Media Matters Distorts Something (Yawn)
Media Matters’s front page has a graphic that states: “Warbloggers refuse to admit their errors in making fraud allegations against AP.” Here it is:
Interestingly, the post of mine that they highlight is this one, titled “Media Matters Isikoffs See Dubya.” In that post, I make no allegations of fraud against the AP, nor do I refuse to admit an error. Rather, I accurately point out a misquotation in a Media Matters piece by Eric Boehlert — a misquotation, by the way, that Boehlert later admitted.
Why is my post listed in that graphic, Media Matters?
P.S. Check out some of the other posts in the graphic and see how they distort matters there as well. For example, they claim in this post:
Fox News’ Brit Hume said that the Associated Press “has been vindicated” over its report of six Iraqis who were purportedly burned alive . . .
In fact, as the transcript shows, Brit Hume said no such thing. Rather, he said that the AP had been vindicated as to allegations (made by whom, I wonder?) that Hussein didn’t even exist. Hume said:
The AP was widely accused at the time of making up Hussein’s identity in order to disseminate false news about the war. No explanation was offered about why it took so long to confirm his name or why it is being disclosed now, but the AP, it appears, has been vindicated on this.
That is hardly the same thing as saying the AP was vindicated on the issue of the Burning Six, which is what Media Matters implies in its summary.
At least Media Matters included the transcript in its post. But its summary pushes the false narrative that lefties have been pushing for the last 44 hours or so: that the mere existence of Jamil Hussein means that The AP Has Been Vindicated on Everything, Because All Warbloggers Claimed He Was a Made-Up Person.
I know. The idea that Media Matters might distort something is hardly news. Still, you gotta call ’em on it occasionally.
UPDATE: Allah notes that Media Matters lied about him as well:
They’re also lying when they list Hot Air as one of the sites that refuses to admit its errors. I explicitly acknowledged that we were wrong about Hussein and apologized to our readers for having led them on a not-so-wild wild-goose chase. Does Media Matters link to that post? Of course not, because that wouldn’t fit their narrative. Instead they link to a post of mine from December answering Eric Boehlert’s columns about Jamilgate. They’re hoping their readers won’t actually follow the links but will instead simply deduce from the headlines they’ve provided that we responded to the new revelation about Hussein by picking on Eric Boehlert to change the subject. It’s a naked lie.
And just so we’re clear, I stand by every word of that December post. My point there was that the left doesn’t care if Hussein exists or not. They simply don’t care, and that’s been borne out by their reaction. Their interest in this story begins and ends with its usefulness as a gotcha against the right. One lefty blogger I read actually admitted that she didn’t know any of the details of the story — but felt moved to comment on it anyway. QED.
To borrow a favorite phrase from my favorite shameless, discredited sock puppeteer, Rick Ellison McEllensburg: this is who they are, and this is what they do. Just like I predicted in that comment of mine that you featured here earlier today.
Media Matters is absolutely shameless.
UPDATE x2: In the interest of thoroughness, I’ll note that the See Dubya post linked in the above graphic merely discusses the misquotation that I had discussed, and also discusses another falsehood that Boehlert had told about See Dubya.
That’s three lies by implication by Media Matters.
And the Rightwing Nuthouse post is from December 21, so it could not possibly be — and is not — a post wherein a warblogger fails to admit error.
So of four “warblogger” posts cited to prove the headline, all four are a lie. Clean sweep.
Like I said, they are shameless liars.
UPDATE x3: Allah has now posted on this.
They’re also lying when they list Hot Air as one of the sites that refuses to admit its errors. I explicitly acknowledged that we were wrong about Hussein and apologized to our readers for having led them on a not-so-wild wild-goose chase. Does Media Matters link to that post? Of course not, because that wouldn’t fit their narrative. Instead they link to a post of mine from December answering Eric Boehlert’s columns about Jamilgate. They’re hoping their readers won’t actually follow the links but will instead simply deduce from the headlines they’ve provided that we responded to the new revelation about Hussein by picking on Eric Boehlert to change the subject. It’s a naked lie.
And just so we’re clear, I stand by every word of that December post. My point there was that the left doesn’t care if Hussein exists or not. They simply don’t care, and that’s been borne out by their reaction. Their interest in this story begins and ends with its usefulness as a gotcha against the right. One lefty blogger I read actually admitted that she didn’t know any of the details of the story — but felt moved to comment on it anyway. QED.
To borrow a favorite phrase from my favorite shameless, discredited sock puppeteer, Rick Ellison McEllensburg: this is who they are, and this is what they do. Just like I predicted in that comment of mine that you featured here earlier today.
Allah (bab333) — 1/6/2007 @ 2:07 pm[…] The headline, “Warbloggers refuse to admit their errors in making fraud allegations against AP,” links to Boehlert’s latest piece. It’s followed by an item about Brit Hume supposedly announcing that the AP’s been vindicated on the whole “Iraq atrocity story.” Alas, that’s not what Hume said, but that’s beside the point. The point is, by starting with that headline and the Hume item, MM wants you to scan the remaining items and think that they’re all examples of warbloggers responding to the news about Hussein’s existence by taking shots at Bohelert to change the subject. E.g., “Hot Air on ‘Boehlert’s disingenuousness.’” See the irony? You’re supposed to think I reacted to evidence of the Iraqi MOI’s disingenuousness by accusing Boehlert of the same because I can’t admit when I’m wrong. Wingnut. […]
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Media Matters lies about HA’s response to Jamilgate (d4224a) — 1/6/2007 @ 3:22 pmI’m confused about exactly what Hot Air was supposedly wrong about and why Allhapundit felt the need to admit to any “error” at all. I would have posted this comment at Hot Air but I only started reading it two weeks ago and I haven’t figured out how to post comments there yet.
I went all the way back to April and the begining of the video blog and I didn’t see anyone at Hot Air claim that the AP source didn’t exist. I did not read the entire blog back to April when the site first started, I only watched the videos, so I must have missed it.
When did Alluhpundit, or anyone else at Hot Air, claim that the AP source didn’t exist?
And not for nothing, but why hasn’t anyone mentioned that they didn’t suddenly discover this guy DID exist until after Michelle Malkin announced that she was going to Iraq?
Jayine59 (78bac9) — 1/6/2007 @ 3:46 pmLies from Media Matters are nothing new.
“MEDIA MATTERS Watch”: A rebuttal to some of the errors, lies, and misleading work of MMFA
DPierre (dfb693) — 1/6/2007 @ 5:00 pmJamil identified, facing arrest? — Day 3 (Updated and bumped)…
CENTCOM says AP’s Iraqi police source isn’t Iraqi police — Part 31 — Continued from this post. Never was the patient type. I’m ready for mugshots, or at least a CENTCOM news release. It’s been a good 32 hours since…
Bill's Bites (72c8fd) — 1/6/2007 @ 5:56 pm[…] UPDATE 12, Jan. 6: Yeah, I know — But Patterico just took apart Media Matters (HT Instapundit, whose comment is “Dog Bites Man”) and its demands for apologies that aren’t due. This is very useful because it is now redundant and a waste of time to move down the ignoramus food chain (and there are so many, one wouldn’t know where to start). […]
BizzyBlog » Jamil Hussein (Delegated) Update (Late PM: BizzyBlog Resumes Updates) (34f45e) — 1/6/2007 @ 6:57 pmYes, those lefties are surely to blame for your gullibility.
Surely, if you keep nitpicking your political opponents, nobody will realise how easily led you are.
And you are very, very easily led, are you not?
Flying Rodent (6e9ce6) — 1/6/2007 @ 7:56 pmThe main problems for the “right-wing” bloggers is they over hyped and intergrated a number of aspects from the Hussein AP story to the overall situation in Iraq.
By blending so many overlapping opinions together the bloggers set themselves up for creditability issues if some part of the story became true. The story about Hussein, AP, people burned, news being made up, another example of the left lying about Iraq, etc, all got swepted up and interlocked together.
All you have to do in that tangled situation to make someone look like liars on everything is to prove just ONE part of all the critism someone is making is false. If they got one part wrong, then they must have got it all wrong; like a house of cards.
The question of the day is can they stop hyping so creditability can be restored?
James (035ee1) — 1/6/2007 @ 8:01 pmAh, a moral relativism from a right-wing blogger. What a surprise. So, let me see, it’s the same thing to call you unapologetic (even if you really aren’t very sincerely apologetic once you read all your posts on this) as for you to irresponsibly peddle a story such as this Jamil Hussein crock of shit? So the people pointing fingers at you need to trim their nails; they’re pointing their fingers at you nonetheless, and for a reason–you were wrong. And, like me, they’re laughing.
[When did I peddle the “Jamil Hussein crock of shit”? Are you talking about all those posts I did where I said he didn’t exist? Cite them, because those posts don’t exist, any more than the crock of shit you have peddled about me calling journalists’ actions “treason” relating to Cheney’s vacation home. I’m laughing at *you*, pal, because you lie even in posts where you anonymously call others liars. That’s . . . pretty pathetic. — P]
djangone (381f2e) — 1/6/2007 @ 8:09 pmProving the existence of a source doesn’t prove the veracity of the original story, a story that the AP continues to change.
AP couldn’t produce the source for its story of mosques being destroyed and Iraqi Sunnis being torched with kerosene for going on a month to six weeks so what are inquisitive people suppose to think given the wretched track record of the lamestream media in the first place? Verifying there is a Captain Jamil Hussein (middle name optional) still doesn’t prove AP’s original claims about the story this lone source “leaked” to the AP. Frankly, I’m getting tired of the media basing entire news accounts on “leaks”. One would have thought if the story was true in the first place, Sunni apologists would have been trumpeting yet another atrocity committed against them by Shia militia or the “puppet government”.
I find it extremely interesting how the lamestream media and liberal bloggers can be sooooo nuanced when it comes to defending their positions on controversial issues, but do not extend the same courtesy to conservatives … ever! So much for their claims to be “open-minded” and “willing to engage in a dialogue” when the first thing they do is circle the wagons and accuse conservatives of being unprincipled liars for even asking questions in the first place.
Hankmesiter (4b484f) — 1/6/2007 @ 8:22 pmPer Jawa http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/
Jamil has been questioned at MOI HQ and denies he is a source for AP.
Ball back in your court AP, produce your source or admit you made up bad news from Iraq.
[The Jawa Report has it wrong — P]
kubob (aa4d50) — 1/6/2007 @ 8:23 pmBoehlert is taking it easy on you all compared to Digby and her gal-pal at Tiny Revolution. They’re pegging the whole right side of the AP sceptical blogosphere as Holocaust(type) Deniers! Some real deep psyfauxwork has them arriving at the claim that ilk-wise you are Ahmadinejad.
Bold, Truthy, and Reality-Based, mind you. It might be time to update that Godwin thing with a corollary on Short Guys in Members Only Jackets (SGMOJ) references.
stevesh (f48acc) — 1/6/2007 @ 8:51 pm[…] Media Matters is now lying about bloggers. Shocking. Posted by Ian S. in […]
Inoperable Terran » Deny, deny, deny (dacd80) — 1/6/2007 @ 9:10 pmI don’t know why anyone is apologizing yet. The AP allowed themselves to be used as a Sunni propaganda tool, and must have known it shortly after the “6 burning Sunnis” incident was debunked (which only happened because the AP played CYA after being called out by bloggers). Yet they stood by their original reporting in a very public and arrogant way. Hussein was never an official Iraqi govt source and played the AP for suckers. And the story isn’t over yet.
Kenneth (752e80) — 1/7/2007 @ 12:54 amThe Future of the New York Times – Illustrated…
Need more evidence of the eroding value of the old-line newspaper business? Powerline and American Thinker report that the money-losing sale of the Tribune Company was even worse than previously thought……
Doug Ross @ Journal (59ce3a) — 1/7/2007 @ 5:09 am[…] Allah explains (more here) why any apology to the Left — over Jamilgate specifically, which is still far from resolved, but you could apply it to plenty else — is futile, and worse than a waste of time: I explicitly acknowledged that we were wrong about Hussein and apologized to our readers for having led them on a not-so-wild wild-goose chase. Does Media Matters link to that post? Of course not, because that wouldn’t fit their narrative. Instead they link to a post of mine from December answering Eric Boehlert’s columns about Jamilgate. They’re hoping their readers won’t actually follow the links but will instead simply deduce from the headlines they’ve provided that we responded to the new revelation about Hussein by picking on Eric Boehlert to change the subject. It’s a naked lie. […]
On apologies | Cold Fury (6f4592) — 1/7/2007 @ 8:01 amI guess this means the war is going wonderful and the Iraqis really love us!
Adirondacker (76cec4) — 1/7/2007 @ 11:23 am[…] In truth, as Patterico points out in a post that deconstructs some of Boehlert’s piece: […]
The Anchoress » Sigh. This is getting dull. (1b383c) — 1/7/2007 @ 11:52 amIf the media isn’t liberal, why is it that liberal groups such as The Democrat Party, the Media Matters website, the Crooks and Liars blog, and journals like Editor & Publisher adamantly defend the MSM from their conservative critics?
I can name you countless times when left-wing lynch-mobs have come out in droves to hysterically defend the MSM against any “attacks” they perceive are coming from the “right-wing attack machinery.”
Can you name me once, just once, when the left has come out to defend the “conservative” media from their critics? And I wouldn’t expect them too.
So if the MSM’s not liberal, but the “moonbattery” will go to the ends of the earth with their denials of any left-wing media bias, why do they defend them so stridently?
AndyB (4d3b84) — 1/7/2007 @ 7:58 pmWhen the dominant (bc they are not mainstream) media puts in the effort to research and prove the validity of their work in the same manner as the right-leaning blogs do to disprove it, then the media will be worth paying attention to again.
But then again, bias is a powerful motivator.
jcrue (6573aa) — 1/8/2007 @ 9:00 am