The Media Matters Modus Operandi
You know Media Matters, right? The George Soros-funded, Duncan ‘Atrios’ Black (aka The World’s Laziest Blogger, aka Open Thread)-employing home for hackery? If you’re not familiar with it, you should correct that, because it’s one of the most surefire addresses for hilarity on the Net.
A perfect example of how Media Matters catches ‘bias’ is this howler. Here’s how it works: come up with some obscure justification for a Democratic misdeed (in this case, ‘Dirty’ Harry Reid’s million-dollar-plus, improperly disclosed land windfall), then accuse the networks of bias for not tying this obscure justification into a totally unrelated story.
If it sounds ludicrous, that’s because it is (and did I mention hilarious? I’m actually laughing as I type this). But see for yourself:
Evening news programs on ABC and CBS made no mention that federal agents raided the homes of Rep. Curt Weldon’s (R-PA) daughter and her business partner, as well as four additional locations, as part of a reported investigation into whether Weldon improperly assisted their company. NBC’s Nightly News did report on the raids, but NBC devoted equal time to Democratic Sen. Harry Reid’s announcement that he would issue updated disclosure forms to add more details of a land transaction, without noting a key difference: There are no allegations that Reid used his office to benefit from the land deal.
My God! Who’s running those networks, Karl Rove? Of all the dastardly…
You can’t make up stuff this good…
UPDATE 11:18 p.m.: Another spinetingling piece of awful bias uncovered: who knew vulnerable incumbents could actually lead slightly in polls? Grab a dictionary, quick!..
Speaking of Reid, I suppose you’ve heard he’s living at the Ritz, which prompted this post, notable mostly for the links at the bottom, particularly the last one.
Mark, by the way, regarding the 527 situation in Colorado: Q3 reports were posted today at irs.gov. Two ultra-wealty ultra-libs, Pat Stryker and Tim Gill, contributed more than $3.2 million to organizations they set up to take their contributions.
Just in the 3rd Quarter.
And on top of that, Stryker & Gill, last week, contributed $720,000 and $250,000, respectively, to a 527 whose raison d’etre is to depose Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO4).
This is an extremely dangerous situation that will be coming to a state near you, as soon as your ultra-rich ultra-libs get back from next year’s convocation of the Aspen Institute.
Final note: You know how Rahm Emanuel was bitching about Soros sitting this one out? He’s given $1.6 million, YTD, to America Votes 2006, which I presume is the D’s GOTV fund this year.
I remember debating Peter regarding this site’s relevancy awhile back, but I still cannot understand why anyone takes their claims of “conservative media bias” seriously.
So, I take it that all you guys are fans of Savage and the like?
No, not at all, but thank you for assuming…
Here’s how it works: come up with some obscure justification for a Democratic misdeed (in this case, ‘Dirty’ Harry Reid’s million-dollar-plus, improperly disclosed land windfall)
Mark, that parenthetical is a bit of a howler itself. Reid’s deal wasn’t some windfall. It went up in value because the entire Las Vegas real estate market shot up in value. And the only thing that was improperly disclosed was the fact that the property was owned via an LLC (Reid reported that he owned it outright). This was a minor reporting violation and there’s been no credible allegations that Reid in any way abused the power of his office. Contrast that with the recent deal Dennis Hastert was involved in where he personally pushed through an earmark that caused a piece of land he owned to skyrocket in value.
The “George Soros-funded” line is pretty weak. Just about every right-wing media outlet, magazine, and a number of blogs are underwritten by conservative donors. So what. Media Matters, compared to many other sites, has a pretty good reputation for accuracy. You can quibble with their assessment of the implication of the facts they site, but they’re usually right about the facts.
I submit that media watchdogs in general are prone to absurd claims, perhaps because they need to come up with new content as much as other sites, and it’s easy enough to make strange claims. It’s a structural problem, not one of virtue (see also: the oft preposterous Bozell operations [or, in the patter of the day: the Scaife-funded, Bozell-employing home of hackery])
jpe, you make some good points, and Anonymous – hey, I stand by the post. The entire premise is absurd: a story about Harry Reid didn’t mention a raid on Curt Weldon’s daughter…you know, I read an article about the midterm elections today, and it didn’t mention the JFK assassination!…
I must be missing the point here. Media Matters points out that in covering the Weldon story, two networks did not mention the fact that his daughter’s house was raided. One would think this is newsworthy: the fact that federal agents were involved suggests that there may be some substance to the allegations.
Then in reporting on the one network which did report the story, it noted that NBC ran a story of similar length on Harry Reid without noting that the Weldon case involved improper financial gain while the Reid story (apparently) does not. As far as I can tell — and I haven’t been following it closely — it is more of a disclosure problem than a case where Reid was able to benefit from his position in office (unlike Hastert owning land which rose in value as a result of a Congressional appropriation).
Presumably the implication was that an NBC viewer would conflate the Reid and Weldon stories and conclude that Reid had an improper gain. Is this the most Earth-shattering piece of news that day? No. Is it worthy of mention? Maybe. However, I don’t see what justifies inclusion in the “howler” rubric.
‘So, I take it that all you guys are fans of Savage and the like?”
Let me help you with a delusion. Savage might have a fan base of 3 million, and I am being kind. Almost 40 million people voted in 02 for a republican.
Savage would ‘likely’ command, less than 3% of the people who vote for the gop in an off year election. Go back to school and retake probability. or ask a conservative to explain math to you.
The entire premise is absurd: a story about Harry Reid didn’t mention a raid on Curt Weldon’s daughter…you know, I read an article about the midterm elections today, and it didn’t mention the JFK assassination!…
Mark, you might want to go back and reread the Media Matter item. You’re totally mischaracterizing it. The post made two seperate points. First, that two networks completely ignored an important story–that a Congressman’s daughter’s home was raided as a part of a significant corruption investigation involving that Congressman. That’s a highly news-worthy event and it was completely ignored by two stations.
Then they make a second point. The NBC Nightly News, which did report on the Weldon investigation, followed it by giving equal time to the Reid story. But considering Weldon is being investigated for criminal corruption and Reid isn’t even alleged to have done anything more than commit a highly technical reporting violation, giving equal time to these two stories seems ridiculous and reflects the media’s excrutiatingly annoying need to always appear “even-handed.”
At no point in the post does Media Matters complain that a story about Harry Reid failed to mention Congressman Weldon, as you suggest.
Okay, fine, maybe I played it a little strong, but the pattern is the same: pick some obviously Democrat-leaning spin (as you yourself do with the Reid story, with the fallback to the tired ‘technical violation’ excuse), and then fault the networks for not giving that spin in their stories.
Well, who the hell are the story editors? The employees of the networks, or the employees of Media Matters? I might as well write a post critical of the networks for not adopting my stance on the Lancet survey…it’s foolish to assume that because you or I see things one way, the fact that the three major television networks don’t adopt our preferred viewing ‘lens’ is evidence of bias.
Naturally, George Soros (sorry, Media Matters) would like to have corruption charges against a Republican played up and charges against a Democrat played down. Let him buy the network, drop all pretense of objectivity, and write his own copy.
And yes, I’m aware that same criticism can be leveled against the right and its obsession with liberal media bias (and I’ll go you one better and admit I’ve ridden that horse a time or two myself. I’ve never claimed to be immune from hypocrisy)…
I expect MediaMatters will be making a public apology for getting the “10 Most Vulnerable…” wrong.
To wit:
1) Historically, incumbents trending less than 50% in polls lose. Mendez, Stabenaw & Bean, altho they are leading, they are trending below 50%. Looking at those numbers humbly submitted by MM, having between 14% & 17% undecideds is not a good sign for an incumbent, especially if the mood is to throw the bums out. This qualifies as being vulnerable.
2) Gizi also showed that historically, appointed incumbents lose. MM is too lazy to show why this is disputeable. Wait a minute, Mark already said ‘lazy’.
3) Come to think of it, Gizi gave all the reasons to support his assessment, yet all MM can do is point to disparate polls and talk about the fact their guy ‘leads’. And to date, Soros has won how many elections with an upset? Talk about a lazy & lame counterpoint.
Attention to all nutroots, call me when you really have won something significant and I’ll re-evaluate. bwhahaha
Yeah, except there is such a thing as objective truth. In the case of Weldon, there is an actual federal investigation going on. And the charges are serious. Corruption, bribery, abuse of power, etc. In the case of Reid, there is nothing but an allegation of improper reporting of ownership. That is, at worst, an minor ethics violation, not a crime. That’s just a fact. That’s not me playing anything down. There’s not even an allegation that Reid improperly used his power.
I realize there is spin on both sides, as always, but at the end of the day, not all allegations of impropriety are created equal and deserve equal billing.
Actually, there have been numerous allegations of Reid abusing his power: accepting free ringside seats valued at thousands of dollars to big Vegas boxing matches,tipping the staff at the Ritz-Carlton(!!!) with campaign funds…Ritz-Carlton, million-dollar plus land windfalls, high-dollar Vegas perks – yeah, he’s quite the paragon of virtue. ‘Public servant’, my eye…
Or to put it another way: how come all this smoke always surrounds Reid, but his defenders claim there’s never been a fire?…of course, it’s probably next to impossible to be an honest politician, least of all in Nevada…
One more point about this Reid vs. Weldon thing: Weldon is a member of the House, Reid is the Senate Minority Leader; of course stories about Reid are going to get more play…
And for more light on the subject:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610180011
Actually, there have been numerous allegations of Reid abusing his power: accepting free ringside seats valued at thousands of dollars to big Vegas boxing matches,tipping the staff at the Ritz-Carlton(!!!) with campaign funds…Ritz-Carlton, million-dollar plus land windfalls, high-dollar Vegas perks – yeah, he’s quite the paragon of virtue. ‘Public servant’, my eye…
I don’t know if Reid is squeekly clean, but everything you list here has been badly distorted and over-hyped. And virtually all of these “allegations” are the handiwork of John Solomon of the AP who has some sort of weird obsession with Reid and is apparently willing to go to press with any stupid charge RNC oppo researchers can dredge up, no matter how trivial and distorted.
Yes, and Nixon was hounded by those punks Woodward and Bernstein…
Speaking of hypocritical leadership, I saw something on Nancy Pelosi last night. Quite the working-man’s defender and in bed with the unions. Looking at her record just boggles the mind with twist, turns and contradiction. Bottomline, she out for hers and the common man be damned.
To wit, her ownership in a union-free upscale hotel, yet not a peep from the union?
Of course not, now we know why: What’s a few hundred employees compared to hundreds of thousands potential new members that her San Francisco Values would bring. Especially if she takes the reins from the GOP after the election.
I just read yesterday’s WSJ about the upcoming crackdown on port security is expected to affect 100K + truck drivers who are illegal immigrants working for $8/hr – I haven’t seen $8 since the mid 1980s. I would have thot truckers make at least $14/hr. But anyhoo, if illegals get amnesty, there’s a ready segment ripe for recruitment by the unions. And Walmart is the boogeyman for paying $10/hr w/o a union?
There’s more, but she’s not in my State (Whew!!), not in my district (Thank God!) and I’ve got better things to do. I’m just gonna cross my fingers and hope enough people will hold their noses and come out to vote against donks
Walmart actually only pays .25-.50 cents above mininum wage, which in most parts of the country is only 5.15 an hour, and you can only make AT MAXIMUM a .50 raise a year. Wal-mart is the devil.