Update on Breitbart's Derrick Bell non-story.

Media Matters for America is one of the right wing's favourite bogeymen. The reason is simple, they call out the right wingers using their own words.

But this time, they have surpassed themselves with their takedown of the Breitbart silliness about Barack Obama, and the late Derrick Bell. After all, Derrick Bell died back in October 2011, so he's not around to defend himself.

I didn't realise this video was already out and has been since 2008, nor did I know that the first reports emerged in 2007. But then, I can't follow every single media news source on my own.

Doesn't stop me trying though.

Fox News demostrates the worst of press release journalism

Both NewsHounds and Media Matters for America highlight a recent example of the worst example of "press release journalism" that I have ever seen.

If you don't know what I mean, Press Release Journalism is simply taking a press release that some company has put out, and basically publishing it without any form of counterspin or criticism or equalisation. Most newspapers do this to a greater or lesser degree. Most of the time, it is free advertising for whoever put out the press release. But at its worst, say when a political party, political organisation or pressure group is the beneficiary, then it is nothing less than allowing propoganda and bias to go unchecked.

Well, the beneficiary of this particular piece of lazyness was the Senate Republicans, who put out a press release and Fox News dressed it up and presented it as their own research. But the reason this one was so easily spotted, was the fact that there was a typo in the press release, giving an article date as 12/19/09 instead of 12/19/08. Now that would not have passed even the most cursory of checks. So it would seem that Fox News didn't even check the press release over at all, before using it, cos their graphics department re-used the same text from the release as part of their full screen graphics, typo and all.

NewsHounds says this proves that Fox News is in the GOP's pocket. Media Matters says it's lazy journalism. I say that it is in fact both lazy press release journalism, and inherent republican bias at Fox News. Shame on you, Fox News Channel!

Michael Savage and Brian Maloney try to tag team Media Matters and lose!

Michael Savage is another of these D-list conservative talk show hosts who aspire to the level of a Sean Hannity or a Rush Limbaugh or a Bill O'Reilly.  Unfortunately, the level they aspire to is 4 levels below sanity, which is still at least 3 levels above them!!!

Savage demonstrated that twice this week, in spades!  On May 20th 2008, he basically mocked Ted Kennedy despite claiming he was doing otherwise.

Of course, Media Matters reported this, and then the next day, the Savage decided to fire away at Media Matters.  Too bad he forgot to bring any ammunition!!!

And then, uber-conservative radio commentator, Brian Maloney, on his blog which he calls "The Radio Equalizer", which is about as equalised as a badly tuned radio, accepted the tag from Michael Savage to fire off at Media Matters, only he too had forgotten to load any ammunition.

It doesn't matter how many times these people try and claim that Media Matters is funded directly by George Soros, Bill O'Reilly had already undone them, on his Fox News Channel show, which showed that George Soros does not fund Media Matters directly.  The equivalent would be Bill O'Reilly giving money to an organisation, and then that organisation then decides that with the money they've fundraised, including Bill O'Reilly's, that they would fund the Media Research Center, and then Keith Olbermann coming on his MSNBC show and saying "Bill O'Reilly is directly funding the Media Research Center.  It simply would not be provable, and this George Soros directly funding Media Matters claim isn't provable.

It doesn't matter if you tell a lie once, twice, ten times, a thousand times or a million times, a lie is a lie is a lie!

But back to Michael Savage, whose mocking of Ted Kennedy not only overstepped lines of taste and decency, but pushed him down another 10 levels of sanity in one go.  I would not defend this guy at a sanity board hearing, even if offered $1 million.  He has little sense that now is not the time, if there ever will be another time, to discuss what conservatives feel Ted Kennedy did wrong.  That is like kicking a man when he is down, and caving his chest cavity as a result.

Perhaps Michael Savage should look at filling his cranial cavity with a few essentials.  Like rules of taste and decency.  Like rules on how to behave.  Perhaps he might even spare the time to put a few facts in there instead of the usual Republican spin-doctrination that usually seems to come out of his mouth.  I'll not hold my breath waiting... and as for you, "Maloney Baloney", you need to re-equalise.  Too much treble, not enough bass.  Too often spouting nothing more than right wing talking points.  It's time you got acquainted with some facts.  You know, facts.  Hard, strong, undeniable facts.  Not flimsy, weak, unprovable spin and propaganda.

No Spin Zone becomes Fearmonger HQ!

Does anybody else get the feeling that Bill O'Reilly hates George Soros?

Why he does, I do not know, but I do get that impression very strongly after seeing some of his recent "Talking Points" memos.

I've decided to do a little background research on George Soros, and guess what I've come up with.

First of all, his own website, which has the usual favourbale biography that most official sites do.

Next, comes the Wikipedia entry. Now these entries can be written and re-written loads of times to change the focus, but this one seems to be independent of the usual degrees of political bias, and seems quite centred.

From this entry, we can tell why Bill O'Reilly is picking on Soros. Soros has publicly voiced his dislike for President Bush, and spent money back in the 2004 campaign to ensure that Bush did not get re-elected. Of course, we know what happened. The rest of the world is having to put up with the result of that election.

But Bill O'Reilly seems to have the idea going that Soros is influencing political opinion in the US through websites such as Media Matters for America, and MoveOn.org. And a couple of weeks ago, he went even further, saying...

"The goal of George Soros, Peter Lewis, Suzy Thompkins Buell and other radical financiers is to buy a presidential election. —By that I mean find and fund a candidate who will tacitly do what he or she is told to do."

Such a charge, on US primetime television, should have resulted in an immediate suing of Bill O and Fox News, but strangely enough, I have heard nothing to that effect from the Soros camp. It could be that they don't want to give the claim any legitimacy by taking any legal recourse. However, I could be wrong.

Now, having checked out MoveOn and Media Matters for America, I can say this. Both organisations, to coin a phrase, do what they say on the tin. Move on want to realise what it calls the "...progressive promise..." of America, whilst Media Matters describes itself as a "...progressive research and information center...". So both organisations admit that inpolitical terms, they can be described as progressive.

Bill O rounded up his Talking Points memo on Monday 7th May by saying...

"Soros is so powerful that he can ruin most countries financially if he decides to attack their currency by selling it short. And now Soros has set his sights on the political landscape here in America. He has his character assassins lined up. He has MoveOn ready to move out. And he has direct access to the highest levels of our government. This, ladies and gentlemen, is an urgent situation."

No, Bill O. The "urgent situation" here is to get you back to the real world, not the Republican world of political fearmongering. Politicians and Pundits both, need to get back to the REAL world, which the rest of us have to survive in, down the political centre, whilst petty politicians and their pundit supporters stake out their territory in the wildreness of political extremity.