501(c)3 Nonpartisan Organization Media Matters: Press' Coverage of Obama Has Become "Almost Universally Hostile"

I quote Eric Boehlert not to establish the truth of his claim, but to note how absurd it is. And how ridiculous it is that Media Matters has a "social welfare" tax exemption. They are plainly a political and partisan organization, and yet the IRS focuses on the Rogues Gallery of Master Political Criminals in the Tea Party-- usually one or two man outfits.

Whereas Media Matters is a lavishly funded DC-based Don't Think Tank representing the Leftist Leading Edge of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

Media Matters exists for one reason only: To push the media's coverage of liberals towards a greater level favorability and promotion. There is a demonstrable, palpable bias towards the left in the media: It is a lie and an absurdity to claim otherwise.

However, if there are conservative outlets embarrassing the media for its obvious Obama Palace Guard duty, then a dishonest leftist hack wants to claim something bizarre -- "the media is biased against Democrats!" -- if only for the purposes of giving the media its favorite alibi: "Well, you know, we get criticized from the right and from the left about our coverage."

Nevertheless, you can read Hot Air's excerpt of a Politico story to see Laura Ingraham saying that the media's long-term chronic Obama Fever may finally be "beginning to break."

I don't believe that. We've heard such hopes before. As I said to (self-elevating name drop) James Woods (self-deflating confession of how lame I am) on Twitter, the media has lashed itself to Obama more tightly than Odysseus lashed himself to his ship's mast.

Their fates are bound. Obama love is not merely a matter of politics. Obama love is a form of self-love. Obama is the most prominent Avatar of the press' culture. And tribes will fight eternally to demonstrate the superiority of their culture.

And arrogant people do not shed their vanities lightly.

Confession by Implication? JeffB. thinks so. And adds more to his argument.

It's hilarious, because the Bush examples are all about conservative opinion writers losing faith in GWB (Byers can't find one example of a previously friendly MSM voice becoming critical), but the Obama examples are of neutral journalists, White House reports, diplomatic experts, etc. turning on him. The transparent implication is that Obama's natural consituency is the mainstream media, just as Bush's was right-wing pundits.

Obviously no surprise to anyone posting around here, but still one heck of an unwitting admission by POLITICO.

I notice this more and more-- when I accuse the media of cherry picking facts, a leftist will immediately respond that the Republican Party is guilty of the same thing.

Thus establishing that in the mind of the leftist, the media and the Democratic Party are synonymous.

Which is true. But they won't admit it if you ask them.

Corrected: I wrote "always universally hostile." That was wrong. And kind of makes no grammatical sense. Well it does but you wouldn't say that.

He said "almost universally hostile."

I blame this once again on the fact that when I write I send the word to rote, automated-processing parts my brain and then move on to the next thing I want to write. And sometimes the rote, automated-processing writes things like "always" instead of "almost" because it's kind of a dummy and only hears the first couple of letters of a word.

posted by Ace at 03:46 PM

| Access Comments