With all the reporting around the ACORN scandle, it's difficult to discern which information is true, which is false and which is smear.
This week, Media Matters reports on a Wall Street Journal editorial that leaves out some relevant information.
The WSJ reported that ACORN submitted false or duplicate voter registration applications to Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, North Carolina, Missouri, Wisconsin, Indiana, Connecticut and Texas. Media Matters claims that the WSJ left out the fact that most of these states require all third parties to submit every application, regardless of the applications validity.
Media Matters takes each of the claims in WSJ editorial and refutes them with the actual statues in each of the states that requires all applications to be submitted, no matter what.
As an organization committed to "righting the wrongs" of uninformed, misinformed or biased media, Media Matters has taken on the ACORN issue nearly each day since the story broke. Rather than catering to fears and sensationalism, Media Matters digs up the facts even if they aren't exciting to read.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
"It's Christianity turned into politics"
With a name that rhymes with "yo mama," the guy probably hasn't had an easy childhood. Add on to that his middle name and his father's religious heritage and certain Americans will never give up on the "wet willies."
So who is bullying Barack Hussein Obama this time? Media Matters reports that Rose Tennent of The War Room with Quinn and Rose misconstrued Obama's statement about this faith while on ABC's This Week with George Stephanapoulos in September. Obama commented that McCain has not yet mentioned his (Obama's) "Muslim faith" as a campaign attack. Stephenapoulos corrected Obama, interjecting that he must have meant to say "Christian faith."
Perhaps Obama meant to say that many people still believe he follows the Islamic faith, and that McCain has not made this accusation. Several bloggers took this mistake and ran a mile with it while other news outlets, including the Washington Post, defended Obama against the rumor-mill.
This small miscommunication has made him the object of more attacks. Quinn and Tennent go further to say that you can't be a Christian and vote for Obama. Quinn even charges Obama for being a proponent of Black Liberation Theology alongside being a Muslim.
Which is it, Quinn, Islam, Marxism or Black Liberation?
What is even more shocking is that Quinn finishes this attack with the statement that Black Liberation Theology is Christianity turned into politics. I wonder how Quinn feels about anti-abortion or gay-marriage legislation. Both of which are heavily founded on and propagated by Christian opinion leaders and mouth pieces. It seems only acceptable for "main stream" Christianity to enter the political arena and legislate the morality of U.S. citizens, but it is not acceptable for even a hint of any other religion to be represented by our political leaders.
That Quinn and Tennent broadcast that no Christian should vote for Obama is a clear message that Christianity is already political. I smell hypocrisy.
My question is, how is it that people are still talking about this? What makes this statement newsworthy after a month has passed and other newsworthy events have taken the American public's attention, for example the bank failures?
So who is bullying Barack Hussein Obama this time? Media Matters reports that Rose Tennent of The War Room with Quinn and Rose misconstrued Obama's statement about this faith while on ABC's This Week with George Stephanapoulos in September. Obama commented that McCain has not yet mentioned his (Obama's) "Muslim faith" as a campaign attack. Stephenapoulos corrected Obama, interjecting that he must have meant to say "Christian faith."
Perhaps Obama meant to say that many people still believe he follows the Islamic faith, and that McCain has not made this accusation. Several bloggers took this mistake and ran a mile with it while other news outlets, including the Washington Post, defended Obama against the rumor-mill.
This small miscommunication has made him the object of more attacks. Quinn and Tennent go further to say that you can't be a Christian and vote for Obama. Quinn even charges Obama for being a proponent of Black Liberation Theology alongside being a Muslim.
Which is it, Quinn, Islam, Marxism or Black Liberation?
What is even more shocking is that Quinn finishes this attack with the statement that Black Liberation Theology is Christianity turned into politics. I wonder how Quinn feels about anti-abortion or gay-marriage legislation. Both of which are heavily founded on and propagated by Christian opinion leaders and mouth pieces. It seems only acceptable for "main stream" Christianity to enter the political arena and legislate the morality of U.S. citizens, but it is not acceptable for even a hint of any other religion to be represented by our political leaders.
That Quinn and Tennent broadcast that no Christian should vote for Obama is a clear message that Christianity is already political. I smell hypocrisy.
My question is, how is it that people are still talking about this? What makes this statement newsworthy after a month has passed and other newsworthy events have taken the American public's attention, for example the bank failures?
Friday, September 26, 2008
Shame on you, media, viewers.
Recently, Media Matters has covered falsities of individual pundits and news personalities. But with the ongoing financial melee and the presidential election, blogger Eric Boehlert criticizes the media in general for letting the economic crisis slip under the radar.
It is no surprise that the media does not cover an event until it is at it's peak. Until a large enough mass is interested in the topic, it is not newsworthy. Unless it is not scandalous, critical, disastrous or juicy, the major news media isn't interested because neither is their public.
Boehlert slams the media for not fulfilling their responsibility of offering a wide variety of topics and instead only covering one story at at time...over and over and over again until the public has moved on to the next hot story. The financial crisis wasn't hot until it was boiling over. The presidential campaign got all the coverage and no attention was given to the days and weeks leading up to the market's plunge.
Boehlert lays the responsibility on the media, but the media is an industry and all industries are concerned with the bottom line - as the current financial crisis makes very evident. How can we expect the media to offer news that we don't even want? We want the scandals, the sound bites, the flashy visual images, the condensed messages and the stupid things politicians say. If CNN were to cover the intricacies of Wall Street, views would be deer in headlights and the metaphorical CNN SUV would have some major front-end damage. Boehlert is absolutely correct in calling out the media for not covering an issue until it was too late, but we as viewers are equally responsible for not demanding more and more in-depth news. It is true, we were too caught up in how Obama would save our economy to notice that our economy was failing.
It is no surprise that the media does not cover an event until it is at it's peak. Until a large enough mass is interested in the topic, it is not newsworthy. Unless it is not scandalous, critical, disastrous or juicy, the major news media isn't interested because neither is their public.
Boehlert slams the media for not fulfilling their responsibility of offering a wide variety of topics and instead only covering one story at at time...over and over and over again until the public has moved on to the next hot story. The financial crisis wasn't hot until it was boiling over. The presidential campaign got all the coverage and no attention was given to the days and weeks leading up to the market's plunge.
Boehlert lays the responsibility on the media, but the media is an industry and all industries are concerned with the bottom line - as the current financial crisis makes very evident. How can we expect the media to offer news that we don't even want? We want the scandals, the sound bites, the flashy visual images, the condensed messages and the stupid things politicians say. If CNN were to cover the intricacies of Wall Street, views would be deer in headlights and the metaphorical CNN SUV would have some major front-end damage. Boehlert is absolutely correct in calling out the media for not covering an issue until it was too late, but we as viewers are equally responsible for not demanding more and more in-depth news. It is true, we were too caught up in how Obama would save our economy to notice that our economy was failing.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Sexism in mainstream media
This is not the first national cycle in which a female has run for president of vice president. The first woman to be nominated for vice president in the United States was Geraldine Ferraro. This was way back in 1984 when Walter Mondale was running for president. But this groundbreaking event has been attributed to Sarah Palin. McCain's pick for Republican V.P. has taken not only our attention away from real issues, but also our memories. Granted many voters today were not born yet or were too young to remember, I fall into the former category, but with the ease of Google I could dig back into the country's short history for a simple fact.
With women on the national stage since 1984, it seems that sexism should have dwindled away. Then Hillary faced elements of sexism in the media during her recent campaign for the Democratic nomination. But I suppose that is a hoop dream. Even if candidates aren't sexist, even if voters aren't sexist, the media and political campaigns snatch up this scandalous topic and run a marathon with it.
Media Matters tackles Rush Limbaugh's alarmist reaction to the investigation of Palin's role in the firing of a public safety commissioner. Limbaugh claims that the investigation is another way for the "boys club" to muscle out Palin.
Hillary Clinton comes up again in the sexism conversation with a clip from Dick Morris on Hannity and Colmes yesterday, September 15. He falsely states that Clinton was addressing sexism in her infamous, tearful speech. Morris must be referring the comment Clinton made on her hair, but this was only after she had been asked the specific question of "who does your hair." Clinton politely answered the question and immediately moved on to comment on her passion and commitment for this country and her campaign. Her campaign stop was way back in January. It has been nine months in between and certain pundits cannot let go of Clinton's " "feminine moment," they jump at the chance whenever the sexism issue arises again.
We know that an issue is really hot when SNL parodies it. First with Clinton earlier this year, and now with both Palin and Clinton.
With women on the national stage since 1984, it seems that sexism should have dwindled away. Then Hillary faced elements of sexism in the media during her recent campaign for the Democratic nomination. But I suppose that is a hoop dream. Even if candidates aren't sexist, even if voters aren't sexist, the media and political campaigns snatch up this scandalous topic and run a marathon with it.
Media Matters tackles Rush Limbaugh's alarmist reaction to the investigation of Palin's role in the firing of a public safety commissioner. Limbaugh claims that the investigation is another way for the "boys club" to muscle out Palin.
Hillary Clinton comes up again in the sexism conversation with a clip from Dick Morris on Hannity and Colmes yesterday, September 15. He falsely states that Clinton was addressing sexism in her infamous, tearful speech. Morris must be referring the comment Clinton made on her hair, but this was only after she had been asked the specific question of "who does your hair." Clinton politely answered the question and immediately moved on to comment on her passion and commitment for this country and her campaign. Her campaign stop was way back in January. It has been nine months in between and certain pundits cannot let go of Clinton's " "feminine moment," they jump at the chance whenever the sexism issue arises again.
We know that an issue is really hot when SNL parodies it. First with Clinton earlier this year, and now with both Palin and Clinton.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Some ground work
Media Matters is one of many non-profit organizations seeking to influence public opinion and therefore public policy and the U.S. political process. With the hot ongoing elections, these non-profit organizations will be ablaze with commentary and action. Here we will watch this particular organization take on right-wing media during the next three months.
According to the organization's website, www.mediamatters.org:
"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. "
Media Matters uses its website (here it is again: www.mediamatters.org) as a tool for research and disseminating information. They say it themselves best here:
"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."
On the website you can find articles and updates on news personalities such as Wolf Blitzer, Tom Brokaw, Pat Buchanan, Elizabeth Holmes, Howard Kurtz, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and over a dozen more. The site also allows you to search by network and publication- basically all the major and minor league outlets, issues and topics, and radio/tv shows.
Media Matters not only debunks "right-wing" misinformation, they also give you a chance to take action, as any good "leftist" would do. Currently, Media Matters puts the pressure on CBS to admit to unethical video splicing during a McCain interview.
According to the organization's website, www.mediamatters.org:
"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. "
Media Matters uses its website (here it is again: www.mediamatters.org) as a tool for research and disseminating information. They say it themselves best here:
"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."
On the website you can find articles and updates on news personalities such as Wolf Blitzer, Tom Brokaw, Pat Buchanan, Elizabeth Holmes, Howard Kurtz, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and over a dozen more. The site also allows you to search by network and publication- basically all the major and minor league outlets, issues and topics, and radio/tv shows.
Media Matters not only debunks "right-wing" misinformation, they also give you a chance to take action, as any good "leftist" would do. Currently, Media Matters puts the pressure on CBS to admit to unethical video splicing during a McCain interview.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
