David Brock: Conservatives 'Willing to Lie' to Influence Media

CNSNews ^ | February 15, 2005 | Marc Morano

[SpinyNorman]

Media Matters is just a front for the DU loonie fringe.

I guess the lack of coverage of the EasonGate debacle is tacit admission that it is true.

Brock calls Jerome Corsi "discredited", yet fails to demonstrate exactly how this is so. Other than just saying it of course.

In as search of the site for "swiftboat" he states:

"Media Matters for America voluminously documented the group's false and discredited allegations against Senator John Kerry and the intense media coverage the group received, especially in August 2004 following the Democratic National Convention."

Yet he does not document, voluminously or otherwise, his claim that the group made "false and discredited allegations." A click on the hypertexed "documented" in the above paragraph leads to nothing of significance, just nitpicking.

"On November 3, the group itself issued a statement touting the group's success. Speaking on their behalf, co-founder Admiral Roy Hoffman said: "We are pleased with the fact that we were able to effectively bring attention to our issues and raise questions regarding Senator Kerry's character."

These triumphal pronouncements contrast sharply with complaints during the election by L. Brent Bozell III, founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center. Bozell complained that the news media was ignoring Swift Boat Vets, as MMFA documented here and here."

Brock, of course, purposely fails to note that between the beginning of May and August (at which point the issue was forced on the MSM and Kerry by the masterful SVBT commercials), the SBVT were, in fact, almost completely ignored by the liberal MSM.

Someone should tell Brock that the sin of omission is just another lie. In fact, a critical analysis of Media Matters will demonstrate to all but the most jaded liberal that the "evidence" that Brock uses to "prove" his assertions are nothing more than nitpicking distortions and convolutions of logic, peppered with half truths (being kind here) and misdirection designed to make the assertions look legitimate.

In other words, he essentially lies to make his points.

[Rise of South Park Republicans]

You may be the most thoughtful sage since Plato.I don't know you

But of all the things that could be said of Brock you decided on faggot.

Not exactly Wadsworth helping our cause

[Chances Are]

...making unsubstantiated charges of lying against every one to the right of himself.

When you've planted yourself somewhere to the left of Leon Trotsky, as Brock and so many of his ilk have, most everyone is to your right!

CA....

[wideawake]

Not exactly Wadsworth helping our cause

What would help our cause - kowtowing to the sodomite cultural revolution? Our cause is served by being able to use good old plain English words to describe nauseating behavior without fear or favor.

I'll point out that your friends Trey Parker and Matt Stone have no problem using frank language.

[FreedomNeocon]

Tee Hee... wacked out libby democrats waging a war with us on IDEAS and FACT.

ROTFL!!!

Bring it on.

Everyone knows their M.O. is making emotional, anecdotal, and circumstantial cases. The way we've been WINNING is on facts, reason, and of course NEW media that defats the 'HEADLINE' mentality of the MSM and actually has SUBSTANCE.

I'd LOVE to see them TRY to be intellectually honest for once... this should be AMUSING.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Again, I disagree. There are many times that I feel that Sean and Rush miss some good points. There are times that they are mistaken. But if they were lying as you say they are, it would be overwhelmingly obvious. My heavens man, that'd even be worse than Clinton. And trust me when I say those media mavens who make it their business to watch Rush and Sean would be all over those two if this were the case.

[Rise of South Park Republicans]

What would help our cause

a discourse above the level of a 19 year old motorhead, redneck

or that of a 1930's era Appalachian preacher

that would be a start

[ElPatriota]

Thank you for the information. I was not aware he was a homosexual. Hmmmm

[spintreebob]

Because once during 3 hours, Rush and Hannity do say it correctly, the MSM finds it hard to jump on them. Of course, the MSM does the same thing so they can't yell too loudly.

But in knocking door to door on thousands of doors I have frequently had voters bring up that very issue... I've had them go to the trouble of searching for a pay stub to show me and in protest assert "See, I do pay taxes. They take the Rush/Hannity comments as an insult. They feel excluded from the GOP. It is emotional with them.

Now, when Tax restructuring and social security are on the plate, the "lies" of Rush and Hannity again do a disservice to their (and our) cause. Rush and Hannity do not understand that the typical Christian Right voter is not selling bonds on Wallstreet.

The typical Christian Right person is changing oil at jiffylube or asking if you want fries at McFastfood.

[JimRed]

The way I remembered it was he WAS writing conservative stuff against them, then 'fell in love' with some guy in the Clinton White House, and he suddenly turned liberal.

Kind'a like a lot of straight guys in the 60's went left when they discovered that lib chicks are easier?

[kittymyrib]

Brock thinks with his crotch. It's an affliction homosexuals have. Heterosexuals do not see the world through their zippers.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The typical Christian Right person is changing oil at jiffylube or asking if you want fries at McFastfood.

Er this statement doesn't do much for your credibility. This drivel is typically consumed and spread by leftists. In actual fact, a higher percentage of the "Christian Right" have college degrees than any other demographic.

Perhaps you are getting it confused with the "Christian Left," which does, indeed, meet the definition that you give of the right.

Anytime that either Rush or Sean makes a mistatement that is not immediately corrected, the MSM is all over them.

Now, admittedly, I've not listened to either very much, but in neither have I been able detect the distortions and lies so prevalent in the MSM (CBS fer example). Yes, they do tend to present one side of the story. But they make no bones about it. And again, I've heard from them that could be reasonably construed to be a lie. Since you have a different take, perhaps you could post examples.

I personally think that your tax example is bad, because it was obvious from the get go that they have been talking of personal income taxes.

[spintreebob]

The "only the rich pay taxes" example is the most obvious one that backfired bigtime on them. But granted, that was the line of 2002-2003. I don't hear Rush often. I hear Hannity often as he is on WLS delay to the evening. I'll try for current examples.

Agreed the MSM tells many lies. Most AP stories that run as objective news are nothing more than reprints of news releases / reports from leftist organizations.

My favorite is the AP story that said there has been a steady decline in traffic deaths at a constant rate of 200 per year less for the past 15 years. They then listed and gave short credit to
Bbetter engineered highways;
Better engineered cars with ABS, etc;
Better enforcement of DUI and
Seatbelts (they avoided any mention of airbags)

Then the final paragraph concluded that Seatbelts save 20,000 lives per year. Of course, the headline said "Seatbelts save 20,00".

I checked and it was taken verbatim from a PR release of a highway safety advocacy group funded by your tax dollars. I have been directly involved with insurance company statistics and traffic saftey for 37 years. Seatbelts are an expensive social experiment that saves a few lives and causes a few deaths and is a net wash in the saving lives counts. But it increases the price of cars making it more difficult for poor people to buy a car to get to work.

In contrast, ABS and DUI enforcement can clearly be shown to reduce both deaths, injuries and property damage. Not given credit in the article is that drivers are able to afford newer cars, and to keep their cars in better shape. Thus they are able to buy new snow tires more often and get them balanced more often, etc. If the cost of seatbelts were put into even more basic maintenance (and more DUI enforcement) the benefits would be far greater than even those imagined by the seatbelt advocates.

Note that your taxes paying people to preach seatbelts is no different than paying someone to tout No-Child-Left-Behind.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Er, it has been pretty much shown that about 20% of the people pay 80% of the personal income taxes. Therefore, the "only the rich pay taxes," while an exaggeration, is not much of one. However, I'll concede this point, since it is technically not true. It is easy to see why it is said, since many leftists keep claiming that the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. That said, two wrongs a right don't make.

I'd have to disagree a bit with you seatbelt example. While it is true that it increases the cost of a car, the increase is not all that much (probably about the cost of one lawerly sneeze). What you left out is much more important. Airbags. These can range from $500.00 up. This is much more significant in terms of costs than seatbelts are.

Also, for a person who knows how to drive in poor conditions, generally ABS is not a safe option. This is especially true if you have to brake hard for very short distances. The ABS doesn't allow you to do this as well as non-ABS.

DUI & DWI, I agree.

Again, the costs to the manufacturer for seatbelts might, I say *might*, possibly pay for one tuneup and checkup.

But my entire point is that while Sean & Hannity are mistaken from time to time (Rush himself admists this), there accuracy tends to be better than that of the MSM. And they aren't even reporters.

[spintreebob]

I didn't dwell on airbags because the objective AP news story didn't mention them.. and the PR release they copied didn't. That is probably due to the publicity about airbags impact on smaller people. Those PR releases are PR driven, not factually driven.

Since we agree on the MSM, how do we effectively deal with them? When Dan Rat.her lied about Bush a FReeper succeeded in correcting that story. But most of the lies are not that dramatic and blatant. They are just a constant stream of "conventional wisdom" that keeps us constantly on the defensive, rather than the offensive.

Of course, there are several "Accuracy in media" groups. Why are they not more effective? Is there something FReepers can do to make them more effective? Is there a need for some new approach if the existing approaches are only successful on rare occasions?

[curiosity]

What? Ideologues are willing to lie? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

We should do our part, of course, to increase accuracy in media. But we have to be careful, or we descend to the level of picking nits. It is one thing to mention a minor inaccuracy in passing and another to beat it to death.

For the MSM to slam bloggers as non-journalists is really stupidity compounded. By doing this, the MSM is arrogating unto themselves the high priesthood of news reporting. And, more importantly, it encourages the bloggers to do all they can to shove MSMs' feet into their collective mouths up to their armpits with no holds barred.

The reason, I think, that some of the MSM (Wash. Times) are exempted from rough treatment by the bloggers, is they have accepted the bloggers as legit. Don't expect this to happen at the NY Times anytime soon.

[wideawake]

a discourse above the level of a 19 year old motorhead, redneck

Yawn. If I wanted to take this discourse far above your head I could, quite easily.

I'll note:

(1) 19 year olds who are interested in things automotive are a nice constituency for Republicans and I think we should keep them.

(2) Apparently you are concerned about levels of discourse, yet you are so unutterably stupid that you think that calling people rednecks - presumably because they were born in rural or Southern areas and are therefore inferior in your strange worldview - will win the Republican Party votes.

Good luck with your anti-young men, anti-South and Western platform.

or that of a 1930's era Appalachian preacher

Ah, yes. Another good constituency to alienate - fundamental, orthodox Christians.

I must say, your plan for intentionally stripping the South, rural voters, teens and Christians from the GOP is an absolutely brilliant electoral strategy.

[iexist]

I have read many of your posts in response to Trippin and others.

Your extensive vocabulary (i am envious as i wish i had such a command for language, but that is beside the point) does not distract from the inaccuracies and flaws of your arguments and assertions.

"Faggot" is not considered a derogatory term simply because the "self-styled left elite" has said so; it is considered derogatory because it is often used to degrade and disparage homosexuals and their sexual preferences, etc. Certain words are deemed offensive or derogatory when the emotions or feelings behind them are intensely hateful or negative-- "rookie", "southpaw", and other examples you listed, though inherently negative, do not have histories associated with violence, defamation, oppression, hatred, and bigotry. "faggot", on the other hand, does.

by associating "faggot" with "nigger", trippin was not stating or even implying that a type of sexual behavior or lifestyle is synonymous with someone's ethnicity.

you may very well disagree; however, if you are able to see why "nigger" is considered such an offensive word, i don't understand why "faggot" would not be put in the same category. furthermore, all of those who consider the word "faggot" to be politically incorrect, offensive, or simply inappropriate do not necessarily feel this way because homosexuality has become a "hot topic" in popular culture. compassion and sensitivity play a much larger role-- this point is evidenced by the fact that "faggot" was considered offensive and derogatory far before homosexuality seemed to become "fashionable" phenomena to some. many are against usage of the word simply because it they have compassion for those who are offended or hurt by the word. simple as that.