You have gotten tons of mileage out of saying the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth were liars and smeared Kerry. Funny you can’t cite an actual example of it, though.

And I’ve said repeatedly that Bush was the main factor in the decision to overthrow Saddam. (Which you haven’t talked about for a while — could it be because things are really, really looking good?) But he did not act entirely unilaterally — he had, as mandated by the Constitution and law, the assent of Congress. Perhaps it would have been wiser if the Vice-President Elect and Secretary Of State-Designate had pulled an Obama and voted “present,” but instead they chose to back Bush and the war.

I dunno where you get the idea that I’m trying to deny Bush’s role in the Iraq War. Probably from the same place you’re getting the “Swift Boat Veterans were liars” and “Bush deliberately outed Valerie Plame” crocks.

J.

You exhibit the same mentality that ignores the fact that despite the Iraqi Liberation Act, the authorization for use of force, etc. There is only one person on this planet who made the final decision to go to war with Iraq: George W. Bush. Were the Democrats right to give him the power? No, and I said so at the time. But George Bush chose to invade Iraq. George Bush chose to do it on the cheap. George Bush chose to keep Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld’s “strategy” in place until the 2006 election.

For so long conservatives have existed in this world where they all agree with each other that 1+1=3. Suddenly a few of us speak up and say it ain’t so and that really bothers you guys.

And gee, Oliver, if you can’t cite actual examples of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth actually being provably wrong, then perhaps you shouldn’t have brought them up. “They were liars, take my word for it, just don’t ask for details?” Damn, that’s weak.

I understand perfectly what happened here — you’ve got your own little constructed reality where the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth were lying, partisan hacks, and their charges were all proven false. Unfortunately, you’re the only one who remembers it that way — as I noted, the one time there was a serious examination of presented facts, it was Kerry who had to back down from his account.

It’s the same shared fantasy that ignores other inconvenient truths like the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, the actual text and roll call of the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force In Iraq, and countless other examples where history has proven inconvenient.

Too bad that there are folks around who can actually say “hey, that’s not what happened” and have ready access to proof.

J.

Say, when you research something you believe is “conservative misinformation” and discover that it is true
Then MM wouldn’t write about it, would they? In the rare case that a conservative makes his or her case using factual information, then that’s when folks are free to disagree with it but the factual accuracy isn’t up for dispute (for instance, a con who says global warming isn’t real is just blowing smoke, whereas one who concedes it is real but doesn’t believe that man has a major hand in it is someone who at least acknowledges a scientific fact and while a liberal might not agree with his conclusion at least he isn’t completely playing in the land of make-believe). MM deals in facts, I don’t understand why this confuses you.

I’ve cited one example where Kerry was forced to retract part of his narrative about his Vietnam career, thanks to the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. (These would be the men who served the same duty Kerry did, most for considerably longer times.) Could you cite a counterpoint where the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth had to retract a factual accusation (not an opinion or a judgment, but an actual fact, like Kerry had to admit he was not listening to President Nixon say there were no US troops in Cambodia while he was in Cambodian waters in Christmas of 1968)?

Come on. You’ve got the entire resources of your employer at your disposal. Find ONE.

And I also enjoy how you won’t answer about what the Media Matters policy is about inadvertently-discovered “liberal disinformation.” Say, when you research something you believe is “conservative misinformation” and discover that it is true. As I said, I know what it is — you just bit-bucket it and pretend that it never happened. I am just intrigued to hear how you spin it.

J.

And trust me, there was more than enough misinfo from the right during the 2004 campaign on John Kerry’s military record to keep us plenty busy.

I already know the answer — you ignore them. I am just wondering if you will admit it.

J.

Also, when have I ever claimed to be unbiased? I write my opinion. I usually back up that opinion with facts that helped me derive that opinion, but I never claimed to be an unbiased, completely neutral reporter of absolute facts. I am a commentator, and as such offering my opinions and biases and prejudices is part of the definition.

Hell, the magazine is CALLED “Commentary.” It can’t get much more upfront than THAT.

Unlike, say, CNN, the New York Times, Time, Newsweek, NBC NEWS, and the like.

J.

Media Matters being asked to criticize liberal misinformation is like JT being asked to tell the unvarnished truth- it’s not part of the mission. Especially rich is how MM is criticized for bias when JT “writes” for the farthest right of the right-wing ‘zines, one that is just slightly to the left of the John Birch Society.

I don’t blame you on focusing on the conservative misinformation, though. It’s a much smaller target, and as Clint Eastwood said, “a man’s got to know his limitations.” To go after the liberal misinformation and bias is a Augean Stable of a task.

J.

I’ve never espoused any of the grand conspiracy theories
Well, your allies on the right are. The right is a never ending source of the so-called alliance between the media and the left, you’re just furthering that.

I think it is an “occupational hazard” that is the result of the most celebrated journalists also being outspoken liberals, causing other like-minded individuals to wish to emulate them.
And there’s the tinfoil hat.

Oh, and brilliant counterexample.
That’s just the first cover that came to mind. Want more?
Fox News’ Kelly asked whether Michelle Obama gave “her critics fodder” with word she didn’t say
Hannity repeatedly distorts passage in Michelle Obama’s senior thesis to suggest alumni views on race are her own
McLaughlin echoes smear of Michelle Obama: “You don’t think she’s a black militant?”
No serious person with half a brain thinks that factual coverage of Cindy McCain’s pill-popping and subsequent cover-up reached anywhere close the coverage of Michelle Malkin as a supposed black radical baby mama. And while we’re on the subject of first ladies, where are all those stories about what exactly happened when Laura Bush ran a car into a man and killed him? The so-called media was mighty silent on that for 8 years, something people like Teresa Heinz Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Michelle Obama would/will not experience.

Oh, and as far as Whitewater goes
The Clintons lost money on the deal. The special prosecutor found no wrongdoing on their part. And yes, you’re right, the Bush administration has gotten away with a lot.

Oh, and brilliant counterexample. I cite CNN, CBS, the New York Times, Atlantic Monthly, and you rebut with a cover featuring “hipster hookers,” “Our dinner with O.J. Simpson,” “Lindsay Lohan’s sexual revolution,” Katherine Heigl’s Ego Trip,” and “Stoned Students! Crumbling Campuses! Pervy Professors! America’s 50 Worst Colleges.”

Oh, and as far as Whitewater goes… the Clintons WERE a part of it, people DID go to jail for it, and Clinton pardoned some of them. Gee, maybe there WAS something going on there worth investigating?

More people were convicted in crimes related to Whitewater than were in the Valerie Plame case, as I recall…

J.

Call me when Cindy McCain is being called “scary” on newsstands.

Your employer’s focus is on exposing CONSERVATIVE bias in the media.
Another load of bullshit. See, we’re not like MRC. We don’t claim to know whats in people’s heads – which is what bias claims usually boil down to. Here is the stated mission:

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.

You see, unlike the bias pimping on the right that you engage in, most of what MM produces requires that conservative claims be looked into and refuted when they’re clearly misinformation. No “we think Dan Rather is a closet Democrat, boogedy boogedy boogedy”.

There is a reason in the last few years MM’s work is taken more seriously than MRC’s. MRC tells journalists “you’re a communist!”, whereas MM says “hey dummy, you got that wrong”.

As I said above, the MSM is a stupid beast that gets led around by the nose and distracted by shiny things. You choose to believe (or at least pretend to believe) that these mistakes are part of a global conspiracy where the MSM coordinates with the DNC. The reality is that the press gets worked, and they’ve been worked pretty well by the right in order to push the right’s agenda and causes (see War, Iraq or George W. Bush, The Presidency Of).

But continue the fantasy, it is amusing if not anything else.

That big enough for you, sport?

J.

Really?

Which “big media” outlet ran with dirt on Cindy McCain? Which one trafficked in speculation on Trig Palin’s parentage? Which ones “beatified” Sheehan?

Your definition of “big media” is going to need to be really, really big.

Bill Clinton was also dogged about the Lewinsky scandal, which Newsweek had and sat on until Drudge broke it on them.

Every major politician has been called a serial liar. In most cases, it has at least a germ of truth.

Nearly all the mentions of the hysterical accusations about Obama in the mainstream media were either dismissive, or sourced back to Democrats. I recall several Hillary staffers having to resign after they were caught propagating them.

On the other hand, we have CBS cheerfully falling for the incredibly inept forgeries about Bush’s Air National Guard service; the New York Times endorsing McCain then trashing him (even to the point of making shit up about him); all the dirt about Cindy McCain without once mentioning her years and years of good works; the questioning of the legality of the McCains’ adoption of their daughter; the Times’ demand of the release of the adoption records of John Roberts’ son; the questions about just who the parents of Trig Palin are; the beatification of whackjob Cindy Sheehan until she went off the reservation and started attacking Democrats; the photoshopping of Condoleezza Rice to have “snake eyes;” the constant photographing of Barack Obama positioned so that lights gave him a “halo;” Reuters caught publishing faked photos from all over the Mideast; The LA Times covering up the reporter having an affair with the Mayor; the ABC News official who openly admitted that the media was good for about a 15% advantage in the polls for Democrats; Newsweek publishing the completely bullshit story about a Koran being flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo (that one caused quite a few deaths)…

I could go on and on, but those are just a few that were actually committed directly by big media and came to mind readily.

I understand how you missed all these, though. Your employer’s focus is on exposing CONSERVATIVE bias in the media. Finding that among all the liberal bias really must be a full-time job. Or several. “Needles and haystacks” comes to mind.

J.

And also, your argument about Democrats getting more slack doesn’t hold up in light of Bill Clinton being dogged about a land deal in Arkansas for 8 years, Al Gore being called a serial liar, John Kerry’s purple heart being called into doubt, and Barack Obama being accused of being a secret muslim black militant baby killing scary black man who won’t testify in front of a nonexistent grand jury in the Blago case (this last accusation was on the supposedly liberal CNN).

Yes, the media is liberal, and the Great Pumpkin will rise every year with the Easter Bunny and Santa. At what point will you righties give up this ruse?

“The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures” — Bill Kristol

I think it’s fairly safe to assume that Hillary agreed with the Iraq Liberation Act. She also (reluctantly) voted for the Iraq War. What she has yet to explain is what changed between 1998 and 2002 that she was unaware of until after she voted for the war.

Her “support” is explained in the Congressional Record in her own words at the time of her vote. She voiced her reservations in real time. However, don’t let that get in the way of reciting valued conservative trope. It’s far more convenient to pretend whatever you like.