.
On the surface most people would say that Media Matters and NewsBusters are like two peas in a pod. They present the same kind of stuff on their websites and appear to have very similar purposes and goals, with the only difference being that each operate from opposite sides of the political spectrum. While it's true that both claim to be media "watch dog" websites, both have an obvious political bias, both tend to make a big deal out of insignificant issues, and both focus their attention primarily on media outlets that lean toward their political opposition, I have found them to be different in some very significant ways... Way's that stand out far more than their similarities do.
First, take a look at the M.O. of each. Media Matters makes a habit out of attacking the integrity and honesty of Fox News and anyone on the conservative side of politics. They do so most often by accusing them of lying, deliberately misrepresenting issues, or ignoring facts that are often totally irrelevant, just to create a controversy. They do this by parsing words, taking things out of context, and by inventing alternative meanings to what is actually said. They look for anything, no matter how petty, irrelevant or insignificant they can find, and twist it into a "gotcha" moment for the expressed purpose of attacking those with opposing political viewpoints.
NewsBusters on the other hand, primarily points out liberal bias in the main stream media by showing what was actually said about a news item, what wasn't said, what stories the media chooses to report on, and what stories they choose to ignore. They rarely launch unwarranted personal attacks on someone by twisting words or inventing an alternative meanings to what they've presented.
Since I know that that description will likely be politically dismissed by the left, I've decided to take the 10 latest posts from each website (1/20/11, 3:00pm est) and see what they are based on, to point out the difference between the two websites.
Media Matters:
NewsBusters:
Can you see a difference?
Here's what I observed:
Of the 10 stories from Media Matters, 8 were critical of conservative opinion people (pundits, talkers) and only 2 were directed at hard news reporting/content. Those stories, as is their norm, are mostly comprised of accusations of falsehoods based on the twisting and parsing of words, and With few exceptions, such accusations are always directed toward conservatives in the media and anyone who works for, or is affiliated with, Fox News.
Of the 10 stories from NewsBusters, 8 were critical of hard news coverage by main stream outlets, while 1 was critical of a congressman's words and 1 recognized a website mention on a TV show. As you can see, the majority of the NB stories are based on the spin, tone and choice of stories the main stream news media reports on, and target a wide variety of different media outlets. They don't focus their efforts on playing "gotcha" by twisting and manipulating words into something they're not, in order to make the people in the media out to be unintelligent or liars. They just point out the things that indicate their obvious political imbalance.
Based on their presentation and methods, rather than their mission statements, it's clear to me that each have separate and very different objectives they want to achieve through their stories. Media Matters articles attempt to discredit conservatives and conservative media, by attacking their integrity, honesty and intelligence. While the objective of NewsBusters articles is to show how the main stream media's obvious political bias cheats the public. They point out how that bias results both in their opinion inappropriately getting sprinkled into the news, which often creates a one sided presentation, and also how that bias determines what stories the choose to ignore, resulting often in the American people getting an incomplete picture of the events taking place in America and the world.
Then there's the matter of the overall goals that each website has set out to achieve. Those goals couldn't be any more different, or any more obvious. The people and organizations that influence these websites do say a lot about what they are out to achieve, but it's their actions behind the scenes that make their goals undeniable.
Media Matters is regularly involved in soliciting media outlets to fire conservative opinion people, when ever those people have acted in such a way that has angered the liberal political establishment. They also produce false and misleading reports on various conservative media personalities and use those reports to solicit companies that advertise on their shows, both on radio and TV, in an effort to get them to pull their advertising. They have also mounted campaigns to boycott the companies that continue to advertise with conservatives talkers they disagree with. MM has also helped organize and sponsor protests against vocal conservative voices and public events they hold. NewsBusters on the other hand, does not engage in any of those tactics or activities. The most you will see from them in their dealings with the liberal media, is an occasional demand for a media outlet to retract, correct, or apologize for an erroneous story they reported on.
Actions speak louder than words, and when you examine the actions those websites have taken and the approach used in the content of their articles, who they are and what they are trying to accomplish couldn't be an more clear.
Media Matters isn't a media watch dog that's "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation"... They're a liberal sponsored "attack dog" with the very clear and unmistakable goal of silencing all conservative political opinion and destroying any conservative friendly media outlets, especially Fox News.
NewsBusters goals are very different. They aren't out to make liars out of the liberal media to bring about their demise, they just want to show the obvious liberal bias in the media in the hopes they will make efforts in the future to eliminate that bias from their news coverage... Or as it states on their website, "to bring balance and responsibility to the news media."
Don't get me wrong, I think the majority of NewsBusters articles are petty, insignificant and in many cases, blow situations way out of proportion. Many of the opinions they express can be too partisan in nature, and some even have a conspiratorial air to them, both of which leave a lot to be desired as far as I'm concerned. For the most part though, NewsBusters is an honest broker of information, whether you believe in liberal media bias or not... As for Media Matters, they display over and over again, that lies and distortions play an integral part in the articles they publish, which are designed to slander, impugn, discredit, and ultimately destroy/silence their political opposition. Though MM and NB may appear similar in what they do, placing both of those websites on equal ground is not only dishonest, it's an insult to human intelligence.
.
On the surface most people would say that Media Matters and NewsBusters are like two peas in a pod. They present the same kind of stuff on their websites and appear to have very similar purposes and goals, with the only difference being that each operate from opposite sides of the political spectrum. While it's true that both claim to be media "watch dog" websites, both have an obvious political bias, both tend to make a big deal out of insignificant issues, and both focus their attention primarily on media outlets that lean toward their political opposition, I have found them to be different in some very significant ways... Way's that stand out far more than their similarities do.
First, take a look at the M.O. of each. Media Matters makes a habit out of attacking the integrity and honesty of Fox News and anyone on the conservative side of politics. They do so most often by accusing them of lying, deliberately misrepresenting issues, or ignoring facts that are often totally irrelevant, just to create a controversy. They do this by parsing words, taking things out of context, and by inventing alternative meanings to what is actually said. They look for anything, no matter how petty, irrelevant or insignificant they can find, and twist it into a "gotcha" moment for the expressed purpose of attacking those with opposing political viewpoints.
NewsBusters on the other hand, primarily points out liberal bias in the main stream media by showing what was actually said about a news item, what wasn't said, what stories the media chooses to report on, and what stories they choose to ignore. They rarely launch unwarranted personal attacks on someone by twisting words or inventing an alternative meanings to what they've presented.
Since I know that that description will likely be politically dismissed by the left, I've decided to take the 10 latest posts from each website (1/20/11, 3:00pm est) and see what they are based on, to point out the difference between the two websites.
Media Matters:
- They attack 2 bloggers over their criticism of Michelle Obama's dress.
Right-Wing Fashion Police Attack Michelle Obama's State Dinner Dress Choice | Media Matters for America - They accuse Karl Rove of using false information.
- They accuse O'Reilly of misleading people.
- They criticize Beck over his words discussing the "Obama is racist" incident.
- They accuse Limbaugh of mocking Chinese culture.
- They criticize Fox's Martha MacCallum for her comment about the EPA during interview.
- They criticize Fox for interviewing a doctor who is skeptical about the HHS study
- They accuse Fox of putting out false information on the health care bill.
- They attack Newt for a statement he made on Hannity about the administration.
- They go after the Wash Times for op-ed's critical of Obama's Tucson speech.
NewsBusters:
- They point out that morning news shows didn't report on abortionist's murder arrest.
Network Morning Shows Ignore Philadelphia Abortionist's Murder Arrest | NewsBusters.org - They criticize NBC for the anti-republican speculation they used in reporting Obama's poll numbers.
- They point out CBS correspondent's bias when reporting on obamacare repeal vote.
- They mention that the NB website was mentioned on Hannity panel last night.
- They point out NBC Nightly News didn't report on Congressman's Nazi comparison,
- An op-ed on Palin attacks and the effect on her poll numbers
- They criticize congressman for saying Obamacare mandate is in the constitution and is a "right".
- They report on two conservative writers who level harsh criticism of NY Times Tucson coverage.
- They criticize CBS for timing of report on plight of small businesses, after Obama announcement of regulation reform.
- They voice criticism of ABC's "Sick Kids" report on eve of HC repeal, and their positive characterization of bill.
Can you see a difference?
Here's what I observed:
Of the 10 stories from Media Matters, 8 were critical of conservative opinion people (pundits, talkers) and only 2 were directed at hard news reporting/content. Those stories, as is their norm, are mostly comprised of accusations of falsehoods based on the twisting and parsing of words, and With few exceptions, such accusations are always directed toward conservatives in the media and anyone who works for, or is affiliated with, Fox News.
Of the 10 stories from NewsBusters, 8 were critical of hard news coverage by main stream outlets, while 1 was critical of a congressman's words and 1 recognized a website mention on a TV show. As you can see, the majority of the NB stories are based on the spin, tone and choice of stories the main stream news media reports on, and target a wide variety of different media outlets. They don't focus their efforts on playing "gotcha" by twisting and manipulating words into something they're not, in order to make the people in the media out to be unintelligent or liars. They just point out the things that indicate their obvious political imbalance.
Based on their presentation and methods, rather than their mission statements, it's clear to me that each have separate and very different objectives they want to achieve through their stories. Media Matters articles attempt to discredit conservatives and conservative media, by attacking their integrity, honesty and intelligence. While the objective of NewsBusters articles is to show how the main stream media's obvious political bias cheats the public. They point out how that bias results both in their opinion inappropriately getting sprinkled into the news, which often creates a one sided presentation, and also how that bias determines what stories the choose to ignore, resulting often in the American people getting an incomplete picture of the events taking place in America and the world.
Then there's the matter of the overall goals that each website has set out to achieve. Those goals couldn't be any more different, or any more obvious. The people and organizations that influence these websites do say a lot about what they are out to achieve, but it's their actions behind the scenes that make their goals undeniable.
Media Matters is regularly involved in soliciting media outlets to fire conservative opinion people, when ever those people have acted in such a way that has angered the liberal political establishment. They also produce false and misleading reports on various conservative media personalities and use those reports to solicit companies that advertise on their shows, both on radio and TV, in an effort to get them to pull their advertising. They have also mounted campaigns to boycott the companies that continue to advertise with conservatives talkers they disagree with. MM has also helped organize and sponsor protests against vocal conservative voices and public events they hold. NewsBusters on the other hand, does not engage in any of those tactics or activities. The most you will see from them in their dealings with the liberal media, is an occasional demand for a media outlet to retract, correct, or apologize for an erroneous story they reported on.
Actions speak louder than words, and when you examine the actions those websites have taken and the approach used in the content of their articles, who they are and what they are trying to accomplish couldn't be an more clear.
Media Matters isn't a media watch dog that's "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation"... They're a liberal sponsored "attack dog" with the very clear and unmistakable goal of silencing all conservative political opinion and destroying any conservative friendly media outlets, especially Fox News.
NewsBusters goals are very different. They aren't out to make liars out of the liberal media to bring about their demise, they just want to show the obvious liberal bias in the media in the hopes they will make efforts in the future to eliminate that bias from their news coverage... Or as it states on their website, "to bring balance and responsibility to the news media."
Don't get me wrong, I think the majority of NewsBusters articles are petty, insignificant and in many cases, blow situations way out of proportion. Many of the opinions they express can be too partisan in nature, and some even have a conspiratorial air to them, both of which leave a lot to be desired as far as I'm concerned. For the most part though, NewsBusters is an honest broker of information, whether you believe in liberal media bias or not... As for Media Matters, they display over and over again, that lies and distortions play an integral part in the articles they publish, which are designed to slander, impugn, discredit, and ultimately destroy/silence their political opposition. Though MM and NB may appear similar in what they do, placing both of those websites on equal ground is not only dishonest, it's an insult to human intelligence.
.