According to their website...
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation--news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda--every day, in real time.
Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.
So, Media Matters takes in upon themselves to "notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions". But who is watching Media Matters to assure they are providing accurate analysis when they post their so-called "rapid-response items"?
Who are they to say that there is "conservative misinformation--news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda"? Surely what they consider misinformation is based on opinion. And we all know what they say about opinions...
Media Matters has placed themselves in the "last word" category, but who gave them that exalted position? It would seem they have anointed themselves the arbiter of what's fact and what's not, but should they be in that position?
I've written for Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3)'s. To be honest, some are partisan. But at the same time, we've written columns extremely critical of Republicans and conservatives when they have it coming. As of late, I've been extremely critical of some of Hillary Clinton's positions and fundraising faux pas, and have said little to nothing about some of the Republican presidential candidates. I do so because Mrs. Clinton has a very good chance of becoming our next president (which I consider a disastrous prospect), and I also believe if you have nothing good to say about someone, say nothing at all. Thus my silence to date on the Republicans.
But Media Matters says almost nothing bad about Democrats, and that should be a red flag, at least with the Internal Revenue Service.
And how could you have columns constantly punctuated with the words "misleading", "lied", "falsehood", and "distortion" without being considered the last word in all things honest? It would appear Media Matters is accusing people, on a daily basis, of lying. Consistent accusations like that surely deserve some kind of proof. Besides re-interpretation of words, Media Matters offers no proof that their targets set out to deceive, yet many on the left cite them as an authority.
Those are tough shoes to fill. With that, do a quick Google search on Media Matters leader David Brock, and you'll find that the word "liar" appears not just from conservatives who used to work with him, but even from liberals. Of course, there are many on the left who consider Media Matters their Bible, but some minds will never be changed...
"What we got here is... failure to communicate. Some people you just can't reach."-- "Captain" (Strother Martin) in Cool Hand Luke
How can a website that is led by someone who's credibility is "challenged" be taken seriously? Why are networks quick to cite Media Matters as a source for legitimate information when the editor is called a liar from within his own circles? Besides a partisan yearning for their facts to be true, I can find no logical reason for Media Matters to be believed, especially when Hillary Clinton admitted she helped found the group.
Mrs. Clinton has an agenda, as does billionaire financier George Soros, who is said to be a money man behind that and many other groups created to influence public opinion. For Media Matters to call themselves "non-partisan" is misleading at best.
When I write, there are several hundred people at any given moment ready to challenge my facts. With that, I do the research before putting them out there. So far, the vast majority of counters to my columns are in the form of insults, not intellectual counters. However, Media Matters has been given the stature, by the mainstream media, of credibility that has given them almost total impunity when smearing both Don Imus and Rush Limbaugh, and the facts are twisted to meet their their objectives with almost no one asking them to "prove it."
Media Matters considers themselves mind-readers, in being able to discern the intent to those whose words they interpret to meet their liberal agenda. Some of us will be watching Media Matters and will be judging them on their intent to do the very thing they accuse everyone else of: lying.
Who's watching the watchdog? We are, and people are starting to see that Media Matters is not the ones to be dictating who is honest and who is not. The truth hurts and Media Matters will be feeling the pain.
