This entry was posted on July 6, 2011 at 8:32 am and is filed under Free For All . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
This started on Fox News Watch last Saturday. FNC certainly has the right to question the tax exempt status of any group, but this is a company-wide, concerted effort to discredit a critic. And it’s being done on what is supposedly a news show, as well as one devoted to “bias in the media”, which is a bit silly when you consider that MM openly targets conservative media. The memo has been received..
It shouldn’t surprise you that disagree. MM can’t declare war and ‘sabotage’ on FNC, do opposition research into its employees, campaign to pressure sponsors to quit, boast that they are going to disrupt the operations of the company, all because they say (as you have) that Fox is a voice of the Republican party…and then claim that their opposition to Fox is not partisan. By their own admission it is, and by their own admission it violates IRS rules.
Now let’s be serious. The IRS isn’t going to strip them of their tax exempt status. They are extremely lax in enforcing this provision, usually doing so for procedural violations rather than substantive ones. But I don’t know how many years FNC is supposed to sit back and do nothing as people pour millions of dollars into a campaign to shut them down. If all the attention FNC is giving this does nothing but irritate Fox haters, it’s time well spent.
It’s ridiculous for a cable news operation to use extensive airtime to combat an internet critic. It reinforces the “victim, bunker” mentality that they traffic in. Chris Wallace did it with the Jon Stewart interview, too. What is it with these people that they feel it necessary to fight back at their “enemies” with such zeal? If MSNBC spent this amount of time complaining about Newsbusters or Hotair, I’d be furious.
FNC treats itself like a religion that is being attacked by The Forces Of Evil. The extent to which their employees are willing to play this game is astonishing.
Next up, this will get extensive play on Hannity and such, followed by more discussion on dayside about the “tax exempt controversy so many are talking about”.
…and then claim that their opposition to Fox is not partisan. By their own admission it is, and by their own admission it violates IRS rules.
You didn’t read the article.
- First of all, Doocy and Tapscott are misstating the IRS regulation surrounding 501 c 3 organizations. The prohibition on political activity relates specifically to favoring or opposing candidates in elections. The conservative Media Research Center (of Newsbusters fame) is also a 501 c 3. -
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.
The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization’s net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues. -
Unless you agree that FNC is a political organization that MM is lobbying against, you got nothin’. But hey, maybe Fox is right: “We’re the media arm of the Republican Party, and a tax exempt group is targeting us unlawfully”. Hmm, if I were a political organization, I would fight back..
Your cut and paste is not persuasive. IRS regs speak to not just favoring/opposing candidates but also favoring/opposing a political party. I suppose you can claim that MM is not favoring Democrats, or opposing Republicans, if you think that’s a convincing argument. I simply remind you that MM’s own statement is that they are opposing what they call an arm of the Republican Party. They could oppose the local Subway sub shop if they liked and nobody would care, but if they oppose it because they nonsensically think it is an arm of the Republican Party, then their intent has been admitted to. They are out to oppose Republicans, and have openly admitted their purpose. Q.E.D.
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
Maybe more interesting and less divisive is the news that Spitzer is out at CNN. John King moves to 6:00, Burnett takes 7:00, and in a surprise move Coop at 8:00. And the key 10:00 pm slot? A rerun of Coop’s 8:00 pm hour!
MM opposes a broadcast entity that claims to present news. There is nothing in the exempt clause that prevents them from educating readers about what they perceive to be the true intent of that entity. It only becomes political opposition if the target admits they are political. At that point, MM becomes a lobbyist against a political operation, and can no longer receive exempt status. Which is moot, of course, because the moment that FNC fesses up to their mission, MM’s work is done.
CNN ought to replay Burnett’s show at 10 PM. They might wait to see how it turns out though.
With the reduction is CNN Newsroom’s time down to 7 hours, which anchor gets less time (or with Velshi to AM, who will now get more time? They can take the hour away from Velshi’s current fill-ins and give the other to one of the current anchors).
Also, I got an interesting email from someone I never heard of, and it regard Bill O’Reilly. I like Bill a lot, but this guy doesn’t. I think he is a Media Matters plant. Last time I checked, Bill has lots of people wtih differing opinions on this show:
bill o’reilly is the only T.V. talk host who can make me get up and walk away from the T.V. Most of my friends feel the same way and the only way that we can, in our minds, do anything about is to not watch and spend money with his sponsors. And that is exactly what we do.
He is the rudest, crudest, most unprofessional person on T.V. today. He never lets a guest finish a sentence and if you disagree with his views you don’t even get to talk, probably not even get on the show. We all get so frustrated and just totally pissed off watching him talk all over his guests, push his own view, and just generally act like a total ass, that we absolutely have to walk out of the room.
I could go on for pages about him and his lack of professional demeanor, I don’t care how much he claims to be the most watched host, he is still a total jerk. He worships money and his success has gone to his swelled head like we have never seen before.. If there was some way that we could be a part of getting him off of Fox T.V. we would do so in a heartbeat. We love Fox and don’t watch anything else for news and most of the talk shows but not this ass.
Thanks for letting me vent and I’m still looking for an email address to get to either this jackass or to someone in Fox who will listen to what an awful lot of viewers think. The big tilt that you feel in the ground nationwide each night at 8:00 p.m. is a good part of the nation getting up to walk out of the T.V. room when o’reilly comes on. He is too old, too arrogant, and just plain too bad to be allowed to screw up the outstanding reputation of Fox T.V.
It only becomes political opposition if the target admits they are political.
No, it only matters what MM demonstrates itself to represent. What you think of FNC (or even what FNC thinks of itself to be, for that matter) is irrelevant. There’s nothing preventing Media Matters from continuing to be a non-profit, but it appears quite clear that it doesn’t fit the 501 (c) (3) requirements and those who fund it shouldn’t be able to deduct their contributions.
J$ (Yeah, I’ll talk about him in front of his back) has a link to a National Journal article that claims it was Twitter’s inattentiveness that prevented FNC from taking down those fraudulent postings the other day. Spud recently tweeted this article, too.
Interestingly, even though my Twitter password was changed three days ago I notice that my Droid app can still access the account.
No, it only matters what MM demonstrates itself to represent.
I don’t believe that would hold up in court. MM represents itself as an investigator of conservative media. “Conservative media” is not a public policy institution, and MM is not trying to change public policy by investigating it. The only way they cross the line is if FNC admits it is a public policy arm, and MM can be proven to be trying to effect policy by opposing them.
Even if FNC were to admit their status as a political entity, you would have a hard time finding MM in breach of the exemption clause, because they’re not trying to change policy. All they’re doing is exposing (in their eyes) propaganda coming from this organization.
The bottom line is: FNC elevates MM by acting as though they are a political organization being attacked by a 501c3 group in violation of their IRS status. If FNC wants to stop being accused of being a political operation, they should stop acting like one.
“All they’re doing is exposing (in their eyes) propaganda coming from this organization.”
Ah, thanks for clearing this up. Somehow I had the idea that they were engaged in ‘sabotage’ and ‘war’, researching the background and lives of employees, mounting a campaign to disrupt the business, putting pressure on advertisers not to advertise… but I guess I was wrong. All they’re doing is ‘exposing propaganda’. Well that’s a relief.
Private groups are free to protest media – including advising advertiser boycotts – to their hearts’ content. Religious tax exempt groups have been doing it for decades. It’s free speech.
Then don’t use the tired talking point that ‘all they’re doing is exposing propaganda’. That’s NOT all they’re doing. They’re engaged in a campaign to disrupt. drive away advertisers from, and ideally shut down Fox News. Sounds like any other charitable organization.
I’m going with the lawyer’s opinion on this one, especially because the wording of the rule seems to back him up. And it isn’t about whether or not MM has to pay taxes if they lose their 501(c) (3) status – they don’t. It’s about whether or not those who donate to MM can deduct those contributions on their own 1040s as a charitable gift.
Well, yes, if you’re determined to hash it out point by point, they’re exposing what they perceive as a propaganda machine, and attempting to disrupt it by turning public opinion against them. That’s generally how this thing works. Christian groups don’t just tell people Hollywood is immoral; they attempt to change it by chainging peoples’ viewing habits, and affecting their purchasing decisions away from certain advertisers.
I’m not sure what your point is. I clearly stated that FNC has a right to use their network to attack Media Matters. I just happen to think it reinforces MM’s charge, and makes Fox look defensive and petty. It certainly detracts from the image they want to cultivate as a serious news organization. It exposes them for what they are: A buncha righties with a victim complex, willing to subjugate any journalistic integrity they may have achieved to attack “enemies” on the internet. It’s STUPID.
Religious organisations certainly can and do lose their status if they demonstrate a partisan preference. They have a right to free speech but not a right to have everyone else pay for it.
If you think religious groups don’t present a partisan presence, I don’t know what to tell ya. The focal point is political activism. If FNC is truly a political organization, then MM is actively opposing one. Until Fox confesses, MM is in the clear according to the letter of the 501c3 law.
Before this spins completely out of control, MM’s tax exempt status is secondary for me. If they lose it, I couldn’t possibly care less.
My focus is on the fact that a very successful cable news operation is using their airwaves to attack an internet group who seems to have gained a good bit of their notoriety from being mentioned on Fox News. Media Matters is preaching to the choir. It’s silly for FNC to elevate them.
No, I don’t think MM gained much notoriety from being mentioned on Fox News, because FNC up until now hasn’t mentioned them that much. Maybe a crack from O’Reilly now and then but not much more than that. No, they got their notoriety from MSNBC, which for years has brought on Media Matters hacks and Senior Fellows over and over again to attack Fox News, and not always with truth either.
As I said elsewhere, how many years of attacks is FNC supposed to let fly without responding? ‘Thank you sir, may I have another?’ is not a particularly effective stance to take with a bully.
Let Hannity do the ‘speaking for the bosses’ thing. Sacrificing most of a half hour of a show supposedly dedicating itself to bias in the media; then using the morning show to attack David Brock’s psychological state; is bizarre.
I don’t give a rat’s about Media Matters’ tax status, either. Anybody who cares enough to pay any attention to them is well aware that they just make stuff up, so they are what they are.
Fox News Watch, as far as I’m concerned, is now crap programming. There can be no level of legitimacy with a Jon Scott as its host, and why the ‘ell is Alan Colmes ever on that panel? If they feel that chair needs the butt of a liberal-minded journalist sitting in it, fine, but they can easily find one capable of focusing on media coverage instead of snide comments advocating policy.
What. He. Said. I could post clips, if so inclined, but looking at them is a jarring reminder of how good that show used to be, and how much it sucks now.
Fox couldn’t have one show where people actually just talked, like human beings. That wasn’t a 30-minute version of the seven-minute back-and-forth that acts as ‘news’-filler during dayside. That wasn’t inclined to use the words ‘liberal media’ every 3.5 minutes. Neal Gabler was a liberal that I didn’t want to punch, a rare and diminishing commodity. He could also put a hurt on Fox when the mood struck him. Ugn. Don’t get me started…
Your wasting your time Johnny $ talking to Joe about Media Matters war on FOX….if MM was blowing up the FOX news office and shooting FOX employees and then FOX reported all day about it…Joe would complain about all the attention FOX was giving MM.
Joe has a hate for FOX that’s right up there with his hate of Palin.
Johhny and I have been doing fine yakking at each other, Mlong, but thanks for knowing nothing about a conversation that has already reached an intelligent conclusion before you dragged your meaningless Talking Point Bag in.
Those of you who don’t like Hannity will have more reason after tonight. He is just yapping away about how the jury had no other choice but to decide as they did, yet he kept yelling at Kimberly when she tried to put forth her opinion.
Then he had his “Great American Panel” on, and he’s talking over them as well.
Why does this guy even have on guests if keeps getting back as tp what HIS opinion is?
And damn it; I see I have to go over to Word Press once again to sign in!
Missy, if it looks like you’re not signed in, click ‘post comment’ first anyway. Sometimes my page still says ‘log in’, but once I’ve signed in for the day it hasn’t dumped me out. Annoying little bugger, eh?
July 6, 2011 at 9:25 am
This started on Fox News Watch last Saturday. FNC certainly has the right to question the tax exempt status of any group, but this is a company-wide, concerted effort to discredit a critic. And it’s being done on what is supposedly a news show, as well as one devoted to “bias in the media”, which is a bit silly when you consider that MM openly targets conservative media. The memo has been received..
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-and-friends-solicits-viewers-to-file-irs-complaint-over-media-matters-tax-exemption/
July 6, 2011 at 9:38 am
It shouldn’t surprise you that disagree. MM can’t declare war and ‘sabotage’ on FNC, do opposition research into its employees, campaign to pressure sponsors to quit, boast that they are going to disrupt the operations of the company, all because they say (as you have) that Fox is a voice of the Republican party…and then claim that their opposition to Fox is not partisan. By their own admission it is, and by their own admission it violates IRS rules.
Now let’s be serious. The IRS isn’t going to strip them of their tax exempt status. They are extremely lax in enforcing this provision, usually doing so for procedural violations rather than substantive ones. But I don’t know how many years FNC is supposed to sit back and do nothing as people pour millions of dollars into a campaign to shut them down. If all the attention FNC is giving this does nothing but irritate Fox haters, it’s time well spent.
July 6, 2011 at 9:58 am
It’s ridiculous for a cable news operation to use extensive airtime to combat an internet critic. It reinforces the “victim, bunker” mentality that they traffic in. Chris Wallace did it with the Jon Stewart interview, too. What is it with these people that they feel it necessary to fight back at their “enemies” with such zeal? If MSNBC spent this amount of time complaining about Newsbusters or Hotair, I’d be furious.
FNC treats itself like a religion that is being attacked by The Forces Of Evil. The extent to which their employees are willing to play this game is astonishing.
Next up, this will get extensive play on Hannity and such, followed by more discussion on dayside about the “tax exempt controversy so many are talking about”.
July 6, 2011 at 10:01 am
…and then claim that their opposition to Fox is not partisan. By their own admission it is, and by their own admission it violates IRS rules.
You didn’t read the article.
- First of all, Doocy and Tapscott are misstating the IRS regulation surrounding 501 c 3 organizations. The prohibition on political activity relates specifically to favoring or opposing candidates in elections. The conservative Media Research Center (of Newsbusters fame) is also a 501 c 3. -
July 6, 2011 at 10:05 am
You’ll forgive me if I don’t take legal advice from Tommy Christopher, who is not a lawyer but the last time he played one was seriously incorrect.
July 6, 2011 at 10:16 am
- Exemption Requirements – Section 501(c)(3) Organizations
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.
The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization’s net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues. -
Unless you agree that FNC is a political organization that MM is lobbying against, you got nothin’. But hey, maybe Fox is right: “We’re the media arm of the Republican Party, and a tax exempt group is targeting us unlawfully”. Hmm, if I were a political organization, I would fight back..
July 6, 2011 at 10:27 am
Your cut and paste is not persuasive. IRS regs speak to not just favoring/opposing candidates but also favoring/opposing a political party. I suppose you can claim that MM is not favoring Democrats, or opposing Republicans, if you think that’s a convincing argument. I simply remind you that MM’s own statement is that they are opposing what they call an arm of the Republican Party. They could oppose the local Subway sub shop if they liked and nobody would care, but if they oppose it because they nonsensically think it is an arm of the Republican Party, then their intent has been admitted to. They are out to oppose Republicans, and have openly admitted their purpose. Q.E.D.
I have spoken!
July 6, 2011 at 10:29 am
Note that the first sentence specified exempt purposes
Source: IRS.gov
Exempt Purposes – Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
July 6, 2011 at 10:33 am
Maybe more interesting and less divisive is the news that Spitzer is out at CNN. John King moves to 6:00, Burnett takes 7:00, and in a surprise move Coop at 8:00. And the key 10:00 pm slot? A rerun of Coop’s 8:00 pm hour!
July 6, 2011 at 10:39 am
MM opposes a broadcast entity that claims to present news. There is nothing in the exempt clause that prevents them from educating readers about what they perceive to be the true intent of that entity. It only becomes political opposition if the target admits they are political. At that point, MM becomes a lobbyist against a political operation, and can no longer receive exempt status. Which is moot, of course, because the moment that FNC fesses up to their mission, MM’s work is done.
July 6, 2011 at 10:42 am
CNN ought to replay Burnett’s show at 10 PM. They might wait to see how it turns out though.
With the reduction is CNN Newsroom’s time down to 7 hours, which anchor gets less time (or with Velshi to AM, who will now get more time? They can take the hour away from Velshi’s current fill-ins and give the other to one of the current anchors).
July 6, 2011 at 10:43 am
Also, I got an interesting email from someone I never heard of, and it regard Bill O’Reilly. I like Bill a lot, but this guy doesn’t. I think he is a Media Matters plant. Last time I checked, Bill has lots of people wtih differing opinions on this show:
bill o’reilly is the only T.V. talk host who can make me get up and walk away from the T.V. Most of my friends feel the same way and the only way that we can, in our minds, do anything about is to not watch and spend money with his sponsors. And that is exactly what we do.
He is the rudest, crudest, most unprofessional person on T.V. today. He never lets a guest finish a sentence and if you disagree with his views you don’t even get to talk, probably not even get on the show. We all get so frustrated and just totally pissed off watching him talk all over his guests, push his own view, and just generally act like a total ass, that we absolutely have to walk out of the room.
I could go on for pages about him and his lack of professional demeanor, I don’t care how much he claims to be the most watched host, he is still a total jerk. He worships money and his success has gone to his swelled head like we have never seen before.. If there was some way that we could be a part of getting him off of Fox T.V. we would do so in a heartbeat. We love Fox and don’t watch anything else for news and most of the talk shows but not this ass.
Thanks for letting me vent and I’m still looking for an email address to get to either this jackass or to someone in Fox who will listen to what an awful lot of viewers think. The big tilt that you feel in the ground nationwide each night at 8:00 p.m. is a good part of the nation getting up to walk out of the T.V. room when o’reilly comes on. He is too old, too arrogant, and just plain too bad to be allowed to screw up the outstanding reputation of Fox T.V.
July 6, 2011 at 11:36 am
It’s ridiculous for a cable news operation to use extensive airtime to combat an internet critic.
It’s even more ridiculous for a White House Official to use government money to combat an internet critic:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/06/wh-tweeting-at-gnats/
July 6, 2011 at 11:39 am
It only becomes political opposition if the target admits they are political.
No, it only matters what MM demonstrates itself to represent. What you think of FNC (or even what FNC thinks of itself to be, for that matter) is irrelevant. There’s nothing preventing Media Matters from continuing to be a non-profit, but it appears quite clear that it doesn’t fit the 501 (c) (3) requirements and those who fund it shouldn’t be able to deduct their contributions.
July 6, 2011 at 12:16 pm
J$ (Yeah, I’ll talk about him in front of his back) has a link to a National Journal article that claims it was Twitter’s inattentiveness that prevented FNC from taking down those fraudulent postings the other day. Spud recently tweeted this article, too.
Interestingly, even though my Twitter password was changed three days ago I notice that my Droid app can still access the account.
July 6, 2011 at 12:35 pm
The IRS is watching these non profit type groups….the cut of over 250,000 of them last month with a big announcement.
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110608/ap_on_re_us/us_irs_tax_exempt
July 6, 2011 at 12:39 pm
No, it only matters what MM demonstrates itself to represent.
I don’t believe that would hold up in court. MM represents itself as an investigator of conservative media. “Conservative media” is not a public policy institution, and MM is not trying to change public policy by investigating it. The only way they cross the line is if FNC admits it is a public policy arm, and MM can be proven to be trying to effect policy by opposing them.
Even if FNC were to admit their status as a political entity, you would have a hard time finding MM in breach of the exemption clause, because they’re not trying to change policy. All they’re doing is exposing (in their eyes) propaganda coming from this organization.
The bottom line is: FNC elevates MM by acting as though they are a political organization being attacked by a 501c3 group in violation of their IRS status. If FNC wants to stop being accused of being a political operation, they should stop acting like one.
July 6, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Shep is reporting a tsunami from the 7.8 New Zealand quake.
July 6, 2011 at 1:27 pm
“All they’re doing is exposing (in their eyes) propaganda coming from this organization.”
Ah, thanks for clearing this up. Somehow I had the idea that they were engaged in ‘sabotage’ and ‘war’, researching the background and lives of employees, mounting a campaign to disrupt the business, putting pressure on advertisers not to advertise… but I guess I was wrong. All they’re doing is ‘exposing propaganda’. Well that’s a relief.
July 6, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Private groups are free to protest media – including advising advertiser boycotts – to their hearts’ content. Religious tax exempt groups have been doing it for decades. It’s free speech.
July 6, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Then don’t use the tired talking point that ‘all they’re doing is exposing propaganda’. That’s NOT all they’re doing. They’re engaged in a campaign to disrupt. drive away advertisers from, and ideally shut down Fox News. Sounds like any other charitable organization.
July 6, 2011 at 2:02 pm
I’m going with the lawyer’s opinion on this one, especially because the wording of the rule seems to back him up. And it isn’t about whether or not MM has to pay taxes if they lose their 501(c) (3) status – they don’t. It’s about whether or not those who donate to MM can deduct those contributions on their own 1040s as a charitable gift.
July 6, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Well, yes, if you’re determined to hash it out point by point, they’re exposing what they perceive as a propaganda machine, and attempting to disrupt it by turning public opinion against them. That’s generally how this thing works. Christian groups don’t just tell people Hollywood is immoral; they attempt to change it by chainging peoples’ viewing habits, and affecting their purchasing decisions away from certain advertisers.
I’m not sure what your point is. I clearly stated that FNC has a right to use their network to attack Media Matters. I just happen to think it reinforces MM’s charge, and makes Fox look defensive and petty. It certainly detracts from the image they want to cultivate as a serious news organization. It exposes them for what they are: A buncha righties with a victim complex, willing to subjugate any journalistic integrity they may have achieved to attack “enemies” on the internet. It’s STUPID.
July 6, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Religious tax exempt groups have been…
Religious organisations certainly can and do lose their status if they demonstrate a partisan preference. They have a right to free speech but not a right to have everyone else pay for it.
July 6, 2011 at 2:43 pm
If you think religious groups don’t present a partisan presence, I don’t know what to tell ya. The focal point is political activism. If FNC is truly a political organization, then MM is actively opposing one. Until Fox confesses, MM is in the clear according to the letter of the 501c3 law.
July 6, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Before this spins completely out of control, MM’s tax exempt status is secondary for me. If they lose it, I couldn’t possibly care less.
My focus is on the fact that a very successful cable news operation is using their airwaves to attack an internet group who seems to have gained a good bit of their notoriety from being mentioned on Fox News. Media Matters is preaching to the choir. It’s silly for FNC to elevate them.
July 6, 2011 at 3:12 pm
No, I don’t think MM gained much notoriety from being mentioned on Fox News, because FNC up until now hasn’t mentioned them that much. Maybe a crack from O’Reilly now and then but not much more than that. No, they got their notoriety from MSNBC, which for years has brought on Media Matters hacks and Senior Fellows over and over again to attack Fox News, and not always with truth either.
As I said elsewhere, how many years of attacks is FNC supposed to let fly without responding? ‘Thank you sir, may I have another?’ is not a particularly effective stance to take with a bully.
July 6, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Let Hannity do the ‘speaking for the bosses’ thing. Sacrificing most of a half hour of a show supposedly dedicating itself to bias in the media; then using the morning show to attack David Brock’s psychological state; is bizarre.
July 6, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Well I agree to the extent that i’m not sure what Dr Ablow is up to sometimes…not just the Brock thing but other stuff too.
July 6, 2011 at 3:50 pm
It’s small and it elevates the attackers. Even O’Reilly got over constantly having to respond to certain people. Let legal take care of it.
July 6, 2011 at 4:01 pm
I don’t give a rat’s about Media Matters’ tax status, either. Anybody who cares enough to pay any attention to them is well aware that they just make stuff up, so they are what they are.
Fox News Watch, as far as I’m concerned, is now crap programming. There can be no level of legitimacy with a Jon Scott as its host, and why the ‘ell is Alan Colmes ever on that panel? If they feel that chair needs the butt of a liberal-minded journalist sitting in it, fine, but they can easily find one capable of focusing on media coverage instead of snide comments advocating policy.
July 6, 2011 at 4:15 pm
– Fox News Watch –
What. He. Said. I could post clips, if so inclined, but looking at them is a jarring reminder of how good that show used to be, and how much it sucks now.
Fox couldn’t have one show where people actually just talked, like human beings. That wasn’t a 30-minute version of the seven-minute back-and-forth that acts as ‘news’-filler during dayside. That wasn’t inclined to use the words ‘liberal media’ every 3.5 minutes. Neal Gabler was a liberal that I didn’t want to punch, a rare and diminishing commodity. He could also put a hurt on Fox when the mood struck him. Ugn. Don’t get me started…
July 6, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Well, then. I have erred. How unusual..
July 6, 2011 at 5:06 pm
To err is human. To really screw it up, apparently, is Laura.
July 6, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Your wasting your time Johnny $ talking to Joe about Media Matters war on FOX….if MM was blowing up the FOX news office and shooting FOX employees and then FOX reported all day about it…Joe would complain about all the attention FOX was giving MM.
Joe has a hate for FOX that’s right up there with his hate of Palin.
July 6, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Johhny and I have been doing fine yakking at each other, Mlong, but thanks for knowing nothing about a conversation that has already reached an intelligent conclusion before you dragged your meaningless Talking Point Bag in.
July 6, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Those of you who don’t like Hannity will have more reason after tonight. He is just yapping away about how the jury had no other choice but to decide as they did, yet he kept yelling at Kimberly when she tried to put forth her opinion.
Then he had his “Great American Panel” on, and he’s talking over them as well.
Why does this guy even have on guests if keeps getting back as tp what HIS opinion is?
And damn it; I see I have to go over to Word Press once again to sign in!
July 6, 2011 at 7:47 pm
I can’t help it..it’s just adorable when Missy cusses..
July 6, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Missy, if it looks like you’re not signed in, click ‘post comment’ first anyway. Sometimes my page still says ‘log in’, but once I’ve signed in for the day it hasn’t dumped me out. Annoying little bugger, eh?
July 6, 2011 at 8:44 pm
– Brian Stelter RT @thedailybeast: Exclusive: Elizabeth Smart to join ABC News as pundit for missing persons cases. @HowardKurtz: thebea.st/r2cMaZ –
This seems a bit sick to me. For her, on the other hand it’s hard to imagine her making a living at a normal job.
July 6, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Link. No Julie.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/06/elizabeth-smart-to-join-good-morning-america-abc-news.html
July 6, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Watch it. I wouldn’t steer you wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W4Cx44XKZ4