WhoodaThunk wrote:Again, the judgment of what is
sane and/or
bullshit-free is clearly in the eye of the beholder.
A perusal of the current homepage of
http://mediamatters.org/ produces most of the current buzzwords of the American far-Left -- Pat Robertson, O'Reilly (3 references), Jerry Falwell (2), Delay (2), Limbaugh (2), and the ubiquitous array of Fox fixations (Fox News, Fox & Friends, Fair & Balanced, New Fox reporters, etc.)
MediaMatters is more than partisan. It is the rabid wolf attacking the mad-cow afflicted bovine. Determining degrees of sanity would require a finely-tuned proctoscope. Both are simply equally repulsive sights.
Again, by going through its homepage, you make a good case on how MediaMatters is
selective, and to that extent shows its own bias. I'd admitted that much already.
However, in my (admittedly limited) experience of using the site, it is factual and scrupulous in reporting that which it
does choose to report. Thats what I meant by "bullshit-free", and which made it a welcome exception in eg the Google search I quoted.
You are of course welcome to come with any example that does show the site being
deceptive. I mean, if you're going to call it the equivalent of a "rabid wolf", you'd better show some example of it posting outright falsehoods, canards, or some such rhetorical nonsense - otherwise you're the one engaging in it.
It's a shame how most sources one comes up with are so partisan. Thats a minus, by itself. But even partisan sites can still be useful, even credible. During the US election campaigns, one of the sites I visited daily to keep track of polls and the like was a conservative blog. The blogger was passionately partisan, but also passionately scrupulous about his data. Partisan does not by itself already establish a source's "rabid wolf" character - for that, you need to come up with a little bit more. I havent seen it for MediaMatters, but I'm willing to be shown.