Media Matters Attempts a Debunking; It Ends With Themselves Being Debunked
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?
