So the Media Matters war on Fox News is over huh?

[pbrauer]

They're honest about their lean, and I respect that, but that's only part of being honest.

Oh, Really? Can you prove they are dishonest?

 

[mpg]

Oh, Really? Can you prove they are dishonest?

what?

 

[pbrauer]

what?

Can you prove Media Matters is dishonest?

 

[Kobie]

You just can't control yourself, can you? Now you bring in Newsbusters... You make this so easy... lol

You just can't be honest either... LMMFAO.

I guess from your perspective, an honest person would have to be some kind of holy crusader, because you sure as hell don't find many of em in your political circles. Believe it or not Kobie, being honest is something that millions of people practice in their daily lives including myself. If you have to lie to defend your ideology, then your ideology itself is the real lie.

If all you're going to do is point and yell "LIAR!" at anyone who doesn't agree with you, then there's really no point in continuing this (or any) conversation.

 

[mpg]

Can you prove Media Matters is dishonest?

Why would you ask me that?

 

[pbrauer]

Why would you ask me that?

I thought you were questioning their honesty.

They're honest about their lean, and I respect that, but that's only part of being honest.

 

[Grim17]

I thought you were questioning their honesty.

Seriously Pete?

Are you that programmed by those hacks that you have actually forgotten all times they have been caught falsely attacking Fox news?

Don't bother answering... The answer is obviously yes.

 

[pbrauer]

Seriously Pete?

Are you that programmed by those hacks that you have actually forgotten all times they have been caught falsely attacking Fox news?

Don't bother answering... The answer is obviously yes.

The answer is obviously no. What would the motivation be to attack Fox News? They inform what is happening in the conservative media.

 

[Karl]

[...] [Media Matters] over there are [...] are manufacturing just as many phony stories as ever [...]

Can you quote some of these "phony stories" and explain how they are phony?

 

[Hard Truth]

There are several media outlets that do news and commentary with a political slant that no one complains about it because they are open about their point of view. Fox is unique because they have a slant but claim to be unbiased news. They have a daily message that they instruct their on camera talent to include (ie john kerry seems French).

 

[APACHERAT]

Oh, Really? Can you prove they are dishonest?

>" David Brock, founder and chairman of the Democratic Party front group Media Matters for America appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources for a somewhat revealing interview with host Brian Stelter Sunday morning.

The reason for Brock’s appearance was to comment on former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s speculation that Media Matters was paid by donors to attack her reporting after she started reporting critically on the Obama administration. Attkisson also said that Media Matters helped her produce news reports at CBS News.

In a display of shoddy chairmanship, Brock claimed ignorance about whether Media Matters indeed worked with Attkisson on stories, though he said it was possible. One would think the chairman would know this. Unless he was dodging the question and didn’t want to get in to specifics:

BROCK: “As I said, she did not say we got anything wrong in the critiques we made. She seemed comfortable coming out here and saying that we worked with her previously. We worked with her on stories. I don’t know any specifics about that. But we do work with reporters. We’re a media watchdog group. I have no reason to doubt that.”

(Interview transcript by CNN.)

It is important for the public to know which CBS News stories reported by Attkisson were tainted by the involvement of the Democratic Party hit group Media Matters. Media Matters, CBS News and Attkisson all need to come clean on the subject.

Stelter did a good job eliciting information from Brock, but he could have pressed Brock on a couple subjects. One being the selectively edited video released by Media Matters of the controversial speech by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy that made him out to be a racist but excluded his remarks before and after that would have shown he was not a racist, just inarticulate on race relations. Media Matters’ editing mirrored the original report by the New York Times that likewise edited out the context of Bundy’s statement. So much for Media Matters claiming to be a media watchdog.

Another subject touched on but not explored was Brock and Media Matters’ involvement in politics:..."<

continue -> David Brock Says He Doesn

 

[Karl]

Oh, Really? Can you prove they are dishonest?

>" David Brock, founder and chairman of the Democratic Party front group Media Matters for America appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources for a somewhat revealing interview with host Brian Stelter Sunday morning.

The reason for Brock’s appearance was to comment on former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s speculation that Media Matters was paid by donors to attack her reporting after she started reporting critically on the Obama administration. Attkisson also said that Media Matters helped her produce news reports at CBS News.

In a display of shoddy chairmanship, Brock claimed ignorance about whether Media Matters indeed worked with Attkisson on stories, though he said it was possible. One would think the chairman would know this. Unless he was dodging the question and didn’t want to get in to specifics:

BROCK: “As I said, she did not say we got anything wrong in the critiques we made. She seemed comfortable coming out here and saying that we worked with her previously. We worked with her on stories. I don’t know any specifics about that. But we do work with reporters. We’re a media watchdog group. I have no reason to doubt that.”

(Interview transcript by CNN.)

It is important for the public to know which CBS News stories reported by Attkisson were tainted by the involvement of the Democratic Party hit group Media Matters. Media Matters, CBS News and Attkisson all need to come clean on the subject.

Stelter did a good job eliciting information from Brock, but he could have pressed Brock on a couple subjects. One being the selectively edited video released by Media Matters of the controversial speech by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy that made him out to be a racist but excluded his remarks before and after that would have shown he was not a racist, just inarticulate on race relations. Media Matters’ editing mirrored the original report by the New York Times that likewise edited out the context of Bundy’s statement. So much for Media Matters claiming to be a media watchdog.

Another subject touched on but not explored was Brock and Media Matters’ involvement in politics:..."<

continue -> David Brock Says He Doesn

Rather wordy, but where's the dishonesty?

 

[Top Cat]

Believe me I am well aware of who funds them, what they are trying to do, and the dishonest means in which they are willing to go in order to accomplish their goals... What shocks me is how so many people buy into their BS hook line and sinker, no matter how many times their dishonesty is exposed.

Obviously you are talking about Fox News.

 

[APACHERAT]

Rather wordy, but where's the dishonesty?

>" One being the selectively edited video released by Media Matters of the controversial speech by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy that made him out to be a racist but excluded his remarks before and after that would have shown he was not a racist,..."<

 

[polgara]

>" One being the selectively edited video released by Media Matters of the controversial speech by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy that made him out to be a racist but excluded his remarks before and after that would have shown he was not a racist,..."<

Greetings, APACHERAT. :2wave:

True that! :thumbs:

 

[APACHERAT]

Greetings, APACHERAT. :2wave:

True that! :thumbs:

Media Matters is known as a "shadow party" of the Democrat Party.

 

[Karl]

>" One being the selectively edited video released by Media Matters of the controversial speech by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy that made him out to be a racist but excluded his remarks before and after that would have shown he was not a racist,..."<

First I would ask you how that relates to "phony stories" about Fox that the OP was ranting about, and

Second I don't see any particular selective editing on the video. In the longer version at your link, MM chopped off the first part about some riots (I could not understand what riots) and MM chopped off the end where he had some relatively nice words about Mexicans. The middle, uncut version concerning his slavery comments pretty much stand on their own, and whether or not they are racist is a matter of opinion, not fact.

So, my question still stands: show me the "phony" stories about Fox, or as pbrauer stated, MM "dishonesty" (this may be more subjective than a factually phony story, as we see in the response above, so I'd prefer to stick with someone trying to validate the OP's claim). When MM calls out Fox, they back up their assertions with actual quotes and/or supporting data. Can the MM attackers do the same?

 

[webrockk]

Few hypocrisies are more delicious than a tax exempt leftist organization.

 

[pbrauer]

Few hypocrisies are more delicious than a tax exempt leftist organization.

There is nothing hypocritical about a leftist organization at all.

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:​

Media Matters for America is 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.

 

[Mustachio]

If 3 out of every 4 stories on Media Matters is either centered on attacking Fox News, attacking an employee of Fox News, or has criticism of Fox News with in it, and this is after they claim the the war of Fox News is over, I wonder what it would look like if they hadn't ended the war? LMMFAO

Those partisan clowns over there are just as obsessed with silencing Fox News as they ever have been, and they are manufacturing just as many phony stories as ever to do so... Yet the Media Matters faithful are either too blind to see they are being played for fools, or they are actively taking part in the dishonesty and deception themselves. Either way, it sure speaks volumes for the political left who continue to cite their phony BS day in and day out.

1. I'd be more impressed by a post accurately detailing inaccurate content in Media Matters articles aimed at Fox News. As it is, you're pointing out that they post a lot of stories about Fox News. I don't see why that "matters."

2. Fox News is easily the biggest conservative news organization in the country, if not the world. If the goal is to post articles about things that people have seen, they'd be idiots not to focus on Fox almost exclusively.

 

[Grim17]

1. I'd be more impressed by a post accurately detailing inaccurate content in Media Matters articles aimed at Fox News. As it is, you're pointing out that they post a lot of stories about Fox News. I don't see why that "matters."

2. Fox News is easily the biggest conservative news organization in the country, if not the world. If the goal is to post articles about things that people have seen, they'd be idiots not to focus on Fox almost exclusively.

If you really haven't seen the many examples on this forum, I'll be glad to give you some.

 

[bubbabgone]

1. I'd be more impressed by a post accurately detailing inaccurate content in Media Matters articles aimed at Fox News. As it is, you're pointing out that they post a lot of stories about Fox News. I don't see why that "matters."

2. Fox News is easily the biggest conservative news organization in the country, if not the world.

If the goal is to post articles about things that people have seen, they'd be idiots not to focus on Fox almost exclusively.

Ah ... I see your problem ... you're so used to the alternative you anything else is far right.
Media Matters, on the other hand, doesn't labor under that illusion.
No, their existence is for an entirely different purpose.

 

[pbrauer]

Ah ... I see your problem ... you're so used to the alternative you anything else is far right.
Media Matters, on the other hand, doesn't labor under that illusion.
No, their existence is for an entirely different purpose.

,,,,,

Media Matters for America is 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.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation - news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda - every day, in real time.

Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

 

[bubbabgone]

,,,,,

Oh you are something special, Pete.
You know I love ya.
Never lose that child-like quality.