The liberal media isn't going to spell out exactly how it goes about smearing conservatives, so Bill O'Reilly helpfully explained it last night on "The O'Reilly Factor."
Boiled down it goes like this: George Soros (and others) fund one of the left's most prominent noise machines, Media Matters for America, which distorts statements made by conservatives and then urges reporters to provide saturation coverage of such statements as proof conservatives are hypocritical and sinister.
In his "talking points" segment, O'Reilly references the Obama administration's strategy of attempting to marginalize its most vocal opponent, radio talk show giant Rush Limbaugh (video available at YouTube):
BILL O'REILLY: The Limbaugh-Obama controversy is thankfully just about over, but the far-left smear machine that propelled it to our attention is just getting started.
At the top of the smear chart is the MoveOn organization. George Soros [is] heavily invested in that. The propaganda arm of MoveOn and other far-left pressure groups is Media Matters, run by a guttersnipe named David Brock. Brock and his character assassins distribute out-of-context statements to a carefully selected group of corrupt media, headed by MSNBC, and to the Internet. Sometimes the entities even cooperate. The aforementioned Newsweek, for example, provides far-left commentators to MSNBC on a daily basis. The goal, of course, is to smear conservatives in the media, to convince ill-informed Americans that those on the right are racist, homophobic, extremist, whatever.
Unfortunately, the smear machine works on some levels. The Obama administration apparently picked up on a poll done by Democrats that showed Mr. Limbaugh's popularity to be low among Americans under 40. Then the president's men tried to portray Limbaugh as actually running the Republican Party. Short term, it worked. A controversy exploded and the head of the RNC, Michael Steele, came off looking bad.
But as I wrote in my newspaper column this week, a backlash is in the air. Americans want the economy fixed, not silly games.
As for Limbaugh saying he wants Obama to fail, here's something you'll never hear on NBC News or read in The New York Times. According to a FOX News poll taken in August 2006, 51% of Democrats said they wanted President Bush to fail. Fifty-one percent. I believe NBC and the Times were in that group.
The Obama administration should understand that Americans are wising up to the smear factory. [...]
O'Reilly has performed a valuable public service.
But in his brief op-ed, he left out a few details some may find helpful.
George Soros, the hedge fund tycoon and currency speculator, is the preeminent funder of America's left. Soros is rarely depicted by the media as a political puppet master. Usually, he is portrayed as a wise elder statesman-like figure or a visionary. Last month Bloomberg News gave him an opportunity to dishonestly denounce America's financial system as an example of free markets run amok.
Soros bloviated about "market fundamentalism," while ignoring the role that the U.S. government played in the crisis, e.g. the Community Reinvestment Act, artificially low interest rates, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and so on. (BB&T chairman John Allison has demolished the argument that the free market caused the subprime mortgage collapse. In a recent talk available here he shows that the financial services sector is one of the most heavily regulated sectors in our economy.)
Soros and Brock work closely together. Last year they collaborated on a project called Progressive Media USA that vowed to spend $40 million trashing GOP presidential candidate John McCain.
Media Matters for America is a well-funded slander shop run by discredited journalist David Brock. It exists solely to combat what it calls "conservative misinformation."
Even the New York Times describes Media Matters as "highly partisan."
Apart from the occasional profile of Media Matters, don't expect to hear more from the media about how the left manipulates the news.
(crossposted at Capital Research Center's blog)
—Matthew Vadum is Editor of Organization Trends and Foundation Watch at the Capital Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I find this interesting
March 10, 2009 - 14:07 ET by Paul Atreidescorrect me if I'm wrong, but there isn't a lot of love between O'Reilly and Rush, is there?
It's good to see O'Reilly being there for Rush.
Paul...
March 10, 2009 - 14:22 ET by dborschjr68It is always good to see folks who are like-minded sticking up for one another. This is what separates us from the liberal animals. I'm just saying...
F**K Socialism.
ps: Love your screen name.
Not sure Paul
March 10, 2009 - 14:24 ET by HeavyChevyI have been watching O'reilly for some time now and I have not heard him say anything negative about Limbaugh.
He is usually too busy tooting his own horn most of the time. Which by the way as long as it pisses off the lib stations I learn to live with.
Hey howdy HC... I just
March 10, 2009 - 14:34 ET by bigtimerHey howdy HC...
I just wanted to say there is no love lost between Rush and Bill, you could always sense it here and there...in fact their radio shows came on at the same time slot...Bill does have a bitter taste in his mouth when it comes to him not being #1 in my opinion, nevertheless, I was very pleased to hear his words last night regarding Rush and the msm etc. that was class as far as I am concerned, no matter his personal feelings...he put them aside and did a good job when it comes down to the big picture...and that is what really matters in the end.
Levin sure has
March 10, 2009 - 15:22 ET by general companya problem with BOR. I havent heard Bill say much about either of them, although I am sure he knows better. I like Bill, while I dont always agree with him, he does bring some topics to light, when no one else will.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Matthew
March 10, 2009 - 14:27 ET by bigtimerMatthew Vadum...
Excellent blog post...great links too.
I saw the segment last night...you sir actually said it all here.
I also wanted to say last night Bernie's segment was precious regarding the smear machines...and he wasn't interrupted all that much for a change by BOR.
It has taken Bill long enough to see the light and make the connections, I remember when he used to pooh-pooh some of this and the work behind the scenes with Soros and team using the internet in various ways/groups which would include the msm, especially msnbc to carry their water.
Better late than never.
bt,I thought it was
March 10, 2009 - 15:41 ET by Chris Normanbt,
I thought it was funny that O'Reilly, as usual, began by dismissing Goldbergs first two picks, but then, at the end, said, "I can't argue with your list". He just can't help himself being a knee jerk contrarian...
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Chris... Exactly
March 10, 2009 - 15:53 ET by bigtimerChris...
Exactly right...he just can't help himself.
Glad you caught it too.
Btw...did you catch Hannity's show last night?
I loved almost all of it...from Horowitz to Victoria Jackson calling Obama exactly what he is...a communist...all of those two segments were great...she is dumb as a fox...heheheee...
bt, Get out of here -
March 10, 2009 - 16:00 ET by Chris Normanbt,
Get out of here - that was Victoria Jackson?! I was in another part of the house when they were introducing the panel. I heard her talking, but couldn't quite place who it was. She's a conservative? Who woulda guessed? All I know is Bob Beckel, as usual, sat there looking like he was passing a kidney stone. I avoid listening to that know-it-all liberal blowhard as much as I can. Otherwise, I saw most of Hannity - I always like hearing David Horowitz. The only thing I intentionally clicked off of was his dumb "Liberal Translation" - it could be funny, but it's not. It's just hokey.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Chris...that was her...I
March 10, 2009 - 16:12 ET by bigtimerChris...that was her...I have heard her previously before, quite awhile ago now, on Fox too, she is a conservative...and she spoke for millions of us out here, Fox didn't quite know what to do, Hannity said well, maybe a better term would be socialist....no it isn't, she called it like it is...plain and simple...and she is a wise woman, she knows every word she is saying beforehand, she uses her schtick to do so...
I loved her last night!
You know I agree with you about the Liberal Lies BS...it is Childish to say the least...his show last night was the best I have seen so far since he went solo...now if he jus would get rid of the second grade Liberal Lies stuff...which I bet he does with a little more time.
Btw...Beckel didn't know how to handle it for sure...hehehee
I can always do without Nicole Wallace too...but that's jsut me, she is a moderate..and I can't take many more of them.
Yea
March 10, 2009 - 18:35 ET by general companyBeckel was ready to climb a tree. She had know apologies either.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
perhaps
March 10, 2009 - 21:54 ET by RowaneHe should take a long walk off a short pier instead.
Seriously though, I'd enjoy Hannity's show a lot more without Beckle or the liberal translation crap.
bt...What are you talking about?
March 11, 2009 - 03:50 ET by Jerbt...
What are you talking about? How long have you been watching BOR? You should know that he has been demonizing Media Matters and Soros for years.
In fact, long ago he designated Soros "the most dangerous man in America.
Jer
Soros Criminal Charges
March 10, 2009 - 14:32 ET by slickwillie2001I've yet to see an explanation of how George evaded extradition to the EU to answer to criminal charges made against him there.
Same here slick...it has
March 10, 2009 - 14:36 ET by bigtimerSame here slick...it has been irrating to say the least...but not surprising when it comes to the msm of all venues.
I watch Bill everyday, and
March 10, 2009 - 14:32 ET by kevcadI watch Bill everyday, and I know there are mitigating circumstances involved, but might this revelation be one or two election cycles too late?
Start each day with a smile, then get it over with. - W.C. Fields
BarryS
March 10, 2009 - 14:33 ET by BarrySWouldn't you all think the master of "no spin" would be able to mention his main nemisis by name? His jihad against GE is so transparent it makes my hair hurt.
guttersnipe - great word to describe the Left
March 10, 2009 - 14:34 ET by whatajoyI like O'Reilly's word "guttersnipe" and it's very descriptive of describing left-wing liberals that offer no facts or relevance to their "opinions". O'Reilly is one of the most intelligent men I know, Rush being the first and foremost, and smear machines are busy at work to discredit these great men. Soros is a guttersnipe and he gives Americans a bad name. Shame on him!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Take it easy! We're not making a western here.
~ Uncle Junior (The Sopranos)
BOR = No credibility
March 10, 2009 - 14:46 ET by Kingfish17Before the government induced financial crisis blew up, BOR was a total populist when it came to high oil prices and "excess corporate profits". ExxonMobil posted a profit of 40 Billion. BOR said....."Thats just too much of a profit!" He never backed it up by showing if Exxon was gauging anybody, (they were not, they're profit margins where never out of line, they are just a HUGE business). But BOR jumped on the bandwagon and bashed a very successful American company.
When the stock market started falling a lot in late 2008, BOR had the incredible insight to realize...."Dang! The stock market is a rigged game!" As if to imply that if stocks can actually fall, then it's rigged, as opposed to always going up is not rigged.
Then he jumps on the populist bandwagon this year and trashes Northern Trust for doing business and rewarding their best employees by having a "lavish party" in Los Angeles, all purchased of course with tax payer money. (Northern Trust took TARP money because they were forced too. Northern was never in any financial dificulty and will pay back all the TARP money plus interest.)
BOR is totally ignorant about most of the things he talks about, but I'll watch him once in a while because I like Dennis Miller. BOR has definitely moved leftward this year and is bending over backward to "show both sides of the issue". I don't think he understands right from left anymore.
"When will Barack Obama apologize to the American people for destroying their once great nation?" - MSM 2012
I kinda like that about him
March 10, 2009 - 15:37 ET by general companyBOR has definitely moved leftward this year and is bending over
backward to "show both sides of the issue". I don't think he
understands right from left anymore.
This is his appeal to me, Glen Beck as well, while I do not always agree, they both talk common sense, instead of party positions, well for the most part. But more importunely, they bring up topics that nobody else will touch. Comparing both sides of a issue is good for Conservatives, he never claimed to be a Conservative or Republican. So why expect him to pretend to be?
I aree with you though, Bill is not always right, but at least he usally errors on the side of the folks.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
He can be right or left
March 10, 2009 - 15:51 ET by Kingfish17I don't really care if BOR is conservative or liberal or wishy-washy. I do care when he has absolutely no clue about an issue, and then takes a vehament stand against or for that issue.
"When will Barack Obama apologize to the American people for destroying their once great nation?" - MSM 2012
And the Lame Stream Media
March 10, 2009 - 14:47 ET by Scrapiron"Media Matters for America, which distorts statements made by conservatives and then urges reporters to provide saturation coverage of such statements as proof conservatives are hypocritical and sinister."
The Lame Stream Media crawls over with their tail between they're legs like a scolded puppy and does exactly what the Anti-American Media Matters (Socialist Soros's funded outfit), founded/supported by 'Hillary Clinton' tells them to do. We are no longer simply in deep doo doo, America is now in the untreated sewer pool with the Islamist/Socialist/Communist president leading it deeper. He's not only overwhelmed, he's too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time. Any wino/druggie on a Chicago street corner could do a better job.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Hallelujah!
March 10, 2009 - 14:47 ET by Franklins_LockeIt is great to see this on a news program with such high ratings. It is about time that these incestuous relationships are shown to the public and proven to be what they are. That the media is extremely biased and being affected by powerful corporations and others. Good Job O'Reilly! http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/
Question
March 10, 2009 - 15:34 ET by rjwest21Why isn't O'Reilly (we know why the press as a whole isn't) calling for an IRS audit of media matters, since they're not supposed to be participating in partisan activities as a 501C group? The daily phone calls between Brock & Podesta alone are enough to bring down the hammer and tax their dishones a$$es.
Hey now there's and idea
March 10, 2009 - 15:44 ET by general companyI can agree with,
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
BOR vs. RUSH
March 10, 2009 - 16:05 ET by CaringwhiteguyO'Reilly is a smart guy, but one lacking the depth Rush has. O'Reilly's schtick is rooted in stirring up things. Limbaugh's is rooted in his philosphical beliefs. That's why you see BOR handling $4 gas by going after Exxon management while Rush goes after environmental socialism and champions free market energy policy. Limbaugh believes what he says. Are we sure about O'Reilly? It's nice to see BOR standing up for Rush, but are we certain Rush isn't just BOR's hot topic for the day?
Perhaps another difference comes from their formats. O'Reilly, who comes out of the TV magazine genre has an hour of prime time TV, has many guests and can't get nearly as deep as Limbaugh, who has three hours of a daily virtual monologue with only an occasional caller. O'Reilly's format makes giant leaps that don't always connect. Limbaugh ties everything together. He is the master.
Inciteful Comments
March 10, 2009 - 16:14 ET by Kingfish17You make a very good point about the format. Rush's format alows for a greater introspection of the issue. BOR just goes after the two minute soundbite trying to grab the viewer as he channel surfs:
"Those batards at Exxon are making too much money! I'm looking after the folks! We need to have excess profit taxes and destory a great American company and give more power to the government!" BOR
(I exagerate the quote to elaborate his position.)
"When will Barack Obama apologize to the American people for destroying their once great nation?" - MSM 2012
BOR's schtick is being the
March 10, 2009 - 16:16 ET by balboaBOR's schtick is being the tough guy. Rush's is being arrogant and belittling.
What's Keith Olberman's Schtick?
March 10, 2009 - 16:30 ET by Kingfish17Just wondering if Olberman has a schtick? Or is he just forthright and honest?
"When will Barack Obama apologize to the American people for destroying their once great nation?" - MSM 2012
Olbermann's schtick is to
March 11, 2009 - 09:49 ET by balboaOlbermann's schtick is to act self-righteous while ranting and raving.
Wow boa...according to
March 10, 2009 - 16:31 ET by bigtimerWow boa...according to who?
You? ;-)
Where have you been keeping yourself...haven't seen you around so much to interject your little bites at the ankle.
BOR has made clear many
March 10, 2009 - 16:26 ET by Radical1979BOR has made clear many times on his show Soros's role in left wing politics. BOR can reach people who don't listen to Rush because the reputation created by liberals precludes them from listening to Rush.
Murdoch-funded watchdog
March 10, 2009 - 17:03 ET by goldbarMurdoch-funded watchdog slimes liberals.
Take your pick of any media he owns and it would be bigger than Media Matters.
Yawn.
March 10, 2009 - 18:57 ET by Roger the ShrubberIf I took "the pick of any media he owns", it would be dwarfed by viewership of the three major networks' nightly news programs, (not to mention the numerous major USA newspapers), who cite MM as an factual source. Try to stick with reality, and not stale lefty talking points that were debunked 4 years ago, will ya, Pumpkin? Come back when you aren't out of our league, okay?
Repubs shouldn't eat their own
March 10, 2009 - 20:26 ET by Mother*DUH*
-Note to that MuthaF*cker "Michael Steele". b'tard, stfu!
O'Reilly is weak and a douchebag but if he wants to swing to the right better for the 'pubs but he totally caved when he interviewed 0bama and I have no respect for him now.
When is the dipshit media going to stop being pwned by the 'zero'? I want to bitch-slap every last one of the maggots who sold this scumbag piece of sh*t to the idiot Americans who don't have two brain cells to rub together. UGH.
The 'machine' seems to be
March 10, 2009 - 21:17 ET by RR GOPThe 'machine' seems to be the "incredible shrinking machine'.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Oh, Come on, I LOVE George Soros!
March 10, 2009 - 22:58 ET by The7SticksLet me guess: Bill O'Reilly pulled out the ol' Soros Open Society Institute flowchart again. I ridiculed that in a comic strip I did two years ago (Which I actually got signed by Berkeley Breathed of Bloom County fame.) I even came up with a superhero version of George Soros threatening to replace O'Reilly with Keith Olbermann as added torture to his psyche.
Seriously, I have a man-crush on George Soros. It's because of people like him that we are able to try to fight these prison guard unions that try to imprison non-violent drug offenders like my late mother. There was a proposition on the 2008 California election (Proposition 5, I think), that was funded by Soros's fortune and was, as usual, opposed by all the former governors and the current Herr Gropenfuher himself, Gov. Schwarzenegger (How they were able to convince Gray Davis, I do not know.) But it was pretty much only George Soros who stood up for the rights of people like my late mother, who was sent to state prison on a ten-month sentence several years ago because she possessed seven dollars worth of crack cocaine. It was possession, not dealing, that she was busted on. She needed help, not imprisonment at Chowchilla State Penitentiary. And on top of that, she was a heart patient. I guarantee you, if she received drug treatment instead of prison time, she'd still be alive today. But for now, everyone who supports these Mickey Mouse drug laws we have on the books will have to live with the blood of people like my mother on their hands. That is why I support George Soros, and that is why I pray out of all hope that he is successful in everything he does. God bless you, George Soros.
Oh, and nice try. Soros doesn't fund Media Matters. You can look that up in the smears that are made about Media Matters on their website. I'm just the messenger, so don't shoot me, I'm just the piano player.
7Sticks
March 10, 2009 - 23:02 ET by BlondeI am sorry your mom had such a horrible experience.
Perhaps family would have been a better support than that of a commie funder....but that, I suppose is a moot point.
I am sorry, truly, for your loss.
I hope he fails, too.
We need tougher crack laws.
March 11, 2009 - 02:34 ET by JWFMaybe if your mother had been picked up sooner and put away longer, she would not have had the chance to reproduce and have the brain damaged crack baby that is teh7sticks.
By the way, it was me that withheld the heart medicine from your mother. I had a 19 year old cat with diabetes that I thought needed the medicine more.
Boy, she was ugly too. I am glad I did not have to put up with that ugly mug for too long.
I have an idea. Why don't you draw a cartoon about all those times I slapped your mom around when she was in prison. Man those were some happy times. Ahhhhh.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
PS: any more liberal bias bombs you would like to drop today?
Yawn.
March 11, 2009 - 07:11 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou said "Soros doesn't fund Media Matters". You are wrong. You need to add one word to your statement: "Soros doesn't DIRECTLY fund Media Matters"…
This is old news, but I will explain it again. Even though MM takes great pains to hide their funding sources and numbers, they receive a copious amount of money from left-wing groups like Moveon.org, Centers for American Progress, the New Democratic Network, and the New Democracy Alliance. And who funds these groups? Why, the Open Society Institute. Oh, and don't forget the funding by The Tides Foundation, who has their chubby little fingers in pretty much every left-wing special interest group, like Moveon.org. And who does The Tides Foundation receive money from? Why, the Open Society Institute. Interestingly, the (current?) treasurer of MM is (was?) also on the board of the New Democracy Alliance, which receives funds from Soros' Open Society Institute, and then funds MM, with Soros' money.
Based on your above comment, I can only assume you are either purposefully trying to obfuscate the truth, or find a game as simple as checkers to be too challenging. I tend to lean towards the latter explanation, since you used MM as "proof" that Soros does not fund them.
Blondie, I think we need you over here.
Great, more garbage from America's premier media fraud, Bill O'R
March 11, 2009 - 04:12 ET by JerGreat, more garbage from America's premier media fraud, Bill O'Reilly. Mr. No Spin, Independent, Fair and Balanced, "no dog in the fight" O'Reilly.
Most here probably know I have been very critical of Rush Limbaugh, but at least Rush is an upfront, know-where-he-stands, man. BOR, on the other hand, is a disgusting, big-mouthed, infantile, charlatan--a total disgrace to journalism.
He's been peddling this same line for years. Nothing new here. He detests MediaMatters because it has dared to criticize him--which criticisms have been consistently backed up with verbatim transcripts and videos. MM has sometimes overstated or exaggerated the inferences drawn from O'Reilly's statements or actions, but, in most cases, they have been dead-on correct.
Jer
Uncle Jer throws some chum out in the water.
March 11, 2009 - 05:05 ET by JWFThen he throws out the bait. An over the top ad hominem attack on teh BOR.
a disgusting, big-mouthed, infantile, charlatan--a total disgrace to journalism
Sorry Uncle Jer. Gonna have to have better bait than that.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Over the top, JWF?
March 11, 2009 - 17:21 ET by JerOver the top, JWF?
Frankly, I thought I took it rather easy on Bill. My words didn't even begin to describe the lack of esteem I have for this embarrassing, blustering, self-important clown.
Jer
I'm confused...did Jer
March 11, 2009 - 17:26 ET by JasonCI'm confused...did Jer really fail to use enough bait or did he just catch a really small fish? 'Cause there seems to be something on the hook...
So what?
March 11, 2009 - 06:42 ET by general companyGood job Jer, please dont bother explaining how BOR is wrong, just call him names and hope others will follow?
You libs have been running around these pages for days whining about Rush and now BOR, but not one of you bother to ever listen or watch. Yea you claim you do, but none of you bother to mention where either of them are wrong. Typical liberal MO, ridicule the man, ignore what he says.
You guys seem so upset that Rush and BOR are being featured here, well guess what? If it wasnt for your self centered thin skinned President, nobody would be talking about them. No doubt you will make excuses for Obama though.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
general company
March 11, 2009 - 17:14 ET by JerI have described on numerous occasions the degree to which I have watched O'Relly and listened to Rush. [So why do you make the erroneous statement that "not one of you bother to ever listen or watch". The accusation is absurd and untrue.] I have criticized Rush, but never attacked him personally or disparaged his character [other than to suggest narcissistic desires for adulation and attention].
With respect to various liberal pundits and media figures, I have been strongly critical of Olbermann and Michael Moore and Ted Rall, objected to behaviors on various progressive/left web sites, lamented Chris Matthews' Obama idolatry, called Rachel Maddow an "idiot", Mike Malloy "despicable" and said he should be fired, and called for the termination of any association of the LA Times with David Eherenstein. That list is not exhaustive.
I have also taken conservative Ann Coulter to task, but I admit to possessing a special dislike and distaste for Bill O'Reilly. Having been a regular viewer of the Factor for 8 or 9 years, recording segments and rewatching them, comparing his coverage of various stories and personalities, I realized long ago the man is a charlatan, a peddler of false, misleading, distorted, biased, and poorly sourced information who misrepresents his personal ideological slant. The man is a fraud. I don't like frauds. I have provided plenty of examples over the past year and a half. Do I really need to catalogue them again? As far as hoping others joining me in the "name-calling", that is certainly not my intent. Frankly, I couldn't care less.
Jer
Jer
March 11, 2009 - 17:27 ET by BlondeAnd what did you think of Rush today?
I don't know as I'd go so far to call BOR a fraud (my mom laughed until she cried at Bold Fresh...but it may be that she went to school w/BOR's mum)...but I'll give you this....he is pompous and sadly misinformed about many, many topics.
I hope he fails, too.
Boiled down it goes like
March 11, 2009 - 10:12 ET by JasonCBoiled down it goes like this: George Soros (and others) fund one of the left's most prominent noise machines, Media Research Center, which distorts statements made by conservatives and then urges reporters to provide saturation coverage of such statements as proof conservatives are hypocritical and sinister.
Let's play a fun word substitution game:
Boiled down it goes like this: [The Sarah Scaife Foundation] (and others) fund one of the [right]'s most prominent noise machines, The Media Research Center, which distorts statements made by [liberals] and then urges [conservative outlets and pundits] to provide saturation coverage of such statements as proof [liberals] are hypocritical and sinister.
Now, I do not personally think MRC is generally unfair or manipulative. However, the constant bashing of MM always strikes me as disingenuous. The two organs do essentially the exact same selective reporting and critique through the same basic methodology. The only pertinent difference is the political ideology from which each bases its accusations of bias.
This is the third time in the past 6 months that I've asked for someone to give a substantive answer to the question of why MRC presumes to occupy moral/ethical high ground in comparison to MM. The only asnwers I've gotten in other threads have boiled down either to:
1. "I shouldn't have to explain it because it's obvious"
2. "George Soros! George Soros!!!!"
Perhaps the third time will be the proverbial charm.
Your post started out well...
March 11, 2009 - 12:38 ET by Roger the Shrubber..but this is where it goes off the rails...
Now, I do not personally think MRC is generally unfair or manipulative. However, the constant bashing of MM always strikes me as disingenuous. The two organs do essentially the exact same selective reporting and critique through the same basic methodology. The only pertinent difference is the political ideology from which each bases its accusations of bias.
You make the same mistake so many other liberals do. You somehow equate a source like Newsbusters, who does not get used as a factual source by the mainstream media, to Media Matters, who does.
Newsbuster does retain the high ground because, quite honestly, they do such a better job at pointing out liberal media bias, while Media Matters creates a controversy or a scandal where there isn't most of the time, because, let's be honest, examples of CONSERVATIVE media bias are few and far-between.
MM is The Weekly World News, while Newsbusters is the National Enquirer.
"MM is The Weekly World
March 11, 2009 - 12:43 ET by Carl Kolchak"MM is The Weekly World News,"
Roger, you give them too much credit. They probably don't know the first thing about the Bermuda Triangle, Area 51, or Elvis. The reporters from "Weekly World News" were great journalists and in my opinion are far superior to anything from MM or the Nightly News.
But, but, but, Karl...
March 11, 2009 - 13:01 ET by Roger the Shrubber...Bat Boy Lives!
You make the same mistake
March 11, 2009 - 17:24 ET by JasonCYou make the same mistake so many other liberals do. You somehow equate a source like Newsbusters, who does not get used as a factual source by the mainstream media, to Media Matters, who does.
Totally beside the point Rog. The issue is not how these organizations' output is used by others but the veracity with which they conduct themselves. If the conventional conservative wisdom was that MM is improperly cited as fact by third party news outlets, fine. But the attacks are just as often aimed at MM itself.
Newsbuster does retain the high ground because, quite honestly, they do
such a better job at pointing out liberal media bias, while Media
Matters creates a controversy or a scandal where there isn't most of
the time, because, let's be honest, examples of CONSERVATIVE media bias
are few and far-between.
And here you take the notion that media bias is inherently a liberal phenomenon as an a priori truth. And while 99% of the posters here probably take that as a given, I do not. NB is quite adept at misrepresenting, overblowing, and selectively omitting. That, I suspect, is why a small but persistent crew of liberals enjoy posting here. I would not say NB is worse than any liberal equivalent, but they are in no position to be claiming ethical superiority.
Sigh.
March 11, 2009 - 18:13 ET by Roger the ShrubberAs usual, you miss the entire message. Liberal groups like Media Matter get treated like legit "fact check" groups, used as unbiased sources to back up claims, creates stories out of nothing, and further liberal agendas. The Right has no such thing. MM takes whatever FEW instances of so-called "Conservative media bias", which amounts to, what, 25% of their content (I am being generous), and fill the rest with MSNBC-ish leftarded bullcrap. I mean, let's face it: when you focus the majority of your "conservative bias" watchdogging on one network (Fox), that averages 3-4 million viewers (less than even ONE network nightly news show), you are reaching big time. MM was founded for ONE purpose: Soros' competition against Murdoch, an attack machine.
NB does retain the "high ground" because, quite frankly, NB does the exact opposite of MM: 75% of NB's material is hard news, culled for the HUNDREDS of biased news sources, while the other 25% is silly fluff like whatever the bimbos from "TheView" said that day. You offering your opinion is fine and dandy, but put your opinion in one hand and a pile of batcrap in the other, and tell me which is worth more. You stick with your opinion, I'll stick with the facts.
I just love the Weekly World News. Can't find it here, darn it.
March 11, 2009 - 12:44 ET by acaiguanaThe WWN was my sole source of factual information for many years, but the groceries in Florida (I moved) don't carry it.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
ACA... Hey, long time no
March 11, 2009 - 17:49 ET by bigtimerACA...
Hey, long time no see...great to see you back!
Roger, the ratio of time I
March 11, 2009 - 17:44 ET by JerRoger, the ratio of time I spend at NB vs. MM is probably 100 to 1. But there are similarites between the two sites. Both provide linked sources--audio, video, original articles and transcripts--to corroborate their claims. The reader/viewer can draw his or her own conclusions about the credibility and veracity of those claims. I have found that both sites do a pretty good job, although both sites make occasional mistakes or, as I stated in an earlier post, overstate inferences from the evidence presented.
As far as the media using either as a source, I think MM has been cited on rare occasions by major mainstream publications, but certainly not habitually. Of course, NB is sourced by the conservative media, and Brent Bozell of MRC and NB editors make personal appearances on Fox.
Jer
Are all of the liberals
March 11, 2009 - 18:01 ET by Roger the ShrubberAre all of the liberals coming to this website today reading the same talking points? This is getting rather sad and pathetic.
Please try, oh, please, do try, to equate the reach of "conservative media" to "liberal media".
You are not the first person here to try to equate the two, which it utter nonsense, and, quite frankly, makes your argument weaker than Dennis Kucinich in a Russian Chain Match.
Roger
March 11, 2009 - 18:15 ET by JerI don't know what talking points you are talking about. The only other post I had read today by one of us liberals was Jason's first post.
Furthermore, I did not "equate" the reach of conservative media to liberal media. I merely pointed out my belief that the MSM reliance on MM as a source is relatively rare.
And what is a Russian Chain Match?
Jer
Jer, you said: As far as
March 11, 2009 - 18:38 ET by Roger the ShrubberJer, you said:
As far as the media using either as a source, I think MM has been cited on rare occasions by major mainstream publications, but certainly not habitually. Of course, NB is sourced by the conservative media, and Brent Bozell of MRC and NB editors make personal appearances on Fox.
You are equating MM being used as a factual source by the mainstream media is the same as NB being used by frigging Fox News, so, yes you did "equate" the reach of conservative media to liberal media. I agree that MM is not used more than on occasion, and not as often as other left-wing groups, like the Brookings Institute. So I agree with you on that point.
Rog... Maybe I should not
March 11, 2009 - 18:52 ET by JerRog...
Maybe I should not have put those two observations in the same paragraph. It was not my intent to equate one with the other, except in the sense that both have been used as sources. Obviously, I have no argument with you about the comparative "reach" of the "liberal" MSM vs. conservative outlets. [However, Fox and Rush are widely disseminated.] I agree that publications such as the NYT and WaPo shouldn't be sourcing MM.
Jer
I would not place Limbaugh
March 11, 2009 - 19:07 ET by Roger the ShrubberI would not place Limbaugh in the same category as "hard news", just like I would not place Jon Stewart. Oh, wait. Thousands of twenty-something dumbasses consider Stewart a hard-news source. Anyways, you have now fallen into the trap of comparing opinion shows to "hard news". When you consider the maximum ratings Fox gets (4 mill on a good night) are when their big mouths are on (RoR, Hannity), it is still dwarfed by actual so-called "hard news" on the major network (which average well over 20 mil viewers a night) ...
Or, are you admitting that these "hard news" sources are actually opinion shows? I would have trouble arguing with that point, haha
Rog...
March 11, 2009 - 19:14 ET by JerWell maybe I'm unaware to just what extent MM has been cited as a source by the MSM. Have the NBC, CBS, ABC nightly newscasts done so?
Jer
Oh come on Jer... You
March 11, 2009 - 18:12 ET by bigtimerOh come on Jer...
You really don't think networks like msnbc for one example are going to announce they get their talking points/news of the day from MM/soros/other entities ...are you kidding?
bt...I have no idea to what
March 11, 2009 - 18:21 ET by Jerbt...I have no idea to what extent msnbc--Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, etc. may get "talking points" from MM, anymore than I know to what extent Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. may get "talking points" from NB.
Jer
Rush, Hannity and BOR for
March 11, 2009 - 18:51 ET by bigtimerRush, Hannity and BOR for that matter have been around way before NBs ever was hatched....or msnbc.
After Nachmann lost control of possibly making that network into something called watchable...they have been on the gradual far left side forever, Hillary/Soros and all involved have taken less time money wise, power wise with their web they have weaved to do exactly what they have been doing and you very well know it too.
bt...
March 11, 2009 - 19:01 ET by JerI'm not sure how the length of time the shows have been aired bears on the issue, but as far as balance on msnbc, there are still a number of conservative contributors, but I regret that conservative hosted shows on their nightly lineup have been eliminated. I'm a big fan of ideological diversity.
Jer
Jer... You are
March 11, 2009 - 19:10 ET by bigtimerJer...
You are side-stepping here...the subject we were talking about is who gives who talking points...and you know it.
msnbc was just one example anyway...Soros Machine reaches far and wide.
bt...Would you please stop
March 11, 2009 - 19:26 ET by Jerbt...Would you please stop with the "and you know it" nonsense. The subjects I have been addressing are Media Matters, NewsBusters, the extent to which they are used as sources, and the pathetic fraud Bill O'Reilly.
I have no idea how far the Soros Machine reaches, but I certainly don't put very much stock in what the lying windbag O'Reilly has to say, especially when it's in furtherance of his long-standing personal vendetta against MM and Soros.
Jer
and then urges
March 11, 2009 - 13:17 ET by Jack BauerSATURATION coverage you say? Where on earth would that be?
You mean, a small dripping faucet don't you?
Just to examine the "logic" of your substitution here. The MRC constantly "bashes" the Mainstreem Media, aka the "media" that predominates.
With the express intent of getting "saturation" coverage in that same media of its reports which "bash" the bias of this "media." Sure, that makes sense.