Jump to content

Media Matters for America: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Sorry, but SC is a comedian doing a parody. This really has no relevance to MM.
Undid revision 183565451 by Arzel (talk)How is his opinion less valid than the opinion of the National Review?
Line 65: Line 65:


In September 2007, the [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]] ''[[National Review]]'' accused Media Matters of creating a "phony controversy" and trying to "manufacture outrage" regarding [[Rush Limbaugh]]'s [[Reid-Limbaugh_letter_controversy|controversial remark about "phony soldiers"]]. ''The National Review'' wrote that Media Matters took Limbaugh out of context and suggested that they may have intended to present a "completely false account of what happened".<ref>{{cite news | last = Wehner | first = Peter | title = Phony Controversy | work = [[The National Review]] | date = September 28, 2007 | url = http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdhNzdlNmVlMjQ0ZDY1ZTAxOWU0NmM4YWQzMTQyNzQ | accessdate = 2007-10-05 }}</ref> Media Matters has argued that their item was accurate and included context and that Limbaugh and his defenders sought to remove context to cast his remarks in a more favorable light.<ref>http://mediamatters.org/items/200710060005?f=h_top</ref>
In September 2007, the [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]] ''[[National Review]]'' accused Media Matters of creating a "phony controversy" and trying to "manufacture outrage" regarding [[Rush Limbaugh]]'s [[Reid-Limbaugh_letter_controversy|controversial remark about "phony soldiers"]]. ''The National Review'' wrote that Media Matters took Limbaugh out of context and suggested that they may have intended to present a "completely false account of what happened".<ref>{{cite news | last = Wehner | first = Peter | title = Phony Controversy | work = [[The National Review]] | date = September 28, 2007 | url = http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdhNzdlNmVlMjQ0ZDY1ZTAxOWU0NmM4YWQzMTQyNzQ | accessdate = 2007-10-05 }}</ref> Media Matters has argued that their item was accurate and included context and that Limbaugh and his defenders sought to remove context to cast his remarks in a more favorable light.<ref>http://mediamatters.org/items/200710060005?f=h_top</ref>

In October 2008, [[Stephen Colbert]] pointed out that Media Matters often creates controversy by highlighting statements meant to be heard only by those who already agree with right-wing commentators:
<blockquote>Hatemongers like Media Matters take innocent statements like mine, Rush Limbaugh's, John Gibson's, and Bill O'Reilly's and make them offensive by posting them on the Internet, allowing the general public to hear words that were meant for people who already agree with us. Hey, Media Matters, you want to end offensive speech? Then stop recording it for people who would be offended.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://mediamatters.org/items/200710090001 |title=Colbert: "Hey, Media Matters, you want to end offensive speech? Then stop recording it for people who would be offended." |accessdate=2008-01-09}}</ref></blockquote>[]


==Footnotes==
==Footnotes==

Revision as of 20:19, 11 January 2008

Screenshot from Media Matters for America (Jan 6, 2006)

Media Matters for America (or MMfA) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock. Media Matters for America describes itself as "a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Media Matters for America defines "conservative misinformation" as "news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda."[1]

Research Work

Media Matters uses a variety of techniques to demonstrate how it believes information is manipulated by right-wing media figures. Employing methods such as content analysis, fact checking, monitoring, and comparison of quotes or presentations from media figures to primary documents such as Pentagon or Government Accountability Office reports, MMfA provides daily analysis to its readers.[2]

Media Matters analyzes the dominant American news sources. Networks reviewed include NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and FOX News Channel. Newspapers that are subject to scrutiny include The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New York Post, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today. Journalists and personalities investigated by Media Matters also include Brit Hume, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, John Gibson, Shepard Smith, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and Pat Robertson.

Media Matters also posts video clips. For example, they host clips of Keith Olbermann, from MSNBC's show "Countdown," criticizing Bill O'Reilly for allegedly making factual errors and gaffes in his reporting.[3][4]

On April 4, 2007, Media Matters for America monitored the Imus in the Morning broadcast when Don Imus referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team members as "nappy-headed hos." The organization posted their view of this comment and later a video clip on the Internet, and sent out a bulk emailing to individual journalists and to the National Association of Black Journalists, eventually resulting in CBS Radio and MSNBC canceling his program.[5]

Analysis of weekend television commentary

On February 14, 2006, the organization published a study of the guest appearances on ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press from 1997 through 2005. This study examined over 7,000 guests as either Democrat, Republican, conservative, progressive, or neutral. Media Matters stated: "The conclusion is clear: Republicans and conservatives have been offered more opportunities to appear on the Sunday shows - in some cases, dramatically so."[6] The American Spectator later criticized this study for allegedly characterizing "progressive" commentators as "neutral" in its underlying methodogy.[7]

A second analysis was published April 4, 2006 examining Sunday news programs from January through March 2006.[8] Media Matters reported: "Republican and conservative dominance continued unabated, as those from the right outnumbered Democrats and their progressive compatriots." Besides the political stance of the guests, "the Sunday shows feature panel discussions comprising conservative journalists and opinion writers "balanced" by reporters for mainstream news outlets -- with no progressive journalist."

The third study was released July 20, 2006 concluding "Republicans and conservatives dominated on all three Sunday shows."[9][10] Media Matters stated that "Republicans and conservatives outnumbered Democrats and progressives in total guest appearances," more particularly Face the Nation "featured nearly twice as many Republicans and conservatives as Democrats and progressives during the second quarter."[9]

Analysis of syndicated editorial columns

On September 12, 2006, Media Matters published a study examining 1,377 U.S. newspapers and the 201 syndicated political columnists the papers carry on a regular basis. According to Media Matters' analysis, conservative pundits appear in three times as many papers and reach many more readers than do progressives/liberals.[11] Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review criticized Media Matters for allegedly conducting what Steigerwald called "a skewed study" in order to prove that conservative columnists outnumber progressives.[12]

Misinformer of the Year

An annual feature on the Media Matters website was the title of "Misinformer of the Year," which was awarded to the journalist, commentator, and/or network which, in the opinion of Media Matters, was responsible for the most numerous and/or grievous factual errors and claims. The complete list of awardees of "Misinformer of the Year" is as follows:

In 2007, the "Misinformer of the Year" item was discontinued in favor of a new feature with a similar focus, "Misinformation of the Year." This feature instead looks at a particular behavior Media Matters believes is being repeated in the mainstream media. In 2007, the "Misinformation of the Year" article focused on the controversy regarding Don Imus and his inflammatory remarks concerning the Rutgers women's basketball team, as well as other instances of offensive and degrading remarks towards certain people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and ethnicity.

Affiliations

Chapters

In July 2006, Media Matters for America launched its first state chapter, Colorado Media Matters. Media Matters recruited Colorado natives to run Colorado Media Matters and to analyze the local state media using the original Media Matters' research techniques.

Funding sources

In May 2004, the New York Times reported that Media Matters has received "more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals" and "was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress".[16] According to the Cybercast News Service, Media Matters has received financial support from MoveOn.org, Peter Lewis, and the New Democratic Network.[17]

According to Bill O'Reilly and others, George Soros is funding Media Matters through Democracy Alliance -- an organization of progressive donors.[18][19] The Democracy Alliance does not collect and distribute money on behalf of its members. Alliance members donate directly to the organizations of their choice.[20] Media Matters has stated publicly on numerous occasions that Soros has never given money to the organization either directly or through another organization.[21][22][23]

Criticism

On August 19, 2005, Media Matters posted an item regarding a letter that Cliff Kincaid, editor from the 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."[24] 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.[25] 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."[26]

Bill O'Reilly, who is frequently a target of Media Matters' criticisms and a frequent critic of Media Matters, has accused them of "specializing in distorting comments made by politicians, pundits, and media people" while "smearing" those who do not agree with "left wing politics" such as Senator Joseph Lieberman[27] and has compared the organization to the Ku Klux Klan.[28] 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.[29][30] 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.[31] 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."[32] 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."[33]

In September 2007, the conservative National Review accused Media Matters of creating a "phony controversy" and trying to "manufacture outrage" regarding Rush Limbaugh's controversial remark about "phony soldiers". The National Review wrote that Media Matters took Limbaugh out of context and suggested that they may have intended to present a "completely false account of what happened".[34] Media Matters has argued that their item was accurate and included context and that Limbaugh and his defenders sought to remove context to cast his remarks in a more favorable light.[35]

In October 2008, Stephen Colbert pointed out that Media Matters often creates controversy by highlighting statements meant to be heard only by those who already agree with right-wing commentators:

Hatemongers like Media Matters take innocent statements like mine, Rush Limbaugh's, John Gibson's, and Bill O'Reilly's and make them offensive by posting them on the Internet, allowing the general public to hear words that were meant for people who already agree with us. Hey, Media Matters, you want to end offensive speech? Then stop recording it for people who would be offended.[36]

[]

Footnotes

  1. ^ ""About Media Matters"". Media Matters for America. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ MMfA has used the Government Accountability Office in make fact-checking articles. For example, GMA, CNN, print media fail to challenge Bush's missile defense claim. Pentagon reports have been used to debunk claims of WMD claims, such as Hannity criticized media, Bush administration...
  3. ^ "Olbermann hosted authors of Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly" (Press release). Media Matters for America. 2006-05-01. Retrieved 2006-06-06. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ "Olbermann named O'Reilly "Worst Person" for establishing "Hall of Shame" for media that "smear" him" (Press release). Media Matters for America. 2006-04-27. Retrieved 2006-06-06. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ Barnes, Brooks; et al. (April 13, 2007). "Behind the Fall of Imus, A Digital Brush Fire". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2007-09-09. {{cite news}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)
  6. ^ "If It's Sunday, It's Conservative". Media Matters for America. February 14, 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-04.
  7. ^ Tabin, John (2006-02-21). "Garbage In, Garbage Out, Continued". AmSpec Blog. The American Spectator. Retrieved 2007-01-30.
  8. ^ "If It's Sunday, It's Still Conservative". Media Matters for America. April 4, 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-04.
  9. ^ a b Third time's not the charm: Sunday-morning talk shows still imbalanced. Media Matters for America, July 20, 2006
  10. ^ "Media Watch: Sunday Morning Blues?". Retrieved 2007-09-26.
  11. ^ "Black and White and Re(a)d All Over: The Conservative Advantage in Syndicated Op-Ed Columnists". Media Matters for America. September 12, 2006. Retrieved 2007-11-04.
  12. ^ "Media Matters study fatally flawed". Retrieved 2007-10-18.
  13. ^ "Misinformer of the Year: Bill O'Reilly of FOX News Channel". Media Matters for America. December 23, 2004. Retrieved 2007-08-14.
  14. ^ "Misinformer of the Year: Chris Matthews of MSNBC". Media Matters for America. December 23, 2005. Retrieved 2007-08-14.
  15. ^ "Misinformer of the Year: ABC". Media Matters for America. December 22, 2006. Retrieved 2007-01-14.
  16. ^ Rutenberg, Jim (May 3, 2004). "New Internet Site Turns Critical Eyes and Ears to the Right". New York Times. p. A21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  17. ^ Morano, Marc (March 03, 2005). "David Brock Group Backpedals on Soros Funding". Cybercast News Service. Retrieved 2007-09-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  18. ^ "New Alliance Of Democrats Spreads Funding". Retrieved 2006-07-17.
  19. ^ "'Factor Investigation': George Soros". Retrieved 2007-09-26.
  20. ^ "Big $$ for Progressive Politics". Retrieved 2007-10-16.
  21. ^ "Search Results: Soros has never given money to Media Matters - Media Matters". Retrieved 2007-10-16.
  22. ^ "Wash. Times op-ed expanded on O'Reilly's false attacks about Soros and Media Matter". 2007-04-27. Retrieved 2007-09-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  23. ^ "O'Reilly accused Media Matters of lying about Soros funding". 2007-05-09. Retrieved 2007-09-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  24. ^ "AIM's Kincaid posted "letter" from Afghan ambassador thanking him for petition to extradite Newsweek's Isikoff". Retrieved 2007-10-04.
  25. ^ "Reply from Cliff Kinciad". Retrieved 2007-10-04.
  26. ^ "Kincaid denounced "false" Media Matters item but failed to point out a single falsehood". Retrieved 2007-10-04.
  27. ^ "Buying Political Power". Retrieved 2007-10-04.
  28. ^ "Media Does Matter: Just Ask Bill O'Reilly". Retrieved 2007-10-04.
  29. ^ Bauder, David (2007-09-26). "Bill O'Reilly Says He's Being Smeared". AP. Retrieved 2007-09-26.
  30. ^ "CNN Goes Over to the Dark Side". Retrieved 2007-10-04.
  31. ^ "Media Matters and the Corrupt Press on the Run". Retrieved 2007-10-04.
  32. ^ "Media Matters' Waldman: "[I]f Bill O'Reilly got caught robbing a bank he would say he was taken out of context"". Retrieved 2007-09-26.
  33. ^ ""What Bill O'Reilly Really Told Me"". Retrieved 2007-10-03.
  34. ^ Wehner, Peter (September 28, 2007). "Phony Controversy". The National Review. Retrieved 2007-10-05.
  35. ^ http://mediamatters.org/items/200710060005?f=h_top
  36. ^ "Colbert: "Hey, Media Matters, you want to end offensive speech? Then stop recording it for people who would be offended."". Retrieved 2008-01-09.

See also

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_Matters_for_America&oldid=183698169"