The rightist watchdogs at NewsBusters want to be viewed as the conservative answer to Media Matters. But while the proudly progressive Media Matters still adheres to a strict code of honest analysis, the NewsBlusters trade in ignorance and innuendo. Here’s a sampling from yesterday’s home page posts.

In an attempt to “infuriate those still buying into the junk science,” NB demonstrates that they don’t know the difference between temperature and climate:

“…it snowed in parts of South Africa Tuesday that haven’t seen the frosty white stuff in many decades. Thanks, global warming!”

When a decorated Vietnam vet makes a gift of one of his Purple Hearts to Draft-Dodger-in-Chief Bush, NB’s indignation with the Daily Show’s humorous take suggests that they don’t know what the “Comedy” part of Comedy Central means:

“On Monday’s program, “Daily Show” correspondent Jason Jones sarcastically mocked Thomas’ gesture…”

After Ann Coulter expressed her wish that John Edwards be assassinated by a terrorist, she was viciously attacked, in NB’s view, by Mrs. Edwards. Here’s the headline that begs for sympathy for the demure and put upon Coulter:

“Chris Matthews Continues Coulter Pile-On”

The Media Research Council, from which NB was spun off, issued a press release agreeing with NB’s characterization of Mrs. Edwards. Here’s the headline:

MRC Press Release Concerning Elizabeth Edwards’ Attack on Ann Coulter.

And the entire Edwards/Coulter exchange was a set-up in NB’s dementia. Never mind that the producer told Coulter before the broadcast that Edwards would be calling in and Coulter agreed in advance. Here’s how NB reported it:

“On tonight’s Hardball, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews blind-sided his guest, conservative columnist Ann Coulter, with a live call from Elizabeth Edwards.”

You would think that people who purport to monitor the media would understand what a paid advertisement is. But NB thinks this is evidence of bias:

“‘MSNBC Live’ is brought to you by ‘SiCKO’, a Michael Moore film in theatres everywhere Friday,” read the announcer…”

When the former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Richard G. Lugar (R-IN), broke with his Party’s President on the Iraq war, NB was surprised that the media reported on it:

“The network morning shows all hyped up the recent remarks from Republican Senator Richard Lugar that the war in Iraq is not going well.”

I can’t remember when I’ve had this much fun on a wingnut web site. Their distortions and misrepresentations are so over the top that it makes satire impossible. Keep up the good work, guys.

A few days ago Gallup released a poll showing Congressional approval ratings at an all-time low of 24%. The media ate it up and flooded the zone with stories about the collapse of support for Democrats and their legislative agenda. They juxtaposed this message with another poll showing that the President’s approval had also hit new lows, but those results were almost always immediately diluted with the Congressional polling results. It will be interesting to see how the media treats this new poll from Gallup:

Only 29% of Americans Say U.S. Is Winning War on Terrorism.

It should come as no surprise that the American people are fed up with the war in Iraq. All the polling confirms that this war is profoundly unpopular. But this poll approaches the question from a unique angle that is not merely an indication of support or opposition, but a judgment as to whether our efforts are, or can be, successful.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid was pilloried a few weeks ago for saying:

“I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and – you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows – (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.”

Apparently, only 71% of the country agrees with him. Is that enough for the press to follow up on the story and provide this context? Is it enough for the press to balance the Congressional approval stories they hyped earlier this week? Will the media give equal treatment to this expression of the people’s will that they gave to previous reports that reflected poorly on liberals?

Don’t hold your breath. I have yet to see a single report in any of the Conventional Media outlets of this new poll. Despite the significance of its findings, the mainstream press has not deemed it worthy of coverage. Amongst these findings is the fact that only a slight majority of Republicans (53%) believe we are winning in Iraq, so it’s not even a matter of partisanship. But the press, and the pundits that populate it, will continue to portray anti-war politicians, activists, and citizens as fringe elements of society in direct contradiction of the facts (see Media Matters’ report, “The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America Is a Myth”).

What’s it going to take for the media to present this type of information fairly? There’s is only one solution – profound reform and a rollback of consolidation.

I was going to write a piece on Bill Dedman’s “investigation” for MSNBC of donations to politicians or political organizations, but journalism professor Chris Day did it for me. Thanks, Chris.

The MSNBC article failed on so many journalistic grounds. It rested heavily on the notion that there was an overweighting of donations by liberal or progressive reporters as compared to conservatives. But Chris puts the matter into perspective:

• Dedman’s report violates one of the first rules about working with numbers in journalism: PROVIDE CONTEXT […] Dedman notes that there are approximately 100,000 newsroom employees nationwide. By my calculations, then, the number of donors comes to 0.1% In other words, the headline could have been: 99.9% of U.S. journalists do not donate to politicians.
• A lot of the people he “exposes” in this piece are ridiculously peripheral to the coverage of partisan politics – gardening editors, rock critics and the like.
• Dedman decided to exclude “executives” from his investigation, without offering a convincing rationale. Where are Roger Ailes? Rupert Murdoch?
• Dedman reports that of the 144 donors, 125 gave to Democrats, while “only” 17 gave to Republicans. (Two, like Exxon, gave to both parties.) But, I notice that most of the donations to Democrats are in chicken-shit amounts like $200 or $250, while one of the Republican donors gave $90,000. I suspect that the totals given to the two parties are not that far off.

This is the kind of in-depth analysis that Dedman should have employed. Unfortunately, his version was released into the media wild and has been picked up by many other news organizations and even pretenders like Bill O’Reilly who led with the inflammatory and false conclusion that liberals outnumber conservatives in the press by 9 to 1. It really doesn’t help to supply liars like O’Reilly with pseudo-news items like this.