I find it hard to believe that Media Matters ,being the nit-pickers they are would shy away from taking on Politico over a misquote.

BTW , if what Politico says is true ,then Media Matters come close to criminal 'Tortious Interference' in Fox's business.
So now I call on the Holder Justice Dept to investigate that charge ,and the IRA to investigate violations of the provisions of being a charitable organization under the provisions that allow them to continue to be a 501(C)(3) organization.

Technically, perhaps not. But realistically, absolutely. Media Matters would not as tom said, "shy away from taking on Politico over a misquote."

Fox is their primary focus, anyone can research their work.

I am not sure what your first sentence is saying. It doesn't seem to say anything. But then again I don't live in the real world.

Again, if you are suggesting Media Matters history is evidence for the quote being accurate then I have already covered this argument.


Tut

Let's put it this way... as I already demonstrated ,Media Matters has often called out other outlets on lesser pretext than a charge against their founder .If he is being misquoted ,I'm sure MM will make as big a case as possible . Politico as a media outlet is as credible as they come .

Hi Tom,

Based on the what you have said above Politico's claims are at best probable.

As I said before, the onus is on the person(s) who puts forward the accusations to come up with the proof. In this case it doesn't work like a court of law (innocent until proven guilty). 'Probable' still remains in the realm of theory.

If someone were top come up with some corroborating evidence then that is fine- problem solved. Until that happens it is still a theory.


Tut

Really ? How often do you read a bi-line in the print press where there is no corraborative sourcing ? Often you'll get some nonsense like "a senior adminstration official' said..... .
In this case Politico says Brock stated his plan openly in an interview ,and even showed them the planning memo.

I just checked Media Matters web site. They have done nothing regarding a denial. Now this is a web site that nit-picks to death any story in an attempt to disclose right wing bias ,and yet has said nothing about the Politico report .

Would you like to address my charge that what Media Matters is engaging in is tortious interference in FOX business ,and is also violating the tax code ?

Anyway FOX cable broadcast and all cable broadcasts facve much bigger challenges than MM. They face competition from the Internet that they don't have an answer for .

Wow, the breath of research at http://mediamatters.org/ is astounding, thanks for letting me know about that site tom. It truly exposed the way Fox distorts the news. I urge everyone to check out the site and to even sign up, I am today.

Where is their denial of the Politico story ?

Hi Tom,

As far as corroborating source is concerned I realize that we get the usual line, " A senior officer said...."But I don't think it is too hard to do the research in order to verify the content of a story. The problem arises when we use just one source and say that it is reliable. No source is totally reliable. There is always the element of 'lazy journalism' on both sides of politics.

On this basis I don't see the point of you referring to only one source. No matter how reliable this source is. All sources need verification. For example, Politico says, Brock stated his plan openly... " I think you have undermined your argument in your first paragraph.

As far as lack of denial on the part of MM is concerned, my original argument still stands.

As far as "tortious interference" is concerned I don't have a comment on that because I have not looked into that particular matter. But I can if you like.

Tut

Hi Tom.

If there is no denial then it must be true.

You don't see a problem with that?

Tut

Fox News has not denied any of the hundreds of exposés from Media Matters therefore all Media Matters stories are true. That's quite a track record of Fox mangling news stories to suit their conservative bias.

I just picked a video clip at random from NK's link to Media Matters.
Glen Beck says:

There is a story today out of New Hampshire, and they have the supreme court. I don't have it- shoot, I left it in the other rooms.

Obviously his first sentence is nonsensical. What he seems to be saying is that the information I have about the court case is in the other room so I will give you what I know off the top of may head.


In other words, if the information I gave you is inaccurate then this is irrelevant. "I am just putting it out there".

Tut

And ? It is no secret that Beck ,Hannity ,and O'Reilly do opinion based shows .

I've yet to hear anyone address my contention that MM violates the law in 2 separate instances.

Because they don't. I find it hard to believe that you know more than the Justice Department. If you do then you're wasting your life here. :D

The Holder Justice Dept would have to choose to pursue it. I think FOX should seek a law suit against them for tortious interference.

Would love to be in the room during discovery .

Considering it has a cabal of lawyers (they went after a tiny little website and they don't seem to be particularly too bright) and the immense resources of News Corp it's a wonder they haven't done so isn't it. :rolleyes:

Never have they had evidence of direct interference in their business practice before. Brock disclosed a campaign to undermine Fox ,pressuring advertisers etc.


The other 2 instances you cite were free speech issues.

The C-3 status is a slam dunk,except we know the Obama IRS will not go after them for clear violations of their tax status.

Apparently that is not a fact. BTW people and companies try to undermine businesses everyday, make sure you get out there and post your displeasure of their practices!
OMG they are underming a business!!!!!

Tortious interference is an actionable offense in court .

Typical examples
1.Tortious interference of business.- When false claims and accusations are made against a business or an individual's reputation in order to drive business away.

2.Tortious interference of contract.- When an individual uses "tort" (a wrongful act) to come in between two parties mutual contract.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

Brock is threatening FOX by going after their advertisers . He admitted it.

Haha, they went after a tiny little website but not after a website who's sole purpose is the focus on them. It's obvious MM is doing nothing wrong - armchair lawyer is not your thing (I know 'cause I married one). :)