Cops infiltrate Occupy LA

[monovillage]

If they said they were "conservative site dedicated to showing the inaccuracies in the liberal media" would you think for a moment they weren't biased?
I mean really craig.
It's ok that they're biased, it's ok that you're biased, it's ok that i'm biased. It's not a lie, it's an accurate statement of fact. Get off the high horse.

 

[davmat787]

Having left-wing funding and even a focus on refuting right-wing disinformation doesn't mean the information they provide is inhernetly inaccurate. They may well be objective enough to do their jobs honestly. Their work won't be balanced, i.e., they're unlikely to refute disinformation from the left, but that doesn't mean their facts are wrong when they expose right-wing lies.

That said, I agree that their funding and stated mission certainly mean Mediamatters reports should be considered with a grain of salt. If you want to understand the whole story, you should probably balance Mediamatters with other sources of good information. I'm just not sure where that is on the right.

This seems reasonable in principle. Has mediamatters.org ever found to be in error, or perhaps embellishing the truth? Or do they have a perfect track record?

Look at it this way, if you read the funding info I quoted above, and replaced the word democrat with republican, and George Soros with the Koch's, and on and on, would you consider them to be without bias and able to always present the truth as is? I sure would not, but I don't subscribe to any one ideology or party, so I can see why the inverse would be true, and thus see it both ways. I suffer from severe middle child syndrome.

 

[Craig234]

If they said they were "conservative site dedicated to showing the inaccuracies in the liberal media" would you think for a moment they weren't biased?
I mean really craig.
It's ok that they're biased, it's ok that you're biased, it's ok that i'm biased. It's not a lie, it's an accurate statement of fact. Get off the high horse.

I've looked at the 'conservatives claiming they're dedicated to showing inaccuracies in the liberal media'. The fact they're quite wrong shows how accurate the liberal media' is.

 

[Craig234]

This seems reasonable in principle. Has mediamatters.org ever found to be in error, or perhaps embellishing the truth? Or do they have a perfect track record?

Look at it this way, if you read the funding info I quoted above, and replaced the word democrat with republican, and George Soros with the Koch's, and on and on, would you consider them to be without bias and able to always present the truth as is? I sure would not, but I don't subscribe to any one ideology or party, so I can see why the inverse would be true, and thus see it both ways. I suffer from severe middle child syndrome.

They're not perfect. They're generally accurate.

The problem with your question is false equivalency. Soros isn't equivalent to Koches.

You appear to suffer from the delusion that there are two sides which have to be equally valid, you can't understand that one can be better than the other.

 

[monovillage]

Of course, we all know that only conservatives can be inaccurate. All progressives are always right, always correct, never exaggerate, never deceive and all love puppies and kittens and rainbows and unicorns.

 

[Bowfinger]

This seems reasonable in principle. Has mediamatters.org ever found to be in error, or perhaps embellishing the truth? Or do they have a perfect track record?

I don't know, but I seriously doubt they have a perfect track record. They are fallible human beings after all.

Be sure you understand my position because I am agreeing with you to a fair extent. Given their pro-left agenda, I would NOT accept everything Mediamatters says as gospel. Rather, I would consider them a good source of generally accurate information from the left side of the spectrum, but a source that should be validated against other sources. In short, they're a good place to start but not the final word.

Look at it this way, if you read the funding info I quoted above, and replaced the word democrat with republican, and George Soros with the Koch's, and on and on, would you consider them to be without bias and able to always present the truth as is? I sure would not, but I don't subscribe to any one ideology or party, so I can see why the inverse would be true, and thus see it both ways. I suffer from severe middle child syndrome.

I wouldn't assume anything, but I would certainly look at the information they present with an open mind ... initially. If I see a track record of accuracy over time, I would begin to assume them more credible. If I found a track record of inaccuracy, less so. I wasn't born believing Fox was biased tripe. I developed that perception as I saw one dishonest piece after another.

 

[Bowfinger]

Of course, we all know that only conservatives can be inaccurate. All progressives are always right, always correct, never exaggerate, never deceive and all love puppies and kittens and rainbows and unicorns.

You would be so much more credible -- and useful -- if you didn't so consistently use straw men and other fallacious arguments. You seem to be fundamentally intelligent. You're just incapable of constructive debate.

 

[Bowfinger]

If they said they were "conservative site dedicated to showing the inaccuracies in the liberal media" would you think for a moment they weren't biased?
I mean really craig.
It's ok that they're biased, it's ok that you're biased, it's ok that i'm biased. It's not a lie, it's an accurate statement of fact. Get off the high horse.

You continue to conflate balance with bias. It is pretty much a given that Mediamatters is not balanced given their openly leftist agenda. I would be surprised if they claim otherwise. That does not necessarily mean they are biased, however. Is it possible they are biased? Of course. This would show up as inaccurate information in their reports. I believe what Craig is challenging you to do is show evidence of their alleged bias.

 

[Bowfinger]

They're not perfect. They're generally accurate.

The problem with your question is false equivalency. Soros isn't equivalent to Koches.

You appear to suffer from the delusion that there are two sides which have to be equally valid, you can't understand that one can be better than the other.

From my perspective, this isn't an issue of one "side" vs. the other "side". There must be hundreds of left-leaning news sites and hundreds of right-leaning news sites. Many of the left-wing sites are pure trash, as biased as anything you can find on the right. The question here is about Mediamatters specifically. In my limited experience, Mediamatters does a good job of avoiding bias while factually deconstructing right-wing stories. This is a specific trait of Mediamatters, however, and not of all left-wing news sites.

There is no reason one couldn't have equally accurate right-wing sites. I just don't know of them. If someone here does please share, because I would love to have a solid, unbiased news source for the right end of the spectrum.

 

[davmat787]

They're not perfect. They're generally accurate.

The problem with your question is false equivalency. Soros isn't equivalent to Koches.

You appear to suffer from the delusion that there are two sides which have to be equally valid, you can't understand that one can be better than the other.

Sorry, I forgot no one is allowed to dare question anything remotely connected to progressiveness, and they can do no wrong.

I think I am being fair and reasonable in this discussion Craig, you, not so much.

And yet you didn't answer the question, rather you honed in on a supposed false equivalency. I notice you do this quite a bit to evade.

Fine then, replace Kock brothers with whomever you desire, or remove them completely and then answer the question: If you take the media funding info and apply the inverse of those parties to the right, would you for one second think they are an impartial and unbiased source?

Why can so many people here see the bias of both the right and left, yet you cannot?

 

[nyker96]

news in: even cops help occupy wall street!

 

[monovillage]

You continue to conflate balance with bias. It is pretty much a given that Mediamatters is not balanced given their openly leftist agenda. I would be surprised if they claim otherwise. That does not necessarily mean they are biased, however. Is it possible they are biased? Of course. This would show up as inaccurate information in their reports. I believe what Craig is challenging you to do is show evidence of their alleged bias.

Mediamatters are both unbalanced and biased. Being biased also means that they won't cover issues that could and would damage their political agenda. Craig accused me of both lying and attacking them. I did neither. My earlier response to craig was a humorous poke at his naivety.

 

[xj0hnx]

You want to attack mediamatters? Prove your point with facts, or be shown you can't.

If you care, which I doubt you do really, I dismantled one of their "articles" here not toooo long ago. Look it up.

 

[JEDIYoda]

ProTip: If you are going to post something from Fox that is source elsewhere such as this article, simply use news.google.com to find another media outlet that is running the story. Most will have an aneurysm if they read foxnews.com, and the thread will derail.

Yet no problem of course when huffingtonpost.com or wisdems.org is used.

Your a Pro -- 2,500+ posts does not make a pro.....

 

[irishScott]

So, you can't back up your attack with any facts. Only 'bias' here is you. Which is why mediamatters exists, to point out the lies you like to fall for and repeat.

No, he just know that you're not worth the time. None of us have any chance of swaying your opinion, as your opinion is irrationally fixed and you're proud of it. So yeah, proving you and your ilk (yes, ilk) wrong is pretty much the penultimate waste of time.

 

[davmat787]

Your a Pro -- 2,500+ posts does not make a pro.....

Judge me not on the number of my posts, but on the content of my post. Down with post countism!! D:

 

[Bowfinger]

From my perspective, this isn't an issue of one "side" vs. the other "side". There must be hundreds of left-leaning news sites and hundreds of right-leaning news sites. Many of the left-wing sites are pure trash, as biased as anything you can find on the right. The question here is about Mediamatters specifically. In my limited experience, Mediamatters does a good job of avoiding bias while factually deconstructing right-wing stories. This is a specific trait of Mediamatters, however, and not of all left-wing news sites.

There is no reason one couldn't have equally accurate right-wing sites. I just don't know of them. If someone here does please share, because I would love to have a solid, unbiased news source for the right end of the spectrum.

Here it is. I wondered where this thread went.

So, nobody has offered any right-leaning sites that are comparable to Mediamatters in objectivity and accuracy. Are there truly none out there?

 

[JTsyo]

Wow this went off topic fast.

 

[Bowfinger]

Wow this went off topic fast.

Meh, three posts. That's about average for P&N.