Deconstructing a Media Matters Post

Suze issued the challenge and I'm taking it. I am posting this as a new post because I need the full-text editing features. So let's start:

On the June 28 edition of NBC's Today, guest host and NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory uncritically repeated the false claim made by right-wing pundit Ann Coulter on the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards received "big money to speak in front of a poverty group." Gregory used the claim during an interview with Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, to argue: "If you strip away some of the inflammatory rhetoric [by Coulter] against your husband and other Democrats, the point she's trying to make about your husband ... is in effect that he's disingenuous, especially on the signature issue of poverty, whether it's a $400 haircut or taking big money to speak in front of a poverty group." Gregory asked, "[I]s that a real point of vulnerability that you have to deal with in this campaign?"

What's wrong here? Gregory is asking a question, as a journalist, about the effect of what Coulter says and he paraphrases her. What's he supposed to do, say "What are the effects of what that woman said?" He's not supposed to editorialize.

And what's with the stilted, Pravda-esque phrasing, "uncritically repeated the false claim". If MM takes itself seriously, why use the hyperbole? It destroys the objectivity of their claim.

Let's continue. I'm having fun here. The next paragraph is truly a theater of the absurd:

However, as Media Matters for America noted, in claiming that Edwards "charge[d] a poverty group $50,000 for a speech," Coulter appeared to be distorting the earlier disclosure that Edwards received $55,000 for a January 2006 speech at the University of California-Davis. While Edwards reportedly "chose to speak on 'Poverty, the great moral issue facing America,' " there is no evidence that he was speaking to a "poverty group" at the university. Furthermore, as Media Matters documented at the time, the widely repeated claim that Edwards "charged" UC-Davis for the speech ignored the fact that there was an admission fee to the event, which, combined with sponsorships, offset Edwards' speaking fee, according to his campaign.

MM is right that he wasn't speaking to a poverty group, apparently his speech was part of a Distinguished Speakers program sponsored by Western Health Advantage. But it's really funny that they're critical of Coulter's claim of $50,000 when it was actually $5,000 higher.

And I'm reasonably sure they are essentially correct about where that $55,000 came from, why use "charged" in quotations. $55,000 was charged for the affair. That's not a lie - it's the damn truth.

So, to conclude:

Gregory uses a legitimate interviewing technique as a reporter. MM goes insane because Coulter makes an off-hand comment that was, in important particulars, was pretty close to the truth. The important takeaways are that Edwards charges (or is offered) a helluva lot of money to speak at a college and gets $400 haircuts. These are legitimate things to question for a journalist.

So MM tries to paint the scoreboard as Coulter - Bad, Gregory - Bad, Mrs. Edwards - No Opinion, John Edwards - Good.

The true scorecard is Coulter - Bad, Gregory - Doing His Job, Mrs. Edwards - No Opinion, John Edwards - Questionable.

And that, dear friends, is propaganda.

Media Matters gets it right

Each time I get something from Media Matters I'm going to ask you to show me the "lie" or the "distortion". This way the topic is current, it's one topic, and there's no hard work to prove them wrong. No more excuses for you, Gonzo.

I just took the first one that came in:
NBC's Gregory repeated Coulter falsehood on Today

The complete myth driving our Iraq "debate"

Salon commentary

The whole "support the troops" meme has become a terrible problem for Democrats. Even though, as Glenn Greenwald has argued in Salon, cutting off funding doesn't mean soldiers will have their guns and bullets and armor taken away in the middle of a battle, Americans have been convinced that it does.

PBS needs more rude, interruptive guests?

That's what Melanie Morgan seems to think...

Last night on Fox News’s Hannity and Colmes, Morgan accused PBS of "censorship," saying that the network "has a blatant anti-conservative bias. They don-t want to hear a proud pro American, pro-troop point of view. They've clearly demonstrated that in the past. I think PBS should be ashamed of itself." When Alan Colmes told Morgan, "I really think they should allow rude, interruptive guests like yourself on PBS," Morgan said, "I agree."

Sunday Talk Shows Slant Conservative

I'm really suprised Susie didn't bring up this. It's a suprisingly methodical report by Media Matters about conservatives being more prevalent on Sunday TV talk shows. I was VERY surprised that they allude to the fact that some leading Democrats won't ever go on Fox so that may skew the numbers a bit - MM is not known for being terribly self-critical.

Of course, they have to go ruin it by trying to get Congress involved to enforce balance. Socialism at it's best.

There is a theory I have that plays into the equation: Progressives simply aren't that interesting to watch or listen to unless you're a dyed-in-the-wool progressive to begin with. And if you are trying to sell a TV show, you want to maximize your audience. Plus, some progressive/liberal politicians seem to avoid any confrontational or panel show like the plague. Hillary Clinton comes to mind - she rarely does unscripted interviews and I can't imagine her going toe-to-toe with Bill O'Reilly, for example.

A lot of time, money, and effort has gone into promoting left-leaning TV and radio shows and it either falls flat or grabs a niche audience.

On TV, O'Reilly destroys Olbermann in the ratings. Wipes the floor with him. You libs don't like bad news and won't believe it so here's the latest ratings from Neilsen by way of Mediabistro. Aside: Can anyone tell me why Greta Vansusteren is so popular? Me neither.

On radio, the top five syndicated shows are Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, and Savage. All are conservative with Beck being more humorous and Savage being errr.. insane.

Also, if Sunday morning slants conservative, what about all those daytime talk shows the rest of the week? Certainly no one can claim that Oprah and The View are conservative.

But I digress.

My main point is that progressively slanted talk shows have been given ample oppoertunity to succeed and failed. So why would ostensibly neutral shows want to slant in that direction?

Comments on the "liberal" media here?

In his February 28 appearance on CBS' Late Show with David Letterman, during which he announced his intention to run for the Republican nomination for president in 2008, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claimed that "Americans are very frustrated" with the situation in Iraq and that "they have every right to be." McCain then added: "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure [in Iraq], which is American lives." The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times all published March 1 articles reporting McCain's announcement on the Late Show, with The New York Times and the Post directly quoting McCain from the program -- but none of these articles noted his claim that "we've wasted" American lives in Iraq. Yet when Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) made similar comments in Iowa on February 11, the Post and the Los Angeles Times reported the remarks the following day. The New York Times, meanwhile, devoted a February 13 article to Obama's subsequent apology and clarification.

McCain has since said he'd change the word "wasted" to "sacrificed", so let's see if there is a full article on it tomorrow in the NYT.

Commentary on Malkin

Yes, why does the WaPo cover Malkin when she bashes it so much?