Looks like they came up empty;
A little after 1 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2009, Karl Frisch emailed a memo to his bosses, Media Matters for America founder David Brock and president Eric Burns. In the first few lines, Frisch explained why Media Matters should launch a “Fox Fund” whose mission would be to attack the Fox News Channel.
“Simply put,” Frisch wrote, “the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around any more. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole.”
“We must take Fox News head-on in a well funded, presidential-style campaign to discredit and embarrass the network, making it illegitimate in the eyes of news consumers.”
What Frisch proceeded to suggest, however, went well beyond what legitimate presidential campaigns attempt. “We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff,” he wrote.
Related – US senator calls for News Corp probe and The curious link between Media Matters and the White House war on Fox
Amazing what Soros money can buy.
ACORN. SEIU. MMFA.
How many more?
Sometimes, when the light is just right, it’s a bit terrifying to see just how deep this rabbit hole really is.
Tucker Carlson was on O’Reilly last night exposing these shenanigans.
Call it advocacy journalism. The traditional journalistic idea to present facts is twisted into presenting propoganda to a particular political viewpoint.
It’s kinda like what’s happened with pure science and the AGW debate. Pure science presents results of research, political science twists or exaggerates to set the table for the control freaks on the left.
The increased security is part of the same scheme: FOX employees, like all right wing loons, are scary dangerous. Well, with certain exceptions, like Juan, Geraldo, …
Insane. Just… insane.
The purpose of most political news shows, sites, and blogs is to get out a viewpoint which the supporters feel is being neglected.
With Media Matters, the purpose is far more specific – to systematically destroy their political opponents in (apparently) any manner possible.
Hit the DUH wall the other day with a friend who hates Sarah Palin, hates Fox News. Not surprised by the Palin Derangement Syndrome (and tired of defending her) I asked him if he considers himself a conservative, why he hates Fox News so much. He backed it up with a link to Cenk Uyger (or however the heck you spell it) of MSNBC, talking about the lies of Fox News. To me that was laughable. We all know how in bed they are with Obama and how progressive/socialist they are.
Sad thing is, most people have no idea how brilliantly they are being blinded and played. He didn’t have a clue. I hope I imparted a bit of new knowledge to him that he hadn’t even considered before.
But I doubt it will make a difference. This from a Canadian who says he considers himself conservative. I said to him, you are no conservative, you are a progressive. He probably has no idea what that really means either.
Sigh. We live amongst the chronically fooled.
I take this as a good sign, oddly enough. A freak-out like this means that they are -losing-.
Just like they LOST here in Canada.
So long suckers.
Media Matters is a registered charity in the U.S. and as such is barred from overtly political activities.
But just like the Suzuki Foundation, they appear to be getting a free pass from the tax man.
Wouldn’t it be neat if an organization outside of N. America or Western Europe could hack into Mr. Soros’ accounts and drain it all, change all the ownership of his investments, etc… Obviously, the organization would have to be outside the jurisdiction of any Western Gov’t and beyond reach of their respective police services.
favill:
Media Matters gets dirty and so you want to get dirtier still? Not what I call ethics.
favill:
Media Matters gets dirty and so you want to get dirtier still? Not what I call ethics.
Posted by: rabbit at February 14, 2012 11:10 AM
Rabbit…read Kate’s banner,and reflect a bit.
Re: your thread title: “The tolerant left”.
I know the intent is sarcasm but let’s think about this a min. The left really are tollerant – they have a capacity to tolerate some of the worst government and legislated abuse than any other political persuasion. It’s safe to say the left’s tollerance of dismal leadership, insane policy and abusive government is infinate.
Soccermom, you’re saying your “conservative” friend watches MSNBC? WTF
So soccermom, how long have you known David Frum?
I know….I don’t even think he knows what “conservative” means. He needs some enlightening. and I think I’m just the one to do it! HAHAHAHA!
Justthinkin:
If you have a point make it. I don’t need patronizing advice to “reflect a bit.”
The left is tolerant – except to those who will not listen to them.
(By ‘left’, I am not referring to the working class left I am referring to the ‘liberal left’, the ruling class.)
The left are so sure their “ideas” are indisputably correct that they will not tolerate any other thoughts. Period.
And why is their track record so bad?
Why are their thoughts mostly out in left field? Because they are so clueless in so many ways, especially when it comes to being practical. They often have no idea how the real world works. They think Utopia, their Utopia is achievable if only others would listen.
But why are they so clueless?
Because they are too busy being activist, it leaves them no time to learn anything that may be of use.
Am I wrong?
Thought Experiment: Imagine going up to any left-of-centre journalist in Canada or the U.S. and asking them, “Would you be okay if a right-leaning political organization were to hire private investigators to delve into your personal life and that of your colleagues?”
What do you think the answer would be?
Yet, if these same journalists find out that Media Matters is doing exactly the same thing to Fox employees, how quickly do you think they’d change the subject? I would expect the time to be measured in milliseconds.
Here’s the interview between Bill O’Reilly and Tucker Carlson.
Soccermom:
Paraphasing Clinton, I feel your pain. Really do.
I’ve lost two long term friendships (but maybe they weren’t REAL friendships, or paraphasing Whoopi, friendship-friendships) over this stuff.
I now have a very good friend who describes himself as a fiscal-conservative/social-liberal. He loves Hollywood, Jon Stewart and Colbert and wishes Fox were shut down. I’ve recently asked him to NOT send me political stuff, to not bring politics into the relationship (which revolves mostly around motorcycles and photography).
I used to give people a pass on this hybrid label but just as I no longer distinguish between anti-semitism and anti-zionism, I no longer buy this label. Perhaps you can be “liberal” on a single issue, but you can’t be fiscally-conservative and socially-liberal. Socially liberal means progressivism which mean an ever-expanding STATE and shrinking liberty and MONEY MONEY MONEY.
What if you’re a fiscal conservative that thinks gay marriage is OK? Gay marriage does not require a bigger state. It increases liberty.
I you bring Marquess of Queensberry rules to a street fight you will get badly beaten. Now, while you’re recovering from your injuries you can feel better and all self righteous for fighting by a code of conduct, good on you. You still lost.
What if you’re a fiscal conservative that thinks gay marriage is OK? Gay marriage does not require a bigger state. It increases liberty.
Posted by: Unintelligensia at February 14, 2012 4:09 PM
——————————
I reckon then you would be classified as a Log Cabin Republican. The only way Gay Marriage can come about is in a Total Liberal Gov’t which means Bigger Gov’t. I won’t debate the Liberty thing, we seem to be losing that no matter who is in Office.
,
Unintelligensia said: “Gay marriage does not require a bigger state. It increases liberty.”
Nope. Gay marriage is all about getting -money- and benefits from the government for gays that they otherwise wouldn’t get. Oh, and also giving those ghastly Christians another well deserved beat-down. Judgemental Xtian bastiges should be sent to live in camps.
All they’re doing is trying to change the meaning of the word “marriage” to p1ss people off. There’s no freedom involved, just money and spite.
If you’re a “fiscal conservative” and think gay marriage is ok you haven’t been paying attention. Ending ALL government involvement in marriage, -that- would increase freedom and decrease wasted money.
I get tired of the search for conservative purity and the exorcising of those who deviate from the one and true faith. That’s why I avoid calling myself a conservative, although most people would like say I am one. It avoids a lot of dumb arguments.
I’d say that the name “Unintelligensia” is just about right: ’use your brain much? It’s not enough to look at things in a one dimensional way: one must think outside the box, as in consequences—a ripple effect.
Gay “marriage” is just the latest step (with more to come) in the uber-selfish sexual license of adults trumping the needs of children. In order that adolescent-brained, self-centred “adults” may sleep with whom they want, when they want, we’ve seen an epidemic of abortions, sexually transmitted diseases, and vulnerable children living with a single parent and/or a multitude of unrelated adults, which puts them at serious risk of both dysfunction and abuse.
If children are involved, every gay “marriage” has, built-in, a guarantee that the child will be separated from one of his/her biological parents. How selfish of the adults, how unfair and cruel to the child.
It’s about time that children’s needs were treated with much more respect: adults are supposed to put children’s NEEDS before their own DESIRES. As I’ve said, gay “marriage” is just one more item on the adults’ sexual license agenda that makes stable, satisfying, productive lives for children less and less likely, and unstable, unhappy, abusive lives more and more likely. Is that what we want for our children?
Although Unintelligensia seems to think—if “think” is the word—that the sexual liberation of adults “increases liberty”, s/he should TRY to think again. For whom does this selfishness increase liberty? Certainly not the children of the sexually “liberated”. And certainly not the beleaguered taxpayer who has been, and will continue to be, burdened with the astronomical social and fiscal costs of the resulting dysfunction that we see all around us.
“We must take Fox News head-on in a well funded, presidential-style campaign to discredit and embarrass the network, making it illegitimate in the eyes of news consumers.”
Fixed Noise is legitimate in the eyes of news consumers? Not a news consumer with an IQ above their shoe size.
Did you hear about the study linking low IQ and right wing tendencies? It explains a lot.
Pill
“Did you hear about the study linking low IQ and right wing tendencies”
I’ma rite winger
now you want to put up 20K, and see if’n yer IQ is higher than mine, or even within 20 points of mine
you dimwtitt
Are they going to call their operatives “plumbers” ?
Silencing dissent one way or another is the Jacobin and communist way.
Two days after the storming of the Winter Palace in October 1917, Lenin issued the “Decree of the Press” that muzzled the opposition press.
Lenin had good company, as the leaders of the French revolution, Marat, Danton and Robespierre, censored newspapers and sent their editors to the guillotine.
The present revolutionaries in North America are just being a little more covert.
you dimwtitt
Posted by: NME666
Good one. You had me going there for a second.