TheHat

So Devil, any "sinister plots" by ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC after all these fiascos that the Rev so humbly threw out there?

Least we forget the CBS news guy, who went to an Obama rally and said on TV that it was hard to stay "objective"?

Or we can always go with the Chris Matthews "thrill down my leg" quote.

Zyphlin

This is true, however much how some people won't bother with Fox or Rush Limbaugh because they feel they continually show themselves to be fraudulent, I've found the same with Media Matters.

I'll still generally read their things if someone links to it, but I take it with a gigantic grain of salt. I've seen times when they've sped up and looped video of Rush Limbaugh to make things look worse than it is. I've seen them take words he's said completely out of context, presenting something said completely and utterly facetiously and even acknowleding that people will hear it and misrepresent it as if it was completely and utterly serious with no context. I've seen them make an entire story about a screen shot of a Fox News report where a tag line looks damning, while when seeing the actual report the thing being talked about is actually speaking badly about someone that the tag line was paraphrasing. I can go on and on, but Media Matters time and time again, from my experience with it, has shown itself to not give an actual story, but to take a story and manipulate, contort, and twist it to serve their purposes to a greater extent than I've seen by Fox, MSNBC, CNN, or any actual legitimate news organization. And I have found these things over time not because I've read some other extremely slanted site, but from reading Media Matters and then going to the actual source material and making the judge for myself. As such, while I will look at Media Matters, I take nothing they say as if it is gospel or truth unless and until I can find the actual source material to make my own judgement because they frequently and so often take things out of context, manipulate information, and go at it with a stated and open completely left wing slant.

__________________
Political buy outs, "my way or the highway" attitude, ignoring of rules and traditions because it suits your purpose...

Yep, gotta love the "Change from politics as usual" in this "post-partisan" era.

hazlnut

Well said.

Pass the salt.

__________________
President Merkin Muffley: Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.

PeteEU

I am curious, but you can you show us one of these "issues" you have with Media Matters?

__________________
PeteEU

niftydrifty

The purpose of media matters is not to "give an actual story." The site presents examples of conservative-leaning bias and inaccuracies when they occur. Your (mere) anecdotes, if true, account for how much content at the site? 1%? 0.5%?

These kinds of charges continually get leveled at MM, and yet I have not seen a thread started here about MM, in which these claims can be scrutinized. Instead, it tends to happen in place of weighing the actual claims that they make, and in threads about other things. This is irrational and unfortunate.

If you believe they do it to a "greater extent" than Fox, MSNBC, etc., I'd really like to see that assertion somehow substantiated. Let's discover together just how sorely mistaken you have been.

It's telling that a single link presented here, from Media Matters, about what Fox News Anchors actually have done, doesn't result in a more enlightened understanding of what Fox News Anchors actually did do. Instead, it devolves into a sideline discussion about the alleged credibility of Media Matters! Did "Fox News hosts and guests tout a discredited report that WMDs were found in Iraq?" Who cares! Mention of such, prompts you to deflect. Ridiculous.

__________________

hazlnut

Yes -- It does seem for some folks it's actually easier for them to make a knee-jerk dismissal of a link (MM) then to actually Click on the link and take time to review the material being offered up.

I will admit that I tend to to that with links to World Net Daily. Nobody's perfect.

__________________
President Merkin Muffley: Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.

Reverend_Hellh0und

Actually given this thread is about fox news, isn't that commentary rather ironic to say the least?

__________________
كافر
Caith siar é agus ná lig anair á

Reverend_Hellh0und

again... FOX news. this thread. People doing this exact thing you claim.


The difference is though MM is a front group. Isn't it sorross funded? It has an agenda.

__________________
كافر
Caith siar é agus ná lig anair á

Zyphlin

Never said it was anything more than anecdotal. I described why I personally don't really generally care what Media Matter says, based on my OWN observation of it and investigation over time. Not because some random conservative think tank that I don't give a **** about said it.

They are though, as you say, decidingly and openly liberal focused. They're there to get conservative bias. That's their point. Which was MY point in the first post...you're using something with a stated political agenda to try and "prove" another stations politica agenda. To me, that's rather ironic and is FAR more questionable than perhaps a legitiamtely non-biased 3rd party source.

No where was I stating that my views on Media Matters is anything other than my personal views. To each their own about it.

Cause generally I don't make threads screaming about things. I'm not going to speak for others, because that's foolish, I'm just myself. Find me a thread where I have started compalining massively about MSNBC? CNN? Fox? ABC? The only thing I can think of was during the election when the first interview with Palin took something she said GIGANTICALLY out of context and the situation surrounding it was too great for me not to get upset about.

I don't care that MM is biased, and that bias can not be disputed because they flat out admit it pretty much. I believe all media, to some extent, is biased. Unless one is completely 100% apolitical, something I think is impossible, you always have your own views and those views ALWAYS influence you be it in how you write, what stories you go after, how you approach a story, etc. Everyone has it happen in various degree's, some greater than others, but its always there. So I'm not one that normally will get into a giant "lets go get on a forum and bitch" type mode over "bias" or something of the sort.

Early on, I had no issues with going through and doing this. There's been threads ages ago (during the Rush Limbaugh / Fox thing, and another random one with a long list of screen shots of Fox) where I made these same claims and I went to youtube or different places and found the source material and posted.

I don't mean this as an insult to you, or to PeteEU, but my time is valuable. There's certain people, and Pete is one of them, I really don't give a **** what they think of my opinion. There's people, on both sides, who are so rooted into their views and thoughts that its not worth talking to them because they are SO hyper partisan that its a waste of breath and time. I didn't say my above on Media Matters trying to "prove" something to people or convert them. I've watched Devil505 to know enough about his mind set and hyper partisan tendancies. I could have Media Matters themselves come out and say "Yeah, we exaggerated and mislead" and he'd still find a way to excuse it. The same with a few others in this thread. I stated it to state my piece on it and those objective people that read this can make their own decisions or do the unthinkable thing I did and actually do something their own if they're interested. But frankly, I've graduated College. I don't have a desire to take hours searching back through year old posts, year old articles, years old youtube videos, to try and cite, back up, and support every little thing on a subject that I don't really care about all that much, about a post that I made describing my own personal thoughts and views, about something that I discovered on my own so unlike some people can't jump to a political think tank or forum with a comprehensive link to it all, all done to satisfy the criteria of a few extremely hyper partisan posters that in the end history has shown will just rationalize it out some way and move on anyways about it.


Its not question. Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc, all attempt to be at least relatively unbiased at times, that's unquestionable. Media Matters doesn't. Media Matters plainly shows they're distinctly there to try and point things out against conservatives. They have a clearly stated political agenda, the others don't.

Really? Is that what happened here? Cause I just saw someone musing that someone who is complaining that a "news" organization is a "propoganda machine" that has a "political agenda" was attempting to prove it through the use of essentially a propoganda machine with a political agenda, that's clearly stated. Why not instead....find the actual source material and post THAT themselves? Give their own commentary on it?

I looked at the report, and I don't see it doing what the person posting it claimed. For example, its railing against Brit Hume discussing it and having an opinion on it, despite the fact they acknowledge clearly the information that came out after Santorim's announcement. In another they're blaming Fox for something that a guest states. Still more, they have a go after a COMMENTATOR whose meant to give his opinion on things, something routinely found on numerous stations.

He'd have a point, if all these hosts or guests were saying "These are exactly the weapons that Bush was talking about" but they're not. They're saying they're weapons of mass destruction, which is the classification that they were in. They're saying they were found, which they were. Some of them even acknowledge that it wasn't what Bush wanted. And for being a "Propoganda" machine of the Right Wing and George Bush's presidency the Media Matter's own link, if you read something other than what they bold, show many of these hosts and guests CRITICIZING the Bush Administrations handling of this information.

Add onto this this is a 3 year old story, meaning finding the actual source material to see context, to see what happens to be in the [...] portions that Media Matters leaves out, to see if they ended up having a guest from the other side come on to give the counter point on this.

See, this is exactly the issue with Media Matters. You want to sit here and bitch I'm not citing, yet I look at that article and see no links to official transcripts where I can see it in full without MM [...]'s, or links to the video. I'm just supposed to take their word...the word of a group with a stated and forward political agenda.

What am I supposed to be "enlightened" by? That the commentators who are openly conservative stated opinions on something? That guests were brought on to talk about a news story and they had an opinion on it, without being given information if they had other guests on that stated another view? That a host of a show stated something factual and becasue Media Matters doesn't like how its worded or the fact they didn't add all the addendums they want we need to raise holy hell?

I see Media Matters not giving all the information, feigning outrage, mixing up commentators with actual news, and blowing up over something because it wasn't talked about with the "normal", ie generally liberal slanted, media view point.

Fox News is conservative in its view generally. That does not = Fox News is a Propoganda arm of the RNC.

No, mention of such makes me laugh at the irony that one uses a source that is a propoganda organization with a political agenda to try and prove another place is a propoganda organization with a political agenda. If this discussion was about the merits of talking about the news the Senators stated I may've commented greater, but it wasn't. It was talk about proving that Fox was somehow not a "news" organization and that link showed me nothing definitive in the least to "prove" that at all.

I find your and PeteEU's call for "source" laughable, and typical. Where is your call to the OP to provide a source that somehow proves that Fox's slant is due to a Political Agenda and not a business plan. Where's the call for a source to prove its the "media arm of the RNC". Its his opinion you may say? And how is my opinion about Media Matters based on my own research of it worth any les than his. But you see, you are on his "side" of the ideological table so he gets the pass but you want to nitpick and, dare I use your word, deflect from the fact that the Media Matter's report there...that is sorely lacking a complete story or its own citations...in no way, shape, or form proves what he's trying to say.

__________________
Political buy outs, "my way or the highway" attitude, ignoring of rules and traditions because it suits your purpose...

Yep, gotta love the "Change from politics as usual" in this "post-partisan" era.

Zyphlin

And since people want to keep misrepresenting what I did. Where did I state the report wasn't accurate (which, I can't speak to the accuracy, cause its 3 years old from an openly biased and political motivated source that doesn't give links to the full transcripts)? Where did I say it may not have merit? I was doing nothing but commenting on the "hillarious irony" that one would prove something is something by using something that is the same something (wow that's a lot of somethings). It is kind of like saying "Violence doesn't solve anything" and when they disagree with you you punch them in the face.

__________________
Political buy outs, "my way or the highway" attitude, ignoring of rules and traditions because it suits your purpose...

Yep, gotta love the "Change from politics as usual" in this "post-partisan" era.