On Batsignals and Media Matters’ Tax Exempt Status

Posted by in Blog on March 30, 2011 9:01 am / 9 comments

While everyone is having a good laugh at Media Matters this morning, something in Howard Kurtz’s article struck me as odd. In “Partisan Organizations Use Sound Bite Warfare“, Kurtz might have provided yet another reason why Media Matters 501(c)(3) status should be re-evaluated. See if you can find it:

Mike Huckabee, whose nonstop book-flacking is keeping him on the political radar, was doing a routine radio interview when the talk briefly turned to Natalie Portman.

Seattle host Michael Medved questioned how the 29-year-old actress could tout her pregnancy at the Oscars when she had not yet married her fiancé. The once-and-maybe-future presidential candidate replied that it was “troubling” to see “a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts” of having a child out of wedlock, because “there aren’t really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie.”

And then—nothing happened. But three days later, in a glass-sheathed building atop Washington’s Buddha Bar, Eric Hananoki, a 27-year-old with a growth of stubble, discovered the audio on his computer. At 5:41 p.m., he posted a blog item for the liberal advocacy group Media Matters, declaring that Huckabee had “attacked actress Natalie Portman for having a child ‘out of wedlock.’” Five hours later, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz was skewering Huckabee, and the story quickly ricocheted from TMZ to Politico to Stephen Colbert.

Media Matters mission, and what presumably allows them the tax exempt 501(c)(3) status, is as follows:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Do you see the problem yet? No? They’re allowed tax exempt status because they claim to be an educational organization dedicated to correcting conservative misinformation. Now go back and read what Huckabee said. Where’s the misinformation? Since when is a person’s personal opinion “misinformation”? Huckabee didn’t make any declaration of fact. He wasn’t promoting a falsehood. He was simply expressing his opinion on Natalie Portman’s pregnancy. You can disagree or agree with Huckabee, but he wasn’t lying about anything. It was just a controversial statement which, as Kurtz pointed out, no one noticed for three days.

When Eric Hananoki sent out the “Batsignal” (stop laughing – they actually do this) to his bosses they sprang into action and suddenly the story was everywhere. Media Matters wasn’t promoting an item about conservative misinformation. They were pushing a story that was, in their view, embarrassing to a Republican who is considered to be a player in the upcoming presidential election. I don’t think the best intellectual gymnasts could squeeze what happened in this case into Media Matters stated mission. It just doesn’t fit.

Now, I’m sure the moral equivalence battalions will start the “but NewsBusters does it, too” game, like Kurtz tried to, but they’d be wrong. The Media Research Center’s mission is to expose media bias, not “misinformation” like Media Matters claims. It’s apples and oranges. That defense is dead in the water.

Media Matters should lose its tax exempt status. I’m not sure how that process begins. Should a complaint be filed with the IRS? Should someone like Mike Huckabee sue them in court? Inquiring minds (aka: people outside the Left’s Ideological Iron Curtain) want to know.

 
 

9 Comments

  1. Kathy Hutchins says:
    March 30, 2011 at 11:33 am

    Procedure for filing a tax exempt status complaint http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=178241,00.html

  2. Vonnegut says:
    March 30, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    Um, Huckabee slammed Portman for (allegedly) having children without being married and castigated Hollywood “single moms” who (allegedly) promote an unhealthy/unrealistic image of single parenthood to the rest of the non-Hollywood world.

    Leaving aside the fact that “misinformation” can be defined broadly, Huckabee’s attack was premised on misinformation under *any* definition. She is NOT planning to have a child without being married, and She is NOT promoting single motherhood — she’s marrying the guy!

    So it seems that Media Matters is just fine, even if this kind of attempted hair-splitting of its stated purpose could go anywhere.

    But one can’t help but wonder: Anybody think that any conservative organizations out there may have strayed, even just a little, from their foundational statements? Under RB’s analysis, they should be shut down — pronto! I expect that the readers of this blog will get right on trying to find any inconsistencies that could be used to attack the tax status of *those* organizations.

    Yeah, right, that’ll happen.

  3. RB says:
    March 30, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Oh look! An intellectual gymnast fails!

    It was still Huckabee’s opinion, Vonnegut. Not “conservative misinformation.” And I didn’t say Media Matters should be shut down (pronto or otherwise). Or are you saying they couldn’t exist without their tax exempt status?

  4. Vonnegut says:
    March 30, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    Yeah, right, RB — Huckabee stated it as an “opinion” that (to quote him directly, which you of course fail to do):

    “Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet . . . boasts of, ‘Hey look, you know, we’re having children, we’re not married, but we’re having these children, and they’re doing just fine.’”

    He was stating supposed factual premises for his little attack. FALSE premises. That’s “misinformation.”

    Oh and by the way, under your (puported) logic, don’t you think that it’s OK for Media Matters to do what they’re doing as long as it’s their *opinion* that calling out Huckabee’s idiocy on this was “misinformation”?

    P.S. In related news, it’s my opinion that RB has admitted that “I’m totally wrong on this, but too embarrassed to say so. Plus, I want the blog traffic.” You can’t call that a false statement or “misinformation,” RB! That’s just my opinion. Right?

  5. RB says:
    March 30, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    Still going?

  6. Ezra says:
    March 30, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    As if a giant federal bureaucracy would punish its biggest defenders. But this might be the start: http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=106778,00.html

  7. Vonnegut says:
    March 30, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    Very telling responses, RB. You’re a real intellectual giant — can’t wait to see you lead a legal challenge against Media Matters with your claims that they’re not really talking about “misinformation” by Huckabee! Please, *please* continue to spend energy and time on this. :-)

  8. RB says:
    March 30, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    Hey Vonnegut. It took me all of 15 minutes to crank out this post that has you twisting yourself into intellectual pretzels.

    Why are you so interested in this article? Do you represent Media Matters?

  9. spool32 says:
    March 30, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    The funniest thing about Vonnegut’s rant is how he confuses “lose tax-exempt status” with “get shut down”. You can tell the leftwing statist attitude because it immediately imagines a government response to suppress or control.

    Projection much? heh.

    Anyhow, in case Vonnegut comes back, becoming a taxable corp doesn’t mean MM will shut down, and nobody’s advocating that. We just figure they should pay taxes like any other political advocacy group.

Post a Comment