Mark, Media Matters arrived on the scene and was described right out of its eggshell in a promotional New York Times article as resembling the Media Research Center. A few months later, they decided the comparison was horrifying. In reality, the modes of operation are quite a bit different. We are hunting for bias in an "objective" media. They are hunting for conservative "misinformation" anywhere, including opinion outlets like talk radio, but often, they're complaining that the liberal arguments in news stories aren't fierce enough.

I would agree that it's wrong to omit completely an inconvenient truth that dilutes your argument. We hope at MRC to include qualifying comments or facts that make a story more balanced, even if we might not always please liberal critics.

Doesn't Hillary travel with more storm troopers?  And Chris couldn't have meant "fawcet" metaphorically for "cleaning" image.  His various put a different word in his guest message occurrances in 2006 do raise some doubt.

The best thing to do is to register on their site and note in the comments of their convenient omission. Name calling discredits a good argument so be civil.

Just curious. What are they saying to defend themselves? Any communication, public or private?

-PJ

How can Media Matters possibly defend its attempted deception?

Oh I'm sure Brock and his cabal will say the original was a fake engineered by the vast right wing conspiracy, and they are just correcting the official record.

I mean, they are totally frackin' nutz you know.

"Our readers don't give a rat's ass about what you think. They want facts."

Elmore Leonard, 'The Hot Kid'.

Fascist? Is that a slur against Italian-Americans?

Alright! I'm finally a victim.

Hey Chrissy, why don't you just come out and say, "The Guiliani campaign will be followed as the day-goes on, but tonight he's attending the wopera. He seems to have some support and is not being used by his party as a guinea-pig.

Add to 'offensive' list of words: 'clean' and 'articulate.' - Added words to the long list that triggers outrage among the black leadership when mentioned by whites

Who elects the black leadership? - A question blacks are not permitted to ask by the black leadership

This is a great catch. I'm glad Mark has the patience to read MM because I have tried and find it to bizarre to take.

Has anyone at NB complained to Wikipedia about the disparity in the MRC description vs the MM one? I mentioned this before and noticed that it has changed a little but it's still very bias. They don't have Newsbusters on there at all anymore and instead link to the NB site and their criticisms section at least identifies that the people making the criticisms are left wing now, but MM has no controversy or criticism section. The MM one reads like a commercial for MM.

Wiki MRC entry

Wiki MM entry

Question: How can Media Matters possibly defend its attempted deception?

Answer: Oh, Silly! Don't you know when Liberals/Socialists/etc are confronted with an unconfortable truth they a) avoid the subject b) lie or c) resort to personal attacks.