This is what MEDIAMATTERS does.

[shagdrum]

Nope shag - there is an old, and rather sage saying among journalists - media ownership matters. And so does media management.

That sounds nice, but it is absolutely meaningless; a platitude and nothing more. In the context of this debate, that aphorism means absolutely nothing. No inherent wisdom that is applicable in the manner you are inferring.

There is no way that "media ownership matters" logically leads to (or even suggests) the notion that financial interests inhibit objectivity.

In fact, the notion that financial interests in and of themselves inhibit objectivity is irrational and absurd. At most, financial interests give an indication of what direction a bias might come from. Drawing any other conclusion based solely on the fact of financial interest is absurd.

If you were to apply that standard consistently then you would have to disregard any and every media outlet, research organization, etc. It is an absurd notion.

You continually point to liberal media - I give you liberal media - it is everywhere - but when right wing media stares you in the face you put on the blinders.

I never cite financial ties as self-evident proof of bias. However, generalizing like you do conveniently ignores that fact and implicitly distorts what I have said in the past.

My argument that the fact that fox news profits by placing and promoting tea party events on their nightly news is sound, it puts into question the credibility of their ability to look beyond the dollar and report fairly.

My focus is on your dishonest attempt to discredit and delegitimize CMPA, but if you want to focus on Fox the argument is still just as absurd.

Financial ties alone say absolutely NOTHING about credibility. Only actions can say anything about credibility; specifically (in the context of this discussion) in news coverage or in research.

You are focused on motive when you first need to establish method. More accurately, you are focused on speculation of motivation.

Maybe you should take the time to understand and critically examine the logic behind the leftist talking points before you start spouting them and mindlessly defending them.

Rather than 'fair and balanced' you now have to look at 'red ink/black ink'.

That is absurd. Instead of looking at their honesty to determine their credibility you have to look at their checkbook?!

Does the story on fox news promote their bottom line.

Again, this is irrelevant. Any and every news story ever covered by any news organization will ultimately promote the bottom line. Again, this says absolutely NOTHING about their credibility.

You keep assuming that yet fail to justify that presumption which makes your argument worthless posturing and nothing more.

It is a credibility issue and would be allowed by probably everyone but you shag, because you don't have an answer to it other than screaming out your little latin debate points.

You always start belittling when you can't make a coherent, logical argument.

Fox News spent money and promoted the tea party events.

In promoting the tea party events or promoting their coverage of the tea party events? That is a very important distinction that, as usual you gloss over, in your attempt to characterize things in a manner favorable to your agenda; truth be damned.

 

[Calabrio]

...I want to go back to the original subject of this thread.
Media Matter deliberately lies.
The instances highlighted in this thread was just a remarkably vivid demonstration of such a thing.

The issue isn't whether Media Matters is a left-wing watch dog. If they did so honestly and fairly, that would be fine. I think the Media Research Center does that, they are a conservative media watchdog, but they don't lie as Media Matters does.

As i stated earlier, Media Matters is indirectly funded by George Sorros through all of the other extremely radical organizations that he funds. And they specialize in taking comments completely out of context, getting the issue into a quick soundbyte format, then it is injected in the main stream media echo chamber. It is an organization designed to destroy the political opposition through dishonest and unethical means.

Everyone should condemn this organization and recognize it for what it is.
This recent Beck story isn't an isolated incident, it is the norm. And the intention isn't to promote debate or expose truth, it is to personally destroy political voices the left disagrees with through dishonest means.

 

[FIND]

If that is your standard then you have to disregard any and every news outlet. Self-promotion is part of the game and sensationalism is the main means of self promotion.

Also, sensationalism alone does not mean that it is "fake news" as you ignorantly claim. After a certain degree, sensationalism can lead to distortion. However, there is a difference between the amount of sensationalism and the degree of sensationalism.

Can you give logical a reason why Fox News should be regarded as less credible then any other news outlet?

Did you read any of my posts, or are you just trying to argue?