Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
And Media Matters is funded by many Liberal groups. One of which is moveon.org.
|
A cartoon probably is the best one can do in leu of the facts being so arrayed against what the right is trying to say.
Media Matters for America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Criticism
On August 19, 2005,
Media Matters posted an item regarding a letter that Cliff Kincaid, editor from the conservative,
media watchdog organization
Accuracy in Media, said he had received from an Afghan ambassador.
Media Matters wrote that the letter was not a scanned document and that it "bears all the hallmarks of a do-it-yourself,
cut-and-paste job."
[23] Within hours of the post, Kincaid posted scanned images of the letter and envelope he said he had received, and wrote that
Media Matters had accused him of "having fabricated or forged a letter from the Ambassador of Afghanistan." He characterized the piece as "defamatory" and criticized
Media Matters for not obtaining his side of the story prior to publishing their item.
[24] Media Matters then issued a subsequent post stating that Kincaid "misrepresented the original
Media Matters item" and "failed to point out a single falsehood" in the item, which "simply pointed out that the letter as posted on the America's Survival website consisted of separate elements cobbled together from various sources."
[25]
Bill O'Reilly, the subject of many
Media Matters items and a frequent critic of
Media Matters, has called them a "vile
propaganda outfit … which specializes in distorting comments made by politicians, pundits, and
media people."
[26] O'Reilly said that he believes
Media Matters took comments he made on his radio program to
Juan Williams regarding a dinner with
Al Sharpton in
Harlem out of context.
[27][28] O'Reilly said that the
Media Matters piece put together two out of context comments that were initially spoken five minutes apart and presented them as one comment in an effort to mislead readers.
[29] In an appearance on NBC's
Today with Matt Lauer,
Media Matters senior fellow Paul Waldman responded that they had included "the full audio, the full transcript, [and] nothing was taken out of context."
[30] In response to the controversy, Williams wrote an editorial for
Time noting that in his opinion "the attacks on O'Reilly amounted to an effort to take what he said totally out of context in an attempt to brand him a racist by a liberal group that disagrees with much of his politics."
[31]"
And if that is the worsdt that can be said of them, they're doing good, fact-wise.
Note, the only ones with criticism are the conservative sites, themselves known liars- as Media Matters- and MANY others- routinely reveal.
Oh yeah, there is Juan Williams. Remember him?
Forced to ditch his Washington Post job for "indiscretions".
Here's a tip:
Watch ALL news sources in the US, the right, left, and corporate middle. You'll spend lots of time on the internet, I assure you, because that's the only place the left is allowed.
Then compare the way things work-out over time to the various lines of "facts" being presented.
You'll find the "Left" facts are the ones which jive closest with reality.
Case in point:
The Iraq War.
Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was widely panned when it first aired.
Now it's the standard for understanding the prelude to war, and the war itself.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
