Media Matters for America
May 3, 2004 10:42 AM   Subscribe

Media Matters for America Welcome to Media Matters for America, a new Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Because a healthy democracy depends on public access to accurate and reliable information, Media Matters for America is dedicated to alerting news outlets and consumers to conservative misinformation -- wherever we find it, in every news cycle -- and to spurring progressive activism based on standards and accountability in media. In the mid-1990s, as a conservative media insider, I saw firsthand (and participated in) the damage done to our democracy when conservative misinformation masquerades as journalism. In my book Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative (2002), I revealed how this misinformation -- deliberately bought and paid for by covert political forces -- enveloped the media, poisoned public discourse, and nearly toppled a president
posted by Postroad (35 comments total)
 
Thank you kind sir. I'm sure you have no leftist agenda of your own such as getting the desperate, SUV-riding John Kerry elected, or having people believe that only the only kind of misinformation comes from conservative sources, or even that the blatantly partisan liberal agents are actually not lying, or at least lying in the name of what they consider to be the "public good".
"Accuse them of your own mistakes and shortcomings ," said Lenin. Congratulations for yet another attempt to further the disastrous leftist agenda.
posted by 111 at 11:06 AM on May 3, 2004


111, would you like to point out anything on the site that is inaccurate, or an outright lie? This "shoot the messenger" thing is getting tiresome, but if it's all you have, then fire away.
posted by 2sheets at 11:12 AM on May 3, 2004


Wait, I don't get it. Postroad wrote a book?
posted by loquax at 11:16 AM on May 3, 2004


I think 111's just panicking because he - and all the other wingnuts who've been screeching about "that damned liberal media" - are in the process of being exposed for the lying liars that they are... Pick up a copy of Bernie Goldberg's "Bias," and you'll see how thin and poor their "case" really is...


</on_topic>
I love that MeFi's spell check suggests "ingenues" for "wingnuts"...

posted by JollyWanker at 11:20 AM on May 3, 2004


Copying and pasting, without attribution or even quotation marks, and devoid of any original analysis. Best of the web indeed.
posted by PrinceValium at 11:24 AM on May 3, 2004


Seriously, the bias inherent in that site makes it impossible to refute or discuss in any meaningful way. Just read Lying Liars and Stupid White Men for the same story and a few laughs too.

PS: If the equivalent was posted only with a right slant, the bias, not the content, would be ripped apart from the first comment, and rightfully so. Other organizations without obvious agendas do this sort of thing much better, like factcheck. Also, the clowns on Fox should not be taken seriously. At all. Ever. No serious conservative pays any attention to the crap that spews forth from them, any more than serous liberals care what Michael Moore thinks. They pander to a crowd, a crowd that would never ever visit the site linked to above. Just leave it alone and go after serious conservatives if that's your cup of tea. And the Drudge report? Please.
posted by loquax at 11:25 AM on May 3, 2004 [1 favorite]


*cries*
posted by matteo at 11:30 AM on May 3, 2004


Interesting that two of the most recent examples of conservative "misinformation" aren't examples of misinformation at all -- just disagreements. "Koppel Reports, Wallace Decides," just says that Chris Wallace said his show would provide context to the names read by Ted Koppel on Nightline. I don't see the misinformation.

And "Hannity & Colmes guest compared U.S. soldiers' maltreatment of Iraqi POWs to "frat hazing"" just notes that some commentator suggested that he had seen frat hazing that was worse then some of the pictures of Iraqi prisoners. (To be honest, I've heard of frat hazing that was worse than naked pyramids or holding wires). Again, where's the misinformation?

It seems to me you lose credibility if the best examples of "misinformation" you can find are simple disagreements. And if this meets the definition of "misinformation," isn't David Brock guilty of it on this very site?
posted by pardonyou? at 11:30 AM on May 3, 2004


I wish SpinSanity did more posting. US Politics needs a strong ombudsman voice to call bullshit on all the various sides and shades of left/right Dem/GOP lying.
posted by artlung at 11:32 AM on May 3, 2004


My purpose in posting this was simply to make know this new blog that might be of some interest to some people...if you assume that the Left lies and not the right, then who announced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he was in cahoots with Al Qaeda?

Both sides are filled with partisan positions, but a check of most editorials in major papers and major cable news channels (to me) indicates that the Right has significantly more outlets for its positions. And think tanks too. But then we all see things not as they are but as we are.
posted by Postroad at 11:37 AM on May 3, 2004


Oh, loquax, factcheck.org looks tasty. Any other good ombudsman type sites out there who actually hit or get close that rare thing called objectivity?
posted by artlung at 11:37 AM on May 3, 2004


I wish SpinSanity did more posting. US Politics needs a strong ombudsman voice to call bullshit on all the various sides and shades of left/right Dem/GOP lying.

Amen, artlung. SpinSanity is a rare voice of reason in a sea of (mis)information. You can tell that it works by reading the comments -- liberals are mad when an article supports a conservative position (or criticizes a liberal position) and vice versa. They must be doing something right.

(on preview, off to check factcheck.org)
posted by pardonyou? at 11:54 AM on May 3, 2004


I'm sure you have no leftist agenda of your own such as getting the desperate, SUV-riding John Kerry elected

what've you got against people that drive SUVs?
posted by mcsweetie at 12:00 PM on May 3, 2004


Here are a few interesting ones (not sure if they've been posted before, sorry in advance if they have been):

Watchblog - About the 2004 election.

Project Vote Smart - Not quite all together, but could be interesting if it was. Seems to get quite local and address lobby groups too.

Memo - Ok, it's a slovak media watchdog, but still, kind of interesting. And they have the best logo.

Good post though Postroad, you're right, it is interesting to see the various opinions out there getting ready for November and what they're focusing on. I was never one to believe in the left-wing media conspiracy, but I know plenty of people who do. Except for that New York Times, damn them!
posted by loquax at 12:01 PM on May 3, 2004


what've you got against people that drive SUVs?

I think it's his attempt to reach across the ideological divide. It's sweet.
posted by furiousthought at 12:06 PM on May 3, 2004


oh who cares. The conservatives have enough American Coalitions for the Preservation of Decency and Family Values in Your Bedroom and Television in the Name of Jesus and All That Is Holy. The left should have some too.
posted by archimago at 12:12 PM on May 3, 2004


what've you got against people that drive SUVs?
posted by mcsweetie at 12:00 PM PST on May 3


derail
mcsweetie, nothing as long as they're honest about it. How would you call someone that rambles on about renewable sources of energy and, upon getting caught using an SUV, resorts to the unheard of cowardly excuse of saying that the car belongs to his "family", not to him? What kind of person betrays his family trying to save his own skin?
end derail
posted by 111 at 12:14 PM on May 3, 2004


Campaign Desk from CJR does a decent job of media accountablity also.
Its just that there's so much distortion and outright lies to cover in one day that we need more than one source!

111 just hates Brock because of his sexual proclivities! (See how easy it is to start a smear?)
posted by nofundy at 12:15 PM on May 3, 2004


How would you call someone that rambles on about renewable sources of energy and, upon getting caught using an SUV, resorts to the unheard of cowardly excuse of saying that the car belongs to his "family", not to him? What kind of person betrays his family trying to save his own skin?

he betrayed his family by revealing that they own an SUV? er! gettin' a little desperate there, y'all.
posted by mcsweetie at 12:40 PM on May 3, 2004


Brock worked a sweet deal for himself - right wing attack dog (and paid for it) changes sides, writes a tell-all book, and now he gets to run an institute. He's a born politician.

I like PR Watch, and they cover some of this turf (in a limited capacity) .

Their Disinfopedia rocks.
posted by troutfishing at 1:41 PM on May 3, 2004


And "Hannity & Colmes guest compared U.S. soldiers' maltreatment of Iraqi POWs to "frat hazing"" just notes that some commentator suggested that he had seen frat hazing that was worse then some of the pictures of Iraqi prisoners. (To be honest, I've heard of frat hazing that was worse than naked pyramids or holding wires). Again, where's the misinformation?

Um, maybe in the failure to acknowledge that these were also FUCKING WAR CRIMES?
(as GYWO would put it.)

One can, as they say, lie by omission.
posted by kaibutsu at 2:32 PM on May 3, 2004


he betrayed his family by revealing that they own an SUV? er! gettin' a little desperate there, y'all.

mcsweetie, he betrayed them in the sense of putting his own family in the line of fire to deflect criticism from himself. That's indecent. What kind of person does that? Even if the car didn't belong to him, he had the moral obligation to own up to the fact that an oil guzzling behemoth is used by one of his close relatives. If not even his sons/ wife or some other close relative will take him seriously on the clean energy issue, what about the entire nation? If he can't earn the respect of his very own family, what does that say about his leadership skills?
posted by 111 at 2:52 PM on May 3, 2004


If not even his sons/ wife or some other close relative will take him seriously on the clean energy issue, what about the entire nation?

...and if bush can't even stop his daughters from abusing alcohol, a problem he himself grappled with in his youth, what does that say about his capacity for morality and responsibility? (hint: little, if anything)

what does that say about his leadership skills?

little, if anything.
posted by mcsweetie at 3:42 PM on May 3, 2004


Ha! What a clown. Nobody needs a website dedicated to refuting O'Reilly's claims when he pulls stuff like this.
posted by loquax at 3:59 PM on May 3, 2004


mcsweetie, there's a difference: Bush took the blame. He's dealing with the issue now, as he dealt with it in his past. He's not trying to pass the responsibility on to someone else. He's not throwing his family to the lions to save his own skin. Finally, giving up an alcohol addiction seems one million times harder than simply not using an SUV as a means of transportation...
posted by 111 at 4:01 PM on May 3, 2004


you know, you're right. it's a shame what the media has done to the kerry name upon discovering that they own an SUV.
posted by mcsweetie at 4:10 PM on May 3, 2004


He's not throwing his family to the lions to save his own skin

That might be a bit of an overstatement. It's really not that big a deal. He's just a politician after all, he'll say whatever he thinks will get him elected, just like Bush. And I'm sure his family doesn't care what he says about them if they become the first family. And also this has nothing to do with the post at all, needless to say.
posted by loquax at 4:13 PM on May 3, 2004


And also this has nothing to do with the post at all, needless to say.

word. I'll stop!
posted by mcsweetie at 4:35 PM on May 3, 2004


how cool--our own owillis is working on it! congrats!

I hope they're paying you enough to watch and listen to that crap all day.
posted by amberglow at 5:23 PM on May 3, 2004


I think that in general people are misreading the intent of Media Matters. Having Brock's face on the thing certainly is intended to give credibility--through the narrative of his once-insider status--but I don't think that by pointing out the fact that the organization is partisan you are in any way impugning it's purpose or making any sort of case that it won't be successful. I wouldn't go to Media Matters if you want to "let your guard down" and believe everything you read. It is intended to serve, a la the Heritage Foundation, as a liberal Play Doh Fun Factory of talking points. Yeah, they're going to posture as "above it all," but who the hell wouldn't? Would McDonald's say "yeah, it's crap, but you're destitute and addicted to high doses of animal fat"?

The difference, insofar as I can tell, is that the construction of the conservative echo chamber--while no doubt put together willfully and with purpose--wasn't ever such a public and earnestly acknowledged enterprise. Not that I'm saying either way is better, but as far as I can tell, the reason that people get upset by MoveOn but not by the Club for Growth is that the PAC's and fake think tanks on the left don't lie as much about being nonpartisan (unless you're one who thinks Nixon should have bombed the Brookings Institute).
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 5:33 PM on May 3, 2004


It's really not that big a deal. He's just a politician after all, he'll say whatever he thinks will get him elected, just like Bush.

Of course it's not a big deal, though it was stupid of Kerry to play into the trap by tossing out such a weak dodge. 111 has a point in that Bush effectively deflects criticism of his rather pathetic past by saying, "Yep, no doubt I fucked up back then". Kerry should take a lesson from this -- I think he'd come off better if he said, "Yep, I was pretty angry after my experience in Vietnam and I did some things I wouldn't do now that I've come to terms with all that" instead of weaseling around with this medals-vs.-ribbons stuff that the right-wing media outlets will have such a field day with.

This kind of crap will be made into a big deal because as the election approaches the media are going to attempt to paint Kerry with the same brush that worked so well against Gore -- they'll work on feeding a narrative that portrays Kerry as a slippery liar who can't be trusted. Now you'll note that the things he's said to lie about (when the accusations are in fact true, which will be some portion of the time -- what matters is getting the meme out there) will be mostly statements about things he did or positions he held 30 years ago, or arguably superficial things that have little bearing upon policy, such as the kind of car he drives. Meanwhile Bush's highly relevant lies about his economic plan (which was sold to the public using demonstrably cooked numbers) and his foreign policy (he was lying before about his motives and he lies now when he blames his decisions on bad intelligence) will have relatively little critical attention paid to them because these stories don't pack the junior-high-school titillation that keeps readers and viewers coming back for more dirt.

The right's goal in propagating this sort of thing is to take the public's attention *off* of substantive matters and to keep the ball in a court on which Bush can win: Bush comes off as very likeable, the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with, and he and his handlers are geniuses at selling a candidate who inhabits the very upper echelon of American plutocracy and who pushes policies that work against the interests of most voters as a simple, dusty-boots-down-on-the-ranch good-old-boy that has the common man's best interest at heart and whom people can see a bit of their imperfect selves in.

Any attempt by journalists to steer away from this course by focusing on issues that matter will be deflected by painting them as part of the "liberal media" which is an extremely effective tactic now that that particular myth has been so cleanly etched into people's minds.
posted by boredomjockey at 6:49 PM on May 3, 2004


Well, I agree with your first paragraph at least boredomjockey, but I just made that comment in response to 111, who was a little out of control with that whole argument. No offense 111.

By the way, up here in Canada, the left (or centre or whatever you want to call them) Liberals have hung on to power federally for more than a decade by very effectively painting the conservatives in any form as rabid dogs just waiting for the chance to ruin the country. Some may agree with that assessment here, but they've used that tactic very effectively to avoid discussing their less than admirable record as the government of record. So, basically, lefties do it too!
posted by loquax at 7:17 PM on May 3, 2004


Anybody else wish MeFi was an apolitical zone?
posted by Rob1855 at 7:36 PM on May 3, 2004


...by very effectively painting the conservatives in any form as rabid dogs just waiting for the chance to ruin the country.
They're probably feeling vindicated seeing what's going on here lately.
posted by amberglow at 9:53 PM on May 3, 2004


I think he'd come off better if he said, "Yep, I was pretty angry after my experience in Vietnam and I did some things I wouldn't do now that I've come to terms with all that"

You came very close to what Kerry actually did say.

Not that such a truth has any relevance to the right wing echo chamber. If it does not fit the talking points message, it didn't happen.
posted by nofundy at 8:49 AM on May 4, 2004


« Older The Myth of the Beginning of Time   |   SNAMSPAM! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments