Coultergeist

[steve s]

Keith Olbermann did a segment tonight on distortions and fabrications in Ann Coulter's book Godless. He was referring to this article by Media Matters. It's worth a read.

Steve S.

 

[Upchurch]

I don't know if Olbermann gets all his material from Media Matters, but he's done this sort of thing before. I really enjoy his stuff that I've seen on the web. I'll have to catch his actual show one of these days.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I would feel better about Media Matters if they were merely dedicated to finding the truth.

Their agenda is clearly stated:

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

Using the website www.mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.
http://mediamatters.org/about_us/

bolding mine.

So, they begin their "research" with a predetermined outcome of "conservative misinformation" and in some articles they appear to be every bit as misleading as those they accuse of being misleading.

 

[Darat]

I would feel better about Media Matters if they were merely dedicated to finding the truth.

Their agenda is clearly stated:


bolding mine.

So, they begin their "research" with a predetermined outcome of "conservative misinformation" and in some articles they appear to be every bit as misleading as those they accuse of being misleading.

That's not what those quotes say. (I have no idea whether those quotes of course are accurate or represent what they say.)

 

[Dr Adequate]

So, they begin their "research" with a predetermined outcome of "conservative misinformation" ...

... when analyzing the writings of Ann "Queen Of The Nazi Weasels" Coulter? Yes, I should say that outcome is pretty much "predetermined".

 

[Mephisto]

I would feel better about Media Matters if they were merely dedicated to finding the truth.

Their agenda is clearly stated:


bolding mine.

So, they begin their "research" with a predetermined outcome of "conservative misinformation" and in some articles they appear to be every bit as misleading as those they accuse of being misleading.

Yeah, I'll bet they can't find Liberal Misinformation anywhere! Liberal Misinformation would have us believing that evolution is a process proven by science, that Stem Cells won't grow up to vote Republican, that people who have lived in a persistent vegetative state for years probably won't jump out of bed and resume a normal life, that Iraq has no WMD, that the Bill of Rights actually guarantees certain rights and privilages to ALL American citizens, that global warming is a scientific fact, that our government is too slow and too ineffective in response to natural disasters, that public buildings shouldn't post the Ten Commandments out of respect to other religions . . .

 

[Crossbow]

Ann Coulter is a liar and now someone has actually taken the effort to document just how much she lies in her latest book.

That is just great and I look forward to reading this article.

 

[Snide]

In re: Media Matters.

Sure, they have an agenda and are biased. Much of what I read on their site makes me think, "So what?" But that's what I like about them. They actually do report, and let you decide. They just pick things they think show the Right in a self-evident negative light. But they typically show the whole story, so you can respectfully disagree.

So if you see Bill O'Reilly railing about the "far-left smear sites," just go to Media Matters and see what the fuss is about. Surprise! They're not smearing him or taking anything out of context....just reporting what he did!

I would like to see the right-wing sites do it this way.

Oh, and it's not all about "right wing disinformation." I think it equally provides the service of simply showing that the MSM isn't as "left" as BOR et al would have you believe.

 

[Cuddles]

Unfortunately, as proven by the comments to this article, her supporters don't care if she lies. Their defense seems to be "so do the liberals", as though this somehow makes it right for them to lie too (assuming the "liberals" actually are lieing).

 

[Unnamed]

To be fair, preparing footnotes is tedious, error-prone and sometimes a last-minute job. It's conceivable that those were mistakes.

For example, item #8: "Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, famously said, 'Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.'¹" cites "Doubting Rationalist, 'Intelligent Design' Proponent Phillip Johnson, and How He Came to Be.". For a person checking the numbering, this looks like reasonable source, so it's not worth the effort of double-checking.

Most importantly, Dawkins did write that (in the Blind Watchmaker, IIRC), and he means what it says.

Another example is next quote, item #9: "professor Roger Fouts of Central Washington University argues that humans 'are simply odd looking apes'⁴ in a book titled Next of Kin: What Chimpanzees Have Taught Me About Who We Are." Why use a footnote that does not mention the book or the author at all when you just gave the title of the book right there?

I could give you an even better quote from Desmond Morris' "Naked Ape": "I'm a zoologist and the naked ape [Homo sapiens] is an animal." And an odd looking one, too, since it's the only naked monkey or ape.

I'll end with item #3: "As it happens, Coulter's figures about Emily's List and the National Right to Life Committee were accurate. But the citation Coulter gave was a July 1, 2004, letter to the editor [...]".

So the facts are correct, but point to the wrong quote. Again.

Incompetence or malice?

After a few cycles of editing, quotes move, change or get lost. Even when using automated systems like EndNote or BibTeX.

Of course, Coulter is still a liar. But not for this kind of reason.

 

[corplinx]

I turn my ears off usually when I hear the name "Coulter" or "Media Matters". I mean honestly, in a battle of charlatans who wins?

 

[Upchurch]

Media Matters has at least one creditable strength: The provide not only the quote and the context, but they provide the quoted person actually saying quote in context.

....usually. Sometimes when they are doing a montage of different clips it does sometimes get a little quick and I sometimes worry about what else was being said that we missed. The more focused articles are usually pretty good, even if they are only reporting on conservative media.

Does anyone know the backstory on the guy who founded MM, by the way? He was on either the Daily Show or Colbert a while back. Interesting story, but who knows how much of it is true.

 

[casebro]

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

Doesn't political bias violate the rules for 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organisations? Like the Sierra club, or the NRA? Both of whom had to start political action wings or lose their non-profit status...

 

[BPSCG]

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

Heh - "progressive." Teddy Roosevelt formed the Progressive Party in 1912 as a third party to run against his Republican successor, Robert Taft, and the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson (Wilson won the election).

That was the last time a Republican called himself a "progressive." Subsequently, the term was picked up in the 1940's by Soviet-sympathizing politicians who didn't want to be referred to as communists, pinkos, or fellow-travellers. Henry Wallace ran as the Progressive Party candidate for president in 1948, and today it's a code word for what leftists call themselves when they don't want to be called leftist.

In fairness to Wallace, he renounced his Soviet sympathies in 1952, claiming he hadn't known about Stalin's crimes.

 

[JamesDillon]

Doesn't political bias violate the rules for 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organisations? Like the Sierra club, or the NRA? Both of whom had to start political action wings or lose their non-profit status...

Not exactly. 501(c)(3) organizations aren't allowed to engage in direct political advocacy-- they can't donate to campaigns, endorse specific candidates, or (generally) engage in lobbying activities. They can, however, participate in general political debate and advocate for specific issues. They're not required to be entirely unbiased, they just can't be direct participants in the political process.

 

[Bob Klase]

Yeah, I'll bet they can't find Liberal Misinformation anywhere! Liberal Misinformation would have us believing that evolution is a process proven by science, that Stem Cells won't grow up to vote Republican, that people who have lived in a persistent vegetative state for years probably won't jump out of bed and resume a normal life, that Iraq has no WMD, that the Bill of Rights actually guarantees certain rights and privilages to ALL American citizens, that global warming is a scientific fact, that our government is too slow and too ineffective in response to natural disasters, that public buildings shouldn't post the Ten Commandments out of respect to other religions . . .

I wouldn't try to defend Coulter, but are you claiming that there is no liberal misinformation? Is that a complete list of every claim that liberals make, or would that be cherry picking?

One in particular:

that global warming is a scientific fact,

That global warming is caused by humans and the US in particular is scientific fact?

 

[Mephisto]

I wouldn't try to defend Coulter, but are you claiming that there is no liberal misinformation? Is that a complete list of every claim that liberals make, or would that be cherry picking?

One in particular:



That global warming is caused by humans and the US in particular is scientific fact?

I'm not making any claims about liberal misinformation, just that the most obvious and most detrimental misinformation to date has come from the people in charge. How effective can liberal misinformation be if they aren't in political power?

As for global warming - yes, I know . . . the jury is still out on that. Of course, the man who stated that border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better also claims that global warming (and evolution) are nothing more than scientific speculation. Of course, he answers to a higher power.

 

[BPSCG]

Of course, the man who stated that border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better also claims that global warming (and evolution) are nothing more than scientific speculation.

Reverse "appeal to authority" fallacy.

 

[dsm]

As for global warming - yes, I know . . . the jury is still out on that.

Isn't the jury still out on whether the earth is flat?

 

[corplinx]

Does anyone know the backstory on the guy who founded MM, by the way? He was on either the Daily Show or Colbert a while back. Interesting story, but who knows how much of it is true.

Media Matters is run by a hack named David Brock that used to do hit pieces for "The American Spectator" before he "saw the light" and went out to expose the conservative media.

Their election coverage was laughable. He's moved from the anti-Clinton band wagon to make a buck to the hysterical conservative media conspiracy one.