• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Media Matters and Newbusters break down!

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Funded with "more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals." "Among Mr. Brock's donors is Leo Hindery, Jr., the former cable magnate; Susie Tompkins Buell, who is co-founder of the fashion company Esprit and is close to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and Ms. Buell's husband Mark; and James C. Hormel, a San Francisco philanthropist whose appointment as ambassador to Luxembourg was delayed for a year and a half in the late 1990's by conservative lawmakers protesting what they called his promotion of a 'gay lifestyle.' [2]
Media Matters for America is funded in part by the Democracy Alliance.
Media Matters for America - SourceWatch

As you can see, MM is a highly biased source whose money comes from people that expect action to promote their cause.

But what the hell is the "Democracy Alliance"?

"At least 80 wealthy liberals have pledged to contribute $1 million or more apiece to fund a network of think tanks and advocacy groups to compete with the potent conservative infrastructure built up over the past three decades," The Washington Post reported in August, 2005. [1]
Rob Stein's PowerPoint presentation on how the Right built a strong infrastructure of think tanks, non-profits, non-profit groups, scholarship recipients, academics, lobbyists, right wing activists and the media led to the founding of the Democracy Alliance, and also a separate organization, the New Progressive Coalition founded by entrepreneurs Andy and Deborah Rappaport.
The Democracy Alliance tries to keep a low profile and its wealthy donors prefer anonymity. According to published reports, organizations funded by Democracy Alliance are asked not to reveal the funding.
In 2006 a San Francisco, CA, office was established by the Democracy Alliance at the Presidio in the Tides Center, where Alliance member Drummond Pike has his offce.
Rob McKay of the McKay Foundation and Anna Burger of SEIU are the elected chair and vice chair of the board of directors of the Democracy Alliance. [2]
"Members of the Democracy Alliance include billionaires like George Soros and his son Jonathan Soros, former Rockefeller Family Fund president Anne Bartley, San Francisco Bay Area donors Susie Tompkins Buell and Mark Buell, Hollywood director Rob Reiner, Taco Bell heir Rob McKay ... as well as New York financiers like Steven Gluckstern." [3]
In October 2006, an article in The Nation magazine reported "the Alliance's 100 donors have distributed more than $50 million to center-left organizations and activists--a lot of money, yet still largely symbolic given the deep pockets of its members. Even as the donors pour millions into a new political infrastructure, however, problems have emerged that mirror many of the problems of the Democratic Party today and the progressive movement in general. The first is determining what, exactly, the group stands for and wants to accomplish. ... Rob Johnson, an early board member, says the tension in the Alliance is between 'party subsidizers' and 'climate changers'--those who want to fund organizations that work toward more effectively electing candidates versus those who aspire to change the fundamental nature of political debate with a stronger set of governing principles. ... Since its inception, the Alliance has been unabashedly elitist, while also poorly run. ... To stabilize the organization internally after almost a year of early stumbles, the partners chose as its managing director Judy Wade, a member of the elite firm McKinsey & Company, consultants to multinational corporations." [4]
Democracy Alliance - SourceWatch

Ahh it's a propaganda machine for liberal/progressive causes.


Now, let's check "Newsbusters"!

The NewsBusters blog is a project of the Media Research Center (MRC). It has a goal to "provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting."[1]
NewsBusters was created in August 2005 with the guidance of Matthew Sheffield and Greg Sheffield, who operated the website RatherBiased.com (now inactive), which criticized former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather.[1] It is a group blog featuring both MRC employees and non-MRC writers.
NewsBusters also hosts a webcast called "NewsBusted," which it calls "the freshest comedy on the Web making fun of liberals and the media."[2]
NewsBusters - SourceWatch

Well it's obviously got some rightwing lean to it.

What though is the MRC??

Media Research Center Inc. (MRC) is a conservative media watchdog group run by president and founder Brent Bozell. In 2006 the MRC had total revenue of $10.8 million[1] and 50 full-time staff members. It is predominately funded by larger right-wing foundations (see below) with other comparatively minor sources of income from rental income and investments. In it's 2006 annual report, the group's founder wrote that MRC "continued to regularly provide intellectual ammunition to conservative activists, arming them with the weapons to fight the leftist press."[2]
The MRC operates a number of subsidiary projects including the Business & Media Institute (formerly known as the the Free Market Project); CNSNews.com, a conservative news service; the NewsBusters blog; TimesWatch, a website focusing on the New York Times; the Culture and Media Institute and the MRC Action Team.
(The Parents Television Council was founded in 1995 as a MRC project but, in 2000, was split off to become a separate legal entity. Brent Bozell, who founded the MRC, was president of both organisations until January 2007, when he resigned as President of the PTC but remains a member of the board of directors.[3])
Media Research Center - SourceWatch

It's a smaller operation akin to the MM funding sources.

Conclusion:

Both are highly biased towards left (MM) and right (NB). MM has more funding and is more outright in it's broad scope while NB is a smaller operation with lesser funding and a more focused scope.

Neither should be considered as primary sources, and anyone that used either to promote something as fact is just regurgitating propaganda spin that appeals to the person posting it.

In other words, if you're posting MM or NB articles as factual, you're what Joseph Stalin liked to call, a USEFUL IDIOT. Don't be that guy.
 
Last edited:
Media Matters for America - SourceWatch

As you can see, MM is a highly biased source whose money comes from people that expect action to promote their cause.

But what the hell is the "Democracy Alliance"?


Democracy Alliance - SourceWatch

Ahh it's a propaganda machine for liberal/progressive causes.


Now, let's check "Newsbusters"!


NewsBusters - SourceWatch

Well it's obviously got some rightwing lean to it.

What though is the MRC??


Media Research Center - SourceWatch

It's a smaller operation akin to the MM funding sources.

Conclusion:

Both are highly biased towards left (MM) and right (NB). MM has more funding and is more outright in it's broad scope while NB is a smaller operation with lesser funding and a more focused scope.

Neither should be considered as primary sources, and anyone that used either to promote something as fact is just regurgitating propaganda spin that appeals to the person posting it.

In other words, if you're posting MM or NB articles as facts, you're what Joseph Stalin liked to call, a USEFUL IDIOT. Don't be that guy.

MM's budget is 2 million dollars a year. Part of that comes from Democracy Alliance. NewsBusters revenue is of 10.8 million which says little about its actual funding. How you can claim that Newsbuster is a 'smaller operation' demonstrates that you are incapable of understanding what it is you're reading or you have purposely twisted the facts to fit your opinion. In either case, anybody can see what this thread is about after reading the OP. The constant David vs. Goliath complex of the American right wing.
 
Last edited:
MM's budget is 2 million dollars a year. Part of that comes from Democracy Alliance. NewsBusters revenue is of 10.8 million which says little about its actual funding. How you can claim that Newsbuster is a 'smaller operation' demonstrates that you are incapable of understanding what it is you're reading or you have purposely twisted the facts to fit your opinion. In either case, anybody can see what this thread is about after reading the OP. The constant David vs. Goliath complex of the American right wing.

Someone didn't read what I wrote and made false assumptions.
 
MM's budget is 2 million dollars a year. Part of that comes from Democracy Alliance. NewsBusters revenue is of 10.8 million which says little about its actual funding. How you can claim that Newsbuster is a 'smaller operation' demonstrates that you are incapable of understanding what it is you're reading or you have purposely twisted the facts to fit your opinion. In either case, anybody can see what this thread is about after reading the OP. The constant David vs. Goliath complex of the American right wing.

Actually, it's MRC that has the 10.8 mil revenue. I can't find numbers for Newsbusters.
 
MM's budget is 2 million dollars a year. Part of that comes from Democracy Alliance. NewsBusters revenue is of 10.8 million which says little about its actual funding. How you can claim that Newsbuster is a 'smaller operation' demonstrates that you are incapable of understanding what it is you're reading or you have purposely twisted the facts to fit your opinion. In either case, anybody can see what this thread is about after reading the OP. The constant David vs. Goliath complex of the American right wing.


Also the 2 Million number for MM was it's start up, the 10.8M that you quote is the MRC not NB.

Accordingly, if you are going to be dishonest, let's look at the the numbers closer.


by YOUR Logic:
At least 80 wealthy liberals have pledged to contribute $1 million or more apiece to fund a network of think tanks and advocacy groups to compete with the potent conservative infrastructure built up over the past three decades," The Washington Post reported in August, 2005.

MM has a budget of 80,000,000.00

What an absurd notion.
 
Actually, it's MRC that has the 10.8 mil revenue. I can't find numbers for Newsbusters.

I couldn't find a budget for either of them. Just the start up capital for MM is listed.
 
Media Matters for America - SourceWatch

As you can see, MM is a highly biased source whose money comes from people that expect action to promote their cause.

But what the hell is the "Democracy Alliance"?


Democracy Alliance - SourceWatch

Ahh it's a propaganda machine for liberal/progressive causes.


Now, let's check "Newsbusters"!


NewsBusters - SourceWatch

Well it's obviously got some rightwing lean to it.

What though is the MRC??


Media Research Center - SourceWatch

It's a smaller operation akin to the MM funding sources.

Conclusion:

Both are highly biased towards left (MM) and right (NB). MM has more funding and is more outright in it's broad scope while NB is a smaller operation with lesser funding and a more focused scope.

Neither should be considered as primary sources, and anyone that used either to promote something as fact is just regurgitating propaganda spin that appeals to the person posting it.

In other words, if you're posting MM or NB articles as factual, you're what Joseph Stalin liked to call, a USEFUL IDIOT. Don't be that guy.

Yes, Media Matters has a liberal bias, however your use of the word 'propaganda' in connection with Media Matters is inappropriate.

Propaganda = Fox News, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. etc. How much money does Rupert Murdoch have in that propaganda machine?
 
Also the 2 Million number for MM was it's start up, the 10.8M that you quote is the MRC not NB.

Accordingly, if you are going to be dishonest, let's look at the the numbers closer.


by YOUR Logic:


MM has a budget of 80,000,000.00

What an absurd notion.

So what????
 
Yes, Media Matters has a liberal bias, however your use of the word 'propaganda' in connection with Media Matters is inappropriate.

Propaganda = Fox News, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. etc. How much money does Rupert Murdoch have in that propaganda machine?

You forgot MSNBC, Ed Shultz, Keith Olberman in the propaganda list.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Media Matters has a liberal bias, however your use of the word 'propaganda' in connection with Media Matters is inappropriate.

No, it was entirely appropriate. Just as it was appropriate to hammer NB for the same. Both entities have a mission. Both have a bias, and both use spin to push a message.
Propaganda = Fox News, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. etc. How much money does Rupert Murdoch have in that propaganda machine?

Fox News is a News Organization with a conservative appeal. Beck and the others are opinion shows, if you can't figure that out...

I think you're just showing you're inability to take off the blinders.
 
There is propaganda on both sides. It's up to rational minds to detect and ignore propaganda. Most of what Media Matters says is left wing propaganda. Much of what Newsbusters says is right wing propaganda. Neither hardly ever report the truth and they both monopolize on putting spin and false information into reports that are geared to fire up their bases and fuel a common hatred that individual partisans have towards each other.
 
There is propaganda on both sides. It's up to rational minds to detect and ignore propaganda. Most of what Media Matters says is left wing propaganda. Much of what Newsbusters says is right wing propaganda. Neither hardly ever report the truth and they both monopolize on putting spin and false information into reports that are geared to fire up their bases and fuel a common hatred that individual partisans have towards each other.

Which... was what I said in the OP...
 
NewsBusters being biased goes without saying. I have never claimed otherwise. I go to the website a few times a week, usually because I'm looking for something specific. Every once in a while I will find something there that's worthy of being posted, but that doesn't happen too often. When I do find something that I end up posting, it's solid, not baseless speculation or twisting of a persons words like 90% of the Media Matters threads are.

Why NewsBusters is being compared to Media Matters is a little puzzling to me though. It's not like this forum is being inundated with NewsBusters posts like it is with Media Matters.
 
Yes, Media Matters has a liberal bias, however your use of the word 'propaganda' in connection with Media Matters is inappropriate.

Propaganda = Fox News, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. etc. How much money does Rupert Murdoch have in that propaganda machine?

Propaganda= George Soros ;)
 
"And in breaking news, we turn to Captain Obvious Mr.V, what do you have to say on this?

"biased source is biased"

Thank you for that ground breaking piece of logic there."

Seriously, if anyone needed that both sources are biased pointed out to them, I think they should invest in a new brain.
 
There is propaganda on both sides. It's up to rational minds to detect and ignore propaganda. Most of what Media Matters says is left wing propaganda. Much of what Newsbusters says is right wing propaganda. Neither hardly ever report the truth and they both monopolize on putting spin and false information into reports that are geared to fire up their bases and fuel a common hatred that individual partisans have towards each other.


I've started reading NB, but I'm much more familiar with MM.
Sorry, so far NB doesn't seem to take things out of context or lie the way MM does. In fact, nothing I've seen so far has been a lie or out of context to my knowledge. Their agenda is to report liberal bias. Somebody needs to do it.
 
I've started reading NB, but I'm much more familiar with MM.
Sorry, so far NB doesn't seem to take things out of context or lie the way MM does. In fact, nothing I've seen so far has been a lie or out of context to my knowledge. Their agenda is to report liberal bias. Somebody needs to do it.

Take a step back from your political views, and you'll be able to see that NB is just as bad as MM.
 
No, it was entirely appropriate. Just as it was appropriate to hammer NB for the same. Both entities have a mission. Both have a bias, and both use spin to push a message.

That's why it's important that people avoid using either of them as a source for speculative topics, such as "gotcha" articles where they interpret the meaning of a persons words using sound bites and incomplete quotes. I learned the hard way many years ago that when there's an agenda involved, you can't trust websites like those to give you the whole story on stuff like that.


Fox News is a News Organization with a conservative appeal. Beck and the others are opinion shows, if you can't figure that out...

I think you're just showing you're inability to take off the blinders.

Nooooooo... Not Pete.

...

Now let me ask you, and everyone else here...

Do you think myself or others rely too much on NewsBusters, or they are sourced too often?
Do you think some rely too much on Media Matters, or they are sourced too often?
 
I'd like to see the MM spam stop. However, going after just MM when you crusade with NB doesn't help anyone out. If you use NB as a part of a thread, color for a post, this is fine and few will complain.
 
"And in breaking news, we turn to Captain Obvious Mr.V, what do you have to say on this?

"biased source is biased"

Thank you for that ground breaking piece of logic there."

Seriously, if anyone needed that both sources are biased pointed out to them, I think they should invest in a new brain.

I guess you haven't noticed the MM spam and NB retaliation lately.
 
This may be one of the most subtly intelligent threads ever started.
 
That's why it's important that people avoid using either of them as a source for speculative topics, such as "gotcha" articles where they interpret the meaning of a persons words using sound bites and incomplete quotes. I learned the hard way many years ago that when there's an agenda involved, you can't trust websites like those to give you the whole story on stuff like that.




Nooooooo... Not Pete.

...

Now let me ask you, and everyone else here...

Do you think myself or others rely too much on NewsBusters, or they are sourced too often?
Do you think some rely too much on Media Matters, or they are sourced too often?
IMO, if anyone relies on partially, or even uses once, NewsBusters or Media Matters, without a more credible and unbiased source or sources as supporting evidence....it's too much and too often.
 
Back
Top Bottom