“MEDIA MATTERS Watch” : Media Matters’ Falsehoods Exposed!

A May 25, 2006 post by Media Matters is riddled with shoddy research and dubious claims. Here is a screencap of part of the “summary” of the post (entitled, “O’Reilly: Young Americans ‘have no idea what’s going on’ because they ‘get their news from Jon Stewart’”). I’ve annotated and underlined MMatters’ shoddiness.

1. Starting with the one we’ve underscored in red:

First, MMatters cites one study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (pdf file). MMatters’ use of the word “studies” (plural) is simply false. MMatters cites only one study.

Second, the one study that MMattters does cite only covered a two-month period in 2004. So MMatters’ claim that these “studies” (of which there is only one) show that Daily Show viewers “are consistently better informed about current events” is flat-out wrong. The study was conducted in the summer of 2004, nearly two years ago, during the run-up to the 2004 Presidential election. The study posed six questions focusing on the policy positions of President Bush and Senator Kerry - that’s it!  “Consistently better informed about current events”? Not even close. The study asked six questions surrounding one upcoming event (the 2004 Presidential election) over a two-month period. That’s hardly a study that concludes that a group of people are “consistently better informed.”

Media Matters has again misled their readers.

2. For the one in blue:

For Media Matters’ claim that “Daily Show viewers are significantly better educated than viewers than The O’Reilly Factor,” they cite a 2004 CNN article, which in turn cites “Nielsen Media Research.” Again, MMatters cites one article, not “studies” (plural).

In addition, MMatters harps the woefully erroneous belief that one’s education is the sum of a person’s years of schooling. Ugh. This view is terribly misguided and ill-informed. Several well-known people, many of whom are thought to be quite “educated,” never completed college and/or dropped out of high school.

3. For the one in purple:

MMatters has cited a terribly fallacious 2003 study by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy (PIPA). The study sought to probe the public for three so-called “misperceptions.”

One of the so-called “misperceptions,” according to PIPA, was that there was “no evidence of any links” between Iraq and al Qaeda. Oh, really? That’s a “misperception”? That would come as a surprise to Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission, who said, “There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.” The truth is that there has been plenty of evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda (See here, here, and here.)!

Are you catching this? One of PIPA’s so-called ”misperceptions” is not a misperception at all! PIPA’s study is flat-out bogus.

Quite simply, we have yet another example of a poorly composed post by Media Matters.

A May 24, 2006, post by Media Matters claims that the "media ran amok" with a May 23 New York Times article about the marriage between Bill and Hillary Clinton.

"Ran amok"? What does that mean to Media Mattters?

• A segment on MSNBC’s Hardball
• A report on NBC’s Today show
• A brief mention on CNN’s The Situation Room
• Segments on FNC’s Fox & Friends, DaySide, and Fox News Live.

Hmmm. That’s a media "ran amok"? Yikes. According to MMatters, none of the major network nightly newscasts mentioned the article; not one major newspaper (except the NYTimes) relayed the article; only one network morning show reported on the piece.

"Ran amok"? Sorry, fellas.

How about a slow day in the business of "conservative misinformation"?

Another "study" by Media Matters instantly loses credibility under scrutiny. A May 22, 2006 study makes the flimsy claim that the guest list so far in 2006 on The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News has been "dominated" by Republicans and conservatives.

How does Media Matters disserve and deceive their readers this time? It’s all in the labeling. MMatters compiled a list of all the O’Reilly Factor guests between January 2006 and April 2006. They individually labeled each one as either "Democrat," "progressive," "Republican," "conservative," or "neutral."

Quite simply, MMatters inaccurately labeled the guests and achieved the desired result for their "study." In several instances, MMatters labeled an obviously liberal/Democrat guest as "neutral." In other cases, they baselessly labeled a non-partisan guest as "conservative." See the deception?

Here are just a few examples:

• Ellis Henican is an persistant Bush-basher and a proud cheerleader and defender for Democrats; but Media Matters lists him as a "neutral." Yikes!
• Actor Kirk Cameron appeared on the Factor in April to share his story of how Christianity transformed his life in a wonderful way. That was enough for MMatters to label him as "conservative." … But when author Michael Baigent (author of the despicable Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Jesus Papers) appeared to discuss the outrageously false claim that Jesus faked his death and resurrection and that Christianity is a sham, MMatters labelled him "neutral"!!
• Jonathan Turley is clearly a liberal; you’d have a tough time finding a lib who disagrees with him. He recently appeared on Air America Radio and chummed it up with Randi Rhodes. He also recently penned a piece in the Chicago Tribune in which he compared the Bush White House to the HBO crime family, the Sopranos. Yet (are you ready for this?) he is listed three times by MMatters as "neutral."
• Alex Jones is the pathetic director of the Shorenstein Center at Harvard. A few years back, Jones extended a fellowship to Al Franken to compose a book. The result was Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Jones defended the book even though Franken’s book is filled with lies, errors, falsehoods, and misleading passages. Jones is a former NYTimes columnist, and he is also on the board of the Columbia Journalism Review, which is well-known as a liberal outfit. MMaters’ label for Jones? "Neutral."
• Marvin Kalb is also a Shorenstein guy. He thought it was "dangerous" for writer Bernard Goldberg to claim that the media has a liberal bias. Kalb is clearly a lib, but MMatters unabashedly calls him "neutral."
• Jesse Watters is a producer at The O’Reilly Factor. He appeared as a guest to discuss some cases about lenient judges of questionable competence. That was enough for MMatters to call him "conservative."
• David Wallechinsky blogs over at the liberal Huffington Post, but MMatters says he’s "neutral."
• Nick Anderson is a political cartoonist. He appeared on the Factor to defend an especially despicable and spiteful anti-Rumsfeld cartoon by Tom Toles. Media Matters says … "neutral"!
• Mark Lunsford’s beautiful daughter, Jessica, was kidnapped, raped, and killed by a convicted sex offender. Mark wants tougher punishment for sex offenders so they’re not released from jail to go out and commit these horrible crimes again. Mark is just a regular citizen trying to do some good for the protection of children. For this, apparently, Mark Lunsford gets a "conservative" label.
• Zvika Krieger thinks it’s A.O.K. for a former Taliban official (!) to enroll at some courses at Yale. Media Matters’ conclusion? "Neutral"!
• Raul Hinojosa appeared about the illegal immigration issue. He is an unapologetic open borders advocate. His company is called "No Borders." This makes him "neutral" in Media Matters’ eyes!

This is an incomplete list, but you should get the picture. Media Matters’ study is unequivocally bogus. Are you really surprised?

Media Matters’ credibility with its facts continues to unravel.

In a May 18, 2006, post, Media Matters falsely claims that Sen. Hillary Clinton "attended several funerals and memorials" for the victims of 9-11 following the attacks.

In fact, Media Matters’ own information contradicts this!

A previous MMatters post, on February 14, 2005, addressed this issue and could only provide two instances of Sen. Clinton attending a memorial or funeral (one memorial; one funeral) shortly following September 11, 2001. (This would not include any "anniversary" or other memorial events that have happened months or years after 9-11.)

The bottom line: "Several funerals and memorials"? Not even close.

Another example of sloppy research at Media Matters.

(By the way, this same MMatters post has another bogus element. MMatters writes, "Media Matters for America presents numerous instances in which O’Reilly was indeed ‘a little unfair to Mrs. Clinton’." Well, as we show in this post, one of the instances contains flat-out false information. In addition, the "numerous instances" total three. That’s "numerous"? Well, I guess if you’re as desperate as Media Matters, any wording will do.)

A May 12, 2006, post by Media Matters falsely claimed that Bill O’Reilly compared Al Franken and others to a DJ who threatened a 4-year old with "an R. Kelly."

Of course, O’Reilly did no such thing. Here is another classic case in which Media Matters hopes that you don’t do your own research and learn the truth.

On his May 10, 2006, episode of his radio show, Bill O’Reilly reported the case of a New York City radio DJ who threatened the 4-year-old daughter of a competitor with "an R. Kelly." Bill used this episode to expound on the vulgar tone in the American media today.

After explaining that the DJ was finally arrested, O’Reilly clearly changed gears:

So, this, ladies and gentlemen, is a — a very troubling aspect of American society — extremely troubling. It started on the Internet where you have a bunch of people there who assassinate people; say vile things about people; threaten people every single day …

You got a couple of people on cable news programs that do this every night of the week, and the big companies that employ them are the companies that should be held accountable. OK.

Now, if you are a famous person at all, you cannot sue. If you have any notoriety at all, if anybody knows your name, you can’t sue. And if you do sue, then you empower the person who’s attacking you. You see, you give them more publicity.

Quite simply, O’Reilly had ceased talking about the NYC DJ. He clearly and unequivocally switched angles by talking about the crude approach of hosts on cable TV. He talked about the lack of action a famous person can take if he’s attacked. He then referenced Al Franken on Air America.

O’Reilly clearly did not equate the NYC DJ and Al Franken. Media Matters has again disserviced its intended audience with a bogus post.

Continuing its pattern of publishing fallacious and misleading information (as noted frequently on this site), a May 1, 2006, post by Media Matters has published yet another false statement.

Media Matters falsely claims, "according to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor averaged 2,274,000 viewers a night in the first quarter of 2006."

In fact, those Nielsen numbers are for the single 8pm airing and do not include additional nightly re-runs and the show’s significant international audience.

Here’s the left-leaning Media Bistro’s TV Newser, highlighting some cable viewer numbers from April 27, 2006:

And these numbers do not include even later re-runs which add hundreds of thousands more to the Factor’s viewer total. In addition, the O’Reilly Factor enjoys significant viewership in Canada, Europe, and around the world. Media Matters fails miserably to consider this in accounting nightly viewership.

Quite simply, Media Matters’ statement is flat-out wrong.

An April 14, 2006 item by Media Matters falsely suggests that Valerie Plame did not get her husband, Joe Wilson, the job of a pre-war, fact-finding trip to Africa. In spreading this falsehood, Media Matters baselessly smears GOPer Newt Gingrich.

In fact, as noted by the exact same source that Media Matters cites, Valerie Plame wrote a memo to a CIA deputy that commended her husband’s "good relations with both the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Mines (of Niger), not to mention lots of French contacts." (View the words yourself in this Senate report). Of course Plame got her husband the job. We have verifiable documentary proof!

Here’s how Media Matters deceives their readers on this one: They cite a sentence from an old October 2005 Washington Post article. It says, "The CIA has always said, however, that Plame’s superiors chose Wilson for the Niger trip and she only relayed their decision." What Media Matters intentionally omitted was the paragraph directly above this sentence! Look at this (bold mine):

the Senate committee found that "interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife . . . suggested his name for the trip." The committee also noted a memorandum from Plame saying Wilson "has good relations" with Niger officials who "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." In addition, notes on a State Department document surmised that Plame "had the idea to dispatch him" to Niger.

Doh! Joe Wilson and Media Matters are totally debunked!! Gingrich was telling the truth! WaPo’s quote from the CIA is insignificant. Of course the CIA is going to defend its own!

[If you want to read more on this, Joe Wilson (and Media Matters, for that matter) is further obliterated here by Christopher Hitchens.]