The Desperation of Media Matters

Pages: 1 2

According to its website, Media Matters for America, the George Soros-funded left wing hit squad, is a “progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”  The very premise is somewhat laughable – there is far more liberal misinformation in the U.S. media than conservative misinformation.  But let’s take their “about us” at face value and assume that yes, indeed, their sole goal is to fight conservative propaganda.

There’s only one problem.

They violate their 501(c)3 charitable exemption on a daily basis.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, any 501(c)3 charitable organization “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities.”  The IRS doesn’t leave the prohibition at that.  Such organizations are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”  This includes “public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.”  Just to ensure that this is perfectly clear, the IRS adds, “voter education … with evidence of bias that … have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.”

The IRS also gives examples of such prohibited activity.  One of those examples is that of an organizational leader who, at an organizational event, proclaims support for a particular political position during an election cycle.  “You have the power” to accomplish X, the leader says.  “Use that power when you go to the polls and cast your vote in the election for your state senator.”  This would violate the organization’s 501(c)3 exemption.

This is what Media Matters does on a regular basis.  They constantly endorse political positions and back candidates – particularly President Obama.  Media Matters constantly endorses political positions, which is fine.  Unfortunately, they also endorse candidates … and one candidate especially.

Pages: 1 2

  • Anamah

    It seems to me they work actively in favor of one candidate and openly fight against the opponent. They are very well known.

  • SHmuelHaLevi

    Alternative media is growing in Internet and few if any wastes any time with hte the controlled garbage outlets.

    • Dennis X

      You mean like this one.

  • Steve Chavez

    Does anyone besides me SUSPECT GEORGE SOROS in the News Corp and News of the World hacking scandal? Out of this companies 55,000 and The Soros War on Fox, he didn't put in a mole or two or three or four who directly or indirectly had something to do with the hacking?

    The Soviet KGB used Americans sympathetic to them to INFILTRATE EVERY U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY, NATIONAL LAB, AND TODAY THE WHITE HOUSE NOW THAT THEY SUCCESSFULLY PLACED A KGB DUPE AS THE CON-ARTIST-IN-CHIEF! These moles gladly spied for the country they loved more than their own!!!

    What better way to bring down Fox, than from within!

    SOROS, and his use of fronts, ala COMMUNIST PARTY USA, want to create the conditions to exact their REVENGE for the downfall of their beloved Soviet Union and now fight for the DOWNFALL OF THE UNITED $TATE$!

  • StephenD

    I can't get over the idea that people would buy into the rubbish that they spew. Why would anyone be swayed by a poll Media Matters highlights? If I’m out of work or see the insidious rise in cost FOR EVERYTHING under his “leadership” why would I now think I must have him all wrong. “I must be too stupid to see how good he really is, after all, a poll says so.” If this is the mental process or the perception that prevails of the American Voter, we are in serious trouble. They would have a valid point if we are that stupid, in promoting the few elite to decide for the balance of us.

    • Dennis X

      But you buy into foxxx?

      • StephenD

        Do you see a fox in here? I happen to like the news on FOX as it is fair and balanced. Prove otherwise.
        Now then, can you respond to my statement or is that asking too much?

        • Dennis X

          foxx news that flashed " Obama's baby mama" refering ot the 1st Lady or saying the President was drinking 40's, yeah, fair & balanced class act. I hope murdick goes to jail!

          • StephenD

            Still irrelevant and not to the point. But I think I see where you are going with this. If Fox is bad too, then we should ignore Media Matters. Is that your angle?

        • trickyblain

          Do mean "fair and balanced" in the sense that it balances a perceived leftwing bias in other networks with a rightwing bias? Or "fair and balanced" in the sense that it provides relativley unbiased coverage of world events?

    • mlcblog

      Propaganda is effective. That is a fact of life. People act like sheep. That is another one.

      They need leaders. That, too, is what is real.

      Oh, maybe your question was rhetorical. Sorry, then. My bad.

  • AlgerHiss

    Perhaps Soros is dating David Brock?

  • Jim_C

    "The very premise is somewhat laughable – there is far more liberal misinformation in the U.S. media than conservative misinformation."

    Oh really? I'd like to see that data.

    I bet Fox News, alone, has more documented factual "innaccuracies" (generously put) than NPR, the major networks, CNN, CNBC combined–BY FAR. And I bet those "innaccuracies" skew to the right 100% of the time.

    Perhaps you should start a site that documents factual liberal inaccuracies.

    • Brigitte

      You "bet" that Fox News has more factual inaccuracies than all the liberal media, but you offer no proof to document this statement to be fact. It would behoof you to do your homework first and come up with some hard evidence before spewing accusations and display your ignorance to the world.

      • Jim_C

        Would you accept it if you saw it?

        Obviously Media Matters keeps up on it, but if you want a site that impartially checks facts, check out Politifact. You can see all the democrats' falsehoods on there, as well.

        Check out their "Pants on fire" section, or this bit of cataloging (re: Fox News).

      • trickyblain

        "behoof"? In the same paragraph that you chastize somebody for not doing homework and being ignorant about the world?

        I love this Website.

    • megapotamus

      Jim, let's start with the intentional frauds. The foremost modern one is Dan Rather and his forged memos indicting Bush. Throw in the related fraud that smothered the facts of Kerry's cowardice and crimes in Viet Nam by repeating his proven lies. Then we have CNN's Tailwind slander that manufactured a tale of US chemical weapons use in Viet Nam. 20/20 sabotaged Food Lion's hygienic practices to make their own pro-union point as well as demonstrating the danger of side-saddle gas tanks by dynamiting a few trucks. Now, where is Murdoch's equivalent to anything like this? It does not exist. Shall we move on to the financial coverage? That is really the mother lode.

      • Jim_C

        Rather no longer has a career.

        Please do move on to financial coverage.

        • megapotamus

          As soon as you can come up with something comparable attributable to Fox, glad to.

    • Lou

      Fox News isnt non profit, which is the whole point of the article. Idiot..

      • Jim_C

        Oh WAH WAH, "non-profit," right.

      • trickyblain

        But this Website is 501(c)(3).

  • Lou.

    So why the hell doesnt someone sue them and try to get their nonprofit status revoked. It worked against CAIR.

  • Dennis X

    Why do you get sooooo upset about an outlet that uses the very words of the people you love so much. Because when you actually listen to what they say you realize how stupid they really are. Example , hannity raved aboutC common at the whitehouse, but would not distance himself from that low life, sissy ted nugent, please.

    • trickyblain

      The "Common-reading-a-poem" hysteria was one of the year's comedic highlights of right-wing psychotic nuttery.


    • mlcblog

      Ted Nugent, a sissy? hardly.

      • Dennis X

        Sissy YES!!!. he talks about killing people, has alot of gun etc. but when he had a chance to do it, ie go to Vietam he bailed and then bragged about it. If your going to talk the talk then walk the walk.

        • mlcblog

          …not aware of Nugent bailing on Vietnam.

          • Dennis X

            Do your homework son, he's not trying ot hide it. If I can find the web site I will get it to you asap, but google nugent/ vietam and it may come up. He discussed what he did in an interview so it should be easy to find.

          • Dennis X

            just checked, google ted nugent/ vietam.

          • mlcblog

            OK but I am not sure I am going to call him a sissy…we'll see.

            All right. This was apparently an article by a Brit where Nugent allegedly detailed his draft evasion. He was enrolled as a student at the time. Who will you believe?

            My reluctance to endorse Mr. Nugent is his sleazy family behavior, with much going on outside of a marriage contract, which is in direct violation of the Christian ethic.

  • trickyblain

    Mr. Shapiro,

    "They violate their 501(c)3 charitable exemption on a daily basis."

    A couple of years ago, Horowitz, himself, told me that this very Website is 501(c)(3).

    How is it ok for FPM, but not for MMA? I don't doubt for a minute that MMA attempts to influence policy, but how can you argue FPM does not?

    • mlcblog

      This seems like a valid question.

      Mr. Shapiro? anyone?

  • patrickfitzmichael

    Ben Shapiro is one of the churchy Jews. He hates gays. I blogged about him hating gays.

    I don't have a problem with Jews, so long as they don't practice Jusdaism.

    • mlcblog

      Churchy Jew? You mean he believes in God? and God's holy Word? which you obviously do not.

      Like that makes him terrible. I think not.

  • mlcblog

    I realize this idea is a bit hilarious but isn't there some way we ordinary citizens can sue or somehow raise this issue with the IRS, or just who? Anybody?!!

    Just for the exercise maybe, but these things need to be done.

  • Zam

    Media Matters………Media Matters……….what a nice sounding name. The name is full of sugar because of it sounds so sweet. Media Matters.

  • Zam

    Understand, anytime the left uses sugar-coated words to name or explain or describe something, you can be sure danger and/or evil are involved in one fashion or another in those sugar-coated words. For example, the word "diversity". For me, I think "diversity" is the left's favorite sugar-coated word as it seems they use this word at least a million
    times per week. To explain, check out this sentence–"diversity provides a strong competitive edge to the US workforce". Note: In this sentence, the word "diversity" is the left's sugar-coated word for the screwing-over (via Affirmative-Action) of the white man in the employment-opportunity-arena of the US. As everyone knows, Affirmative-Action gives special preferences to the minorities in both the education and employment-
    opportunity-arenas of the US. These special preferences are definitely and surely evil as they provide for the screwing-over the white man in both education and employment, which is why the left sugar-coats the process with the word "diversity".

  • Zam

    The same goes for Media Matters. You can be sure there is big-time danger and/or evil involved in one fashion or another in this organization that sugar-coats itself with such a nice and good sounding name.

  • johnnywish

    Dust in the wind… all we are is dust in the wind…. (the liberal says)
    We are stardust…We are golden…and we've got to get ourselves back to the garden (the New Ager says)
    Dust made into God's image (the religious conservative says)
    hmmmm… what would the fiscal conservative say?
    Can't think of anything.
    In the end, its all about culture. What kind of lives we are allowed to live, and what kind of lives we are confined to living. If we share the wealth as the liberal/socialists would have it, then overall standard would rise for most people temporarily, but in the long run it would fall for all. Therefore, I'm all for at least some among us having the opportunity to strike it rich, at least just so the rest of us poor sods can have something to dream about.
    That's what this whole Fox versus the liberal media thing is about to me.