Media Matters,for America

Media Matters,

for America (or MMfA) is a media watchdog group. It is organized as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, and was founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock. The organization describes itself as "a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Media Matters for America defines "conservative misinformation" as "news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda." Eric E. Burns is the president of the organization.

Research work

Journalism News · Writing style,Ethics · Objectivity,Attribution,Defamation,Editorial

independence,Journalism school,journalism articles,Arts · Business,Entertainment,Environment

Fashion · Medicine,Politics · Science,Sports · Technical,Trade · Traffic,Weather,Genres,Advocacy · Broadcast,Citizen · Civic,Collaborative · Community,Database · Gonzo,Investigative · Literary

Muckraking · Narrative,"New Journalism",Online · Opinion,Peace · Photojournalism,Visual · Watchdog,Social impact,Fourth Estate,Freedom of the press,Infotainment · Media bias,Public relations,Yellow journalism,News media,Newspapers · Magazines,News agencies,Alternative media

Roles,Journalist · Reporter,Editor · Columnist,Copy editor,Meteorologist,News presenter,

Photographer,Political commentator,Category: Journalism,v • d • e,

Media Matters employs a number of researchers who report and analyze instances of what the group terms "conservative misinformation" in the media. Media Matters analyzes the dominant American news sources including NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC,WSJ and Fox News Channel.It uses a variety of techniques, including content analysis, fact checking, monitoring, and comparison of quotes or presentations from media figures to primary documents such as Pentagon or Government Accountability Office reports.

Analysis of weekend television commentary

On February 14, 2006, the organization released a study of the guest appearances on ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press from 1997 through 2005. This study examined over 7,000 guests as either Democrat, Republican, conservative, progressive, or neutral. Media Matters stated: "The conclusion is clear: Republicans and conservatives have been offered more opportunities to appear on the Sunday shows - in some cases, dramatically so."The American Spectator, a conservative magazine, criticized the study's characterization of commentators such as Dan Rather as "neutral".

A second analysis was released April 4, 2006 examining Sunday news programs from January through March 2006. Media Matters reported: "Republican and conservative dominance continued unabated, as those from the right outnumbered Democrats and their progressive compatriots." Besides the political stance of the guests, "the Sunday shows feature panel discussions comprising conservative journalists and opinion writers "balanced" by reporters for mainstream news outlets—with no progressive journalist."

The third study was released July 20, 2006 concluding "Republicans and conservatives dominated on all three Sunday shows." Media Matters stated that "Republicans and conservatives outnumbered Democrats and progressives in total guest appearances," more particularly Face the Nation "featured nearly twice as many Republicans and conservatives as Democrats and progressives during the second quarter."

Analysis of syndicated editorial columns

On September 12, 2007, Media Matters released a study examining 1,377 U.S. newspapers and the 201 syndicated political columnists the papers carry on a regular basis. According to Media Matters' analysis, conservative pundits appear in three times as many papers and reach many more readers than do progressives/liberals.

John Diaz, editorial page editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, criticized the study as flawed. He argued that because the conservative imbalance was most pronounced in the smallest newspapers, which have less reach than major newspapers, the numerical disparity did not accurately reflect how influential conservative columns were. He also wrote that "pigeonholing" columnists as conservative, progressive or centrist obscured columnists' ability to hold nuanced ideological positions.

Misinformer of the Year

An annual feature on the Media Matters website is the title of "Misinformer of the Year," which is awarded to the journalist, commentator, and/or network which, in the opinion of Media Matters, was responsible for the most numerous and/or grievous factual errors and claims made when presenting a pro-conservative position.

History

Founding

Media Matters initially received "more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals" with ties to the Democratic party (including Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance, Steve Bing, Marcy Carsey, Susie Tompkins Buell, Leo Hindrey, Gail Furman, and James Hormel) and "was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress". It also has received significant funding from Democracy Alliance (funded in large measure by George Soros), MoveOn.org, and the New Democrat Network. Media Matters hired numerous political professionals who had worked for Democratic politicians and for other progressive groups. Former chief of staff to president Bill Clinton John Podesta provided office space for Media Matters early in its formation at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank that he had created in 2002. Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters in its early stages out of a belief that progressives should follow conservatives in forming think tanks and advocacy groups to support their political goals.A May 2004 article on Media Matters in the conservative National Review referred to MMfA staffers who had recently worked on the presidential campaigns of John Edwards and Wesley Clark, for Congressman Barney Frank, and for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.. In July 2006, Media Matters for America opened a state chapter, Colorado Media Matters . Media Matters recruited Colorado natives to run Colorado Media Matters and to analyze the local state media using the original Media Matters' research techniques. The chapter closed its doors in March 2009.

The Don Imus controversy

On April 4, 2007, Media Matters for America monitored the Imus in the Morning broadcast when Don Imus referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team members as "nappy-headed ho's." The organization posted their view of this comment and later a video clip on the Internet, and sent out a bulk emailing to individual journalists and to the National Association of Black Journalists, eventually resulting in CBS Radio and MSNBC canceling his program.

Phony soldiers controversy

In September 2007, Media Matters publicized remarks made by conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh under the headline "Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are 'phony soldiers'".Media Matters' report, which contained a partial transcript of Limbaugh's September 26 show, alleged that he was referring to Iraq war veterans opposed to the war when he used the phrase "phony soldiers" on the broadcast. The national media quickly picked up the story, and by early October, Limbaugh's comment and its possible meaning was being debated on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Limbaugh, conservative pundits, and many Republican congressmen contended that the remark was being taken out of context, and he had actually been referring to Jesse MacBeth, a man claiming be to a decorated veteran who had never actually served in the war. John Gibson, of Fox News, criticized Media Matters' reporting of Limbaugh, and the conservative National Review accused them of creating a "phony controversy" and trying to "manufacture outrage" regarding the remark. The National Review suggested that Media Matters may have intended to present a "completely false account of what happened". Media Matters argued that its item was accurate and included context and that it was Limbaugh and his defenders who sought to remove context in order to cast his remarks in a more favorable light. Lampooning Gibson, and others who rallied behind Limbaugh, Stephen Colbert satirically blamed Media Matters for the controversy. "By posting [Limbaugh's remarks] on the Internet," Colbert said, "the general public [heard] words that were meant for people who already agree with us. Hey, Media Matters, you want to end offensive speech? Then stop recording it for people who would be offended."

Response

Media Matters has inspired a range of responses. Some news organizations have cited its reports and credited it for bringing attention to issues that may otherwise have slipped beneath the radar, including the Jeff Gannon story.Progressive op-ed writers such as Molly Ivins, and Paul Krugman have cited Media Matters or identified it as a helpful source. Conversely, political analyst and columnist Stuart Rothenberg has said "I don't pay any attention to them. Whether it's conservatives analyzing the media, or liberals analyzing the media, I just have no confidence in the ideological stuff." 

On August 19, 2005, Media Matters posted an item regarding a letter that Cliff Kincaid, editor from the conservative media watchdog organization Accuracy in Media, said he had received from an Afghan ambassador. Media Matters wrote that the letter was not a scanned document and that it "bears all the hallmarks of a do-it-yourself, cut-and-paste job." Within hours of the post, Kincaid posted scanned images of the letter and envelope he said he had received, and wrote that Media Matters had accused him of "having fabricated or forged a letter from the Ambassador of Afghanistan." He characterized the piece as "defamatory" and criticized Media Matters for not obtaining his side of the story prior to publishing their item. Media Matters then issued a subsequent post stating that Kincaid "misrepresented the original Media Matters item" and "failed to point out a single falsehood" in the item, which "simply pointed out that the letter as posted on the America's Survival website consisted of separate elements cobbled together from various sources."

Bill O'Reilly, the subject of many Media Matters items and a frequent critic of Media Matters, has called them a "vile propaganda outfit … which specializes in distorting comments made by politicians, pundits, and media people."[39] O'Reilly said that he believes Media Matters took comments he made on his radio program to Juan Williams regarding a dinner with Al Sharpton in Harlem out of  O'Reilly said that the Media Matters piece put together two out of context comments that were initially spoken five minutes apart and presented them as one comment in an effort to mislead readers. In an appearance on NBC's Today with Matt Lauer, Media Matters senior fellow Paul Waldman responded that they had included "the full audio, the full transcript, [and] nothing was taken out of context." In response to the controversy, Williams wrote an editorial for Time noting that in his opinion "the attacks on O'Reilly amounted to an effort to take what he said totally out of context in an attempt to brand him a racist by a liberal group that disagrees with much of his politics."

John Gibson, Mark Levin and several other regular targets of Media Matters have questioned their status as a tax-exempt organization. Specifically IRS rules that state: "may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates".[

(source:wikipedia)