Just Lookin' For A Little Honesty...

[MaggieMae]

[He used fear to get his trillion dollars. Now that's he's pissed away the trillion and the unemployment is up over 9% he most certainly should be called out on it. Nobody believes a damn word obie wan says nowadays. Even he doesn't believe the shit he spews.

Now listen carefully. Let's consider Willow's claim, with this question:

Who needed to be scared? Only 2 Republican votes were needed to pass the bill, and only 3 voted for it.

Is anyone here prepared to make the case that the only reason RINO's Snowe, Collins, and Specter voted for the bill was because they believed that they had been guaranteed an 8% unemployment rate after it passed?

Anyone?

...comon, let's hear it.

I am really beginning to wonder why it is you can never stay on topic?

I'M beginning to wonder why this is so all-fired important. As I said, the unemployment rate is what it is. You can't change that no matter how much you want to bash the president for making a prediction. How does that help the situation and why would it even matter now?

 

[MaggieMae]

Obama can only create jobs in his own adminstration. If he really wants to create real jobs start a company and hire people. That's how it's done in the real world.

Let's see what company could Obama start?

For everyone who thinks "the government doesn't create jobs," this stunning new invention is proof positive that it does. If it weren't for a $10 million grant by the Veterans Administration and the U.S. Army to develop the foot prothesis, it never would have gotten off the ground. Now this new product is in the hands of private investors who will take over the manufacture and sale of the prothesis which allows people who have lost that appendage to actually walk like a normal person.

MIT spin-out iWalk, bringing to market prosthetic foot, raises $15 million from General Catalyst and Sigma Partners - Innovation Economy - Boston.com

Just one of literally hundreds of examples of seed money provided by the government helping move free market industries.

 

[Trajan]

Just Lookin' For A Little Honesty...

1. "As The New York Times reported on Oct. 22, 2009, "The Obama administration's forecast at the start of the year, which predicted that unemployment would not climb much above 8 percent."

A big promise to be sure and a claim that proved false as unemployment climbed higher and higher reaching 10.2 percent at its peak. Yet, ABC, CBS, and NBC referenced this promise just nine times in two years in stimulus stories mentioning unemployment.

2. Unemployment still exceeds the Obama-guaranteed 8 percent unemployment rate two years after the bill's passage. In the same time period, network news barely reported that the stimulus failed to halt the sharp rise in unemployment. ABC 'World News,' CBS 'Evening News' and NBC 'Nightly News' all paid plenty of attention to the stimulus and its accomplishments, but more than 98 percent of those evening broadcast stories skipped over the administration's failed prediction.

3. The Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute (BMI) analyzed network evening news reports that mentioned "stimulus" and "unemployment" from Obama's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009, to Dec. 21, 2010. BMI found that the networks almost completely ignored Obama's 8 percent unemployment promise and the failure of the stimulus to prevent rising unemployment.

4. Where Were Stories about the 8 Percent Promise? Just nine stories out of 589 (less than 2 percent) referred to the unemployment prediction in two years of network news coverage.

5. Networks Instead Promoted More Stimulus: When the effects of the stimulus plan were discussed, network news shows promoted even more stimulus. ABC's Bianna Golodryga asked Warren Buffet if he thought unemployment would hit 11 percent to which he said yes. Then, instead of noting that the stimulus failed, she asked if a second stimulus was needed. To this Buffet replied it may be necessary because the first bill "was sort of like taking half a tablet of Viagra."

a. ABC "World News" only mentioned the 8 percent prediction one time in nearly two years of coverage, making it the worst of the three networks. Instead ABC credited the stimulus with lower unemployment as reporter Betsy Stark claimed Dec. 4, 2009, when unemployment dropped to 10 percent: "Economists credit the government's massive stimulus spending with getting the job market to this point."

6. Bush Forced to Defend 5 Percent Unemployment: Under the administration of President George W. Bush, negative economic stories were pushed when unemployment was below 5 percent - less than half the number reached after the stimulus passed. CBS' Dan Rather on Oct. 8, 2004, asked "Tonight, where are the jobs?" yet few stimulus stories have even mentioned Obama's unemployment prediction."
Stimulus Two Years Later, Networks Ignore Obama's Failed Job Promise

You want honesty?


One simple point...A projection is not a promise or a guarantee.

The claim that the Obama administration "promised" the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent is a popular talking point among Republican critics of the stimulus.

We've heard it from House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., as well as conservative talk show host Sean Hannity, to name a few. They all called it a "promise."

They are referring to a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.

Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009.

But in June, the unemployment rate was 9.5 percent.

In the past week, the administration has acknowledged its projections were wrong.

Here's what Romer herself said in a July 2 interview on Fox: "None of us had a crystal ball back in December and January. I think almost every private forecaster realized that there were other things going on in the economy. It was worse than we anticipated. What the private forecasters are saying now is that they do anticipate that the economy will start growing again in the second half of the year, and that usually, then, employment and unemployment start to respond shortly after that. So I think that is a realistic expectation."

Biden also acknowledged the discrepancies in a July 5 interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

PolitiFact | Cantor and other Republicans say Obama promised stimulus would keep unemployment rates below 8 percent

It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that no one can "promise" what an unemployment number will look like. But it's just one more of those mantras that caught the attention of The Gullibles who continue to repeat that idiocy.

I am not sure what you mean that he said it, or hes being held to it?

 

[Trajan]

Obama can only create jobs in his own adminstration. If he really wants to create real jobs start a company and hire people. That's how it's done in the real world.

Let's see what company could Obama start?

For everyone who thinks "the government doesn't create jobs," this stunning new invention is proof positive that it does. If it weren't for a $10 million grant by the Veterans Administration and the U.S. Army to develop the foot prothesis, it never would have gotten off the ground. Now this new product is in the hands of private investors who will take over the manufacture and sale of the prothesis which allows people who have lost that appendage to actually walk like a normal person.

MIT spin-out iWalk, bringing to market prosthetic foot, raises $15 million from General Catalyst and Sigma Partners - Innovation Economy - Boston.com

Just one of literally hundreds of examples of seed money provided by the government helping move free market industries.

who manufactures, distributes and ships the prosthesis MM?

 

[Trajan]

Of course PC's "source" is the right wing's version of Media Matters which no one takes seriously, but hey, go ahead and ^5 the source. She loves it.


About the Media Research Center


Although Media Matters puts out legitimate proven sources, it gets pooh-poohed by the right. This MRC outfit does their own research and it's hailed as truth. Go figure.

you are free at any time to challenge their numbers MM......are you challenging their numbers?

whats more do you have a lexus nexus account? you can get one and do the research to disprove them if you wish.


Lexis Nexis | Knight Digital Media Center

Seems to me if their study was entirely credible, they would have published the results so that one didn't have to download an entire website to get them. Can you copy from that site? With a couple of clicks you can read every analysis Media Matters does, and they include credible sources, videos, etc., as I said.

they gave you the results of the search, did you look at how a search function works?

and have you been here for the video -
http://www.mrc.org/mp3/welcome.asp


or here for print?
http://www.mrc.org/archive/flash/archive02.asp



let me ask you another question please; why do you find this so impossible to believe?
http://www.mrc.org/bmi/biasbythenum...etworks_Ignore_Obamas_Failed_Job_Promise.html

the excerpts are right there, are you saying that they are making up what all of those folks and media mechanism said as they have quoted and annotated?



if you sent to mrc they have clips too, mrcs clips showing you a blurb delivered by a news anchor say, is not credible enough? they both quote and video display the same way.

and can you please show me a comparable example, of what mrc just claimed, claimed in the same way by media matters and their 'analysis', so I can see any difference?

 

[GStarz]

1. "As The New York Times reported on Oct. 22, 2009, "The Obama administration's forecast at the start of the year, which predicted that unemployment would not climb much above 8 percent."

A big promise to be sure and a claim that proved false as unemployment climbed higher and higher reaching 10.2 percent at its peak. Yet, ABC, CBS, and NBC referenced this promise just nine times in two years in stimulus stories mentioning unemployment.

2. Unemployment still exceeds the Obama-guaranteed 8 percent unemployment rate two years after the bill's passage. In the same time period, network news barely reported that the stimulus failed to halt the sharp rise in unemployment. ABC 'World News,' CBS 'Evening News' and NBC 'Nightly News' all paid plenty of attention to the stimulus and its accomplishments, but more than 98 percent of those evening broadcast stories skipped over the administration's failed prediction.

3. The Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute (BMI) analyzed network evening news reports that mentioned "stimulus" and "unemployment" from Obama's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009, to Dec. 21, 2010. BMI found that the networks almost completely ignored Obama's 8 percent unemployment promise and the failure of the stimulus to prevent rising unemployment.

4. Where Were Stories about the 8 Percent Promise? Just nine stories out of 589 (less than 2 percent) referred to the unemployment prediction in two years of network news coverage.

5. Networks Instead Promoted More Stimulus: When the effects of the stimulus plan were discussed, network news shows promoted even more stimulus. ABC's Bianna Golodryga asked Warren Buffet if he thought unemployment would hit 11 percent to which he said yes. Then, instead of noting that the stimulus failed, she asked if a second stimulus was needed. To this Buffet replied it may be necessary because the first bill "was sort of like taking half a tablet of Viagra."

a. ABC "World News" only mentioned the 8 percent prediction one time in nearly two years of coverage, making it the worst of the three networks. Instead ABC credited the stimulus with lower unemployment as reporter Betsy Stark claimed Dec. 4, 2009, when unemployment dropped to 10 percent: "Economists credit the government's massive stimulus spending with getting the job market to this point."

6. Bush Forced to Defend 5 Percent Unemployment: Under the administration of President George W. Bush, negative economic stories were pushed when unemployment was below 5 percent - less than half the number reached after the stimulus passed. CBS' Dan Rather on Oct. 8, 2004, asked "Tonight, where are the jobs?" yet few stimulus stories have even mentioned Obama's unemployment prediction."
Stimulus Two Years Later, Networks Ignore Obama's Failed Job Promise

I don't need to say it - this is an absolutely outstanding post. Clear, concise, accurate and full of damning information against the left. Nothing to add. Nothing at all. well done!

 

[NYcarbineer]

[He used fear to get his trillion dollars. Now that's he's pissed away the trillion and the unemployment is up over 9% he most certainly should be called out on it. Nobody believes a damn word obie wan says nowadays. Even he doesn't believe the shit he spews.

Now listen carefully. Let's consider Willow's claim, with this question:

Who needed to be scared? Only 2 Republican votes were needed to pass the bill, and only 3 voted for it.

Is anyone here prepared to make the case that the only reason RINO's Snowe, Collins, and Specter voted for the bill was because they believed that they had been guaranteed an 8% unemployment rate after it passed?

Anyone?

...comon, let's hear it.

I am really beginning to wonder why it is you can never stay on topic?

I specifically refuted the specific claim made by the other poster, bolded above.

And who appointed you the topic police? Usually when sometimes plays the off-topic card, it's because the point made is brilliant and irrefutable.

As was this case.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why have I heard this 'infamous' 8% number approximately a zillion times over the past couple years,

if it was hidden by the 'infamous' 'liberal' media?

Nevertheless, It's another over-bLOATED claim / prediction by your hero the madman Obama carb. Jeezus bro, as much as you and I agree on certain issues, I find it hard to believe just how much you're bouncing up and down on this fraud Obama's nutsack? You are either for the truth, or you're not bro. There is no in between. He's owned by your enemies. LMAO! ~BH

Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent
PolitiFact | Will: Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent

All I need do is use your own link:

First, we could find no instance of anyone in the administration directly making such a public pledge.

But what we saw from the administration in January 2009 was a projection, not a promise. And it was a projection that came with heavy disclaimers.

Now compare those conclusions to the lies in the OP.

It was your link, you must stand by it, correct? The link supports ME. Period.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. "As The New York Times reported on Oct. 22, 2009, "The Obama administration's forecast at the start of the year, which predicted that unemployment would not climb much above 8 percent."

A big promise to be sure and a claim that proved false as unemployment climbed higher and higher reaching 10.2 percent at its peak. Yet, ABC, CBS, and NBC referenced this promise just nine times in two years in stimulus stories mentioning unemployment.

2. Unemployment still exceeds the Obama-guaranteed 8 percent unemployment rate two years after the bill's passage. In the same time period, network news barely reported that the stimulus failed to halt the sharp rise in unemployment. ABC 'World News,' CBS 'Evening News' and NBC 'Nightly News' all paid plenty of attention to the stimulus and its accomplishments, but more than 98 percent of those evening broadcast stories skipped over the administration's failed prediction.

3. The Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute (BMI) analyzed network evening news reports that mentioned "stimulus" and "unemployment" from Obama's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009, to Dec. 21, 2010. BMI found that the networks almost completely ignored Obama's 8 percent unemployment promise and the failure of the stimulus to prevent rising unemployment.

4. Where Were Stories about the 8 Percent Promise? Just nine stories out of 589 (less than 2 percent) referred to the unemployment prediction in two years of network news coverage.

5. Networks Instead Promoted More Stimulus: When the effects of the stimulus plan were discussed, network news shows promoted even more stimulus. ABC's Bianna Golodryga asked Warren Buffet if he thought unemployment would hit 11 percent to which he said yes. Then, instead of noting that the stimulus failed, she asked if a second stimulus was needed. To this Buffet replied it may be necessary because the first bill "was sort of like taking half a tablet of Viagra."

a. ABC "World News" only mentioned the 8 percent prediction one time in nearly two years of coverage, making it the worst of the three networks. Instead ABC credited the stimulus with lower unemployment as reporter Betsy Stark claimed Dec. 4, 2009, when unemployment dropped to 10 percent: "Economists credit the government's massive stimulus spending with getting the job market to this point."

6. Bush Forced to Defend 5 Percent Unemployment: Under the administration of President George W. Bush, negative economic stories were pushed when unemployment was below 5 percent - less than half the number reached after the stimulus passed. CBS' Dan Rather on Oct. 8, 2004, asked "Tonight, where are the jobs?" yet few stimulus stories have even mentioned Obama's unemployment prediction."
Stimulus Two Years Later, Networks Ignore Obama's Failed Job Promise

Can you quote the administration guaranteeing an 8% UE rate as a result of the stimulus?

Oh, I see, he 'projected' or 'forecast ' it, he didn't "guarantee" it....the chart he used to sell it, IF he got the stimulus really doesn't count....my god.

Oh, so you're claiming he 'sold' it with a 'promise', and that counts? And then you're claiming I was off topic by proving that he didn't need to 'sell' it,

unless you can prove that 2 of the 3 Republicans who voted for it only did so because they were PROMISED 8% unemployment.

WERE THEY? Link please.

 

[MaggieMae]

You want honesty?


One simple point...A projection is not a promise or a guarantee.

It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that no one can "promise" what an unemployment number will look like. But it's just one more of those mantras that caught the attention of The Gullibles who continue to repeat that idiocy.

I am not sure what you mean that he said it, or hes being held to it?

Both.

 

[MaggieMae]

Obama can only create jobs in his own adminstration. If he really wants to create real jobs start a company and hire people. That's how it's done in the real world.

Let's see what company could Obama start?

For everyone who thinks "the government doesn't create jobs," this stunning new invention is proof positive that it does. If it weren't for a $10 million grant by the Veterans Administration and the U.S. Army to develop the foot prothesis, it never would have gotten off the ground. Now this new product is in the hands of private investors who will take over the manufacture and sale of the prothesis which allows people who have lost that appendage to actually walk like a normal person.

MIT spin-out iWalk, bringing to market prosthetic foot, raises $15 million from General Catalyst and Sigma Partners - Innovation Economy - Boston.com

Just one of literally hundreds of examples of seed money provided by the government helping move free market industries.

who manufactures, distributes and ships the prosthesis MM?

IWalk, a new company. Obviously one of their biggest purchasers will be the VA, though. I think I heard from the TV story that the 'foot' is currently in production, but they only have protocols at this time. Seeing it demonstrated was amazing. The soldier said it didn't even feel like it was fake, little or no "practice" necessary, and it sure didn't look fake either. A regular shoe fits over it and bends accordingly with normal foot movement.

http://www.iwalkpro.com/iwalkstory/managementteam.html

 

[Trajan]

Why have I heard this 'infamous' 8% number approximately a zillion times over the past couple years,

if it was hidden by the 'infamous' 'liberal' media?

Nevertheless, It's another over-bLOATED claim / prediction by your hero the madman Obama carb. Jeezus bro, as much as you and I agree on certain issues, I find it hard to believe just how much you're bouncing up and down on this fraud Obama's nutsack? You are either for the truth, or you're not bro. There is no in between. He's owned by your enemies. LMAO! ~BH

Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent
PolitiFact | Will: Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent

Boooosh promised the Iraq invasion would only cost $3 billion, total, and we'd be outta there by December 2003. Presidents make predictions all the time based on projections at the time.

and they have been called on it...I think thats the point of the thread...

 

[Trajan]

It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that no one can "promise" what an unemployment number will look like. But it's just one more of those mantras that caught the attention of The Gullibles who continue to repeat that idiocy.

I am not sure what you mean that he said it, or hes being held to it?

Both.

so, you feel its perfectly alright if the media to treat one pres. or admiin. differently than another?

 

[Trajan]

For everyone who thinks "the government doesn't create jobs," this stunning new invention is proof positive that it does. If it weren't for a $10 million grant by the Veterans Administration and the U.S. Army to develop the foot prothesis, it never would have gotten off the ground. Now this new product is in the hands of private investors who will take over the manufacture and sale of the prothesis which allows people who have lost that appendage to actually walk like a normal person.

MIT spin-out iWalk, bringing to market prosthetic foot, raises $15 million from General Catalyst and Sigma Partners - Innovation Economy - Boston.com

Just one of literally hundreds of examples of seed money provided by the government helping move free market industries.

who manufactures, distributes and ships the prosthesis MM?

IWalk, a new company. Obviously one of their biggest purchasers will be the VA, though. I think I heard from the TV story that the 'foot' is currently in production, but they only have protocols at this time. Seeing it demonstrated was amazing. The soldier said it didn't even feel like it was fake, little or no "practice" necessary, and it sure didn't look fake either. A regular shoe fits over it and bends accordingly with normal foot movement.

http://www.iwalkpro.com/iwalkstory/managementteam.html

exactly. so how is the gov. involved in any of that? because they are a purchaser? that just confirms the overall point.

okay they paid good money for the research to invent it, great, how does it get from the drawing board to someones leg?

 

[MaggieMae]

you are free at any time to challenge their numbers MM......are you challenging their numbers?

whats more do you have a lexus nexus account? you can get one and do the research to disprove them if you wish.


Lexis Nexis | Knight Digital Media Center

Seems to me if their study was entirely credible, they would have published the results so that one didn't have to download an entire website to get them. Can you copy from that site? With a couple of clicks you can read every analysis Media Matters does, and they include credible sources, videos, etc., as I said.

they gave you the results of the search, did you look at how a search function works?

and have you been here for the video -
Hear & See the Bias -- Media Research Center - Multimedia File Archive


or here for print?
Flash -- MRC's Monthly Members' Report -- 2002 Archive -- Media Research Center



let me ask you another question please; why do you find this so impossible to believe?
Stimulus Two Years Later, Networks Ignore Obama's Failed Job Promise

the excerpts are right there, are you saying that they are making up what all of those folks and media mechanism said as they have quoted and annotated?



if you sent to mrc they have clips too, mrcs clips showing you a blurb delivered by a news anchor say, is not credible enough? they both quote and video display the same way.

and can you please show me a comparable example, of what mrc just claimed, claimed in the same way by media matters and their 'analysis', so I can see any difference?

See below.

You're missing my point, which is why is MRC deemed so credible, yet MM is not? They both gather information from existing sources.

Laura Ingraham Grossly Misrepresents Planned Parenthood's Budget | Media Matters for America

Fox News Figures Use Junk Science To Attack First Lady's Promotion Of Breast-Feeding | Media Matters for America

^Just a couple of examples. You can go to the site itself, you know. It won't report you to Fox that you did.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am not sure what you mean that he said it, or hes being held to it?

Both.

so, you feel its perfectly alright if the media to treat one pres. or admiin. differently than another?

Why don't you start by acknowledging that the OP is a lie, and then we can move on to what the media did or didn't do with the true story.

 

[Trajan]

Can you quote the administration guaranteeing an 8% UE rate as a result of the stimulus?

Oh, I see, he 'projected' or 'forecast ' it, he didn't "guarantee" it....the chart he used to sell it, IF he got the stimulus really doesn't count....my god.

Oh, so you're claiming he 'sold' it with a 'promise', and that counts? And then you're claiming I was off topic by proving that he didn't need to 'sell' it,

unless you can prove that 2 of the 3 Republicans who voted for it only did so because they were PROMISED 8% unemployment.

WERE THEY? Link please.

the topic is, one admin basically getting comparative, massively unequal media scrutiny for economic malaise and built upon a plan for a bill, whose sppt was carried by a plan he and his staff out forth and forecast as; do A, get B......thats the topic and the basis of my question despite meandering ala who build or invest what which fully admit is not germane btw.

you want to uber parse guarantee project promise to what gain? he bears no more responsibility hence scrutiny than the op spelled out ala another admin.s economic shortcomings (and what were far better conditions, which is beside the point really vis a vis the larger point). ?

 

[Trajan]

Both.

so, you feel its perfectly alright if the media to treat one pres. or admiin. differently than another?

Why don't you start by acknowledging that the OP is a lie, and then we can move on to what the media did or didn't do with the true story.

I have not seen any sppt. for calling it a lie, why don't you start by proving its a lie, I made my thoughts on that known to maggie mae.

 

[MaggieMae]

Nevertheless, It's another over-bLOATED claim / prediction by your hero the madman Obama carb. Jeezus bro, as much as you and I agree on certain issues, I find it hard to believe just how much you're bouncing up and down on this fraud Obama's nutsack? You are either for the truth, or you're not bro. There is no in between. He's owned by your enemies. LMAO! ~BH

Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent
PolitiFact | Will: Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent

Boooosh promised the Iraq invasion would only cost $3 billion, total, and we'd be outta there by December 2003. Presidents make predictions all the time based on projections at the time.

and they have been called on it...I think thats the point of the thread...

So you agree that backtracking on old news is just folly? Look at the time spent on this topic. Shouldn't it be spent on what might be rather than what already was an issue? There's plenty of current crap coming out of Washington that people can legitimately start a topic about, but the 8% projection of over two years ago is downright silly. It's also silly to continue to carp over media bias in general. We all know it happens, but we also know how to sort out fact from fiction (I hope), plus there isn't a damned thing we, as individuals, can do about it unless we sit on the Board of Directors of those news outlets who do it.

 

[Trajan]

Seems to me if their study was entirely credible, they would have published the results so that one didn't have to download an entire website to get them. Can you copy from that site? With a couple of clicks you can read every analysis Media Matters does, and they include credible sources, videos, etc., as I said.

they gave you the results of the search, did you look at how a search function works?

and have you been here for the video -
Hear & See the Bias -- Media Research Center - Multimedia File Archive


or here for print?
Flash -- MRC's Monthly Members' Report -- 2002 Archive -- Media Research Center



let me ask you another question please; why do you find this so impossible to believe?
Stimulus Two Years Later, Networks Ignore Obama's Failed Job Promise

the excerpts are right there, are you saying that they are making up what all of those folks and media mechanism said as they have quoted and annotated?



if you sent to mrc they have clips too, mrcs clips showing you a blurb delivered by a news anchor say, is not credible enough? they both quote and video display the same way.

and can you please show me a comparable example, of what mrc just claimed, claimed in the same way by media matters and their 'analysis', so I can see any difference?

See below.

You're missing my point, which is why is MRC deemed so credible, yet MM is not? They both gather information from existing sources.

Laura Ingraham Grossly Misrepresents Planned Parenthood's Budget | Media Matters for America

Fox News Figures Use Junk Science To Attack First Lady's Promotion Of Breast-Feeding | Media Matters for America

^Just a couple of examples. You can go to the site itself, you know. It won't report you to Fox that you did.

where did I say media matters is not? I said I would like to see comparative analysis as back up for how they each present their points......