I've always thought Media Matters was a good organization, calling out right wing bias in the mainstream media. In a twist today, I see that MSNBC's "First Read" is calling out Media Matters for pro-Hillary bias through back-handed smears of Obama and Edwards.
By publishing a list of questions that Wolf Blitzer shouldn't ask at the debate tonight, Media Matters circulates a list of Obama and Edwards smears that could have been produced by the RNC and Rush Limbaugh. Here's a sample:
-- Don't contradict your own reporting and suggest that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "cash[ed] in" on a stock deal in which he lost $13,000.
-- Don't say that Obama's position on Pakistan is "very much in line with what" President Bush says regarding Pakistan.
-- Don't contradict your own reporting -- again -- and say that Obama, in following legal requirements to count purchasers of his campaign merchandise as campaign contributors, is "apparently using some creative math" and "overselling his grassroots support."
-- Don't tell Obama that "[i]t's difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops."
-- Don't suggest that former Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) work "for financial markets" might "contradict his anti-poverty message."
-- Don't adopt GOP framing and ask Edwards about his "flip-flop" on Iraq "to win the vote."
-- Don't ask about former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's (R) "pretty interesting" quip that "[w]e've had a Congress that's spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop."
Nice.
"First Read" doesn't include them, but over at the Media Matters site, I found the list of "don'ts" for questions regarding Hillary. As you can see, this list is of a different tenor, actually offering rebuttals to the Republican talking points that are being urged against (as opposed to just saying "don't ask about smear x" on Obama and Edwards):
Don't misrepresent exchanges from past debates, as Russert did during the October 30 Democratic debate when he asked Clinton, regarding Social Security: "Why do you have one public position and one private position?"
Don't purport to cite written documentation while misrepresenting it, as Russert did during the October 30 debate, when he falsely claimed that a letter written in 2002 by President Clinton "specifically ask[ed] that any communication between" him and the first lady "not be made available to the public until 2012."
Don't base questions on premises that contradict available polling data, such as whether the Clinton campaign -- while leading all other candidates in head-to-head matchups -- is "feeling desperate."
How could this happen? "First Read" posts the video link of Hillary Clinton speaking at Yearly Kos, in which she explains that she "helped to start and support" Media Matters.
That's all well and good, but shouldn't Media Matters be up-front about their connection to Hillary, and despite that connection, shouldn't a media watchdog try to be, um, objective with regard to the Democratic candidates? I guess we need watchdogs for the watchdogs.