Media Matters Calls for "Action" against MSNBC over Clinton Remarks

Clinton Media Group Has Panties in a Bunch

Media Matters’ David Brock recently testified
(in the MM newsletter) about the scurvy journalism
practiced at MSNBC against MM beneficiary, Hillary Clinton.

“As a journalist, I cherish Oscar Wilde’s opinion of sincerity: He called it “the highest form of acting.” Few of my subjects have told the whole truth, though many were honest. That’s why the best reporters multi-source their stories. But there’s no way to check out David Brock’s account of his illustrious career as a professional liar.”
–Richard Goldstein

Media Matters, the Hillary Clinton-sponsored front group–which tries to pass itself off as an impartial “press watchdog”–has issued its weekly newsletter.

If you’re looking for a source of unintended laughter, you could do worse than get on its mailing list–we did.

It rarely disappoints.

Last fall, Media Matters was busy attacking popular conservative commentators over their philosophical disagreements with liberal/progressive issues.

With Hillary Clinton locked in a nomination dog-fight, Media Matters has dropped its pretenses of looking out for all liberals and focused on those it feels are biting the hand that feeds MM.

This week’s Media[About Hillary]Matters’ target is foaming-at-the-mouth liberal network, MSNBC.

What did the network of Kountdown Keith Olbermann and Chris Mathews do that has upset the “media about Hillary watchdog”?

Well, they’ve made the same remarks about the former first lady usually reserved for conservatives. MM mouthpiece, David Brock, is obviously concerned that some regular viewers may become confused and think Clinton is running on the Republican ticket.

During the past year, three MSNBC commentators have been suspended, reprimanded, fired, or forced to apologize for their sexist and/or racist comments. Rather than address these problems by proactively moving to make certain they do not happen in the first place, MSNBC has instead decided to use these controversies as part of an advertising campaign to promote its political coverage.

That’s right — MSNBC has turned the recent mea culpa by Hardball host Chris Matthews for his sexist comments into an advertising campaign, using clips of his statement to push MSNBC programming. Left on the cutting room floor, of course, are the portions in which Matthews acknowledged having been “callous,” “nasty,” and “dismissive” toward Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Thank God for the Imus affair, or the MM newsletter would have had to been declared a Clinton contribution under campaign finance law.

Reaction was swift when Media Matters first called itself
an impartial “press watchdog”, with no links to Hillary Clinton.

Brock goes onto to lament the coverage of another MSNBC newsperson who deviated from the lapdog position.

The latest example of the systemic problem of sexism and misogyny on MSNBC’s airwaves came last week from correspondent David Shuster when he stated, while talking about Chelsea Clinton’s campaign activities on behalf of her mother, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way” by Sen. Clinton’s presidential campaign. Following criticism from many who found Shuster’s comments indefensible and demeaning, MSNBC suspended Shuster indefinitely and aired an apology from him that evening.

Of course, MSNBC wouldn’t suspend one of its newscasters for remarks made about either President Bush or conservatives–Olbermann alone has labeled Bush as “stupid” and “facist”. But it did after a wayward comment about Chelsea Clinton.

But for this “press watchdog”, suspension is not enough: they want the reader to take action!

The newsletters says “news organizations like NBC News and MSNBC have a sacred duty to be good stewards of accurate, balanced, and responsible political discourse.”

It may be a first for Media Matters: using the word “sacred” in a sentence without the accompanying words: “dumbass”, “conservative” or “Christians”.

“Media Matters is a “press watchdog”?
“Impartial”?? Stop it! You’re killing me!!”

The newsletter ended on a call to “take action today – contact MSNBC president, Steve Capus”.

We just might.

Soon as we quit laughing.

by Mondoreb
images:
* thewideawakes
* israel125yroldmanlaughing
* bluebuddies
Sources:
* The Primal Lie
* Meida Matters newsletter “A Mess at MSNBC”



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Glenn Beck’s "Handful of Haters’: Another Media Matters Moment

[image:RidesAPaleHorse]

by Mondoreb

The latest “attack” by Media(about Hillary)Matters is another yawner. Doesn’t anyone over at M(aH)M earn their donated salaries anymore?

Every week, week after week, it’s the same thing, just change the name and quote. Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and now–Glenn Beck. Take a conservative commentator, next take a quote–any quote–out of context, issue PR releases and hope someone notices.

Well, you have to admit: it’s easier than shilling for HillaryCare.

M(aH)M’s “handful of haters” quote was lifted, headlined and PR-release-issued in true M(aH)M fashion. Here’s something you didn’t hear if you didn’t go deep into it.
From Media Mattters:

Beck’s comment immediately followed his statement that “we’re all one America” and “just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean you hate America, and I love America. We all love America. We just disagree on how we should function.”

You have to read down the PR release to get to the above contextual Beckism. Of course, the calls for Beck’s head, such as this one soon followed.

Then They Came For Glenn Beck
As JammieWearing Fool succinctly states it:

It’s Beck’s opinion that some who hate America live in that area.
Is this even debatable?
These Clinton stooges forfeited all credibility in their most recent smearing of Rush Limbaugh.

Jammie has it exactly right here, with the emphasis on the “Clinton stooges” part.

Beck states his opinion. But first he prefaces it with something that wouldn’t have made his quote nearly as useful as a Media(about Hillary) Matters fund-raising tool. But, true to form, you don’t hear about that unless you read the entire press release–if anyone is given the chance. The “handful of haters” is dragged out and put on display. Sort of like an old bowling trophy.

But at least M(aH)M did include a transcript this time: unlike the poo-flinging PR release they issued on Limbaugh. They should change the channel, or at least their tired “attack” template.

UPDATE: Sometimes When You Write in a Hurry Department…Upon re-reading the above, it wasn’t made clear about the context of the ellipses, but was done so nicely by Bilby’s, as he jams the rebound:

Media Matters headline: “Beck: “[A] handful of people who hate America … are losing their homes in a forest fire today”

You have to love the creative use of ellipses. They must be fairly confident some people won’t understand those represent the context that was taken out.

An example of what can be accomplished when people cooperate!

Back to Front Page.

Media Matters New Strategy For a Democratic Majority:"End the Life of Every Conservative!"

[photo: deathpenaltyinfo]
The Media Matters Agenda:
Death to Conservatives!

Utah Declares State of Emergency!

by Mondoreb

It wasn’t enough to take out-of-context quotes of conservative pundits, add images of Hitler then throw them in a PR release. Now Media Matters is advocating “death to every conservative!”

A new, more action-packed strategy for the Hillary Clinton front organization? Is the Media “watchdog” turning into an Auschwitz cheerleader? Is this what the Left is talking about when they scream that the United States is a “facist nation”?

The coming Conservative Holocaust is explained by Little Green Footballs:

The hit squad at Think Progress took one nasty comment from a reader at RedState, and stated outright that it represented the entire blog: White House Embraces Right-Wing Blog That Called For ‘Destroying’ Graeme Frost.

So I guess it’s OK to point out that Media Matters has let a comment stand on their site for more than 24 hours, calling for the death of every single person on the “right.” This wouldn’t have lasted ten minutes at LGF.

Oh, so Media Matters didn’t advocate “death to every conservative”? You’d be forgiven for the thought that that’s what all the uproar was about. But this is the Media Matters Way: find a quote or invent one (conservative new media haven’t read that far in the MM Stylebook yet), sacrifice a truck full of pixels on the subject as if the quote were correct, issue a PR release, wait for the mighty Munchkins at KOS, HuffPo, Firedoglake to jump into the cesspool, and hope someone at the NY Times is noticing all the splashing.

Voila! One manufactured event, coming right up! The hub-bub over Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Debbie Schussel, Fox News and others over the last few weeks is only the latest proof.

This tactic seems to elicit squeals of delight from the Code Pinko/Leftie-on-a-Stick smart set that appears to be setting much of the Democrat Party agenda these days. But is Media Matters contributing to their mission as a “media watchdog”? Or news? Truth? Facts?

Better to buy the National Enquirer for those.

Sphere: Related Content
Back to Front Page.

York, Media Matters, Limbaugh, VoteVets:Who Do You Believe?

by Mondoreb
[photos:WashintonPost & Random House]

Byron York’s accurate take on Media Matters, the front group for all things Hillary, sparked a bit of a feud in cyberspace. Media Matters which masquerades as a ‘media watchdog’ instead of a PR-issuing liberal poodle, cut-and-pasted comments on Rush Limbaugh’s show last week, and–voila! One manufactured “phony” controversy, fit for left wing media consumption, coming right up.

From Byron York at National Review Online
Editor’s note: The controversy over Rush Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” remark has brought new prominence to Media Matters for America, the left-wing media watchdog founded by former right-wing media star David Brock. Media Matters is an avowedly political institution, part of a group of institutionsthe Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, and others ­ that have become increasingly important in Democratic politics. In 2004, Byron York revealed the origins of Media Matters and the big Democratic party donors who helped Brock bring it to life.

The reprinted article got MM’s panties in a bunch and they did what they excel at: they issued a press release.

MM replied:
Media Matters is not, as the National Review claims, “an avowedly political institution,” but a nonpartisan, progressive nonprofit that is unaffiliated with any political party or candidate.

As Daily Pundit puts it: My ribs are sore…

Byron York responded:
That’s good to know. It should be pointed out that Media Matters is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) institution, meaning it is tax exempt and that contributions made to Media Matters are fully tax deductible. That is, by one of the true perversities of our tax code that also benefits some conservative groups, a contribution to Media Matters is as tax deductible as a contribution to the Salvation Army or the Red Cross. It’s a great relief to know they’re not political.

So Media Matters is a watchdog for the media; that’s soothing to know. If it just pointed out media bias like NewsBusters or Accuracy in Media, it’s doubtful anyone would question their mission, their organizational status or their sincerity. But MM is not satisfied with only “watching” news, it wants to manufacture its own, too. And there’s the beef.

Back to Byron York’s 2004 story. Launched in early May [2004], the organization says its purpose is to keep an eye on “conservative misinformation” in the American media. While in its first few weeks of operation Media Matters published attacks on the usual targets — Fox News, for example — Brock seems to be devoting particular energy to what he calls an “aggressive ad campaign” against radio host Rush Limbaugh.

York delves into a bit of Media Matters maven, David Brock:

Brock has received far less attention for his new project than he received in 2002 when he published Blinded by the Right, the book in which he confessed to having lied in some of the stories he wrote for conservative publications in the 1990s.

The book did what many — even those on the left who share Brock’s contempt for conservatives — consider fatal damage to Brock’s credibility. When Blinded by the Right appeared, Timothy Noah, the liberal “Chatterbox” columnist for Slate, wrote that “Chatterbox yields to no one in his eagerness to believe the awful things Brock is now saying about himself and the conservative movement in America. But the more Brock insists that he has lied, and lied, and then lied again, the more one begins to suspect Brock of being, well, a liar.”

David Brock, Media Matters, not truthful? Conducting an “aggressive” campaign against his old target, Limbaugh?

Heavens.

Which brings us to the Rush Limbaugh “phony soldiers” non-story. We’re doing Death by 1000 Papercuts version of the ‘Pepsi Challenge’. Blindfold yourself, have the following two versions read to you and decide which is “full of flavor”.

HERE’s WHAT Media Matters SAID LIMBAUGH SAID:
During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers.” He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, “Mike from Chicago,” who said he “used to be military,” and “believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq.” Limbaugh told the second caller, whom he identified as “Mike, this one from Olympia, Washington,” that “[t]here’s a lot” that people who favor U.S. withdrawal “don’t understand” and that when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, ” ‘Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.’ … ‘Save the — keeps the troops safe’ or whatever,” adding, “[I]t’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.” “Mike” from Olympia replied, “No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.” Limbaugh interjected, “The phony soldiers.” The caller, who had earlier said, “I am a serving American military, in the Army,” agreed, replying, “The phony soldiers.”

HERE’S WHAT LIMBAUGH ACTUALLY SAID:

RUSH ARCHIVE: It’s not possible intellectually to follow these people.
CALLER: No, it’s not. And what’s really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they’re proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they’re willing to sacrifice for the country.
RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.
RUSH: It’s frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.

The reader can be the judge as to whether Media Matters is a “not, as the National Review claims, ‘an avowedly political institution,’ but a nonpartisan, progressive nonprofit that is unaffiliated with any political party or candidate.” The reader can also be the judge as to what was actually said.

As if it were somehow coordinated by an unseen hand, another group, VoteVets, immediately jumped on the “Rush is Evil” bandwagon. The leader/spokesman for VoteVets.org, another liberal front group, appeared on the Rusty Humphries talk show Thursday and here’s the transcript .

HUMPHRIES: Okay, so it’s not what Rush said, it’s who Rush supports, and because he helped get them elected, he needs to be taken down, is that —

FRIEDMAN: No, it’s a pattern of what he does. I mean, this guy has a voice, and he affects people.

Rush goes on to say: The guy, ladies and gentlemen, a leading spokesman for VoteVets.org admitting publicly that the reason the liberal hit squad is attacking me is because they don’t agree with my position on the war and that I’m influential.

Elected Democrats couldn’t resist the ‘call of the wild’. Again, as if by magic, a resolution appeared in Congress condemning Rush. Michelle Malkin points out:

Democrat Rep. Mark Udall is spearheading the resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh. It apparently has 19 co-sponsors now.

So, at the end of the day, there’s a media watchdog’s doghouse-full of questions. Who’s more accurate here: Byron York and National Review or David Brock and Media Matters? Does Media Matters link to anyone else but it’s own PR releases for reference? Was Rush demeaning the military? Was he talking about “phony soldiers”? Did Media Matters get it right? Can they ever hope to get anything right? Is this an orchestrated campaign by the Left/liberal/Democrats? Or, is it merely a cosmic confluence of coincidences?

Again, take the Death by 1000 Papercuts Challenge: Who do you believe?

Back to Front Page