Media Matters claims to be 'unpolitical'

[EvilMonkey]

Apparently they were a little miffed that someone referred to them as "an avowedly political institution, part of a group of institutions the Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, and others ­ that have become increasingly important in Democratic politics." In response to that, they said"Media Matters is not, as the National Review claims, "an avowedly political institution," but a nonpartisan, progressive nonprofit that is unaffiliated with any political party or candidate."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200710050007?f=h_latest

If that is the case, how to they justify their own words on their websites 'Who we are' section:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501©(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media

If they were truely nonpolitical, why would that one word be in their 'Who we are' statement?

[Rex Kickass]

I'm sorry but being liberal, doesn't make you partisan. Nor does being conservative.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I'm sorry but being liberal, doesn't make you partisan. Nor does being conservative.

 

 

You're grasping at straws here Rex. Seriously, any organization that is solely focused on one ideology for its scorn checked any hint of objectivity at the door.

[EvilMonkey]

You're grasping at straws here Rex. Seriously, any organization that is solely focused on one ideology for its scorn checked any hint of objectivity at the door.

And Tex called my accusations 'unfair' in the other thread. They can rationalize anything as long as it suits thier needs.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

You're grasping at straws here Rex. Seriously, any organization that is solely focused on one ideology for its scorn checked any hint of objectivity at the door.

See: Fox News Channel.

[kapkomet]

See: Fox News Channel.

That's exactly right. Media Matters, though, is hiding behind a 501©(3) designation. That's a joke in and of itself. I'm sure they "follow" those guidelines, but there's no way they are "independent".

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

See: Fox News Channel.

 

 

Yeah, because we know as long in order to qualify as objective a news outfit must toe your leftist party line and be radically antiwar and anti conservative.

 

Spare me.

[BigSqwert]

Yeah, because we know as long in order to qualify as objective a news outfit must toe your leftist party line and be radically antiwar and anti conservative.

 

Spare me.

So you are claiming Fox News is objective?

[Balta1701]

That's exactly right. Media Matters, though, is hiding behind a 501©(3) designation. That's a joke in and of itself. I'm sure they "follow" those guidelines, but there's no way they are "independent".

Just like ALL of the other 501©'s out there.

 

I'll make you a deal. We'll give up Media Matters if you give up the NRA, the Heritage Foundation, the CATO institute, etc.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Balta1701

[kapkomet]

Duh. That's the purpose of them. Of COURSE they're not independent.

 

[southsider2k5]

Just like ALL of the other 501©'s out there.

 

I'll make you a deal. We'll give up Media Matters if you give up the NRA, the Heritage Foundation, the CATO institute, etc.

 

Sure if you throw in movon.org, the labor unions, the network news, etc.

[Balta1701]

Sure if you throw in movon.org, the labor unions, the network news, etc.

So basically, you want every single organization in the U.S. who acts in any political way or who passes along any information to the public removed? So that an election would be basically 100 million people voting for 2 guys they know nothing about and choosing based on how they like the spelling of their names.

 

Hmmm.....at least we know it couldn't turn out worse than the way things have gone with the media actually existing the last 8 years. I'm all in.

[southsider2k5]

So basically, you want every single organization in the U.S. who acts in any political way or who passes along any information to the public removed? So that an election would be basically 100 million people voting for 2 guys they know nothing about and choosing based on how they like the spelling of their names.

 

Hmmm.....at least we know it couldn't turn out worse than the way things have gone with the media actually existing the last 8 years. I'm all in.

 

Heck I thought we were playing GMs with organizations that hide behind "objectiveness" If we were making a trade, I wanted to make sure we got value.

 

And your last sentence is ooooo true, except I would expand the time frame.

[Soxfest]

They are smear merchants.

[FlaSoxxJim]

They are smear merchants.

 

Yeah, but Happy 11th BirthdayHto them anyway.

 

[Balta1701]

Yeah, but Happy 11th BirthdayHto them anyway.

On a more serious note...whenever someone labels MMFA with that name, I always wonder...how exactly is it smearing a person to post their own words and actions? And I think it's entirely fair game for both sides; the right wing has had the Media Research Center doing exactly the same kind of work for 20 years and building up the entire "liberal media" storyline since 1987.

 

Seriously though, what exactly is so wrong with listening to these guys and simply posting it in an archive somewhere when they say something incredibly stupid or offensive? These folks, on both sides (Although an awful lot of it is born of talk radio) make a living by saying things that are totally off the wall and quite often simply outrageous. You guys always lament all of the partisanship today...you want some way to improve that? Then why not actually pay attention to the guys out there who pump out the garbage that MMFA and the MRC are highlighting.

[kapkomet]

Because most of it is contextual and solely meant to smear people. It's hardly ever the facts.

[Balta1701]

Because most of it is contextual and solely meant to smear people. It's hardly ever the facts.

Do you even visit the site? In virtually every case, they wind up posting the transcript of the entire discussion they're pointing out and the audio file of that part. I'll give you a prime example; the recent Limbaugh phony soldiers comment. Here's their original post. They have the entire call on audio and in text. When Mr. Limbaugh, for example, tried to claim that MMFA hadn't posted the context, he tried to sell that by purporting to air the same audio clip on his show, and then aired a version with 1:35 edited out.

[EvilMonkey]

Balta, that's all fine. But if you are only going to target 'conservative' commentators, then how can you claim that you are non-political? Simply by choosing to do only one side you have made a political statement.

 

At least MRC comes out and admits their slant on their webpage:

On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center

Edited October 8, 2007 by Alpha Dog

[Balta1701]

Balta, that's all fine. but if you are only going to target 'conservative' commentators, then how can you claim that you are non-political? Simply by choosing to do only one side you have made a political statement.

Just grabbing from the Wikipedia entry on the 501©3 rules:

Organizations with this classification are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office. Public charities (but not private foundations) are permitted to conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation. Although the law states that "no substantial part" of a public charity's activities may be devoted to lobbying, charities with very large budgets may lawfully expend a million dollars (under the "expenditure" test) or more (under the "substantial part" test) per year on lobbying. [5]

 

All 501©(3) organizations are also permitted to educate individuals about issues, or fund research that supports their political position without overtly advocating for a position on a specific bill. Think tanks such as the Cato Institute, Center for American Progress, and Heritage Foundation and other 501©(3) organizations produce reports and recommendations on policy proposals that do not count as lobbying under the tax code.

MMFA and the MRC would fall under the exact same classification as those other think tanks. They spend money doing research supporting their political position without taking lobbying positions on specific bills. They're allowed to clearly advocate for one side or another of a policy, but that does not violate the law as currently written. Heritage, for example, is a multi-million dollar think tank who's mission statement says their goal is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." and yet they are able to be treated under the law as a non-political entity because of the way in which they conduct their business.

 

Oh, and in response to your edit; the MRC is also a 501© under the law, and is therefore also required to list itself the same way as MMFA.

 

And in 1 more edit, under MMFA's "About us" description, the same button you pushed under the MRC:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501©(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.

I'd say they say pretty well exactly what they do there. Progressive = good, conservative = bad. Edited October 8, 2007 by Balta1701

[kapkomet]

Do you even visit the site? In virtually every case, they wind up posting the transcript of the entire discussion they're pointing out and the audio file of that part. I'll give you a prime example; the recent Limbaugh phony soldiers comment. Here's their original post. They have the entire call on audio and in text. When Mr. Limbaugh, for example, tried to claim that MMFA hadn't posted the context, he tried to sell that by purporting to air the same audio clip on his show, and then aired a version with 1:35 edited out.

And that is totally contextual, and I just read the whole damn thing that media matters posted. The part that was bolded was what was spun to the Democrats and it's wrong. But you'll never see it that way because it doesn't fir the purpose you're trying to make, so let's just drop it.

[mr_genius]

whoa, are you guys trying to claim mediamatters isn't a partisan political organization?

 

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton even claims to be a founder lol

 

 

[mr_genius]

And that is totally contextual, and I just read the whole damn thing that media matters posted. The part that was bolded was what was spun to the Democrats and it's wrong. But you'll never see it that way because it doesn't fir the purpose you're trying to make, so let's just drop it.

 

honestly, if they won't even admit that media matters is biased and political there is no point in ever discussing media issues with them. claims that this organization is non-bias are either dishonest or misguided.

Edited October 8, 2007 by mr_genius

[kapkomet]

No, they're trying to say that every organization that is a 501©(3) is political in nature. And yes, that's true.

 

Edit: Holy s***, I just re-read Balta's response closer. You know what? You're right. And that says it all.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Yeah, because we know as long in order to qualify as objective a news outfit must toe your leftist party line and be radically antiwar and anti conservative.

 

Spare me.