- Offering a centralized resource to counter liberal/leftist/socialist baloney... and some brilliant columns by me.
Navigation menu -

Media Matters sucks

December 14, 2011

As a rule, liberal websites are engaged in a different mission than conservative websites.  Liberal websites are engaged in propaganda, whereas conservative websites are engaged in seeking the truth.

Nowhere is this more blatantly on display than at Media Matters for America, the George Soros-financed, Democrat Party-supporting website put together by partisan hacks sitting high above Washington, D.C., in their shiny new sixth-floor offices—paid for by a $1 million donation from Soros just a couple months before they moved in—where they wage war on American freedom under the guise of being progressive watchdogs of the media.

“Progressive watchdogs of the media.”  If ever there was a phrase looking for a comedy act...

Setting a liberal to watch the media is like hiring a fox to guard the henhouse.  Nearly 100% of the news that Americans consume is dominated by the left (proven time and time again by surveys of journalists and objective studies of news stories).  Conservatives have radio shows where they talk about the news but even there the news itself is presented by liberal journalists.  It’s downright weird to hear somebody like Rush Limbaugh analyze an issue for half an hour and then hear the top-of-the-hour news feed from New York present the same story with exactly the opposite viewpoint.

Hey, Talking Head! weren’t you listening?

There is one television network amongst the whole spectrum of networks which allows a conservative viewpoint to be aired—Fox News—and the idea that such a network exists is more than liberals can bear.  Consequently, in 2010, Media Matters abandoned any pretense of being an objective media watchdog and officially declared a “War on Fox.”  If you’re wondering what that means, I looked at Media Matters’ front page yesterday and here’s what I found:
1. A big-print headline slideshow rotating through eight main stories... six attacking Fox News and one attacking Glen Beck, formerly of Fox News.

2. Ten categories of smaller-print headlined stories, each of which presented four stories.  That’s forty stories altogether... twenty four of them obviously—based on their headlines—attacking Fox News.  (The number of Fox News attacks was probably higher but I couldn’t make myself click on all forty stories.  I value my sanity.)

3. In a right-column sidebar titled “MMtv,” ten videos presented as examples of nefarious conservative skullduggery... all ten of them from either Fox News or Fox News commentator Sean Hannity’s radio show.  (If that sounds confusing, don’t blame me.  They’re the ones who titled it “MMtv” and then included radio sound files.  As I keep telling you: liberals are just plain dumb—that’s why they’re liberals.)

4. Below MMtv in the right-column sidebar, a final section titled, ominously, “Fox Attacks Media Matters,” with six links... naturally, given the title, all six about Fox News.
In summary, the website had 64 stories and 47 of them were attacks on Fox News.  Three quarters of their content is dedicated to the “War on Fox.”

This year-long hissy fit would be humorous and slightly pathetic if Media Matters was simply a guy with a website, trying to attract an audience with well-written political analysis—like for instance—but they don’t have to attract an audience, or present worthwhile analysis, or worry about fairness, or even limit themselves to factual accuracy.  They have gobs of money flowing in that immunizes them from such details.  Instead of one guy, they have somewhere between seventy and one hundred full-time staffers monitoring Fox News around the clock, intent upon someday somehow denying you and me the ability to choose Fox instead of the latest version of Dan Rather offered by the other channels.

Does that scare anybody else?  With a near-monopoly on the news business, why does one contrary news network worry them so much?

As a man with full-time employment trying to maintain a website on the side, I don’t have spare time for making comments and getting into snarky flame wars on other sites.  I cruise the web looking for information, especially information I trust, and Media Matters’ information product is so low caliber it’s generally not worth visiting.  After all, how many emotional anti-Fox News outbursts can you read in a row before you get the gist?  But once in a while I click on a Media Matters link from a news accumulator like memeorandum and read one of their hissy fits, and even more rarely read enough to get so irritated that I want to join the discussion after the article.  That’s when I'm reminded that I, J.P. Travis, am banned.

At some point in the last three years, so long ago and such an inconsequential event that I don’t even remember it, I made a comment at Media Matters, it stung them enough that they looked at my website, and they said, “Holy cow!  This guy’s a conservative!  We can’t have that!

“You have been banned from the Media Matters forums for consistently violating the terms of use.”  That’s the message I get.  One comment shouldn’t earn the adverb “consistently.”  Not in the English language anyway.  So maybe I made two comments?  Who knows?

Seventy to one hundred full time staffers, God knows how many millions of dollars from George Soros, and they’re so afraid of J.P. Travis they won’t let me comment on one of their articles!

The ban is probably for the best because the level of discourse is low and it might harm my reputation to be seen participating.  Here’s a sampling from the discussion I was forbidden to join two days ago... presumably these are comments which do not violate the Media Matters terms of use:
“I consider Fox News-only watchers to be braindead or complete morons.”

“Someone who mixes Fox News with other sources is also a moron.”

“Apparently you are unable to read a chart.  I realize the faux chart is prettier and as such more appealing to the ignorant.”

“ seem to not be able to deal with MMFA’s facts and that irks you.  Not because of MMFA’s lies, but because like any fascist leaning righty, it is because of their truths!  Truth is more threatening to a liar than lies are to a truth seeker.  You follow?  No, I didn't think so.”

“Again people, lets all say it together: 'WATCHING FOX MAKES YOU STUPID'”

“Ugh, what a pack of morons...”
There you go.  That’s the intellectual level achieved by liberals when they have no conservative supervision... Lord of the Flies writ digital.

Media Matters is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(C)(3) tax-exempt educational foundation, which means that it cannot engage in political campaigning or supporting of political campaigns.  If they do, they’re supposed to lose their tax exempt status and either pay income taxes on their revenue like a normal corporation or abide by the rules for a political action committee (PAC).  A PAC is a private group organized specifically to elect political candidates or to advance the outcome of a political issue.  Clearly, as even a kindergartner can tell, that’s what Media Matters does.  The staff is composed of Democrat staffers and Democrat politicians, benefactors are all liberals like George Soros, and the reason given by founder David Brock for their war on Fox News is his firmly-held opinion that Fox “is the de facto leader of the GOP.”  The point being, of course, that Mr. Brock thereby admits that Media Matters has aligned itself with the Democrat Party and takes an active role in political campaigning.

Why they aren’t investigated by the IRS is only mysterious if you forget for a moment that Barack Obama is the current president.  If Obama’s IRS investigates Media Matters and charges them with violating their 501(C)(3) status, I’ll eat my website.

The big difference between a 501(C)(3) tax-exempt organization and a PAC is that a PAC must abide by U.S. election law, which includes revealing who donates money and refusing contributions from foreign sources.  Apparently, Media Matters would find those requirements embarrassing.  Why else would they cling to the inappropriate (and illegal) 501(C)(3) status?

It’s not idle conjecture that they seek to hide the source of their funds.  For years they adamantly denied that George Soros gave them money, right up until the moment Soros publicly announced a $1 million donation in October of 2010.  That was an awkward moment.  After years of denying that Soros gives them money, here comes a million dollars.  Media Matters posted both Soros’ announcement and a statement from David Brock, prefacing them with this sentence:
“Despite years of right-wing lies, Soros had never before donated to Media Matters.”
Then came the Soros statement, which began with this sentence:
“Despite repeated assertions to the contrary by various Fox News commentators, I have not to date been a funder of Media Matters.”
Mr. Brock was more circumspect, but ended his statement with this sentence:
“We are especially pleased that in this moment of hidden right-wing billionaire money corrupting our democracy, Mr. Soros, upon deciding to support our efforts, quickly and transparently has made that support public.”
Quickly and transparently?  Media Matters was organized in 2004 with money from and the New Democrat Network, both of them Soros-financed leftwing organizations.  They also received an endorsement from another Soros-financed entity, the Democracy Alliance, which is the same thing as saying, “Instead of giving us money, donate to Media Matters because that’s where the money would be going anyway.”  There’s probably even more Soros funding (like from the Open Society Institute), but remember, because Media Matters claims 501(C)(3) status they don’t have to tell us where they get the money to rent that beautiful office space and hire all those employees so it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what’s happening.

We can say, with absolute certainty based on the three statements quoted above, that David Brock, George Soros, and Media Matters are flat-out liars.

Most people long ago concluded that Soros is the owner and master of Media Matters.  Of more concern is whatever foreign sources of funding they’re using to subvert the American political process.

Like the title says, using the sort of language they seem to prefer in the comments on their website, Media Matters sucks.

From Reno, Nevada, USA       

December 16, 2011 - Good post on Media Matters - I, like you, can't take too much, kinda like seeing what's going on our REgressive radio station, 760, and tuning in when Randy Rhodes is spewing - I can last about 2 minutes. Anyway, what I thought was especially instructive were the 2 comments after the piece. The first, by a conservative, was very well written, even quoting Mr Sowell. The second, and I'm sure he read every word in your piece, essentially said you were a do-do head. When debating REgressives, it comes down so often to, why bother? Sites like this are playing to an ever decreasing circle jerk of sycophants. If the nightmare of the last 3 years hasn't swayed them, reasonable debate certainly won't. I bookmarked your site and I'll be stopping in. - MM, Colorado

December 14, 2011 - This is par for the course for left-wing sources. Leftists regularly infest right-wing sites to spread lies and venom -- see Big Government for a choice selection -- and are rarely shut out for doing so. But let a conservative offer his opinion at one of their sites, and the heavens shall fall! Leftists also love to call conservatives closed-minded. There's a moral in there, somewhere. It's perfectly in keeping with the Left's overall strategy to use vilification and silencing campaigns as their main weapons against conservative opinion sources. Thomas Sowell, in his masterpiece "The Vision Of The Anointed," pointed out that the left-wing vision is "A vision of differential rectitude:" They believe themselves inherently smarter and more moral than anyone who dissents from their ideology. In the most extreme cases, they widen the gulf to its stops: If you're a conservative, you must be evil! And of course, in the War on Evil, there's no such thing as a disallowed weapon, or a tactic too foul to consider. However, there remain some left-liberals who have yet to descend to that level; to them, we're merely ignorant idiots. There's been so much talk about the polarization of political discourse, but far less about the moral and ethical underpinnings. In essence, the gulf that's opened between Left and Right has nullified discourse as a way forward. What remains is combat: for now, merely through our respective channels and at the ballot box. But later...? - Francis W. Porretto, Connecticut

December 14, 2011 - You're the one who sucks. I'm sure you were banned for a good reason. Probably for being an idiot. - MMFA lover/Fox News hater, Massachusetts

Issues - Conservative Resources by J.P. Travis


J.P. elsewhere


Favorite links - Conservative Resources by J.P. Travis

Favorite links



Travelyn Publishing

        World War II book cover

        King James Bible book cover

        Under the Rebel Flag book cover

        V book cover

        Bicycle Girl book cover