Now you see it now you don't. Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center launched a campaign to downplay Rush Limbaugh's misogynistic attack on the law student Sandra Fluke. Now for some reason the website IStandWithRush.org now redirects to the MRC's "Tell the Truth!" website. A staffer at Newsbusters has addressed a different problem being that when you click sign it says "error". He says it should be working now, but now the website is gone. Con Web Watch has details and the original website in Google Cache.
Recently after Rush Limbaugh issued a non-apology, Media Research Center (MRC) President Brent Bozell finally spoke out about Limbaugh's attack on Sandra Fluke testifying on contraception.
As the organized left mobilizes to silence once of the most effective conservative voices of our generation, we are providing an opportunity for patriotic Americans to stand with Rush Limbaugh who has fought so hard for our first principles and commonsense conservatism!
Petition States:
I stand with Rush Limbaugh and appreciate the massive contribution that he has made to the conservative movement and our nation over the last 25 years. Rush has apologized. But the radical left will never accept it because they despise him and want him off the air. I condemn attempts by radical left-wing organizations and the media to censor Rush and his commonsense conservative message.
Once again, Bozell is contradicting himself with what he believes censorship is. Also what does patriotism have to do with this? ConWebWatch has pointed out the crucial difference between Sarah Palin and Fluke Bozell is missing when trying to put the same standard on Bill Maher with Sarah Palin.
Palin is a nationally known political figure, while Fluke's testimony was her very first appearance in a major political forum. Also, Maher made his "c-word" attack on Palin in a stand-up comedy appearance in Dallas; Limbaugh ranted for three days about Fluke's sex life on a nationally syndicated radio show. [ConWebWatch 3/5/12]
MRC does not apply their belief of what censorship is with themselves.
"It's not 'censorship' if ABC decides that Mr. Maher's regularly kooky left-wing remarks are too offensive to its audience or advertisers."- Brent Bozell
Petition states: “I demand that NBC take immediate action by terminating the employees who used a Sunday sports broadcast to insult people of faith.”
"It's perfectly acceptable for an organization to lobby to cancel a program they think is inappropriate. I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all."- Brent Bozell Los Angeles Times 3/20/00
The more I watched Fox News and the Daily Caller's endless campaign against Media Matters for American (MMFA), the more conservatives threw up all over each other. In my last video and blog post, I only listed three myths the right wing throws against Media Matters. Now I'm going to go more in detail with the claims of illegality put on Media Matters by the right wing.
I was actually surprised to see Brent Bozell President of the Media Research Center (MRC) go on television to discuss to the recent stories the Daily Caller has put out about Media Matters.
During his interview with Sean Hannity, Bozell actually said he has a policy not to talk about MMFA “Well, let me first preface this by saying as a matter of policy I refuse to talk about this organization. I’m making an exception tonight because I do want to comment on it tonight,”Now that sounds similar to what happened nine months ago when the MRC dodged an appearance Roland Martin discussing the media's role in Obama releasing his long form birth certificate. Knowing MMFA would appear with them Martin said they declined saying "they don't debate Media Matters".
Now its important to know the difference between Media Matters and the Media Research Center since both are considered to be counter parts of each other ideologically. MRC focuses on so called "liberal media bias" and MMFA focuses on conservative misinformation. In my last video and blog post I mentioned how MMFA played a role for me leaving the right wing. MRC also played a role when I compared the two organization. I realized accuracy in the news media is more important than the bias. I'll discuss more about the Media Research Center's propaganda model later.
Bozell made my point when he falsely claimed in order to make a case on MMFA's bias that MMFA took issue with Fox News' conservative commentators and found no bias in its "straight reporting," He said, “They (Media Matters) don’t talk about Bret Baier… they don’t talk about the news, they talk about the commentators.” On the contrary, doing a simple search on their website, and you'll find hundreds of articles criticizing bias from “objective” hosts such as Bret Baier, Martha MacCallum, Megyn Kelly and others. So the word "research" in MRC's name must only be a brand name.
When Bozell was asked by Politico about the parallel between Media Matters and the Media Research Center given that they both criticize the media and they're both are tax exempt organizations, he said:
“Media Matters stands accused of violating its tax-deductible status, and I think that fact speaks for itself.” [Politico 7/1/11]
That was all Bozell had as a response. Apparently according to Bozell's logic until someone accuses his organization of violating its tax exempt status, then their is a parallel. Actually, you can find many parallels between the things the Media Research Center has been of doing and what the Media Matters is also doing that right wing claims is illegal.
Both are in full compliance with the law, but the right wing misinterpreting it much like they do the First Amendment is putting the Media Research Center in the rumble.
Both organizations (MRC and MMFA) are 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations.
Both are ideologically partisan with what with they write about.
Both have pressured advertisers of to drop programs for certain content.
Both have agreed or had agreed that pressuring advertisers to drop an offensive program is not being anti-free speech or pro-censorship which is the charge as of now being put on Media Matters.
Despite the right wing pounding on the organization they can still nothing illegal, unethical, deceptive, or political in promoting or training candidates for office. Their just shooting themselves in the foot over and over and over again. You'd think they'd learn checks from their tactics, but they don't.
Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center appeared on Hannity to discuss the Liberal "Media Mash".
In responding to Chris Mathews comments that Newt Gingrich "looked like a car bomber", Bozell asked what would happen if Sean Hannity said Obama looked like a "A Skinny, Ghetto Crackhead".
He then quickly added that: "which by the way you might want to say that Barack Obama does" "everybody on the left would come foreword and demand he'd be fired"
Well... good thing you don't have a job as a news anchor Brent because I think you would.
Unless you work at Fox News with their tolerance policy for racially offensive and racist statements.
The mindset of the Media Research Center (MRC) and its affiliate CNS News seem to be that it's better to believe something and never look at facts than it is to actually know the facts. They demonstrated that again by posting a Youtube video titled "Dem Lawmaker Questions Drug Tests For Unemployment". In the video, Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) questioned if the lawmakers who created the drug testing provision of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011, read the Constitution. The point the video tries to make is that the congresswomen supposedly said something outrageous. Outrageous as in what? Was something she said factually incorrect or out of touch? Only in the MRC and CNS wing of the conservative movement would you think such criticism of the program is just a bunch of liberal hocus pocus and gibberish. I wonder if they missed Fox News' Megyn Kelly already debunked the right wing claim.
This is the hallmark of the crack pot way of conservative thinking. When you are a self described fiscal conservative, what does that mean? Do you use evidence based economics or what a lot on the right wing call "common sense"? When I say "common sense" I don't mean that if most scientists say the earth revolves around the sun, that's probably the science. The kind of common sense I'm referring to is put out by someone who would say "I'm not a scientist, but I see the sun around revolve around the Earth everyday." In the case of the MRC and CNS News, that's how they think on every issue. They act as if its a religious duty to propagate (not prove) why their version of conservatism works.The propagate instead of prove because as I pointed out in a previous post, MRC is about bias and not accuracy. That is their fundamental difference between their progressive counterpart Media Matters for America. Demagoguery is one of their core principles. They demagog anyone they think is in on the "liberal media" conspiracy and attack anyone who goes after their fellow conservatives. Even if it's simply factually correcting a right wing claim they scream LIBERAL MEDIA! If your not with their team all the way, your against them.
A bombshell has been revealed exposing the Media Research Center (MRC) for the discredited organization that it is. The bombshell is pretty much something that's existed for two and a half years but I don't think anyone has noticed it.
While visiting MRC's website, I hovered my mouse over the resource section,
then clicked on "links", and it came up with this......
WHAT IS THAT?!?!? That looks likes a link to the birther central website WorldNetDaily. As a matter of fact it is.
"The MRC offers the following links as an additional resource for information on various organizations which help expose or counter liberal media bias in the mainstream press."
MRC recommends WorldNetDaily? Its bad enough they recommend the other kook conspiracy organization Accuracy in Media.
Just in case MRC panics and revises their website here's the earliest capture from the Internet Archive.
In my last post I showed the difference between Media Research Center and what could be considered it's liberal counterparts. "Media Matters For America" and "Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting" (FAIR) are the most infamous. The difference is simple: MRC is about bias not accuracy. The blog Left Hook explained this further. Is there a conservative media watchdog organization that cares about accuracy in journalism? Well... one has accuracy in it's name anyway: Accuracy in Media or (AIM). Is it a true counterpart to MMFA and FAIR unlike MRC? No, in fact its as far from them as MRC is.
AIM mainstreams and pushes a conspiratorial mindset engaging in speculation, distorted half-truths, and unproved assertions of fact. In their world facts are NOT irrefutable.
Since it's founding and especially in the election of Obama its legitimized the craziest conspiracy theories and has said the craziest things such as:.
I've been following this awesome blog called LEFT HOOK! BLOG which I've decided I'm going to add to the Blogroll section of my blog. I just read a piece he did about Newsbusters and the Media Research Center. It's exactly what I I've wanted to say about them, but he lays it down best. He explains what the difference is between the conservative MRC and the liberal/progressive MMFA . It's the most important point to make about MRC. Here's just a sample.
From LEFT HOOK! THE BLOG
[...]
The MRC has always portrayed itself as a media watchdog with a conservative bent, but it would be a big mistake to put it in the same pound as liberal media watchdogs like Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), and Media Matters For America (MMFA), and not just because the MRC is extremely conservative. The MRC isn't just a different breed of watchdog. It's an entirely different species from its liberal counterparts.
Media Matters For America lists, as its mission, "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Part of the mission of FAIR can be found in its name--the "A" stands for "Accuracy." These groups are centrally concerned with, among other things, correcting misinformation. Keeping the record straight. The MRC has a very different mission. The legend of Newsbusters reads "Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias." Their more detailed "About" page tells the same story. They're about "bias," not accuracy.
It shows in their work. An incredible amount of misinformation flows forth from Newsbusters, just as it has always flowed forth from the MRC. Newsbusters is afflicted with a depressingly common ailment of the American right, one about which I've written repeatedly over the years; they see politics as a simple contest between good and evil--themselves being good, the "liberals" being evil--and embrace the idea that reality itself can be subservient to and defined by their own momentary political passions. A large segment of the right has, for years, waged open war on the notion that there is any such thing as an objective set of facts about anything. This is done as a means of denying any sort of victory to those whom it sees as enemies--if there are no universally agreed-upon yardsticks, there's nothing against which to measure the conservatives, nothing that can be used to judge them unambiguously wrong. By this view, more broadly, that which they, themselves, believe and want and do is, by definition, that which is true and proper and right. They hold the converse to be true, as well. The reason accuracy isn't listed as a concern of Newsbusters is because, for the conservatives who toil away at it and (most especially) for those who uncritically groove on its work, "liberal" equals, by definition, "misinformation."
[...] Read Left Hook!'s Entire Post
What I posted about the Media Research Center being tax exempt and doing the same phony illegal activities that Media Matters is being attacked for was also posted on Crooks and Liars. It's good that hypocrisy is being talked about and pointed out in the blogosphere.
The idea of Fox News getting high and mighty about Media Matters' DropFox campaign is, well...laughable. However, what might be even more laughable is the idea that they can start a campaign to strip Media Matters of their tax-exempt status. They should be careful what they wish for.
In this clip, viewer Dana Martin from New Orleans tells Fox and Friends why she is so convinced that Media Matters tax-exempt status must be revoked. So convinced, in fact, that she filled in a web form to send a complaint to the IRS about their tax exempt status. And guess where that web form is? On the Fox Nation web page, of course, where else?
But as I said, they should be careful what they wish for. Let's look at some other tax-exempt organizations who also undertake "campaigns" with taxpayer subsidies. There's the Media Research Center, headed by Brent Bozell, who routinely appears on Fox News as a commentator. One look at their website shows that they have some 'projects' of their own which are clearly not educational at all, but purely political. Read Entire Article
There have been new developments since the phony tax-exemption complaint against Media Matters For America. For those who haven't heard, the Fox News Channel has ran several pieces and stories claiming Media Matters is in violation of it's 501(c) 3 tax-exemption status. Taxpayers' Subsidizing Media Matters' War on Fox News and even one on Special Report With Brett Baier. Fox Nation has launched a campaign for it's readers and viewers to file a complaint with the IRS. It will be interesting what the IRS will say after their inbox gets filled with the same complaint.
I posted a video explaining why this is a non story. To summarize it, I explained how Media Matters' criticism of the misinformation on Fox News is no different than the Media Research Center trying to expose and combat Liberal media bias. The MRC also has a tax exemption under 501(c) 3. I've chatted in some forums with people who really believe this is a real story and really think MM is a different case than the MRC.
The excuse is not only pathetic, it's intellectually hilarious.
Last Tuesday (6/21/11), an article in the Washington Times alleged that Media Matters is improperly receiving tax-exempt status. I not going to pretend to be an expert in tax-exempt statuses as said Ellen at Newhounds when discussing this story. I'm just going to offer my observations about this complaint against Media Matters.
Is Media Matters legally tax exempt under 501(c)(3)?
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes. None of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. It may not be an action organization- not attempt to influence legislation or participate in any campaign for or against political candidates. Organizations under 501(c)(3) are also known as charitable organizations. Organizations described in 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170. The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction. 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. See Political and Lobbying Activities, Lobbying Issues
So it seems to me that yes Media Matters is legally tax-exempt under 501(c)(3) as they say on their site.
In a new poll from Boston's Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most and O'Reilly is the most believable.
"This poll shows two things: first, the network news have completely lost their brand. Second, the only network with any intensity is Fox News," says Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center. "Bottom line: the more they attack Fox, the stronger it is getting," he adds.
But at the liberal Media Matters, Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt says the public's trust in Fox is disturbing. A regular Fox critic, he says the poll reveals that "Fox News viewers trust the information that Fox gives them." FULL ARTICLE
Poll showed these results for the most trusted news sources
Fox News- 28%
CNN- 18%
NBC- 10%
MSNBC- 7%
CBS- 6%
ABC- 6%
Other 43%
What positive does this give Fox News? Absolutly nothing. Fox wins by plurality beacause it's the only far right network it's viewers can go to get what they want to hear. In Jan 2011Public Policy Polling released a poll asking respondents if they trust or distrust a network. Fox came in first for most distrusted. Shep Smith might be what's giving Fox an ounce of credibility.
Outlet
Trust/Distrust
Net
2010 Numbers
Shift from 2010
PBS
50/30
+20
Not Included
Not Applicable
NBC
41/41
0
35/44 (-9)
+9
CNN
40/43
-3
39/41 (-2)
-1
Fox News
42/46
-4
49/37 (+12)
-16
CBS
36/43
-7
32/46 (-14)
+7
ABC
35/43
-8
31/46 (-15)
+7
When poll takers were offered 28 different TV news personalities by Suffolk to decide from on the trust question here were the results of the Top 10. Again plurality doesn't mean anything, it just means you have a significant minority of a devoted following. My favorite news host Anderson Cooper comes in second.
O'Reilly- 9%
CNN's Anderson Cooper - 6%
Mike Huckabee- 4%,
Sean Hannity- 4%
Wolf Blitzer- 3%
Chris Matthews- 3%,
NBC newsman Tom Brokaw- 3%
CBS anchor Katie Couric- 3%
ABC's Diane Sawyer- 3%
I'm not sure what the Media Research Center means by "the more they attack Fox, the stronger they get". I'd like the MRC to stop being cowards and debate Media Matters For America about the credibility of Fox.
Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, the Republican apologist organization, chickened out at the presence of the MMFA vice president His people were invited to come on the show. And declined because MMFA would appear with them.
They put their explanation simple:
"We don't debate Media Matters"
They sure showed them.
Why not have a debate? Put it on C-SPAN and have the topic be whether or not Fox "News" is Fair and Balanced or even a legitimate news channel. How awesome would that be?
MMFA has plenty of dirt on the Media Research Council they can embarrass them with.
