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.
Hillary Clinton Told YearlyKos Convention She Helped Start Media Matters
As NewsBusters reported Sunday, the leftwing organization responsible for the recent smear campaigns against Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, Media Matters, has direct ties to the Clintons.
To be sure, folks on the left, and in the media that support them, will either deny this connection, or ignore it.
In the end, that's going to be hard to do, for on August 4, while speaking at the YearlyKos convention in Chicago, the junior senator from New York proudly stated, "institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress."
Our friend Mike Church has been kind enough to provide the following audio of this segment of her speech that day (partial transcript to follow). Those interested can also view the video available here (relevant section at 2:20):
We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely, and really putting together a network, uh, in the blogosphere, in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress.
Sounds like the junior senator confirmed my contention from Sunday: "Hillary and her backers have created an advocacy network whose expressed goal is to take down all of her critics in the media.
She continued:
You know, we're beginning to match what I had said for years was the advantage of the other side. Uh, you know, when I made that comment about the vast right-wing conspiracy, I wasn't kidding. Uh, what I never could have predicted is that it was not a conspiracy, it was just wide open and out there for everybody to see.
Well, Senator, it now appears that the advocacy network you "helped to start and support" is wide open and out there for everybody to see.
They are a vast left wing conspiracy(its a joke), or at least they qualify as a smear group. Most people who hate O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, or Limbaugh haven't listened to their shows personally. They just see that media matters has made an accusation, provided some script after already damning the person they are attacking.
The true irony is, they don't see that they are EXACTLY the same thing as what they complain about.
I wouldn't say that... there's a big difference between attempting to expose the percieved lies/inaccuracies of pundits you disagree with (usually by using their own transcripts against them) than actively smearing an entire half of the country that disagrees with them. Hannity, Rush, Coulter, etc. ("Liberals hate America!," "Liberals love terrorists!" "Liberals hate victims and love criminals!" "Liberals are Communist Nazi Fascist Atheists in disguise!" "Liberals are the antichrist!" "Liberals eat children!") hate half of America and deserve whatever's coming to them, for the most part.
Actually I have tried with some success to pepper and salt my listening, viewing and reading pleasures. I have listened to those you mention; I have read others; I subscribe to Media Matters, and a vast array of other politically correct, and incorrect blogs, and news journals.
The intention of folks like Media Matters is to examine "mass media" with a eye to pointing out distortion, and unravel the mystery of pundits. I fail to see how examining the media is an attack. Disagreement is not attack, it is merely disagreement of perceived information--often misinformation.
We have too many loose cannons on the news channels these days, especially with the introduction of cable networks. It appears that today anything is considered news. I believe news is reporting not providing personal commentary that supports personal belief, and not evident truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
They are a vast left wing conspiracy(its a joke), or at least they qualify as a smear group. Most people who hate O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, or Limbaugh haven't listened to their shows personally. They just see that media matters has made an accusation, provided some script after already damning the person they are attacking.
The true irony is, they don't see that they are EXACTLY the same thing as what they complain about.
Rggr should get the facts wherever he or she can. Get over the "political bias" thing and focus on facts. The facts will show you where the political parties are coming from. A fat cat is a fat cat, regardless of party affiliation.
Hillary Clinton Told YearlyKos Convention She Helped Start Media Matters
As NewsBusters reported Sunday, the leftwing organization responsible for the recent smear campaigns against Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, Media Matters, has direct ties to the Clintons.
To be sure, folks on the left, and in the media that support them, will either deny this connection, or ignore it.
In the end, that's going to be hard to do, for on August 4, while speaking at the YearlyKos convention in Chicago, the junior senator from New York proudly stated, "institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress."
Our friend Mike Church has been kind enough to provide the following audio of this segment of her speech that day (partial transcript to follow). Those interested can also view the video available here (relevant section at 2:20):
We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely, and really putting together a network, uh, in the blogosphere, in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress.
Sounds like the junior senator confirmed my contention from Sunday: "Hillary and her backers have created an advocacy network whose expressed goal is to take down all of her critics in the media.
She continued:
You know, we're beginning to match what I had said for years was the advantage of the other side. Uh, you know, when I made that comment about the vast right-wing conspiracy, I wasn't kidding. Uh, what I never could have predicted is that it was not a conspiracy, it was just wide open and out there for everybody to see.
Well, Senator, it now appears that the advocacy network you "helped to start and support" is wide open and out there for everybody to see.
Talk about your inconvenient truths!
I saw this last night and spit a diet Coke out my nose. The vast right wing conspiracy (tee-hee) will have a bit of fun with that vid clip.
That with a split screen of the wall-eyed harpey Ms. Obama should give the other side a lot of bulletts. Oh, and not to mention Mrs. (wears the pants) Edwards.
Those who hate Media Matters tend to be folks in the media has have had their words printed in Media Matters or are fans of the folks in media, who know of Media Matters because those said media folks (O'Reilly among them) go off on Media Matters often. How many of these people know anything about Media Matters that's not from the right wing? How many people know that it is merely a watchdog report that has the actual words from the media source for all to see...?
Actually I have tried with some success to pepper and salt my listening, viewing and reading pleasures. I have listened to those you mention; I have read others; I subscribe to Media Matters, and a vast array of other politically correct, and incorrect blogs, and news journals.
The intention of folks like Media Matters is to examine "mass media" with a eye to pointing out distortion, and unravel the mystery of pundits. I fail to see how examining the media is an attack. Disagreement is not attack, it is merely disagreement of perceived information--often misinformation.
We have too many loose cannons on the news channels these days, especially with the introduction of cable networks. It appears that today anything is considered news. I believe news is reporting not providing personal commentary that supports personal belief, and not evident truth.
I agree with you on a need to examine the media. I would question whether groups like media matters examine both sides of the media though - particularly if Hillary helped create it. Things like the story about Rush (I'm not a fan of Rush either) seem to be more about damaging him that about correcting misinformation. In addition, his whole show is editorial and not a news report which is an important distinction.
There is no denying that everything Media Matters points out is something they feel the conservatives are doing wrong. That doesn't make them incorrect when they do it, but what it makes them is one sided. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are not. As for letting the reader decide from the transcript, that doesn't mean that they are correct in their arguments. What it does is paints a picture first, and then props it up on a transcript.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, but I am saying its obvious they are left winged, and they have a problem with a lot of stuff the right does. So they are looking for any opportunity to point out a problem, but often end up making a big deal out of nothing.
This is the same thing you see on Newsbusters or Newsmax. No difference, except for which side each is taking.
Last edited by TXboomerang; 10-03-2007 at 02:20 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
