dealing with sick kids because they concentrate on sick kids? Their effectiveness is diminished? Of course it's not. Their concentration is their strength, and it only improves their stature and their reliability in their field of endeavor.
Media Matters is great at what they do. They would not improve what they do by changing their mission statement. They are not trying to be all things to all people.
This series of statements from Tommy should make everyone question his motivation here.
I agree the purpose is to weaken credibility. As Tommy says, they can do that by saying MMFA is one-sided which they already admit. Then they wouldn't have to make things up and use flow charts and all that stuff.
Well, they are trying to tie MMfA to their cartoon image of evil Soros Even worse than one-sided, we are a Danger to the Republic!
Then why don't they just say that, if that's so effective? Because it isn't. People who dismiss what you or Jeter say (for example) just because you come from the right get blasted for it, because you are credible posters. Most people understand it's about the arguments you make, not your affiliation.
Maybe it's different among conservatives? I would hope that's not the case.
That's fair. My poorly worded point was that a website with an agenda will highlight that which supports its agenda and ignore what doesn't. It's very common.
MMFA does use facts to make their arguments, I also think they omit facts sometimes when they would hurt their argument. That's why I think partisan websites aren't as credible as non-partisan ones. They want to put THEIR truth out there, but not necessarily THE truth.
The only way to strengthen this website's credibility beyond some measure of reapproach, is to highlight and monitor misinformation from all ideologies and affiliations.
Of course, that will never happen - not because there isn't any real substantive misinformation from the left or that it's free of spin and untruths, because anyone knows it isn't, but because it is antithetical to MMFA's agenda......and therefore, it's like listening to a debate between a Democrat and Republican and the Republican's mike is turned off during his/her response.
So all political websites should be non-partisan?
Where did I say that? A website can be anything it wants to be, partisan or not. The ones that evaluate and disseminate fair and non-partisan information unfiltered through a political agenda are far more credible, for obvious reasons.
Sort of sounds like principle behind the Fairness Doctrine to me. Interesting.
But if MMfA reached a tremendous number of people, then they wouldn't need that credibility, because they'd be legitimate without having to be balanced, right?
You've lost me.
Credibility has nothing to do with the number of people being reached, I have no clue how or why you made that link.......unless your googling fingers are looking to pounce on some past statement I made on an unrelated topic to prove some point. Go ahead.
As for the Fairness Doctrine, you seem confused as to what I believe is the appropriateness of the media, and if I feel the government should be involved, aka the FD........the answer is no, more government solves nothing. And if you can find a post of mine from the past covered in spider webs where I have said bigger government is better, show us that as well.
I said "legitimate". They wouldn't need credibility, because they'd be legitimate without it, is what I said. I remember you saying that about FOX, that it was a legitimate outlet even though it wasn't balanced.
Regarding the FD, it has nothing to do with what you've said before, I just find it interesting that balance is important to credibility, but yet the government shouldn't be able to assure that credibility. Having a reliable media seems to take a back seat to anti-government sentiment or free-market dogma, or both. That just seems like twisted priorities to me.
Yes, I believe that Fox is a legitimate source of news.....not necessarily because of their high ratings, but because despite their partisanship, they offer a news alternative outlet, as does CNN or MSNBC or others. Are they credible? That's open to opinion, let's just say I go many places to get news and information.........just as I come here and other websites with similar partisan leanings. It's my personal choice.
Credibility is enhanced when all sides of an issue are presented through an unbiased prism, or at least a valiant effort is made on it's attempt. When one only presents one side, then that is all you're going to get.
The strength of our media lies in it's diversity and scads of sources in which to become informed, or not informed at all, whatever is the choice of the individual. If one is so lazy that they are relying on their government and some set of bureacrats to determine what is fair and balanced and what they "need to know" based on each side being heard, then too bad for them. Being ill-informed is not a crime, or being uninformed. And I have said, unless you can demonstrate to me how every single side of every single issue is to be presented, including the fringe elements which would rightfully say they have every right to be included in any fairness doctrine.......then it absolutely is unfair.
"Yes, I believe that Fox is a legitimate source of news.....not necessarily because of their high ratings, but because despite their partisanship, they offer a news alternative outlet, as does CNN or MSNBC or others."
I'm quite sure you mentioned their viewship specifically at the time.
"Are they credible? That's open to opinion, let's just say I go many places to get news and information..."
It's not really open to opinion, you already drew that conclusion. If MMfA is not credible because it's one-sided, then neither is FOX. I don't think anyone really understood how something can be "legitimate" but not "credible" at the same time.
It also seems contradictory to say that the strength of the media lies in diversity, and to argue that MMfA should be balanced to be credible. Isn't MMfA part of the "diversity" that provides strength? Otherwise what diversity are you talking about? You talk about how it's like listening to a debate between a republican and a democrat with the republican's microphone shut off, but then that's balanced by the same thing in reverse on the other side, which is diversity.
Basically I'm not understanding that if you really believe everything you just said, then what was the point of your previous post? You say it's not going to happen, sounding like criticism, but then you seem to lay out an argument as to why it shouldn't happen. Feel free to clarify, because obviously there's some nuances that aren't coming across very well.
You just can't get past the fact that because there are admitted inequities or unfairnesses in our society, that I don't make the leap to a government fix - which is automatic in a liberal mindset. If it's not working, well, by golly, let the government step in and remedy it, then it's all done. Sorry, can't agree.
That's the fundamental difference here, that I see.
If you don't understand that, then I can't help you.
You skipped an awful lot there, considering I didn't mention the FD in that post at all. Can you at least expand on "diversity", please? Diversity of what?
To be clear about what I said before, I did not say that MMFA was NOT credible, I said they were LESS credible than a non-partisan site such as Factcheck.org. MMFA certainly has credibility, but I think their partisanship should be considered when reading their arguments.
I know. Tommy said "far more credible", and makes a virtual career out of questioning items here. I agree that partisan-based sites are almost guaranteed to be less credible, to some degree. My issue wasn't with you, but Tommy's strange suggestion that MMfA should be more balanced to gain credibility while FOX is "legitimate".
Cool. Rock on.
Brab, I never said MMFA should be anything.......I merely suggested that by showing only one side weakens one's credibility - if they choose to stick with highlighting only conservative misinformation, their credibility is compromised, to what degree is a matter of opinion.
As for legitimate vs. credibility, they are not the same thing. This website is legitimate for it serves a stated purpose as an liberal alternative venue to disseminate information - I have never said otherwise. Just as Fox is legitimate for their purpose, a lawful enterprise disseminating information. Their fair and balance moniker is subject to interpretation, but you cannot judge their commentators as any indication of that - you need to analyze their straight news reporting - is that biased? Perhaps, but it hardly delegitimizes them.
You are confusing legitimacy with credibility.
And you were the one that initially brought up the FD, or government intervention, not me.
Let's look at your original post;
"The only way to strengthen this website's credibility beyond some measure of reapproach..."
I assume you mean "reproach". There are thousands of partisan blogs and sites, so none of them have a fair amount of credibility? Of course the degree is debatable, as you admit, so why should one of the best sites on either side even consider doing what you're talking about?
"Of course, that will never happen - not because there isn't any real substantive misinformation from the left or that it's free of spin and untruths, because anyone knows it isn't, but because it is antithetical to MMFA's agenda......and therefore, it's like listening to a debate between a Democrat and Republican and the Republican's mike is turned off during his/her response."
So if you're not saying that MMfA should do this, then why say "that will never happen"? Why would anyone want it to, especially you? Your example of the debate clearly suggests unfairness, which one would think is someone you would want to change. Yet, "diversity" is strength, and MMfA is part of that diversity. That's why I can't figure out what your point was in your post cited above. Was it just some idealistic exercise, where it would be nice if every site was balanced? If so, I would think you would say it would never happen "because it's not realistic", not because of MMfA's agenda, as if that set them apart from any other partisan site.
Regarding legitimacy and credibilty, you seem to be very confused.
"Just as Fox is legitimate for their purpose, a lawful enterprise disseminating information."
This is odd by any standard. The only way they could not be legitimate is if they were illegal or stopped disseminating information.
"...you need to analyze their straight news reporting - is that biased? Perhaps, but it hardly delegitimizes them."
Straight news reporting is supposed to be objective. That's why it's called "straight". Let's define "objective" for you:"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion". Now, let's look at the actual definition of "legitimate", as it's clearly being used to describe news outlets;"in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards". It's got nothing to do with "legal". FOX does not comply with principles or standards of objective reporting, therefore it is not legitimate. It's not that I'm confusing the two, it's that one relies on the other.
"And you were the one that initially brought up the FD, or government intervention, not me."
I didn't say otherwise. I just didn't understand why you responded to a post containing no references to FD by talking only about it.
"...something you would want to change." Long sentence underedited.
You have delegimitized Fox because you feel they don't report fairly......I agree they lean to the right, and have said so many times. And even if on occasion a straight news report leans right, that is no reason to call the entire network illegitimate.....otherwise to be consistent, every news operation in existence today would be illegitimate.
However, their bias lies in their commentators and the hosts/guests they engage in, not their straight news reporting that I have seen evidence of.......unless you can offer up specific examples or a pattern of their newscasts being biased in their reporting of events, then you just don't like them period, hence you calling them illegitimate.
Their credibility, because of their often one-sided commentators, i.e. Hannity/O'Reilly, is questionable and diminished overall because of their rightward tilt in their disseminating opinions. As I have said over and over, it does not delegitimize their stated purpose as a news organization. If you disagree, fine......but to argue over it anymore is pointless.
As for the rest of your post, my head is spinning.
Here's what you said again:"you need to analyze their straight news reporting - is that biased? Perhaps, but it hardly delegitimizes them". You were arguing that even if their straight news was biased, they were legitimate. By definition, that is not true. Also you have to look at people like Brit Hume, who is an "anchor", not a commentator. It's not comparable to other networks where sometimes you get bias on one side or on the other. It always leans right. You can't compare the imperfections of other networks to a designed, intentional slant.
I think you understand the rest of my post just fine, honestly. What was the point of your original post, if you don't think MMfA "should" be balanced? It's not that difficult.
I can't even remember what the original point was frankly, so to answer your latest question; I have no problem with MMFA and their stated objectives of monitoring only conservative misinformation, if that's what you're asking. Do I want them to be more balanced, I suppose that would be welcomed, but it's not what they purport to do and it will never happen, I accpet that. Do I want some govt. watchdog monitoring them for accuracy? Absolutely not.
However, do I believe that a more balanced monitoring would enhance their overall credibility, in my mind, of course it would. Balance and non-partisan information can't help but give one more credibility, from all viewpoints. You don't disagree with that, do you?
Now, I hope I answered your question.......if this got all muddied up and I was responsible for that, I apologize.
No, I don't disagree with that, however it's a relative measure regarding websites.
One could discount anyone coming from a particular viewpoint just because they're coming from that viewpoint. Many books, magazines, radio programs as well aren't purely objective, yet we use them and cite them. Almost any example could have more credibility, but you have to look at their methods and evaluate them based on that.
Any partisan website would be more credible if it wasn't partisan, but that's akin to saying that life would be more fun if you could eat whatever you wanted without worrying about the consequences. It's obviously true, but it's such an exercise in fantasy that it doesn't have much merit. People naturally have different perspectives, and websites are going to reflect that.
I guess it reinforces the phrase consider the source, which is the best barometer to really objectively determine ultimate credibility.
Your points about methods and evaluating them are good ones, and I can't disagree.
I appreciate that, and only partly because of the thinning thread. Good discussion!
D
i
t
t
o
!
so tommy doesn't want a "government fix" to equalize anything, but he insists that the way for this site to have credibility is to cover all media misinformation. it's all right for the limbaughs, hannitys, et al, to spin for hours unopposed, but a site dedicated to countering them? not credible.
So then you would have the MRC out there highlighting the LIBERAL media bias and MMFA highlighting BOTH which would reinforce the delusion of a liberal media bias. No, its fine they highlight only conservative bias and misinformation just like its fine the MRC only goes after liberals as long as they dont claim otherwise. We understand how it would fit into YOUR agenda. We also are not fooled.
That's exactly why I asked if he thought all political websites should be balanced. Exactly. Even if MMfA changes, that doesn't mean any right-wing site is going to do the same unless they invoke some sort of FD for the internet. So who's going to take the first step, with no assurance that anyone else will follow?
Just out of curiosity, how would you rate the MRC website on the "credibility" scale?
Not that you asked me, but I would say "low". I enjoy going through it from time to time for laughs, mostly.
For instance, in it's "notable quotables" it mentions how Charles Gibson cited a poll where 61% of respondents want stronger gun control laws. That's it. That's an example of "bias", for someone to mention that 3/5 of people favor something that doesn't conform to right-wing views.
They also mention the opinion of Howard Fineman, who is a columnist. He does commentary. And a story from Scotland where there was a school shooting, they banned virtually all handguns, and there were no more school shootings. However, the piece did mention that gun crime had gone up, which is odd for such a supposedly biased person to do.
Also, if someone mentions other factors in the economy besides the Dow, that's bias. If someone praises the universal health care plan, that's bias. Noting that life expectancy is high in Cuba, or that socialized medicine alleviates the burden of alzheimer's patients relatives, that's bias.
Two quotes from Bill Moyers which seem fair or arguable at worst, and an implied defense of the guy who claimed that the Amish school shooting was partly due to abortion and the teaching of evolution.
There are a couple of fair points. Overall though, I can look at it any given day and find that most of the items are highly questionable.
"I agree the purpose is to weaken credibility. As Tommy says, they can do that by saying MMFA is one-sided which they already admit. Then they wouldn't have to make things up and use flow charts and all that stuff."
No one that I know of is hiding the fact that this site "monitors conservative misinformation". I am not aware of Media Matters saying "we're one-sided", although I have no doubt that is your and O'Reilly's opinion, which you're welcome to of course.
I don't quite comprehend how someone "lacks credibility" by presenting facts, and transcripts to prove somebody is misinforming.
This bogus Soros-->Media Matters false linkage is a desperate but quite transparent attempt (since the MM/Soros haters can't fight fairly) to make it look like there are some sort of nefarious Evil Doings happening.
Dave, see my response to Brabantio.
----"They want to put THEIR truth out there"----
I couldn't disagree more.
If you want to make a case that Media Matters is excluding facts that would negate their case, present some evidence. This board is a good place to do it.
Have something that proves, beyond doubt, that MM gets funding from George Soros? Here's the place.
But I can't think of any instance since they began in 2004 where MM has presented "their" truth, as opposed to "the" truth.
I try to do it when I see it. You've probably disagreed with me when I do. Remember, the TRUTH is contextual in a lot of cases. It isn't absolute. Facts are concrete but conclusions (truth) derived from facts are a matter of perspective in many cases.
Exactly.
Since 9/11, under Bush's watch, there have been no acts of terrorism on American soil - fact.
The conclusion that some take from that fact is that Bush is responsible for it, another conclusion would be Bush had nothing to do with it.
Facts are facts.
Media Matters provides facts and transcripts and tapes of commentary. They don't then come to conclusions. That would be what the MRC people do. They allege liberal bias, which is drawing conclusions from evidence. Media Matters provides the evidence. The facts.
the more attention MMFA gets, the more the major MM types show their bias and screw up (lie)... I actually believe more people are going to start noticing MM's total right wing slant- and protest it- the more they hear about MMFA and come check the site out... kudos to MMFA for sticking to their guns for the last couple of years...
Basically what some of the commenters seem to be saying is that Media Matters should allow a lie to remain unrebutted UNLESS it's actionable in a Court of Law! The problem is that very few people would be expected to do this in their private lives to allow their good name to be libelled without at least a protest. You might as well ask what good are the Pope's moral preachings since he has no soldiers to enforce them. "Your Holiness, unless you're able to kill anyone who doesn't obey your exhortations you should just shut up!"
let me get this straight--
The Washington Times is going on about evil foreign billionaires funnelling money into American Politics?
The Washington Times?
I'm speechless.
Except to say that some evil foreign billionaires get crowns put on their heads in the Senate Office Building, and some don't.
Dang! MMFA sure gets a hunka-love!
All this to do word counts on our favorite commentators? I am impressed!
I love this country!
ps.
Oh wait... MMFA above never did where it's money comes from now did it?
How about it? Who's the bag man? (oops. bag person).
----"How about it? Who's the bag man? (oops. bag person)."----
The Washington Times' bag person is multi-millionaire Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon.
Bill O'Reilly's bag person is former Republican strategist, Roger Ailes.
Dave,
Old news.
( You conspicuously left one out.)
That's one less than you left out.
"Bill O'Reilly says that George Soros is funding MMFA. I believe everything he says even when he's lying."
There you have the mindset of a typical BOR devotee. Think about that the next time BOR brings up Kool-Aid.
PJ,
I do believe that is called the "Dan Rather" defense. ;-)
I do believe that is called distraction by change-of, and avoidance-of, the subject.
Sorry. I was distracted trying to interpret your post.
I'll use shorter words next time when replying to you.
In his editorial, Mr. Kent doesn't actually attempt to refute anything reported by Media Matters for America.
I agee with many of the posters. Who cares whether or not Soros is connected to MMFA?
What I don't understand is why the likes of O'Reilly is so intent on vilifying somebody with the philanthropic credentials of Soros.
Soros is a convicted felon in France for insider trading. Nobody wants to associate with a convicted felon.
So that's why Cheney hasn't spoken to Scooter
Yes I agree. Scooter is a felon and rightfully should have been convicted. Clinton perjured himself as well. Soros is a convicted felon in France. Bunch of guys from watergate are convicted felons. I am consistent. Soros has to live with it just like the others. People have every right not to want to associate with a convicted felon.
Clinton didn't perjure himself.
Perjury is a lie about a material matter. He lied about an immaterial manner in a case that was thrown out of court. It was never perjury. It was always a lie. Lying is not okay, and that's why he got in trouble later, and was sanctioned, but he didn't commit perjury.
So tell us. How many times have you been corrected on this point, yet still try to say that Clinton perjured himself? And how hard will you try now to disseminate that message when you see other people trying to pass on that misinformation? Why do you pass on misinformation? Why do you allow others to pass on misinformation without correcting it? That's what Media Matters is doing here? Why are people like you so scared of that misinformation correction?
Clinton was held in contempt of court by judge Susan Webber Wright. ( I guess for nothing ! ). His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas and later by the United States Supreme Court. He was also fined $90,000. Jeez, I didn't know that happened to innocent people.
Yes, there were consequences because he lied. That doesn't mean that he committed perjury. It's a specific legal term, you know, not just a synonym of "lie".
Really? Because Ahmed Chalabi was a convicted embezzler in Jordan and the US government had no problem snuggling up to him.
See what happens when people deal with felons ? Warning to MMFA !
The Deepening irony
O'Reilly, who works for a network owned by a manipulative right-wing billionaire who has muddied up the concept of Journalism on one hand and the general level of discourse on the other, screeches foams and soils himself over the notion of someone vaguely similar on the ostensible Left gets his ridiculous assertions backed up by a reporter for a newspaper that is owned by a genuinely dangerous right-wing ideologue who has gone as far as to proclaim himself the Messiah and"True Parent"...I mean, seriously, The Washington Times is to print journalism what Inchon was to cinema...nothing but a titanic money-losing stroke to Rev. Moon's ego and ideology, it doesn't exactly strike me as the most credible thing in the world
Nice dump, Crap...Good point.
These ding-bat Cons are trying to convince people that the GOP is out there on a corner with a tin cup just trying to keep the peoples movement alive. What a joke! They've probably got twice as many millionaire and billionaire donors as the Dems.
Brock exposed em' all in his great book, "The Republican Noise Machine." The Olin Foundation I think is one on them, and Richard Mellon Scaife, and on, and on ... and on.
The simple fact of the matter is, if MMFA had the truth on their side as they claim, they would have sued O'Reilly and FOX News the FIRST time this story aired on the Factor because if it was an elaborate plot that O'Reilly had dreamed up, then it would be a violation of slander laws. However, the MMFA, as radical and loony as they are, possess enough sense not to sue FOX because they know that the FOX News lawyers would summon and expose all of MMFA's financial records to the public before MMFA even got the lawsuit out of their mouth. The financial records would show that this was not a right-wing sceme to convince people that MMFA is funded by Soros and the Democracy Alliance, but in fact, it was the truth. So, until head coolaid drinker David Brock, decides that it is time to emerge out of insanity and into the ring with the truth, neither MMFA or any radical liberal will convince most Americans that the right made up this story.
Injector, I may be wrong, but I believe a slander suit has to prove damage to the party that the lie is told about. There would be no negative connotation to MMFA receiving money from Soros if it were true, except in the minds of those gullible enough to get their opinions from the right- wing media, who spend a lot of time advancing the image of Soros as "evil".
MMFA simply points out that it's not true, then roving gangs of Republicans come here asking why they're denying it.
Then posters here explain that they deny it because it's not true, and they don't sue for slander or libel because there is nothing damaging in the fabricated accusation.
Then it starts all over again.
Allow me to point out your errors.
Slander is defined as oral communication of false statements that are injurous to a person's (or organizations's) reputation. Typical causes for action include cases where the defamatory act is of public concern, and fault amounts to negligence on the part of the publisher. I do beleive it is clear that if O'Reilly's public claims about how MMFA recieves its funds were utterly false, O'Reilly and FOX news could be sued under the slander laws in this country. However, as I pointed out to you, MMFA will not sue FOX because they of course do not want their financial records made public since they have information to hide.
Let me make this even simpler for you to understand. MMFA is a public and non-profit organization. Therefore, as a non-profit organization, MMFA should have absolutely no issue with making their financial records public in a case like this, where claims intended to ruin their public credibility and reputation are continually being hurled by FOX and other media organizations. Non-profit organizations are not competing for sales or market share, so thier financial records should be transparent. The fact that MMFA does not sue FOX in a case where if MMFA were telling the truth, they would be able to legally prove O'Reilly a liar, casts enormous doubt on their denial of these accusations. I sincerely hope that I was able to assist you in comprehending the issue at hand.
---"injurous to a person's (or organizations's) reputation"---
Soros is an an Evil Nazi Collaborator who is gradually taking over the Universe.
That's the right-wing, paranoid mindset.
In reality--where the vast majority of us sane and less-rabid folks live--Soros would simply cut a check to Media Matters if he wanted them to have money.
No injuries to anyone's reputations.
Soros is a convicted felon in France for insider trading.
Uhhh, Injector, Thank you for your comments, and for taking the time to "point out my errors".
Except you didn't point out any errors on my part, you just continued to avoid or misunderstand the point; there iwould be no "damage" to reputation involved if MMFA were to receive money from Soros.
If you're going to be stoopid, don't be condescending at the same time. Bad combination.
Just as soon as all the right-wing idiots who insist that MMFA's financial records be made public, publish theirs daily on every web site in the universe, so that we may for the next seven years, disect, dispute, and use whenever malice may indicate, those records against you and yours, I will join in urging MMFA to publish their records (which will disclose my name and particulars) for your inspection. Since I am already somewhat disgruntled by disclosures from (past) campaign contributions as a source of publication of my information, I assure you, other than personal possession of the full financial records of every Repugnant on the planet, I will not support more from MMFA than truthful denial that Soros is financing this site.
How would you prove damages in that slander case? Soros couldn't sue because it doesn't hurt him monetarily, as far as I can see. MMfA can't very likely do it because that lie isn't likely to cost them anything. They're going to get less contributions or less funding because of an attempt to link them to Soros?
Your premise that lack of legal action proves the link to be true is highly flawed.
----"if it was an elaborate plot that O'Reilly had dreamed up"----
But O'Reilly didn't dream up an elaborate plot. He presented a PowerPoint slide! With incriminating, bright-white, laser-like arrows, and a very damaging red background color, and other stuff. Totally different.
Hey Injector...
Why hasn't Faux sued David Brock?
Oh, never mind. I don't want to interupt you, you're probably having some kool-aid.
Wow as looney as you are you apparantly know very little about libel laws. Even IF you were correct, which you arent, why sue? Denying a charge he has no evidence of his plenty. Not suing him is evidence of NOTHING. Why make it personal especially since there is no real harm done. Anyone with a functioning brain knows O'falfels has less credibility than a weatherman who uses goat entrails to predict the weather. You not only have no point you have embarassed yourself with the inanity of your post.
Soros funding or not aside, I believe that O'Reilly is doing himself a disservice by bring all this attention media matters. He is railing against them so emphatically, claiming that they take everything out of context, that they only present two or three sentences, etc. Anyone, possibly directed here by his vitriol, who bothers to take a look is going to find accurate transcripts with far more than a few sentences of context. So he will only be exposing himself as a poor source of information, thus weakening not only this but ALL of his arguements.
Yeah Whack,
I think that O'Reilly has tried for a while to just hope that Media Matters would "go away."
But Brock and Co. have so exposed him (indeed, shown beyond any doubt that he's an utter fool), that out of desperation he tries to strike back. He strikes back in a way you'd expect from this petty, bloviating, unrelenting bag of filth--with lies and baseless garbage.
O'Reilly is a disgrace to all Americans.
"Except you didn't point out any errors on my part, you just continued to avoid or misunderstand the point; there iwould be no "damage" to reputation involved if MMFA were to receive money from Soros"
No lefty, thank you for your meaningless tirade. Although I tried very hard to put it in simple terms for you to understand, you still seem to have missed the boat. The "damage" in this case, would be Fox as well as the New York Times now as well, slandering MMFA by claiming that MMFA is lying about their financial records to sever any ties between them and Soros. Since it is apparent to me by your use of rhetoric that none of you in here our lawers, or know how slander laws work, I will defer to the lawers who I have consulted about this issue. It appears that this type of "damage" that I have pointed out would constitute a lawsuit should the MMFA wish to push foward. As I have stated twice now, the MMFA will not push forward because they know that their claims will be reputed in court when the financial records are brought to light.
So HBlefty, before you try to insult me and after you learn to spell the word "stupid" correctly, try to think a little harder about what is being said.
No need for the long posts, again, you've missed the point. All you need to do is answer one question, and it shouldn't take more than one sentence, to build a foundation for your slander case, and save yourself;
Q. What damage would be done to MMFA if they were to receive money from George Soros?
A. If MMFA has received funds from Soros, then they have publicly lied by denying that they have not, thus badly tarnishing the reputation and integrity of the entire organization. Proving that they have not lied would be accmplished by a successful slander suit agianst those who have accused them.
Injector, what you've finally been specific about is damage done to MMFA's reputation in a hypothetical case of MMFA being exposed as liars in a slander case.
This would be a good argument if you were suggesting MMFA sue themselves for slander retroactively for damaging facts brought to light during their slander case against others.Of course, if they were proven to be lying, their case wouldn't stand a chance, as the charges would be true, not to mention forced into the public eye by their own law suit.
Do you get it now? There is no basis for a slander suit if the only damages possible are those that could be sustained during the course of that very same slander suit. This is even giving you the benefit of assuming there is some lying on MMFA's part, handicapping you on your conspiracy theories.
This is the same sort of merry-go-round logic that has callers to talk radio believing that Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury that he committed during his impeachment trial.Do you see the space-time continuum problem there.
I realize you may just be playing dumb to see who bites, as this has been discussed here at great length, but I thought I'd try one more time. If you still don't get it, go back to the start and read again.I don't think I can explain it in any more detail.
You're welcome.
Unbelievable. HBlefty is the best you liberals here have to offer me?
I have tried three times now to show that MMFA had the opportunity to sue based on reputational damage done by numerous media organizations the very first time the stories were printer or aired. It has absolutely nothing to do with new slander which occured after the fact. If I am a journalist and I intentionally make a false claim against an organization or individual which could damage their reputation, I am committing slander and can be held legally responsible. Of course, on MMFA's site, they claim that the people who fabricated these stories did it with the intent of smearing MMFA. Therefore, that point is made for me without any work necessary. So now we have all the pieces to the slander puzzle and are ready to sue. Ready but unwilling.
I'm almost insulted that this site cannot offer me somone who can provide some sort of coherent argument to challenge me. This was supposed to be challenging and fun, but it has turned out to be neither. I know for a fact that there are sharper folks on here than lefty. Bring on the heavy-hitters.
Lets supose you are right and I dont think you are. The level of damage dont to a professional journalist, that is his career by saying he is lying would not be the same as a website with no professional or monetary damage that could be shown, so what? There are reasons NOT to sue. It makes MMFA look petty and the whole argument personal. Nothing can be deduced by the fact MMFA hasnt sued other than the fact THEY HAVENT SUED. That is NOT evidence that O'Reilly's claim is true, not even close. Even IF there were no reason NOT to sue which there is what is the point of suing, what do they have to gain? They are a non profit, there is no monetary motive. You have no point.
Scenario # 1
Media Matters has not received money from Soros. O'Reilly asserts they have. They sue O'Reilly for slander. They lose because they have not suffered as a result of what O'Reilly said! There's no shame in getting money from Soros. They don't get money from him, but there's no shame in it even if they did.
Scenario # 2
Media Matters gets money from Soros, but denies it. O'Reilly asserts they have. They sue O'Reilly for slander. Again, they lose, because what he said was true. They lose credibility.
In either scenario, they cannot win a slander suit.
So, there's no reason to file any kind of a slander suit. Your strawman is that they should file one, because theire IS some value in filing one, and since Media Matters hasn't and apparently won't file one, you try to assert that they must be scared to file one because O'Reilly's charges are true. Since it wouldn't do them any good to file if the charges were false, you've proven nothing with your strawman.
Do you gotten a clue yet? You are the one who is clueless, not HBL.
Thanks, NotThatGeorge, I was going to lay out the lose/lose situation as well, but you did it pretty clearly. I think injector may have finally gotten it, seems to have slithered off after declaring pretend victory.
Kind of sad when you hypothetically give them their assumptions and false charges and their argument still doesn't hold water. ;0D
I'm smelling a setup here. You want MMFA to sue so you can turn around and accuse them of being lawsuit happy liberals. Nice try, but the only place this strawman belongs is in the corn field.
"No need for the long posts..."
Especially if you want them to be read.
That just proves that you would rather bask in ignorance than take the time to read a few sentences. Commendable.
Providing facts and figures is a waste of time when dealing with the right-wing nut jobs. You could have a record of every cent George Soros ever made and spent and every cent Media Matters ever received and the fantasy-based right wing would never believe it.
Facts only mean something to people who are intellectually honest. O'Reilly and the Washington Times are not interested in facts and truth.
Even if some rich person gave money to Media Matters it probably would never compare to the piles of money given to right-wing causes by Richard Mellon Scaif and the rest of the radical fringe millionaires.
What this business about suing
I thought that all Republicans were interested in tort reform. Now you want Soros to sue? Isn't slander one of the hardest cases to prove?
"Isn't slander one of the hardest cases to prove?"
It can be very difficult to prove in some cases. However, this would be an open and shut case for MMFA if they truly have the evidence to back their denial. If FOX News did fabricate the story about the Soros and MMFA connection, then FOX would indeed be guilty of slandering MMFA as well as Soros because false claims were made in an attempt to discredit and ruin reputations. However, most rational Americans trust the findings of investigations which have exposed this funding via public financial records, which are maintained by organizations such as the SEC for audit purposes.
Injector, I've put the part in bold that you should focus on.
"If FOX News did fabricate the story about the Soros and MMFA connection, then FOX would indeed be guilty of slandering MMFA as well as Soros because false claims were made in an attempt to discredit and ruin reputations. However, most rational Americans trust the findings of investigations which have exposed this funding via public financial records, which are maintained by organizations such as the SEC for audit purposes.- Injector
This is the meat of your whole argument, and you're still dodging it.
How would receiving money from Soros "discredit and ruin reputations"?
That's all I can do for you. Good NIght.
No offense but I heard that "open and shut" business from a lawyer and I lost.
Media Matters doesn't attack people because they attack Media Matters.
They expose conservative misinformation because it's a vital thing to do.
Many people who attack Media Matters do so with misinformation.
Why do so many people have an issue with inaccurate cause and effect fallacies?
So this fascist dingbat (who claims to be an independent!) from his perch within a far-right birdcage, funded by a far-right political activist, is attacking Media Matters with allegations it receives some funding from a liberal activist source... so what? Can someone please tell me why this is even a story or why you even bother debunking this idiot? Why are you wasting your time?
Even if Media Matters did get money from George Soros... who cares?
Media Matters got mentioned in the news again! Quick, write an article about it!....that's why this is going on. It's all about basking in publicity.
In old Rome, there were two parties, the Greens and the Blues. Both were right-wing, both loved the arrogance and militarism of the Imperium, both supported wealthy Senators who cared nothing for the poor and downtrodden. They would riot against each other in the streets after the chariot races, usually stirred up by their Senatorial masters as a way to intimidate the other side into voting for their private personal gain. That's what we see here, bickering between two right-wing parties over who gets the spoils of the Empire. While the heart of the Empire decays into destitution and decadance. A little bit of history repeating.
"Can someone please tell me why this is even a story or why you even bother debunking this idiot?"
I'd be glad to, in case it's an honest question.
For too long, too many on the left thought that nonsense like this was too stupid to even try to refute. They learned better.
Kerry didn't fight back against the SBV's, not because he didn't have the ammunition, but because he mistakenly thought that their obvious smears were beneath reply. See where that got him?
The right started the lie that there was clear evidence of a liberal bias in the media, and the media did nothing to debunk that argument. It's now a given that there is/was a liberal media bias, because it was said so much.
That's why this is covered. That's why it's not ignored. That's why the debunk idiots like O'Reilly.
I hope it was an honest question. I fear it was not.
I'll give you 10 - 1 this Piece of crap op=Ed is what the uninformed caler to Bill Bennet's show was referring to this morning. He knew it was true because bill O'liely quoted it from the New York Times.
Uninformed, misineformed, propagandized scophants are proof that the Big Lie works.
Well, well...a little progress. mmfa has now released data from OSI/Tides for 2004/2005 and CAP for 2005. A slow drip is better than nothing at all.
- Media Matters has also received no funding from the Democracy Alliance, which does not itself make grants. - mmfa
Whoa nelson...not so fast. Stein, the founder of Dem. Alliance says otherwise:
We have a very small thing called an “ innovation fund” that makes very small grants to c-3 organizations.
And the Democracy Alliance, just so you know, we're a funder. We are not out there developing ideas and policies. We fund organizations that hopefully are.
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.
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.
Fancy footwork by mma...but the fact remains...Soros supports liberal groups with donations...these groups contribute to mmfa. They receive Soros money...directly or indirectly...but it is Soros money.
No, it's not Soros's money.
As Solon has clearly pointed out to you and other multiple times, once it leaves my pocket, it's not my money any more. If my mechanic goes out and buys drugs, it's not as a result of my giving him money. He chose to buy drugs with the money I gave him for the services he provided me, but I didn't cause him to make that choice.
Unless you can prove that Soros told any group to provide Media Matters with any money, then you've got nothing.
You've got nothing.
From Gara Lamarche, VP of OSI:
"Soros is active in Democracy Alliance, and he has high hopes for it because it's very important, he believes, for there to be an association of donors..."
He's hardly a disinterested donor...flinging money to his mechanic to buy drugs with. The connection is clear...unless mmfa wants to release the info to prove otherwise.
I'd like to know why it's so darn important to you to make that link when you clearly couldn't give a crap that Faux is owned by a billionaire australian (who just failed in his bid to buy the NYSE) and that other reich wing paper, the Washingon Times, is owned by a billionaire Korean with known mafia ties?
It's not that important to me that Soros funds mmfa...as I've said repeatedly.
My issue is the shabby defense posed by mmfa that they don't receive Soros money. They have ducked this issue over and over...that is what I find strange. If they receive no Soros money...release the information and put the issue to rest.
This type of dodging puts them in the Hannity class.
And you don't find O'Reilly's phony looking chart suspect?
I've also said repeatedly that I don't base my opinion on any blathering or charts from O'Reilly.
On a side note, you know what this website really needs? An option to jump to page #. I hate having to repeatedly click next, next, next...
Yeah, I agree. I use the firefox browser and they let you set up tabs for multiple pages. You can leave a particular page on the thread open and refresh to see any new comments at that point in the thread.
But, I still agree, a "page jump" option would be very handy.
You can modify the http line where it says Offset: - just type in the the message you want to jump to.
But getting back to point, I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. This argument is a useless blathering point.
Could be.
But it's my mountain/mole hill...it affects how I view their credibilty.
David Brock and Dear MM team;
Be careful... You're buying into the conservative frame that it's a bad thing to be funded by George Soros. Point out that the charges are wrong, but don't buy into the presumption that a Soros connection is shameful and requires vehement denials.
Soros was convicted of insider trading in France. You do not want to associate with a man like that no matter if you are right or left. MMFA loses a lot of credibility by associating with someone convicted of insider trading.
Not only has Soros been convincted of insider trading, but he has also been banned from trading in China because he simply does not care about anyone but himself, and is willing and able to ruin the financial status of countries through speculation and under valuing currency. He has made his fortune by insider trading, and skimming billions of tax payer dollars from other countries through speculation. Soros is also a proponent of a nearly socialist form of government, which would feature open borders, the loss of the right to bear arms, abortion, and many other practices which would transform our free society into chaos and then socialism. If MMFA is truly associated with a man like this, then their reputation has been severely tarnished.