Blurreyed could it be because so many errors are made by the right wing media that media matters just doesn't have time to get to the few that are made by other outlets?

dtcracer: In the world of public debate one does not need a gun to intimidate only reasoned argument.

As a person on the left side of the political spectrum I can assure I have no fear of my gun jumping out of the holster. Nor to many of those I go shooting with on a regular basis. They and myself are just sane and know all about guns.

What do they say, big gun little dick....

Blurreyed could it be because so many errors are made by the right wing media that media matters just doesn't have time to get to the few that are made by other outlets?

dtcracer: In the world of public debate one does not need a gun to intimidate only reasoned argument.

As a person on the left side of the political spectrum I can assure I have no fear of my gun jumping out of the holster. Nor to many of those I go shooting with on a regular basis. They and myself are just sane and know all about guns.

What do they say, big gun little dick....

Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive[1] media watchdog group that says it is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media".[2] Set up as a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization, MMfA was founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock.[3] Eric E. Burns served as MMfA's president until 2011.[4]

In 2008 Jacques Steinberg of The New York Times reported on how Media Matters is viewed. David Folkenflik of National Public Radio told him that though Media Matters looked "at every dangling participle, every dependent clause, every semicolon, every quotation" for the benefit of "a cause, a party, a candidate, that they may have some feelings for", they were still a useful source for leads, partly due to the "breadth of their research". Conversely, political analyst and columnist Stuart Rothenberg told Steinberg that he did not pay attention to them, as he had no confidence in "ideological stuff". In Steinberg's view, Media Matters was a new weapon for the Democratic party employing "rapid-fire, technologically sophisticated means to call out what it considers 'conservative misinformation' on air or in print, then feed it to a Rolodex of reporters, cable channels and bloggers hungry for grist".[17] According to an Economist blog posting, "because it is dedicated to critiquing distortions by conservatives, its critiques carry no weight with conservatives."[35]

In 2004 MMfA received the endorsement of the Democracy Alliance, a partnership of wealthy and politically active donors. The Alliance itself does not fund its any of its endorsees, but many wealthy Alliance members acted on the endorsement and donated directly to MMfA.[19][20][21] Media Matters as a matter of course has a policy of not comprehensively listing donors. Six years after the Alliance endorsed MMfA, financier George Soros—a founding and continuing member of the Alliance—announced in 2010 that he was donating $1 million to MMfA. Soros said: "Despite repeated assertions to the contrary by various Fox News commentators, I have not to date been a funder of Media Matters." Soros said concern over "recent evidence suggesting that the incendiary rhetoric of Fox News hosts may incite violence" had moved him to donate to MMfA, which thanked Soros for announcing his donation "quickly and transparently".[22]
Former chief of staff to president Bill Clinton John Podesta provided office space for Media Matters early in its formation at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank that he had created in 2002.[23] Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters in its early stages out of a belief that progressives should follow conservatives in forming think tanks and advocacy groups to support their political goals.[23][24]
Media Matters hired numerous political professionals who had worked for Democratic politicians and for other progressive groups.[18][25] In 2004 article on Media Matters the National Review referred to MMfA staffers who had recently worked on the presidential campaigns of John Edwards and Wesley Clark, for Congressman Barney Frank, and for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.[18]

In 2010 MMfA declared a "War on Fox". Brock said MMfA would focus its efforts on Fox and select conservative websites in what Brock called an "all-out campaign of 'guerrilla warfare and sabotage'" against Fox News.[60] MMfA said the greater attention given to Fox was part of a campaign to educate the public about distoritions of conservative, and the greater attention given to Fox was in line with its prominence in conservative media. MMfA said its Drop Fox campaign for advertisers to boycott Fox was also part of its educational mission. MMfA also said that changing Fox's behavior, not shutting it down, was its goal.

If media matters focused its attention on other news sites as much as it does on Fox it would find alot of crap to talk about, I am not saying that their reporting is 100% garbage but it is no less slanted than is the station that they are reporting on. Media Matters has an agenda of discrediting conservative media as its starting point that that alone should indicate that they also will distort and twist their reporting... MM is like any other liberal site, attacking the conservative POV while giving liberal media outlets a pass on their distortions of the news.