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

A September 22, 2006, post by Media Matters is a long and rambling attempt to besmirch Bill O’Reilly and his new book, Culture Warrior. Not surprisingly, the one who is ultimately debunked is Media Matters.

MMatters’ post contains a lengthy list of deception and misleading information. Here you go:

1.

What Media Matters doesn’t tell you is that the 1,000 stories on Rush Limbaugh were most likely about his June 2006 arrest for Viagra. These were hardly fawning reports on Limbaugh. In fact, rather than providing an example of "conservative misinformation," MMFA gives a terrific textbook example of liberal media bias. Meanwhile, it’s quite likely that the 300 citations of Al Franken were in reference to reviews and promotion for a movie about him called "God Spoke."

Here is another clear case of dishonesty and deception by Media Matters.

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

2.

Less discerning viewers may fall for Media Matters’ canard, but smarter ones know better. Quite clearly, a newspaper’s editorial slant cannot simply be encapsulated by who it endorses for President.

Media Matters probably won’t want you to do this, but go take a peek at the Houston Chronicle’s opinion pages. Also check out the Denver Post and the Times-Picayune. A cursory look at all three papers will reveal that liberal voices permeate them all. O’Reilly’s assertions about these papers’ liberal tilts are well founded.

Here is a case where Media Matters tries to slip by a fact and hope that readers don’t follow up with their own research.

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

3.

Here is another textbook case of a bait-and-switch deception by Media Matters. The truth is that Ms. Hornaday, movie reviewer for the Washington Post, DID criticize Mel Gibson for bad history, but it wasn’t in the article that Media Matters cited. Media Matters cites a December 2004 article by Hornaday, but Hornaday reviewed Gibson’s film in February 2004. Her review, entitled "Less Than Gospel Truth," begins as follows (emphasis added),

"The Passion of the Christ," a harrowing condensation of Jesus’s final 12 hours, engages in some troubling assumptions, for starters by treating the Bible’s four Gospels as literal eyewitness accounts of Jesus’s arrest, torture and crucifixion. It traffics in lurid, almost pornographic imagery of blood, brutality and mortified flesh, rivaling Martin Scorsese’s "Gangs of New York" in its ghastly, stylized violence. [Mel Gibson] has exhibited a startling lack of concern for historical context, both of the Passion’s ritualized reenactment and of its story itself, which over the past several centuries has been used repeatedly to foment violence against Jewish communities.

O’Reilly is 100% correct about Hornaday. In addition, compare Hornaday’s scathing review of Passion with that of Fahrenheit 9/11. The title of Hornaday’s review is, "Presidential Pursuits: ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′: Moore’s Bush Treatise Cooks," and in her very-positive review she writes, "In many ways this is Moore’s best film."

Again, Media Matters’ response to O’Reilly is flat-out deception.

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

4.

We’ve touched on this before (see #2). Again, a paper’s editorial leanings cannot be encapsulated simply by who it endorses for President. Check out the Chicago Tribune’s opinion pages. Its liberal tilt is well documented. Chicago newspaper readers understand that the Tribune generally is a liberal voice, while its competitor, the Sun-Times, is generally conservative.

Here’s another case in which MMatters hopes you don’t do any homework.

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

5.

First of all, none of the sources that MMatters provides say that Roger Baldwin "became dillusioned with communism." Again, it appears MMatters doesn’t want its readers doing any follow-up research, like we’re doing here.

Second, MMatters’ attempt to disconnect the ACLU with communists would be laughable if it weren’t so dishonest. The ACLU’s ties to communists are very well documented. For example, check out the book ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten. ("[Roger] Baldwin held Communist/Socialist sympathies to the end of his life." p. 17) See also this and this.

MMatters’ attack on O’Reilly in this instance is simply baseless.

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

6.

Here is a case of flat-out factual errors by Media Matters. MMatters falsely claims, "[S]ince [ACLU executive director Anthony] Romero took over as executive director in 2001, several ACLU members have appeared on The O’Reilly Factor." It then cites September 4 and September 5, 2001, appearances by ACLU attorneys. In fact, Romero did not officially take the helm of the ACLU until after those dates (source). MMatters is simply wrong on its facts. The result is that in over the last five years, by MMatters’ count, a whopping total of two ACLU attorneys have appeared across Bill. In addition, neither of them appear at the top of the ACLU’s "Staff & Leaders" page on its national home web site.

"Several ACLU members have appeared on The O’Reilly Factor"? Sorry, guys. Not even close.

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

7.

Visitors to this site should already be aware that Media Matters Watch has already fully discredited and debunked MMatters’ May 2006 study. Click this to get the details on MMatters’ dishonesty —–> "Dishonesty Exposed in Media Matters’ Bogus ‘O’Reilly Factor’ Study"

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

8.

Here’s how Media Matters reasons this one:

Washington Post: Lobbyist Jack Abramoff "made substantial campaign contributions" to both Democrats and Republicans.

O’Reilly: Jack Abramoff "funneled money to Democrats as well as Republicans."

Media Matters: "Democrats received money from Abramoff’s clients and associates but not from Abramoff directly."

Parsing, anyone? Of course. Here is another case where Media Matters’ attempt to besmirch O’Reilly simply wades into silliness. File under, "Big Whoop."

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

9.

The truth is that Al Franken did deliberately and falsely smear O’Reilly. The "false attack" here is not from Bill O’Reilly. It’s unequivocally from Al Franken.

The actual deed to O’Reilly’s boyhood home has the words "Levittown, New York" right on it. In addition, a Levittown expert on Franken’s own radio show flat-out debunked Al by concluding that O’Reilly was indeed from Levittown! See this must-see link. Any fair-minded person will conclude that O’Reilly has an honest beef with Franken on this. Franken could have easily corrected his misinformation for the paperback edition of Lies, but he didn’t. That’s simply ugly dishonesty from Al Franken, but it should come as no surprise.

And that’s it for now! Bye!

On September 15, 2006, HBO’s Bill Maher claimed that CBS Evening News would not allow him to discuss religion on its "Free Speech" segment.

Media Matters jumped on the story and splashed it on the top of its front page.

The problem is that the story wasn’t true. The evidence suggests that Maher simply made up the story. Eventually Maher issued an apology: "If I or my representatives got it wrong about how the ‘Free Speech’ segment of the ‘CBS Evening News’ is, sorry, our bad. I’m ready, willing and able to speak about the topic I originally suggested."

By prominently displaying the bogus story on its front page, Media Matters propagated the falsehood. After Maher’s apology and retraction, Media Matters promptly removed the story from the top of its front page. Luckily, we already grabbed a screen shot. See?

Busted.

Reaching a new level of desperation, a September 7, 2006, post is rife with errors, falsehoods, and inaccuracies. MMatters makes an absolutely ridiculous attempt to save its face regarding the Joe Wilson-Valerie Plame affair. MMatters and other liberal outlets have been roundly discredited since it has now been publicly confirmed that Richard Armitage, not Karl Rove or "Scooter" Libby, leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak.

1. Media Matters falsely suggests that the following claim is false:

The truth is that Plame was greatly responsible for getting her husband sent to Niger. A 2004 Senate report publicized an actual letter of recommendation (!) that Valerie Plame wrote to the CIA trumping 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."

MMatters is simply flat-out wrong on this. MMatters’ years-old citation of unnamed "CIA officials" has been methodically debunked and discredited.

2. Media Matters also claims that the revealed role of Armitage somehow does not absolve Rove and Libby. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is well illustrated by columnist Christopher Hitchens in his must-read column, "Plame Out:The ridiculous end to the scandal that distracted Washington."

3. Media Matters also falsely asserts that the following claim is false:

Uhhh … MMatters completely ignores the fact that Joe Wilson flat-out lied in his July 2003 NY Times op-ed. The 2004 bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee reported, "The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June." (Here is a must-read link.)

That MMatters even attempts to defend Wilson in this regard is astounding. Even John Kerry distanced himself from Wilson during his campaign after Wilson was exposed as a liar.

For more reading on this entire fiasco of an affair, check out these excellent pieces by Christopher Hitchens:

"Case Closed: The truth about the Iraqi-Niger ‘yellowcake’ nexus."

"Plame’s Lame Game: What Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife forgot to tell us about the yellow-cake scandal."

"Wowie Zahawie: Sorry everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger."

"Plame Out: The ridiculous end to the scandal that distracted Washington."

An August 31, 2006, post by Media Matters continues to underscore the organization’s dishonesty in their presentation of facts. In the post, MMatters takes issue with an interview with President Bush conducted by the liberal Brian Williams that aired on NBC and MSNBC August 29 and 30, 2006. There are several dishonest elements to this MMatters’ post.

1. First of all, MMatters clearly implies that Williams was somehow "soft" (my word) on Bush by "allowing" him to answer questions they way he wanted to. In fact, Williams was particularly tough on the President. For example, he cited a radical, far-left pundit simply as a "critic." Also, Williams himself has been forced to defend himself against the wide impression that he was quite "disrespectful" in the interview. (Read Williams’ blog.) Was Williams "soft"? No way.

2. Media Matters also makes the following dishonest and deceptive claim against Vice President Cheney.

The truth?

Here’s what Vice President Cheney said to Tim Russert only five days after 9/11 on Meet the Press:

RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation? [Sept. 11 attacks]

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

Got that?

Now, in a Meet the Press interview on December 9, 2001 (nearly FOUR-AND-A-HALF YEARS AGO), Russert and Cheney had the following exchange:

RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that’s been pretty well confirmed, that he [Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don’t know at this point. But that’s clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

That, my friends is the best that MMatters can do in citing that Cheney "claimed that Iraqi intelligence officers met with alleged 9-11 hijacker Mohamed Atta prior to the attacks."

Are you ready? Here’s the deception by Media Matters: In three later appearances on Meet the Press, Vice President Cheney unequivocally and clearly stated that the "didn’t know" if the meeting happened and that it was "unconfirmed." Don’t believe it? Here:

Cheney on Meet the Press, 9/14/03:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: With respect to 9/11, of course you’ve had the story that’s been publicly out there: The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack. But we’ve never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know. (emphasis added)

Cheney on Meet the Press, 9/8/02:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I’m not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can’t say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We’ve seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn’t he there, again, it’s the intelligence business.

RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that and the president?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: It’s credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it’s unconfirmed at this point. We’ve got…

RUSSERT: Anything else?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is-again, I want to separate out 9/11, from the other relationships between Iraq and the al-Qaeda organization. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years.

Cheney on Meet the Press, 3/24/02:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: [on Iraq] … With respect to the connections to al-Qaida, we haven’t been able to pin down any connection there. I read this report with interest after our interview last fall. We discovered, and it’s since been public, the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague, but we’ve not been able yet from our perspective to nail down a close tie between the al-Qaida organization and Saddam Hussein. We’ll continue to look for it. (emphasis added)

And as far as MMatters’ claim that there are "no confirmed reports of such a meeting," here is a must-read 2004 article by Deroy Murdock that outlines very compelling evidence that such a meeting did actually take place. By the way, the report of the Atta-Iraqi meeting is rooted in Czech intelligence, who still stand by the story.

Media Matters has clearly mislead their readers.

3. MMatters also falsely claims that President Bush voiced "misinformation" in the following exchange:

WILLIAMS: How close was he [Saddam Hussein] associated with Al Qaeda, in your view?

BUSH: Well, he was — he was on our state sponsor of terrorists list. And he was paying families of suiciders. He has – he also, by the way, had weapons of mass destruction one time and had the capacity to make them. And that’s a dangerous mix. We didn’t put him on the state sponsor of terrorists list. The previous administrations put him on the state sponsor of terrorists list. 

In their effort to smear the President, MMatters cites the Duelfer Report. MMatters selectively and deceptively posts the following,

Media Matters’ misrepresentation of the Duelfer Report is as dishonest as it gets.

Media Matters also dishonestly cites the line, "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991." This is utterly a misleading citation by Media Matters that falsely implies that there was absolutely no WMD in Iraq after 1991. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Duelfer Report states that, in 1998,

UNSCOM surfaced its concern over the evidence it found that Iraq had, contrary to its declarations, weaponized VX in missile warheads …

Also:

By 2000, the erosion of sanctions accelerated … Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem … Major items had no trouble getting across the border … Indeed, Iraq was designing missile systems with the assumption that sanctioned material would be readily available.

Media Matters also deceptively clips a quote from the Duelfer Report that says Iraq "had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions." In fact, here’s what the report actually states:

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions … Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

Dishonesty? Absolutely. But this appears to be par for the course for Media Matters.

For the facts about Iraq and WMD, check out this must-read interview with Bill Tierney, who in the 90’s worked for UNSCOM overseeing the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles in Iraq. "Where the WMD Went," by Jamie Glazov. Here’s the kicker:

[Tierney:] "Iraqis have told me that the WMD destruction and movement started just after Operation Desert Fox, since after all, who would be so stupid as to start a bombing campaign and just stop.

"It was only after Saddam realized that President Clinton lacked the nerve for anything more than a temper-tantrum demonstration that he knew the doors were wide open for him to continue his weapons program. We didn’t break his will, we didn’t destroy his weapons making capability. (The Iraqis simply moved most of the precision machinery out prior to the strikes, then rebuilt the buildings), but we did kill some Iraqi bystanders, just so President Clinton could say ’something must be done, so I did something’."

‘Til next time.