Originally posted by generalissimo
so mediamatters is unreliable and biased, but "the blaze" isn't?

once again your posts emanate that rancid odor of hypocrisy.

Is there a multi billionaire funding "the blaze" for the purposes of bringing down "mediamatters"? You're talking apples and oranges again and are too dim witted to even realize it.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Is there a multi billionaire funding "the blaze" for the purposes of bringing down "mediamatters"? You're talking apples and oranges again and are too dim witted to even realize it.

Because only multi-billionaires can have an agenda.

Originally posted by Barts
Because only multi-billionaires can have an agenda.

No. If you read the back post you will see I am not talking about agenda's or bias. Lean to the left,lean to the right,etc

mediamatters is leading a boycott backed by Soros to get Glen Beck off of the air and hopefully shut down FoxNews. (Good luck on that.)

So, you can bet your bottom dollar anything they say about Beck will be taken out of context, distorted, twisted, whatever, to achieve their goal of destroying Beck.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
No. If you read the back post you will see I am not talking about agenda's or bias. Lean to the left,lean to the right,etc

mediamatters is leading a boycott backed by Soros to get Glen Beck off of the air and hopefully shut down FoxNews. (Good luck on that.)

So, you can bet your bottom dollar anything they say about Beck will be taken out of context, distorted, twisted, whatever, to achieve their goal of destroying Beck.

And yet you still haven't provided an example of where they have been as dishonest as you claim.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Is there a multi billionaire funding "the blaze" for the purposes of bringing down "mediamatters"? You're talking apples and oranges again and are too dim witted to even realize it.

That wasn't your only criticism, you base your whole case against the reliability of mediamatters on the premise that its left-wing and therefore must necessarily be lying about anything it says, apart from the conspicuous logical fallacy here this also strikes me as being incredibly hypocritical considering the blaze is arguably even more biased than mediamatters could ever be if we take it into account that it was founded by glenn beck. The question of whether or not its funded by a multi billionaire is irrelevant, just as I'd find it irrelevant to use Murdoch as an attack on the reliability of fox news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blaze_(blog)
"The Blaze is a conservative news and opinion website launched on August 31, 2010, by American media personality and Fox News host Glenn Beck..."

"Beck has promoted The Blaze as an alternative to "mainstream media outlets", which Beck says are "distorting facts to fit rigid agendas." Beck was quoted saying that The Blaze will feature "breaking news, original reporting, insightful opinions and engaging videos about the stories that matter most" and that "we will examine our culture, deal with matters of faith and family, and we won’t be afraid of a history lesson."

Indeed it seems like the blaze is completely free from any bias!