Last week, two of the leading conservatives in the media, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, were dishonestly and unprofessionally attacked by press outlets that cherry-picked out of context remarks from lengthy radio broadcasts in order to vilify outspoken personalities whose opinions they don’t agree with.
Unfortunately, as folks around the country saw this play out on their television sets and newspapers, few were at all familiar with the organization behind the smear campaigns, or that this same group started the firestorm which ended with radio host Don Imus being terminated by NBC and CBS in April.
Maybe more importantly, even fewer citizens are aware that this organization is linked directly to Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as billionaire leftist George Soros.
For some background, John Perazzo wrote a column for FrontPage Magazine in July entitled “Media Matters: Hillary’s Lap Dogs,” that should be must-reading for all citizens interested in who's targeting America’s leading conservative personalities (emphasis added throughout):
Established in May 2004, Media Matters identifies itself as “a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media”—particularly information “that forwards the conservative agenda.” The organization was founded by the conservative-turned-leftist journalist David Brock, who says he created Media Matters “to combat” what he characterizes as the largely successful effort of “the right wing in this country” to “mov[e] the media itself to the right” and to “mov[e] American politics to the right.”
After explaining why the Clintons hate Don Imus, and how Media Matters has been collecting information on the controversial radio host for years just waiting for an opportunity to take him down, Perazzo addressed the unmistakable connection between this leftwing organization and the junior senator from New York:
Media Matters’ links to Hillary are at once intimate and multitudinous, and the organization’s devotion to her is nothing short of profound. In 1996 (eight years before Media Matters’ creation), the then-conservative David Brock was commissioned (with a $1 million advance) by the Simon & Schuster subsidiary Free Press to write a hard-hitting expose of Hillary. But the book, completed in 1997, turned out to be nothing more than a tepid, distinctly sympathetic account of the former First Lady’s life. That same year (1997), Brock publicly announced his political epiphany, unequivocally recanting his previous negative writings about the Clintons and embracing the liberal/Left cause. During this period, Brock developed a close relationship with Neel Lattimore, Senator Clinton’s openly gay press secretary and close confidante. Brock would eventually hire Lattimore as a director of “special projects” for Media Matters.
Brock’s affinity for Mrs. Clinton grew over time, and vice versa. According to Glenn Thrush of Newsday, Hillary “advised Brock on creating” Media Matters in 2004, “encouraging the creation of a liberal equivalent of the Media Research Center, a conservative group that has aggravated Democrats for decades.” Thrush reports that Hillary still “chats with [Brock] occasionally and thinks he provides a valuable service . . .” “For her part,” Thrush adds, “Clinton’s extended family of contributors, consultants and friends has played a pivotal role in helping Media Matters grow from a $3.5 million start-up in 2004 to its current $8.5 million budget.”
There was more in this September 7, 2006, Newsday article of note (emphasis added):
"David is immensely valuable to Hillary," says a wealthy Democrat with ties to Brock, speaking anonymously.
[…]
Brock's mediamatters.org Web site debunks attacks on all prominent Democrats and has been funded by donors with connections to many party leaders.
Still, it's been particularly kind to Clinton. The site posts three to four articles per week chiding perceived Clinton bashers from Bill O'Reilly to Tucker Carlson to The New York Times. When Brock listed his 2005 accomplishments, he highlighted his point-by-point dissection of Ed Klein's error-strewn Clinton biography.[…]
There are other Clinton connections. Media Matters' special projects director, C. Neel Lattimore, was Clinton's press secretary when she was first lady.
And Brock is close to Bill Clinton's former chief of staff John Podesta, founder of the powerhouse Democratic think tank Center for American Progress. Podesta, one of Hillary Clinton's top policy advisers, made room for Media Matters in the center's offices before Brock found permanent digs for the group.
But that’s not all. According to Perazzo, the Hillary connection to Media Matters goes much deeper:
Media Matters and Hillary Clinton are further linked by their respective relationships with three of the most influential leftist operatives in the world—George Soros, Morton Halperin, and John Podesta. All three of these men are intimately involved with a vital think tank called the Center for American Progress (CAP)—which, according to Cybercast News Service’s research, “was instrumental in getting Brock’s media group off the ground”; which helped launch Media Matters on May 3, 2004; and which maintains a tight bond with Brock’s organization to this day.
As NewsBusters reported in June, “the staff and Senior Fellows listing of this Center reads like a Clinton administration Who’s Who.” As Perazzo pointed out, it is directly connected to Media Matters and Soros:
CAP is heavily funded by the aforementioned billionaire financier George Soros, and in turn works closely with Media Matters to remove potential roadblocks (like Don Imus) from Hillary Clinton’s path to the White House. According to Bill O’Reilly, some of the money Soros gives to CAP eventually finds its way into the coffers of Media Matters, though Media Matters disputes this.
Soros in 2004 spent some $26 million trying, unsuccessfully, to defeat President Bush’s reelection bid, a task Soros called “the central focus of my life” and “a matter of life and death.” He has likened Republicans generally, and the Bush administration in particular, to “the Nazi and communist regimes” in the sense that they are “all engaged in the politics of fear.” “Indeed,” he wrote in 2006, “the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and Communist propaganda machines by drawing on the innovations of the advertising and marketing industries.” Soros elaborated on this theme at the January 2007 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he told reporters: “America needs to . . . go through a certain de-Nazification process.”
Today Soros remains committed to ousting the Nazi-like Republicans from the White House. And because Hillary Clinton appears to be the person most capable of making his dream a reality, Soros is heavily invested in abetting her quest for the presidency. He does this in part by funding the Center for American Progress, with the knowledge that CAP will work synergistically with pro-Hillary organizations like Media Matters.
[…]
Hillary’s ties to Brock’s organization are further cemented by the largesse of such donors to Media Matters as Susie Tompkins Buell (Hillary’s close ally and a co-founder of the fashion company Esprit) and James Hormel (a San Francisco philanthropist who narrowly missed being named ambassador to Luxembourg during the Clinton administration in the 1990s).
Is the picture becoming clearer? Hillary and her backers have created an advocacy network whose expressed goal is to take down all of her critics in the media.
In fact, after Imus was fired by NBC and CBS, Media Matters published a 6,000-word article entitled “It’s Not Just Imus,” listing other political enemies of the Clintons such as Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Michael Smerconish, and John Gibson.
As Perazzo stated, “By eliminating such conservative voices from the airwaves, Media Matters could effectively insulate much of the American public from ever hearing about the negative traits and hidden agendas of Hillary Clinton, and thereby, in essence, ensure her ascendancy to the Oval Office.”
Well, last week, Media Matters went after Limbaugh and O’Reilly, and, sadly, many in the press bought their smears hook, line, and sinker without fully investigating what both hosts really said, and what the context of their statements were.
Maybe even more disgraceful, as press members parrot the cherry-picked reports from Media Matters, they are mute concerning the organization’s ties to a former president and current Democrat front-runner to win the White House in 2008.
Isn’t this the perfect story for muckraking, investigative journalism programs like “60 Minutes,” “Dateline,” and “20/20?”
And, as they receive information from this organization with clear ties to a leading political figure in our nation, shouldn’t media be somewhat cynical concerning what is coming from this group thereby feeling the need to thoroughly scrutinize its reports before sharing them with the citizenry?
Consider that Howard Kurtz on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” Sunday referred to Media Matters as a “liberal advocacy group.” If folks in the press are indeed aware that this is a leftwing shill, every report Media Matters publishes should be thoroughly researched and fact-checked before it is disseminated.
Failing this, media are simply acting as a conduit for propaganda from one presidential candidate to the public which is something that should be completely unacceptable to all Americans regardless of political leaning.
Please also see:
House Democrats to Offer Resolution Condemning Rush Limbaugh
ABC Reported on ‘Phony Heroes' Two Days Before Rush Limbaugh Did
Related Articles:
CNN Asks, Is Bill O’Reilly Comment on Race an ‘Imus Moment?Rush Limbaugh: Anatomy of a Smear
Rush Sets the Record Straight:
"Phony Soldiers" Is a Phony Story
CNN’s ‘Newsroom,’ MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ Pile on O’Reilly
Juan Williams Defends Bill O’Reilly, Calls CNN Idiots
MSNBC Graphic Smears O’Reilly: ‘Anchor’s Racist Comments’
CBS News Disreputably Promotes Left-Wing Smear of O'Reilly
Scarborough Slaps Sharpton For Not Going After 'Moron' O'Reilly
O’Reilly and Bruce Discuss New ‘Gestapo’ in America Smearing ConservativesBill O’Reilly Warns Media About Smear Campaigns: ‘I’m Coming After You'
MRC's Bozell: CNN & CBS Must Apologize to O'Reilly
Scarborough Still on O'Reilly's Case
MRC/NB's Noyes on MRC Call for CNN, CBS to Apologize to O'Reilly
Media Matters Turns From O'Reilly to Taking Rush Out of Context
John Gibson and Mark Levin Rip Media Matters on Liberal Bias Lies
Juan Williams Sets Record Straight on O'Reilly Row on Time.com
Show After Show, MSNBC Smears Limbaugh with 'Phony Soldiers' Distortion
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Smear Merchant
September 30, 2007 - 15:31 ET by allanfThe saddest thing is what this says about the news media in America. Swift boat allegation are "unproven'. Yet AP, CNN, CBS and MSNBC all run with either the O'Reilly and/or Limbaugh smear. A personality on MSNBC (on at 8PM Eastern) routinely repeats Media Matters smears almost verbatim.
The press has entered a new era of yellow journalism that is based on advocacy for a single political party (and candidate now).
it was all yellow
September 30, 2007 - 15:40 ET bywas that a political song?
and if Mark Levins ideas on Media Matters 401C(3) status can be acted upon, it would be a start.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
!
October 1, 2007 - 04:26 ET by old croIt was "wee"...........
Conduit for Propaganda
September 30, 2007 - 15:37 ET by mattm"...media are simply acting as a conduit for propaganda..."
They have been doing this for decades. But at least now (for the time being) there are alternative sources...
All the libs have is distortion.
From the progressive
September 30, 2007 - 15:41 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsFrom the progressive dictionary:
Journalist - a conduit for propaganda from one presidential candidate to the public.
Nuff said.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
To their credit
September 30, 2007 - 16:03 ET by SMGalbraithTo their credit (reluctantly), they've been increasingly effective.
Admittedly, part of their effectiveness seems to emanate from a (mostly) uncritical MSM repeating their allegations. Certainly, it's been amply documented that Olbermann uses this procedure. I.e., ye olde "rip and read". But instead of stories coming from wire services, they now originate from blogs or websites. O'Reilly says that CNN contacted him to verify the story. I'm doubtful that anyone at MSNBC acted similarly (hmm, now that would be an interesting conversation: Olbermann interviewing O'Reilly).
Unfortunately, we live in such a competitive period for the press that the desire to be first with the most critical story is completely overriding the need to be absolutely sure the story is accurate, fair and balanced. Media Matters fills this need perfectly. Smart move there Brock.
Nothing breeds imitation like success. As they say, more to follow.
Ugh.
SMG
but it's all founded on lies
October 1, 2007 - 11:03 ET by TruthMongerbut it's all founded on lies - and that's why the left ultimately loses out - it's not conservatives bringing them down - its themselves - they collapse under the weight of thier own false structure of BS - we just provide the narratives:)
lies, lies
September 30, 2007 - 15:57 ET by Felicity RandIn the past, they could easily put out their propaganda without any rebuttal. The fact that now we are watching them, calling them out for their lies, their desperation is palpable.
With time, their monopoly will diminish. And we'll need to build more crazy farms to house all the liberals who lose their sanity because of it. (Understand that it's hard to write "liberal" and "sanity" in the same sentence!)
David Brock
September 30, 2007 - 15:59 ET by pocomocoI had commented sometime ago about David Brock’s sudden epiphany that led him to leave conservatism, embrace liberalism, and recant his Hillary Clinton writings.
I said it smelled like Clinton’s 'bimbo eruption machine' found something in Brock's past and made him an offer he couldn’t refuse - “either come over with us, or your writing career is over”.
VRWC
September 30, 2007 - 19:58 ET by River CityWhen Hillary speaks of the vast right wing conspiracy she is speaking from experience, the conspiracy of her own creation. I have stated before that the tenacles of this Soros network go much deeper than we know.
If we don't clean up Congress by voting the crooks out Soros will buy everyone he wants.
It is time to show Hillary for the communist she is.
“Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” Ronald Reagan
POTUS Death threat
September 30, 2007 - 16:28 ET by NortoBeliever
Anyone recall when Soros stated that the defeat of GWB in '04 was a "matter of life and death?" I considered that to be very dangerous talk from a man of such means and influence and did call the FBI to ask if they should bring him in for questioning.
Imagine if one of us lackeys had made that comment when Clinton was POTUS! We would have been hustled to the nearest detention and might have been a long time seeing the other side of it.
That scenario will be the norm, if these commies running get in the WH again. She will be POTUS and I guarantee he will be head of the UN.
Conservative commentators,
September 30, 2007 - 16:31 ET by JasonCConservative commentators, including but not limited to Hannity and Limbaugh, characterized the '06 legislative election as a matter of like or death. Not a big deal.
Also, I find it so cute when people call Democrats communists. They're bought and paid for by the same kind of corporate interests as your Republicans.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
"...I find it so cute when
September 30, 2007 - 16:41 ET by MikeB"...I find it so cute when people call Democrats communists." Awww, ain't that special? Have you ever compared the platform of the Democrat Party with the Communist Manifesto? No, of course you haven't. All ten of the demands Marx and Engels made in the Communist Manifesto are now either federal government policy or advocated by the Democrats. Before you dismiss this statement, you should read the Communist Manifesto.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
I've read Marx. Advocacy
September 30, 2007 - 16:45 ET by JasonCI've read Marx. Advocacy of social programs does not make full-blown communists. The Democrats would be rutterless without their corporate base. Just becasue they have the labor vote does not change this.
If ever there was a person who I'd argue didn't understand Marxism, it was Reagan.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I'm sure
October 1, 2007 - 08:58 ET by cvgbuckeyethat you have read the democrat, I mean communist, manifesto. Have you brushed up on the bolshevik revolution as well?
What, in all of your experience, belies your service to your country, if you consider America your country? Any military or public service?
What do you consider to be America's greatest accomplishment over the last five years? Who is your favorite, American Patriot?
Was America justified in using nuclear force in WW II?
I'm just trying to establish where you are.
Furthermore, it would not
September 30, 2007 - 16:53 ET by JasonCFurthermore, it would not be at all difficult to disingenuously draw comparisons between the general Republican platform and old-school Fascism, especially in the early 90s when Wolfowitz was drafting that bang-up magnum opus of his for Project for a New American Century. But I'll be the first to say that actually calling Republicans Fascists is stupid, hackneyed, and just plain wrong.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Let me see, a graduated and
September 30, 2007 - 19:35 ET by MikeBLet me see, a graduated and confiscatory income tax, a "free" education in government controlled schools, the government being the sole source for loans (fannie mae, freddie mac [you think your mortgage company or bank keeps your house mortgage for the life of the loan?]), etc. Item after item, if it's in the Communist Manifesto, it is currently federal government policy, or Democrats are trying to make it federal government policy. I don't mean similar to, either.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Winter all the time?
September 30, 2007 - 16:35 ET by third eyeThe WWOTE, as we all know, does not take a liking to descent among her subjects, loyal or otherwise. I am already begining to see a building of what I will creatively call GDS over at MediaMatters.
"The Queen turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her
for a moment like a wild beast, screamed `Off with her head!
Off--'" AIW
Observation - FOX Bias?
September 30, 2007 - 17:00 ET by PopularTechThe graphic Noel used is obviously from FOXNews my problem is why did FOX not include
Michael Savage in their Media Matters list since you can see that they have smeared him 120 times.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
popular tech
September 30, 2007 - 17:10 ET byi reckon you would have to look at the cites and distinguish which are smears and which are reporting. Savage by his demeanor invites criticism
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
Biased
September 30, 2007 - 21:58 ET by PopularTechSo the others do not invite critism? Strange logic there. I am simply pointing out that Fox is obviously biased by not showing that Media Matters attacks Savage more then the rest.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
David Brock, Psychopath
September 30, 2007 - 18:07 ET by Lame CherrySomething very strange happened to David Brock's psyche after his reporting on Bill Clinton in he absolutely became like Patty Hearst with the SLA.
He is like a serial murderer now bent on a rage to take down every Conservative using lies, distortions and false stories. The FEC must look into this as the smoking gun of these being all Clinton people with Soros money running these attacks for the benefit of Hillary Clinton is beyond smoke and mirrors "illegal". This is a front operation of dirty tricks for the Democrat Party.
As an addition to this, you can trace the same "forgegate" cycle to this same operational wing in part of the Molotov Mob of Jason Leopold types who "create stories"..........as you will note forgegate has been creeping back into the news from these creeps.
It is past time that the DOJ starts investigating George Soros and locks up this nation rapist. He got NASA to fudge it's books and he now has caused criminal libel against a number of Americans.
Brock though needs to be locked up in a Christian enclave where he can get some healing for his sins as this guy is serial nuts.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Thank you! Don't stop
September 30, 2007 - 20:52 ET by sembyThank you!
Don't stop printing the truth. We can not allow the Clintons to get away with this!
They need to be stopped once and for all!
.
September 30, 2007 - 20:59 ET by directorblueMark Levin called Media Matters a 'criminal enterprise' on his show last week - and I think he has a point.
a good link director, Noel
September 30, 2007 - 21:05 ET bya good link director, Noel had this in his earlier post on Media Matters
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
I loved how Mark called it
September 30, 2007 - 21:40 ET by drillanwrI loved how Mark called it the Clinton Crime Family ...
Rush Limbaugh
September 30, 2007 - 22:05 ET by BarkerThe tadpoles thought they could tangle with the Shark.
Guess whose blood is in the water.
Thank you, Noel, for the
September 30, 2007 - 23:18 ET by maggieqpublicThank you, Noel, for the link to the John Perazzo column. His discussion of the role of Hillary Clinton/Media Matters in the demise of Don Imus made me realize that we have yet to hear the story from the Imus perspective. Hope he will be available for interviews soon.
Imus
September 30, 2007 - 23:27 ET by River CityHe may not want to talk. If he is trying to get another contract he may be concerned it will hurt his chances of working again in the near future. If he talks now he may have to wait until Queen Bee is defeated in the election to get a job. If she wins he won't work for a very long time, on a national level any way.
“Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” Ronald Reagan
Imus.... Good points. In
September 30, 2007 - 23:50 ET by maggieqpublicImus.... Good points. In other words, Hillary/Media Matters have at least one successful media "hit job" under their belts. While not conservative, it would be difficult to find anyone more anti-Hillary than Imus.
The difference with these attempts
October 1, 2007 - 11:23 ET by sarcasmoIs that Anus was being mean, deliberately. The most these latest attempts were is clueless & out of context. That's not the same. I predict few (if any...) Limbaugh/O'Reilly ads will be pulled because of this, and the ad-pulling was what evicted Anus, not all the 'net-yammering.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
An excerpt from the John
October 1, 2007 - 13:38 ET by maggieqpublicAn excerpt from the John Perazzo column Noel linked above:
Media Matters had been building a dossier on Imus for some time, lying in wait for an opportune moment to pounce on him. At 6:14 a.m. on April 4th, Imus gave the organization that opportunity when he made his ill-fated remarks, which were heard by a 26-year-old Washington, DC-based researcher named Ryan Chiachiere, who Media Matters had assigned to monitor Imus’ program on a daily basis. Chiachiere promptly posted a 775-word blog along with a video clip of the offending comments on the Media Matters website; in addition, a news release was sent to hundreds of reporters nationwide. Imus’ subsequent apology was casually dismissed by the self-righteous Sharpton and Jackson, and the broadcaster’s fate was sealed for certain when his program’s major sponsors began to pull their ads from the show, fearful that they would be subjected—by Media Matters and the likes of Sharpton and Jackson—to a withering campaign of negative publicity as sponsors of a “racist” program.
So Media Matters selects a target, assigns an intern for daily program monitoring, and then they pounce with a media blitz when they have material to quote (not always in the proper context, as we’ve seen with O’Reilly and Limbaugh). I would very much like to hear from Don Imus why he feels he was selected as a Hillary Clinton/Media Matters target as he so clearly was. The situations are playing out differently, but the disturbing targeting techniques are the same.
That changes nothing.
October 1, 2007 - 13:44 ET by sarcasmoThey DID bust Anus, for being mean & un-funny, and they nailed his fossilized ass in-context. Good bust, IMO, when contrasted with their more-recent attempts, which weren't mean, weren't in-context, and won't mean anything in the long-run. Everyone here needs to get over the Anus-bust, he's been a horse's ass, and an un-funny one, for a long time, and something finally happened to stop it. Why is it so-all-important that RINOs like McCain have a radio audience, anyway???
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
The targeting bothers me.
October 1, 2007 - 14:26 ET by maggieqpublicThe targeting bothers me. Hillary/Media Matters was not monitoring Imus in order to expose his media bias…. he was targeted for destruction. The goal was to silence him, and they did. And personally I believe that it was his (shall we say) low regard for Hillary that ultimately led to his demise. Despite his cruel and tasteless comments, I truly believe he would still be on the air but for the bullseye Hillary placed on his forehead.
I get the idea you never thought much of Don Imus!
Well, I'll admit
October 1, 2007 - 14:41 ET by sarcasmoThere were stories (from multiple sources, but on the Howard Stern show) of racism and antisemitism from this guy for about a decade before this happened, which never made it to the rest of the news media. Needless to say, there's much hate for the Stern Show on this board and in the news media generally. IMO, even with the ribald content, they do a lot of good with things like Captain Janks exposing just how poorly the "mainstream" news media researches sources/phonecalls.
Plus, I have to admit, I'm not big on the super-public charity stuff like the Anus "cancer ranch," because I prefer celebrities who simply give like the rest of us without all the grandstanding. And you are probably right about Hillary, that would be no surprise with MediaMatters, but from my POV his love of RINOs made him another Hillary, just one with a talk show. I wouldn't blame MediaMatters AND NewsBusters/MRC for assigning all the interns they can spare to monitor every single radio show that annoys them for stupidity, up-to if not exceeding the tolerance of the interns. ;^)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
The Battle of Ideas
September 30, 2007 - 23:24 ET by pbthinkerIt's obvious the Democrats will do anything to make sure it's only their opinion, in the battle of ideas. They have the majority of the MSM behind them already, as we can tell by the upcoming battle over SCHIP, now they want to shut down all opposing opinion.
When Soros talks about Nazi's he certainly knows how they operate. There is little doubt that Democrats feel they can't win this, in a fair battle, so they will do all they can to discredit any alternative opinion.
In my mind, this all started with the Democrats refusing to debate on FoxNews, thereby calling into question the credibility of the network. This is a concerted effort, on their part, and I'm certainly glad there are sites, like Newsbusters around, to point out the ways they are attempting to accomplish this.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
FNC
September 30, 2007 - 23:34 ET by River CityMedia Matters, MoveOn and Daily Kos have a campaign going on to discredit the Fox brand. If I wasn't so tired I would go out and get the links for you. When all of this started with the debate and John Edwards it was all over the net about their efforts to destroy the brand. I don't remember off the top of my head when the campaign started but it came out in the open when Edwards backed out of the debate.
No brand, no viewers, no advertisers. Heck, isn't that MSNBC?
“Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” Ronald Reagan
Time to fight fire with
October 1, 2007 - 16:12 ET by ConservativeRexTime to fight fire with fire...MoveOn, KOS, Media Matters...look into every iota of their accounting records, taxes, whether they paid all of their social security taxes etc. I equate these organizations to organized crime, therefore, treat them like we did Capone. We don't need the media on our side for this, we just need honest accountants from within the government Full court press on these rascals, pressure, pressure.
Great Idea
October 1, 2007 - 20:03 ET by PTWLet's start naming independent councils and get a big investigation going within BIG government and spend millions of tax dollars to smash free speech. You screen name doesn't fit your idea!
Get ready for the "Fairness Doctrine."
October 1, 2007 - 00:16 ET by Dave RAll this dust being stirred up by the left over BOR & Rush Limbaugh is an effort by the left to bolster their case for the Fairnes Doctrine.
If Hillary manages to get herself elected president, and has a democrat-controlled congress to play with (and I believe both of these scary prospects are probably headed our way), the Fairness Doctrine will be the law of the land in very short order.
And don't be surprised to see a fair number of republicans voting for it, either.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Also dave r
October 1, 2007 - 09:05 ET by cvgbuckeyedo not be surprised to see the defining points of Conservatism, practically, if not outrightly, criminalized. If anyone believes this to be puffing, he has never even smelled the cover of a world history book; even as biased to the left that history books even are.
When is using someone's own words "smearing"
October 1, 2007 - 10:37 ET by PTWPlease keep in mind that these four individuals are pundits and not journalists...they have forfeited there right when they developed their personalities and agendas to support conservative issues. As public people they have to prove malice for defamation or slander.
They just happen to be on air often enough to step into these tempests and are far more rewarded financially than any risk to their character or reputation.
And lets have some balance about being taken out of context as are many officials running for office.
it's not their own words -
October 1, 2007 - 14:00 ET by TruthMongerit's not their own words - that's the issue...
this tactic used to work for the Dems but fact checking is too easy now for the average person...
accusations have to be bullet-proof now, so the Dems can't lie anymore like they used to
Can Republicans lie like they used to
October 1, 2007 - 16:00 ET by PTWWere John Kerry's words ever taken out of contex when running for president by Rush or somebody else on the conservative side? Just trying to be fair and balanced. If your answer is no...John Kerry was never taken out of context, then so much for thought provoking discourse.
Can you name an example of
October 1, 2007 - 16:04 ET by bassndudeCan you name an example of when Rush took something JK said out of context? .....Dident think so.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
can't do - too easy to fact
October 1, 2007 - 16:06 ET by TruthMongercan't do - too easy to fact check:)
(cackle)
Hey Dude
October 1, 2007 - 19:59 ET by PTWJust got back from my day job in the real world to reply to your question and low and behold....I couln't find one instance of Rush taking Kerry's words out of context. In fact I found nothing but praise from Rush on Kerry being a war hero, strong leader, and capable elected official. Boy is Rush a straight shooter. Never bombastic nor filled with hyperbole or exaggeration. Enough of my sarcasm.
His "botched" joke and US soldiers being terrorists were the stuff smear campaigns were made of. Let me translate what was said by conservatives including Rush...no exaggeration necessary: US Troops Stupid....US Troops are Terrorists. You wanna talk about a smear?
PTW
October 1, 2007 - 20:28 ET byyou wrote:
Please keep in mind these four journalists have forfeited their agendas to conservative issues. As public people they have malice for defamation or slander.
They just step into these tempests and risk their reputation.
And lets have some balance about being taken out of context!!
Just got back in the real world!!!!!!!
Compredo, vern???
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
Y'know, PTW, I was gonna "engage" you,
October 1, 2007 - 22:29 ET by RJbut with juvenile posts like that, I realized there's no point in bothering. Thanks for saving my time. ;^>
Anything's possible.
October 1, 2007 - 16:07 ET by KarmaClue me in to the who, what, when & where.
Apples and oranges, PTW
October 1, 2007 - 16:10 ET by RJIt's pointless to attempt the comparison. Rush's words were not "taken out of context." They were completely rewritten.
PTW
October 1, 2007 - 16:14 ET by Airforce_5_OPlease tell me when he said anything that was worth taking any context on???????
Anything????
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
I just heard the LEADER of
October 1, 2007 - 15:29 ET by Cape Conservativeour United States Senate take down a private citizen by stating outright lies as a matter of "public record" and it disgusts me! This acceptance of unfounded personal attacks on the Senate floor goes beyond common sense.
If anyone has spoken badly about our servicemen and women it is the Democrats - Senate, House or those running for the Democrat presidential candidacy. How the dickens this man has the gonads to stand up there and speak against Rush Limbaugh when, in fact, it is he, Harry Reid, who has defamed our men and women in the armed forces - not once but over and over again! He and the rest of the anti-America bunch serving in Congress make me want to PUKE!!! Plain and simple!
NS.... EXCELLENT.
October 1, 2007 - 16:15 ET by bigtimerNS....
EXCELLENT.
Who cares?
October 1, 2007 - 16:25 ET by TexasOptimistWho cares?
I mean, if we are going to press the media to forge a right-wing path, then why shouldn't the left be allowed to similarily press the media leftward? I mean, I detest the left, but they have just as much a right to make their case as we do. And if they need big money donors to help them, so what? We use such donors as well.
George W. Bush is not a full-fledged conservative, but I still support his presidency. (Although I am rethinking this position daily!) Still, I'd rather have him as president than ANY of the Democrats. Merry Christmas 2007.
Well, OK, no Greening the
October 1, 2007 - 17:58 ET by maggieqpublicWell, OK, no Greening the Cleaning products for you at the holidays…
Whoops.... misplaced this one. This was meant as a response to Sarcasmo, above.
I love that sneaky,
October 2, 2007 - 09:50 ET by kathleenirishI love that sneaky, "not-for-profit" designation. Sounds the same as "non-profit" to people, huh? I don't know much about this stuff, but you don't need a board of directors with a not-for-profit, either, right?
Anyway, is there any doubt the Clintons and their socialist gangster friends are as great a threat or greater to this country than al-Queda? Islamoterrorism seems almost quaint when you think about their agenda of dismantling free speech and freedom in this country!!!
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.