The organization is funded by George Soros and run by leftist David Brock. And Brock is close to Bill Clinton's former chief of staff John Podesta, founder of the powerhouse Democratic think tank Center for American Progress. Podesta is one of Hillary Clinton's top policy advisers.
You might as well reference The Onion or BushAwol.com.
2007-10-02 05:03:31 · 21 answers · asked by PNAC ~ Penelope 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I saw that and decided not to bother responding. That's why I generally use sources that aren't considered to be biased because, the left will jump onto you like you're the first meal they've ever eaten.
These are the same people who quote moveon garbage. Let the brainwashing commence.
2007-10-02 05:08:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋
Republicans - Why do you reference FoxNews an organization funded by Ropurt Murdoch and employs such propganidts as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc. they have been known to pay pundits for support of particular issues. They spout completely unresearched stories only to briefly go back and say they were wrong to a much much smaller audience.
Come on people, realize that both sides have an agenda, both sides have pundits and neither side is without sin. I get so sick of hearing the libs complain about the "pro-business conservative media" and the conservatives turn around and complain about the "hollywood controlled liber media." Look some news sources have a conservative bias, some have a liberal bias, some due try to report the facts and only the facts without any spin. We all know which ones have a bias so when you are reading a report that has a bias take the information, just know nad understand that you are getting a biased view. Do your own research on top of that and try to come up with the truth.
2007-10-02 13:12:30 · answer #2 · answered by labken1817 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Do you have prove that George Soros funds this organization? You can't prove it because George Soros has never given money to media matters. Media Matters has proven that time and time again despite Hannities claim. I suggest you do your own homework before you buy into his lies and propaganda. And do you have proof that David Brock has close ties to chief of staff John Podesta? Please prove where they have been wrong. BTW, Media matters has been around alot longer than Clinton was president. They just weren't online. Please prove your assertions when you make these statements. Media matters has proven to be correct in all matters concerning the media and how they portray what's going on in D.C and the world. And, they have been openly critical of both parties and all branches of government. They back up their NEWS with real journalists, video and real life speakers, politicians and people who are involved with what is going on. That is alot more than anyone can say about Limbaugh or Fox who are nothing but Corporate media right wing propaganda tools for the GOP. Neither one of them report the news. It's a joke and they have you people completely buying into it. They've proven that for as long as they have existed. Rupert Murdoch even admitted that Fox was conservative and created to promote Reagan and a conservative agenda in an interview I saw with him back in the 1980's. I guess there really are suckers born every minute and they all believe Limbaugh and Fox media.
2007-10-02 12:13:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think Media Matters has just a LITTLE more credibility than The Onion or BushAwol.com.....
If you want to be taken seriously, why do you post with a fake picture of some blond female?
2007-10-02 12:24:36 · answer #4 · answered by Frank 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
lol. As if Rush Limbaugh and Fox News weren't saturated with Republican money and owners.
Media Matters quotes the words from the speakers' mouths, and provides a lot of context. It also links videos. That's why they are reliable.
However, I'd read give credence to an honest refutation of Media Matters if there was one.
2007-10-02 12:10:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Your ID says everything....PNAC. I have visited that web site as well and read their "ideology". Therefore, it is difficult if not almost impossible to take anything that you say seriously. For every site that can be referenced on the liberal side, there is an opposing site for the conservative, for left-wing zealots there is a site for right-wing zealots. These extreme ideologies and the persistence in belief that only one side can be right is what is truly dividing our nation. I see you as part of the problem, not the solution.
2007-10-02 13:03:42 · answer #6 · answered by Becca 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Hi Penelope,
Not me, lately I have been using Newsweek and National Geographic for my news regarding Al Qaeda.
xtra.Newsweek.com
Special Report September 3, 2007
ngm.com/0709.
Struggle for the Soul of Pakistan
by Don Belt
The people who reference Media Matters are part of the far-far-far Left and Do Not speak for the Majority of Democrats
So.. You can go ahead and ignore them !
I also trust - 60 Minutes, Christiane Amanpour, All of the major 1/2hour news programs (even fox), and PBS.
Have a good day :)
"D"
--------------
p.s.
I still think your a guy pretending to be a woman, but as a Liberal I'm tolerant of all and am cool with your right to present yourself as a pretty women.
2007-10-02 12:27:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
For the same reason they reference any other number of left wing and very biased sources, because they are saying what the left actually believes. I find it amusing that so many of them complain endlessly about Fox News and the likes of Rush Limbaugh, but think nothing of believing absolute propaganda sources of their own. The extreme left doesn't care about being taken seriously by moderates or right wingers. Their opinion is, they speak, you listen and accept. If you refuse to accept then they will either try to legislate you into acceptance, or make every attempt to destroy you. Either way they will never accept opinions which are not endorsed by dyed in the wool liberals, no matter how many facts you present to support your case. That's the beauty of hypocrisy. To some degree everyone is guilty of it, but few will ever admit to it as they accuse the other side of the same behavior.
2007-10-02 12:19:23 · answer #8 · answered by Bryan 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I don't. But do you realize how many times Conservatives repeat Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, Levin, Savage , and any of the other radio clones.
They have zero credibility.
by the way, YOU might have more credibility IF you would have posted at least one lie told on this site. I can post daily likes told by the people I listed.
2007-10-02 12:07:21 · answer #9 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 9⤊ 1⤋
You do cite their backer and founder, but you fail to cite instances where they've been proven wrong. Yes, they are a liberal site, I admit. But they also tell the truth, which is why we refer to them. Personally, I don't refer to them, but I can certainly understand why others do.
2007-10-02 12:10:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
The same reason you guys always reference Fox news. It is run by right wingers...what's the difference? Btw, I have never heard of Media Matters...apparently you guys give it more creedence than we do.
2007-10-02 12:07:19 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 12⤊ 0⤋