Media Matters' Enemies List

[Dr Grump]

Am I the only one seeing the irony of a far right blog having a go at a centrist/slightly left leaning outlet as kinda funny?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I do. That's why I posted it.

I'm wondering if anyone gets threatened or hurt on that list if truthmatters will denounce it.

Why do you guys need to be such drama queens? No one is "threatening" anyone.

Do you really think that newsbusters.org doesn't have an identical memo floating around, listing left-wing blogs and people?

from what I understand they watch the media.......thats what they do storys on or where they get their content...*shrugs*

if they have an enemies list and are tax exempt screw them, pull it. I am not up for allowing any of them right left center, to skate on paying taxe etc.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that's not the way the law is. According to the law, MediaMatters (and Newsbusters, and all the others) are operating completely within the current tax structure.

How would you go about determining what the law should be?

What's "left wing" in someone's eyes is the simple truth in another's, and the same with "right wing". There's no objective way to decide.

 

[Dr Grump]

I do. That's why I posted it.

I'm wondering if anyone gets threatened or hurt on that list if truthmatters will denounce it.

Why do you guys need to be such drama queens? No one is "threatening" anyone.

Do you really think that newsbusters.org doesn't have an identical memo floating around, listing left-wing blogs and people?

from what I understand they watch the media.......thats what they do storys on or where they get their content...*shrugs*

if they have an enemies list and are tax exempt screw them, pull it. I am not up for allowing any of them right left center, to skate on paying taxe etc.

As long as they are not for profit, it is irrelevent...

 

[tinydancer]

It's a great piece. I'm looking forward to more information. I don't recognize the one writer, but I've always liked Tucker.

And Crossfire when Carville was a guest was always awesome.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Putting out a hit list for their smear and demagoguery campaign violates their exemption.

Not that you care, as long as they're attacking enemies of the party, you don't care what they do.

No, it doesn't.

hello..

Media Matters' war against Fox - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

You're not understanding me. I'm not trying to claim that MediaMatters isn't "targeting" anyone, I'm just saying that it's not against the law, nor does it "violate their exemption".

 

[Salt Jones]

501c3s are not banned from having political opinions, nor are they under any obligation to be "fair".

They're simply not allowed to openly endorse a candidate or party.

There are plenty of partisan 501c3s on both sides of the fence.

(As to how I know this: It's what I do for a living)

Putting out a hit list for their smear and demagoguery campaign violates their exemption.

Not that you care, as long as they're attacking enemies of the party, you don't care what they do.

Using people's words against them is demagoguery?

It doesn't violate anything, that's why they are still around.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's a great piece. I'm looking forward to more information. I don't recognize the one writer, but I've always liked Tucker.

And Crossfire when Carville was a guest was always awesome.

Carville was a co-host of Crossfire, not a guest. But it doesn't really matter.

 

[Trajan]

No, it doesn't.

hello..

Media Matters' war against Fox - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

You're not understanding me. I'm not trying to claim that MediaMatters isn't "targeting" anyone, I'm just saying that it's not against the law, nor does it "violate their exemption".

I see.

 

[Salt Jones]

501c3s are not banned from having political opinions, nor are they under any obligation to be "fair".

They're simply not allowed to openly endorse a candidate or party.

There are plenty of partisan 501c3s on both sides of the fence.

(As to how I know this: It's what I do for a living)

Putting out a hit list for their smear and demagoguery campaign violates their exemption.

Not that you care, as long as they're attacking enemies of the party, you don't care what they do.

I thought it was a real hitlist on conservatives, too bad.

 

[California Girl]

Am I the only one seeing the irony of a far right blog having a go at a centrist/slightly left leaning outlet as kinda funny?

Media Matters is to 'slightly left' as Hitler was to a rational human being.... not even in the same fucking ballpark.

Media Matters is a far left hack site.

 

[Trajan]

Am I the only one seeing the irony of a far right blog having a go at a centrist/slightly left leaning outlet as kinda funny?

media matters is centrist/ slightly left? wow, okay then.

 

[Dr Grump]

You guys have to remember I am not from the States....;o)

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Am I the only one seeing the irony of a far right blog having a go at a centrist/slightly left leaning outlet as kinda funny?

Media Matters is to 'slightly left' as Hitler was to a rational human being.... not even in the same fucking ballpark.

Media Matters is a far left hack site.

I would say "partisan left" rather than "far left".

"Far left" implies radicalism, which is not something one could accuse MediaMatters of.

 

[jillian]

Am I the only one seeing the irony of a far right blog having a go at a centrist/slightly left leaning outlet as kinda funny?

media matters is centrist/ slightly left? wow, okay then.

Anyplace but the U.S., it would be centrist, slightly left. Here it is to the left. I don't see that as a negative any more than you would see the heritage foundation as a problem. And heritage foundation and judicial watch and those organizations are far more extreme than media matters will ever be

 

[Trajan]

No, it doesn't.

hello..

Media Matters' war against Fox - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

You're not understanding me. I'm not trying to claim that MediaMatters isn't "targeting" anyone, I'm just saying that it's not against the law, nor does it "violate their exemption".

this is from the link I posted;

MMA was originally established as an Internal Revenue Service Section 501(c)(3) organization, that is, an organization that can receive tax-deductible contributions to engage in educational activities. The more precise purpose was to counter alleged media bias and so to “identify occurrences of excessive bias in the American media, educate the public as to their existence, and to work with members of the media to reduce them.”

What MMA actually is doing, however, moves far afield from identifying possible bias to mounting a campaign to undermine a major media outlet and to promote the Democratic Party and progressive causes associated with it. Mr. Brock himself has described this new strategy as “a war on Fox,” an effort “to disrupt [Rupert Murdoch‘s] commercial interests” and look for ways to turn regulators against News Corp.’s media outlets.

So let me ask you, do they in your opinion fulfill that role by engaging in a self avowed campaign against what he, Beck, describes as a ideological/political opponent?



my understanding, and I may be wrong was that this was supposedly assistance to institutions conducting at least ostensibly non partisan media research, no one expects them not to have a slant, but, I am not sure when the last time was that MM conducted such a campaign against an entity that was say on the level and ideological slant of- like the NY times, wapo, msnbc, cbs abc cnn nbc........that does not appear, by becks very own description to be whats going on...ever heard of the ACA btw?

 

[Zander]

That is a great list of people and companies to support. Thanks Chanel!

 

[California Girl]

Am I the only one seeing the irony of a far right blog having a go at a centrist/slightly left leaning outlet as kinda funny?

media matters is centrist/ slightly left? wow, okay then.

Anyplace but the U.S., it would be centrist, slightly left. Here it is to the left. I don't see that as a negative any more than you would see the heritage foundation as a problem. And heritage foundation and judicial watch and those organizations are far more extreme than media matters will ever be

Mo chara, they are completely left.... nothing 'slight' or 'center' about them. At least be honest about it. Seems to me that Media Matters has serious 'issues' with free speech.

 

[Jroc]

Am I the only one seeing the irony of a far right blog having a go at a centrist/slightly left leaning outlet as kinda funny?

media matters is centrist/ slightly left? wow, okay then.

Anyplace but the U.S., it would be centrist, slightly left. Here it is to the left. I don't see that as a negative any more than you would see the heritage foundation as a problem. And heritage foundation and judicial watch and those organizations are far more extreme than media matters will ever be

When Professor Alan Dershowitz spoke to hundreds of pro-Israel supporters at the University of Pennsylvania last week, many understood him to be simply providing a broad-strokes counter-message to the anti-Israel Penn BDS (boycotts of, divestment from and sanctions against Israel) conference which began the next day on the same campus.

But while Dershowitz was there in the ostensible role of "lover of Israel because I am a liberal Democrat," a close listening and gentle unpacking of many of his standard lines reveal more nuanced positions relating to Israel than many typically understand him to espouse. The nuances are very important, especially because they come from so committed a tribunal of the liberal left.

Indeed, while the left believes Dershowitz to be reflexively and unquestioningly pro-Israel, the right frequently sees him as reflexively pro-Obama Democrat and rigidly anti-"settlements." But within minutes of the start of a short press conference preceding the official events at Penn, Dershowitz angrily denounced Media Matters, an entity closely aligned -- and, in his view, that alignment may prove fatal to the election -- with the Democratic party, and firmly rejected a straight-line "the settlements are the problem" position.

Max Blumenthal, an attention-seeking, self-described "Cultural Marxist," is the son of former Clinton speechwriter Sidney Blumenthal. Despite having access to the rich and powerful through his family connections, Blumenthal, still an adolescent though now in his mid-30s, revels in acting out in public and throwing spitballs at "the establishment," most especially the hated "neo-cons"...or, really, anyone who believes that Israel is an important ally of the United States.

Blumenthal was a participant in the recent Penn BDS conference. On the day of Dershowitz's talk, Blumenthal penned a column for the Daily Pennsylvanian, the university newspaper, shamefully titled "Torture, Violence Advocate to Keynote anti-BDS Event," with the sub-heading: "Alan Dershowitz, supporter of bulldozing Palestinian towns and torturing criminal suspects, is coming to campus."

When asked about Blumenthal's DP article, Dershowitz looked exasperated and listed all the ways in which that article got everything wrong. For example, Dershowitz is opposed to torture. Dershowitz has called for something called "torture warrants" to ensure that extreme measures be applied only in extraordinary circumstances and with the most extraordinary of safeguards. Blumenthal's distorted analysis? Dershowitz supports torture

.



Articles: Alan Dershowitz Says Media Matters Could Cost Obama the Election

 

[Trajan]

Am I the only one seeing the irony of a far right blog having a go at a centrist/slightly left leaning outlet as kinda funny?

media matters is centrist/ slightly left? wow, okay then.

Anyplace but the U.S., it would be centrist, slightly left. Here it is to the left. I don't see that as a negative any more than you would see the heritage foundation as a problem. And heritage foundation and judicial watch and those organizations are far more extreme than media matters will ever be

anywhere but here? who cares



see any differences here?

About Media Matters

What is conservative misinformation?
Conservative misinformation is news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda. This misinformation distorts the public dialogue on important issues and obscures the truth.
How can I help fight conservative misinformation?
You can help Media Matters in its mission by letting us know when you see instances of conservative misinformation. Find out more about this here.


FAQ | Media Matters for America

and-


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.
About Us | Media Matters for America

heritage-

About

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles. Our vision is to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.

About


Research
Reports
Heritage research is packaged into a number of different publication types in order to get policy information to visitors with a variety of needs.
Factsheets
If you're having a hard time understanding complex policy issues, check out Heritage's one-page documents on current issues being debated in Washington.
Testimonies
As leading experts in a number of public policy fields, Heritage analysts are often asked to testify for legislative bodies, both on Capitol Hill, and in state capitals around the country.
Commentaries
Better than standing around the water cooler! Get the latest commentary and opinions from our experts and analysts.
Multimedia
Browse our video, audio and information graphics to learn about our commitment to building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society flourish.

Research


as far as extreme, we must have different ideas as to what constitutes extreme, when you produce a self avowed mission statement ala below from heritage, you'd have a point;



“The strategy that we had had toward Fox was basically a strategy of containment,” said Brock, Media Matters’ chairman and founder and a former conservative journalist, adding that the group’s main aim had been to challenge the factual claims of the channel and to attempt to prevent them from reaching the mainstream media.

The new strategy, he said, is a “war on Fox.”

In an interview and a 2010 planning memo shared with POLITICO, Brock listed the fronts on which Media Matters — which he said is operating on a $10 million-plus annual budget — is working to chip away at Fox and its parent company, News Corp. They include its bread-and-butter distribution of embarrassing clips and attempts to rebut Fox points, as well as a series of under-the-radar tactics.

Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox’s top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck’s show. The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy or other causes. And it has hired two experienced reporters, Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik, to dig into Fox’s operation to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor. (In the interest of full disclosure, Media Matters last month also issued a report criticizing “Fox and Friends” co-host Steve Doocy’s criticism of this reporter’s blog.)

Read more: Media Matters' war against Fox - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

 

[Jroc]

Am I the only one seeing the irony of a far right blog having a go at a centrist/slightly left leaning outlet as kinda funny?

media matters is centrist/ slightly left? wow, okay then.

Anyplace but the U.S., it would be centrist, slightly left. Here it is to the left. I don't see that as a negative any more than you would see the heritage foundation as a problem. And heritage foundation and judicial watch and those organizations are far more extreme than media matters will ever be

Media Matters, Think Tank Under Fire for Israel Commentary

Two left-leaning Washington organizations are facing heated criticism for their Israel-related coverage and commentary after throwing around the disparaging term "Israel firster" and accusing the Simon Wiesenthal Center -- a group dedicated to tolerance -- of being a "far-right" outfit.

The comments by writers for the Center for American Progress, a think tank, and Media Matters, a media advocacy group, have received increasing attention over the past week, in particular for their criticism of American supporters of Israel and for their repeated downplaying of the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. The CAP also was reproached for its criticism of the Simon Wiesenthal Center as a partisan outfit.

The Wiesenthal Center responded this week with a lengthy statement that condemned the remarks and suggested that the organizations are trying to make it difficult for others "to take a position sympathetic to the Jewish state."

At issue is a litany of blogs, stories and tweets over the past year from the CAP and Media Matters, whose founder has committed to launching a "war" on Fox News.

Of particular concern was the repeated use of the term "Israel firster" by MJ Rosenberg, senior foreign policy fellow for Media Matters, and by another blogger for ThinkProgress, a CAP website.

The term is used to describe lawmakers and others who voice unwavering support for Israel, but it also implies that their loyalties are to Israel first, and to America after that.


One Democratic congressional aide likened using the term to "questioning one's patriotism" and called it "outside the mainstream" of acceptable discourse.

"What you're saying is that they put Israel's interests above all else ... over the national security of the United States and our troops abroad," the aide said, requesting anonymity so as not to imply the office in which the aide works was officially responding to bloggers.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center had a similar assessment.

Media Matters, Think Tank Under Fire For Israel Commentary | Fox News