Blitzer identified Dem lawmaker whose home was raided, but did not ID several Republicans
Discussing the raid on Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK) house by FBI and IRS agents, on the July 30 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer noted that there have been "raids on other lawmakers' homes," adding: "William Jefferson, a Democratic Congressman from Louisiana, what did-- they found, what, $90,000 in cash in his freezer. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham out in California, he's serving jail time right now. We could go down the list." But while Blitzer identified Jefferson as a Democrat, he did not identify Cunningham as a Republican.
As The New York Times noted, in April 2007 the FBI raided Rep. John J. Doolittle's (R-CA) home and later "an insurance office owned by the wife of Representative Rick Renzi, an Arizona Republican." As Media Matters for America noted, in October 2006 federal agents raided the homes of then-Rep. Curt Weldon's (R-PA) daughter and her business partner, as well as four additional locations, as part of what The New York Times described as an "intensifying corruption inquiry" into whether Weldon improperly assisted their company, Solutions North America Inc.
As Media Matters noted, on the May 3 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Blitzer observed that Washington is "no stranger to sex scandals," then provided viewers with examples of scandals involving only Democrats.
During the broadcast, Stevens was repeatedly identified on-screen and by CNN reporters as a Republican.
From the 7 p.m. ET hour of the July 30 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
JEFFREY TOOBIN (CNN legal analyst): Wolf, the one thing I can assure you is, the U.S. attorney in Alaska did not make this decision alone. To seek and obtain a search warrant against any member of Congress -- but especially someone who has been in the U.S. Senate since 1968 -- is of enormous significance, and it certainly had to go to the top of the Justice Department. Alberto Gonzales had to approve it, or his designee. The director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, had to approve it. They would not have done -- taken such an extreme step without approval all the way up the chain of the command and, one has to conclude, without a serious reason for doing it.
BLITZER: Because we remember the raids on other lawmakers' homes. William Jefferson, a Democratic congressman from Louisiana, what did they -- they found, what, $90,000 in cash in his freezer. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, out in California, he's serving jail time right now. We could go down the list.
Several of these lawmakers, they were investigated. Their homes were searched. We don't know how serious this investigation is of Ted Stevens' home, but in and of itself, the decision being made to launch this kind of investigation and to actually go and execute a search warrant in Senator Stevens' home, that is something that is extraordinary, Jeff.
I wonder if there is any documentation on how long Blitzer has been on the GOP Pay roll?
I submit to you probably since Nov 4, 2000 ? Or perhaps the day Cheney decided he was going to make vice-president ? Or even the day Karl Rove told him " GOP uber alles " or he was finished as a " reporter ".
The day he changed his name from "Shark Dive Bomber" and started reporting from Bahgdad.
I believe MSM types are so scared of the right wing noise machine that they bend over backwards to appear as though they do not have a "liberal bias". They could care less about appearing objective, they just don't want to be tagged a "lib". Funny thing though, the people who buy that BS are never going to believe the MSM is not in the tank for the left. It has been a talking point on the right for 40 years now.
You are so correct. Wolf can bend over backward or forward and still the right will still call it the Clinton News Network.
He should try to do straight reporting for a couple of months and see if there is any change in the rights attitude toward CNN.
I'm not so sure he's part of it as I am that he's just lazy. When one gets to the level of celebrity that Blitzer has, there is a tendency to just phone it in, which is just what Wolf has been doing for several years, now. Not really worth watching anymore.
Maybe he expects everyone to assume it's a Republican if their house is being raided by the authorities. Reasonable assumption.
I think we all assume this.
That certainly explains the other story on MMFA's home page about GMA covering the FBI raid on Ted Stevens house and not mentioning that he's a Repuglican.....
I actually find this one to be a worse error simply because they provide Jefferson's party affilication first and it implies the reason the others are not mentioned is because they belong to the same party.
There's a far better argument for this being unreliable reporting than the GMA piece cited earlier. I'm not entirely convinced. But it is a much better argument. MMFA should have led with this piece and ignored the other.
To my knowledge, MMFA does not "lead" certain articles. Each item gets equal emphasis.
If you didn't understand my reference, I was suggesting they should have attempted to put their best foot forward. Instead, they led with a piece (not this one) that was clearly a weak argument for them. They then brought this one in which I totally admit is a stronger (if still imperfect) argument. All I'm saying is they should have put their best foot forward. This would have been the better of the two feet.
The Air America news update during the Ed Schultz show today didn't identify Stevens' political affiliation either. It's an epidemic of ineptitude.
Are we going to ignore for the sake of furthering our own indignation the small admission MMFA makes toward the end of the posting?
During the broadcast, Stevens was repeatedly identified on-screen and by CNN reporters as a Republican.
It's interesting how none of the times his affiliation was repeated are present in the portion of the transcript MMFA provides. You just have to read every word, I guess.
Good catch Breaker.
That makes this a weak case of MIS-information by omission presented by MMFA.
The audience was given info about Stevens even if it didn't come directly from Blitzer.
This is just nit-picking by MMFA.
LOL...I've got to agree on this one. I'm laughing on account of imagining what a news item about a representative would sound like if every reporter had to mention party affiliation, title and state after every instance of the respresentative's name. It's comical.
MMFA isn't saying affiliation should be mentioned every time a senator is brought up. They're saying if you're specifically going to point out that a Democratic lawmaker is scum and mention that lawmaker's party in the report, you should do the same with Republican lawmakers.
This wouldn't be here if Wolf had applied the same standard of associating affiliation with wrongdoings to Republicans as he did with Democrats.
It's all just part of the pattern. MSM RARELY go out of their way to criticize Republicans, but never miss a chance to tag William Jefferson as a Democrat. Faux News just outright lies and identifies corrupt Republicans as Democrats (accidently I'm sure). Also, Blitzer says "we could just go down the list". Well, why doesn't he? He started out by making sure the lone corrupt Democrat was identified by party affiliation, but then brushes off the "list" of Republican crooks and liars. How convenient for the republicans, eh?
Are you suggesting the MSM should go out of their way to criticize Republicans? That was probably just an unfortunate turn of phrase on your part.
All I'm saying is in this story, the only two serving politicians mentioned seem to both have party affiliation tags. Including, by the way, the main subject of the report who MMFA begrudgingly admits was repeatedly identified as a Republican.
Ah, no. Please re-read the story carefully.
If Blitzer himself was going to mention the affiliation of one person, he should have mentioned the affiliation of all of the people he personally named, and he should have made sure to mention all persons who were similarly situated (with their party affiliations). That's known as equal treatment and fair treatment. Or, he could have not mentioned anyone's party affiliation, although in my mind this would have been a bit incomplete and misleading if the proportions of accused weren't equal.
A lot of viewers might have listened only to his comments and not heard the later story. So the fact that in another part of the broadcast more complete and accurate information was provided does NOT negate MMFA's point that Wolf's comments were problematic.
Why is it somehow inappropriate/embarrassing/whatever that MMFA also correctly pointed out this other part of the broadcast? The fairness and concern trolls ought to be praising them for providing this information. You certainly cannot expect to find such disclosure on the trolls' favorite broadcasts and sites.
Why is it somehow inappropriate/embarrassing/whatever that MMFA also correctly pointed out this other part of the broadcast? The fairness and concern trolls ought to be praising them for providing this information. You certainly cannot expect to find such disclosure on the trolls' favorite broadcasts and sites.
The fairness and consern trolls? As lovely as that would look on a business card, I think I'm going to hold out for a better title.
It's not embarrassing to me that MMFA pointed out that Senator Stevens was repeatedly identified as a Republican during the story. It's embarrassing to them because it drastically weakens their argument.
Don't think so? Ask yourself a few questions. Why did MMFA keep the admission to only one sentence, and why does it seem they went to great efforts to separate that one sentence from the point they were trying to make? Why did they start the video in mid-segment? Why don't they show CNN reporters repeatedly identify Senator Stevens as a Republican? Why don't they at least include a more substantive transcript?
An obvious conclusion one can draw from these questions is that MMFA, while feeling the pangs of ethical responsibility (a feeling they long ago learned to dull), knew they were required to make the admission, but wanted to take steps to ensure its readers would A: skip that bit of information entirely, or B: determine the information is irrellevant to the matter at hand. This, of course, is patently absurd. Why? Look at the facts of the case: Only two serving elected officials were named in the piece. One a Democrat. One a Republican. Both were correctly named with their party affiliations. One, the subject of the story, was repeatedly identified as a Republican.
No it doesnt and no it isnt. What you seem to be missing is that the entire story is not what the thread is about MMFA was clear that CNN DID show the affiliation, thus making this distinction, the thread is about BLITZER and HE was clearly being biased. He either should have not mentioned any affiliation or all affiliations drawing attention to the one while ignoring the others is flat out bias. A bias the rest of the story did NOT continue
Yes MMFA did point that out. That would be showing that the peice itself WASNT being biased. THAT doesnt absolve Blitzer. HIS part was most definitly biased. Take the peice in its entirity and you get all the information but BLITZER, who this thread is about mentioned ONLY the affiliation of the Democrat and then omitted the affiliation of the Republicans.
Good point Breaker. It may also be that Jefferson is still in office while Cunningham is not.
The funny part is MMFA is actually making the case that people watching Wolf are somehow being mislead to believe Democrats are more corrupt than Republicans.
While that may be true... (heheheh) It strains credulity to believe people who would take the time to watch Blitzer do not know who Randy Cunningham is or that he was a Republican Congressman from California.
Frankly I thought the cleavage thread was better than this one.
ps. And I thought that one was stupid.
Well honestly it really wasn't necessary to mention Crazy Ted's political affiliation. If you hear the word corruption and investigation, it's safe to assume it's one of those hypocritical, greedy, corrupt Republicans involved, unless otherwise specified. I bet old Ted's been lining his pockets for years. (how did you like that one AA.)
I second that Lynn. Far more Repube representatives and senators are under investigation than their democratic counterparts.
Lynn,
Hahaha... good point. However I doubt there is much difference between the GOP and Dems with regards to the general corruption in Washington. I think I heard that the Dems have put forth 32,000 earmarks so far this year. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)
I'll let it play out but at this time I would not be surprised that Ted has been lining his pockets. That "bridge to nowhere" is an example of the level of corruption by our elected reps.
Murtha is another example. Disregarding his stance on the war, it seems to me he is so corrupt he doesn't even realize it.
Murtha sponsored an earmark to H.R. 2082 -- the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 -- to authorize $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center, a government agency based in Johnstown, Pa., which is within the Democrat's district.
However, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) filed a motion on Friday, May 11, to cancel the funding in accordance with the Bush administration's desire to close the office, which has received repeated low marks from several federal review boards.In a statement on his website, Rogers charged that "this expensive facility duplicates programs already operating in multiple other agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Justice."After his proposal was rejected in a party-line vote, Rogers said that "unfortunately, politics and pork barreling triumphed over policy and common sense."Last Thursday, Murtha - who chairs the chamber's Defense Appropriations Subcommittee - approached the Michigan Republican on the House floor."I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill because they are gone, and you will not get any earmarks now and forever," the resolution quotes Murtha as telling Rogers."This is not the way we do things here," Rogers replied, adding, "And is that supposed to make me afraid of you?"Murtha had then "raised his voice, pointed his finger and stated, in words to the effect, 'That's the way I do it,' " the document states.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200705/POL20070521b.htmlYour questionable source notwithstanding, I think Murtha is a huge problem. He is an earmark king who needs to go away.
Treating this earmark situation (which is out of control and has been during the entirety of Republican control as well - quadrupling in number over 12 years) as a partisan issue is a wrong-headed approach and ensures the problem will not ever be solved.
I support Jeff Flake for his commonsense approach to fighting earmarks and wish him success in fighting the good fight.
CNS conservative news service. Just go whole hog and link to the Limbaugh homepage
Why do you assume Wolf Blitzer's viewers are well informed? If they are getting their information from his show they are obviously NOT well informed. I know of no informed people who watch his show.
P. S. The cleavage thread WAS stupid. Stupid on the part of the Washington Post for even reporting such nonsense. MMFA is just doing what they are here to do, pointing out the stupidity of the right-wing media.
If that's what you think they're here to do, I guess no one will ever be able to convince you otherwise.
And if you can't see that what J's viewpoint of MMFA's stated mission is dead on accurate, then whats the use?
I've seen and read many times the mission statement. I just question whether that's the true mission.
Why can't you accept it at face value? You seem to believe your own opinions about "conservative misinformation" are absolute and anyone who disagrees is simply wrong.
NewsFlash: Such determinations are obviously subjective and others can reasonably disagree with you.
Why can't you accept it at face value? You seem to believe your own opinions about "conservative misinformation" are absolute and anyone who disagrees is simply wrong.
I can't accept it because I've seen too much evidence to the contrary. I used to like this site. I really did! I thought they were doing good things. Then, slowly, I began to notice distortions and omissions that made me begin to question the altruistic nature of their mission. And once I started to make those realizations, they just kept coming.
The real question is why you so easily accept it at face value. You may think that's what it means to have an open mind, but you're wrong. Having an open mind means that you're willing to look for truth where you don't expect to find it, and accept it as truth regardless of how it may conflict with your preconceptions. Oddly enough, having an open mind means you don't accept things at face value. You accept the premise that it may be the case, while also being aware that any number of contradictory possibilities may emerge and prove that what was originally presented to you is not the case. And when those possibilities begin to show themselves, it's the role of the person of the open mind to welcome them in.
Yes, there's subjectivity at play. I've already stated that within the MMFA definition for conservative misinformation, there are three clearly subjective qualifiers. And while it will be the impulse among many people here to dismiss what I say as simply my 'subjective opinion,' that doesn't really bother me all that much. I simply remember that it's not my subjective opinion or prejudice that allows me to rationalize or even justify the nefarious methods of a corrupted organization that could have been something far better than it is. It's my subjective opinion and prejudice that forces me to hold corrupt organizations to higher standards than they're necessarily willing to meet.
You seem to be making the mistake that not accepting your argument means I don't have an open mind. I can see that you believe MMFA is being dishonest. I don't see where you have sufficiently demonstrated that to be true. Maybe you are seeing some errors in MMFA's previous reporting that I haven't. I suppose that is at least part of the reason there is a comment section.
I have genuinely considered your argument and currently don't find it sufficient. No offense to you. Maybe in the future we will agree. I have been known to reconsider my opinions in the past.
I can see that you believe MMFA is being dishonest. I don't see where you have sufficiently demonstrated that to be true.
I'm sorry. I hate to do this, but aren't you the same person who argued this little mind numbing defense of MMFA's hypocritical tactics?
To not be a hypocrite is in effect to unilaterally surrender a portion of the idiological spectrum. If one side decides they are through with hypocrisy, then the middle shifts further to the opposite extreme.
These hypocrisies exist largely to balance the hypocrisy of the other side.
You are, are you not, the same OPENMIND who just a few days ago argued in favor of the necessity of hypocrisy, right? Now you're going to argue that these hypocrites are not dishonest? Come now. You're better than that. You know they're dishonest. You just don't mind it so much.
The other day, I was writing in a very general sense. It applies to nearly any participant in an adversarial system. The point being that your complaint about MMFA's hypocrisy was so broad as to be utterly useless.
If you are speaking about MMFA in the same very general philosophical sense that they are hypocrites, then I agree as I did the other day. But it does not appear you were writing that in your post above. You wrote "I began to notice distortions and omissions that made me begin to question the altruistic nature of their mission." As you can see, that has nothing at all to do with the very general form of hypocrisy I was referring to in my previous post the other day.
If you, BB, “question whether that's the true mission”, perhaps you suspect it might be something else? And if this be true, perhaps you might care to divulge what your “something else” is?
Let me first apologise to JScott for what I know was a fairly condescending remark.
With that out of the way, I actually just finished a response to someone in a thread in the GMA talkback that sort of goes to the point of what I believe the clear mission of MMFA to be. I'll try not to be too repetitive. Let me know if this gets a little didactic.
In order to discuss how (what I see as) MMFA's actual mission differs from the mission statement, I think it's only proper to summarize and give a brief critique to the mission statement. Essentially, MMFA claims their mission to be the identification of conservative misinformation in the MSM. They define conservative misinfomation to be reporting that is either inaccurate, unreliable, or lacking credibility AND also forwards the conservative agenda.
Aside from the subjective nature of what is credible or reliable, a far more subtle interpretation can--and seems to--be given to the nature of content deemed to forward a conservative agenda. Indeed, MMFA doesn't just have a problem with information forwarding a conservative agenda, they have a problem (as is the case in this thread) with reporting they deem to be inadequately impeding a conservative agenda. No matter what anyone tells you, there is a difference between someone who doesn't want to help and someone who wants to hurt.
And that, dear NativeSF, is the true mission of MMFA: To work under the guise of a conservative media watchdog group to further an oftentimes false perception of conservative bias in the media. To, in fact, accept, condone, and (if necessary) spread misinformation designed to actively discredit and damage the conservative agenda while fueling the righteous indignation already spilling over among the members of a would-be political movement in love with the notions of their own supposed victimization. A group skeptical of any bit of information that does not fit neatly into the narrative of their own construction, but almost entirely lacking of skepticism for the most irrational assertions as long as they happen to jive with that narrative. In short, young thinkers. Not necessarily young people. Young thinkers. The Holden Caulfields of the world. Angry young people (though not necessarily young) who feel such a mistrust for what has been the party of power that they'll believe almost anything you tell them as long as it justifies that mistrust.
Um...is it too late to say 'no offense'? I really could go on and on. But I think I should stop now.
I will say this, I consider myself a liberal, and I'm offended by this website because I see it as being the opposite of what liberalism is really supposed to be about.
Good night, and...uh...actually, just good night.
I have to ask for clarification, BB.
Are you claiming that MMFA's mission is to criticize far-right conservative misinformation in favor of pushing a moderate-right, yet still conservative, agenda masked as a "liberal" or "leftist" agenda, as anything near the center is often touted as far-left by neocons?
<!-- new -->
Are you claiming that MMFA's mission is to criticize far-right conservative misinformation in favor of pushing a moderate-right, yet still conservative, agenda masked as a "liberal" or "leftist" agenda, as anything near the center is often touted as far-left by neocons?
I'm happy to clarify. That's not at all what I meant to be saying. If that's how it came off, I'm sorry. Let me try and steer it back to what my meaning was.
My argument is that MMFA's purpose is to dismantle and actively damage the conservative agenda. I further argue that it's of little interest to them whether their methods are oftentimes less than fully accurate and occasionally nefarious. Additionally, their desired result is to fuel an already existing hatred and mistrust among their readers who they claim to be educating. It's an organization that relies entirely on its audience's inability to see beyond its own prejudice.
Aside from whether or not it's also the intent to forward a 'progressive' agenda, it's for the reasons already stated that I separate this site, and those who would go out of their way to defend its tactics, from the noble cause of liberalism.
So far my original response of "Well said." did not seem to meet the minimum word requirement. Either that or the server is slow to update. If it is there by the time you read this, my apologies for the duplication.
Anyway, my hat is off to you for eloquently describing what some of us have been pointing out for quite some time.
"My argument is that MMFA's purpose is to dismantle and actively damage the conservative agenda."--breakerbreaker
Considering MMFA only writes articles regarding what they consider to be conservative misinformation, your argument that MMFA is attempting to "dismantle and actively damage the conservative agenda." is weak. The fact that MMFA allows comments also seems to run counter to your claim.
"I further argue that it's of little interest to them whether their methods are oftentimes less than fully accurate and occasionally nefarious."--breakerbreaker
It looks like you are resorting to mindreading again. I see no evidence of that. In fact, MMFA articles are usually very precise. The problem is that you and others can't seem to help themselves from reading nefarious intent into them.
Considering MMFA only writes articles regarding what they consider to be conservative misinformation, your argument that MMFA is attempting to "dismantle and actively damage the conservative agenda." is weak.
You're actually going to argue against that claim? Really? I expected people to say that assertion was self-evident and therefore not a valid criticism. So as not to repeat myself too much from another thread, your total acceptance of the mission statement makes you incapable of seeing anything beyond the surface. Ironically, it's the supposed purpose of the site to help you learn to do just that. If, for you, it simply goes without saying that MMFA only writes articles regarding what they consider to be conservative misinformation, then, with respect, I hardly see why it be worth my time to try and open your mind to the possibility that this may not be so.
The fact that MMFA allows comments also seems to run counter to your claim.
On the contrary, the comment pages are there for the consumers of the site. A group overwhelmingly comprised of people unwilling to accept criticism of the site as anything other than more misinformation. It's not that hard to shout down or ridicule the various dissenters here. Plus, the fact that MMFA criticises news organizations for inadequately doing damage to the conservative agenda sort of further cements the accuracy of my claim.
It looks like you are resorting to mindreading again. I see no evidence of that. In fact, MMFA articles are usually very precise.
It doesn't surprise me that you see no evidence of that. You see, I'm a pretty good mindreader, and I can see that majority of consumers of this site see no evidence of that. And the majority of those who do, see it mainly due to their own bias towards the conservative agenda. Additionally, I don't think I can trust you, someone who can neither read minds, nor open his (or her) own to be a qualified judge of whether the content here is usually very precise. I mean, afterall, you get to subjectively determine what it means to be 'usually very precise', and I have little doubt of my ability to point out examples of MMFA stretching or distorting the truth in at least thirty percent of their stories. And I think that's a fairly conservative estimate.
The problem is that you and others can't seem to help themselves from reading nefarious intent into them.
No, the problem is MMFA doesn't want you to read what they post with a critical eye.
Let me get this straight;MMfA doesn't want people to question their articles, yet they allow you to do so in their comments section? If you have a valid criticism of an article, you can point it out to everyone, and that's somehow consistent with some nefarious purpose of deceiving readers?
Are you serious?
The claim OpenMind seemed to be speaking to, and the one I tailored my response to was the notion the mere existance of a comments page was entirely inconsistant with the mission to damage or ridicule conservatives and the conservative agenda. I would in fact argue that the tone of most of the responses in the comments page further prove my claim. If you want to argue about something nobody's said yet, be my guest.
As to whether the existence of a comments section has any bearing on what I've termed 'nefarious' methods, I simply don't think it does. MMFA never engages in a dialogue with those who comment to their site. They furthermore never make any substantive corrections to their articles (dates, misspellings, and sloppy citations don't count as substance) based on points raised in the comments sections or anywhere else. In short, the comments section is not unlike that of most blogs: an entity unto itself. Most blogs have comments sections, you know. I don't think you would argue a total lack of devious content within the so-called blogosphere. Would you?
"MMFA never engages in a dialogue with those who comment to their site."--breakerbreaker
Something tells me if MMFA did engage with posters, you would complain that they were trying to spin their own articles and they couldn't stand on their own.
Is there a site in existence that meets your standards? If so, why aren't you there now?
Something tells me if MMFA did engage with posters, you would complain that they were trying to spin their own articles and they couldn't stand on their own.
Oh, impressive response. Really. Is this where you're going to sink to? It's a shame we'll never find out the accuracy of your clairvoyance. Because MMFA will never engage in such a dialogue. So at least I get to avoid being called a hypocrite.
You didn't answer the question. I apologize if it appeared rhetorical. I am actually interested in your response.
If the question to which you refer is with regard to who meets my standards? Not so much. I mean, there's plenty of good work out there, but almost every site gets tainted by the same issues of pandering and general dishonesty.
I don't think there's much of a demand, really. I tend to think people are always going to flock to the places that support their worldview, and in the current climate, there's not much of a call for dialogue between political extremes. As for grassroots organizations, I tend to admire the premise of the work proposed by Unity 08. Their purpose and their website is not really comparable to MMFA, but...
I have alluded to this point before, but I will be more direct. I don't think it is possible to maintain a worthwhile website that is self-sustainably and indisputably fair, transparent, reasonable and objective to all parties. It is akin to balancing a pen on its point. Sooner or later dominant points of view take over.
It does not appear to me that your expectations are practical although I do applaud your idealism.
I think the system actually functions better with divergent groups acting as watchdogs concerning their own niches as long as they are consistant, fair, transparent and reasonable -which I believe applies in the case of MMFA. Sites that want to be all things to all people tend to pull punches when a pummeling may be called for.
In the end, the criticism must ultimately stand on its own. If the criticism is good, it will be more influential. If it isn't, it will eventually be exposed and collapse under its own weight.
It doesn't mean that by visiting this site, you automatically surrender your ability to reason for yourself as you suggest. MMFA and other media watchdogs should compliment media coverage and not replace it. But, that should go without saying.
The comments section is a means of commenting on the validity of the story. If they were being "nefarious" and really trying to deceive people, why would they do that?
Look at yourself! You say you liked the site, but now you don't. You seem to believe you have a well-reasoned and convincing argument that others should see things the way you do. And yet, the down-and-dirty MMfA allows not only allows these sort of conversations in general, but yours in particular. It doesn't have to do that. It could scrub your comments or disallow comments altogether, as opposed to letting your brilliant arguments influence people. One very obvious thing that you don't seem to get is that there are people who read comments here who don't actually comment. If those people stop reading the site, and start badmouthing it on other liberal sites, that's damaging to MMfA's cause.
I'm not arguing against something you didn't say, I'm arguing that open_mind made a good point about the comments section, and your counterargument makes no damn sense at all.
"I don't think you would argue a total lack of devious content within the so-called blogosphere. Would you?"
To address this, I don't think there are many sites that really try to deceive people. You can look at people who are intellectually dishonest though, and compare them to those that are not. Instapundit comes to mind, who does not allow comments. I believe he has to know that his readership would falter if people were able to point out his convenient inconsistency and hypocrisy.
It just seems to me that if MMfA knew they were trying to deceive people, it would be monumentally stupid to give people a means of pointing it out. The underlying message of your comments seems to be that the readership here is comprised of unthinking sheep. I don't think that's the case. I think they do good work here, but I don't defend every article. Some are stronger or more significant than others. I think most people if presented with a genuine case that a story is flawed will take that into account.
The problem is, you simply don't make a valid argument to that end, and your ego forces you to attribute that to a generalized character flaw.
"Aside from the subjective nature of what is credible or reliable, a far more subtle interpretation can--and seems to--be given to the nature of content deemed to forward a conservative agenda. Indeed, MMFA doesn't just have a problem with information forwarding a conservative agenda, they have a problem (as is the case in this thread) with reporting they deem to be inadequately impeding a conservative agenda."
Shouldn't an objective reporter impede any ideological agenda?
Despite your obfuscation, it's really very simple. It's misinformation by omission. It links a Democrat to corruption but leaves a Republican unaffiliated, preventing the same impression to be conveyed on that side. I understand CNN displayed graphics, but if Blitzer is going to specify for one he should specify for the other.
It's not a huge story. It's not a grand lie. But subtle things like this can certainly have an effect, and at the same time it is consistent with the mission statement.
It's a simple matter of fairness that Blitzer should treat both sides the same, in such a case as this. I'm not sure what sort of liberalism you claim to be the noble protector of, but in my version fairness is a tremendous part of it.
Despite your obfuscation, it's really very simple. It's misinformation by omission.
Do you really not see the irony of that criticism? As a defense of MMFA, I mean.
Regarding this article? No, what did MMfA omit?
Any portion of the transcript or video that showed Blitzer or any of CNN reporters identifying Senator Stevens as a Republican. Admitting that it happened is not the same as showing that it happened.
But I wasn't speaking just about this article. I was speaking more generally about how MMFA's mission statement supposedly requires that they do not report on misinformation that isn't consistent with forwarding the conservative agenda. Thereby accepting and condoning said misinformation. And by your own interpretation, spreading it.
"Any portion of the transcript or video that showed Blitzer or any of CNN reporters identifying Senator Stevens as a Republican. Admitting that it happened is not the same as showing that it happened."--breakerbreaker
So "[a]dmitting that it happened..." is now an omission? That is just lame.
This site is supposedly about showing. For this piece they provided both a video piece and a transcript complete. In case the MMFA audience is too lazy to read the entire fragment of the transcript provided, MMFA is good enough to bold-face the important parts, giving the impression that we could ignore the rest. If you actually read a lot of the comments, it's clear that more than a couple people seem to have been left with the impression that CNN did not identify Senator Stevens as a Republican. Why is that? Because MMFA didn't go out of their way to weaken their own argument.
Sorry dude, but you really cannot win this. You might as well go back to your old line of their hypocrisy being a necessary check on the hypocrisy of the opposing side. Even though that's entirely unethical and indefensible, at least it's what you sincerely mean.
Your posts are confusing. You keep switching between the generalized hypocrisy that all adversarial sites operate under and the specific article here.
All I did was point out your odd claim that MMFA "omitted" something by displaying it, but apparently not prominently enough for your tastes.
I am not out to win an argument. We are just having a conversation as far as I am concerned. Dialogue. I am not naive enough to think I will change your mind, although I will admit, I have agreed with some of your points. Maybe you are projecting.
"Thereby accepting and condoning said misinformation. And by your own interpretation, spreading it."--breakerbreaker
So by that reasoning, not commenting on non-conservative or liberal misinformation is by default contributing to its spread?
I suppose that you could also argue that MMFA is spreading the conservative misinformation they don't comment on.
It seems quite pointless.
If you want to read about liberal misinformation, how is MMFA preventing you? You do realize there are many sites who specialize in just that. Don't you? You seem to expect MMFA to be all things to you. No wonder you are apparently so disappointed.
If you want to read about liberal misinformation, how is MMFA preventing you?
It's not that they're preventing me. It's that they're pretending such a thing doesn't exist. The entire purpose behind this site is to counteract all of the nonsense of the 'liberal' bias in the media. If they were to admit any bias or misinformation existed that benefited progressives they'd then have to take a side in the larger argument with which they're not comfortable. So, as far as MMFA readers should be concerned, there's no such thing as progressive misinformation.
You do realize there are many sites who specialize in just that. Don't you?
(As an aside: The more condescending you become the more you reveal yourself to be a really informidable debating opponent. I mean, no offense, but we're not equally matched. I'm the far superior debater and I've built my foundation on solid ground. You honestly cannot win.)
I haven't argued a single time in favor of anybody reporting only liberal misinformation. Although, I think it would be more accurately described as progressive misinformation because liberal implies a level of honesty not apparent in the word progressive. All the same, as much as you'd like to frame this like I'm just complaining because MMFA is mean to conservatives, the argument is about whether one can ethically focus on one kind of misinformation and ignore another without implicitly condoning that other form. The clear answer, whether you like it or not, is no.
You seem to expect MMFA to be all things to you. No wonder you are apparently so disappointed.
Hey, I would settle for them being only one thing for me: entirely honest. Too bad that's not in their mission statement.
"If they were to admit any bias or misinformation existed that benefited progressives they'd then have to take a side in the larger argument with which they're not comfortable. So, as far as MMFA readers should be concerned, there's no such thing as progressive misinformation."--breakerbreaker
Is this some sort of attempt to pat yourself on the back? You think you are the only person here who thinks progressive misinformation even exists? Your post is a fairy tale told by someone who desperately wants to believe in his/her own superiority to us "misguided" liberals. Get over yourself.
I seriously think someone like yourself would do better to constructively build your own site where your standards could be met. Of course, it is far easier to sit here and pointlessly attack MMFA for having a narrower focus on misinformation than you prefer.
Is this some sort of attempt to pat yourself on the back? You think you are the only person here who thinks progressive misinformation even exists?
No. I think I am one of the only--if not the only liberal on this site who has a problem with the fact that progressive misinformation exists. I think some people genuinely don't believe it exists while the likely majority don't consider it a problem because A: There's probably not that much of it, or B: because they believe the ends justify the means.
Your post is a fairy tale told by someone who desperately wants to believe in his/her own superiority to us "misguided" liberals. Get over yourself.
I'm sorry for my tone, but if you could step out of yourself and look around at the ridiculous arguments being posted in defense of dishonesty, you'd probably have far more harsh adjectives running through your mind than 'misguided.'
I seriously think someone like yourself would do better to constructively build your own site where your standards could be met. Of course, it is far easier to sit here and pointlessly attack MMFA for having a narrower focus on misinformation than you prefer.
At last, we sort of agree on something. There are certainly better things I can do with my time. And should be doing. I've wasted quite a bit of the last week on this site debating the merits of principle with people who believe misinformation is something you can take a principled stand against some of the time. And don't fool yourself, that's what people are arguing for whenever they defend the integrity of this site.
But I have to say that I have lost the taste for it again. It comes and goes for me. I show up every six months or so. And spend a week or two reminding myself of why I hadn't been to the site in six months. Alas, I have had my fill. I can only run for so long before asking myself why I didn't take the bus.
I've had some fun with all of you. Have fun doing whatever it is you like to think you're doing here. I've really gotta go.
10-4, over and out.
BreakerBaker
I don't think you are the only one who has a problem that progressive misinformation exists. I don't even know how you can say that without asking people how they feel, but then again, you are the amazing mindreader and all.
I hope you aren't leaving on my account. I apologize for getting a little huffy in the last post. I shouldn't have gotten so personal.
Anyways...I look forward to chatting again sometime.
You are getting desperate. Are you seriously arguing that it shows an intent to deceive when MMfA points out something you claim is detrimental to their own argument? Why do they point it out at all, then? Wouldn't a nefarious operation leave that information out completely (and prevent anyone from commenting on it to its readers)?
And really, is it not obvious to you how you've destroyed your own argument? You're going to talk about people who aren't paying attention to the whole thing here, but by that standard Blitzer (the focus of the article, not CNN in general) was clearly misinforming. If someone is paying attention to what he says, but not the graphics that come later on, then they were misinformed. You've admitted that Blitzer, by your own standards, is misinforming, which makes your citation of what CNN did completely irrelevant. You've validated the article you had such serious issue with. Nice work!
"I was speaking more generally about how MMFA's mission statement supposedly requires that they do not report on misinformation that isn't consistent with forwarding the conservative agenda."
That is not "misinformation by omission". It's not as if a site that admits that it's coming from the left is convincing anyone that there's no misinformation from the left just because they don't mention it. That's absurd. Now, something that claimed to point out all factual errors in a presidential debate, for instance, which pointed out only errors made by the Republican, that would be misinformation by omission. It's relevant information you would expect to see if it existed, but you don't, which gives a false impression.
MMfA does not give the impression that there is no liberal misinformation, because it doesn't promise to expose it.
Why do they point it out at all, then? Wouldn't a nefarious operation leave that information out completely (and prevent anyone from commenting on it to its readers)?
Because they're not stupid. They're not going to withhold the information entirely. They believe by mentioning its existance it absolves them. Plus, the video piece they offer shows the graphic onscreen. They had to at the very least cop to that if they wanted to use the video at all.
You're going to talk about people who aren't paying attention to the whole thing here, but by that standard Blitzer (the focus of the article, not CNN in general) was clearly misinforming. If someone is paying attention to what he says, but not the graphics that come later on, then they were misinformed.
I've yet to see a full transcript. The fact is MMFA says CNN repeatedly identified him as a Republican during the piece we're discussing. So the argument that they're misinforming the public is just incorrect.
You've admitted that Blitzer, by your own standards, is misinforming, which makes your citation of what CNN did completely irrelevant. You've validated the article you had such serious issue with. Nice work!
Nice try. The report was neither misleading nor was it inaccurate. By definition, it's not guilty of misinforming anybody.
That is not "misinformation by omission". It's not as if a site that admits that it's coming from the left is convincing anyone that there's no misinformation from the left just because they don't mention it. That's absurd.
What's absurd is taking the pretense of a stand against misinformation but taking a mission statement which requires you ignore quite a bit of it.
MMfA does not give the impression that there is no liberal misinformation, because it doesn't promise to expose it.
Actually, it gives exactly that impression. As do sites that focus only on liberal misinformation give the impression there's no such thing as conservative misinformation in the media.
"Because they're not stupid. They're not going to withhold the information entirely. They believe by mentioning its existance it absolves them."
Why not? You're on record as saying that people here are just feeding into a narrow worldview, so what's the risk? People who are just looking to confirm their own beliefs aren't going to get any contradictory information anywhere else. And mentioning it does absolve them. The charge isn't that it's some CNN conspiracy, it's that Blitzer was misinforming by omission.
"I've yet to see a full transcript. The fact is MMFA says CNN repeatedly identified him as a Republican during the piece we're discussing. So the argument that they're misinforming the public is just incorrect."
Again, the focus is Blitzer, not CNN. CNN's actions do not reflect on Blitzer's, obviously. Here's a logical experiment for you;let's say I'm on a sales trip with my boss. I tell the client that he'll get a three-year warranty. After I'm done, my boss gives the client a pamphlet which says they'll get the warranty if they pay extra. Now, did I misinform the client? According to you, they may not read the pamphlet, the same way people may not notice the graphic or read the non-highlighted text in this article. But you would seem to argue that I was free of any blame there.
"Nice try. The report was neither misleading nor was it inaccurate. By definition, it's not guilty of misinforming anybody."
Um, no, sorry. You screwed yourself, and that response is not sufficient to save face. If you're going to say that MMfA not highlighting the part about what CNN did is wrong, then what Blitzer did is wrong too. If you can say that MMfA didn't want people to know what CNN did, then it's completely fair to say that Blitzer didn't want his audience to get the full picture either. After all, cable news is not purely a visual medium. You have people who multitask, listening to the news while doing other things, and people who flip around the channels. An article, however, is a purely visual medium. MMfA has to expect that people will read it, non-highlighted portions and all. So if CNN is in the clear because they didn't mislead or present inaccurate information, so if MMfA, because they included that information about CNN! Either your condemnation of what MMfA did works against Blitzer, or your defense of CNN applies to MMfA as well. There is simply no way around it.
"What's absurd is taking the pretense of a stand against misinformation but taking a mission statement which requires you ignore quite a bit of it."
It very clearly takes a stand against conservative misinformation. Why is that unfair? It's a big blogosphere, surely someone else can handle the flipside of that. What makes that a pretense?
"Actually, it gives exactly that impression. As do sites that focus only on liberal misinformation give the impression there's no such thing as conservative misinformation in the media."
Really? I've never heard anyone say or imply that the existence of a site that focuses on one side implies the lack of any material for the other side. If that really is the impression it conveys to you, I would suggest you take a logic class immediately. Otherwise, I would suggest you try to be more intellectually honest, which is where I think your problem actually lies.
Who cares? If Martians landed in Manhattan today would the general public care what political party they are affiliated with........... MMFA is attempting to divide Americans
Are you saying Ted Stevens is a Martian? Or that Martians will be on the ballot the November after this one?
No what I'm saying is that in the last three months MMFA has been behaving like a bunch of school yard children in a sandbox. Every-time I read something it is little MMFA emulating little Johnny with a tattletale to the teacher what little Sally has said. Common sense has been lost on this site and all that is being reported is what is happening in the sandbox. MMFA needs to take the high road if is to be recognized and respected.
"Tattletale"? That's your criticism, really?
I've never quite understood that, frankly. If someone does something questionable, or outright wrong, shouldn't it be pointed out? Is the shame of "tattling" on someone really a dominant concern over keeping our media accountable? Do you really want to make that argument?
If you have a genuine criticism, make it. That wasn't even in the same ballpark.
Your comments indicate a general unfamiliarity with the nature of media criticism itself. How do you define the "high road" with regards to media criticism?