Media Matters and free speech.

[blackhawk]

Kind of interesting how people define freedom of speech and expression. Colin Kaepernick and NFL players take a knee during the national anthem that is freedom of speech and or expression and the right to protest however those who use their freedom of speech to protest the players actions are labeled racist. As for Media Matters when you go from highlighting what you see as lies to trying to take people off the air you are no longer a watchdog group but wannabe fascist who don’t want any views you don’t like being expressed. Look at Media Matters and the conservative Media Research Center the MRC looks for bias in the media on how they cover Democrats and Republicans but to the best of my knowledge have never called for boycotts of shows sponsors or tried to get anyone fired big difference from Media Matters.

You are a racist.

I have the freedom of speech to call you that for any reason at all.

Not very complicated.

Your brainless idiot who is more ignorant that I thought. You are right about one thing that wasn’t complicated at all.

 

[AntonToo]

Kind of interesting how people define freedom of speech and expression. Colin Kaepernick and NFL players take a knee during the national anthem that is freedom of speech and or expression and the right to protest however those who use their freedom of speech to protest the players actions are labeled racist. As for Media Matters when you go from highlighting what you see as lies to trying to take people off the air you are no longer a watchdog group but wannabe fascist who don’t want any views you don’t like being expressed. Look at Media Matters and the conservative Media Research Center the MRC looks for bias in the media on how they cover Democrats and Republicans but to the best of my knowledge have never called for boycotts of shows sponsors or tried to get anyone fired big difference from Media Matters.

You are a racist.

I have the freedom of speech to call you that for any reason at all.

Not very complicated.

Your brainless idiot who is more ignorant that I thought. You are right about one thing that wasn’t complicated at all.

Is there an argument in there somewhere?

No there isn't.

People can criticize kneeling players for their free speech and others can criticize the criticizers for their free speech. Free speech galore.

 

[AntonToo]

They are a lefty watchdog organization like many other righty organizations.

Don't like their free speech? Tough shit, welcome to Constitutional democracy.

View attachment 161464

what is your point retard?

I fully support this lunatic's freedom to stand there and broadcast his crazy to the world.

I fully support this lunatic's freedom to stand there and broadcast his crazy to the world.

Thats it? That's your 2 cents?

Shame the left hate free speech.

What free speech do I hate?

Go ahead, tell me.

 

[Meathead]

Picture yourself working with a person who sees the world differently than you do. That person may not agree with you on political issues. So what do you do? Do you go to the management of the company and try get to them to fire this person for exercising his or her right to free speech? Maybe you feel so strongly about the veracity of your positions that you threaten the leadership of your company by publicly smearing the reputations of firms that do business with them in order to injure the profit margins of your employer. Because you see free speech as so dangerous to your worldview, you feel justified in attempting to take away the livelihood of a person who uses it. For the time being that probably wouldn’t result in a good outcome for you.


The time being, like free speech, is never a fixture in any society. It is transitory in nature and vulnerable to the winds of change and sometimes that change is an ill wind that blows no good. Such is the case with Media Matters for America, a left-leaning media giant that describes itself as a “watchdog” for conservative falsehoods. Americans have learned to be leery of groups that purport to be watchdogs because fascist history demonstrates that watchdogs turn into attack dogs as soon as their speech is rejected in favor of any other speech.


When their agenda fails they feel righteously vindicated in crossing any line necessary to salvage and propagate that agenda. Media Matters for America, like the southern Poverty Law Center and the National Organization for Women, presents itself as a representative of people who never elected them for representation. They are essentially crusaders for an ideology that does not recognize free speech in an individual sense only in a group sense.


So as crusaders for groups that didn’t elect them they feel empowered to label individuals who do exercise free speech as threats to groups they have commandeered to speak for. They were able to take away Bill O’Reilly’s job at Fox news by holding his advertisers as hostages and calling for boycotts. They are using the same strategy to try to silence Sean Hannity.


When you go to work tomorrow and you are called to the personnel office with news that your employment has been terminated because another employee threatened the bottom line. Thank Media Matters.

I fail to understand how they can define themselves as a "watchdog". Is this a government sponsored and sanctioned organization? Do they have special or legal powers to enforce? What is it exactly they are the watchdog of? Free speech?

Many questions, few answers. I would like to see their financials though and I'm sure there would be some answers gleaned...

Media Matters is a watchdog much like the Southern Poverty Law Center, but unlike the SPLC it at least doesn't claim to be bipartisan.

 

[AntonToo]

Picture yourself working with a person who sees the world differently than you do. That person may not agree with you on political issues. So what do you do? Do you go to the management of the company and try get to them to fire this person for exercising his or her right to free speech? Maybe you feel so strongly about the veracity of your positions that you threaten the leadership of your company by publicly smearing the reputations of firms that do business with them in order to injure the profit margins of your employer. Because you see free speech as so dangerous to your worldview, you feel justified in attempting to take away the livelihood of a person who uses it. For the time being that probably wouldn’t result in a good outcome for you.


The time being, like free speech, is never a fixture in any society. It is transitory in nature and vulnerable to the winds of change and sometimes that change is an ill wind that blows no good. Such is the case with Media Matters for America, a left-leaning media giant that describes itself as a “watchdog” for conservative falsehoods. Americans have learned to be leery of groups that purport to be watchdogs because fascist history demonstrates that watchdogs turn into attack dogs as soon as their speech is rejected in favor of any other speech.


When their agenda fails they feel righteously vindicated in crossing any line necessary to salvage and propagate that agenda. Media Matters for America, like the southern Poverty Law Center and the National Organization for Women, presents itself as a representative of people who never elected them for representation. They are essentially crusaders for an ideology that does not recognize free speech in an individual sense only in a group sense.


So as crusaders for groups that didn’t elect them they feel empowered to label individuals who do exercise free speech as threats to groups they have commandeered to speak for. They were able to take away Bill O’Reilly’s job at Fox news by holding his advertisers as hostages and calling for boycotts. They are using the same strategy to try to silence Sean Hannity.


When you go to work tomorrow and you are called to the personnel office with news that your employment has been terminated because another employee threatened the bottom line. Thank Media Matters.

I fail to understand how they can define themselves as a "watchdog". Is this a government sponsored and sanctioned organization? Do they have special or legal powers to enforce? What is it exactly they are the watchdog of? Free speech?

Many questions, few answers. I would like to see their financials though and I'm sure there would be some answers gleaned...

Media Matters is a watchdog much like the Southern Poverty Law Center, but unlike the SPLC it at least doesn't claim to be bipartisan.

Yea, because mis-representation is wrong and you oppose it when lefties and righties do it... Right?

Judicial Watch - Judicial Watch

A conservative, non-partisan educational foundation

 

[Meathead]

A conservative, non-partisan educational foundation

A conservative, non-partisan educational foundation

Fixed it for you.

 

[AntonToo]

A conservative, non-partisan educational foundation

A conservative, non-partisan educational foundation

Fixed it for you.

Dummy, they are NOT non-partisan.

To compare to MM:

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.

https://www.mediamatters.org/about\


Wait...what? No claims to non-partisanship.

 

[jc456]

Picture yourself working with a person who sees the world differently than you do. That person may not agree with you on political issues. So what do you do? Do you go to the management of the company and try get to them to fire this person for exercising his or her right to free speech? Maybe you feel so strongly about the veracity of your positions that you threaten the leadership of your company by publicly smearing the reputations of firms that do business with them in order to injure the profit margins of your employer. Because you see free speech as so dangerous to your worldview, you feel justified in attempting to take away the livelihood of a person who uses it. For the time being that probably wouldn’t result in a good outcome for you.


The time being, like free speech, is never a fixture in any society. It is transitory in nature and vulnerable to the winds of change and sometimes that change is an ill wind that blows no good. Such is the case with Media Matters for America, a left-leaning media giant that describes itself as a “watchdog” for conservative falsehoods. Americans have learned to be leery of groups that purport to be watchdogs because fascist history demonstrates that watchdogs turn into attack dogs as soon as their speech is rejected in favor of any other speech.


When their agenda fails they feel righteously vindicated in crossing any line necessary to salvage and propagate that agenda. Media Matters for America, like the southern Poverty Law Center and the National Organization for Women, presents itself as a representative of people who never elected them for representation. They are essentially crusaders for an ideology that does not recognize free speech in an individual sense only in a group sense.


So as crusaders for groups that didn’t elect them they feel empowered to label individuals who do exercise free speech as threats to groups they have commandeered to speak for. They were able to take away Bill O’Reilly’s job at Fox news by holding his advertisers as hostages and calling for boycotts. They are using the same strategy to try to silence Sean Hannity.


When you go to work tomorrow and you are called to the personnel office with news that your employment has been terminated because another employee threatened the bottom line. Thank Media Matters.

I fail to understand how they can define themselves as a "watchdog".

Why not?

Is this a government sponsored and sanctioned organization? Do they have special or legal powers to enforce?

No.

What is it exactly they are the watchdog of? Free speech?

"Media accuracy"

Many questions, few answers. I would like to see their financials though and I'm sure there would be some answers gleaned...

A 30 second Google search would have answered all of those questions for you.

yeah, right! nothing like more nonsense on a Monday. Media Matters isn't qualified to do anything accept give an opinion. they have no moral equivalency value at all.

 

[Thinker101]

Calling for boycotts is also free speech .

Sounds good to me, how about we all boycott you.

 

[Meathead]

A conservative, non-partisan educational foundation

A conservative, non-partisan educational foundation

Fixed it for you.

Dummy, they are NOT non-partisan.

To compare to MM:

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.

https://www.mediamatters.org/about\


Wait...what? No claims to non-partisanship.

Problem is we were talking about the SPLC, and as I said at least MM admits to being a whiny-liberal organization. You are certainly in no position to disparage the intellect of others btw.

 

[AntonToo]

A conservative, non-partisan educational foundation

A conservative, non-partisan educational foundation

Fixed it for you.

Dummy, they are NOT non-partisan.

To compare to MM:

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.

https://www.mediamatters.org/about\


Wait...what? No claims to non-partisanship.

Problem is we were talking about the SPLC, and as I said at least MM admits to being a whiny-liberal organization. You are certainly in no position to disparage the intellect of others btw.

Hey Meathead, how about you actually address my post to you?

If SPLC claims to be non-partisan it would be exactly like Judicial Watch.

So what do you say? Are both are wrong to do that or are you going to pick and choose based on your bias?

BTW where did you see SPLC claim to be non-partisan?

 

[Meathead]

A conservative, non-partisan educational foundation

A conservative, non-partisan educational foundation

Fixed it for you.

Dummy, they are NOT non-partisan.

To compare to MM:

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.

https://www.mediamatters.org/about\


Wait...what? No claims to non-partisanship.

Problem is we were talking about the SPLC, and as I said at least MM admits to being a whiny-liberal organization. You are certainly in no position to disparage the intellect of others btw.

Hey Meathead, how about you actually address my post to you?

If SPLC claims to be non-partisan it would be exactly like Judicial Watch.

So what do you say? Are both are wrong to do that or are you going to pick and choose based on your bias?

BTW where did you see SPLC claim to be non-partisan?

JU clearly claims to be conservative. Show me where the SPLC claims to be whiny and liberal. OK, I'll make it easier on you, just liberal since whiny is inferred.

 

[AntonToo]

A conservative, non-partisan educational foundation

A conservative, non-partisan educational foundation

Fixed it for you.

Dummy, they are NOT non-partisan.

To compare to MM:

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.

https://www.mediamatters.org/about\


Wait...what? No claims to non-partisanship.

Problem is we were talking about the SPLC, and as I said at least MM admits to being a whiny-liberal organization. You are certainly in no position to disparage the intellect of others btw.

Hey Meathead, how about you actually address my post to you?

If SPLC claims to be non-partisan it would be exactly like Judicial Watch.

So what do you say? Are both are wrong to do that or are you going to pick and choose based on your bias?

BTW where did you see SPLC claim to be non-partisan?

JU clearly claims to be conservative. Show me where the SPLC claims to be whiny and liberal. OK, I'll make it easier on you, just liberal since whiny is inferred.

JU claims to be NON-PARTISAN.

They are not non-partisan, they are rightwing hacks that earn their keep going after Democrats and it is telling that like a good little rightwing tool you refuse to call them out for their dishonesty.

 

[Ray9]

Taking away someone’s living for not toeing the line for a contemporaneous belief system has a sinister side. Free speech had to be earned and you could throw yours away by silencing someone else’s. Boycotts are just wrongheaded for any democracy.