Media Matters smears Glenn Beck’s radio show

[Shady]

Media Matters Gives Glenn Beck’s Co-Hosts The Shirley Sherrod Edited Audio Treatment

Let’s end the week with some Shirley Sherrod-ing – editing a clip to make it sound like a person is saying something that is actually the complete opposite of what they’re saying.

In this case, the offender is Media Matters, which tries to prove that Glenn Beck’s radio co-hosts were saying Keith Olbermann was responsible for the deadly Manchester workplace shooting.

Here was Media Matters’ (sic’ed) headline: “Beck sidekicks Gray and Burguiere: Keith Olberman and media responsible for Manchester shooting.”

The sidekicks are Pat Gray and Stu Burguiere, who co-hosted with Beck out today. And why did Media Matters write this? Well, because that is what Gray and Burguiere said – at first. Gray: “Obviously Keith Olbermann is responsible for those eight people dead.”

And Burguiere: “A guy like that who’s a little bit unstable anyway can’t help but react to the constant pressure of Keith Olbermann on the air on MSNBC and all of MSNBC talking about all the racism there is out there.”

But the problem is, the co-hosts were being sarcastic, to make a point. A minute later they get serious, and Stu says “Keith Olbermann was not responsible for any shooting,” but that part is conveniently out of the Media Matters audio. Because Media Matters cut the audio right before they make it clear.

Right after the Media Matters edit, Burguiere says:

Obviously we’re making a point here. Let’s move that to the case against the tea party members. They’re constantly convinced that the government is after them, that they are going to come take their guns. Well, who is always talking about that? Glenn Beck. So therefore he’s responsible for every time anyone does anything, even, you know, violent.

Mediaite

Ironic, as Media Matters was so outraged at the Shirely Sherrod video incident from a couple of weeks ago. Apparently they don't mind using the same strategy to smear conservatives.

Even more ironic, is that many posters in this forum hold up Media Matters as an objective source of truth and justice! Even though they're a leftwing hack blog funded by George Soros et al. Just like moveon.org and talking points memo.

[BubberMiley]

It's nice to see you admit how dishonest you were with the Sherrod thing, but it doesn't explain why you still tried to smear her well after you knew the extent of Breitbart's lies.

I guess humiliation can make you do things you regret later.

[punked]

Go read the correction. They did what real none ass-holes do when they made a mistake they issued a correction. I say go read it Shady and see what journalism is ok?

[BubberMiley]

Speaking of Media Matters, they released this hilarious video this week of a young Shady-like disciple of breitbart, trying to ambush them and getting totally owned in the process.

[kimmy]

Go read the correction. They did what real none ass-holes do when they made a mistake they issued a correction. I say go read it Shady and see what journalism is ok?

Trying to spin it as "an error" is a pretty ridiculous. It wasn't an error, it was a decision, and they realized it was a bad decision after they published the first cut of the story.

-k

[Shady]

Trying to spin it as "an error" is a pretty ridiculous. It wasn't an error, it was a decision, and they realized it was a bad decision after they published the first cut of the story.

-k

Exactly kimmy. They were caught with their pants down and for damage control, issued a "correction."

[BubberMiley]

Exactly kimmy. They were caught with their pants down and for damage control, issued a "correction."

Nah, you're just jealous they have the character to admit when they're wrong.

[Jack Weber]

Speaking of Media Matters, they released this hilarious video this week of a young Shady-like disciple of breitbart, trying to ambush them and getting totally owned in the process.

Notice how "Spencer" kept rubbing his nose???

Nervous twitch or coke habit...You decide!!!

[kimmy]

Nah, you're just jealous they have the character to admit when they're wrong.

Of course they were "wrong", Bubber. It's the nature of the "error" that's in question.

Do we attribute it to incompetence? Or do we attribute it to malice?

Because those are really the only two possible explanations. What's your pick, Bubber?

Either explanation must be profoundly disappointing to those here on the forum who salute MediaMatters as the pinnacle of accuracy and the paragon of objectivity.

-k

[Jack Weber]

Of course they were "wrong", Bubber. It's the nature of the "error" that's in question.

Do we attribute it to incompetence? Or do we attribute it to malice?

Because those are really the only two possible explanations. What's your pick, Bubber?

Either explanation must be profoundly disappointing to those here on the forum who salute MediaMatters as the pinnacle of accuracy and the paragon of objectivity.

-k

I don't hold Media Matters in any esteem...

But I would'nt call anything Andrew Breitbart puts out as having any credibility,either...

[kimmy]

I don't hold Media Matters in any esteem...

But I would'nt call anything Andrew Breitbart puts out as having any credibility,either...

Well, I don't think anybody here is under the impression that Breitbart is anything other than a conservative commentator.

On the other hand, there are clearly a few here who think MediaMatters is an objective fact-checking service.

-k

[punked]

Well, I don't think anybody here is under the impression that Breitbart is anything other than a conservative commentator.

On the other hand, there are clearly a few here who think MediaMatters is an objective fact-checking service.

-k

You mean Breitbart is a liar the way you spin that shows you have bias against MediaMatters.

[Jack Weber]

Well, I don't think anybody here is under the impression that Breitbart is anything other than a conservative commentator.

On the other hand, there are clearly a few here who think MediaMatters is an objective fact-checking service.

-k

Andrew Breitbert is alot more than a conservative commentator...

That title is reserved for folks like George Will and David Brooks etc...

Andrew Breitbart is conservative muck raker who uses sophomoric,race based political ploys (that would make Jesse Helms blush)to forward a far right agenda.Only the farthest gone of the right wing nutters believe his low rent crapola...

Media Matters has an obvious left wing bias,so I usually take it with a grain of salt...

Edited August 12, 2010 by Jack Weber

[BubberMiley]

On the other hand, there are clearly a few here who think MediaMatters is an objective fact-checking service.

In Internet forums, when things are called "obvious," they rarely are. And when things are called "clear," they're almost always fuzzy.

[kimmy]

You mean Breitbart is a liar the way you spin that shows you have bias against MediaMatters.

You could stand a little bias against MediaMatters yourself... it seems to me you're one of the ones who was trumpeting MediaMatters posts in recent threads.

-k

[Jack Weber]

You could stand a little bias against MediaMatters yourself... it seems to me you're one of the ones who was trumpeting MediaMatters posts in recent threads.

-k

They are biased...

However,they were spot on about Mr.Breitbart and his failed racist power play.

[kimmy]

They are biased...

However,they were spot on about Mr.Breitbart and his failed racist power play.

But they were off-the-mark in repeating the misinformation circulated by Adam Serwell regarding the DOJ/Black Panthers case.

-k

[Jack Weber]

But they were off-the-mark in repeating the misinformation circulated by Adam Serwell regarding the DOJ/Black Panthers case.

-k

Mister Breitbart deliberately overshot the Shirley Sherrod situation just like Fox deliberately overshot the Black Panther case...

Standard operating procedure for the far right media to play up a version of the Southern Strategy and try to scare people,when in reality,the Black Panther case was a few lone nuts not really worthy of the airtime they got.

The Sherrod case far more egregious,however,because it was a sleazy atempt at character asassination(sp)that backfired because it shed a little light on the way the followers of the likes of Mr.Breitbart think...

[kimmy]

Mister Breitbart deliberately overshot the Shirley Sherrod situation just like Fox deliberately overshot the Black Panther case...

Standard operating procedure for the far right media to play up a version of the Southern Strategy and try to scare people,when in reality,the Black Panther case was a few lone nuts not really worthy of the airtime they got.

The Sherrod case far more egregious,however,because it was a sleazy atempt at character asassination(sp)that backfired because it shed a little light on the way the followers of the likes of Mr.Breitbart think...

I don't know why you keep mentioning Breitbart. I'm certainly not going to advocate for the guy. I really don't give a crap about Breitbart. He's in the same pile as DailyKos or any other hyperpartisan mouthpiece as far as I'm concerned.

The Black Panthers thing was not about two lone nutjobs. It wasn't about the Black Panthers at all. It was about the DOJ decision to drop the civil case against them.

As you'll recall, the DOJ apologists scored what they figured were big rhetorical victories when news broke that (1) the charges were dropped while the Bush administration was still running the DOJ, and (2) in 2006 the DOJ ignored allegations that Arizona Minutemen were involved in voter intimidation that was at least as flagrant as the Black Panthers. These were both circulated by MediaMatters and at least one mainstream publication (a columnist with the Atlanta Constitution, for sure) but as far as I can tell the original source was Journ-O-List member Adam Serwell.

Except both of these claims were patently false.

It was actually pretty lucky for the DOJ that the Shirley Sherrod thing broke when it did, because it made the whole DOJ thing vanish.

-k

[Jack Weber]

I don't know why you keep mentioning Breitbart. I'm certainly not going to advocate for the guy. I really don't give a crap about Breitbart. He's in the same pile as DailyKos or any other hyperpartisan mouthpiece as far as I'm concerned.

The Black Panthers thing was not about two lone nutjobs. It wasn't about the Black Panthers at all. It was about the DOJ decision to drop the civil case against them.

As you'll recall, the DOJ apologists scored what they figured were big rhetorical victories when news broke that (1) the charges were dropped while the Bush administration was still running the DOJ, and (2) in 2006 the DOJ ignored allegations that Arizona Minutemen were involved in voter intimidation that was at least as flagrant as the Black Panthers. These were both circulated by MediaMatters and at least one mainstream publication (a columnist with the Atlanta Constitution, for sure) but as far as I can tell the original source was Journ-O-List member Adam Serwell.

Except both of these claims were patently false.

It was actually pretty lucky for the DOJ that the Shirley Sherrod thing broke when it did, because it made the whole DOJ thing vanish.

-k

I agree that was the story should have been about,but that's not how it was lead..

It was led by showing a lone Black Panther nut out in front of a voter station,and then video of Geraldo Rivera trying to have a conversation with a nutjob Black Nationalist,(as if that guy spoke for more than the few nutters that showed up at his tinfoil hat meetings)...The DOJ stuff,while entirely valid,was always secondary in the reporting of the issue.

Just as Mr.Breitbart's attack on Shirley Sherrod,vociferously assisted by the ideologues at Fox,was about payback for a leading Tea Party member being outted for being a bigot.

As for Mr.Beck being smeared???

He's kinda brought alot,of what some think as smearing,on himself with his mentally deficient conspiracy theories.

Perhaps the real issue is that the media is getting sidetracked by these goofy side issues that don't really pertain to the actual story???

[kimmy]

I agree that was the story should have been about,but that's not how it was lead..

It was led by showing a lone Black Panther nut out in front of a voter station,and then video of Geraldo Rivera trying to have a conversation with a nutjob Black Nationalist,(as if that guy spoke for more than the few nutters that showed up at his tinfoil hat meetings)...The DOJ stuff,while entirely valid,was always secondary in the reporting of the issue.

Fox news put those goons in the spotlight for ratings.

But you and other DOJ apologists have put those goons in the spotlight as a means of deflecting attention from the real issue.

-k

[Jack Weber]

Fox news put those goons in the spotlight for ratings.

But you and other DOJ apologists have put those goons in the spotlight as a means of deflecting attention from the real issue.

-k

Could you please show me where I've apologized for the Department of Justice behaviour on the issue?

[kimmy]

Could you please show me where I've apologized for the Department of Justice behaviour on the issue?

Were you not the one who insisted that the DOJ decision to dismiss charges must be viewed in light of the historical fact of Jim Crow laws and the original Black Panther Party the 1960s?

-k

[Jack Weber]

Were you not the one who insisted that the DOJ decision to dismiss charges must be viewed in light of the historical fact of Jim Crow laws and the original Black Panther Party the 1960s?

-k

No...

I did'nt/don't think they should be dismissed...

I did think a little historical context was necessary and I pointed out that during the Reconstruction Period after the Civil War that alot worse happened to potential Black voters so that Neo-Confederates could get their desired politicians elected.I was told by the Neo-Con's here that historical context was completely irrelevent...

I respectfully disagree...

[kimmy]

No...

I did'nt/don't think they should be dismissed...

I did think a little historical context was necessary and I pointed out that during the Reconstruction Period after the Civil War that alot worse happened to potential Black voters so that Neo-Confederates could get their desired politicians elected.I was told by the Neo-Con's here that historical context was completely irrelevent...

I respectfully disagree...

I never did get a reasonable answer as to how failing to defend civil rights in 1870 justifies failing to defend civil rights in 2010.

It sure seemed like you were offering the past as a justification for dropping the charges. And as I look through the thread, I notice that you again and again try to turn the spotlight back to the scumbags in Halloween costumes (or to Lictor, or to Shady) and away from the actual DOJ issue. So you came across like a guy trying to get the DOJ "off the hook".

-k