Are media police going too far?

Do you think Mr. Bush regrets starting the war in Iraq and also the mishandling of the war?
A simple yes or no will do.

bill r.,

How about:

"Mr. President do you continue to feel that Iraq is still Mission Accomplished? A simple yes or no will do."

Or:

Mr. Vice-President: "Is the Iraqi insurgency still in its last throes? A simple yes or no will do."

Bush&Cheney have done their best to distort, lie, spin, & manipulate the media for years, & in turn, their bs is what Americans get. It's time for the media to be inspired by the likes of Woodward & Bernstein & go after these two like journalists should & not be a part of the White House pr spin machine.

Doug Zook....I wonder if that is the same thing as the republicans old cry for....Just an up or down vote?
I mean why the need to debate things.

My, in an item that has nothing to do with Bush, the one-note loons of Doug Zook and Bill R. still bring him in.

Anyway, Frank James, you should begin noting in your pieces that Media Matters is a far left "watchdog" group. Media Matters also is a tool for the Clinton people, hence their displeasure with that question. Of course, Frank James is a tool for the Barack Obama campaign. Frank should start noting that in his articles too.

John D.,

Be afraid; very, very afraid.

John D,

I find it interesting that you tell us "Frank James is a tool for the Barack Obama campaign". I'm not disputing that, since reading this article is the the first I've heard of him. But after finishing reading it, I thought, "who is this right-leaning journalist that's writing in the Chicago Tribune?"

Since we seem to require categorizing all media outlets, I'm left to wonder. By calling Media Matters a far left "watchdog" group, are you implying by omission that all other media outlets are right-biased? Not that I'd dispute that either.

Are media police going too far?

How about not far enough?

How about a Federal Judge who said "Mr. President you are operating outside your authority". Next two mainstream journalists translated that to, "That should help Mr. Bush at the polls".

How about journalist "getting their marching orders from a political source" and then revealing the identity of a CIA operative? This to me is an all time low for the press. It was no surprise for the Bush team but the Press "didn't used to do ugly stuff like that".

And Journalism has its rules. But the Journalism rules can only attempt to influence behavior. Sometimes rules on paper don't police too good.

Frank James, you have completely missed the point. We liberals are sick and tired of the double standard applied. Do you guys ever get worked up over hate mongers like Rush Libmbaugh and Glenn Beck? No. But the minute you get ANY criticism from the left, you have the vapors. Media Matters and the Daily Howler have a LOT more credibility than you do. So suck it up and quit crying.

Since so much of the broadcast and print media have become stenographers for the White House and their RNC friends, the work that Media Matters does is very important. Who else is actually critiquing the work done by what is usually called, the Fouth Estate?

And why not consider the questions journalists ask? Here's an old fave: "Senator, when did you stop beating your wife?" Hey, why not? How different is that from the partisan fabrications that the Blitzer example offers?

Doug Zook,

It amazes me how meager minds can consider the Iraq battle front in the war on Islamic extremists is still the “war against Iraq”, we won that war. Today it is so clearly a battle front against the global enemy of Islamic terrorists. To make the statement "Mr. President do you continue to feel that Iraq is still Mission Accomplished” is about as simple minded and naïve as a mind could be.

[quote]
Anyway, Frank James, you should begin noting in your pieces that Media Matters is a far left "watchdog" group. Media Matters also is a tool for the Clinton people, hence their displeasure with that question. Posted by: John D | May 19, 2007 10:35:17 AM
[/quote]

John D:

Please post DEFINITIVE PROOF that Media Matters is a "tool for the Clinton people". Everyone here in The Swamp will be eagerly waiting for you post that contains said proof.

Just because they point out the distortions, half truths and outright lies that politicians, both Republican and Democrat, say on a daily basis DOES NOT make them a "tool for the Clinton people".

Or are you just throwing out another Hillary Clinton smear, like Paulo did this past February regard the Obama "madrassa school" post that he has REFUSED TO EITHER PROVE TRUE OR ADMIT THAT HE HAS POSTED A FALSE ALLEGATION AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR POSTING A LIE.

If only there was more eye-rolling during press conferences...

However, at first blush this post about Media Matters was disturbing, especially because the group hails from the liberal end of the spectrum. Censorship has usually been the province of the right (despite all the cries of liberal political correctness).

But the more I thought about this, the more I wonder why not question the question. How a question is phrased can elicit certain answers. Consider polls and surveys. If you ask me if I support the Iraq war, I'll say no. If you ask me if I support protecting my country against a terrorist threat, I'll say yes. But the pollster may indeed see my yes to the second question as implying support for the war in Iraq.

And journalists themselves often bemoan "softball" questions from their peers or laugh privately about longwinded, confusing multi-part questions.

I wouldn't expect or want reporters looking over their shoulders and possibly censoring their own questions. Nor do I see anything wrong with the question posed by Wolf Blizter. But being more aware about the questions being asked is a good thing. Just as we should critically analyze the answers (or non-answers as the case may be), we should also analyze the question.

It's just the coffee John D....I know you can take it big guy!

While they are themselves a bit too persnickety and sometimes betray any sense of humor, Media Matter is absolutely essential to offset the right wing propaganda that is too often taken as articles of faith by the general public and often, unfortunately, by the mainstream media. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, et. al. have for way too long been able to get away with just making up stories that keep getting repeated by blogs and elsewhere that they become established as 'facts'. Media Matters mostly just repeats what these story-tellers say and then provides what the actual facts surrounding the story are - it helps stop these legends from being spread any further.

We liberals are sick and tired of the double standard applied. Do you guys ever get worked up over hate mongers like Rush Libmbaugh and Glenn Beck? No. But the minute you get ANY criticism from the left, you have the vapors. Media Matters and the Daily Howler have a LOT more credibility than you do. So suck it up and quit crying.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | May 19, 2007 12:42:45 PM

So what you are saying is that while its wrong for the right to run around screaming about media bias all the time its OK if its the Left doing it as they have more credibility with you?

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand it when Bruce starts screaming about media bias & demanding people's voting records & contributions so he can assess someone's bias potential but if its wrong for the right to do it it must be just as wrong for the left to do it as well. Personally I see it as a very, very bad sign that the left is starting to adopt the tactics of the right.

I URGE ALL CHICAGO PEOPLE OR VOTER THIS TIEM PICK THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR PRES08// WE SIFFER ENOUGH IN BUSH ADM, FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS- ANY REACE BLACKA ND WHITE AND ASIAN AND WTC. HILLARY CLINTON IS THE PERFECT CHOICE YOU KNOW THAT-WE WILL BE HAPPIER WHEN WE PICK HILARY -WE HAD THAT DURING HER HUSBAND ADM, LOTS OF JOBS?SURPLUS AND ETC.THOSE DAYS ARE THE HAPPY TIMES.

Oh, you poor journalists. And 10 percent of you are working so hard, too.

"Personally I see it as a very, very bad sign that the left is starting to adopt the tactics of the right."

1st, we're not adopting the tactics of the right. We try to observe these things called 'facts'.
2nd, why would it be a problem for us to call out bias when it appears to be OK for the rightards to do so?

Liberals don't hate the media the way conservatives do. We only ask that they report the truth. Media Matters does an invaluable service.

This is one of the most self-contradictory, language-abusive whines I have ever read. Seriously, a "self-appointed watchdog" group writing critical articles constitutes a "media police"?! "Police"?!?! Really? What does this line of argument make the "media" itself? Shall we call them the "self-appointed society police"? Or the "self-appointed government police"? The "self-appointed politician police", perhaps, or even the "self-appointed police police"?

Say there was a debate between two politicians. They refuse to have a moderator and proceed to ask each other softball questions for 90 minutes. The "media" would rightly bash the event. The politicians, wounded in the public eye by the attention, agree to have a member of the "media" moderate the next debate. (Notice how this works to the "media"'s advantage - the prestige of professional journalists increases when they are chosen to moderate instead of, say, university professors of political science.) Okay...now, say at this next debate the "media" member asks softball questions for 90 minutes. The effect for our democracy is the same; in fact, it's probably far worse, because now there is a mask of credibility over an affair that should still have none, and far fewer people will see the softball questions for what they are. In such a situation, are people simply to be stuck there permanently - are they never to call the "moderator" to account for the unimportant, ill-informed, friendly, biased questions he asks - just because his nametag reads: MEDIA?

While this scenario may seem complicated, can we not see any hint of our current situation in it? What serious issues have been addressed in the last several elections? For example: The last election, supposedly held during the existential crisis manifested in a "Global War on Terror", revolved entirely around moronic non-issues such as "Swift Vets" as well as silly tough-talk contests about who really wanted to kill the terrorists more. Is the media to be placed above criticism, even though they surely had the power to prevent this?

Media MAtters - the wholly owwned subsidiary of Gerorge Soros - that's an unbiased source.

CJ spoke to Doug Zook,

Doug Zook,

It amazes me how meager minds can consider the Iraq battle front in the war on Islamic extremists is still the “war against Iraq”, we won that war. Today it is so clearly a battle front against the global enemy of Islamic terrorists. To make the statement "Mr. President do you continue to feel that Iraq is still Mission Accomplished” is about as simple minded and naïve as a mind could be.

Posted by: CJ | May 19, 2007 2:52:15 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sometimes the verbiage gets eyecrossing.

Most Americans understood that Congress gave the President authority to go to war against IRAQ. Only Iraq, nothing but Iraq. And as the Bush team prepared, mainstream asked the Bush team if it did not need more troops. This was just for Iraq, nothing but Iraq. If the Bush team had said they were going for the long haul - a global terrorist hunt - there would have been twice as many "faschist sympathizers" in the streets and the Secretary of Defense would have be continually saying "BACK OFF, BACK OFF".

The catalyst(WMDs) was a FAKE but not a big enough FAKE to give the Bush team the right to shoot up other countries.

Since the Bush team is mired in Iraq with no hope of fixing their mess anytime soon - why not pretend they are mired in Iraq but somehow the goal has changed to fighting global terrorists. That thought may not be glamorous but some Americans will believe it. They believed "yellow-cake" didn't they?

Not all Americans operate on "faith based logic" in the political arena. To believe what some are saying would require a tremendous relaxation of one's mental faculties, possibly even drunken stupor.

The Bush team is now fighting a GLOBAL war because it can't win the local war. Just rename the local war to global war. Simple. Somebody will believe it. They believed yellow-cake didn't they.

I wonder how many people know or don't know that the president and CEO of Media Matters is none other than David Brock. His book "Blinded By The Right" documents his years as an ultra-conservative journalist who spent a lot of time digging up dirt in Arkansas, overwhelmingly lies, with the sole purpose of destroying Bill Clinton. He also wrote a scathing article about Anita Hill, also trying to destroy her credibility, again based on lies (he later apologized to her).

The fact that his conscience eventually overcame him and he became a truth seeker, attempting to undo damage caused by unscrupulous right-wingers speaks volumes (to me) about the ethics of the right and the left, although I doubt that this point will get through the majority of the thicker skulls out there.

Read it if you dare (or are capable).

BC, here is some proof for you:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150

John Podesta, former Clinton chief of staff, is one of the leaders of media matters.

The fact is that groups like Media Matters are not that different from Reed Irvine and his ilk of the 1980s. They have a clearly defined agenda, and their "criticisms" are aimed at advancing that agenda. These groups wouldn't know the inside of a newsroom from the inside of a forest preserve outhouse. They couldn't cover an old lady's 100th birthday party, let alone a political story. They want the news pages to look like Keith Olbermann's show. Mainstream reporters unfortunately do tend to be incredibly lazy, and they should be criticized for that, but no matter what they do, they will no more make Media Matters happy than they did Reed Irvine.

Obviously Terry is uncritically taking what Bill O'Reilly says as fact regarding Soros owning Media Matters (Media Matters explaines that in fact, he does not - an organization that contributes to Media Matters did receive contributions from Soros, but Soros' money was specifically earmarked for other projects not related to Media Matters). Its amazing that people take every distortion and lie coming out of Bill O's and Rush's mouths as indisputable facts and consider the actual facts as "biases of the liberal media". They really have these people brain-washed.

Hey, When Sears tower comes tumbling down, all of you can call on Hillary and Nancy to save you. Cliff

A keen observation and sadly very much on target. This has been going on for a very long time now. I am not sure there are any neutral media reporters They are either tainted by a desire to make money, "make" news, or stir up controversies where non existed.

Who would we trust more, the media or policitians?

OMG how funny! The Media Police You say? So,may
I ask who "polices the Media police"? And all the
more so these days when there is growing doubt
that we even still have any real live honest to
goodness news reporters,editors,televison anchor
people,left to honestly "report the news" to us
their readers and viewers fairly,honestly and
unbiased and accurately. And the fact also remains that "The New Generation Of Newspaper
Censors" have all but destroyed their readers
Constitutional Rights to Freedom of Speech,Press
and Expression by Censorship of our comments and
letters to the editor and simply deleting and/or
failing to post their readers thoughts and views!
Therefore,the News Media and Politicians Are
Equally Power Mad and Destroying Our Freedoms
and both Suck Big Time Now Days! Take That! I Bet
This Post Is Already Deleted By The Chicago
Tribune "News Police Censor' already by now!

This would've been a nice question to ask 8 years ago. Seriously, if anyone has to even ask if mediamatters is an ultra-left wing organization funded by George Soros then they've obviously not been paying attention.

"Frank James is a tool for the Barack Obama campaign. Frank should start noting that in his articles too.

Posted by: John D | May 19, 2007 10:35:17 AM"

And John D. is just a tool for HVAC.

Why do you think you have any credibility?

Sounds like MM was only pointing out the journalistic equivalent of "push polling". Relevant point, and it does seem the claim of "media police" is a bit over the top.

You know...if public education included a course on critical thinking, including logical fallacies, we wouldn't be having all these discussions involving Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage and the rest - because no one would take them seriously. No Child Left Behind indeed.

Meanwhile, I'm surprised no one has yet provided the relevant (and missing) link:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705150009

Now read the following article, starting with the last paragraph on the page:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18758001/site/newsweek/page/4/
I expect it's where Blitzer's point (if one might call it that) originated.

There is definitely a chilling of the press going on. Practicing cheap and dirty politics, playing fast and loose with the facts and even lying: Accusations like these, and worse, have been slung nonstop this year.

The accused in this case are not the candidates, but the mainstream news media. And the accusers are an ever-growing army of Internet writers, many of them partisans, who reach hundreds of thousands of people a day.

Republicans, take back your party from the neo-con nutters who have run it into the ground the last eight years. Groups like Media Research Center and Media Matters for America compound the problem. p.s. let's agree to disagree.

One last thing. John D ya still didn't answer my question. Evolution or intelligent design???

It is priceless that after 40 years of Network Bias (primarily Dan 'Blather')the left's nose is out of joint when anyone attempts to harness their obviously biased pundits.

Of course O'Rielly and Limbaugh exaggerate and even 'stretch' the facts on occasion.....they are paid to get ratings and both have been known to admit they are wrong when a factual error is made.

On the other hand, over on MSNBC which has become the Clinton News Network of the new millinenium, Olberman spews anti-administration venom every night without ever having anyone other than Pat Buchanan to offer counterviews. His group of Kool Aid drinking lackeys, Fineman, Alter, Crawford and the Newsday writer dujour, don't seem to understand that the voters who actually decide the elections; those of us in the flyover states, can see right through their BS. At least Imus offered opinions from both sides and never really took sides other than to "BLAST" either party if he thought they were at fault.

If Air-America stays on much longer, George Soros may run out of money. There is a reason that Limbaugh and O'Rielly are so commercially successful, people listen and companies advertise. The free market always wins in the end. Has Bush screwed up the war.....absolutely, but I'm still waiting for the answer to the question of "Who attacked us in Bosnia.....why did we go in there?

There just needs to be an upgrade in civility in Washington; where are the Dirksens, Moynihans,and O'Neills? These men were statesmen, in addition to being politicians...no evidence of that today in DC......it is sad.

To John D.:

Nice crackpot website. if someone links to MediaMatters, you would dismiss it as partisan propaganda wouldn't you?

Why is the site you linked to any different? it is clearly some wingnut hit job created to back up nonsensicle goper claims.

Anyway it's run by David Horowitz, know righty philathroper (that must be why the site doesn't have those 'Learn secret fighting techniques' ads on it)

To Jeff:

"George Soros is funding everything, OH NOES!!!1!!" He & MediaMatters have repeated denied ANY funding from him, yet the lie remains.

Even IF he was, so what? How is that any different from Richard Mellon Scaife?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mellon_Scaife

...or the above mentioned David Horowitz?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_Freedom_Center

...or any other of a number of right wing nutjob welfare kings who help fund and propagate the media's lies & distortions (just google it).

Some of Roger Ailes, Chairman of Fox News has held
-working as a media adviser to Richard M. Nixon Presidential Campaign in 1967-68;
-working as a consultant in 1984 to Ronald Reagan; and
-working on George H. W. Bush's 1988 Presidential campaign;

Is he biased?

Some jobs Roger Ailes, Chairman of Fox News has held
-working as a media adviser to Richard M. Nixon Presidential Campaign in 1967-68;
-working as a consultant in 1984 to Ronald Reagan; and
-working on George H. W. Bush's 1988 Presidential campaign;

Is he biased?

[quote]
BC, here is some proof for you:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150

John Podesta, former Clinton chief of staff, is one of the leaders of media matters.
Posted by: John D | May 19, 2007 9:35:45 PM
[/quote]

From the link you provided:

various quotes:

"Media Matters' founder and CEO is David Brock. A reporter for the conservative magazine The American Spectator in the 1990s, Brock (in the aftermath of his biography of Hillary Clinton that brought disastrous reviews)"

"Standing behind Brock was John Podesta, a former chief of staff in the Clinton administration"

"Susie Tompkins Buell, a co-founder of the fashion company Esprit and a close ally of Senator Hillary Clinton"

"James Hormel, a San Francisco philanthropist who nearly served as ambassador to Luxembourg during the Clinton administration"

"Prior to founding Media Matters, David Brock met with a number of leading Democratic Party figures, including Senator Hillary Clinton"

These are the best that I was able to find in your source to back up your allegation "that Media Matters is a tool for Hillary Clinton". Pretty weak, at best. But keep believing what you want through your tunnel vision - it's your right as an American.

"Do you guys ever get worked up over hate mongers like Rush Libmbaugh and Glenn Beck? No. "

I love it! Anyone who disagrees with the left and voices that disagreement is a "hate monger"

Left wingers at thier best.

Tell us more wiener dog.

You guys are so pathetic. Can't debate so just call opponents names.

Are they racist too? Anti woman, Homophobes? Sexists?

Anti voter rights?

Let's get all the left wing names in there.

Gee, ever think this is why the term "liberal" has become a joke?

I love it! Anyone who disagrees with the right and voices that disagreement is a "hate America monger"