AIM VS Media Matters (1 Viewer)

[Squawker]

You can usually tell if a source is reliable when they take their own side to task.
The posters here seem to hate O’Reilly above the others, so I did a search on AIM.
Here are some AIM Reports on O’Reilly. You can find a lot more than this.

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

I couldn’t find any negative reports about the left wing media on Media Matters. A Dan Rather search said "Rather" wasn't a word that mattered. Ted Turner had one link. Other names all linked back to Fox News. If you can find some, please post them for me.
I didn’t have a lot of time to search. Please, don’t insult me by coming back and saying only FOX lies, that is just silly.
Source

 

[shuamort]

According to their website, it looks like Media Matter is a left wing resource for debunking right wing info:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Conservative misinformation is defined as news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda.

For the first time, Media Matters for America has put in place a system to monitor the media for conservative misinformation -- every day, in real time -- in 2004 and beyond.

I'm glad they're at least up front with their bias.

Accuracy in Media's claim says:

Accuracy In Media is a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage.

AIM, from what I've skimmed, seems to be pretty non-partisan as their objective states.

I guess I don't see what the problem is. I mean, if I go to RNC.org, I'm not planning on seeing a fair and unbiased viewpoint of politics, I go to see the republican viewpoint. They're upfront with their viewpoint. As is MediaMatters.

 

[Pacridge]

Well I wouldn't exactly call AIM non-partisan. Though they do spend some time on the right as well as the left. They spend the bulk of their time on the conservative side of the fence. The organization is headed and chaired by Reed Irvine who also writes a conservative column that appears in the Washington Times. And a major source of their funding comes from Richard Mellon Scaife and the Scaife Foundations. Here's a link that goes into the details as to where their funding comes from and who's flying their plane.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Accuracy_in_Media

But just because they're conservative doesn't mean they're not getting facts correct. I like groups like them and Media Matters. They do a lot of leg work for you if you let them. If you're liberal and just dismiss them I think you're making a mistake.

 

[Squawker]

dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Conservative misinformation is defined as news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda.

How can this be true? Bill O'Reilly isn't a conservative. They don't have any conservatives at CNN, CBS , NBC, ABC, MSNBC, or any of the other left wing news groups? I was just curious why some think Media Matters might be more reliable than any of the others. Some of you may not think so, but I do try to be fair in my analysis.

 

[argexpat]

How can this be true? Bill O'Reilly isn't a conservative. They don't have any conservatives at CNN, CBS , NBC, ABC, MSNBC, or any of the other left wing news groups? I was just curious why some think Media Matters might be more reliable than any of the others. Some of you may not think so, but I do try to be fair in my analysis.

So CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC are left wing news groups? So the well-tailored suits that run these corporations---not to mention their corporate advertisers and stock holders---are liberals who want to increase taxes on the rich and limit corporate power and strengthen unions and labor laws and increase government regulation and overthrow the capitalist system and install a dictatorship of the proletariat? Because that's what you're saying when you call these corporations left wing. Do you disagree? And if that's what you're saying then say it, say the corporate, capitalist, free market media is left wing. If you have any intellectual honesty and integrity you'll say it. Otherwise you're just mindlessly parroting an inane Republican talking point.

 

[Pacridge]

So CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC are left wing news groups? So the well-tailored suits that run these corporations---not to mention their corporate advertisers and stock holders---are liberals who want to increase taxes on the rich and limit corporate power and strengthen unions and labor laws and increase government regulation and overthrow the capitalist system and install a dictatorship of the proletariat? Because that's what you're saying when you call these corporations left wing. Do you disagree? And if that's what you're saying then say it, say the corporate, capitalist, free market media is left wing. If you have any intellectual honesty and integrity you'll say it. Otherwise you're just mindlessly parroting an inane Republican talking point.

And "Bill O'Reilly isn't a conservative"- he's a registered "independent" just don't check his voter registration card.

 

[mixedmedia]

You can usually tell if a source is reliable when they take their own side to task.
The posters here seem to hate O’Reilly above the others, so I did a search on AIM.
Here are some AIM Reports on O’Reilly. You can find a lot more than this.

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

I couldn’t find any negative reports about the left wing media on Media Matters. A Dan Rather search said "Rather" wasn't a word that mattered. Ted Turner had one link. Other names all linked back to Fox News. If you can find some, please post them for me.
I didn’t have a lot of time to search. Please, don’t insult me by coming back and saying only FOX lies, that is just silly.
Source

Try factcheck.org - they are a truly non-partisan organization. Their focus is on debunking politicians but in the process expose hypocrisy & slant in the media as well.

 

[Fantasea]

It is normal for a person to have a bias which reflects his heritage, beliefs, likes, dislikes, needs, wants, desires, etc. etc.

Whenever one sees or hears a media story, the subconscious looks for signs of one's bias. If some are found, then the story is not biased. If none of one's biases are present, then, of course the story is biased.

So, we see that if two persons with opposite biases encounter the same presentation of a story, one will see it as biased and the other will see it as fair.