NRO's Williamson blasted "the hysterical ninnies over at Media Matters"
SUMMARY: National Review Online blogger Kevin D. Williamson called Media Matters "hysterical ninnies" over a column by Media Matters' Eric Boehlert that predicted "a very rough 2008" for Fox News.
National Review Online contributor Kevin D. Williamson called Media Matters for America "hysterical ninnies" in a January 31 post on NRO's Media Blog responding to a column by Media Matters senior fellow Eric Boehlert. Noting that Boehlert's column was reprinted by Salon.com, Williamson wrote: "Salon.com, now reprinting verbatim reports from the hysterical ninnies over at Media Matters, is predicting a tough year for Rupert Murdoch & Co. True, the Fox Business Network is off to a slow start, but I remember when all the smart people thought Fox News would turn out to be a failure." In addition to Fox Business Network's "anemic ratings," Boehlert listed "CNN's resurgence as the go-to cable destination for election coverage," the "incredible shrinking candidacy of Fox News' favored son," Rudy Giuliani (who suspended his Republican presidential campaign the day after Boehert's column appeared), Democratic presidential candidates' "blanket refusal to debate on Fox News during the primary season," and Fox News host John Gibson's controversial comments about deceased actor Heath Ledger among the other reasons he predicted Fox News will have a "very rough 2008."
From Williamson's post on National Review Online's Media Blog:
Salon.com, now reprinting verbatim reports from the hysterical ninnies over at Media Matters, is predicting a tough year for Rupert Murdoch & Co. True, the Fox Business Network is off to a slow start, but I remember when all the smart people thought Fox News would turn out to be a failure. I'm not sure I'd bet against Rupert Murdock [sic] -- especially if I worked for Salon, a company that has seen its share price decline from a high in the $300 range to $1.64 and which is currently losing $1.17 per share. News Corp's gross profit for 2007? $10 billion. (Salon's performance does make me feel better about those $22 Journal Register Co. stock options mouldering away in my sock drawer.)
Meanwhile, the big news from Fox Business is the fact that they will be able to use WSJ reporters.
And I can remember the hysterical ninnies who thought that 1945 would be a very bad year for Japan, and who laughed at the idea that the Colorado Rockies could win the 2007 World Series.
Yep, whiny naysayers are a dime a dozen.
I'm a ninny,
you're a ninny,
we're all ninnies,
if you read media matters your a ninny too!
Be a ninny, read media matters!
Be a ninny, read media matters!
That's the first word that comes to my mind to describe this site- "hysterical".Completely over the top wild emotional documenting and transcripts.
Of course, to those who don't see anything beyong ratings and sponsor money, the idea of Fox having a rough year is incomprehensible.Yes, Fox is a success (after much subsidization) as a business. As a journalistic effort, it's a failure.
And Hillary is working on her cackle.
Sorry I couldn't resist ;-)
Do you have color yet Tommy?
LOL
Completely over the top wild emotional documenting and transcripts.
Please provide examples of "over the top wild emotional" language in any article on this site.
In contrast, I would describe the reporting by MMFA as exceptionally restrained, matter-of-fact, and emotionless. It's always "here's what so & so said, and here's why it's significant." Minimum spin, minimum hysterics.
If anything, I would say we're not outraged enough.
Prove me wrong. I double-dog dare you.
Deez
I think that comment was written with complete sarcasm.
(Do you know I couldn't post your full name because MMFA thought it was profanity? The other day I tried to use the word bl*w hard, and had the same problem.)
Thanks, FMP.Sorry, Deezn*ts, I forgot my sarcasm tags.I didn't think verbatim transcripts could be very hysterical.
And Funnymanpants, I once, for some reason, made a reference to doo-wop music, and it was filtered as an ethnic slur.
this time, too. I'll try a zero instead of an o
Nope, still flagged. It's doo-Italian-American music now, I guess.
I got that screen that says please try to reword your post without using profanity.
I couldn't figure out why my response was blocked until I realized that the Lain for "You" is a word that's a synonym for semen.
Wait, KIng, are you saying W.I.T.H. is an acronym for non-productive self-gratification?
(Non-productive according to the Catholic Church, I mean. I had to leave that institution when I found out they were lying about that)
How credible are the people who saw a Republican majority stretching into the foreseeable future anyway?
The way the right wing is paying attention to MMFA shows how much the terrain has changed from just 4 years ago.
"The way the right wing is paying attention to MMFA shows how much the terrain has changed from just 4 years ago".
Sorry Johnny, but you have it backwards. Fox news has made a difference. Sites like MMFA and all the attention they pay to Fox news, and all the attacks they wage show that Fox news has made the difference. There is finally a news network that is not so biased to the left. Before Fox news, there was not a single major network that did not lean heavily to the left. All that has changed now, and for the better.
Need Proof?? Simply look at the MMFA Mission statment. This site does not go only after miss-representation or lies, but anything "that forwards the conserative agenda"
MMFA does not care if what is said is correct or not. If it makes conseratives look good, then in their view it is bad. That was and is the view of other major news networks. That is why conseratives love Fox. Finally we have a voice.
Uhm, from a journalistic standpoint, Fox News has about as much credibility as Giuliani. You do realize that the "far left media" is a myth, yes? Remember the run up to the war? Man, every news network was against that, for sure.
The myth comes from the fact that journalists as a whole tend to be more liberal in their own political views. Perhaps its because they are constantly searching for the truth, and we all know the truth has a well-known liberal bias ;)
However, there is such a thing as journalistic ethics, which, in America at least, means you try to maintain a sense of objectivity. That's news stories mind you, not editorials.
That's a nice attempt at rewriting it.
Anyone who reads the actual version can clearly see the term 'conservative misinformation' followed by how MMFA defines it. That definition, if you bother to read it, clearly says:
"news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda"
That doesn't sound like "anything" to me.
More like finally a news network BLATANTLY biased to the right instead of making ANY attempt at truth and objectivity. The major networks have never been biased to the left overall. I am a lefty and they have never pushed MY agenda as FOX pushes the GOP agenda. Are you guys really going to keep complaining that MMFA does for the left what AIM, and MRC have been doing for the right for many years? I never remember a conservative complaining about them. It may be true that FOX has made a difference. They are so blatantly biased the public may be catching on to the constant drumbeat of rightwing propaganda and becoming more skeptical.
Solon,
This conservative never goes to the websites you mentioned. (I do believe they are websites?) So I can't argue for or against them.
I also rarely, if ever watch Fox. Even though they may dominate the cable talking heads channels, in the whole scheme of things, I do believe they reach only a small fraction of the public.
However they do provide a convenient whipping boy for the left and a constant source of material for MMFA. So be thankful for small favors. :-)
However they do provide a convenient whipping boy for the left and a constant source of material for MMFA.
I don't think anyone will argue that.
As many here have said, all conservatives have to do is stop misinforming and MMFA will likely disappear for lack of material.
Simple really. If you don't want anyone to call you on your lying...stop lying.
Deez,
That is rich. Much of what you call lying is simply your biased opinion. Discern the difference.
BTW, I never have advocated that MMFA stop. I enjoy this website and many of the posters even though we disagree.
Pointofview you kill me! Watch out Colbert, here's a satirist with an Orwellian twist who goes you one better, acting as if quoting things verbatim is making things up, and as if stating facts is somehow wildly emotional. What a hoot!
Keep it up, Pointy, and pretty soon between you and Colbert the ridiculous right-wingers will be totally discredited.
Exactly. This NRO clown could not even spell Rupert Murdoch's name correctly in his blog post. He spells it "Murdock".
He thinks the Fox Business Network will succeed because they can use Wall Street Journal reporters, but if WSJ reporters were so sought after, why is the Wall Street Journal's circulation declining year after year? If they can't even sell copies of their own paper, why are they going to bring in television viewers?
OK, what is the point of this article? MMFHRC is getting all hissy because a BLOGGER has an unfavorable opinion of them? A blogger? Not a media figure. A BLOGGER. Are you kidding? What's next? This..............
"On a comment thread of a completely asinine article, Solonswine smears Media Matters by referring to them as 'MMFHRC' (Media Matters For Hillary Rodham Clinton)"
This guy is a BLOGGER!! NOT a reporter or a journalist. So he has an opinion. So what? Do you want to get him thrown off of the website for voicing his views? I gotta say, today's articles are pretty dumb so far. Is this what we can expect in the near future.........
During his lunch break at a sheet metal factory in Ohio, Billy Dixon, a self-proclaimed conservative was overheard smearing MMFA by calling them "a bunch of tree-huggin' retards."
Comical.
Me getting hissy? MMFHRC has "exposed conservative misinformation" by posting an article about a NON-newsmedia figure who wrote something on a non-MSM venue that they didn't like. How long before they start "exposing conservative misinformation" around the water coolers?
How about this:
Man affixes "Run, Hillary, Run" bumper sticker to the FRONT of his vehicle.
It's just stupid at this point.
MMFA's mission statement does not include the terms "journalist", "reporter", or "mainstream".
Their scope is clearly defined as "the U.S. Media".
Websites are a form of media, NRO is a media organization, Williamson works for NRO.
MMFA article:
"Solon claims that MMFA is not a pro-Hillary Clinton operation while ignoring the fact that MMFA Clinton related articles out-number Obama articles by a rate of almost 2 to 1."
This is easy.
Not really chief. It's not as if MMFA is writing the articles that they post, or posting transcripts from radio, TV, and other venues. Oh no. If you conservatives would stop smearing Clinton, there wouldn't be any further articles posted on MMFA about Clinton. See? It's really that simple. Stop lying about the woman, and her husband, and MMFA can stop putting up articles about Clinton, and her husband.
But, knowing the right wing media as we do, they can't help themselves. They've been lying about the Clintons for years on end, and won't stop anytime soon. Heck, most of the coverage of the Clintons from the 90s were basically all lies, ask Brock, he made up most of them.
Stop lying and writing misinformation about the Clintons, it won't get put up here.
National Review Online is a branch of a well-known conservative rag. He's being paid well for his efforts.
Meanwhile, troll, your online name is intended to be an insult to another MMFA poster. How dignified...
My name is not intended to be any form of insult. If you choose to see it that way, then that's your opinion. But your opinion does not match the truth.
Much like the BLOGGER in this article, his opinion could very well be untrue. But it's HIS opinion. Just like YOUR opinion is YOURS. MMFHRC is starting to brand this guy as a misinformer because of his "opinion". Keep in mind, he's NOT a news reporter. He offers opinion. This whole article doesn't make any sense.
solons,
The mission statement of MMFA (I like MMFHRC better) is simply a cover. They do not pay any attention to their mission statement and write about whatever they can to denigrate the right. It is apparent that this is simply an attack site, started by Hillary and gang. However it is a very good one. Looks like lots of people on both the left and right are aware of their articles.
Even though I disagree with almost all of their spin, I appreciate their letting you and me have our say. I commend them for that.
Your posts show you can disagree philosophically with MMFHRC and still find humor while doing so.
Mag,
My friend you haven't been paying attention. Either that or you reflexively respond to any criticism of MMFA no matter how legitimate those criticisms might be.
It has been pointed out almost daily by conservatives here the biased, one sided reporting and editorializing that goes on here. Yes, MMFA does many times include the transcripts from TV and radio. But that is after their Bolded headlines, synopsis at the beginning, editorializing, and selective highlighting through their threads. I have also noticed many times MMFA leaving out relevant sections of articles they quote and then link. Recent polls come to mind.
I appreciate your loyalty but if your think Fox is a 10 with regards to Republican bias, MMFA is a 100 with regards for Hillary and the left.
AA,
You have access to all of the postings. Point out the ones you speak of, please. The biggest difference between this site and Fox is exposure, is it not? Does MMFA have its own television station.
I look forward to re-reading the articles you find unfair.
AA,
You have access to all of the postings. Point out the ones you speak of, please. The biggest difference between this site and Fox is exposure, is it not? Does MMFA have its own television station.
I look forward to re-reading the articles you find unfair.
Fried,
I don't believe I ever said the articles by MMFA were unfair. However they are biased and onesided to promote MMFA's progressive agenda and the same time support Hillary's quest. MMFA can be as biased as they want as far as I am concerned. Lets just accept it for what it's worth. You'll only get one side of any story here.
But to answer your question. Just take a look at a few of today's selections. What do the first two have to do with MMFA's mission statement? They are simply self aggrandizing snippets regarding comments made about them by people in the media. (Frankly I get bored by these threads.)
The third article is MMFA says the CREW atttacks were baselessly motivated by donor interests. As was pointed out by solonswine, it looks to some of us that it can be argued that CREW was paid off by contributors for attacking their enemies. So to say the Roll Call article is 'baseless' is erroneous and misleading. (As an aside, the biased expressed by CREW in their attacks is so overwhelming, one has to suspend reality to ignore the fact that they are an attack organization designed to hurt conservatives and the Republicans.)
Have a great weekend!
NRO's Williamson blasted "the hysterical ninnies over at Media Matters"
Scarborough: Because of Media Matters, "we decided to call [Giuliani] 'America's Mayor' about 48 times"
Roll Call article baselessly suggested CREW "attack[s]" motivated by donor interests
AA,
Two of those were about MMFA, but how do they promote the Left 10 times the amount that Fox promotes the right? I hope you continue to look because I think we misunderstood each other.
You have a great wknd too.
Yes, MMFA does many times include the transcripts from TV and radio. But that is after their Bolded headlines, synopsis at the beginning, editorializing, and selective highlighting through their threads. I have also noticed many times MMFA leaving out relevant sections of articles they quote and then link. Recent polls come to mind.
I haven't seen any editorializing on MMFA other than Boehlert's column.
>>It has been pointed out almost daily by conservatives here the biased, one sided reporting and editorializing that goes on here.
Well, if you point it out, it must be true. Are you serious? Nice name calling, by the way. Way to further your argument by accusing the other side of bad motivations (the weakest form of reasoning).
Funny,
Thanks for checking in. Rather than making accusations, pPlease point out the name calling? Please point out the supposed bad motivations?
>>Either that or you reflexively respond to any criticism of MMFA no matter how legitimate those criticisms might be.
And:
>>I appreciate your loyalty
You are saying Mag cannot think for himself, they he just responds out of reflexive loyalty to MMFA. That is a an argument based in motivation.
You haven't backed up any of your claims with specifics yet.
MMFA does not espouse itself to be fair and balanced. Not in the least.
What articles do you speak of that don't post the transcript of what is said by conservatives? Do I think all articles on here are worth of space? Not all of them, nope, but they can put what they want, as it is their website and all, and they allow us to come in here and comment as we see fit, which is nice.
Yes, they do some writing up at the start of the articles which normally contain links to the research that they have done to refute what they have posted (sure I'm a fan of MMFA and I think that they do their research well, and provide good solid basis and facts, not opinion, as to WHY it is misinformation that they're putting out there), and sometimes their headlines are a little sensational to get people to read the rest of the article. If you're stopping at the headline, which I doubt you are, you shouldn't comment on the content as you haven't read what is actually inside. That's what headlines are supposed to anyway, entice you to read the rest of what's under said headline.
What article on here did not contain everything said, in context? None, you can't find one and it totally blows out of the water your entire argument.
Again, stop telling lies, and things won't get posted on here. It's really that simple.
Thanks Mag for proving my point to Fried. MMFA is biased. Everyone knows it. Why people here question it, especially those who have been here for a while, is beyond me.
Not to toot my own horn, but I point out missing information all the time here.Just recently, (I forget the day,) I point out how MMFA was using poll results in a misleading way. If I remember correctly, the poll respondents were heavily skewed toward Democrats thereby biasing the results. I found this nugget of information in the link provided by MMFA regarding that poll.
Now if I can find it with a simple look, MMFA and it's staff of professional media miners saw that too but chose not to include it in their thread. To do so would have invalidated their whole spin.
I gotta run. Thanks for the discussion.
AA,
I never said they weren't biased. I just asked you for the articles that put down the right or attacked the right or made this site a front for HRC.
"Not to toot my own horn, but I point out missing information all the time here.Just recently, (I forget the day,) I point out how MMFA was using poll results in a misleading way.... I found this nugget of information in the link provided by MMFA regarding that poll." (AA)
he he.
AA,
Find me some attacks here. Do you seriously believe what you said on the other thread about Cunningham desensitizing his listeners by using Obama's middle name? If so, why does he add Mohammed.
If MMFA is an attack site, find the lies. Find things that are untrue. Show me what you mean.
You still haven't proven anything about this being a Hillary Clinton front. If it is, why are they showing O'Reilly's lies about Edwards. Why would they show contradictions about Obama?
Two words: "phony soldiers".
I think it would help ALOT if all the myrmidons that work for MMFHRC would go back to college, take some journalism classes, and learn the definitions and the differences of the following terms:
News Contributer
Commentary
Editorial
News Report
Journalist
Columnist
And now, Blogger
Then, they should go back and read their mission statement and try to follow it the way it is written (if able).
I can't believe it brought up "phony soldiers". That was one of the most decisive slap downs the dittoheads ever got here.
Besides, I'm a phony soldier, and I take offense.
Well, he said it. They wrote it on here, in FULL context, not the cut down version Rush read on his show. Again, if they weren't such liars, they wouldn't be exposed as being such on here, and well, other places as well.
I see that you're using Boortz's little pet name for this place, which is a joke because that guy is more ignorant, and possibly dumber than the rest of talk show hosts combined. Next thing you know, you'll be spouting off about the democrat (sic) party. Although I'm sure that you already have, but that's OK, it just shows how ignorant folks such as yourself really are about, you know, language.
So, let's recap:
I suggest that MMFHRC staffers don't distinguish between news reporting, editorials, commentaries, and journalism (which is painfully obvious). The die-hards, instead of acknowledging this, respond with the following:
"Cry baby, ignorant, moron, idiot, stupid."
So, the debate is essentially over at this point. Thanks for all of your thoughtful input. Very convincing.
Truth is poison to the liberal mind - Swine
Wow - how broad is your brush today.
Personally I appreciate being told the truth - but the cons lie so much (Condi, Rummy, Gonzo, etc.) UNDER OATH that the truth becomes blurred - but you buy their lies hook, line and sinker and happily repeat them as truth.
Swine and AA,
MMFA's mission statement clearly gives their definition of conservative misinformation.
"news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda"
NOT JUST NEWS, BUT ALSO COMMENTARY.
"an attack site"
In right wing wacky world, quoting is attacking.
In right wing wacky world, the biggest fear is not that a righty will be misquoted, but that he or she will be quoted correctly.
Who is this guy anyway ? Hard to find any info on him. LOoks like he came from Lubbock TX and has had only on article published, on NRO in 2007, regarding minimum wage. Email is kdwmson@hotmail.com ?
I’ve done all sorts of things for money — I’ve been a bouncer-for-hire at frat parties, a writing tutor, a lawn mower, and a newspaper editor — at one point, an illegal immigrant newspaper editor in India. I once had a job shoveling ice into a hole for the Coca-Cola Bottling Co., which paid me more than twice minimum wage for doing a job that could have been performed by a reasonably well-trained monkey. When I was an unemployed newspaper editor, I wrote copy for furniture catalogs. Philadelphia Bulletin reporter Jim McCaffrey and I once even made extra cash by pretending to be tough guys on behalf of a rent-collector in New Jersey. And McCaffrey’s a professional Tarot card reader, among other things. Opportunity abounds.
Great resume for a commentator.
Kevin Williamson is a writer and editor based in Washington, DC.
Editor of what ?
Do I have the wrong guy or is this nothingness the same person as the author of the blog ? Do we have another Jeff Gannon in the house ??
SS, so his opinion should get a pass then? We are not allowed to have an opinion on this?
Someone called you a ninny in a very public forum, you wouldn't consider that missinformation. Mind I think that case has been sucessfully made repeatedly here and it could happen again. You don't make much of a case against it. Whereas this site repeatedly proves that it is a ninny very rarely dispite the "with" regulars input. Sometimes I do agree with them, but I think of it as more enthusiasm than ninnyism.
DEX: Duh? Maybe it was because the Florida Primary meant a LOT to Republicans, especially Giuliani – and almost nothing to Democrats. Most Republicans listen to Fox. This is a no-brainer. I bet their audience was way down last night with the Democratic Debate on CNN.
And speaking of “fair and balanced” networks - Did anyone notice that Fox didn’t even have a post analysis of the CNN Democratic debate like all the other cable news channels? Could it be that they didn’t want any of their base audience getting any ideas and jumping ship should they hear a political idea or point of view that did not toe the line of the Republican Party?
The latest results of s Fox News poll posted Feb. 1, 2008
18. Regardless of how you plan to vote, which presidential candidate do you think is the most likely to do something that would embarrass the country?
Clinton Romney McCain Obama (Don’t know)
30-31 Jan 08 37% 14 12 11 26
Democrats 19% 22 16 12 31
Republicans 62% 5 8 8 18
Independents 36% 15 12 12 26
First off, what kind of question is this? Sounds like a Lou Dobbs poll question!
Note how much higher the percentages are in the "Don't Know" column for all BUT Republicans - Yet note how high the Republican percentage is for Hillary Clinton.
I'm sure that the people who checked "Don't know" also asked themselves the same question I asked, and thought, "WTF - What kind of question is this?"
With this poll Fox News will now be touting that 37% of the country thinks Hillary is likely to "do something that would embarass the country".
WE DISTORT - YOU DECIDE!
Here is a link to the complete Fox News poll with all 34 questions and results.... http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/020108_election_release_web.pdf
And a few questions I would have liked to have seen in lieu of the “embarrass the country question”…
1. Which candidate do you think is most likely to use nuclear weapons?
2. Which candidate is most likely to allow their religious beliefs to circumvent upholding of the laws in The U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights?
3. Which candidate is most likely to bring the nation into another ground war?
4. Which candidate is most likely to get all U.S. troupes out of Iraq within their first term in office?
Here is a link to the complete Fox News poll with all 34 questions and results.... http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/020108_election_release_web.pdf
And a few questions I would have liked to have seen in lieu of the “embarrass the country question”…
1. Which candidate do you think is most likely to use nuclear weapons?
2. Which candidate is most likely to allow their religious beliefs to circumvent upholding of the laws in The U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights?
3. Which candidate is most likely to bring the nation into another ground war?
4. Which candidate is most likely to get all U.S. troupes out of Iraq within their first term in office?
Snoopy sorry I just can't resist. Humming old Dr. Pepper song....
I'm a ninny
You're a ninny
Wouldn't you like to be a ninny too? ;)