Media Matters Doesn't
I was telling someone that Media Matters is a very heavily biased web site that lacks any credibility. To make the point, I went to the web site and picked the top story, whatever it happened to be. It was After repeatedly reporting Democrats lacked plan, CNN ignored party's new national security strategy .
So here's the facts: the Democrats released a new strategy in the early afternoon of March 29. There was only one short mention of the plan on CNN in the first few hours of the press conference about it, and then a longer segment at 5 p.m.
The plan contained nothing that would significantly improve Iraq, and was a summary of things the Democrats have been talking about for months: screening 100 percent of imported cargo, increasing size of our Special Forces and National Guard, getting better body armor for troops, giving more resources to first responders, and giving more money for veterans benefits.
In the CNN story, reporter Dana Bash talks mostly about the plan in terms of the coming elections, which, of course, is primarily what the plan is about. Harry Reid is quoted extensively in the piece, criticizing Bush. She mentions the Democrats' "broad plan" for security, and says it is "some of the ideas that, frankly, we've heard before" and did not include a "clear plan for Iraq." Both of which are true: actually, I'd go farther and say it is verifiably true that there's no new idea in the plan that the Democrats have not been touting for weeks or months, if not years.
So, Media Matters is lying when it says the new strategy is ignored; it is at best debatable whether this strategy is "new" at all; and it is transparently hypocritical when it criticizes CNN for daring to treat this "plan" in the same way that Media Matters and CNN both treat Bush and Republican proposals that don't say anything new.
See how easy this game is to play? Let's go to the very next story: Going to the very next story, One day after covering GOP attack on Dem national security proposal, NY Times ignores its rollout .
Ah, same basic theme. Let's read on: apparently, this is one of those "true but stupid" statements: the Times gave significant coverage to the proposal the day it was rolled out, and didn't follow up the next day because there was nothing new to report. So there is absolutely no truth to the notion that the Times ignored the rollout of the plan, and in fact, they covered the plan in some depth: they just didn't cover it on a specific day.
And somehow the fact that it was published on March 29 and not March 30 is significant to these people. Probably because these people are simply not reasonable.
Again, I just picked these two stories at random. I am not cherry-picking. There are a few web sites that I simply distrust before I ever read what they have to say. This one is at the very top of that list.
So here's the facts: the Democrats released a new strategy in the early afternoon of March 29. There was only one short mention of the plan on CNN in the first few hours of the press conference about it, and then a longer segment at 5 p.m.
The plan contained nothing that would significantly improve Iraq, and was a summary of things the Democrats have been talking about for months: screening 100 percent of imported cargo, increasing size of our Special Forces and National Guard, getting better body armor for troops, giving more resources to first responders, and giving more money for veterans benefits.
In the CNN story, reporter Dana Bash talks mostly about the plan in terms of the coming elections, which, of course, is primarily what the plan is about. Harry Reid is quoted extensively in the piece, criticizing Bush. She mentions the Democrats' "broad plan" for security, and says it is "some of the ideas that, frankly, we've heard before" and did not include a "clear plan for Iraq." Both of which are true: actually, I'd go farther and say it is verifiably true that there's no new idea in the plan that the Democrats have not been touting for weeks or months, if not years.
So, Media Matters is lying when it says the new strategy is ignored; it is at best debatable whether this strategy is "new" at all; and it is transparently hypocritical when it criticizes CNN for daring to treat this "plan" in the same way that Media Matters and CNN both treat Bush and Republican proposals that don't say anything new.
See how easy this game is to play? Let's go to the very next story: Going to the very next story, One day after covering GOP attack on Dem national security proposal, NY Times ignores its rollout .
Ah, same basic theme. Let's read on: apparently, this is one of those "true but stupid" statements: the Times gave significant coverage to the proposal the day it was rolled out, and didn't follow up the next day because there was nothing new to report. So there is absolutely no truth to the notion that the Times ignored the rollout of the plan, and in fact, they covered the plan in some depth: they just didn't cover it on a specific day.
And somehow the fact that it was published on March 29 and not March 30 is significant to these people. Probably because these people are simply not reasonable.
Again, I just picked these two stories at random. I am not cherry-picking. There are a few web sites that I simply distrust before I ever read what they have to say. This one is at the very top of that list.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment