Eric Boehlert Needs Some Cheese With His Whine

Media Matters' resident jerk Eric Boehlert is complaining because journalists don't call Senate Republicans "obstructionists" at every reference. I have to say, given journalists' usual penchant for demeaning R's, it is a little surprising that one doesn't see this term in every news story, but I chalk that up to nuance.

Boehlert's complaint goes to the heart of the liberal view of the MSM. It isn't there to report what happens. Reporters are there to shape what you think of the news. So, if Democrats, say, run across the border to stop redistricting in Texas, that's not labelled "obstructionist," but Senate Republicans exercising their right to shape the legislative agenda is.

What makes Boehlert's complaint so silly is that the problem isn't Senate Republicans; it's Harry Reid, who didn't have to bring up other legislation to challenge Republicans. And if anyone thinks Democrats in a similar situation wouldn't use the filibuster to block particularly noxious legislation, they're delusional. The difference is that the country is closer to Republican ideas than the poisonous, disasterous legislation Democrats have tried to cram through Congress. Besides, Democrats poisoned this well with the Obamacare votes--particularly on Christmas Eve--and it's a little late to complain about civility now.

Media Matters: It's Only Slanting the News When We Don't Like It

Media Matters is a joke.

Ok, now that I've stated the obvious, here is the latest example.

At the height of the health care reform debate last fall, Bill Sammon, Fox News' controversial Washington managing editor, sent a memo directing his network's journalists not to use the phrase "public option."

Instead, Sammon wrote, Fox's reporters should use "government option" and similar phrases -- wording that a top Republican pollster had recommended in order to turn public opinion against the Democrats' reform efforts.

Of course, the government-controlled health care option Democrats loved was, in fact, a "government option." The fact that "government option" didn't poll well didn't change the truth. And it isn't like "public option" was the only way Democrats referred to government-run health care. Even Nancy Pelosi called government health care something other than a "public option", and I doubt Media Matters would argue that she was "slanting" anything.

Media Matters doesn't mind journalists slanting the news, provided they slant it in a liberal direction. You never see pro-lifers called "pro-life supporters" on the news. They're always called "anti-abortion activists." Even Slate's Jack Shafer notes, "If using the phrase government option is spinning the news, so is using public option."

Since the earliest days of marketing, people have tried to spin their product (whether it's dish soap or legislation) in the most positive light possible. That's what calling government-run health care the "public option" is. Calling that bullshit isn't slanting the news. It's telling the truth.

Some Nice Blogosphere Navel Gazing

It's been a while since we've had some good spitting matches between journalists, blogers, conservatives and liberals, but for some reason, there's a couple of them today.

First, there's the David Frum's whining cuz he can't play with the big kids dust-up at Right Wing News. Apparently, Frum has his knickers in a twist because John Hawkins doesn't consider him a conservative and won't add him to the Blogads conservative hive. I can understand why Frum is upset; unless he's recognized as a conservative by conservatives, his credibility as such is shot. Of course, he did that to himself some time ago when he bashed Republicans for actually supporting Americans' right to not choke on Obamacare. Now, Frum has taken to complaining that it's only "the fringe" who dislike him. This is patent nonsense. I like to read Frum but only to find out what left-leaning Republicans think. As Hawkins points out, liberals love Frum, which is enough reason for any conservative to be skeptical.

The second dustup is between sock puppet Glenn Greenwald and conservative Jeffrey Goldberg. I'm less engaged on this one, mostly because I consider Mr. Sockpuppet to be too boring to read. His sycophants have invaded poor Joe Klein's space, so if you want to hear what the sockpuppet has to say, read the comments (have I used the word "sockpuppet" enough in one post?).

Debunking Liberal Lies Myths About ACORN

Here.

As Patterico notes, most are promulgated by Eric Boehlert of Media Matters. Just another reason to deride anyone who uses MM as a source of information.

It's Hard to Believe the Mouth-Breathers at Media Matters Are This Dumb...

but their own words seem to justify calling them mouth-breathers.

Reacting to new unemployment data, Rep. John Boehner blamed the crisis on health care reform, clean energy legislation, and the Employee Free Choice Act. However, blaming an ongoing crisis on potential future legislation is akin to saying, "I have heartburn because I'm considering eating tacos tonight."

Is Chris Harris really such a moron that he doesn't think this legislation affects the future hiring practices of businesses? Or does he honestly think that businesses don't figure in the costs of federal regulation and tax policy into hiring decisions? The idea that businesses aren't concerned about the potential growth of the nanny state under Democrats is laughable. Or comes from a man who never ran a business.

Propaganda? No!

Here's a Media Matters video attacking Fox News:

A couple of things come to mind with this video. First, Media Matters would like you to believe that Sean Hannity's opinions drive the news at Fox News. The problem with this argument is that there's nothing nefarious about both news programs and opinion programs covering the same topic. Networks do it all the time. Does Media Matters consider NBC or CBS not to be news organizations because they covered the War on Terror, followed by late night comedians doing skits on the war? What about MSNBC? If Keith Olbermann goes nuts about Carrie Prejean and MSNBC covers the story the same way, will Media Matters start complaining that they aren't a real news organization?

More to the point, Media Matters' biggest complaint seems to be that Fox News is actually asking why Barack Obama has so many unvetted people in his administration, people with radical pasts (and presents), who have, at best, been unethical. If Media Matters was actually interested in journalism (which they aren't), they would be far more concerned with why the MSM and MSNBC and CNN refuse to scrutinize the Obama White House.

UPDATE: Another fine example of MSNBC's "news organization."

Media Matters: We Defend School Officials Who Don't Protect Your Children

It's kind of pathetic watching Media Matters try so hard to protect liberals that they are now forced to defend Kevin Jennings, the Obama "school safety czar" who didn't worry about children's safety when it came to them having sex with adults.

This post practically cackles with glee at the idea that the student involved was 16 (not 15) and therefore of legal age to have bathroom sex with adults!

As Dan Riehl points out, it wasn't a "relationship," as MM tries to pretend it was.

It was a one night stand in a men's restroom after which it seems the older man didn't return the student's phone calls. Whether the student was straight or gay, does anyone really believe that a 15, or 16 year old student involved in restroom sex with total strangers is the bar we want to set for safe and acceptable behavior in our public schools? Give me a break. Media Matters might have done better to not engage this issue at all.

Indeed. Teachers have an obligation to report cases of suspected abuse, and Jennings was told it was "unethical" not to. What teacher would not understand that bathroom sex between a student--even a 16-year-old student--and an adult is not appropriate and should be taken to the authorities? It's not like teenagers have great problem-solving skills in the first place, but parents expect teachers to act in loco parentis--even with their 16-year-olds.

Question of the Day

Why does context matter only when liberals say stupid things?

Whiner Eric Boehlert Is an Idiot

Someone needs to ask Eric Boehlert if he wants some cheese to go with that whine.

This time, the complaint is that network execs don't want to give the TOTUS free airtime for his campaigning. Boehlert is either stupid or deliberately obtuse:

The Hollywood Reporter goes big today with a long article about how entertainment execs at the nets hate pre-empting their schedules for Obama's primetime pressers. About how the nets are losing millions of dollars in ad revenue, although actually, as the HR explains, the money's not actually lost, those commercials pre-empted by the press conference are just shifted to other times slots. But still.

The whole thing's a hoot and I suggest you go read it for real insight to our media culture and TV execs who make their living using the public airwaves for free.

Wow, is that a mouthful of stupid or what?

First, networks sell ads at certain rates for particular time slots. You pay a whole lot more for an ad to run at 8 p.m. EST than at 2 a.m. EST. Why? Because the prices are based on the number of eyeballs watching, that's why. So, if execs say they lose millions, it's because advertisers get snippy when their ads don't run during the time periods they are paid to run. Networks end up either having to give extra ad spaces or make other deals to satisfy advertisers.

Second, the notion that networks simply use the "free airwaves" without compensation to the government is ridiculous. Ever pay taxes, Eric? That's your token to the king, buddy, and television networks pay 'em just like you do. They also have license fees they pay for the privilege of airing Desperate Housewives and Survivor. On top of that, there are reams of regulations they must follow, which dictate what kind of programming they run, when they run it, how much of it they have, and so on and so forth.

This idea that the moonbat set has regarding media--they're all *gasp!* big, scary corporations that just rake in the cash--is bogus and designed only for the mushy-brained minions who read the drivel at Media Matters.

And, no, it isn't April Fool's Day, but this is the only post I'll make defending MSM for a while, probably.

Misinformer of the Year? That's Media Matters

Media Matters, the George Soros-backed liberal echo chamber, has named Sean Hannity as its "Misinformer of the Year." Here are examples of "misinformation," according to Media Matters:

1. Hannity said Obama made a "rookie mistake" by saying he would invade an ally. But Obama's own speech shows that Hannity's characterization is accurate.

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

How else do you describe Obama's point but that we would invade an ally? This is no "misinformation." It's accurate.

2. Air-raiding villages. Obama said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." Media Matters goes to great lengths to try to explain this statement as not being an indictment of our troops. But as Don Surber states, air-raiding means that we're targeting the people in the villages, namely civilians. And that is something we didn't do.

3. Most liberal senator. Media Matters takes umbrage that Sean Hannity quoted the National Journal, which stated that Barack Obama was the most liberal senator in the U.S. MM argues that a different survey finds Obama to be only the tenth most liberal senator. Oh, that's so much better. That really refutes the point, which is that Obama is a classic liberal. Oddly, MM doesn't bother coming up with competing evidence when they attack Republicans as too conservative.

There are multiple other examples of supposed "misinformation," mostly the sort of nit-picking that Media Matters has become famous for, including that when Sean Hannity noted Franklin Raines's role as economic advisor for Obama, it was supposedly inaccurate because the WaPo Fact Checker said it was "exaggerated."

The list is ridiculous and simply disingenuous. I've posted before (see here, here and here) about the lying and obfuscation of Media Matters, so this latest stunt is not surprising. Like most liberal outlets, Media Matters attacks Hannity (and other conservatives) not because they're wrong, but because they're effective.

Silencing Talk Radio

It's no secret that liberals want to silence talk radio. They can't compete, so they want to eliminate the competition.

With the election of Barack Obama, reimposition of the unFairness Doctrine is a top Democrat priority. And no wonder; talk radio allows conservatives to have an active voice in the arena of ideas. Given that most journalists are liberal and many news outlets are abandoning objectivity (see their incuriosity about Barack Obama, for instance), talk radio and Fox News Channel (and some blogs) are the only conservative outlets that spread the information liberals don't want you to know.

There's little doubt that the Supreme Court would strike down the Fairness Doctrine as an improper restriction on free speech, but litigating this case would take time (Dick Morris says two years), and by that time, talk radio would be dead. A Pyrrhic victory.

Smear merchants like Media Matters spend hours documenting "errors" and "slights" they perceive on talk radio. If you go to the link, you'll discover just how outrageous their claims are. If Media Matters actually cared about sexism, they would have prominent articles about the outrageous smears and slams by idiots like Keith Olbermann and Andrew Sullivan. Instead, MM is only concerned with things conservatives say. Liberal lies get a pass.

But then, to liberals, truth is lying and lying is truth. Welcome to Newspeak.

Eric Boehlert's Selective Outrage

I had a giggle at Eric Boehlert's temper tantrum at Media Matters today. The problem? John McCain and Sarah Palin are ignoring the press!

During the past week, virtually every major news outlet has produced welcomed, hard-edged fact-checking pieces about how the Republican ticket goes far beyond bending the truth and just plain snaps it out on the campaign trail.

In the past, that kind of truth-telling would have embarrassed campaigns and likely caused a dramatic change in the rhetoric. But what do McCain and Palin do in response? They pretty much ignore the press and its critiques.

Boehlert's piece is popcorn-worthy,but he suspiciously leaves out the main reason McCain and Palin can ignore the shrieks from the press: Americans know the press wants Obama to win.

If the press wants anyone to take their whinging about "lies" seriously, then they need to start applying the same standard to the Obama campaign, which constantly complains that Republicans are racists and playing on your fears.

Of course, Boehlert has no problem with the press when it was fawning all over Obama during his Grand Tour. But then, Media Matters is a joke to begin with.

Lousy Arguments

Some arguments work better than others, and lately, I've seen a couple of bad ones. Actually, they probably looked pretty good at first to the person making the argument, but, upon reflection, they don't really hold up.

The first is an argument I've seen occasionally from pro-choice supporters. It goes like this, "If you're really pro-life, don't have an abortion. But if you don't support abortion, then you better adopt all those unwanted babies that will be born."

This argument is flawed for a couple of reasons. First, the idea that all issues are only personal (that is, if you disapprove of behavior, just don't engage in it) leaves out the idea that some ideas are morally repugnant for all people, not just the individual. I doubt that anyone with this opinion would agree to this philosophy concerning, say, segregation or slavery. After all, if one were personally opposed to slavery, just don't own slaves, right?

The second problem with this argument is sort of the flip side. It concerns the idea that if you oppose some behavior, then you must take personal responsibility for any resulting consequences. So, for example, if you are a vegetarian, then you'd better own a lot of land because you will now be personally responsible for all those cows that aren't gonna get ground up for hamburgers.

Abortion is a rare issue this way, in that the arguments made in its defense require suspension of disbelief on a variety of fronts. The above are only 2 examples.

The second lousy argument I've seen lately regards criticism of the liberal media. What intrigued me about this argument is that I've actually heard it used by conservatives and now by liberals. The latest comment came on this thread from someone who doesn't like Newsbusters.

Note his (the writer's) lack of any news credentials whatsoever save "a national weekly Christian news magazine" - hardly a hard-news credential.

In other words, there can't be liberal bias noted by this author because he doesn't have the proper credentials to notice liberal bias. Or something.

I found this argument rich because I saw it about 10 years ago...from conservatives. An author had written a book about corruption and abuse by a defense contractor. The contractor had overcharged the government millions of taxpayer dollars. The author, appearing on the Diane Rehm Show, explained how he tracked the malfeasance of the evil corporation, complete with documentation of prices and overcharges. Several callers into the show asked similar questions: What experience did the reporter have in mechanical engineering or aerospace technology? Huffily, the reporter explained that his expertise was in writing, not in engineering. Then why, the callers asked, should anyone listen to a reporter about such a subject?

Now, of course, we have the same argument from the other side. How can anyone listen to a writer discuss media bias if said writer has no experience as a working journalist?

One of the wonderful things about being a reporter is that there is no license required. If you can convince someone, somewhere to hire you to write for them, bingo! You're a reporter. So, the argument fails on its face simply because one needn't have experience at the New York Times to write about it.

But this argument fails on the basis of logic, as well. As I pointed out in the comments, if my neighbor notes that the sky is blue, I don't reject his statement because he isn't a meteorologist. I can take his statement and my own observations together to recognize a blue sky. Media bias is similar. I don't need Rush Limbaugh to tell me there's a liberal bias to most modern media. My own experience in the newsroom, coupled with observations from other people, helps me recognize bias when it rears its head.

You don't have to have a masters degree in journalism to recognize bias when supposedly objective journalists behave like groupies at a rock concert when Barack Obama appears at their convention. Ordinary Americans recognize this, whether they work as journalists or not. So, while liberals think the MoveOn.org-backed Media Matters is a really objective (and fair!) source of reporting, most people would look at Newsbusters as just a counterpoint.

Media in the Tank for...McCain?

Via Hot Air, we discovered the latest silliness from Media Matters, which is trying to convince people that the media loves...John McCain.

I guess this is an attempt to counter John McCain's ad about the media crush on Barack Obama, but it doesn't really hold the same water. There's no doubt that, by comparison with other conservatives, the MSM prefers John McCain, but that's not really saying much. But as McCain has found out repeatedly, media types aren't afraid to throw out a few smears if they think it helps the Democrat candidate.

As I noted before, the American people don't buy this line. They recognize that the MSM wants Obama to win the election, Media Matters videos notwithstanding.

Because They Don't Recognize Sarcasm Unless It's Their Own: More Media Matters Blather

It gets tiresome watching Media Matters make mountains out of molehills. Take their latest shriek:

On the October 22 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, host Glenn Beck stated, "I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today."

Media Matters isn't known for its subtlety. Nor is it known for truthfulness. Take this latest "scandal." I was listening to Glenn Beck this morning and actually heard this portion of his show. The fact is, Beck was being snarky.

Oh, I know the left would never engage in snark. No, they never wish ill on people. Nope!

I guess George Soros is getting his money's worth out of the Media Matters hacks.

Who Is Media Matters?

NewsBusters.org has a nice piece discussing the origins of smear merchants Media Matters.

Specifically, Media Matters is a George Soros-financed mud factory designed to smear and discredit conservatives. Last week's flaps over Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are but the latest examples. And it's no accident that Media Matters spends most of its time misquoting Limbaugh and O'Reilly. They do, after all, have the largest audiences on TV and radio. Read the Newsbusters piece for more info.

Instapundit says this isn't "smearing," but "battle preparation" designed to neutralize the effectiveness of Limbaugh and O'Reilly (and any other conservative commentators). That may be true, but I question how many people, when given the actual quotes repeatedly, will listen to that Media Matters boy who cries wolf by the time voters are paying any attention.

Juan Williams and the "Happy Negro"

Juan Williams has a biting rebuttal for those critics calling him a "happy Negro" for defending Bill O'Reilly.

In case you missed it, Media Matters trumped up yet another controversy by accusing Bill O'Reilly of being racist for saying there was no difference in the behavior of patrons at a restaurant in Harlem than in other New York eateries.

This is, imo, a far more despicable smear than the recent Rush Limbaugh "phony soldiers" flap. At least in the case of Limbaugh, a plausible case can be made that he was talking about anti-war soldiers. But as Williams explains, no reasonable person would think O'Reilly was criticizing black people. During a discussion about the image rappers give black people, O'Reilly explained that real black people, the everyday person you meet on the street, is far different from the violent, potty-mouthed images projected in music, on television, and in movies.

So, O'Reilly says to me that the reality to black life is very different from the lowlife behavior glorified by the rappers. He told me he was at a restaurant in Harlem recently and there was no one shouting profanity, no one threatening people. Then he mentioned going to an Anita Baker concert with an audience that was half black, and in sharp contrast to the corrosive images on TV, well dressed and well behaved.

I joked with O'Reilly that for him, a guy from Long Island, a visit to Harlem was like a "foreign trip." That's when he brought up his grandma. He said she was prejudiced against black people because she knew no flesh-and-blood black folks but only the one-dimensional TV coverage of black criminals shooting each other and the rappers and comedians glorifying "gangsta" life and thug cool. He criticized his grandmother as irrational for being afraid of people she really did not know.

Williams defended O'Reilly's grandma as not being irrational, but being very rational. If the only images one has of a particular group is as criminals, then a person will logically come to the conclusion that those people are more violent than others. As Williams says,

The most pernicious damage being done by the twisted presentation of black life in pop culture is the self-destructive message being beamed into young, vulnerable black brains. Young black people, searching for affirmation of their racial identity, are minute by minute being sold on the cheap idea that they are authentically black only if they imitate the violent, threatening attitude of the rappers and use the gutter language coming from the minstrels on TV.

The lesson from the rappers and comedians is that any young brother or sister who is proud to be black has to treat education with indifference, dismiss love and marriage as the business of white people and dress like the rappers who dress like prisoners — no comb in the jail so they wear doo-rags all day, and no belts so their pants hang down around their butts.

In other words, the discussion was about how suc depictions and images damage the black community because it presents a terrible stereotype of black life for young people looking for their own identities.

That's a far cry from O'Reilly being a racist for noticing well-behaved black people in restaurants and at concerts. But it is just another example of the relentless lying and spinning Media Matters has gained a reputation for.

The fact is that Bill O'Reilly is right. Rappers in doo rags with their pants hanging off their asses don't resemble the black people I grew up with, nor the numerous black people I've worked with and been friends with through the years. The idea that acting like a thug should be emulated by any young people is more destructive for the children who fall prey to that way of thinking than to any white people who buy the stereotype. After all, it's the children who throw away their chance at education because they don't want to be seen as acting white who are hurt by a lack of education. It's the person who walks into a job interview with a doo rag on who leaves without the job.

If "acting white" means acting civilized (and I don't think it does), then I want all children to act white. Not because being white is superior, but because I want all children to have the best opportunities and options. Media Matters doesn't care about any of this, obviously. Their purpose is to smear every conservative (and O'Reilly is more libertarian than conservative) on the air in an attempt to discredit their views. It's a pity Media Matters isn't as concerned about the lies and spin of the left.

For defending O'Reilly, Williams has been branded a "happy Negro." We've seen this sort of thing before, right? Every black person who doesn't tow the victimhood line gets smeared as an Uncle Tom and just another lackey of the far right. It's amusing and sad when you realize that the left is as filled with racist stereotypes of what "good Negros" should think as the conservatives they vilify.

Powerline has video of Williams discussing the exchange.

Another Eye-Roller from Media Matters

Up to its old tricks, Media Matters' latest "gotcha!" moment screams that Neil Boortz lied that Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury.

As Blue Crab Boulevard points out, this is hair-splitting of the worst kind.

Because rather than being "convicted", Bill Clinton directly admitted in a sworn plea agreement that he had lied under oath. Period. No "conviction", per se, although the typical media shorthand calls that a conviction. No, this was a flat-out admission of guilt to avoid the conviction that would have occurred had the matter gone to court - which even Media Matters must know - otherwise why would Clinton have made the plea bargain?. Clinton admitted his guilt, in public, with no parsing and with no tortured reasoning trying to push an elephant or a camel through the eye of a needle.

So, while Media Matters is technically correct that Clinton wasn't convicted, Clinton surrendered his law license and paid a fine because he committed perjury.

I've written before about Media Matters' habit of completely mischaracterizing comments, viewpoints, and positions of conservatives. This is just the latest example.

More Misinformation from Media Matters

I've written before about the disingenuousness of Media Matters (see here and here for starters).

Media Matters likes to tout itself as "balance" to conservative media, ignoring the fact that most MSM is liberal to start with and needed balancing by conservatives. Frequently, MM has been caught cherry-picking quotes or twisting facts to fit its mantra that there's this vast unchecked rightwing takeover of the media.

Via Redstate, we have these Media Matters quotes:

* Combining newspapers and television, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed in news stories 2.8 times as often as were progressive religious leaders.

* On television news -- the three major television networks, the three major cable news channels, and PBS -- conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed almost 3.8 times as often as progressive leaders.

* In major newspapers, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed 2.7 times as often as progressive leaders.

According to GetReligion, which was linked to in the Redstate post,

The religious conservatives analyzed were James Dobson, William Donohue, Gary Bauer, Charles Colson, Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham, Ted Haggard, T.D. Jakes, Richard Land, Tom Minnery, Joel Osteen, Rod Parsley, Tony Perkins, Pat Robertson, Rick Warren and Wendy Wright. The religious liberals analyzed were Tony Campolo, Joan Chittister, Robert Edgar, Jim Forbes Jr., C. Welton Gaddy, Jesse Jackson, Michael Lerner, Brian McLaren, David Saperstein, Al Sharpton, John H. Thomas and Jim Wallis.

As Redstate author Hunter Baker points out, perhaps the reason the first group (conservative) gets quoted more is that the membership of their groups dwarfs that of the second (liberal) one. After all, that's the argument we hear about why NOW, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood get quoted all the time when abortion is the topic.

But Mollie at GetReligion gives us what is really missing from the coverage, and it's not the "statistics" Media Matters wants to use.

Before we get to the journalistic analysis, I must point out how — once again — this study exists in a media environment where politics is everything. Even in religious coverage. Of the 20 folks analyzed, not a single one represents my theological views. None even come close, as a matter of fact. From my perspective, all 20 share a somewhat similar religious viewpoint — not a political one. Their ministries don’t emphasize creeds, the liturgy, forgiveness of sins or sacraments. No, every single one of these people is focused on politics and personal or societal improvement. It supports the views of historian Darryl Hart, who argues that this left-right comparison obscures the fact that political religious types on left and right are two sides of the same coin. If these guys feel they don’t get a fair shake from the media, imagine how those of us feel whose churches are less concerned with politics! We’re invisible!

The survey also fails to highlight one of the greatest wrongs perpetrated against the religious left. There is simply no discussion at all of the theology of the religious left. There’s very little on the right, either. But the absence of coverage of the left’s theological views is just sinful.

Virtually everyone MM studied is looking at moral issues from a political slant: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, fighting poverty, etc. But those two groups don't come close to covering the various beliefs of Christians on any of these issues, primarily because most Christian churches aren't political about their beliefs.

We've stated before (see here) that Democrats and liberals tend to ignore the Christian left until they need their votes. But Mollie points out that journalists also ignore this constituency when they are covering religion.

Perhaps this is another example of media bias, the kind that we don't talk about as much. That is, because journalists agree with views expressed by the Christian left, they tend to focus only on conservative Christian controversies when looking for a story.

Take poverty. Mollie points out that everybody opposes poverty. But the Christian left and Christian right approach the problem with different solutions. The Christian right is more likely to advocate for food banks, voluntary giving, nonprofit shelters and so on. The Christian left is more likely to advocate large government-run bureaucracies to deal with the problem. This creates a controversy in Christianity that we don't typically see reported in the MSM. If Media Matters was really interested in who isn't getting quoted, it would spend its energy search for these voice on issues instead of making up statistics to fit their conspiracies.