They don't read too good. Or they read fine but then they ignore the parts that don't fit their critique.

Michael Moynihan at the Reason blog is our latest example. Riffing on a blog post over at NRO by Mark Hemingway, Moynihan took a swipe at Media Matters for an item we did on the coverage of Sen. Jeff Sessions' opening day statement at the Judge Sonia Sotomayor hearings. We noted that five major newspapers all failed to report on the fact that in 1986, Sessions' nomination as a U.S. district court judge was rejected following allegations that Sessions had a history of making racially charged comments.

Meaning, Sessions spent a lot of the day talking about race in the context of Sotomayor's nomination, but lots of important press outlets never connected the dots back to Sessions' own failed confirmation.

Moynihan scoffed at the Media Matters claim, noting that it was “incorrect, seeing as many publications have mentioned Sessions' 1986 district court nomination."

Those many links took readers to items from US News & World Report, NPR, Huffington Post, MSNBC.com, and blog items from the LA Times and WSJ.com which all mentioned Sessions' own brush with the issue of race during his confirmation hearing. Reason also linked to a New York Times article from July 7.

Busted, right? Reason found a ton of media references that noted exactly what Media Matters complained the press ignored. One problem. In our item we specifically noted that in newspaper articles from July 14 published by the The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and The Wall Street Journal, the newspapers failed to provide proper context. Meaning, Media Matters didn't claim the press never mentioned Sessions' past confirmation woes. Media Matters noted that these five newspapers, in articles published on July 14, failed to mention Session's past confirmation woes.

Simple, right?

So what does Moynihan do to prove the claim was “incorrect”? He finds other media outlets never cited by Media Matters. Or in the case of the New York Times, he finds an article not published on July 14, which was the date we scrutinized the articles.

Sometimes I think it's hopeless.

Remember that scene from Annie Hall when the Alvy Singer character remembers his Brooklyn school days and sitting next to clueless Ivan Ackerman who always had the wrong answer? (“Seven and three is nine,” drones Ivan as Alvy smacks the palm of his hand into his forehead in amazement.)

That's how I usually feel reading conservative media criticism.