the Hillary camp fears:
Media Matters claims it is not, as the National Review noted, “an avowedly political institution,” but a nonpartisan, progressive nonprofit that is unaffiliated with any political party or candidate. Hah!
But, after doing a bit of research, Let Freedom Ring reported that Media Matters is the Clinton War Room on steroids! LFR reported this after looking at the long list of Clinton lackeys that make up the staff. Let Freedom Ring also wonders if Media Matters is violating its 501c3 status.
Sweetness and Light reported more on this illicit Clintonian outfit. MM is getting a huge amount of financial support from Democracy Alliance, a self-described “liberal organization†whose long-term objective is to raise $200 million to develop a funding clearinghouse for progressive groups. Political operative Rob Stein, who served as chief of staff to Commerce Secretary Ron Brown during the Clinton administration, conceived of the project and is directing it.
More on Media Matters from Jonah Goldberg:
In the parable of the million monkeys banging on typewriters for a million years, the reward is supposed to be the complete works of Shakespeare. But have you heard the parable of the million interns? Here, the prize is Rush Limbaugh’s head, and Bill O’Reilly’s, and Brit Hume’s, and pretty much any other prominent conservative or non-leftist who doesn’t kowtow to the Democratic Party and its “netroots” army of Lilliputian cannibals. This, in a nutshell, is the vision behind a group most people have never heard of, at least not until this week, Media Matters for America.
*******
Part of the complex of liberal activist groups linked to George Soros and dedicated to the success of Democratic candidates, Media Matters churns out polemic and spin gussied-up as media criticism. The strategy is an upgrade of the Clinton communication attack plan of the 1990s. First: Demonize critics as crazy people, ax-grinders, bigots and shills.
This was the tactic used by Clinton and Co. in the 1990s to try to marginalize critics like Limbaugh and whistleblowers like Travel Office director Billy Dale. Recall how Bill Clinton suggested Limbaugh incited the Oklahoma City bombing or how his cronies immediately claimed Dale was a criminal and Monica Lewinsky a stalker?
I don’t listen to Rush or O’Reilly, and I don’t watch television news, so I don’t really care much about them individually. But I do care about the business of attempting to silence them by whatever means necessary, a la Hamsher or her fanboy flunkie, TRex.
I’m not a lawyer, but why isn’t some of what Media Matters does illegal/criminal given that they are registered to function as a so-called “non-profit?”
That was the implication, Tim, of the post at Let Freedom Ring!
“…army of Lilliputian cannibals”
The Nep sure has a way with words, don’t he?
“I’m not a lawyer, but why isn’t some of what Media Matters does illegal/criminal given that they are registered to function as a so-called “non-profit?—
They report. You decide.
The post at sweetness and light — which you link to by referring to MM as “illicit” — plain old just doesn’t know the rules, but it knows what they ought to be:
“Let freedom ring” only focuses on hte “charitable” definition. MM would probably fall under “educational.” Start on page 22 here:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf
Well if we know one thing we can’t rely on the political left to spontaneously form organizations like this. They saw how effective and easy a job the right had at pointing out gross left-leaning bias in the media, so they ginned up a contrived organization that spends all day going over the news trying to find anything they can spin as right wing bias. And I’ve checked that site over and over again two years now trying to find examples. They almost never succeed at finding a single example.
No Andy. It qualifies as a POL organization. Start at page 11. It’s an advocacy group.
“It qualifies as a POL organization”
How so? Right now they conduct research on conservative misinformation and bias and communicate the research results to the public. That seems to fit under the the first column of page 22.
“It’s an advocacy group.”
Thats addressed on page 22 too.
“Thus their claims of “nonpartisanâ€Â.”
Partisan isn’t the same as ideological.
“Show us an equal number of criticisms of “liberal misinformation and biasâ€Â. Y’know, under the “Fairness Doctrine†so beloved by the Democrats.
But there is no requirement of Fairness. Churches are 501(c)(3)’s, even if they unfairly tell some people that they’re going to heaven and others hell.
“Otherwise, they are an advocacy group.”
And one can do that as an educational group, as the publication i linked to explained on page 22.
So liberalism is a religion now?
From your link, page 22:
“The following factors indicate that the method is not educational.”
Seem to be ok here.
“You’re also missing the requirement of such education taking place in “a school, by panels, discussions, lectures, forums, radio and television programs, or through various cultural media such as museums, symphony orchestras or art exhibitsâ€Â.”
I think you need to bone up on your reading skills. Those aren’t requirements, but examples as to how the educational mission is carried out. See how shortly before it, there are the words “such as.” ? I suppose that MM would say they use the web.
By (and pay attention to the words actually used, rather than a “including but not limited to” phrasing) presenting viewpoints unsupported by facts, distorting what few facts are used, using inflammatory and disparaging terminology, expressing conclusions based on emotion and not aimed at developing an understanding by the audience.
That means – quite explicitly, and in black letter law – that Media Matters is not now, and can never qualify as, a non-profit educational group.
That brings us back to their unabashed partisanship (which is in direct refutation of their claim of non-partisanship), which makes them a political advocacy group.
Keep trying. Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day. (That’s twice a day more often than yourself, but there is always hope that lightning might strike.)
“By (and pay attention to the words actually used, rather than a “including but not limited to†phrasing) presenting viewpoints unsupported by facts, distorting what few facts are used, using inflammatory and disparaging terminology, expressing conclusions based on emotion and not aimed at developing an understanding by the audience.”
You’re not going to find MM fitting this definition. They put transcripts up, don’t distort them, and are actually quite limited in the conclusions they reach. Take the example on O’reilly and harlem. Really the only conclusion there is to classify it as belonging with other “provocative statements about race.”
“in black letter law”
Not quite the law. Thats an IRS publication, which is not the law, or even the official regulation. If anyone has the official regs, I’d appreciate a link.
“political advocacy group”
Right. you can be an advocacy group and qualify for “educational.”
https://www.mediaresearch.org/secure/mediaresearch/welcome.asp“>Media Research Center is a 501(c)(3), so Media Matters is clearly within that realm.
However, it’s when Media Matters claims to be “nonpartisan” and “not affiliated with any political candidate or campaign” that it gets a little…shall we say, bullsh*tty.
“Comment by andy on 10/7 @ 9:37 am #
“It qualifies as a POL organizationâ€Â
How so? Right now they conduct research on conservative misinformation and bias and communicate the research results to the public. That seems to fit under the the first column of page 22.
“It’s an advocacy group.â€Â
Thats addressed on page 22 too.”
So it’s ok to lie through your stinking snaggle teeth as long as it advances the reactionary leftist agenda, eh andy?
“So it’s ok to lie through your stinking snaggle teeth as long as it advances the reactionary leftist agenda, eh andy?”
Indeed, those clips they link to? people don’t actually say those things! someone tell the IRS!
“Comment by andy on 10/7 @ 11:32 am #
Indeed, those clips they link to? people don’t actually say those things! someone tell the IRS!”
MM lies.
You defend their lies.
You’re a liar, too.
Doodz – if MRC’s a legitimate 501(c)(3), then MM is too.
But MRC openly admits to being conservative and doesn’t pretend to be “nonpartisan.”
http://www.mediaresearch.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp
MM tries to couch it’s naked partisan agenda in the language and bromides of “progressivism.” That is, tell a blatant lie and then deny that it is a blatant lie.
Doublespeak.
Besides, the organization’s numerous financial and personal connections to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Administration (including numerous political operatives and former staffers working for MM) is enough to cast anything the smear group does as partisan Democrat advocacy.
The tax code thing isn’t going to work, even though it looks like it should.
Not to mention MM’s funding by George Soros groups like Democracy Alliance, The Open Society Institute, Terry Kerry’s Tides Foundation, and many others.
Only in the mainstream media is any of this a mystery and not worthy of exploration. Hence, Media Matters might as well be just another are of the MSM/Democrat smear machine.
Isn’t the real message here the folly of trying to legislate and/or regulate political speech? If David Brock wants to sppew his spin-doctored bullshit from coast to coast in lockstep with Hillary, let him.
“Comment by Jeffersonian on 10/7 @ 11:38 am #
Isn’t the real message here the folly of trying to legislate and/or regulate political speech? If David Brock wants to sppew his spin-doctored bullshit from coast to coast in lockstep with Hillary, let him.”
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Especially for reactionary leftist lies.
“MM lies.”
I linked to the O’reilly piece. The only thing there that could have been a lie is that they called it “provocative.”
Here’s an excerpt from an initial legal action against Media Matters:
“Media Matters claims to be a non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt organization… it’s not allowed to get involved in politics…because it’s tax exempt… yet they have never criticized a leftist talk show host on Air America, ever. They have never criticized Keith Olbermann, never. They only criticize the meda when the media does a story that is unfavorable to the [Clinton] crime family leaders…
“They are in clear violation of the Internal Revenue Code, the 501(c)(3) status that’s been conferred on them…every time they file a tax return, telling the government that ‘we’re non-political, non-partisan’ and that they sign the tax-return on penalty of perjury,…they’re committing perjury.
“[In]..a lawsuit against this group, [with] full discovery of emails, phone logs, and testimony under oath or in depositions, the whole game would be up and they’d be completely exposed for what they are. Which is: a criminal enterprise, in the sense that they are, … violating the tax code…”
“Here’s an excerpt from an initial legal action against Media Matters:”
So someone actually is suing media matters? Or did you grab this from some rant somewhere?
Andy, apparently the suit will not only go after Media Matters as an entity, but also pursue individuals who have put their name to various defamatory articles; I gather that the legal theory flows from the fact that such folks have been receiving renumeration from a criminal enterprise and that apparently is yet another violation of the statutes governing so-called non-profits.
Tim, how dare you blindside Andy with a fact that didn’t come directly from those nonpartisan educators at Media Matters?
“Andy, apparently the suit will not only go after Media Matters as an entity, but also pursue individuals who have put their name to various defamatory articles;”
So do you actually have a link to the filing? I’d love to read it. Where did you read that stuff you were quoting?
“I gather that the legal theory flows from the fact that such folks have been receiving renumeration from a criminal enterprise”
I wonder if those lawyers are working on contingency.
Agreed, but IRS regs push the dirty little details into the shadows.
“Let Freedom Ring also wonders if Media Matters is violating its 501c3 status.”
Not if Hillary wins.
I dunno, guys. Siccing the IRS on political opponents is such a… Clintonian… thing to do.
“do care about the business of attempting to silence them”
Tell me what this protracted assault against the messenger is designed to do? The Sweetness and Light post? Keep them on the web? Give me a break.
I have yet to see where they (MM) posted doctored transcripts or in any way posted anything untrue, and it’s telling to see such a backlash.
Be more of a hypocrite.
Guys – it is simple to demonstrate that Media Matters is a Hillary-supported front group. Ignore andy and his spirited defense of the notion that being a nakedly partisan Democrats smear organization is “nonpartisan.” Then challenge andy to find instance in which Media Matters has highlighted liberal media bias to prove it’s self-imposed “nonpartisan” mission is in fact real and not just a lie.
All you have to do is point out that – HEY, Here’s a former Clinton Staffer working for MM, or HEY, Here’s a former Clinton campaign adviser working for MM, or HEY, here’s MM’s president donating exclusively to Democrats, or HEY, here’s the definition of “progressive” and it isn’t synonymous with “nonpartisan” (that’s why they’re different words), or HEY – here’s Clinton admitting she helped start and support MM….etc.
They are bursting at the seems with Democrat $$, Democrat political operatives, Democrat lies and Democrat spin.
The 501(c)(3) is a lost cause, because MRC is a 501(c)(3).
What is easier to demonstrate is the Orwellian dishonesty and doublespeak that MM engages in on a daily basis with it’s mission statements, smear posts that leave out critical contextual details, and other methods of providing “nonpartisan” partisanship.
It isn’t that hard. These guys may be rich with Soros/Democrat $$, but they’re sloppy and easy to play gotcha with. As I’ve demonstrated here:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/189671.php
angryflower:
Deal with it.
Speaking of Kurtz:
“All you have to do is point out that – HEY, Here’s a former Clinton Staffer working for MM”
Should one point out that it is headed by a former Clinton attacker?
Not quite the law. Thats an IRS publication, which is not the law, or even the official regulation. If anyone has the official regs, I’d appreciate a link.
Tell that to the IRS at your next audit. No. Really. A little piece of advice. When you are called in for an audit. Always, always, always send your legal representative. Never go yourself. Good luck.
Is there anyone here who doesn’t know about Brock’s history? Or that Brock wrote a fawning book about Hillary and then renounced his entire previous body of work before starting Media Matters?
Andy, you can’t play “gotcha” with an empty bag of tricks.
Um, andy? Did you look at who that smear merchant known as David Brock donates money to? Tell me who. I’ll wait.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/brockdonations.jpg
What we’ve shown here today is that andy, like MM before him, conveniently ignores the Democrat $$ funding the organization (Soros’s Open Society Institute, Terry Kerry’s Tides Foundation, the ultra-liberal sugar daddy group Democracy Alliance, etc.), former Clinton/Gore advisers (including Rick Ridder) and even former White House political directors (Craig Hughes) working for the organization, Democrat support from Hillary Clinton (which she was caught admitting, along with working knowledge of what they do), intense focus on anything that isn’t sufficiently Democrat-supporting with complete disregard for media outlets spewing leftist dogma and liberal misinformation, etc. in order to sieze on what he percieves as a “weakness” while ignoring the vast body of evidence to the contrary.
And he makes himself look like a partisan fool for doing so.
It’s easy – Media Matters lies, about many things. And they get caught in their biggest lie – that they’re “nonpartisan.”
angryflower:
Where’s the doctored transcripts? You’re kidding, right? See this smear post:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010?f=h_top
[…]
LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call.
LIMBAUGH: You bet.
CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I’ve been serving for 14 years, very proudly.
LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER 2: And, you know, I’m one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I’m proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull — what these people don’t understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that’s over there, it’d take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we’d have to go right back over there within a year or so. And —
LIMBAUGH: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. They can’t even — if — the next guy that calls here, I’m gonna ask him: Why should we pull — what is the imperative for pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out? They can’t — I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, “Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.”
CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what —
LIMBAUGH: “Save the — keep the troops safe” or whatever. I — it’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.
LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined —
CALLER 2: A lot of them — the new kids, yeah.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.
CALLER 2: Exactly, sir.
[…end of Media Matters transcript for this smear]
Where’s the next nine minutes of the transcript, in which Limbaugh actually provides the example of a phony soldier in this smear post? Oh yeah – it’s been doctored out because Jesse Macbeth IS a phony soldier.
PWNED.
The non-profit tax scam has been going on forever. Even a few conservative orgs get in on it, although my non-scientific survey puts it at about a 1000:1 advantage for the “progs”. They infiltrated the large foundations (Ford, etc.) years ago. There are never any prosecutions. That’s why I vote against any tax increase, or for any tax cut, no matter what the issue. Money is fungible. The way to cure this is to cut off their water. It’s also good for the economy. Flan
“That’s why I vote against any tax increase, or for any tax cut, no matter what the issue. Money is fungible. The way to cure this is to cut off their water.”
How does it “cut off their water” to vote for tax cuts and against tax increases?
“vote for tax cuts and against tax increases?”
Well, silly, less taxes collected = less tax money for the government to fudge.
But on the flip side…
Are you suggesting that tax cuts bring MORE money into the Federal government than taxes heavy taxation does? As in, supply-side economics actually work?
You NEOCON.
“Well, silly, less taxes collected = less tax money for the government to fudge.”
What is the government fudging that has to do with Media Matters, or non profits in general? They’re funded from private sources, not government ones.
“What is the government fudging that has to do with Media Matters, or non profits in general? They’re funded from private sources, not government ones.”
Ooh, andy, pop quiz time!
Prove flan was referencing solely Media Matters, or even referencing specifically Media Matters!
“Prove flan was referencing solely Media Matters, or even referencing specifically Media Matters!”
Thats why I asked about non-profits in general. What do tax cuts and tax increases have to do with them?
It has nothing to do with tax cuts or tax increases, actus. It has to do with tax exempt income, which, of course, you already know.
Oh, and tax deducible donations, which, see above.
I’m having a hard time understanding your babbling. Flan mentioned being against tax increases and for tax cuts. But you seem to be rather incomprehensibly saying that its not about that. If so, tell Flan. One would think that finding MORE reasons to make things tax deductible, or more income be tax exempt, would be like having more tax cuts. Something which flan favored.
Try reading his post again. That mention was entirely secondary to his point about non-profits, which FWIW, uses too broad a brush, IMHO, as there are lots of 501(c)3’s out there doing excellent work. Some of them are even *gasp* faith based.
But Flan’s point certainly applies to Media Matters, which is also faith based but not doing such good work.
Coming from you, actus, that’s just hilarious. I’ll think of that and laugh for days to come. Thanks for the entertainment, little buddy.
“That mention was entirely secondary to his point about non-profits, which FWIW”
I don’t know about secondary. His point about non-profits was “why” he was against tax increases and for tax cuts. Thats the connection that I’m trying to sort out. I don’t think you know what he meant either.