Another Reason I admire Dr Ben Carson

[The Guesser]

Ummm....several of the accusing women speaking out against Herman Cain had been found to be big democratic supporters and had actually zero proof of any type of inappropriate contact with Herman Cain, yet the left still got their stories out...one of them actually worked for the DNC at the time.

Did Herman Cain pay a settlement to at least one of the women who accused him of Sexual harassment? We know the answer. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67551.html
If Cain didn't do anything wrong, or even if he did, as I believe Clinton did, he would have stayed in the race and fought, not just ran away with his tail between his legs because he was caught. Stop blaming this ficticious Liberal media and blame the person who did the deed.

 

[GasMan]

Who was it that reported the John Edwards affair?

 

[The Guesser]

Who was it that reported the John Edwards affair?

First? I don't know, maybe the Enquirer, the Star? Eventually, when it was proven? Everyone. Same as when it was proven against Cain. And Clinton. And Weiner. And Spritzer. And going back in time a bit, Gary Hart.

 

[Willie99]

Who was it that reported the John Edwards affair?

the National Enquirer of all places, and there was so much damn evidence all the majors had to run away to avoid seeing it. They all ignored the story, without exception

yet one person says McCain may have had a fling 10 years earlier (yes, that's it, that's all the evidence they needed) and it becomes a headline story for days


the difference? Edwards was running for the democratic nomination and was on their ticket in 2004, McCain was running for the Republican nomination. Those are the damning facts

 

[GasMan]

the National Enquirer of all places, and there was so much damn evidence all the majors had to run away to avoid seeing it. They all ignored the story, without exception

yet one person says McCain may have had a fling 10 years earlier (yes, that's it, that's all the evidence they needed) and it becomes a headline story for days


the difference? Edwards was running for the democratic nomination and was on their ticket in 2004, McCain was running for the Republican nomination. Those are the damning facts

Yup. Slam dunk. Yet, they think the media is fair and balanced. Almost feel sorry for some of these guys.

 

[GasMan]

Let's not forget the 24/7 coverage of John McCain's ex-wife who he left because of her horrible car crash, whom he divorced 30 years earlier.

No shame you guys, none at all.

 

[ScottL]

Media Matters Attempts to Frame Ben Carson
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/media-matters-attempts-frame-ben-carson

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Media Matters Attempts to Frame Ben Carson
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/media-matters-attempts-frame-ben-carson

Sleazy fuckers.

 

[The Guesser]

Media Matters Attempts to Frame Ben Carson
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/media-matters-attempts-frame-ben-carson

The media matters story contains the entirety of Ben's statement. Unlike what Fox News did when they only used Obama's "You Didn't Build that" in their false attack on Obama's statement during the campaign, without noting the entirety of his statement, nor the context. Was this headline attention getting? Of course, that's what BOTH SIDES do. At least Media Matters had the decency to give the whole statement, and let their readers decide for themselves what Dr Carson was saying.
Should Dr Carson enter the race, he'll have many more headline grabbing statements.

 

[russ1945]

Kool aid drinkers don't read the entire article, they just look at the headline. Media Matters letting the readers make up their own minds, right. So you think they would publish a positive article on Carson?

 

[The Guesser]

Kool aid drinkers don't read the entire article, they just look at the headline. Media Matters letting the readers make up their own minds, right. So you think they would publish a positive article on Carson?

Sure, right after Brietbart and the Blaze and Fox News and all the other wingnut websites you use to connect your dots, publish a positive article on Harry Reid. Media Matters doesn't pretend to be fair and balanced. They have an agenda, as do all the websites you rely on. At least Media Matters puts it in their mission statement.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Sleazy fuckers.

Like you I'm totally shocked.

 

[Willie99]

"you guys are servants, you're not rulers"

such a simple truth, but the idiots in DC have no clue about what their responsibilities really are. Especially the self anointed king, but he has lots of company from both sides

 

[russ1945]

Sure, right after Brietbart and the Blaze and Fox News and all the other wingnut websites you use to connect your dots, publish a positive article on Harry Reid. Media Matters doesn't pretend to be fair and balanced. They have an agenda, as do all the websites you rely on. At least Media Matters puts it in their mission statement.

Wow, you are comparing Harry Reid and Ben Carson. Enough said.

 

[The Guesser]

Wow, you are comparing Harry Reid and Ben Carson. Enough said.

Nope, I'm comparing Biased Media sources. I just used the name of the most prominent liberal that came to mind. I have stated my disdain for Reid many times on here, and I hold Carson in high esteem.

 

[russ1945]

Nope, I'm comparing Biased Media sources. I just used the name of the most prominent liberal that came to mind. I have stated my disdain for Reid many times on here, and I hold Carson in high esteem.

I forgot Media Matters motto is "fair and balanced'. LOL At least we both agree Ben Carson is a rare find.

 

[The Guesser]

I forgot Media Matters motto is "fair and balanced'. LOL At least we both agree Ben Carson is a rare find.

Nope, That's Fox News. Media Matters makes no such attempt at hiding their agenda. They are very clear about it. If only the Right wing Websites were as honest.
[h=1]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.[/h]

 

[festeringZit]

Nope, That's Fox News. Media Matters makes no such attempt at hiding their agenda. They are very clear about it. If only the Right wing Websites were as honest.
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.

OK, there is no doubt left, you are a full-blown retard.


Media Matters’ bias is so obvious that even wild leftists like NBC’s Chuck Todd, who has a shrine to President Obama complete with lubricants and scented candles, can’t deal with them. Back in 2007, he pointed out that Media Matters was shilling for its erstwhile ally, Hillary, with a list of don’ts suggested for debate moderators. “Their ‘don’ts’ read more like facetious attacks on Edwards and Obama—right out of the oppo shop of either the RNC or, say, opponents of Edwards and Obama. By repeating these things, isn’t Media Matters doing Clinton or other opponents of Edwards and Obama a favor?” Or, as David Folkenflik of NPR put it, “They’re looking at every dangling participle, every dependent clause, every semicolon, every quotation—to see if there’s some way it unfairly frames a cause, a party, a candidate, that they may have some feelings for.”
It didn’t matter. The left loved it. As the New York Times reported, producers for The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report coordinate regularly with Media Matters. James Carville, master Democrat strategist, says, “It was always kind of a dream, that we needed something like that.”
The funding flowed in, especially from leftist bullies like George Soros and the Tides Foundation. By November 2008, the organization—which, remember, provided no actual services other than Alinskyite distortion of conservative words—had grown to more than one hundred employees and $8 million in budget. While its longtime boss, Eric Burns, insisted that the organization had “leveled the playing field and maybe given Barack Obama a fair shake,” he said, “I’m not the Obama campaign. We’re an independent organization not beholden to anybody …. It’s bigger than any one candidate, it’s bigger than any one election.”
This is Media Matters’ favorite line. They constantly say they’re not coordinating with President Obama. That’s a lie.
As it turns out, Media Matters is in the back pocket of the Obama administration—and acts as their go-between for other media outlets. When Brock wasn’t too busy reportedly indulging in illicit substances, he raised $50,000 for Obama. What’s more shocking is that Brock’s organization coordinates on a weekly basis with the White House. They were planning to spend some $20 million in 2012 to help Obama. Anita Dunn, a high-ranking Obama administration member, used to visit the Media Matters headquarters regularly.
And they scored hit after hit against Obama enemy after Obama enemy. As the Daily Caller reported, they worked with other groups like ColorOfChange, Van Jones’s nonprofit, to organize astroturfed campaigns against figures like Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs.
But just as importantly, they were funneling White House talking points to media outlets, which were willingly taking them. “In ’08 it became pretty apparent MSNBC was going left,” one source told the Caller. “They were using our research to write their stories.” Media Matters staffers apparently called MSNBC president Phil Griffin regularly. They were also in touch with Greg Sargent of the Washington Post; Daily Kos; Sam Stein and Nico Pitney of Huffington Post; Jim Rainey at the Los Angeles Times; Eugene Robinson and E. J. Dionne at the Washington Post; and Brian Stelter at the New York Times. And, of course, Ben Smith. If a reporter didn’t work with Media Matters and published something Media Matters didn’t like, they’d get smacked by thousands of emails inundating them for bias.
How close was the coordination between Media Matters and the White House? So close that Alan Dershowitz, no ardent right-winger, suggested that he’d support President Obama only if he disassociated from Media Matters. Why? Media Matters’ senior foreign policy reporter, M. J. Rosenberg, was a massive anti-Semite who routinely used the white supremacist phrase “Israel Firsters” when describing pro-Israel Jews.
Within a few weeks, Rosenberg had stepped down at Media Matters. Rosenberg himself spelled out the rationale for his resignation: “The reason for this step is that it disturbed me greatly to see an organization to which I am devoted facing possible harm because of my critical writings about Israel. I have no doubt that the crowd that opposes any and all criticism of Israeli government policies will continue to turn its guns on Media Matters if I am associated with it. I could not live with myself if that happened— not only because I care deeply about the organization and my colleagues, but also because Media Matters does such important work confronting the lies that emanate from the far right and especially Fox News.”
In other words, President Obama told Media Matters to toss Rosenberg under the bus. Rosenberg would still be able to use Media Matters resources, of course.
Now, all of this would be fine and dandy, except for one small problem: Media Matters is a charitable nonprofit organization. One element of that status: organizations can’t “attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities” or “participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.” In particular, Media Matters is distinguished from its conservative counterparts by the fact that it actually engages in partisan training for Democratic campaigns—like the “Progressive Talent Initiative”—and the fact that it’s covertly coordinating with the White House regularly.
It’s entirely possible that Media Matters isn’t violating its non- profit status. But the 501(c)3 world has come to be dominated by liberal organizations that bully the living hell out of their opponents in a way no conservative organization does or would. Leading boycotts against Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Don Imus, and Lou Dobbs? Par for the course for Media Matters, Center for American Progress, and the myriad other leftist surrogates set up by Democratic Party hacks. The use of such organizations to bully conservatives into silence is just the latest tool in the liberal arsenal. They want fewer voices, not more. And they’ll work with their political allies to achieve their fascistic vision of politics.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/01/22/Bullies-excerpt-Media-Matters

 

[The Guesser]

OK, there is no doubt left, you are a full-blown retard.


Media Matters’ bias is so obvious that even wild leftists like NBC’s Chuck Todd, who has a shrine to President Obama complete with lubricants and scented candles, can’t deal with them. Back in 2007, he pointed out that Media Matters was shilling for its erstwhile ally, Hillary, with a list of don’ts suggested for debate moderators. “Their ‘don’ts’ read more like facetious attacks on Edwards and Obama—right out of the oppo shop of either the RNC or, say, opponents of Edwards and Obama. By repeating these things, isn’t Media Matters doing Clinton or other opponents of Edwards and Obama a favor?” Or, as David Folkenflik of NPR put it, “They’re looking at every dangling participle, every dependent clause, every semicolon, every quotation—to see if there’s some way it unfairly frames a cause, a party, a candidate, that they may have some feelings for.”
It didn’t matter. The left loved it. As the New York Times reported, producers for The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report coordinate regularly with Media Matters. James Carville, master Democrat strategist, says, “It was always kind of a dream, that we needed something like that.”
The funding flowed in, especially from leftist bullies like George Soros and the Tides Foundation. By November 2008, the organization—which, remember, provided no actual services other than Alinskyite distortion of conservative words—had grown to more than one hundred employees and $8 million in budget. While its longtime boss, Eric Burns, insisted that the organization had “leveled the playing field and maybe given Barack Obama a fair shake,” he said, “I’m not the Obama campaign. We’re an independent organization not beholden to anybody …. It’s bigger than any one candidate, it’s bigger than any one election.”
This is Media Matters’ favorite line. They constantly say they’re not coordinating with President Obama. That’s a lie.
As it turns out, Media Matters is in the back pocket of the Obama administration—and acts as their go-between for other media outlets. When Brock wasn’t too busy reportedly indulging in illicit substances, he raised $50,000 for Obama. What’s more shocking is that Brock’s organization coordinates on a weekly basis with the White House. They were planning to spend some $20 million in 2012 to help Obama. Anita Dunn, a high-ranking Obama administration member, used to visit the Media Matters headquarters regularly.
And they scored hit after hit against Obama enemy after Obama enemy. As the Daily Caller reported, they worked with other groups like ColorOfChange, Van Jones’s nonprofit, to organize astroturfed campaigns against figures like Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs.
But just as importantly, they were funneling White House talking points to media outlets, which were willingly taking them. “In ’08 it became pretty apparent MSNBC was going left,” one source told the Caller. “They were using our research to write their stories.” Media Matters staffers apparently called MSNBC president Phil Griffin regularly. They were also in touch with Greg Sargent of the Washington Post; Daily Kos; Sam Stein and Nico Pitney of Huffington Post; Jim Rainey at the Los Angeles Times; Eugene Robinson and E. J. Dionne at the Washington Post; and Brian Stelter at the New York Times. And, of course, Ben Smith. If a reporter didn’t work with Media Matters and published something Media Matters didn’t like, they’d get smacked by thousands of emails inundating them for bias.
How close was the coordination between Media Matters and the White House? So close that Alan Dershowitz, no ardent right-winger, suggested that he’d support President Obama only if he disassociated from Media Matters. Why? Media Matters’ senior foreign policy reporter, M. J. Rosenberg, was a massive anti-Semite who routinely used the white supremacist phrase “Israel Firsters” when describing pro-Israel Jews.
Within a few weeks, Rosenberg had stepped down at Media Matters. Rosenberg himself spelled out the rationale for his resignation: “The reason for this step is that it disturbed me greatly to see an organization to which I am devoted facing possible harm because of my critical writings about Israel. I have no doubt that the crowd that opposes any and all criticism of Israeli government policies will continue to turn its guns on Media Matters if I am associated with it. I could not live with myself if that happened— not only because I care deeply about the organization and my colleagues, but also because Media Matters does such important work confronting the lies that emanate from the far right and especially Fox News.”
In other words, President Obama told Media Matters to toss Rosenberg under the bus. Rosenberg would still be able to use Media Matters resources, of course.
Now, all of this would be fine and dandy, except for one small problem: Media Matters is a charitable nonprofit organization. One element of that status: organizations can’t “attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities” or “participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.” In particular, Media Matters is distinguished from its conservative counterparts by the fact that it actually engages in partisan training for Democratic campaigns—like the “Progressive Talent Initiative”—and the fact that it’s covertly coordinating with the White House regularly.
It’s entirely possible that Media Matters isn’t violating its non- profit status. But the 501(c)3 world has come to be dominated by liberal organizations that bully the living hell out of their opponents in a way no conservative organization does or would. Leading boycotts against Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Don Imus, and Lou Dobbs? Par for the course for Media Matters, Center for American Progress, and the myriad other leftist surrogates set up by Democratic Party hacks. The use of such organizations to bully conservatives into silence is just the latest tool in the liberal arsenal. They want fewer voices, not more. And they’ll work with their political allies to achieve their fascistic vision of politics.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/01/22/Bullies-excerpt-Media-Matters

Huh? I am agreeing that Media Matters is biased. Get it together Dude. I know you are consumed with Hate, but are you so irrational, that you think I'm calling Media matters unbiased? They don't hide it, unlike their Right wing Compatriot websites.

 

[russ1945]

Huh? I am agreeing that Media Matters is biased. Get it together Dude. I know you are consumed with Hate, but are you so irrational, that you think I'm calling Media matters unbiased? They don't hide it, unlike their Right wing Compatriot websites.

At least Fox has Dem/Lib guests on regularly. They may be conservative slanted but they throw it all out there. Close to fair and balanced, much more so than most others.