How reliable is "Media Matters" at getting anything right?

[Melensdad]

Given this: http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?t=45903

And dozens of other examples, one has to ask, has Media Matters actually gotten anything correct?

We know that super-wealthy liberals founded and fund Media Matters. The list of well known uber-libs includes George Soros as the main patron of Media Matters, but other known lefties include Leo Hindery Jr. (cable TV exec), James Hormel, Bren Simon (Simon Malls), and Susie Tompkins Buell (Esprit Clothing).

Other major donors are leftist foundations and include: the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, whose president is PBS pundit Bill Moyers ($500,000 in 2005), the Gruber Family Foundation ($200,000 in 2004-5), the Barbra Streisand Foundation $25,000 ($35,000 in 2004-5), the Arca Foundation ($100,000 in 2004), and the Bernard & Audre Rapoport Foundation ($50,000 in 2005).

The Bohemian Foundation gave $475,000 in2004-5. Its president is Colorado heir Patricia Stryker. The Glaser Progress Foundation, whose president is Real Networks media software creator Rob Glaser, gave $100,000 in 2005.

At least two funders –the Stephen M. Silberstein Foundation ($100,000 in 2003) and the Susie Tompkins Buell Foundation ($200,000 in 2004)— gave money to MMFA through the Tides Foundation, which serves as a financial intermediary for left-wing nonprofits and foundations.

The press also reports that the Democracy Alliance, the Soros-inspired consortium of extremely wealthy liberal donors, has committed to give $50 million to selected left-wing think tanks and advocacy organizations. MMFA and John Podesta’s Center for American Progress were among the first beneficiaries.

So all that said, can we trust Media Matters to provide any tid bit of the truth when it reports

sources: A B C D

 

[DaveNay]

Bob, it's probably not the best plan to link to a forum post that not everyone has access to.

 

[Melensdad]

Bob, it's probably not the best plan to link to a forum post that not everyone has access to.

Well more correctly, everyone has access to it but some choose not have their access active.

Still your point is made. So I will provide more information.

It was alleged by MEDIA MATTERS that FOX News "spun" a story. I provided ample evidence that Media Matters actually got the story wrong and Fox got it correct.

Fox Spins Health Care Ruling To Declare "Victory" For Opponents
March 04, 2011 4:51 pm ET — 12 Comments
Fox News has declared that the latest ruling by a Florida judge on litigation over the constitutionality of the health care reform law handed a "victory to health care opponents." In fact, the ruling actually allowed the government to go forward with enforcement of the law, and at least one Republican governor opposed to the law has stated that, in light of the ruling, he will restart his state's efforts to implement the law.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201103040036?lid=1158313&rid=59390359

FOX reported it correctly. The judge did hand a victory to those who oppose ObamaCare. The judge later stated that he considered his ruling to be followed by the Obama Administration and that meant that they should have stopped.

Further, the judge has clarified his ruling and has bitchslapped the Obama administration for their stalling techniques. Instead of filing an appeal Holder and his justice dept. crew filed for a 'clarification.' This week the same judge issued another statement 'clarifying' and outright telling the Obama administration that they need to stop delaying, they have 7 days to file an appeal, or they must cease implementation of ObamaCare in its entirety.

Dozens, if not hundreds of sources show that Media Matters missed the facts and reported its bias. Here are just a couple:

Florida judge ramps up pressure on Obamacare
March 3rd, 2011 11:49 am PT

“During the four-plus weeks since entry of my order, the defendants have seemingly continued to move forward and implement the act. ... While I believe that my order was as clear and unambiguous as it could be, it is possible that the defendants may have perhaps been confused or misunderstood its import. Accordingly, I will attempt to synopsize the 78-page order and clarify its intended effect.”
​

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Florida judge ramps up pressure on Obamacare - Los Angeles Women's Health | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/women-s-hea...-ramps-up-pressure-on-obamacare#ixzz1FpMnClNk

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/judge-orders-expedited-appeal-obamacare

Judge Orders 'Expedited Appeal' of Obamacare for the Good of the Nation
Friday, March 04, 2011
By Susan Jones

(CNSNews.com) - A federal judge in Florida, clearly annoyed by the Justice Department's request for "clarification" of his ruling that the new health care law is unconstitutional, on Thursday granted a stay of his February ruling -- but only if the government files an appeal seeking an expedited review of that ruling, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court, within 7 days.

Judge Roger Vinson noted that the Obama administration has had more than a month to file an appeal and has not yet done so. "It should not be at all difficult or challenging to 'fast-track' this case," he wrote in his clarification.

"It is very important to everyone in this country that this case move forward as soon as practically possible."

In clarifying his order, Judge Vinson noted that he declared the health care law's individual mandate unconstitutional -- and because the individual mandate provision cannot be separated from the rest of the law, "the entire legislation was void."​

and

http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/03/judge-clarifies-that-when-he-d

Judge Clarifies That When He Declared ObamaCare Void, He Really Meant It

. . . The attorneys representing the plaintiffs, who include Florida and 25 other states, argued that the administration's "motion to clarify" was actually a veiled request to have Vinson stay (i.e., set aside) his original order blocking implementation. Vinson agreed, and therefore treated the Obama administration's "motion to clarify" as a motion to stay, which he granted. Vinson made clear, however, that if the administration fails to file a notice of appeal by March 10 or fails to seek an expedited appeal either with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, then his stay will lift and the administration will (once again) be barred from implementing or enforcing ObamaCare. In other words, Vinson prevented the Obama administration from treating his stay as an excuse to ignore his ruling while the further entrenching the law . . .​

 

[Cowboy]

I bet its going to be perty quite in this thread . Good finds MD .

 

[Melensdad]

Good finds MD

Actually its so easy to find errors in Media Matters information that I deserve zero credit.

I trust Media Matters less than I trust Wikipedia or World Net Daily. And both WND and Wikipedia are very dubious sources. Neither can be trusted as a primary source. Yet Media Matters seems to hold accuracy to an even LOWER standard than those sources.

 

[DaveNay]

Actually its so easy to find errors in Media Matters information that I deserve zero credit.

I trust Media Matters less than I trust Wikipedia or World Net Daily. And both WND and Wikipedia are very dubious sources. Neither can be trusted as a primary source. Yet Media Matters seems to hold accuracy to an even LOWER standard than those sources.

NONE of the media can be trusted. They all have clear bias. Hell, FOX recently showed a clip of "violent" protesters in Madison, WI where there were palm trees in the background (the footage was from CA, not WI).

 

[mak2]

NONE of the media can be trusted. They all have clear bias. Hell, FOX recently showed a clip of "violent" protesters in Madison, WI where there were palm trees in the background (the footage was from CA, not WI).

That I have to agree with Dave, if there was just a news outlet that specialized in fact.