If you read Media Matters, then the only conclusion one can come to is that Conservatives and Republicans are evil to the heart and soul. Whom are bent on world destruction, travesties, and generally would kick kittens because their so damn cute (albeit not always good, but I guess cute is good in a way). As a disclaimer, I haven’t really read that much on the web site, but it appears that they don’t often talk about liberals or democrats all that often, if at all.
To be fair, it isn’t as if Conservatives are any more “righteous” in their descriptions of the so called evil Left. It seems that to the Right, the Left is evil and wants to ruin the country and the Left likewise thinks the same of the Right. I will just say that they can’t both be right, but at least the bickering is entertaining. Quite frankly, I think both sides are doing a disservice to their side by polarizing each issue. Any layman should be cautious to take any side lest be associated with that side evermore.
I haven’t actually read any conservative blog, but I would assume the same tactics used on Media Matters applies as well. The tactics and proofs are far too effective at shutting down any opposing side to not be used. Using logic, reason, facts, and proof in a unbiased fashion isn’t as sexy as ad hominem attacks and using sources that are also biased towards the same opinion.
You see, attacking someone’s character is effective, because it puts the burden of proof, in most peoples’ eyes, on the character being attacked. In this the straw man side steps the issue by forcing the character being attacked to disprove the accusation and then try to disprove the other points made in the articles. The best claim is to say that since someone or some group took money from the oil companies, then they can’t make any argument against climate change or global warming.
While it may or may not be true that receiving money from a particular group that may lean a certain way in the research findings, it true of any group that receives money. If the pretense is that a group that receives money from a group believing a certain way is corrupted in their findings, then many of the research groups that receive any funding from outside sources are contentious. There was a very well written study about this very topic on Watts Up With That website, but I don’t believe Media Matters would ever consider that site as a valid source, given that they actually use facts, statistics, unbiased reporting (for the most part and I would say far more than whats on Media Matters), studies, evidence, and research to further their claim. Alas Watts Up With That website’s lack of frequently attacking someone’s character because they don’t hold the same belief wouldn’t make them a news source that Media Matters could use.
My perspective of the site, is that it wants to either preach to the choir or get the Independents who haven’t fully researched both sides of the issue or who are leading towards the mindset of Media Matters anyway to follow Media Matters. Researching both sides of the issue is slightly difficult and I do respect that Media Matters at least gives you the reference material to decide after reading the opinion piece. Often when they do give the full transcription or article they are referencing, the question is often, “Why is this a big deal again?” and sometimes they take jokes, sarcasm, and tongue-in-cheek out of context to further their claim.
Holy shit would they have a field day with me if I ever got into political writing. Of course, I don’t believe they would bother, because they go after the big names who people actually might listen to and read. Furthermore, I don’t really care about politics to write about it often. I just think that when you read something from Media Matters and its sources, you should be wary and do more research to get the full story.
Possibly Related Posts:
- Climate Change – How it is a Win / Win
- Please Spay and Neuter Abusive Parents
- Net Neutrality: Are People Wrong?
- Will Democrats Save Us from Corruption?
- Social Security