Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Editorials & Other Articles
In reply to the discussion: The Numbers Behind Maureen Dowd's 21-Year Long Campaign Against Hillary Clinton [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)44. You are using a right wing publication to defend a falsehood. You've screwed up, here.
MM never CLAIMED to be "impartial." That's the first piece of "misinformation" you're handing off. Second, they don't tout Clinton -- they respond when the right wing tells LIES about her. They'll do the same for anyone--Warren, Sanders, Obama, Kerry, DiBlasio, anyone.
Most of the articles on their front page are --golly gee--NOT ABOUT CLINTON.
READ THIS:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation - news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda - every day, in real time.
Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.
http://mediamatters.org/about
Is that clear enough for you? You need to ask yourself, who sent me this link? Why did they not tell me it was a virulently rightwing piece of shit website? Why did they let me go on DU and hang my ass out like that? Someone used you--and you should be pissed at that person.
I think you need to quit while you're behind. You should think about deleting that ill-advised post that associates you with a far-right media outlet. And more to the point, you need to stop defending them, lest people start believing you didn't make a mistake but you actually mean what you are posting.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
47 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The Numbers Behind Maureen Dowd's 21-Year Long Campaign Against Hillary Clinton [View all]
Spider_Mann
Mar 2015
OP
Or else paid like Rush was. Same time frame she began attacking. Part of the huge RW con job.
freshwest
Mar 2015
#3
She has this bad habit of trying to portray herself as some kind of "sex goddess hottie."
MADem
Mar 2015
#4
She's stuck in the high-school "mean girl" mode. Very nasty and full of herself. n/t
pnwmom
Mar 2015
#6
I posted that in tribute to Helen, DFW, not to compare her in any way. Thomas went after criminals.
freshwest
Mar 2015
#10
If she's in the whitehouse, the Senate will only become more Republican in response.
NYC_SKP
Mar 2015
#40
"Media Matters" pushes hard for Hillary 2016, putting its nonprofit status in question...
KoKo
Mar 2015
#18
The Washington Examiner is a right wing rag. Now that I read it i Must take a shower.
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2015
#27
No, the point is, your source is dreck, a wingnut, hyperconservative outlet that has one purpose--
MADem
Mar 2015
#35
In what way is Media Matters "anointing Hillary as the ONLY possibility"?
muriel_volestrangler
Mar 2015
#42
You are using a right wing publication to defend a falsehood. You've screwed up, here.
MADem
Mar 2015
#44
Huh? I'm not "venting on you." You are bringing a wingnut source here and expecting us to take you
MADem
Mar 2015
#46
So why don't you 'speak as a Democrat', rather than posting Washington Examiner hitpieces?
muriel_volestrangler
Mar 2015
#47
Media Matters seems a bit defensive. They did, after all, get a mention in Dowd's article.
NYC_SKP
Mar 2015
#39