Is Media Matters suffering from mission creep?

[dorkulon]

I absolutely loved Media Matters when it cropped up. I loved David Brock's Blinded by the Right, too, and still recommend it. But I find it kind of troubling that they seem to have strayed from what I saw as their initial mission--simply calling out and refuting misinformation in the MSM--to becoming cultural watchdogs, or language police.

It's not that I care about Don Imus or whoever, but I think that the mission of counteracting false information is more vital, something the public and the press really need and can use, and that is a full-time job. Additionally, it seems to me that if a mainstream media figure uses language that is offensive enough, the general public can and will cast judgment on them without MM's help.

In other words, I think Media Matters should stick to matters of fact exclusively. Whether or not a specific turn of phrase is offensive, or offensive enough to warrant punitive action, is a matter of opinion, and to my mind outside of MM's basic mission, at least as I understood it. Am I suffering from selective memory here, or did MM used to focus more on disinformation and less on offensive speech?

* This post was brought on by this item at MM: http://mediamatters.org/items/200806120003?f=h_top

"Low-hanging fruit" is just not a slur, people. It's a metaphor.

[Demit]

1. Chris Matthews' diction, the words he chooses, often reveals a disturbing mindset.

I don't mind MM pointing it out. Anything that helps people pay attention to the credibility of these so-called pundits, so they don't automatically assume anything they say is true and correct, I'm all for that.

[dorkulon]

2. It seems a lot more persuasive to me to simply point out that they are lying

than to complain that they're insensitive jerks. There are lots of people out there who will tolerate or even enjoy the indecorous diction of this or that media figure, but if you can show that they're dishonest, it seems to me more effective. People who watch O'Reilly, for instance, already know he's a sexist and a homophobe--for some of them, that's WHY they like him.

[Demit]

3. Well, I think there is dishonesty in weasel words too—they're insidious. We're not always aware

of the harm they do. We now know about "dog whistle" speech, right? The seemingly bland words that Bush and other politicians have used that mean something to the people they're actually signalling something meaningful to? How about how Bush & company can point to how they never actually SAID that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11... They are technically correct, but we all know how they weighted their speech to imply it—so that a huge proportion of Americans drew the natural conclusion. Words are powerful pointers.

I don't think MM is going beyond their mission. I think they're supplementing it.

[Berry Cool]

4. I agree with the OP. It's getting to the point where they're almost trying to censor speech

by reading way too much into it.

Dog whistling is one thing. Reading stuff in that no reasonable person not looking to be offended could possibly read in is another.

I know people differ about what that point is, where it is located. But "low-hanging fruit"? Jeez...to me that's never been anything but a business buzz phrase, referring to "goals that are easily attainable, so let's not miss attaining them." Has nothing to do with anything else.