In "[s]eriously stunning" critique of Media Matters "debate 'don'ts,' " NBC's Chuck Todd left out all those referring to NBC's Russert
In a November 15 post on NBC News' First Read blog, NBC News political director Chuck Todd criticized Media Matters for America over a recent item headlined "Some debate 'don'ts' for CNN's Blitzer, Malveaux, Roberts, and Brown," which Media Matters posted in anticipation of the November 15 Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas. Todd described the item as "fascinating," writing, "Why was the list fascinating? Because of what Media Matters chose to bring up for [Sen. Barack] Obama [IL] and [former Sen. John] Edwards [NC] compared to its suggestions for how to address [Sen. Hillary Rodham] Clinton [NY]." Todd further wrote: "Their 'don'ts' read more like facetious attacks on Edwards and Obama -- right out of the oppo shop of either the RNC or, say, opponents of Edwards and Obama." Purportedly to illustrate his point, Todd listed seven of the first eight Media Matters "Don'ts" included in the item. The one he left out? The fourth entry, which "call[ed] out" Todd's colleague, NBC News Washington bureau chief and Meet the Press host Tim Russert.
Specifically, the fourth entry on the list read:
Don't misleadingly crop quotes when challenging a candidate's consistency on a particular issue, as NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert did on the November 11 broadcast of Meet the Press, when he suggested that Obama has "not been a leader against the [Iraq] war."
What was different about this "Don't[]" as opposed to the others in the first eight? It involved the exposure of a serious misrepresentation by Russert. Indeed, three of the 17 Media Matters "Don'ts" had to do with misrepresentations Russert made in questions to Obama and Clinton. But while Todd went on to list three of the Media Matters "Don'ts" concerning Clinton -- purporting to contrast them with those involving Obama or Edwards -- he neglected to mention any of the three "Don'ts" that documented Russert's misleadingly cropped quotes and factual falsehoods in questions to the Democratic candidates.
Specifically, Media Matters included the following "Don'ts" mentioning Russert:
- Don't misleadingly crop quotes when challenging a candidate's consistency on a particular issue, as NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert did on the November 11 broadcast of Meet the Press, when he suggested that Obama has "not been a leader against the [Iraq] war."
- Don't misrepresent exchanges from past debates, as Russert did during the October 30 Democratic debate when he asked Clinton, regarding Social Security: "Why do you have one public position and one private position?"
- Don't purport to cite written documentation while misrepresenting it, as Russert did during the October 30 debate, when he falsely claimed that a letter written in 2002 by President Clinton "specifically ask[ed] that any communication between" him and the first lady "not be made available to the public until 2012."
Moreover, in listing the "7 of the first 8 ... [s]eriously stunning" "Don'ts," Todd mentioned that the entries each had links, but he omitted them. Had he included them, readers would have seen that the entries were not, as he suggested, "facetious attacks on Edwards and Obama," but references to prior Media Matters items exposing media misinformation about Obama and Edwards.
From Todd's November 15 entry at NBC's First Read blog:
From NBC's Chuck Todd
For the most part, I love reading media watchdog sites. It's a healthy exercise for anyone in this business. But one site, in particular, has a hard time keeping its own bias in check, which of course is beyond ironic.
Yesterday, the liberal watchdog site, Media Matters, posted a fascinating list of "Don'ts" for tonight's CNN debate moderators. Why was the list fascinating? Because of what Media Matters chose to bring up for Obama and Edwards compared to its suggestions for how to address Clinton. Their "don'ts" read more like facetious attacks on Edwards and Obama -- right out of the oppo shop of either the RNC or, say, opponents of Edwards and Obama. By repeating these things, isn't Media Matters doing Clinton or other opponents of Edwards and Obama a favor?
Just putting links in their facetious questions isn't enough to somehow distance themselves from looking as if they are more interested in repeating the personal negatives of Obama and Edwards than, say, any personal negative regarding Clinton.
By the way, since they have so many questions, we have one for them, Don't they need to fully disclose their relationship with Hillary Clinton? After all, at the YearlyKos Convention in Chicago on Aug. 4, she touted her involvement with the group:
[...]
"I only wish that we had this active and fighting blogosphere about 15 years ago because we have certainly suffered over the last years from a real imbalance in the political world in our country. But we are righting that balance -- or lefting that balance -- not sure which, and we are certainly better prepared and more focused on taking our arguments and making them effective and disseminating them widely and really putting together a network in the blogosphere in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure -- institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress. We're beginning to match what I had said for years was the advantage of the other side."
Here are some examples of their "don'ts":
-- Don't contradict your own reporting and suggest that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "cash[ed] in" on a stock deal in which he lost $13,000.
-- Don't say that Obama's position on Pakistan is "very much in line with what" President Bush says regarding Pakistan.
-- Don't contradict your own reporting -- again -- and say that Obama, in following legal requirements to count purchasers of his campaign merchandise as campaign contributors, is "apparently using some creative math" and "overselling his grassroots support."
-- Don't tell Obama that "[i]t's difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops."
-- Don't suggest that former Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) work "for financial markets" might "contradict his anti-poverty message."
-- Don't adopt GOP framing and ask Edwards about his "flip-flop" on Iraq "to win the vote."
-- Don't ask about former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's (R) "pretty interesting" quip that "[w]e've had a Congress that's spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop."
Those were 7 of the first 8 "don't" suggestions... Seriously stunning. We're guessing Edwards and Obama partisans don't believe they need any more "help" from David Brock and his team.
Meanwhile, here are some of the Clinton "don'ts," buried toward the END of this list.
-- Don't base questions on premises that contradict available polling data, such as whether the Clinton campaign -- while leading all other candidates in head-to-head matchups -- is "feeling desperate."
-- Don't ask whether Clinton -- but not former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) -- is "going too far" and "politicizing 9-11" in her campaign ads.
-- Don't hold Democratic and Republican candidates to differing standards regarding the Iraq war and the budget -- for example, by repeating Republican attacks on Obama and Clinton for voting against an Iraq supplemental funding bill without noting that Republican candidates have also voted against Iraq supplementals.
Is Media Matters a liberal/Democratic media watchdog site or a Clinton watchdog site? Judging by this list of "don'ts," it's not easy for one to tell the difference.
Unbelievable. Todd tried to keep from pissing off his boss.
That would be Chuck Toadie?
This is one of the most appalling displays from a member of the mainstream media I've seen, and it's not for the reason in the title of this article. It's for Todd pretending that MM is criticizing Obama and Edwards rather than criticizing obviously false attacks on them.
No profession has such corruption and stupidity at the top, and such lack of accountability and oversight, as journalism, and that includes politicians. Their "thinking" is worthy of no attention, and their opinions have no more weight than your uncle's.
Suppose you want to find out a basic fact about a major issue facing our nation. You can either watch cable news for six hours and hear something 100% wrong if the issue is brought up at all, or you can do a 15-minute google search and get it all straightened out.
Here'a another red herring:
" But one site, in particular, has a hard time keeping its own bias in check, which of course is beyond ironic..."
No, what's "ironic" is that Todd doesn't get it that MMFA has never hid its "bias." It's a non-issue, designed to deliberately make look culpable that which is not.
What utter, arrogant dishonesty. This guy deliberately omitted items, and he accuses others of "bias."
Big time missinformation, I'm stunned.
Before anyone asks, yes they probably can get away with it. Maybe unscathed, maybe not.
For that 25% its true. Good timing too.
Justice and Truth in the USA - FACT CHECK:
After carefully and diligently reading the NBC article, I have to call this one FOR Chuck Todd and AGAINST MMFA.
This decision is final and cannot be changed.
Well Billiybob, you do have a sense of humor after all.
Now, now, Mary, don't get me started.
Yes justice, MM was trying to dump on Obama and Edwards and protect Clinton. You are, without a doubt, the most obtuse of the blunt ones. The post was about the media's inability to do even the most basic journalistic endeavor.
The first sentence in the present post is ironic. I feel I have to directly state this, abstract thought seems beyond you.
"This decision is final and cannot be changed."
Truthyjusty, your decisions are all on the order of "I have decided it is hotter in the summer than in the country".
They are such charmingly delightful non sequiturs, we wouldn't want to change a word of *any* of them.
"This decision is final and cannot be changed."
Thankfully for the rest of us that reside in reality, it's a decision that you and you alone have to live with.
After reading all these posts from Justicetroll, I'm convinced that the only thing he does carefully and diligently is play with himself.
Yikes, low blow writer.
It's all JusticeTroll deserves.
"After carefully and diligently reading the NBC article, I have to call this one FOR Chuck Todd and AGAINST MMFA."
Mother of Mercy, is this the end of Media Matters....?
After reading many of your posts I have to call it for you being an idiot who never has anything to post worth reading.
To understand Chuck Todd's anger towards Media Matters, one would have to go back to 2006, when Todd made the embarrassing prediction that if Nancy Pelosis took over in the House in November of that year, George W. Bush's approval rating would go up to 50% or above by the 4th of July of 2007.
Todd's credibility suffered a big blow dealt by himself after this incident, which was reported by Media Matters for America on July 5th, after patiently waiting to see if Bush's approval would in fact go up to that level. I have no doubt that today's rant by Todd stems from MMFA's fabulous exposure of his nonsensical prediction that never materialized.
Here's the link to the story that made Todd bitter for the rest of his life;
http://mediamatters.org/items/200707050011
That's some good digging there. Thanks-- that explains it.
I can understand how someone might miss irony, or mistake sarcasm, but here there was none of that.
Media Matters was clearly saying what should not occur, and linking to incidents of it previously having occurred. There was no irony, or sarcasm. The statements were clear and unambigous. And yet, somehow, Todd managed to completely misunderstand not one or two Donts, but every single one of them.
Except, it appears, the Donts that mentioned Russert. Them, he seems to have understood just dandy. Convenient indeed.
.
Todd listed seven of the first eight Media Matters "Don'ts" included in the item. The one he left out? The fourth entry, which "call[ed] out" Todd's colleague, NBC News Washington bureau chief and Meet the Press host Tim Russert.
But while Todd went on to list three of the Media Matters "Don'ts" concerning Clinton -- purporting to contrast them with those involving Obama or Edwards -- he neglected to mention any of the three "Don'ts" that documented Russert's misleadingly cropped quotes and factual falsehoods in questions to the Democratic candidates.
So Todd chose not to include his fellow NBC colleague
Sort of like Keith Olbermann chooses not to criticize or award his Worse Person Awards to his fellow MSNBC/NBC colleagues?
Anyone see a pattern here? I do.
Yet, Keith has constantly been excused for his glaring omissions by MMFA & the Liberal posters here.
Mmmmm...I smell hypocrisy.
So when will MMFA devote a thread here about Olbermann not taking a fellow colleague to task? I'd guess never. After all he's Brock's pet.
I can't take this thread seriously because of the lack of consistency by this site.
And MMFA loses credibility big time when they are blatantly biased in whom they select to highlight.
You can always go to another website?
If Media Matters is so Un-credible, then why are you here? There are plenty of Cons here who can cover for you.
Just pack it in. Go to a conservative site--maybe the Sludge Report--and really kick some ass!
The "Why are you here " attack. Nice when you lose an argument you throw that at people. How dare anyone be critical. You do not like that so you smear/
Jeter is right, Olbermann is the perfect example, he never is critical of anyone at NBC, he remainded quiet while Imus was on that network. his two faced behavior smells more than a landfill and his support from this website hurts MMFA credibility.
If Olby is so great, why does he not be critical of Russert? no guts that is why. FOX is an easy target but its old and stale.
It could be argued that with only three positions on his "Worst Person" list each night, Bill O'Reilly, Faux News, and Rush Limbaugh usually occupy them because what they do is far worse than anything on MSNBC.....
Yeah when Imus calls Hillary Satan or when Sid Rosenberg called Palestinians "pigs" and that appeared on MSNBC , that is far worse than FOX News. Got it.
Guess it all depends on what Faux News did that day......
Sueeld I agree with you regarding the Imus/MSNBC Olbermann ignore situation. It always bothered me that he remained silent. Imus is no longer on MSNBC and begins his show on 12/3. It will be interesting how many times Olbermann now uses Imus as the WPITW. Todd in my view did nothing different than Olbermann would. Has Olbermann named Russert WPITW for his hit job on Senator Clinton? No and why would he , they work for NBC News. Sad but it is a reality.
Olbermann....
You can always go to another website?
If Media Matters is so Un-credible, then why are you here? There are plenty of Cons here who can cover for you.
Just pack it in. Go to a conservative site--maybe the Sludge Report--and really kick some ass!
Fungus,
Your response doesn't surprise me.
Having read your other posts here, it appears you are clearly ignorant as to the purpose of political forums.
The best of them are a place where there are an exchange of ideas, opinions & information. Folks participate in order to discuss/debate the issues as well as to point out flaws in the subject matter offered.
MMFA ranks as one of the best, as they allow all viewpoints. They also permit posters to criticize or disagree with something they've chosen to highlight, or to point out an inconsistency.
You apparently are a lemming that would be far happier on a forum of partisan bobbleheads. Your suggestion that I post elsewhere is the advice of a closed-minded weakling that obviously is afraid of opposing views.
MMFA ranks as one of the best, as they allow all viewpoints. They also permit posters to criticize or disagree with something they've chosen to highlight, or to point out an inconsistency
Well said Jeter , yet there are some posters who fear different views. not the America I want to live in.
yet there are some posters who fear different views. not the America I want to live in.
I agree Sue. I knew I'd catch flak for even bringing up St. Keith & the inconsistency here by MMFA, but it jumped out at me & I thought it needed to be pointed out.
Thanks for your backing on this. I knew I couldn't be the only one that saw this as a tad hypocritical on MMFA's part.
Of course I always expect to get attacked for daring to be bold enough to go against the flow.
Ha! I guess you know how that feels too--eh? :-)
Jeter - I just think that the double standard needs to be discussed. Just becuase you have a show that parrots MMFA material, mocks Bill ORielly and targets FOX and Bush does not mean it should be exempt from criticsm. I know the partisan haters will attack me and you for this but so be it. I for one am tired of the double standard.
I agree Sue, and while I disagree with most of what you post, I appreciate your comments and those of even Justice. I appreciate the sprinkling of comments that seem to focus people and charge the comments with pasison. If I was truly cynical, and I think I am, then I might think that MMFA writes the inflammitory comments themselves in order to spark discussion. Especially when I read one of Justice's explosions of ignorance and stupidity. I mean, no one can be that dense, can they?
MMFA ranks as one of the best, as they allow all viewpoints. They also permit posters to criticize or disagree with something they've chosen to highlight, or to point out an inconsistency
Very true Jeter, good statement, I agree MMFA is a good site that allows all view points, our user community should be as tolerating as the forum allows us. Calling people trolls or telling them to not read the site is weak.
"Sort of like Keith Olbermann chooses not to criticize or award his Worse Person Awards to his fellow MSNBC/NBC colleagues? Anyone see a pattern here? I do. Yet, Keith has constantly been excused for his glaring omissions by MMFA & the Liberal posters here."
Who? When?
So you can't take this thread seriously? Do you take the "Worst Person" segment seriously? Don't make me drag out the Countdown viewer's guide again.
I'm not denying what appears to be a chummy Keith/MMFA relationship, but this is different because it was a clearcut case of an NBC political director deliberately cherry picking an MMFA item. If Keith lashed out at MMFA in such a way (yeah, right), I would be surprised and disappointed if MMFA did not respond.
Todd could have addressed the Russert items as he saw fit, but he copped out hoping no one would notice. And he's a director, while Keith is... how do the Hannity apologists describe it?... not a journalist, but a commentator?
Pete,
Setting aside Keith's silly awards [though has he ever named a fellow MSNBC/NBC colleague?]
Was he critical of Russert's performance as a debate commentator? Has he ever been critical of Chris Matthews? Tucker? Joe? Pat Buchannan? I am not a regular viewer, but the times I've tuned in--I've never heard a peep from Keith about those [above] offenders that MMFA has called out from time to time here as Conservative info misinformers.
I'm not excusing Todd, just pointing out that at least at NBC/MSNBC, they apparently don't eat their own.
However, if MMFA finds fault with Todd, then why does Keith get immunity?
And please don't use Keith's only a lowly commentator excuse. It really is weak.
I'm just looking for consistency on MMFA's part.
and remaining quiet while Imus called Hillary Satan, yet if Imus was on FOX, forget it. Having a show everynight that tells us FOX is bad and evil is boring and not telling us something we do not know.
Excellent point!
Where was Keith? Oh yeah couldn't say a word about his fellow colleague? Funny I recall how so many gave him a pass on that...
Here's Keith when it comes to being critical of those at MSNBC/NBC: :-X
What are you guys blathering on about? Olberman DID go after Don Imus for his comments. He also has refused to appear on Imus' show since 1998 because of his past remarks.
Here is one clip of Olberman criticizing Imus....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znM1t6AjKq4
Can you give some actual examples next time, instead of just making a statement then agreeing with each other about your own version of the facts???
Brian it was after his comments. What about in 2004 and 2005 and 2006 when he called Hillary "satan".?
Olbermann remained silent when Imus said this smear. But if Imus said it on FOX we all know it would have been mentioned by the sportsguy.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250001?f=s_search
Here's another clip of Olbermann going after Imus before MSNBC fired him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAasjji4i18
Olbermann also stated that he refused to appear on Imus' show ever since 1998 because of comments he disagreed with.
Here Olbermann names former Imus producer one of his worst people in the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6UqMUFzOG0
Olbermann clearly, on many occassions, went after Imus for his comments, despite the fact they worked at the same station together.
Also, you're ignoring the fact that an opinion show like Imus' criticizing a political figure (Hillary) is completely different than a supposedly impartial media figure like Russert going after her during a political debate with misleading attacks.
Brian
I followed the Imus situation very closely, while Imus was on MSNBC Olbermann never was critical of him or Bernie. Please be fair.
Doris,
Please view those youtube clips I posted. Olbermann clearly went after Imus for his comments. I watched the shows myself, and posted the youtube clips to back up my argument. How am I not being "fair"??? None of you (Sue, Jeter, or yourself) have offered anything supporting your argument that Olbermann did not go after Imus.
I hope you remember your blow off of the commentator excuse next time a Hannity apologist invokes it.
Pete, if something similar comes up involving Hannity, I'll certainly not be shy expressing it.
Since I can't remember ever defending Hannity, or having a kind word to say about him...it shouldn't be too difficult.
I guess I can count on you to be critical of Olbermann then?
Jeter that is a perfect point, apparently on here if you are critical of King Olby that means you must be a supporter of the likes of Hannity and Rush. Freethinkers not allowed by some posters.
Warning! This thread has been derailed by a self-congratulating, circle-jerk of commentary completely unrelated to the story above. Proceed at your own risk!
Not really Iowa, the discussion is Todd and NBC, it has progressed .
The last several posts have been about KO not Todd and the comparison of the two is completely unrelated to the issue raised in the story above. In other words, derailed, side tracked, diverted... you get the idea.
Perhaps the title should have focused on the fact that he either deliberately is misleading his readers or he completely misunderstood the point of the "Dont's" article.
Iowa, the Olbermann comparison is valid and I support Jeter and Sueeld and others for engaging in it.
Well, then, I stand corrected.
I guess, I still don't understand how Todd is "off the hook" for completely misrepresenting the article simply because Keith Olbermann doesn't critize his co-workers and superiors. Please educate me.
No one is saying that.
As I wrote in an earlier post:
I'm not excusing Todd, just pointing out that at least at NBC/MSNBC, they apparently don't eat their own.
Can you name a network/news organization that does?
Not commenting is not the same as defending or misrepresenting something.
It's clear from his commentarys Olbermann couldn't stomach Imus.
It's also clear his bosses drew the line when it came to commenting about network programming decisions.
Thank you Doris. and Iowa I have never said Todd is off the hook, my point is MMFA has no issue with Olbermann not being critical of his superiors or co workers , why is Todd held a different standard?
I guess because this site is about pointing out conservative misinformation and KO is generally commenting from a liberal viewpoint. There are other websites whose only purpose is pointing out misinformation period, this is not one of them.
"MMFA has no issue with Olbermann not being critical of his superiors or co workers , why is Todd held a different standard?'
This is very simple.
Todd is misrepresenting what MMFA posted in more ways than one.
Not being critical of something isn't the same as defending it or misrepresenting it.
Do you really expect a post here about what people aren't commenting on?
Do you really expect a post here about what people aren't commenting on?
We get them all the time, I do not see your point.
We get them all the time
Examples please.
Sure we had a post about an event that did not take place
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711140007?f=s_search
It's clear you don't understand what the post you linked to is about.
Sure I do, it was a list of things that were pertaining to a future event. it is clear you are now attempting to hijack this thread with your attacks
You said
Do you really expect a post here about what people aren't commenting on?
That did happen in the thread I posed. There was a thread on what people were not commenting on.
Wow.
You really have gone off into the deep quicksand.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to hire somebody just to deal with all the holes in your arguements.
Sure why do you not go ahead and do that Johnnie.
I don't think it would help clear up your fuzzy thinking or the illogical connections you see as logical.
Cry me a river.
I am sick and tired of the whining and accusations of me or others of having some sort of self-declared disciplinary authority over other posters they disagree with.
No one is stifling your freedom to post here so toughen up and stop acting like a victim, because you're not.
apparently on here if you are critical of King Olby that means you must be a supporter of the likes of Hannity and Rush. Freethinkers not allowed by some posters.
Exactly Sue! You nailed it!
I can't count the times certain posters simply assume what my views are just because I've said I am a Republican/Conservative.
I can't win with some of this crowd, so I just mostly shrug it off.
Freethinkers not allowed by some posters.
Freethinkers are not excused from having to be rational or having to base their opinions on facts.
That would make a great bumper sticker.
Now was there anything else you'd like to add to the disscussion Johnny?
I like where your heart's at Johnny, but Jeter did have a basis for his conclusion about this item.
No he doesn't.
He's holding Olbermann to a standard that just doesn't exist for anyone else. Can you name a show that's critical of the network it's on?
Todd clearly misrepresented what MMFA posted.
Absence of criticism in not the same thing as misrepresentation.
Thank you Pete.
Had MMFA framed their argument differently, I wouldn't have brought this up. However they pointed to the fact that Todd omitted his NBC colleagues remarks. I felt bringing Olbermann in as a similar example was valid.
Hang in there Jeter - remember the liberal playbook - if you can't defeat the message - attack the messenger.
That must mean the conservative playbook would say something like...
If someone questions your message, portray yourself as a poor victim of "political discrimination" brought on by a self-appointed liberal forum dictator.
Yes, and if someone questions your message try to portray yourself as a "free thinker" being attacked by partisans.
Hang in there Jeter - remember the liberal playbook - if you can't defeat the message - attack the messenger.
Yeah WC how'd I forget that one? I better go reread How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)
I think Ann covered that- if you can't defeat the message - attack the messenger- in Chapter One....
;-)
Well since Ann is an absolute EXPERT in that I would give her credibilty except that her projection is so all consuming that it sort of cancels out that expertise.
Which is exactly what YOU are doing. I guess in the conservative playbook its if you cant think of anything relevant to post. Post something STUPID.
And I don't remember you doing so either, and thus I didn't accuse you of it.
I understand why he wouldn't want to address the items about Russert. But I've heard it suggested here that Olbermann shouldn't do his WPITH segment at all because it's obviously not a good idea to pick on people from his own network.
So why don't we take that concept and shrink it down to a much more reasonable size, and say that Todd should probably have left the MMfA article alone altogether? Surely there are other things he can criticize, and do so in an honest manner.
What I think is more important, and what MMfA should have focused on here, is that Todd ignored the links on the items in order to misrepresent the nature of the list. I don't see how you can fail to take that seriously.
because it's obviously not a good idea to pick on people from his own network.
Except if your Todd?
Here's the very first line of my post:"I understand why he wouldn't want to address the items about Russert."
So I'm not sure why you would think I'm saying that Todd should have criticized Russert. Explain?
So I'm not sure why you would think I'm saying that Todd should have criticized Russert. Explain?
I am not saying you think that, I am saying MMFA does.
Then why are you taking it up with me?
As I said, I think it goes more to the idea that he just shouldn't have written the critique at all if he can't address it in its entirety. If this was an item like "Todd criticizes Blitzer for his moderating performance, but not Russert", then I would say "why the hell is this here"? I wouldn't expect someone like Todd to do that. But if wants to make an honest criticism of MMfA's post, he should address the entire thing. That's not the same as a nightly segment on a TV show.
Todd's entire critique is dishonest. MMfA should have framed it better, in my opinion, to emphasize his misrepresentation instead of the omission.
Then why are you taking it up with me?
I was just expanding on your well written statement, why so angry?
If you thought it was well-written, then I figure you would have understood it. When you ask a question, it sort of gives the impression that you're asking for clarification, not "expanding" on my comment.
I'm not angry, I just hate guessing games. When you write one-line posts, you don't convey your meaning very well. It sounds like you didn't read what I wrote, or misinterpreted, or think I'm a representative of MMfA. It certainly didn't sound like understanding.
Thank you for the compliment though, I appreciate it.
Jeter2, how to put this, um, delicately? Do you actually watch Olbermann? Among other things, when he makes an on air mistake, he not only corrects it, but often goes to the additional trouble of listing HIMSELF in the WWW pantheon for the day.
Not to get off on an irrelevant thread, but I am reminded of the comment I recently saw on a conservative blog -- I'll try to dig it up if anyone is REALLY interested -- where the blogger had an airtight argument for why David Brooks had to be right about Paul Krugman having micharacterized Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign inaugural speech in Philadelphia, MS as playing the race card. Said the blogger, with not a shred of irony, and I paraphrase, "No way would Reagan have given a speech tinged with any sort of racism in Philadelphia, PA." I am not making this up. And no one corrected him on it as far as I could stand reading in the thread.
This my friends is the level of acumen we get from folks who flame on about, say, Keith Olbermann never criticizing the folks at NBC/MSNBC. And does anyone else remember the new you-know-what he ripped for Alison Stewart and his writing staff ON AIR for making fun of David Vitter's wife's dress when she was filling in for him one night?
Jeter2, geez, check your facts before you insert your foot.
Alison Stewart is an easy target, heck Oreilly was critical of News Corp for planning the OJ Interview. Olbermann is gutless, he never is critical of Matthews, Russert, Tucker Carlson and these are the people who have teeth who do damage to people like Hillary.
Olbermann awarded himself a WWP, & was critical one time of his on air replacement & writers...am I supposed to be impressed?
Was he critical of Imus when he was a colleague? Or did he wait till he got booted?
And once again has Keith ever uttered a disparaging word or an iota of criticism towards Russert, Tucker, Matthews, Joe, Pat Buchannan???
Please take your flimsy examples & peddle them elsewhere--I'm not buying. I'm sure certain bobbleheads here will find them captivating. I don't.
Honestly I'm often truly amazed at the weak rebuttals some of you offer & expect them to be taken seriously.
And once again has Keith ever uttered a disparaging word or an iota of criticism towards Russert, Tucker, Matthews, Joe, Pat Buchannan???
Never but if they went over to FOX , forget it Olby would never shut it. The guy is a phony.
Jeter you are wrong about Keith Olberman, he included himself as worst person in the world during one segment for getting the stats about homlessness wrong. look it up. Then apologize for not getting your facts right!
It is easy to be your own target that to stand up and target people like Russert, Matthews and Carlson.
Please go read the other posts here...I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
Here's a preview:
ONE time directed at himself doesn't cut it, how about he's never critical of Russert, Tucker, Matthews etc.
Geez how many time do I & others have to point this out?
Obviously, MMFA should have made this story about how Todd completely missed the point of the original story. The fact that he didn't go after "one of his own" is just practicing the "not biting the hand that feeds you" idea. Then, this whole un-related ramabling by you and Sueeld wouldn't make sense at all.
Not saying that it makes sense anyway, but that's another issue that seems to have been addressed several times, but obviously you guys think you have made some killer point about MMFA and are enjoying some kind of vistory lap around this thread.
But MMFA did make this thread about Todd not going after his fellow NBC colleague Russert, therefore bringing the fact that Olbermann [another MSNBC/NBC colleague] also does not go after fellow employees is valid.
No one is doing a victory lap. For cryin out loud can't we also point out inconsistencies here?
It appears IowaDem does not like Olby to be compared to Todd.
If the comparison is valid and relelvant to the discussion, then I heartily encourage it.
I apologize if I have upset you and don't get me wrong. I appreciate pointing out inconsistencies. In fact, if MMFA monitors these threads, then it can only help them improve. I just hate to see threads get so far off the topic at hand especially when the point bringing it off topic seems contrived. You can make the point, please make the point when it happens. But, then to go on and on about it seems to distract from the intent of the article.
I just hate to see threads get so far off the topic at hand especially when the point bringing it off topic seems contrived
Iowa I do not see how this thread has gone off topic, the discussion has pertained to NBC and Todd. No one has yet to hijack a thread , I have seen threads hijacked before and lately.
<Waving a white flag> Okay, maybe I am just a little miffed that MMFA didn't approach this story from the angle I thought more damning. Todd misrepresented (or misunderstood) the "Dont's" article. Whether he went after a fellow employee is really not that surprising or important.
Fair point Iowa
"So Todd chose not to include his fellow NBC colleague"
And in doing so further misrepresented what MMFA posted beyond his original thesis which was a misrepresentation in and of itself.
Russert is not Todd's colleague. He is his boss.
Russert is not Todd's colleague. He is his boss
Which should all tell us how bad NBC News has become.
You have a point Jeter. When MMFA starts questioning omissions of outlets then they open themselves and other like minded outlets to the same criticism. The overall criticism of Todd was a powerful enough indictment of his work without calling into question the ommissions of NBC outlets.
That said perhaps Olberman is jockeying for this year's "GE Followship Award". If he opens with a segment on picking out the perfect General Electric Washer and Dryer for Christmas you will know that he has it sewn up.
No they dont. They only go after conservatives in the same way MRC AIM and Newsbusters ONLY goes after liberals. They make this plain in their mission statement. It is no more wrong for MMFA than it is for MRC or AIM. What you seem to want is for the left to unilaterally disarm and allow the right to have sites that ONLY target liberals but have no sites that target ONLY conservatives. Its disengenuous.
MMFA clearly states that it exists to highlight conservative misinformation. You then criticise MMFA for not highlighting Keith Olbermann. In case you have not realised, KO is not a conservative.
If Chuck Todd can't tell for sure whether MM is a Democratic/liberal or a Clinton media watchdog, then he doesn't read it regularly.
MBrown, it's actually a watchdog for conservative misinformation, but even some of the regular readers can't figure that out.There are , on a regular basis, posters who insist it's a Hillary campaign site, but I think those are just Rush Limbaugh fans who have had their critical thinking muscles deactivated.
"a Clinton media watchdog"
Wrong.
Here's a simple equation:
More conservative misinformation about Hillary in the media = more conservative misinformation about Hillary at Media Matters.
If Chris Dodd was the right-wing's favorite target and the leader in the polls, you'd see more of him here than anyone else. Then people would accuse MM of being a Dodd media watchdog.
The saddest part of this little kerfuffle is that apparently there are people in the media who might take something MMFA said seriously.
MMFA is to serious political commentary what the three stooges were to Shakespeare.
A Mid Summers Night Dream ? Yeah, maybe.
MMFA and several other sites have turned the corner to do for the left what hatetalk AM radio has done for the right. And with some help from Bush's incompetancy, it's starting to look like after 2008, Republicans won't control anything for many years.
Those on the right need to get used to it because the shift has started. The trick will be for Democrats to do a good job, and keep the wolves at bay.
It shouldn't be too hard for them to do a better job than the Republicans. But that's not good enough. They need to get the country off the canvas and back into the fight.
"MMFA and several other sites have turned the corner to do for the left what hatetalk AM radio has done for the right"
Rick, I just wanted to clarify (not that your comment wasn't clear to humans, but I've started to anticipate wingnut-filtering software).
The result might be the same (getting the respective message out), the difference is in the method. MMFA is using objective and complete documentation, where am radio was successful through withholding information.
I know that's what you wrote, but it's inevitable some dittohead would read it as "MMFA is the same as righty radio".
Scary when you start thinking like the patients.Who's watching the asylum?
I appreciate that HBL. As you said, humans wouldn't mistake MMFA for the left's equivolent to talk hate radio. But conservatives love to pounce on any small thing that can be purposelly misconstrued. It must be because we give them so little to use.
There, there, EdRoss...
Thatsa boy! Keep listening to Rush, it'll be alright. Media Matters is just a far-left Soros Website.
Thatsa boy! Time for your meds!
"MMFA is to serious political commentary what the three stooges were to Shakespeare. "
You might want to think about that a little. The Three Stooges are magnificent. Timeless. Bad analogy.
Sointenly!
Sure thing.
If you and Todd did take Media Matters seriously, you'd be writing an article about them, or posting a message on their web site.
But since they're not serious and not worth bothering with, you and Todd wouldn't do that, cuz what'd be the point?
It would be even sadder if anyone were dumb enough to take YOUR stupidity seriously. You are too posters what Anthrax is to good health
Now this is funny!!
Talk about your textbook right-wing corporate nitwit.
Chuck Todd, Come on down!
You mean the MSM will lie to criticize Liberals? I'm so SHOCKED, SHOCKED I'll tell you.
The MSM is not stupid, they see the deluge coming, the tsumani that will wipe them and their Republican paymasters out of office and into irrelevance. They Warred on Gore and Pushed for Bush, they let easily refuted lies about Kerry pass. They are the Stenographers for the Plutocratic class, and they will earn that pay as long as they can and utterly destroy anyone who opposes them. Hillary, being quite the Centrist (translation: Corporate Tool) herself may well get a pass from their true venom, but it is Edwards that they truly fear. They and their Bosses, the Corporations, have invested far too much time, energy, and money converting us from a country of citizens to a country of consumers scrambling to vote against their own best interest.
Hey Jeter, since this website is about conservative misinformation, my guess is that they probably won't cover KO, since that is not their stated goal! But what do I know, I only read and then think rationally, maybe you should as well. Oh, and btw, since this is not ESPN or some other New York outfit, lemme tell you a little secret...you're not the best shortstop in baseball. In fact, you're not even the best shortstop on your own team, which, also by the way, are overpaid losers working for a psychotic boss. In other words, they are Republicans! ;) (Couldn't resist, sorry-lol)
I'll take David Brock and KO over Limbaugh and O'Reilly any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Actually, I can watch KO on Sundays, because his star is actually rising, unlike O'Vilely's limp loofa.
Bask in these last rays of sunshine, Regressives, you're time in hibernation will be quite long and very cold. Of course, that's what happens when you poo in the house, which is what you've done. Don't worry though, I'm sure that all of the dead soldiers in Iraq that you've let die in order to fluff Bush will probably keep you warm. Good job wasting so many valuable lives on your stupid little "crusade", btw, I haven't had a chance here to acknowledge that yet. Heckuva job, Clownies!
Jackson
JacksonHunter Derick Jeter is the best shortstop in baseball---Period. Playing for a Republican doesn't make you one thats non-sense. We beat your RedSox head to head last year and we will do it again next year. The jeter on this site though needs to get his facts strait.
Jackson,
I find your description regarding the ultimate sacrifice our soldiers made in serving our country very disrespectful. They are true heroes. To denigrate their sacrifice with your flippant remarks is, in my opinion, unnecessary and hurtful.
God bless our soldiers and their families. I'll be praying for them and thanking God for their sacrifice when I give thanks next Thursday.
How are you able to walk straight when you are so wrapped up in the flag?
Well said AA,
I too will raise a toast on Thanksgiving to all the brave men and women who are serving in harms way and pray for their safe return.
But I guess for some it's far easier to step on the flag as they walk over it, instead of proudly walking with your head held high.
"I find your description regarding the ultimate sacrifice our soldiers made in serving our country very disrespectful. They are true heroes."
The criticism --in my humble view-- was of the politicans and enablers who sent those brave soldiers into battle into a needless war.
One can argue if they want to that those lives were "wasted", if they believe the war was a total mistake and not worth fighting.
That doesn't mean one doesn't respect the "ultimate sacrifice" that they made.
I believe that was the point he was trying to make.
I think you're pretending that he criticized the soldiers, when he didn't.
The reason is because I see it all the time. You're against the war and want to bring them home is translated into 'you hate the troops' by the right-wing.'
Maybe the poster can explain better than I can.
Watching Todd and others like him in the "news" business brings to mind other "newspapers" I get in the computer field. These are so-called trade journals which are really just a magazine full of ads. The actual "articles" are just P.R. news releases sandwiched between ads. It is often difficult to tell them apart.
What is funny is that each of these articles have bylines with names I have never heard of and, from what I understand, most are just fictional. The purpose of these "journals" is to provide a way to send advertising to computer and engineering people in the guise of a news journal.
In a real sense, the MSM is evolving into this kind of animal. The days of real journalism are long gone and every story is likely edited by some corporate representative intent on ensuring the correct political/economic spin.
What are real journalists to do? Todd indicates, by his story, that he is willing to sacrifice his own integrity to follow orders. How much is he being paid to write such stuff? Have the corporate MSM entities completely replaced journalists with actors? The newspaper reporters with fictional characters?
Remember the stories about unsafe toys? About drugs that cause death? About investment scams? With a corporate MSM these kinds of stories are a thing of the past. I guess some of our more conservative trolls are OK with a "free enterprise" press that, in order to maintain corporate profits, fail to report such things.
For those people I can only hope that after taking tainted medicine and getting deathly ill, the thought that your fate is helping someone's bottom line will be of some consolation.
Of course we all know how totally unbiased (cough, cough, in fact choke, choke) Todd would be and we know he would never conflate things to cover for the dismal job that Tim Russet did at the last debate. After all, Tim is one of his buddies from NBC and they stick together, no matter how garbagy their arguement soulds in doing so. Further for Chuck Todd to even criticize evenhandedness in others reminds me of an old Bible story about the guy who worried over much about the speck in the other' guys eye when he had a 2 x 4 in his own eye. OK! OK! So it is a bit of a loose translation, but you get the idea.
All I've got to say of Olbermann not criticizing NBC hosts.
His worst person in the world has had a current NBC host on it. In fact, he's named hosts and shows on MSNBC on his list of worst people in the world.
Besides himself who?
In fact, he's named hosts and shows on MSNBC on his list of worst people in the world.
Please give an example of Olbermann misrepresenting anything the way Todd misrepresented the contents of the MMFA posting he wrote about.
Sure
Olbermanns nasty tirade about Bush not being at Arlington on Veterans Day, but as the attached links hows other than Former Pres Clinton Presidents did not go to Arlington every year and during war Eisnehower and Nixon did not go. LBJ never went .
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2007/11/13/olbermanns-cheap-shot-bush-veterans-day-speech
How is that a misrepresentation?
Did Bush go or not?
He couldn't be bothered to lay the wreath on Veterans' Day. Why does George W. Bush hate the troops?
Bush participated in a ceremony, I do not believe Bush hates the troops like Olby asks. I hate being in a position to have to defend Bush but Olbermann is so wrong and comes out so hateful.
One more time, did Bush go or not?
Olbermann is correct, he didn't.
You may not agree with Olbermann's commentary but he does have his facts correct.
Please feel free to try again.
Johnny I am not sure about what Sueeld is trying to say but Bush did not go yet that is true, yet it was a smear and lowblow by Olbermann to say he hates the troops. I do not like this President and this war at all but It is what I would expect from someone at FOX to say to a Democratic figure.
She's just manifesting her Olbermann obsession once again, seeing connection where there aren't any, all under the guise of "free thinking."
Again questioning King Olby is an obsession.
Olbermann spending 3 or 3 segments a night on Bill Oreilly is news.
MMFA reporting on what Olbermann reporting on what he said about OReilly is news.
Got it , I love your standards.
There is no connection between Olbemann's show and what Todd wrote.
If this isn't an obsession what would you call it?
A discussion is not an obsession. The points are valid , sorry your partisan brain does not like free thinking.
sorry your partisan brain does not like free thinking
Free thinking isn't the same as fuzzy thinking.
I've asked you for some examples of Olbermann misrepresenting the facts the way Todd misrepresented MMAF's post.
You can't supply them.
End of story.
Olbermann lied about Rosie , he said Rosie was not in talks with MSNBC, yet MSNBC and Rosie both confirmed it. If you want to go further off topic I can get out the half truths, distortions and lies.
I asked a question based on another posters comments that Olbermann always is critical of NBC and names them WPITW. No one has yet answered it. Why? Because he never has.
Now that's just stupid.
Why would Olbermann lie if both Rosie and MSNBC were confirming it?
Why would Olbermann lie if both Rosie and MSNBC were confirming it?
If I knew Olbys brain and why it works the way it does I would have a million dollars.
You don't know what he was thinking yet you're sure he lied</>.
Is this another example of "free thinking."
No its Olbermann logic.
Sueeld, I see your point. The Olbermann comment was clearly partisan. But lets face it he hates Bush and this is not LBJ, Nixon or Eisenhower. Cable news has become partisan.
That's right.
You may disagree with Olbermann's commentary but he does have his facts correct.
The comparison of Todd and Olbermann is bogus.
Sue did ask a valid question however that no one has yet answered. Who besides himself at NBC has he named WPITW or been critical of ?
What has that got to do with Todd misrepresenting MMFA's post in order to protect his boss?
Nothing as far as I can see.
So the answer is that Olbermann has never stood up and said that his bosses at NBC were terrible for having Imus on the network to call Hillary "satan" and Matthews to lie every day.
Thank you for your non answer. It speaks volumes.
And you interpret this as defending Imus?
That's really a stretch given Olbermann's comments about Imus once his bosses let him comment.
And you interpret this as defending Imus?
Where did I ever say Olby defened Imus?
If you don't think he's defending Imus and his colleagues at MSNBC then exactly what is your beef?
Its not a matter of defending, silence does not mean you are defending them. It is a matter of having the same standards that you set for others . Its not ok for Oreilly to lie, but Tucker Carlson is allowed to .
By not making Carlson one of the Worst Persons in the World Olbermann is implying it's ok that Carlson lies?
That's ridiculous.
You sure seem to know a lot about what Olbermann is thinking even after admitting you have no idea what he's thinking.
Johnny you and I both know that Olbermann spends more time than just the WPITW on OReilly.
Your dismissive attitude of Olby is nice, maybe he will go out with you on a date?
I didn't think you could defend what you're saying and you proved me right.
"Who besides himself at NBC has he named WPITW or been critical of ?"
Doris:
I don't see anything at all wrong with asking the question.
But aren't there some anti-Keith-Olbermann web site forums where this question or general Olbermann complaints could be discussed?
And since when does Olbermann spew conservative misinformation? Isn't that what this site is about?
Seems to me the topic is Todd's critique of Media Matters, the debate, the influence Matthews has on Todd or vice-versa, the ratio of Obama to Clinton "don'ts".
When there are very few progressive voices on television and on the radio in relation to conservatives throwing a ton of misinformation at the left, why would a progressive want to spend time *here* bashing Olbermann? Maybe you can explain it.
Congratulations! What a great example of a topic being off topic. ;-)
It seems to me to be self serving, circular, and funny, for MMFA to start a thread about someone in the mainstream press leaving out a bullet point regarding a MMFA thread... when that MMFA thread is simply an opinion piece about an event that had not yet occurred.
Whew! I'm dizzy! (not really)
No need for my liberal friends to waste any time trying to make an argument defending MMFA. Lets move on to some of their other fun stuff. :-)
ps. My comments above were made before I read Jackson's comments above that. My comment about "move on to other fun stuff" seems out of place and as flippant as the comment for which I criticized Jackson. I do not mean to be caviler regarding the war and the issues around it.
My comment was directed only at the discussion regarding the MMFA bullet points, and discussions regarding this thread.
I apologize if I offended anyone.
You did not offend me ;-)
You are slightly oversimplifying the issue, in my view.
It was a hopeful wish list of dos and don'ts. The expectation was maybe CNN would take some notice.
We are, after all, trying to decide on the next president.
Considering who was chosen the last time around, and the media's behavior in the selection process, it's not a trivial matter.
Considering that the candidates were asked last night whether they preferred "diamonds or pearls", more Media Matters "opinion pieces" will be required. It'd be nice if others would feel the same way and help-out, rather than denigrate the effort.
I followed the Imus situation very closely, while Imus was on MSNBC Olbermann never was critical of him or Bernie.
If you followed his commentary once Imus was let go then you know Olbermann clearly couldn't stomach him. He refused to appear on his show.
It was at the request of his bosses that Olbermann withheld comment as long as he did.
This is not the same as being critical of an MMFA posting and misrepresenting what that posting contains.
If you followed his commentary once Imus was let go then you know Olbermann clearly couldn't stomach him. He refused to appear on his show. He appeared on his show in 1998 then after Imus was critical of him for calling out sick because he did not want to cover the Monica scandal that is when he could not stomach him.
It was at the request of his bosses that Olbermann withheld comment as long as he did. How nice , if his booses requested he no longer be critical of Bush and the war that would be ok also?
This is not the same as being critical of an MMFA posting and misrepresenting what that posting contains. It has similar relationships Johnny. The world does not evolve around MMFA posts. I am suprised at your behavior today on this thread. This is a clear issue, Todd was wrong, however this occurs throught NBC News.
There's a big difference between being asked by your bosses to let in-house disagreements remain in-house and being asked to not cover the news. Once Imus became a news story Olbermann covered it.
I agree, NBC does have more problems than Todd but Olbermann's choices for Worst Person in the World are not among them.
oh please - don't do a clintonesque swerve and dodge by going after the Russert red herring. As old scott fitzgerald would say, two equal and opposite ideas can both be true. You absolutley displayed a pro-Clinton bias and should be covering the Clinton claque and Bltzer's pro-Hillary bias AND Todd didn't go after the untouchable Russert. You need to address the charges, which you never answered.
It's sort of hard to take your argument seriously when the list in question had many items referring to misrepresentations of Obama and Edwards. It's doubly hard to take you seriously when MMfA already pointed that out, and showed how Todd misrepresented the list to make it appear as if it was purely pro-Hillary. That is addressing the charges, by showing how they aren't honest to begin with.
Try reading the article.