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

When is a WMD not a WMD? When it discredits the Democratic talking points that "Bush lied" and that there were no WMD in Iraq.

The facts:
1. Approximately 500 chemical weapons have been found in Iraq since the U.S. invasion.
2. Chemical weapons are most definitely categorized as WMD.
3. Saddam Hussein claimed he had "no" WMD.
4. Therefore, Saddam lied, and Bush was correct that WMD were in Iraq.

A June 23, 2006, post by Media Matters claims that reports of WMD in Iraq have been "discredited." This is simply false. Chemical weapons were found. (See the declassified report. (pdf file)) Yes, maybe the weapons date before 1991, but there is no doubt that these weapons are still categorized as WMD, and that these weapons could have wrecked havoc on any population upon which they were utilized.

"Discredited"? Yes, Media Matters has been discredited.

By the way, MMatters’ claim of "conservative misinformation" is shredded in light of the widespread media blackout by the MSM in covering this eye-opening story of the discovery of WMD in Iraq. For the most part, the coverage in the MSM has either been non-existent or trivial.

Is Media Matters having a tough time digging up content for their mission of so-called "conservative misinformation"? It appears so.

A June 22, 2006, post by Media Matters falsely reported that Washington Post columnist David Broder "discover[ed] the Internet" upon writing a June 22, 2006 column.

In fact, a simple Google search reveals that Broder participated in an online chat over eight years ago. Broder has also commented on the Internet in several venues over the years, including here and here.

MMatters doesn’t like the fact that Broder states the truth in his column that liberal blogs "are heavier on vituperation of President Bush and other targets than on creative thought." Yet MMatters writes nothing to refute Broder’s assertion.

In addition, yet again, MMatters’ reporting is misleading. You’d think from the title of MMatters’ item, as well as its content, that Broder’s article is a hit piece on liberal blogs. In fact, it’s no such thing. (Read Broder’s article for yourself; many MMatters’ visitors won’t!) Broder actually devotes generous ink to positively promoting a new Democratic site, Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. Is Broder’s article a hit piece on liberal-themed blogs? Hardly!

Business appears slow in the "conservative misinformation" trade.

Media Matters is debunked - again.

The National Center for Public Policy Research’s Amy Ridenour has the juice here: Media Matters Misleads on CEI’s Horner, Kyoto, and Global Warming.

Great job, Amy!

Do you remember those popular 1980’s Burger King commercials with the old lady and the catch phrase, "Where’s the beef?" Those ads came to mind when reading this June 14, 2006, post by Media Matters, which blares the title, "Lauer joined O’Reilly in serving up misinformation on Today."

The problem: MMatters fails to cite any errors or falsehoods (what we would call "misinformation") anywhere in the post! See for yourself!

MMatters simply takes issue with how Lauer worded his questions to guest Bill O’Reilly. The wording may not have been flattering to Democrats, but there certainly was no "misinformation."

So any unflattering references to Democrats qualify as "conservative misinformation" for Media Matters? Apparently so.

"Where’s the Beef?"

The news that President Bush’s top adviser, Karl Rove, will not face indictment in relation to the reported leak of a CIA operative has further discredited reports by Media Matters.

Media Matters published scores of posts in the last year related to the so-called "CIA leak case."

This July 2005 post claimed a "Rove falsehood": 

This July 2005 post bizarrely suggested that Bush’s Supreme Court nomination announcement was to "distract from [the] Rove scandal"!:

"Falsehood[s]"? "Violation[s]"? "Rove scandal"?

Sorry, Media Matters.

A June 9, 2006, post that attacks Ann Coulter continues a pattern of shoddy research from Media Matters.

MMatters claims it has "documented numerous statements by [Ann] Coulter that have proved to be untrue." Yet some of the examples that MMatters provides are untrue themselves.

1. MMatters writes, "[Ann Coulter] erroneouly claimed that liberal financier George Soros ’said the reason for anti-Semitism is the Jews’."

Well, as far as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is concerned, Soros did just that. A December 3, 2003, post by ADL’s Abraham Foxman is entitled, "Don’t Blame Jews For Anti-Semitism." Foxman singled out remarks that George Soros had made and called them "obscene." Added Foxman, "At this moment when the Western world is beginning to wake up to the meaning of anti-Semitism, it is uncommonly destructive to give an out by suggesting that in fact the blame lies with the Jews."

See also, "Soros blames Jews for anti-Semitism," by Uriel Heilman (Jewish Telegraphic Agency).

(MMatters’ defense of Soros is not surprising, as it’s been reported that the group has received funds from Soros-funded operations.)

The bottom line: Coulter was 100% correct.

2. MMatters: "[Ann Coulter] falsely claimed Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) refused to release his military records …"

Again, Coulter is correct. Coulter made her remarks in 2004, and during the 2004 campaign, Sen. Kerry flat-out refused to sign and deliver Standard Form 180, a form that would have released all of his military records. It was not until May of 2005 that Kerry finally signed and delivered Form 180. Even afterwards, questions still remain (here, here, and here).

Coulter was correct.

3. MMFA: "[Coulter] falsely accused University of Chicago professor Steven D. Levitt and Stanford University professor John J. Donohue III — whom she identified as ‘liberals’ — of ‘defending Roe v. Wade‘."

Here is yet another classic case in which MMatters hopes that you (the reader) don’t follow up with your own research. Levitt and Donohue were the authors of a journal article that asserted a link between legalized abortion and a drop in crime. The paper was called, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" (pdf file). In it, Levitt and Donohue wrote (emphasis mine):

Of course their paper is a defense of Roe v. Wade. Although the paper is only 37 pages long (not including appendix and references), the paper contains 22 references to Roe v. Wade.

Again, Coulter was correct. Coulter’s statement is a natural inference from Levitt and Donohue’s paper.

And there you have it!

A June 1, 2006, post by Media Matters absurdly claims that hosts at ABC voiced "GOP spin" by simply asserting the fact that "the economic numbers are pretty good."

Good grief … How about some facts? The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is viewed by nearly all reputable economists as a reliable indicator of a nation’s economy. Whether you like him or not, President George W. Bush has reigned over a very healthy economy.

• The GDP for the first quarter of 2006 was a very robust 5.3%.

• See that third quarter of 2003? It was the highest quarter of economic growth in nearly 20 years!!
• The unemployment rate in the United States is now a low 4.6%.
• George W. Bush began his second term with a lower unemployment rate than the one with which President Clinton began his second term! (Jan. 1997, 5.3% (Clinton) vs. Jan. 2005, 5.2% (Bush)). (I know a lot of people won’t believe this, so here is the link from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3.)
• The inflation rate is a respectable 3.55%. (Clinton had inflation rates of 3.04% and 3.19% during selected months of 1997 and 1995, respectively.) http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Inflation.asp

Saying that the economy is "pretty good" is hardly "GOP spin."

MMatters tries to rebut the great economy by whining that "wages are barely keeping pace with inflation." There are two problems with this response:

1. Wages are keeping pace with inflation, even if it’s just "barely" by Media Matters’ standards.

2. Even if wages are not keeping pace with inflation as much as MMatters would like, the economic numbers suggest that this is having virtually no effect on the nation’s economy. (Witness the 1st quarter GDP in 2006!) ABC’s Stephanopoulos and Gibson had no reason to bring up MMatters’ point to begin with; it’s inconsequential.

Media Matters also implies that an ABC News/ Washington Post poll "showing 60 percent of Americans disapprove of President Bush’s handling of the economy" is evidence that the economy is not doing well. Well, rather than this poll supporting Media Matters’ contention that the media disperses "conservative misnformation," this is a textbook example of how the mainstream media (MSM) reeks of liberal, anti-Bush bias. The nation’s economy is doing sensational, yet the public is having a hard time believing it! Why? Because the MSM is either ignoring or downplaying the country’s terrific economy, and/or it is misleading its audiences! (For example: How many of you readers knew that Bush’s unemployment rate at the start of his second term was better than Clinton’s second term start? If not, why not? How many of you readers knew about that 20-year-high GDP in 2003?)

"Conservative misinformation"? "GOP spin"? One word: Ugh.

Here is an excellent warning to readers of Media Matters: When they claim to "debunk" something, you might want to look a little closer to see if it’s actually happened. Frequently, it hasn’t. A case in point:

In a May 31, 2006, post, Media Matters takes issue with a May 30, 2006 column by conservative writer James Taranto. MMatters entitled their post, "At Taranto’s request, Media Matters debunks his theory of media bias." Taranto was critical of a biased May 30 piece by the Associated Press which was entitled, "Democrats Eye November Landslide." In his column, Taranto asked the question:

"Can you find a similar article — that is, a news story, not an opinion column, preferably written months before the election — speculating about the possibility of a Republican landslide in 1994, when there actually was one? How about in 1980?"

Media Matters responded to Taranto with eight examples. Not one was an article from 1980! One can only conclude that they admit that Taranto is 100% right on that one. For 1984, the eight examples covered a whopping five-month period.

Here’s the kicker: Not one of MMatters’ eight articles references a "Republican landslide"! Zero!

Using MMatters’ very own methods of media criticism, it’s shown that MMatters did not "debunk" Taranto at all!

In fact, Media Matters is debunked - again.

=-=-=-=-=

Media Matters followed a few days later with an utterly bizarre June 2, 2006, post entitled, "Taranto conspicuously mum on the status of his media-bias theory." In the post, MMatters harps that "Taranto has twice addressed Media Matters‘ response."

Wait a minute. Taranto is "conspicuously mum" while twice addressing MMatters’ post?!? That … doesn’t … make … sense. MMatters’ thinking is not only contradictory, it’s simply weird.

Who is really editing the work at Media Matters, anyway?