Media Matters Still Whining About ‘Context’
It’s no secret to anybody with half a brain that Media Matters is nothing but left wing organization that runs defense for Democrats. Their 501c3 status is an absolute joke as they laughingly claim they are providing an “educational” service. Which is true only if you happen to travel to school on a little yellow bus.
Be that as it may, Media Matters still plods ahead with their crusade of turning any opinion they don’t agree with or fact they don’t like into a “falsehood” or “smear.”
Lately they have been running a very strong defense of President Obama’s ridiculous “You didn’t build that” statements claiming the Romney campaign and the GOP are engaging in “deceptive editing” because they dare to repeat the exact words the President has said.
The whining continues with Simon Malloy at the ready with this latest piece of drivel. He writes:
It’s not every day that you see a reporter call the media useless, but that’s precisely what Aaron Blake of the Washington Post did today when he published this piece giving cover for politicians — Mitt Romney in particular — who attack their opponents with wildly out-of-context quotes. The true context won’t really matter, argued Blake, because the attacks work
Now think about this for a moment. Malloy and fellow travelers like Oliver Willis and Eric Boehlert are supporters of President Obama. While not necessarily tweeting on behalf of Media Matters, they were happy to take to that medium to constantly point to Obama campaign ads and accusations from Obama campaign staff members (and Obama himself) that have been declared to be so bogus one wonders how anybody in the Obama campaign has any pants left since they were all on fire.
The Obama campaign continues to press the point to support its claim in TV ads that Romney personally “shipped jobs to China and Mexico” and that “Romney’s never stood up to China; all he’s ever done is send them our jobs.” We disagreed in an article we posted on June 29, stating that “we found no evidence to support the claim that Romney — while he was still running Bain Capital — shipped American jobs overseas.” And we still see no such evidence.
“Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. He was just gone. And it happened very suddenly. … After that, he was not on calls or writing memos. He was gone.”
To be clear, all four of the sources voiced professional loyalty and personal respect for Romney. And all four have a vested interest in defending the work of Bain. But they were consistent in describing Romney’s departure as abrupt and in saying they could not recall him around the office in the months that followed.
From Fortune Magazine:
The part about lying to the SEC is absurd, since the SEC doesn’t require an owner to be the operational decision-maker (Romney delegated such responsibilities, as is his right).
As for the second part, is it terribly surprising that neither Bain nor Romney was certain that his divorce from Bain was permanent? He had already left once before — in 1994, to run for U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy — so the initial impulse was to term Salt Lake as yet another leave of absence. And Romney assumed that he’d still be involved in decision-making, albeit from a distance.
Unlike in what happened in 1994, however, Romney was successful in 1999 — and would later parlay his Olympic “victory” into elective office. He also was consumed by the Olympics job, and numerous sources — including many with Bain at the time — have told me that Romney did not make any investment-related decisions for Bain after February 1999. The firm didn’t ask, and Romney didn’t offer. He had other things to do, and those he left behind considered themselves more than capable of handling the baton.
I know that’s the Romney party line, but I’ve still seen no evidence yet to contradict it.
The Obama campaign fails to make its case. On just about every level, this ad is misleading, unfair and untrue, from the use of “corporate raider” to its examples of alleged outsourcing. Simply repeating the same debunked claims won’t make them any more correct.
That’s why I literally laughed when Malloy wrote the following:
I was under the impression that we have political reporters who will dissect this stuff and determine whether such attacks are fair and accurate precisely so other people won’t take them at face value.
Really? Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
The problem for Malloy and the rest of his ilk is that Obama’s statements, even on their full context are still awful. The GOP and the Romney campaign were happy to present the President’s comments in their full context:
It doesn’t help. But that won’t stop Malloy and others at Media Matters from continuing to whine and stamp their feet every time somebody has the temerity to repeat exactly what the President said and then criticize it.