Have you actually ever watched anything from Media Matters?
They basically just post the actual clips from the actual person showing the actual content.
The right-wing wackos hate them because they can't just spew out the garbage that they want and deny accountability.
MM has caught Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Cheney..and many others in outright lies. Thats why they hate MM so much.
Actually, that's not the issue.
Media Matters tends to take a few minutes long clip, if that, out of a one hour or three hour daily broadcast, and tends to provide it in such a way that the necessary context is missing. They also have an almost certain habit of leading into every video with a heaping load of extremely partisan commentary prior to it, thus commendering the context and the mentality people have going into the video from the get go. This is akin to during polls when you tell someone that "Most people say that....do you believe it" is considered bad polling because it proeconditions the listener to be in the mindest that many people believe what's being said. Media Matters begins setting the tone of the context they want, the interpritation they want, from the onset of their article so that by the time someone gets to the video they're viewing it from the mindset of Media Matters rather than from an ojbective neutral place.
The recent Rush Limbaugh situation is a PERFECT example of their devious and extremely propoganda oriented talents. They take a short clip from a man that has nearly 2 hours of broadcast time five days a week for the majority of the year. From a completely neutral stand point the comment could've been taken either way, as moving there to live or going there to get health care. Media Matters article immedietely went into hyper partisan liberal spin mode from the beginning, conditioning the reader with their OWN context to be more likely to interprite Rush's words as only having one clear option, that he was moving moving and was going to use their socialist medicine.
However when you consider the fact that this was not a singlular isolated comment made by the man but one of millions than one can not ignore every other ounce of context. Rush has repeatedly stated he has no insurance on his show, that he pays for medical expenses out of pocket. He's repeatedly stated that while he was in the hospital in Hawaii he paid for it out of pocket. He's also ridiculed those that would leave the country simply because of a political decision or vote. Adding that context together it would be far more likely to come to the conclusion that he was meaning he'd go there to pay out of pocket for his own health care when needed.
However Media Matters has a specific, defined, OBVIOUS agenda and an audiance of hyper partisan liberals that it has to satisfy. Giving the context from Rush's history would at least cause people to question their spin of it and at worst would make their spin look ridiculous. Giving it simply as a neutral situation without any of their own commentary or spin surrounding it would likely cause their die hards to read it like theirs but those in the middle who can easily be manipulated may go either way. So, because Media Matters has an agenda they insert their own bias, their own take, and their own context around it to precondition those people to believe it is as they suggest it is.
This is the typical, repeated, continual method that Media Matters acts. That is why I don't consider them credible nor do I take anything they say as gospel. There has been too many times that even when they post the actual video or words that they've done so while not just completely ignoring context, history, tone, etc but actually recasting those things to meet their agenda.
In regards to the Beck thing, I'm at work so can't watch at the moment. However I would consider the way Media Matters is portraying it as gospel to be about as likely as WorldNetDailys take on "My Muslim Faith".