Calling out Media Matters' bias

Rob the Great, NY, NY — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:32:28 GMT

This is news to you? The Clintons bankrolled the site, and you expect it to be non-partisan?

Calling out Media Matters' bias

cms — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:36:03 GMT

This is disturbing, because I always thought Media Matters was neutral toward among the Dems. It's like a list from Rush.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Lynn, Millington — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:36:03 GMT

Now, the Clinton campaign is officially in full panic mode. Chuck Todd thank you for FINALLY taking an unbias view of Hillary Clinton.

This is just the thing to bring Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards together as a tag team.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

modernwoman, Anytown,USA — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:37:53 GMT

Wow, you mean that there is a media source out there who are Clinton supporters and YOU are pointing it out to us??? Will wonders never cease???

Calling out Media Matters' bias

mike, dallas, TX — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:38:11 GMT

Chuck and Domenico, I have complained when you did a less than complete job before. This time I have to thank you for exposing what media matters is really is "a wolf in sheep's clothing" or "Hillary Matters". Initially I was fooled by their name etc but later I realized when I reported to them when the media had blatantly biased coverage in favor of Hillary and they ignored my comment. Since that time I have noticed a pattern of giving cleverly worded ammunition to people who would like to attack obama or Edwards disguised as a concern for those candidates.

BTW it is ok to be a watch dog for Hillary as long as they come clean and do not fool people.

Gentlemen, please follow through this and keep up the good work.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Dave, Tn — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:40:26 GMT

So many groups with so many old Clinton people. Takes more effort to prop up a lie than tell the truth. Was all fun and games when they were aimed at Bush. Now that they're going after "Anyone but Hillary" the truth is starting to show.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Bertin Lefkovic, Dunellen, NJ — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:41:08 GMT

Could this be David Brock's final mea culpa to the Clintons for the years that he spent as a conservative hatchet man during the 90s?

I strongly recommend Brock's book, "Blinded By The Right", which details his ideological transformation.

It is great reading that would make an interesting film (If you're reading this David, you can e-mail me at bertinlefkovic@gmail.com to talk about my script ideas).

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Dillon — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:41:14 GMT

Go Chuck!! I'm glad to see that maybe, just maybe you guys are starting to see some of the frustration that Obama and Edwards supporters have felt when it comes to the coverage of Hillary Clinton. I'll take it one step further, MSNBC has had pundits like Craig Crawford who are OBVIOUS Clinton supporters, moderate post debate shows and offer their supposedly "objective" opinions. Only political junkies like us are aware of these types of games but are often labled as Clinton conspiracy theorist or Obama and Edwards apologists. Most Americans aren't even aware of these factors or how it slants opinion.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:41:59 GMT

Team Hillary has no shame. They operate just like the Republicans and the Bush team. I'm surprised that Media Matters didn't warn about asking Obama and Edwards about all of their illegitimate children (John McCain knows about that Rovian trick). It's for reasons like this that I could never be comfortable supporting the Hillary machine. A Hillary White House will be 4 more years of the imperial presidency. We really need to change the way that politics are done in this country. Media Matters is the real Pravda (not First Read).
Obama '08

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Michael, Los Angeles — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:43:17 GMT

From the November 13 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

JACK CAFFERTY (commentator): Usually, we only do one question at a time in these segments, but, today, I have an extra question. And it has to do with the Drudge Report and my pal, Wolf Blitzer. I was clicking on the Drudge Report, and there you are, big as life, in the middle of the Drudge Report this afternoon, with a headline suggesting that the Hillary Clinton campaign is trying to intimidate you before you moderate this big debate in Las Vegas. What up with that?

BLITZER: Not true. No one has pressured me. No one has threatened me. No one is trying to intimidate me.

CAFFERTY: They'd better not. I'll come down there.

BLITZER: No one has even called me to try to pressure me or anything like that.

CAFFERTY: Where do -- where does a silly thing like that come from?

BLITZER: I don't know. You know, I try to suspect that maybe some rival campaigns are trying to create a little mischief, try to get her embarrassed a little bit getting into the debate Thursday night, but I have no idea where it's coming from. I have no idea who generated this story, but I can tell you I have not felt any pressure whatsoever.

CAFFERTY: What about Drudge just rushing this thing right onto the website without knowing if it's true or not?

BLITZER: Well, that's another story.

CAFFERTY: Well, that's -- we may get into that at some point.

BLITZER: Maybe we will.

—J.S.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Dot, Illinois — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:44:30 GMT

Seems like we need a watchdog to watch the watchdog.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:48:36 GMT

Who are YOU trying to kid?
Are you trying to say that First Read ISN'T biased in favor of Obama and/or Edwards...or that YOU, Domenico, have not taken gratiutitous swipes at Hillary?
#1) Where was First Read's reporting of the fact that Norman Hsu was a cash "bundler" for Obama, and introduced him to his fundrasing chairman?
#2) Where was First Read's reporting of Obama's connections to indicted racketeer Atoin Rezko?
#3) Where was First Read's reporting of the Alan Fabian story, and his connections to both Gigolo Rudy 'G' and Mitt Romney?
First Read has been as biased as it can possibly be AGAINST Hillary Clinton. (Which is actually part of the reason why I support her!)
First Read NEVER complains when Bush takes pre-approved questions at HIS press conferences, and First Read has only a small "snippet" with reference to reporting that CNN and Wolf Blitzer both deny any contact from Hillary's people.
Don't kid yourself or try to BS anyone else. First Read has been just as biased AGAINST Hillary, as it says Media Matters is biased in favor of her.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

james, Wisconsin — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:50:13 GMT

It's a good thing that we have watchdogs keeping tabs on all the watchdog groups. Thank you for your continued effort in keeping these candidates honest.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:52:04 GMT

".....Team Hillary has no shame. They operate just like the Republicans and the Bush team. ....."

OH PLEASE, Mitchell.....and "team Obama" DOES have some shame?
The same people who had their candidate stand up at the least debate and use 1990's Neo-Con rhetoric about The Clintons?
THAT isn't shameful?
I honestly don't know where you get this crap from. Must be some good stuiff yer smoking.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Chuck,San Diego — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:52:44 GMT

DO ask Barak what he did with his 8 years of congressional records.. He says he has none... Do ask Barak if he KNOW what a computer is.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:57:00 GMT

I'm sorry but I fail to see how pointing out that Edwards and Obama positions have been frequently misreported or outright distorted is attacking them.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:59:08 GMT

Oh, and I'd like to point out that you frequently quote Drudge and Politico as if they have some kind of credibility, but you have a problem with a site that fact checks people's actual statements against reality?

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Lynn, Millington — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:00:39 GMT

Chuck in San Diego,

It that you Howard Wolfson.....

Your question makes no sense you know that the Obama campaign is ready for this question right? Congressional Records are stored in Springfield. Did you read the article. Senator Obama said he doesn't have any records. He didn't say there are no records. Of course, he has Congressional Records, there are records of his votes, his legislation victories, etc. The Chicago Tribute and Sun-Times has done NUMEROUS stories on his time in the legislature. How do you think they go that information? They didn't make it up. They got the records of what he did there. You really look very desperate.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Lynn, Millington — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:08:56 GMT

Chuck in San Diego,

Is that you Howard Wolfson.....

Your question makes no sense you know that the Obama campaign is ready for this question right? Congressional Records are stored in Springfield. Did you read the article. Senator Obama said he doesn't have any records. He didn't say there are no records. Of course, he has Congressional Records, there are records of his votes, his legislation victories, etc. The Chicago Tribute and Sun-Times has done NUMEROUS stories on his time in the legislature. How do you think they got that information? They didn't make it up. They got the records of what he did there. You really look very desperate.

They also have information on any lobbyist he was in contact with in Springfield.

Come on, you can do better than that.

"Is that all you got?"

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Ron, TX — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:11:31 GMT

DO ask Barak what he did with his 8 years of congressional records.. He says he has none...
============

The Illinois congressional records are readily available. He didn't keep his schedules, stuff like that. He only had 1 staffer working for him, unlike Hillary Clinton, who had 50. EVERYTHING Obama has is open and available. EVERYTHING Hillary Clinton has, is not.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Stu, Saginaw, MI — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:12:40 GMT

THIS IS, BY FAR, THE MOST PRO-ANTI-HILLARY PIECE I'VE EVER SEEN!!

Calling out Media Matters' bias

mike oh — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:19:34 GMT

DO ask Obama how he would win a general election when he has stated on record that he supports giving drivers liscenses to illegal aliens.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

anne burkart, columbus, ms. — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:21:09 GMT

I have the vapors. Churck Todd writes something that puts Sen. Clinton in a poor light? Media Matters is on the same level as Moveon.org. Both are dedicated Blue Dress Clinton supporters. Thx for the unbiased look at their bias.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Chuck,San Diego — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:22:02 GMT

lynn,

Barak dumped or is lying about copies of his records, his letters to the various lobbys, his intra office and congressional communication, his communication with the citizens, He says it doesn't exist..but he has said in the past that he had it.

wonder why he has to say he doesn't have it?

as to your explaination,stop swallow the juice. you sound just like a bush supporter.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Lynn, Millington — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:29:01 GMT

mike from oh

Now, I know you can do better than that. Try again. The Federal Government doesn't give out Driver's Licenses, that is a State Issue. Senator Obama was empathizing with States that have large numbers of undocumented workers who are here illegally. Fear mongering will not work in this election. We have a major problem with illegals coming to our Country. Just talking about it will not fix the problem. There has to be solutions, this is a solution is it the best, no but its a start. There are atleast 17 other States who give illegals drivers licenses. Senator Obama will be President he can't give our Drivers Licenses. He answered the question.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Chuck,San Diego — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:32:11 GMT

ron,

BULL.

and you know it.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Lynn, Millington — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:32:25 GMT

I like President Bush so that is not an insult to me.

If Senator Obama doesn't have the information the people that he wrote to do. He didn't say it didn't exist. Howard Wolfson you can do better. Stop with the textbook campaign, it only looks bad.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Chuck,San Diego — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:33:20 GMT

ron,

BULL CA_CA.

unless you belive that all reagans records are readily available too.

and you know it.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

pmorlan, Louisville, KY — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:47:08 GMT

I watched Tucker Carlson on Monday where he introduced Peter Fenn as a Democratic strategist and Bob Franken as an online columnist. I don't know about Bob Franken but Peter Fenn is a Clinton supporter. Tucker NEVER let his audience know this and Fenn proceeded to rip apart Edwards using rumor and innuendo. At one point he and Bob Franken giggled and laughed as they spouted more and more nasty comments about Edwards.

All three of them tore Edwards to shreds. It was the most disgusting show I've seen. Because of their viciousness (and I mean viciousness) you half expected them to turn into snorting, slobbering beasts in front of your eyes.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

ki houston — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:47:22 GMT

chuck get real man ,you and tuck are the only two haters trying to push that bs. I geuss you did not get the memo your side has givin that one up , as if they ever should have tried it .Maybe tuck and chuck is one in the same ,which makes it more ridiculas.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Joe — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:48:14 GMT

Chuck, San Diego...you just sound STUPID. That's why no one in the media is paying any attention to your rant, they would sound just as stupid as you

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Markie Bee, Sacramento, Calif. — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:49:05 GMT

Hey Chuck, bring me the link or evidence that Obama ever said he has his personal records from his years as state senator. In other words, BRING IT!! You, like all the rest of the Hillary supporters, are obfuscating once again. The whole point to the issue is Hillary has been saying she's got the experience and Obama is saying, well, other than your miserable showing with health care in 1993, show us how you were involved with policy, show us where you gained all this experience from your husband's administration that qualifies you for the presidency other than your seven average-at-best years as NY senator. Any evidence that shows Hillary was in cabinet meetings, etc. are locked up - allegedly - and on Hillary's orders. All we're stuck with in order to believe her claims is the pictures of her going on safari with Chelsea and the catalog images of the copies of the the official White House China patterns she picked out.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:50:41 GMT

"Their "don'ts" read more like facetious attacks on Edwards and Obama -- right out of the oppo shop of either the RNC or, say, opponents of Edwards and Obama."

I would think that Media Matters point was that the Clinton campaign shouldn't sound like something right out of the oppo shop of the RNC. Which, I think, is pretty good advice considering as I am much less likely to vote for a candidate that uses the same baseless and stupid attacks that the Republicans use.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

George A, Brunswick, Maine — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:51:43 GMT

Yes the list is partial. Yes Hillary did help Media Matters happen - but it was essential to counteract the Republican's dominant spin machinery just 4 years ago.

There is questions that are being asked of Hillary that ARE indeed misleading. No one cares to check them out because people truly do not study the nuance of the question and take them at face value. When Hillary and Russert get into a little tussle - there's no room to clarify questions, a reporter is just as self-conscious as a politician in admitting mistakes or misconceptions.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

John, DC — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:53:22 GMT

Hey, Chuck, why did you list "7 of the first 8 "don't" suggestions"? Why didn't you list all 8?

Could it be because the one you left out makes NBC's Tim Russert look pretty bad:

"Don't misleadingly crop quotes when challenging a candidate's consistency on a particular issue, as NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert did on the November 11 broadcast of Meet the Press, when he suggested that Obama has "not been a leader against the [Iraq] war."

And why did you leave out the links Media Matters included in each of those "don'ts" -- links that went to Media Matters material DEBUNKING the claims?

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:55:59 GMT

J. Merle Stanley:
Who do you pay to write your posts? Whoever they are, you are paying them way too much. In any case I agree, you and I are certainly are from different planets; mine is third from the sun and has one moon, how about yours?

BTW, I gave up smoking years ago. We'll see if Hillary can answer any questions directly tonight. Howard Wolfson said that Hillary is going to be more clear and 'less equivocating' on her answers tonight. I guess that team Hillary understands that she was Queen of the Nebulae, 2 weeks ago. Chris Matthews (I know, he's just another anti-Hillary member of the vast right wing conspiracy) just said that Hillary can lay claim to no less than 5 positions on the Driver's Licenses for illegals. LMAO.

Anyway, no hard feelings to you personally. May the best candidate answer clearly tonight.
Obama '08

Calling out Media Matters' bias

mike oh — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:10:30 GMT

Lynn -

You're not telling me anything I don't know. 'Presidents don't give out drivers liscenses' duh, I know that, you know that, everyone with half a brain that follows politics knows that, won't matter a bit. Rudy's already out there getting standing ovations saying he would never support that. Mitt's turning it into a biggy in his speeches too. 'Fear mongering will not work in this election'? You REALLY believe that??? You're so cute when you're gullible. Fear is what the GOP has, fear is what they use, fear is what they're verrrrrrry good at. Might not work on people like you and me, but start thinking that Mr. & Mrs. average America won't fall for it and you're setting yourself up to lose. Nope, I can see the commercials already ... not going to be pretty.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

diane — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:11:44 GMT

I use to read media matters until the primaries when it became the Hillary Clinton watchdog site.
It does not matter whether they are republican or democrat. No one is to go against She-who-must-be-bowed-to.
I don't if it is due to the guilt some feel over their role as the right wing smear warriors before they switched to democrat or if they are connected with the Clintons in general.
But, the site is no longer credible.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

mike oh — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:19:03 GMT

"Senator Obama was empathizing with States that have large numbers of undocumented workers who are here illegally. ... this is a solution is it the best, no but its a start." --- Lynn

Just also noticed, isn't this pretty much what Hillary said at the debate and it was called 'waffling'?

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Ana — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:21:53 GMT

Yeah, media is against Obama, please.

Check this out:

http://www.journalism.org./node/8187

"The press also gave some candidates measurably more favorable coverage than others. Democrat Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year—followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running. Arizona Senator John McCain received the most negative coverage—much worse than his main GOP rivals."

"Meanwhile, the tone of coverage of the two party front runners, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, was virtually identical, and more negative than positive, according to the study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. "

Obama : Positive: 46.7% Negative: 15.8%
Clinton: Positive: 26.9% Negative: 37.8%

Calling out Media Matters' bias

John S. Alexander, Edinboro, PA — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:24:14 GMT

dirty politics, surpriseeeeeeeee not!
people hiding who they support surpriseeeeeeee not!
Now if only one of them get caught breaking into an office or something then you have a crime. Till then it is just politics as usual. Surprise!!!

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Cris Carter, St. Paul MN — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:24:15 GMT

I thought Media Matters ran this site. Maybe it's just the overflow of wacked out liberals from MM that find there way here?

Calling out Media Matters' bias

diane — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:24:47 GMT

Reading the comments by Chuck makes me wonder if he is one of Hillary's flying monkeys.
anyone with half a brain, which Chuck obviously is lacking, knows you can go on the Illinois Senate site and find alot of the information from Obama's years there.
Springfield has the important records, except for the stuff Obama was working when he left. those he gave to his replacement. Small personal things like notes were not kept.
Many blow off Obama's years as a State Senator as unimportant and not experience until now when they think those unimportant papers are very much so. the difference is they have always been available - unlike the Nixonian Hillary who keeps many secrets.
However, Clinton is claiming all this experience and ties it to her white house years where there were probably 100 people working for her and the Clinton library has those records.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Sierra, SF — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:31:38 GMT

'...Is Media Matters a liberal/Democratic media watchdog site or a Clinton watchdog site? Judging by this list of "don'ts," it's not easy for one to tell the difference...'

You answered your own question, it's a Clinton campaign aid.
(used to fight the 'vast right wing conspiracy ?)

Is Media Matters a non profit ?
There ARE LAWS against a non profit being used as a campaign vehicle.

They better hope Hillary is elected...
She can pardon them (as well and Norman Hsu and all those chinese dishwashers)

It sounds like J. Merle Stanley and Fifi Vanreuter are running Media Matters

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Bob in Denver — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:48:52 GMT

I want to echo what Dillon said. Craig Crawford is such a Clinton shill that he almost hyper-ventilated trying to make this case while on Olbermann the other day:
"Hillary wins even when her poll numbers go down" (!)

It's fun to identify the bias of a guest and then watch them prove your point, time and time again.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

cage free brown — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:02:52 GMT

the site is extremely credible.
it's also got Hillary's back. so what?

I'm not supporting Hillary but anybody who doesn't think she was sandbagged like no candidate has EVER been sandbagged is looking through Hillary Hating Glasses.

sites like this love stories like this because somebody thinks everything Media Matters does is not to be paid any attention to.

I wish MSNBC did a fraction of the job that Media Matters does!

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Laughing — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:23:09 GMT

Wouldn't you be proud to have the president of the most powerful country in the world to say. "I got my MOJO Back" (per Obama) How embarassing would that be.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

William Chirolas, Newton, Mass. 02462 — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:36:39 GMT

Media Matters is neutral - but NBC certainly is not - not since we learned of Tim Russets 3 am 2000 election morning walk in the park with his boss - GE's CEO Jack Welsh - where Jack gave him orders to take down any Gore attempt at a recount - a recount that per the media's later statewide recount would have made Gore President - has NBC been more obvious in their attempt to become competition to Fox Fiction News. This article attempts to take a Media Matters spanking of the biased reporting against Dems, and especially Hillary that is bought by the paychecks handed out by the GOP/rich and corporate media CEO's, and turn it around into a slap at the watchdog that reports with transcripts and video NBC's daily mis-reporting and bias against the Dems. Todd earned his check today - and no shower will remove the stench from him.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Sam, St Louis, MO — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:41:21 GMT

If one person dares to half way stand up for Hillary and does not support the lies and piling on about her, many of you go nuts...and sound like you are primed and ready to go on Hardball with Crackpot Chris.
Lay off of Chuck. I don't see him as a total Hillary supporter.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Sam, St. Lousi, MO — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:54:32 GMT

I just discovered Media Matters and I love it.
And to think I used to listen to the lies and personal attacks of Chrissie Crackpot Matthews and though no one else realized he had lost it and needed help.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Quentin R. — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:16:32 GMT

i have just one "DO" ask question for the Hill.If Bill didn't respect you enough to be loyal,why should we ???

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Roger, Oakland CA — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:32:50 GMT

Chuck Todd tells you that "Just putting links in their facetious questions isn't enough to somehow distance themselves from looking as if they are more interested in repeating the personal negatives of Obama and Edwards than, say, any personal negative regarding Clinton."

There are two problems with this paragraph. First, "looking as if" means nothing. That's Todd's opinion. Absent evidence of bias, we must rely on Chuck Todd's opinion as to whether it "looks" that way. Second, Chuck Todd fails to point to his, his employer's, and his colleague's culpability in generating and perpetuating those personal negatives...some of those pesky links circle right back to NBC/MSNBC. That fact cuts into Todd's credibility.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Roger, Oakland CA — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:33:17 GMT

Media Matters is very clear about its bias: "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

Their items are about figures in the media spreading misinformation about Democrats.

They have 839 items under "Chris Matthews," 327 items under "Tim Russert," 863 items under "Rush Limbaugh", "Savage" has 216, and Hannity has 979.

FOX has 3551, ABC has 1368, CNN has 2248, CBS has 1006, NBC has 1492 (MSNBC has 1917).

Clinton yields 2234, Obama 610, and Edwards 515. Hillary Clinton alone gives you 1312. Gore also has 487.

Giuliani has 396, Romney has 232 and McCain has 662.

If you apply Chuck's logic above, that Media Matter's presentation of media biases (those personal negatives) is a clandestine attempt to tear down Hillary's opponents while propping her up, why do they have so many items devoted to Hillary's misinformation? It doesn't follow.

Chuck Todd also fails to mention that some of the "don't's" (those links he blows off) come from his colleaques at NBC and MSNBC. Chuck Todd has his own axe to grind in this post, namely Media Matters consistent targetting of Todd's employer and colleagues (and yes, there are 17 items tied to "Chuck Todd"). There's an inherent conflict of interest in this post, and his failure to give full disclosure is telling.

I don't think this is about Obama and Edwards. It's about protecting one's turf. A biased reporter pointing out the biases of a reporter watch-dog group is inherently suspicious. This type of reporting is why Media Matters exists.

Full Disclosure: I read Media Matters daily. As such, I have read several items defending every Democratic candidate (past and present). The number of items is directly proportional to the amount of press. Go here if you want to see how they really feel: http://www.mediamatters.org/issues_topics/barack_obama?f=h_hot

Calling out Media Matters' bias

watchdog New York, NY — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:54:45 GMT

I subscribe to Media Matters' newsletter- last week, the entire thing was about Hillary Clinton.

Media Matters also said recently that to simply call Hillary Clinton "polariing" was not accurate.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Susan Nunes, Reno, Nevada — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:50:34 GMT

The group lost me with their shoddy reporting on the Schiavo case. They did no real research at all, just repeated nonsense because they thought supporting medical killing of the disabled was "progressive" while those who didn't were right-wing nutjobs. It wasn't true, but they helped perpetuate the myth. MM was totally out of its depth there.

The Hillary shilling is unbecoming, but I have long since not bothered with that particular website.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Amy B Portland, Me — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 03:01:18 GMT

Hey! Media Matters is where my favorite guy, Eric Alterman, posts his blog Altercation. I will have to see what he has to say.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Jeff, Gainesville, FL. — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:27:35 GMT

Hey Chuck, how come you omitted the "don'ts" that referred to Tim Russert? How come you omitted links?

Calling out Media Matters' bias

J S Galveston,Texas — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 05:01:55 GMT

How interesting. Thank you very much for pointing this out.
The pervasive bias towards Clinton is intolerable. Obama and Edwards-ANY of the others,but those are the only two getting attention- would be so much better for the people of the country. But power is used to benefit the ones who have it.... Obama and Edwards (of the top tier) are a real threat to power. It is so disturbingly clear.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Matt St. Louis, MO — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:57:02 GMT

Chuck,

You left out the "Don't" inspired by Tim Russert. This "Don't" in particular involves Time Russert's hacktastic attack on Ms. Clinton.

How come? Did it undermine the narrative of your piece, undermine your colleague's credibility, or both?

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Pete White, Eldersburg, MD — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:50:53 GMT

Hey, folks, MM writes more about media-spread misinformation on Hillary because the media spreads more about Hillary. Chris Matthews doesn't spend hours dissecting every nervous tic Edwards and Obama might have. Guess what? If Hillary loses the nomination, he and his friends will all begin to cackle about Edwards' hair or Obama's who-knows-what. It'll be Gore and earth tones all over again. It's what they do; they can't be bothered by actual issues.

Also, they won't spend one minute trashing the GOP nominee in the same trivial ways.

It's much more telling that Chuck whitewashed the misconduct of Russert in the last debate. Tim's been pulling this gocha stuff on Dems for years while sucking up to GOP insiders. It's nothing new.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Alan Bennett Halifax Nova Scotia Canada — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:20:05 GMT

Chuck"This is interesting. Iam an ex-pat and looking at this from our neighbour. You make no mention of the antics of Tim Russert and his misleading charaterisation of the Clinton letter he was brandishing at the MSNBC debate. Until you can deal honestly with your own kind, and perhaps your boss, your critique of Media Matters is incomplete. Why do jounalists never question their own? Politicians do.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

shingles — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:22:59 GMT

There must be some sort of official NBC policy to selectively crop quotes in order to make a misleading point. In his post above, for example, Chuck Todd "forgot" to include the three Media Matters examples that pertained to NBC's very own Beltway Bandit, Tim Russert, and his love of a good misleading quote crop every now and then. Quotes crops are perfect for creating the insipid and pointless "gotcha questions" that make Russert the toast of the Washington salons, parlors, and other places where the denizens can't see further than the bottom of their own reflections.

Awesome NBC - keep up the good work!

Calling out Media Matters' bias

David, Wilmington, NC — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:28:45 GMT

It appears Media Matters has struck a nerve at NBC. Good for them. I find it interesting Mr Todd relies so heavily on the assumption his readers will not click through and read the MM piece for themselves. Rather insulting, I think.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

El Loco — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:48:31 GMT

Hey Chuck:
Why did you leave out the Tim Russert "don'ts"? I'm ammused when I read these serious beltway insiders!

Calling out Media Matters' bias

LB — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:27:43 GMT

Selectively quoting a piece which criticizes NBC's Tim Russert for selectively quoting? Priceless!

Calling out Media Matters' bias

MonaL, CA — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:11:03 GMT

Quentin R.

WTF?! So when you cheat/beat on your wife, it's because she deserves it? Bill's unfaithfulness to Hillary is about him not her. You have issues, seek help now.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Eric — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:11:06 GMT

The Media Matters article is pointing out unwarranted criticism for ALL of the major candidates, including Obama, Edwards, and Clinton. How on Earth is this a secret Clinton agenda? Your article reveals more about your bias than it does about Media Matters.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Jules, Palatine, IL — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:23:46 GMT

Finally, someone in the MSM pointing out what many of us have known for quite a while. Be careful though, Hillary's biggest cableTV pundit supporter, Keith Olbermann, will be giving you guys "worse persons in the world"

Calling out Media Matters' bias

John B, Des Moines, IA — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:37:05 GMT

Susan Nunes, you are the one spreading misinformation. The autopsy showed that Terry Schiavo's brain was almost entirely dead and decayed within her skull. All of the areas associated with conscious thought and voluntary motion were gone. A sad story gone insane because some people saw an opportunity for political gain.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

RJ Sobol, Brooklyn, NY — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:44:49 GMT

The most benign take on this post is also maybe the most depressing. When I first read that MM piece, I clicked the links (which were actually the meat of the piece), thrilled that once again MM was there to debunk the right's duplicitous talking points, and was increasingly in a position to be heard by the 'MSM'. So my dismay at this complete mischaracterization of that piece is indescribable.

The only way this could possibly be an innocent misinterpretation is if the reader himself assumes sarcasm everywhere because that's how he sees all of politics -- which would mean any chance to get any kind of straight story out is pretty much doomed. In which case our chances of restoring our politics, our government, and our media look bleak indeed.

Chuck, I beg you to re-read the MM piece, clicking through this time, and reconsider your take.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Michele, Santa Clara, CA — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:10:09 GMT

Todd, this is funny - you write a column about media matters being biased - but carefully edit out all the supporting links that show JUST HOW BIASED - and journalistically dishonest - your boss is.

For the full scoop on how Russert misleadingly truncates quotes - go to media matters!

Calling out Media Matters' bias

RJ Sobol, Brooklyn, NY — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:40:51 GMT

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Dan Indiana — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:01:03 GMT

Why is it that you, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity et al (plus many of your commentators here) always question the funding (Soros, Clinton?) of Media Matters but never refute what they report. They print verbatim transcripts plus audio or video of the asinine things the right wingers say which really upsets them that someone would actually record and hold them accountable for what they say.

I don't believe that Chuck is neccessarily a right winger just another lazy, incompetent excuse for a journalist just like his boss from Buffalo.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Cain — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:55:28 GMT

This is an incredibly foolish post. The Media Matters item was criticizing the media for making unfair attacks on Democratic candidates, including Obama and Edwards, with links to detailed reports demonstrating why these attacks are unfair. Todd manages to twist it around to make it seem as if MM is attacking Obama and Edwards, which you can see is untrue if you read the Media Matters article. It was also slick how Todd disappears the examples that Media Matters provided of Russert being unfair to Dem candidates.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

liberalrob, Dallas, TX — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:56:43 GMT

Way off base, Chuck Todd. Bad, bad post. Shame on you.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Josh Koenig, State of Jefferson — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:13:21 GMT

I'm confused. These were questions the post was saying *shoudn't* be asked, and you're suggesting that there's some kind of reverse-psychology at work here: that by highlighting some poor examples of mis-coverage of Obama and Edwards (again, as examples of what should not happen) the group is actually just trying to reinforce those stories.

That seems rather strained to say the least. And you'd think that as someone who should ostensibly care about journalism, you'd be more concerned with the substance of the critique rather than trying to read some tea leaves and uncover the hidden motive. Except the substance of the critique is leveled at you and your colleagues, in which case changing the subject makes perfect sense.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

James, San Diego, CA — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:30:03 GMT

Media Matters is where Keith Olbermann gets all of his material.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Reggie Boykins, St. Louis, MO — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 03:08:38 GMT

I now know the difference between "liberal" media and the right-wRing bunch. Liberals keep their media in its place. Now just because it's the political season that's no reason the media should go "soft" on the administration. We haven't heard a word about the oil fields and Haliburton in Iraq. I want to know what Haliburton plans to do with those billions of dollars the administration has given them when we bring our troops home and the money can no longer be disguised as war funding. Come on media, I can deal with more than one subject at a time.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Reggie Boykins, St. Louis, MO — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 03:11:17 GMT

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Reggie Boykins, St. Louis, MO — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 03:32:40 GMT

If all media lies; if all politicians and public servants or officials are all liars; if the average Joe or Jane has been given the lying, "talking points" of their group, why do we even bother talking to one another? More importantly, we do we have our young people dying for a country of liars?

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Dorothy NY — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:51:36 GMT

Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd show their very low standard of Journalism when stating "Clinton voters are beer drinkers and Obama's wine drinkers"!
They are not professional enough for FOX.

Calling out Media Matters' bias

Jim, Dyersville, IA — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:21:37 GMT

Chuck Todd sure sounds biased in favor of Hillary. I have been an independent and looking at both Hillary and Barack equally, so I think I can view his comments dispassionately. I don't think you should have a political director who takes sides in the race.