<p>I made the Philly observation in a post here days before you claimed you claim you heard it on Rush. Check your dates. I told you this before. </p>
<p>“New Internet Site Turns Critical Eyes and Ears to the Right” NYT May, 3, 2004, p. A21</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Liberals Get a Think Tank of Their Own” WaPo Oct. 23, '03, p. A29</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He is. MediaMatters doesn’t get any money from Soros. But if you can show me otherwise in any of MediaMatters’ financial statements (which I believe that as a tax-exempt organization, they are required by law to disclose), go for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one’s attempting to stop Rush from saying the things he does. How would that even be possible? There is absolutely no intervention that can make a person tell the truth if they choose not to.</p>
<p>Mediamatters is attempting to educate the public so they can make an informed decision as to whether to listen to Rush or not. How is that trying to shut down his speech?</p>
<p>But even if we accept your logic, that criticizing someone’s speech is the same as trying to shut it down–isn’t that what Rush does to MediaMatters everytime he goes off on one of his rants against them?</p>
<p>Oh right. I forgot that sauce for the goose is NEVER sauce for the gander.</p>
<p>"Limbaugh is insulting faceless human beings, whom he does not know, in his jibes against “liberals.” Am I a faceless human being? </p>
<p>Here are some interesting passages from fair.org, which I’m certain is another one of those “left-wing media outlets.” But here it is anyway. It was written a number of years ago when Limbaugh still had a national television show.</p>
<p>“Limbaugh’s facts are almost never challenged on his programs. A hostile caller hardly ever gets through the screeners on his radio show, and his TV show is just him doing a monologue in front of his cheering audience. No one in the history of national television has had such a political platform. He has almost never corrected anything he’s said–although he did apologize once to the aerosol industry for implying that spray cans still had CFCs in them. (CFCs were removed in 1978.) …”</p>
<pre><code> “Journalists, in particular, have an obligation to challenge Limbaugh’s brand of hysteria. Someone who has amassed a powerful political following through the regular use of half-truth and distortion is begging for tough media scrutiny. In 1954, Edward R. Murrow confronted another demagogue who had a similar allergy to facts and documentation.”
</code></pre>
<p>“Real democracy is built on debate. But Limbaugh has little use for debates; he has forged a media empire largely on unchallenged monologues.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>-Media Matters for America, July 19, 2006</p>
<p>“A New Alliance of Democrats Spreads Funding But Some in Party Bristle at Secrecy and Liberal Tilt”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>WaPo.com July 17, 2006</p>
<p>Gosh, I wonder where Bill, Rush and Drudge got that “false” idea that MM gets funding from Soros?</p>
<p>MMA is so apparently so stupid and poor at covering their tracks, that even a middle-aged housewife can find the links. Pathetic.</p>
<p>Are any of those third hand accounts based on examination of MediaMatter’s books? Somehow I doubt it. They’re a 501c3. Check the books and get back to me.</p>
<p>Might I add that according to your post, the Alliance Foundation is only a year old. MediaMatters was in existence well before the Alliance Foundation was thought of or got nickel one from anyone. So if you’re using the articles above to justify Rush’s claim that MediaMatters is a Soros-front, you’re way off base.</p>
<p>Um no. Presently partially funded by Soros.</p>
<p>Hindoo, you could substitue “Keith Olbermann” or “Chris Matthews” for Rush Limbaugh and the paragraph would make sense. Both of these people are just as politically skewed as you perceive Limbaugh to be.</p>
<p>sjmom–Hey, good to hear from you! I’ll (maybe a wee bit grudgingly) agree with you on Olbermann. I mentioned in a much earlier post that he’s the liberal counterpoint to guys like Rush and O’Reilly. I’m not sure you’re right about Chris Matthews, though I’ll admit that I haven’t watched him much in recent years. He may have turned into a real fire-breather since I last tuned in. …</p>
<p>“Rutgers Team Skips Clinton Meeting”</p>
<p><a href=“Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source - Newsday”>Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source - Newsday;
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good news! I don’t think we need worry about these ladies. :)</p>
<p>Um, their race had nothing to do with my concern about the possible negative effects of the media circus being trained on them. They’re still kids (girls, young ladies, young women–not women yet), in my book. I’m 57.</p>
<p>I agree with you HH.
The news media, as far as I’m concerned, should be bringing us news; thoughtful sidebar commentary and occasional editorializing is also much appreciated. Unfortunately, this isn’t what we’re getting, and not just with the Rutgers/Imus story. The media–and I’m talking about left, right, and every gradation in-between–is becoming more and more a reflection of its own viewing public, a public with an apparently insatiable (and simple-minded) appetite for scandal/sensationalism. In the frenzied rush to feed this craving and thus pump up its own broadcast ratings, so-called news programs really don’t seem to care who they focus the glare of publicity on. They force-fed us a steady died of Imus and the Rutgers women only until something else happened to distract them, at which point we were treated to endless replays of the Virginia Tech madman and invasive interviews with devastated students. </p>
<p>This is apparently what we want to see, or what “they” think we want to see and are capable of understanding. Anything with horrifying or titillation value, that’s what we get. Ad nauseum. In the past, how many gut-wrenching times did we see the planes hit the World Trade Center? A billion? Or Bill Clinton wagging his finger at the camera and being untruthful? Or the month-long orgy following Princess Diana’s death? The picture of that crushed car in that Parisian tunnel is burned into my brain forever. Yes, these things were all newsworthy. It’s the way they were used, overused, and abused that bothers me.</p>
<p>Some news is OK. This didn’t get a lot of press, but it was mentioned in a few publications…</p>
<p>Follow up to HH’s post #495:</p>
<h2>:) 
"Hillary Clinton Snubbed: Rutgers Women’s Basketball Team Skips Meeting :)</h2>
<p>By Michael Amsterdam
Apr 21, 2007 </p>
<p>Hillary Clinton desperately wanted to cash in on the Don Imus controversy. Imus was dumped from his radio and television gig after making disparaging remarks aimed directly at the women that play for the Rutgers University basketball team on air earlier this month. Right on cue, Hillary was ready to pile on - and get a nifty photo-op in the process. But as she tried to drive to the hoop for some good press, Hillary was rejected." :)</p>
<p>Yes, sokkermom. Depending upon one’s political persuasion, certain tid-bits of news can be “appreciated.” I particularly enjoyed O’Reilly’s phone-sex scandal, he who preaches morals on a daily basis. And the Newt Gingrich hoo-hah, back when he was divorcing his cancer-stricken wife. … As for Hillary, no argument there. She’s a political creature/opportunist from head to toe, like so many of them are, regardless of political leaning. I think she jumped onto the bandwagon a little too late; the Rutgers players were undoubtedly sick of this whole thing and more than ready to move out of the public spotlight by the time Hillary showed up to take her turn at stirring the pot.</p>