About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Politico largely ignored Giuliani-ISG story, still flogging Edwards' haircuts

June 20, 2007 1:55 pm ET
image

143 Comments

The Politico, which purports to cover "the politics of Capitol Hill and of the presidential campaign ... with enterprise, style, and impact," largely ignored a June 19 Newsday article reporting that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) "membership on" the Iraq Study Group (ISG) "came to an abrupt end last spring after he failed to show up for a single official meeting of the group." By contrast, The Politico continues to report on former Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) $400 haircuts and their effect on his presidential campaign.

Newsday reported on June 19 that Giuliani, rather than attend the ISG meetings, delivered speeches that earned him $300,000:

Rudolph Giuliani's membership on an elite Iraq study panel came to an abrupt end last spring after he failed to show up for a single official meeting of the group, causing the panel's top Republican to give him a stark choice: either attend the meetings or quit, several sources said.

Giuliani left the Iraq Study Group last May after just two months, walking away from a chance to make up for his lack of foreign policy credentials on the top issue in the 2008 race, the Iraq war.

He cited "previous time commitments" in a letter explaining his decision to quit, and a look at his schedule suggests why -- the sessions at times conflicted with Giuliani's lucrative speaking tour that garnered him $11.4 million in 14 months.

Giuliani failed to show up for a pair of two-day sessions that occurred during his tenure, the sources said -- and both times, they conflicted with paid public appearances shown on his recent financial disclosure. Giuliani quit the group during his busiest stretch in 2006, when he gave 20 speeches in a single month that brought in $1.7 million.

Journalist and blogger Joshua Micah Marshall discussed the story's significance in a June 19 entry to his Talking Points Memo weblog, writing: "So Rudy's running on terrorism and Iraq. But he got booted off a congressionally-mandated blue ribbon panel because he couldn't be bothered to show up for the meetings. It conflicted with his for-a-price speaking gigs. Like I said, it's the kind of story that ends campaigns." Indeed, the Politico has acknowledged that Giuliani is casting himself as "tough" on national security and terrorism. For instance, chief political columnist Roger Simon wrote in an April 26 article: "Giuliani, whose past positions on abortion, gun control and gay rights have made him anathema to some in his party, believes his tough stance on national defense and his post-Sept. 11 reputation as a fighter of terrorism will be his trump card with doubting Republicans."

The Politico, however, did not report on Giuliani's exit from the ISG. A search conducted by Media Matters for America revealed that the only attention the Politico gave the story were two short blog entries by senior political writers Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith. Acknowledging that he did not set out to report on the Giuliani-ISG story, Martin wrote on June 19: "Without asking for it, I received pushback from Rudy's camp on the Newsday story today which reports that Giuliani quit the Iraq Study Group after being told by James Baker to show up at the meetings or resign from the panel." Martin uncritically accepted the Giuliani campaign's "pushback":

Said a Giuliani campaign official:

"Once again, the paper wrote a story with little regard to the facts. The facts are these -- as someone considered a potential presidential candidate, the Mayor didn't want the group's work to become a political football. That, coupled with time constraints, led to his decision."

The sensitivity - as demonstrated by the shot at a news organization -- reflects the danger of the story. It's not just that he missed two sessions of the panel, but that he did so because he was giving paid speeches.

Or, as Newsday puts it in newspaper-ese, "By giving up his seat on the panel, Giuliani has opened himself up to charges that he chose private-sector paydays and politics over unpaid service on a critical issue facing the nation."

In fairness to Rudy, though, many of us in the press probably would have been squawking about conflict-of-interest matters had he stayed on the panel through December, by which point his presidential ambitions had become obvious.

As blogger and media critic Greg Sargent noted, however, Giuliani's claim that "as someone considered a potential presidential candidate" he "didn't want the group's work to become a political football" is undermined by the fact that Giuliani had hinted at the possibility of running for president months before his role with the ISG was announced in March 2006. Smith noted the Newsday story and Sargent's critique of Giuliani's response in a June 20 blog entry, writing: "Newsday's piece on Rudy Giuliani's non-service on the Iraq Study Group got a bit lost yesterday (at least in my head) amid a lot of other 2008 news, but its implication, that he was more concerned about speaking fees than Iraq policy, is pretty damaging."

In the June 20 edition of his daily "Politico Playbook" -- which purports to offer "a quick look at news that will drive the political conversation over the next 24 hours" -- Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen mentioned Giuliani several times, but only in relation to current New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's announcement that he had left the Republican Party. Allen did not note Newsday's reporting.

But while the Politico made no mention of the Giuliani-ISG story in any article, a June 20 article by Allen and senior political writer Ben Smith once again revisited the effects Edwards' haircuts are allegedly having on his campaign. Allen and Smith wrote:

Asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews why the Democratic Party is having such a hard time connecting with the American people, Edwards shot back with a big smile: "Well, this Democrat's not having trouble connecting with the American people, I can tell you that!"

In fact, though, his campaign has many worries. For starters, Edwards has never really gotten over the scalding publicity for what Republicans and his Democratic opponents call "the three h's" -- the haircut that cost $400, his huge house and his lucrative involvement with a hedge fund.

As Media Matters noted, Smith "broke" the Edwards haircut story in an April 16 blog entry, and the story was immediately seized upon by the media. Blogger Glenn Greenwald wrote that The Politico appeared to have an "obsession" with the story, noting that the publication referenced Edwards' haircuts at least eight times between April 16 and May 3, while eschewing other political news stories "of even marginal significance."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 2:05 pm ET)
         

      So now it's not only "conservative misinformation", but it's also "conservative misinformation by omission". 

      Got it.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sueelldd (June 20, 2007 2:10 pm ET)
           

        Yes and I get it too.

        Can not discuss Edwards and his haircut but we must discuss every aspect of Rudy. Also Bloomberg in EVERY interview has to be asked about the 2004 GOP Convention and the NYPD Spying. But its not ok to ask Hillary about the missing Rose Law Firm Files, and why is it not ok?  Great logic.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (June 20, 2007 2:20 pm ET)
             

          Not every aspect of Rudy, just the ones that falsely portray him as "America's Mayor" a.k.a. the hero of 9/11.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by DorisRussell (June 20, 2007 2:27 pm ET)
             

          Sueeld

          The media has not been telling the entire Rudy story. That needs to be told. The Abmer Luima issue, not funding safety equipment for the NYFD , the T&LC nepotism. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Wes1 (June 20, 2007 3:11 pm ET)
               

            They're also not telling the entire haircut story.  I like Edwards, but he blew his chances because 1) he was too cheap to pay the $400 out of his own pocket, using campaign funds instead which require disclosure and was therefore caught, and 2) not realizing #1 would happen.  It's not like this is his first rodeo.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by bingvangorden (June 20, 2007 3:34 pm ET)
                 

              oh shut up! if you are no longer for Edwards because of a haircut you are pretty shallow.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 3:36 pm ET)
                   

                I would say spending $400 for, like, a cute little shampoo and set, like, is a little, like, shallow......gawd.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by bingvangorden (June 20, 2007 3:40 pm ET)
                     

                  I could agree with that if he walked into a salon but we are talking about having a "stylist" come to his hotel on little notice. 400 bucks is kind of low for that kind of thing. Personally I use an electric shaver and a no.2 attachment in my bathroom. Those hair people are vampires!

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 3:42 pm ET)
                       

                    Bing,

                    Edward's haircut is really meaningless, I was just having a little fun with it.........and there have been way too many threads here about that too...so what?  I am no fan of Edwards but not because of his haircut bill, that's for sure.

                    And $400 is a car payment, not a salon visit.  But then I can't do a thing with my hair, so who am I to judge?  :)

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Think for Yourself If You Can (June 21, 2007 11:31 am ET)
                         

                      I agree with Tommy about his comment of misinformation by omission.  There are myriad things that could be brought up instead of Edwards' haircut, not just Giuliani's failure at being well-educated/well-informed about a crucial issue.  Bringing up the Giuliani story to juxtapose what conservative media omits, merely represents Media Matters as an attack dog, instead of a watchdog. 

                      That being said, however, what the media omits, the order in which they present stories, what they juxtapose stories with, IS important.  Those decisions are made by producers, executives, editors, etc.  Media Matters should've presented us with more options of what Politico could have discussed, instead of merely targeting Giuliani, that way we can substantively complain to the show about their "journalism."  I'm sure this Giuliani story is among many that could have been discussed. 

                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by jeter2 (June 20, 2007 3:46 pm ET)
                       

                    If Edwards were a savvy politician he would have gotten his haircut in Mayberry at Floyd's Barber Shop ;-)

                    If Edwards had any smarts he would have realized that spending $400 on his haircut [yes yes we know he can afford it] is a slap in the face to those folks who probably bring home a paycheck less than that a week. You know the other America.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by bingvangorden (June 20, 2007 3:56 pm ET)
                         

                      I just think there are bigger issues than the amount of money spent on a haircut. And the guy gave the appropriate response. He was thoroughly embarrassed by it. I think the Guliani dissing the Iraq Study Group for paid speaking engagements says more about the man than an expensive haircut says about Edwards.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by jeter2 (June 20, 2007 4:03 pm ET)
                           

                        I think the Guliani dissing the Iraq Study Group for paid speaking engagements says more about the man than an expensive haircut says about Edwards.

                        True enough, but it does show Edwards lack of thinking ahead of how things might appear.

                        I'd put Edwards involvement with a hedge fund that dealt in subprime loans more equal to Rudy's situation.

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 4:06 pm ET)
                           

                        Bing, I also think this is just another example of the direction this website appears to be taking....and that is fine but it doesn't square with their mission statement or the name MMFA, which is about conservative MISinformation.  

                        It's obvious they wanted to get this ISG-Guiliani out on their website, somehow, someway, because of their political motivation, agenda-driven advocacy stance on the 2008 election, among other issues.  There was no conservative misinformation here, nobody falsely reported the story and there is no emphasis here on that.  The emphasis is comparing it to the attention Edward's received, which is totally unrelated in anyway - but it's the link they used to get this story out.

                        I suggest a name change to "Democratic Advocacy Matters for America"

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by wesley (June 20, 2007 4:14 pm ET)
                             

                          Correctamundo...their media watchdog tiara has slipped. Under the guise of reporting conservative misinformation...they have become a mouthpiece for the democrat party.

                          And that's ok with me...except their mission statement has become misinformation in itself. 

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 4:18 pm ET)
                               

                            Yep, they should change the mission statement to include being political advocates for the DNC......why try and hide that?  It's all good.

                            My opinion.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by AmericanMutt (June 21, 2007 10:51 am ET)
                                 

                              answering yourself again name-flipper? how pathetic you are LOL!

                              Report Abuse
                          • Author by magnolialover (June 20, 2007 5:06 pm ET)
                               

                            It's the democratic party. Please get it right. I know you guys have a hard time with such things.

                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by solon (June 21, 2007 1:54 am ET)
                               

                            No they havent showing a pattern of giving more favorable coverage to those in the ReNAMBLAcan party than those in the DemocratIC party IS showing media misinformation in a way I agree with. You ReNAMBLAcans just hate it when this double standard is exposed

                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by Wes1 (June 20, 2007 4:31 pm ET)
                           

                        I could care less if he spent $1000 a day on his hair...he should have paid for it with his own money!

                        Like I said, if he's making these mistakes now, the next Swift Boat Liars are going to bury him.  Come on, people!  It's time to play rough and the fact that Limpbo already has this framed means it's over!  Next, please.

                        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (June 20, 2007 2:41 pm ET)
             

          Damned right Bloomberg has to answer. He used my tax dollars to spy on American citizens.

          Since he seems poised to start his third party run for the White House, he'll have to answer a lot of questions.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (June 20, 2007 2:18 pm ET)
           

        Yet another snide and witty zinger from Tommy that has no teeth. 

        MMFA clearly spells out their definition of  'conservative misinformation'.

        Just in case you can't find it: 

        "news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda"

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Sueelldd (June 20, 2007 2:18 pm ET)
             

          Depends on whose teeth you are using. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Blue Fielder (June 20, 2007 2:31 pm ET)
               

            Build a boat so you won't drown in your tears, whiny whiny wingnut.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by Chromium (June 20, 2007 4:58 pm ET)
             

          So this is the "misinformation":

           The Politico, which purports">[link to www.politico.com] to cover "the politics of Capitol Hill and of the presidential campaign ... with enterprise, style, and impact," largely ignored a June 19 Newsday article

           

          that supposedly">[link to www.newsday.com] fits the template:

          "news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda"

          Not accurate:  "largely igoring" a story has no accuracy aspect

          Not reliable:  "largely ignoring" a story has not reliability aspect

          Not credible:  "largely ignoring" a story has nothing to do with somethings credibility 

          "Enterprise, style, and impact" sounds like nearly meaningless fluff to me, like "brand spanking new".  (By the way, what are the differences between "new" "brand new" and "brand spanking new"?)

          To keep their tax exempt status, MMFA must pretend to cling to their mission statement, but this article is another example of how they routinely ignore it.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (June 20, 2007 6:21 pm ET)
               

            If you're suggesting that MMFA should start paying taxes, then I'm all for it.

            Just as soon as we tax the churches.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by conleytgwinn (June 20, 2007 10:50 pm ET)
                 

              Step #1 - the churches

              Step #2 - the creepuscles at whom AMT was aimed - surely we can find some way to get those sorry SOBs to pay a fair share?

              Report Abuse
          • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (June 20, 2007 7:08 pm ET)
               

            Not reliable:  "largely ignoring" a story has not reliability aspect- MissouriShowMe

            Would you call your doctor reliable if he was "largely ignoring" obvious symptoms of a disease in your test results?

            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (June 21, 2007 1:58 am ET)
               

            largely ignoring one story while touting a comparable story because on is about a Republican and the other about a Democrat is certainly furthering a conservative agenda. And yes IGNORING a story most CERTAINLY has an accuracy aspect. If I report a fire on the rich side of town that burns down a mansion and kills no one yet IGNORE a fire in a factory that kills a couple of people how in the WORLD is that an accurate portrayal of what is happening in a town?

            Report Abuse
      • Author by monknj80 (June 20, 2007 2:20 pm ET)
           

        I'd say it is when Guiliani (GOP leading candidate) is running on being a terror expert (some weird fantasy he has) signs up for the ISG and then feels it isn't important enough to make one single meeting. I think that's more significant tan Edwards hair cut. If the politico is what they claim to be a little more light would be shed on certain things. The two items in question should at the least recieve equal coverage.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brian in FL (June 20, 2007 3:15 pm ET)
             

          I think you guys are wasting your time explaining to Tommy how Giuliani leaving the Iraq Study Group is more important than non-stories like Edward's hair cuts. I don't think Tommy is stupid. He knows damn well which one should be focussed on more by the media. He's just a troll who wants to try to discredit every piece Media Matters posts, even when he knows they're correct.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 3:19 pm ET)
               

            Please show me where I said which was a more important study than the other?  My comment went to criticizing a media outlet for NOT reporting something, yet, that this website wants more focus on.......for political reasons.  

            It's the advocacy wing of MMFA, apparently.  The covering of misinformation that has already occurred is taking a back seat to that agenda, as evidenced by this thread.

            So you lie about what I said and call me a troll......you bad.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by bingvangorden (June 20, 2007 3:37 pm ET)
                 

              Tommy is no troll. Whether you respect his opinion or not Tommy is one of the most consistent posters on this site. And he takes plenty of abuse in the process. He may be a masochist! But he's no troll.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 3:43 pm ET)
                   

                Bing, You're a nice guy, thanks.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by bingvangorden (June 20, 2007 3:59 pm ET)
                     

                  I can be at times. It isn't always the case though, as you know. ;^}

                  Report Abuse
              • Author by AmericanMutt (June 21, 2007 10:54 am ET)
                   

                until he gets it into his head that you are 'really' someone else or if you ask him hard questions, then watch out. he is only consistent in his dishonesty.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by CaseySpring (June 20, 2007 4:45 pm ET)
               

            Tommy is not a troll, you may disagree with him on issues like I do at times, but he is not a troll or hateful like Sue/Ellie. Be consistent or is partisanness made you blind?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by MHK (June 20, 2007 4:59 pm ET)
                 

              Talk about being obsessed.

              and to borrow a phrase from my favorite conservative poster on this site, it's really getting kind of creepy.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by BushLied (June 20, 2007 5:04 pm ET)
                   

                What is the obsession, he is making a valid statement?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by MHK (June 20, 2007 5:21 pm ET)
                     

                   "but he is not a troll or hateful like Sue/Ellie"

                   Does anyone even know who this person actually is?  It's all speculation and Casey posts it at every given opportunity even when it's not relevant to the conversation in question.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 5:50 pm ET)
                       

                    Good point, I imagine he is as anonymous as the rest of us are.

                    (eye roll)

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by DorisRussell (June 20, 2007 6:02 pm ET)
                       

                    Just like when a certain poster brings me up in discussions when I do not even post such as happened last week when a certain poster brought me up about Olbermann when I never even commented on the thread. I agree Casey, good job!!!!!! I also believe however we should try and stick to the issues. 

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by NotThatGeorge (June 20, 2007 6:07 pm ET)
                       

                    It's not a valid point.

                    I'm not Sue or Ellie. I read this site for about a year while still at a job that didn't allow me to post comments, and then when I retired a couple of months ago and moved south to live near my son-in-law and my grandkids while one of my daughters is in the service, but I must sound like Sue and/or they think it's a way to discredit a threatening voice like me!

                    It' stupid and irrelevant and makes them look like hypocrites when it's clear that many of the rightwing trolls keep coming back!

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by BushLied (June 20, 2007 6:18 pm ET)
                         

                      So I am a right wing troll Sue?

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by NotThatGeorge (June 20, 2007 6:29 pm ET)
                           

                        I am liberal. It's the rightwing trolls who, by and large, return after being banned.

                        I don't care who you are. I was talking about the hypocrisy of the right wing trolls who make unfair smears about me!

                        I'm not a troll. I'm not a sockpuppet. I replied to another poster's comment, not yours, anyway, so I have no idea why you think I was including you in that description!!!

                        To address your comment, it's not a valid statement to say that I'm a sockpuppet, so your statement is an unfair smear. If you're a liberal poster, fine. I don't care. It doesn't change the fact that what you said was not true!

                        Report Abuse
              • Author by JLyons (June 20, 2007 9:34 pm ET)
                   

                As a past victim of Sue/Ellie , I roll my eyes that she continues this day under a new identity and some posters actually defend the venom and hate that is spewed . 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by NotThatGeorge (June 20, 2007 11:11 pm ET)
                     

                  Well, except for the point that I'm not Sue, and except for the point that I have never attacked you, and except for the point that it's mostly the  rightwing trolls coming back who disrupt this site, along with people like you who disrupt this site by making unfair smears towards me, you might have a point.

                  Since all you did was try to claim that I'm a sockpuppet who attacked you in the past, when in  fact I am not a sockpuppet,  you have no point  except the one that's at the top of your head. Don't even try to whine about how I'm attacking you by saying you have a pointy head, because you're the one who unfairly smeared  me by saying I'm a sockpuppet.

                  The "venom and hatred" I spew? That would b the characteristics of the rightwingers making unrelated and irrelevant unfair smears of me who are spewing venom and hatred. I call people numbskulls after they act like idiots! I attack behavior, and then classify people as numbskulls  after they've exhibited that behavior! Numbskulls like you are easily confused by that I guess.

                  If you somehow  think it's okay for you to unfairly smear me by saying that I'm a sockpuppet who spews venom and hatred, or that after being falsely accused of those things I should meekly walk away,  you're wrong. It's not okay for you to unfairly smear me, and in return, you'll get treated exactly as your unfair comments earned you the treatment you deserved! 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by EvilRepublicansnow (June 21, 2007 6:59 am ET)
                       

                    You are unable to go one night without calling someone names? How low will you go?

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by BushLied (June 21, 2007 8:04 am ET)
                         

                      I am really amazed that Sue is allowed to get away with the name calling, yet it is a clear violation of the rules.  I for one think Sue is not a liberal but a right wing hater who has been hired to post on here to hurt the good name of Progressives. Calling people "numbskulls" is not only childish, uneducated but quite frankly tiring and as Casey has pointed out "against the rules".

                      Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 5:09 pm ET)
                 

              Thanks Casey, it's fine to have disagreements with certain posters I respect.

              Report Abuse
      • Author by Clear_Thinking (June 20, 2007 2:22 pm ET)
           

        The mission of MMF, according to its "About Us" page is:

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

        If the omission of facts or a story tarnishes the journalistic credibility of the organization and advances the concervative agend, then it falls under MMFA's mission statement.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Harlequin (June 20, 2007 2:28 pm ET)
           

        Two issues the Conservatives can discuss Rudy missing the ISG meetings or Edwards haircut. Top priority Edwards haircut.

        Super Hero Rudy faced with a dilemma. To his right is the world hanging on the edge of the cliff and to his left is a dollar bill. He must make his choice in split seconds. He cannot save them both. In true Conservative fashion Rudy flys towards the dollar bill.

        Rudy lost the world but he is a dollar richer. The Hero of the Conservative crowd.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by steve expat (June 20, 2007 7:51 pm ET)
           

        Why is this conservative misinformation?  Why doesn't Media Matters defend Rudy Giuliani the way they do Hillary Clinton?  They're both about the same politically?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by NotThatGeorge (June 20, 2007 11:20 pm ET)
             

          It's already been explained why this is an  appropriate thing for Media Matters  to cover.

          Hillary and Rudy are not about the same politically.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (June 21, 2007 12:54 am ET)
             

          Oh no, Stevex, now you're shoehorning your "Hillary campaign site" chant into the threads that have nothing to do with HC!

          You're not Dick Morris, are you? 

          Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (June 21, 2007 2:03 am ET)
             

          That is easy, though the two are somewhat comparable politically, Guiliani is a Republican and Hillary a Democrat therefore the all important STORYLINE which demonizes and trivializes Dems as phony and substanceless while showing Republicans as strong and fearless is furthering a conservative agenda

          Report Abuse
    • Author by BushLied (June 20, 2007 2:06 pm ET)
         

      Easy answer, Poltiico is a tool of Karl Rove.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sueelldd (June 20, 2007 2:12 pm ET)
           

        Moveon.org tell you to say that? 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by justwatching6666 (June 20, 2007 2:18 pm ET)
             

          rove tell you to say that?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Sueelldd (June 20, 2007 2:19 pm ET)
               

            Yeah, I am sure Karl Rove has nothing better to do then call me and tell me what to say on MMFA site.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by justwatching6666 (June 20, 2007 2:22 pm ET)
                 

              i knew it!

              Report Abuse
            • Author by monknj80 (June 20, 2007 2:22 pm ET)
                 

              Of course not he is way too busy manipulating our government in more efficient ways. If you really were a puppet of Karls I'd expect you to make a much better showing than you currently are.

               

              Report Abuse
            • Author by pete592 (June 20, 2007 2:23 pm ET)
                 

              I'm sure you have nothing better to do than log into and belittle an irrelevant website that no one cares about.

               

              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 2:33 pm ET)
                   

                I love it.  The old liberal tolerance for diverse opinion is on full display again as usual......whenever someone dares to question any item up for discussion here the auto retort reads something like > "If you don't like it, then get the f*&* out!"

                Too funny.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by worrierking (June 20, 2007 2:38 pm ET)
                     

                  No one's telling anyone to get the f__k out.

                  But they are responding in kind to a snide remark.

                  You know as well as I, that when you give it, you've got to take it as well.

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by ChristianDemocrat (June 20, 2007 2:47 pm ET)
                     

                  Someone told you to get out on this thread?  I don't see it.  You have no point.  Just exagerating?  Still no point.  Generalizing based on another thread?  Nope...no point.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by justwatching6666 (June 20, 2007 2:53 pm ET)
                       

                    i dont see any "get the f out" either... hmmm.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 2:59 pm ET)
                       

                    Oh please, don't be so naive to insist that some offering up opposing opinions are often told to leave if they don't like it, or why stick around, or you're just being contrary, or why are you wasting your time, etc etc.......it's all the same intent and you know it.  Opposing opinions are welcomed by some, and totally disdained by others here, and that is a fact.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by justwatching6666 (June 20, 2007 3:02 pm ET)
                         

                      no one said it never happens, but where did it happen on this thread, the one you posted on, tommy?

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 3:06 pm ET)
                           

                        Read the original comment I responded to. Translated means why are you here then, or leave if you don't like it.  

                        It was more a comment about the intolerance some liberals have of opposing opinions, something most liberals 40 years ago embraced, some not so much anymore.  Too bad.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by justwatching6666 (June 20, 2007 3:16 pm ET)
                             

                          i thought it was a response to sue's post regarding rove and his instructions to her about this obviously insignificant website (not sue's words, but i am translating for you, tommy). i didn't read it as "get the f out" at all.

                           so all admonishments of "wasting time" and ilk are now supposed to read as "get the f out," do i have that correct?

                           

                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by pete592 (June 20, 2007 3:16 pm ET)
                             

                          For the record, this is your much-heralded "opposing opinion" that I was responding to:

                          "Yeah, I am sure Karl Rove has nothing better to do then call me and tell me what to say on MMFA site."

                          Which was preceded by:

                          "Moveon.org tell you to say that? "

                          "rove tell you to say that?"

                          So you tell me, where did the discourse first descend into freefall?  And why is my comment being cherry picked?

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 3:23 pm ET)
                               

                            My response was to your admonishment to the poster as to "having nothing better to do than....belittle an irrelevant website".

                             

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by ChristianDemocrat (June 20, 2007 3:28 pm ET)
                                 

                              Which Pete is stating was not intended as a "get the f out" directive.  Are you able to translate his words better than he can?  Have you given up on your usual requirement that only the source can explain what he meant?

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 3:30 pm ET)
                                   

                                I specifically said "reads something like this", which is not a directive, as you claim......did you miss that?

                                It was a general comment, an opinion.  Your obsession with arguing this is ridiculous.  Done.

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by justwatching6666 (June 20, 2007 3:36 pm ET)
                                     

                                  too funny indeed

                                  Report Abuse
                                • Author by ChristianDemocrat (June 20, 2007 3:56 pm ET)
                                     

                                  I specifically said "reads something like this", which is not a directive, as you claim......did you miss that?

                                  Did you know that your posts become quite unintelligible the more emotional you get?  Errr..."get the f out" is indeed a directive.  I wasn't making any other claim with that.

                                  However, if I understand your point, you're implying that Pete's post reads something like "get the f out."  Pete has explained that's not what he meant.  So, your point about intolerance is lost.

                                  It was a general comment, an opinion. 

                                  What about just a joke?

                                  Your obsession with arguing this is ridiculous.  Done.

                                  We are?  Can I go now?

                                  Report Abuse
                        • Author by aDifferent McCain (June 21, 2007 8:32 am ET)
                             

                          Context Tommy, context.

                          In the cases I have found were people are asked, "why are you here?" or "why don't you go to x.site" it is usually in response to a comment that shows frustration at the topic or a "I can't believe you people don't argee with me" comments.

                          These people only post to complain about having to post on a subject they don't care about. They never share an opinion, just whine.    

                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by Think for Yourself If You Can (June 21, 2007 12:19 pm ET)
                             

                          Look, everyone gets defensive.  It's human nature.  Some people get defensive by shutting people out or by telling them if they disagree that they should just leave.  But I think that's a generalization of liberal argument.  How does generalizing and categorizing liberals and/or democrats as using those arguments help? Isn't that what we're trying to resist here on Media Matters?  Over-generalizations and blanket statements and stereotypes?  Aren't we trying to find real information and seive through misinformation?

                          Let's stick to substance and stop acting like defensive six-year olds. Namecalling is weak.  Let's talk about something with real substance, please.

                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by pete592 (June 20, 2007 3:07 pm ET)
                         

                      And you've NEVER accused MMFA of wasting their time, have you? 

                      Report Abuse
        • Author by Blue Fielder (June 20, 2007 2:29 pm ET)
             

          Karl tell you to say that?

           Grow the f up.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by bingvangorden (June 20, 2007 3:41 pm ET)
             

          Yes, I rely on talkingpoints from complete strangers to regurgitate on posts like this one so I don't have to be bothered thinking for myself. NOT! 

          Report Abuse
        • Author by BushLied (June 20, 2007 5:05 pm ET)
             

          No, agter 6 years of lies , my brain has told me . 

          Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (June 20, 2007 2:22 pm ET)
         

       - The Politico appeared to have an "obsession" with the story, noting that the publication referenced Edwards' haircuts at least eight times between April 16 and May 3, while eschewing other political news stories -reported by mmfa

      mmfa appeared to have an "obsession" with the Gerth/Van Natta book on Clinton...note mmfa referenced "Her Way" at least 18 times between May 24 and June 4, while eschewing other political news stories. 

      I guess an obsession, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (June 20, 2007 2:25 pm ET)
           

        So I guess it's a matter of which one is more important to you:  high-dollar haircuts, or anonymously or poorly sourced mud slinging for money.

        I'll take the latter. 

        Report Abuse
      • Author by bingvangorden (June 20, 2007 2:26 pm ET)
           

        And you have an obsession with right wing talking points. You're irrelevant.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 2:29 pm ET)
             

          Wes stated verifiable facts.  What rightwing talking points are you referring to?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (June 20, 2007 3:04 pm ET)
               

            The facts: 

            It was Glenn Greenwald, who is not listed as an MMFA staffer, that deemed it an "obsession", and he is quoted as such.

            Obsession is a persistent preoccupation with one person

            Given the enormous net that MMFA has cast before, during and after the hoopla over Her Way, Wesley's accusation of obsession is anything but a fact.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by wesley (June 20, 2007 3:18 pm ET)
                 

              I know very well how to find the staffers at mmfa...and I didn't assert that Greenwald was a staffer..

              Other than correcting that bit of info...I couldn't get much sense from the rest.

              If you'd care to list the time when mmfa devoted as many stories to one subject...as they did with their obsession about "Her Way"...I'll read with interest.

              mmfa reported that it appeared Politico had an obsession...with 8 stories in a couple of weeks. That standard makes their reporting of at least 18 stories in a couple of weeks...an obsession.

              Yeah, mmfa has an obsession in defending and promoting Hillary...and as the campaign goes on...they won't have enough staffers to keep up.

               

               

              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (June 20, 2007 3:35 pm ET)
                   

                And again you're wrong about MMFA reporting it as an "obsession".

                MMFA reported that Glenn Greenwald thinks it appears to be an obsession:

                "Blogger Glenn Greenwald wrote">[link to www.salon.com] that The Politico appeared to have an "obsession" with the story"

                Both you and Greenwald are both wrong.  Politico is not %100 preoccupied with Edwards' haircuts, and MMFA is not %100 preoccupied with defending Hillary.  That is the only way, I can see, that they could be construed as "obsession". 

                Report Abuse
            • Author by wesley (June 20, 2007 3:34 pm ET)
                 

               - Given the enormous net that MMFA has cast before, during and after the hoopla over Her Way - pete

              The hoopla was provided by mmfa...as Gerth plainly said that the authors received scant attention in the media.

               - Gerth didn't actually have those two dozen-plus interviews with reporters...To my surprise,  neither...had been interviewed by National Public Radio, PBS, CNN, CBS, or MSNBC...And I could not find a single substantive interview published in a major newspaper or magazine with the authors. - Boehlert

              18+ stories on an issue receiving little public attention...by mmfa's own admission...is truly an obsession...the only hoopla was on this site. 

               

              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (June 20, 2007 3:45 pm ET)
                   

                No, it's not an obsession.

                If MMFA has 18+ consectutive stories about Her Way and they research and report on nothing else during that time, then it's an obsession. 

                If you have a website called "Olbermannwatch" and you report on nothing but what Keith Olbermann says and does, that's an obsession.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by bingvangorden (June 20, 2007 3:46 pm ET)
                   

                There was a lot of misinformation to cover Wesley. Big deal.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by MHK (June 20, 2007 5:28 pm ET)
                   

                Wes why did you cut the full quote to support your point?

                 "To my surprise, at the time of the O'Reilly interview, neither Gerth nor his co-author, Don Van Natta Jr., had been interviewed by National Public Radio, PBS, CNN, CBS, or MSNBC, among others. And I could not find a single substantive interview published in a major newspaper or magazine with the authors. "

                 Interview on NPR

                Van Natta falsehood exposed: Anonymous sources far outnumber named sources in Her Way Friday, June 15, 2007 11:55PM

                http://mediamatters.org/items/200706160003 

                 

                Report Abuse
          • Author by ChristianDemocrat (June 20, 2007 3:06 pm ET)
               

            While I wouldn't have used the term "talking points," Wes definitely makes use of some of the usual suspects.  He made provide facts, but omitted an important one...figure it out.

            Also, did you know that arguing hypocrisy - even if true - can be a fallacy?  I'm not certain Wes was attempting to refute anything, but if he was, then his argument is invalid.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 3:11 pm ET)
                 

              A fallacy again (roll eyes)

              Wes' point was very clear.  It was about this website criticizing Politico's obsession with Edward's coiffure expenditures, yet their obsession with the Clinton book and it's relevance goes unnoticed. 

              Apt analogy.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (June 20, 2007 3:22 pm ET)
                   

                Maybe an apt analogy, but neither of them are obsessions.

                 

                Report Abuse
              • Author by MHK (June 20, 2007 3:27 pm ET)
                   

                "obsession with the Clinton book"

                The book in question and it's author keep making the rounds correct?  Why wouldn't MMFA discuss this issue if there is inaccurate information in the book and/or  there are items that are being discussed in reference to the book?

                This is MMFA's function is it not?

                .   

                Report Abuse
                • Author by wesley (June 20, 2007 3:37 pm ET)
                     

                  Nope...read Boehlert's column which plainly says they were not receiving much attention.

                  A few stories on the issue...certainly. Over 18 stories on the issue...an obsession with Hillary. 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MHK (June 20, 2007 7:17 pm ET)
                       

                    Nope?  Covering media stories and misinformation are not the function of MMFA?  I read back through the 18+  stories Wes and a good portion of them are in fact referance to interviews give by one of the authors.

                    I also read the story by B and I noticed your selective quoting to change the point of the paragraph to push your agenda.  

                     

                      

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (June 20, 2007 3:35 pm ET)
                   

                Tommy, don't you think that MMFA supposed obsession with the Clinton book issue is because it's authors were on a book tour and therefore appearing in the media daily and continuing to misrepresent the facts in each and every appearance?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 3:40 pm ET)
                     

                  Pearlene, According to MMFA's own Boehlert, he  stated that the authors were headed for irrelevancy regarding this book.  So why all the attention here then?

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (June 20, 2007 4:21 pm ET)
                       

                    Tommy, I think and I may be wrong but each time it appeared here was during their book tour. It appeared before to let us know their book along with Carl and Bay's book were coming out but the attention was for their tour. Should be just look at it once and then let them continue with misinformation?

                    Report Abuse
                • Author by wesley (June 20, 2007 3:40 pm ET)
                     

                   - appearing in the media daily - pearly

                  Nope, again. Eric Boehlert shoots down your theory...read his column where he documents the fact that they were receiving scant attention. 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by bingvangorden (June 20, 2007 4:05 pm ET)
                       

                    Perhaps the vigorous attention MMfA was paying towards the Hillary book in question had an impact on the main stream media coverage. That would be worth it my view. If Politico wants to point out what you are pointing out then we can all go over there and talk about it. As it is now, I don't agree that your analogy is really relevant or detrimental towards Media Matters. A big story came out about Guliani's greed over public service and a political web sight decided to ignore that to continue to slander Edwards hair cut. I think that's worth pointing out. 

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (June 20, 2007 3:54 pm ET)
                   

                Speaking of obsessions, does someone have to be obsessed to conduct that many interviews with so many different people to write a book about one person?

                Report Abuse
              • Author by clams casino (June 20, 2007 4:12 pm ET)
                   

                "A fallacy again (roll eyes)."

                 

                Logic is your enemy, so you roll your eyes at it? Arguing this alleged "hypocrisy" IS a fallacy. And it's not even a real hypocrisy. Rolling your eyes doesn't change that.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by ChristianDemocrat (June 20, 2007 4:26 pm ET)
                   

                Your dismissive rolling of the eyes reminds me of an account I heard of then Gov. George Bush deciding an issue of a mildly technical nature.  An individual was explaining why the Gov's position on the issue was problematic.  George, apparently in over his head, responded with only a shrug and a squeal, ending any discussion.

                By the way, it's not an apt analogy because of an important difference...figure it out.

                 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by clams casino (June 20, 2007 7:47 pm ET)
                     

                  It also reminds me of the movie Idiocracy, where a thoroughly average Luke Wilson wakes up 500 years in the future to find that he's the smartest person on the shockingly dumbed down planet. Everytime Wilson's character uses a word over two syllables, he's greeted with mocking laughter and called a "f*g."

                  Report Abuse
          • Author by bingvangorden (June 20, 2007 3:45 pm ET)
               

            I wasn't speaking to that specific post but others I have read in the past.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (June 20, 2007 2:28 pm ET)
           

        Good point.  One person's outrage is another's embracement. 

        Report Abuse
      • Author by MHK (June 20, 2007 3:06 pm ET)
           

        Your comparison really doesn't work as MMFA and Politico do not operate in the media world in the same capacity.  

         

         

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Meremark (June 20, 2007 2:22 pm ET)
         

      Giuliani is toast, and the fear-fueling fascism he rode in on.

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (June 20, 2007 2:33 pm ET)
         

      Hey, we've got a new "Why is this here" Bushbot. Yay!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by monknj80 (June 20, 2007 2:36 pm ET)
         

      Simple question:

       

      What's a more important story?

      Rudy "America Hero, but most people in his home state depise him" Guilianni signs up for the ISG, but fails to show up for one meeting.

      or

      John Edwards gets a $400 haircut.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by jeter2 (June 20, 2007 2:44 pm ET)
           

        Actually I might put Rudy's dismissal from the ISG & Edwards involvement with a hedge fund on the same level. [important stuff]

        I'd put Rudy's 3 marriage on par with Edwards $400.00 haircuts [tabloid stuff]

        Then I'd tell myself that neither of these guys is going to win their party's nomination anyway.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by monknj80 (June 20, 2007 2:49 pm ET)
             

          Very good!

          You get a cookie Jeter.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by jeter2 (June 20, 2007 2:59 pm ET)
               

            Monk I think that was worth 3 cookies!

            I'll take a chocolate chip, oreo, and a peanut butter.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by bingvangorden (June 20, 2007 4:10 pm ET)
                 

              whoa whoa there! You'll get three cookies of the same type and like it! Don't be so multi confectionery. Take 3 Oreos, double stuff of course and move on brother. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by jeter2 (June 20, 2007 4:51 pm ET)
                   

                But I thought multi-confectionuralism was a good thing?

                However, I'll take my 3 Oreos [double stuff] and be happy.

                Can you get me a large glass of milk to go with that?

                Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (June 20, 2007 2:54 pm ET)
             

          "Actually I might put Rudy's dismissal from the ISG & Edwards involvement with a hedge fund on the same level. [important stuff]

          I'd put Rudy's 3 marriage on par with Edwards $400.00 haircuts [tabloid stuff]

          Then I'd tell myself that neither of these guys is going to win their party's nomination anyway." Jeter

          See, I've got to disagree with you on a couple of points. Edwards was actually doing work for said hedge fund, and last I knew that wasn't illegal or anything like that. Rudy didn't want to take part in the ISG, which is actually fine as well, but don't tout yourself to be a leader in anti terrorist anything.

          Rudy's 3 marriages are not on par with the whole haircut thing, mostly because Edwards (and Rudy actually) are both very rich men. Show me a rich person who doesn't spend $400 bucks on a haircut. Heck, I've got a couple of women that I work with that spend that much and more, and they aren't nearly as close to Edwards or Rudy in income levels. Rudy's 3 marriages is more important, in my opinion, because he's running for the nomination of the republican party, which has "prided" itself on being the so called family values party, and have touted that to voters for years on end. I personally don't have an issue with Edwards working for a hedge fund, Rudy not going to his meetings, $400 haircuts, or Rudy being divorced 3 times (and cheating on his wives a lot), but some republican voters might have an issue with Rudy doing such things. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by jeter2 (June 20, 2007 3:06 pm ET)
               

            Edwards was actually doing work for said hedge fund

            The hedge fund that employed John Edwards was involved in the subprime lending business, something Edwards claims to abhor. And something he should have been aware of if he was working for the group.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (June 20, 2007 2:55 pm ET)
             

          I'd put the Edwards haircut story on the same page with the Rudy-in-drag story. Both have equal weight in determining someone's ability to lead the country.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by jeter2 (June 20, 2007 3:07 pm ET)
               

            Yeah 2 *pretty boys* ;-)

            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (June 20, 2007 3:13 pm ET)
                 

              Nah, one pretty guy and a wrinkled old bald guy in a dress.

              Now if we were talking about your ex-governor McDreamy, I'd agree.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by jeter2 (June 20, 2007 3:17 pm ET)
                   

                Actually I see Romney as Ken, & Edwards as Barbie ;-)

                Report Abuse
                • Author by worrierking (June 20, 2007 4:20 pm ET)
                     

                  Now you've got me wondering who should be Skipper.

                  I'm also wondering why the hell a guy in his fifties, like me, knows who the hell Skipper is.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jeter2 (June 20, 2007 4:53 pm ET)
                       

                    Don't feel bad King. I know who Skipper is too. Of course I had a kid sister who had Barbie, Ken, Skipper,a Barbie Dream House...and a cool Barbie convertible.

                    God, why do I remember all of that? ;-)

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (June 21, 2007 12:59 am ET)
                         

                      I'm no expert, Jeter, but my guess is that you remember that because you might be gay.

                      Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I know of a church that can "fix" you.

                      Report Abuse
        • Author by Harlequin (June 20, 2007 2:56 pm ET)
             

          The MMFA article is about Politico and not so much about the candidates.

          Politico like other similar outfits knows their audience and tailors their layouts specifically toward that audience.

          Politico is saying their audience would be more interested in Edwards haircut than Rudy missing the ISG meetings. This says a lot about what Politico thinks of thier audience and about the audience that are pleased with Politico's choice of priority stories.

          I would give my two cents on Politico and their adoring audience but by side is aching to hard from laughter to type out my take. Just thinking about Politico and their priority cracks me up. Not to mention thier Conservative audience.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (June 20, 2007 3:15 pm ET)
               

            You're probably right. After all, knowing that Rudy blew off the ISG meetings to line his pockets would hurt his rep as "Lord God of Anti-Terrorism".

            If charging $55,000 for a speech on poverty makes Edwards a hypocrite, where does this leave Rudy?

            Report Abuse
    • Author by laplacian (June 20, 2007 3:20 pm ET)
         

      Of course misinformation by omission is important, and MFA is right to cover it.  Just like the allegedly liberal media's alleged under-reporting of the good news from Iraq would be important, if it were true.  It's not clear that over-reporting of the Edwards haircut story has anything whatever to do with it, though.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by truthseeker77 (June 20, 2007 9:58 pm ET)
         

      Let's just say that Edwards and his haircut would beat Giuliani and his selfishness if they were the nominees for '08.

      :-)

      Report Abuse
    • Author by vedder2993 (June 20, 2007 11:21 pm ET)
         

      There goes that Liberal media again...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by sfcretired (June 20, 2007 11:57 pm ET)
         

      Slightly off topic, but I agree with this editorial I read today in my local newspaper.

      Looks like Chris Matthews may have found a new "Daddy" in Fred Thompson.

      http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2007/06/20/editorial/francis_volpe/volpe17.txt

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (June 21, 2007 10:47 am ET)
         

      Every day in Iraq we see soldiers and civilians dying and being horribly maimed.  Oh wait; we don't see it.  We instead hear about the $400 haircut.  Or Paris Hilton.  Edwards has decent things to say, has policies that make sense.  That apparently is not important in the political "game".  Frankly, there are politicians that won't be elected because the country isn't worthy of them right now.

      Would someone please find the receipts from all the candidates' hotel room services to get some perspective?!

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.