Media Matters' Enemies List

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

I'm guessing you meant Brock, not Beck. Threw me for a loop for a minute.

But as to your question - do I think they "fulfill that role"? No. But they don't have to. There's no law that interprets the goal statements put forth by nonprofits.

my understanding, and I may be wrong was that this was supposedly assistance to institutions conducting at least ostensibly non partisan media research,

Not exactly. The rules governing 501c3s govern all "non-profit" organizations - everything from Church groups to the NRA.

The only restriction is against "political campaigning" - not political opinion. MediaMatters is welcome to voice their opinions on whatever they want, as long as they don't directly endorse a candidate or party.

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

As I said before, there's no legal requirement that they be "fair".

...ever heard of the ACA btw?

The American Counseling Association?

I don't know what you're referring to, in this context.

 

[Katzndogz]

Media Matters is working directly with this regime to use their news outlets to manipulate public opinion and silence dissent.

That's what should be of concern to everyone.

 

[Dr Grump]

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

Ethnocentric much?

 

[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 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.

I think you need to read brocks words in that politico link, I posted, and the guy runs the joint and actually had bodyguard because he thinks right wing snipers were going to kill him

Media Matters | Sources | David Brock | The Daily Caller

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Media Matters is working directly with this regime to use their news outlets to manipulate public opinion and silence dissent.

That's what should be of concern to everyone.

How do you think they doing this? What "news outlets" does MediaMatters "have"?

Why should it "concern" anyone that the White House is working with a non-profit organization?

 

[Trajan]

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?

I'm guessing you meant Brock, not Beck. Threw me for a loop for a minute.

But as to your question - do I think they "fulfill that role"? No. But they don't have to. There's no law that interprets the goal statements put forth by nonprofits.


Not exactly. The rules governing 501c3s govern all "non-profit" organizations - everything from Church groups to the NRA.

The only restriction is against "political campaigning" - not political opinion. MediaMatters is welcome to voice their opinions on whatever they want, as long as they don't directly endorse a candidate or party.

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

As I said before, there's no legal requirement that they be "fair".

...ever heard of the ACA btw?

The American Counseling Association?

I don't know what you're referring to, in this context.

I'm guessing you meant Brock, not Beck. Threw me for a loop for a minute.

I did that on purpose there's little difference between the 2 doc...get it?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

I think you need to read brocks words in that politico link, I posted, and the guy runs the joint and actually had bodyguard because he thinks right wing snipers were going to kill him

Media Matters | Sources | David Brock | The Daily Caller

I know that David Brock is an idiot. He's not a "radical" though.

He's an rdean - not a radical, but a partisan hack.

 

[Trajan]

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?

I'm guessing you meant Brock, not Beck. Threw me for a loop for a minute.

But as to your question - do I think they "fulfill that role"? No. But they don't have to. There's no law that interprets the goal statements put forth by nonprofits.


Not exactly. The rules governing 501c3s govern all "non-profit" organizations - everything from Church groups to the NRA.

The only restriction is against "political campaigning" - not political opinion. MediaMatters is welcome to voice their opinions on whatever they want, as long as they don't directly endorse a candidate or party.

As I said before, there's no legal requirement that they be "fair".

The American Counseling Association?

I don't know what you're referring to, in this context.

I'm guessing you meant Brock, not Beck. Threw me for a loop for a minute.

I did that on purpose there's little difference between the 2 doc...get it?

campaigning....hummmm....close but...

From: Emilee Pierce [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 09:11 PM
To: Kerr, Mary (EPW); Dempsey, Matt (EPW)
Subject: Heads up – MMFA study on media coverage of KXL out tomorrow

Mary and Matt,
I wanted to flag that MMFA will be putting out a major, quantitative report on media coverage of KXL tomorrow morning.

The study will be similar to our EPA counting study (REPORT: Opponents Of EPA Climate Action Dominate TV News Airwaves | Media Matters for America) — and will drill home the point the media bought right into Big Oil’s desired frame on KXL, focusing largely on the (inflated) number of jobs that could be created, without paying due attention to the many other important issues at stake. (Ranchers’ land, spills, climate change, etc.)

We are hoping for a big media splash, but – more importantly – we’re hoping that allies will be able to leverage it to gain favorable coverage.
I’ve pasted a very brief summary below – and will be sure to send along the final study as soon as it’s up. If you have any questions, please let me know.
All the best,
Emilee

STUDY: The Press And The Pipeline
A Media Matters analysis shows that as a whole, news coverage of the Keystone XL pipeline between August 1 and December 31 favored pipeline proponents. Although the project would create few long-term employment opportunities, the pipeline was primarily portrayed as a jobs issue. Pro-pipeline voices were quoted more frequently than those opposed, and dubious industry estimates of job creation were uncritically repeated 5 times more often than they were questioned. Meanwhile, concerns about the State Department’s review process and potential environmental consequences were often overlooked, particularly by television outlets.
–
————————————–
Emilee Pierce
External Affairs Director for Climate and Environment
Media Matters for America

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

I think you need to read brocks words in that politico link, I posted, and the guy runs the joint and actually had bodyguard because he thinks right wing snipers were going to kill him

Media Matters | Sources | David Brock | The Daily Caller

Thanks for leaking to a partisan hackery piece...

 

[Jroc]

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

Ethnocentric much?

Just pointing out to my Jewish sister who it is she defends

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm guessing you meant Brock, not Beck. Threw me for a loop for a minute.

But as to your question - do I think they "fulfill that role"? No. But they don't have to. There's no law that interprets the goal statements put forth by nonprofits.


Not exactly. The rules governing 501c3s govern all "non-profit" organizations - everything from Church groups to the NRA.

The only restriction is against "political campaigning" - not political opinion. MediaMatters is welcome to voice their opinions on whatever they want, as long as they don't directly endorse a candidate or party.

As I said before, there's no legal requirement that they be "fair".

The American Counseling Association?

I don't know what you're referring to, in this context.

I'm guessing you meant Brock, not Beck. Threw me for a loop for a minute.

I did that on purpose there's little difference between the 2 doc...get it?

campaigning....hummmm....close but...

From: Emilee Pierce [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 09:11 PM
To: Kerr, Mary (EPW); Dempsey, Matt (EPW)
Subject: Heads up – MMFA study on media coverage of KXL out tomorrow

Mary and Matt,
I wanted to flag that MMFA will be putting out a major, quantitative report on media coverage of KXL tomorrow morning.

The study will be similar to our EPA counting study (REPORT: Opponents Of EPA Climate Action Dominate TV News Airwaves | Media Matters for America) — and will drill home the point the media bought right into Big Oil’s desired frame on KXL, focusing largely on the (inflated) number of jobs that could be created, without paying due attention to the many other important issues at stake. (Ranchers’ land, spills, climate change, etc.)

We are hoping for a big media splash, but – more importantly – we’re hoping that allies will be able to leverage it to gain favorable coverage.
I’ve pasted a very brief summary below – and will be sure to send along the final study as soon as it’s up. If you have any questions, please let me know.
All the best,
Emilee

STUDY: The Press And The Pipeline
A Media Matters analysis shows that as a whole, news coverage of the Keystone XL pipeline between August 1 and December 31 favored pipeline proponents. Although the project would create few long-term employment opportunities, the pipeline was primarily portrayed as a jobs issue. Pro-pipeline voices were quoted more frequently than those opposed, and dubious industry estimates of job creation were uncritically repeated 5 times more often than they were questioned. Meanwhile, concerns about the State Department’s review process and potential environmental consequences were often overlooked, particularly by television outlets.
–
————————————–
Emilee Pierce
External Affairs Director for Climate and Environment
Media Matters for America

They're allowed to have an opinion on the Keystone pipeline, and they're allowed to promote their opinion.

Just like all the environmental nonprofits that are also against the pipeline, and all the "think tank" nonprofits that are for it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

I'm guessing you meant Brock, not Beck. Threw me for a loop for a minute.

But as to your question - do I think they "fulfill that role"? No. But they don't have to. There's no law that interprets the goal statements put forth by nonprofits.


Not exactly. The rules governing 501c3s govern all "non-profit" organizations - everything from Church groups to the NRA.

The only restriction is against "political campaigning" - not political opinion. MediaMatters is welcome to voice their opinions on whatever they want, as long as they don't directly endorse a candidate or party.

As I said before, there's no legal requirement that they be "fair".

The American Counseling Association?

I don't know what you're referring to, in this context.

I'm guessing you meant Brock, not Beck. Threw me for a loop for a minute.

I did that on purpose there's little difference between the 2 doc...get it?

I see a certain similarity...

 

[Katzndogz]

Why Don't We Hear About Soros' Ties To Over 30 Major News Organizations? | Fox News

The white house should not work with ANY journalist. We are supposed to have an independent media. It's collusion to manipulate the news and information.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why Don't We Hear About Soros' Ties To Over 30 Major News Organizations? | Fox News

The white house should not work with ANY journalist. We are supposed to have an independent media. It's collusion to manipulate the news and information.

MediaMatters isn't a "news organization", nor are they "journalists".

 

[Salt Jones]

Media Matters is working directly with this regime to use their news outlets to manipulate public opinion and silence dissent.

That's what should be of concern to everyone.

And what does the NRA do?

 

[Trajan]

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

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

I think you need to read brocks words in that politico link, I posted, and the guy runs the joint and actually had bodyguard because he thinks right wing snipers were going to kill him

Media Matters | Sources | David Brock | The Daily Caller

I know that David Brock is an idiot. He's not a "radical" though.

He's an rdean - not a radical, but a partisan hack.

*shrugs* I won't argue that right now....and be careful, Jillian has a soft spot for Rdean.

anyway, the aca- American Campaign Academy v. Commissioner;


have a gander...




In three recently released determination letters, the IRS denied federal income tax-exemption under section 501(c)(4) to organizations that conducted training programs for members of a particular political party. PLR 201128032 (released July 15, 2011, and dated April 4, 2011), PLR 201128034 (released July 15, 2011, and dated April 18, 2011), PLR 201128035 (released July 15, 2011, and dated April 18, 2011).

For electronic versions of the nine-page exemption rulings:
PLR 201128032, PLR 201128034, and PLR 201128035
Summary

Each ruling involves an organization that conducted a training program for members of a named political party. Each organization applied for recognition of tax-exempt status as a social welfare organization under section 501(c)(4).

The IRS concluded that the organizations’ training programs primarily benefited the interests of a particular political party and its candidates. Any educational activities undertaken provided a partisan benefit considered to serve private interests rather than the community as a whole. Therefore, the organizations did not operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare within the meaning of section 501(c)(4) and did not qualify for exemption.

KPMG Observation

In reaching its conclusions, the IRS cited the Tax Court’s decision in American Campaign Academy v. Commissioner—a 1989 case that involved facts similar to those found in the determinations. Although the Tax Court case addressed tax exemption under section 501(c)(3), the IRS stated that the standard for determining what constitutes private benefit applies to both sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4). The fact that the respective organizations were involved in politics had no bearing on the case or the determination letters.

TaxNewsFlash-Exempt Organizations

 

[Uncensored2008]

And what does the NRA do?

They don't have a hit list for smear campaigns by the media.

 

[Trajan]

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

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

I think you need to read brocks words in that politico link, I posted, and the guy runs the joint and actually had bodyguard because he thinks right wing snipers were going to kill him

Media Matters | Sources | David Brock | The Daily Caller

Thanks for leaking to a partisan hackery piece...

I was using it as a prop for the sniper thing, wait, are you saying they lied? Thats possible, bit I have seen the incident referenced elsewhere...

 

[Trajan]

Media Matters is working directly with this regime to use their news outlets to manipulate public opinion and silence dissent.

That's what should be of concern to everyone.

And what does the NRA do?

2nd amendment defense.....

 

[Dr Grump]

And what does the NRA do?

They don't have a hit list for smear campaigns by the media.

They certainly do have a hit list..and they certainly manipulate the media...