2.0

by Fabrice Florin - Sep. 12, 2008 - See Full Review (10 answers)

This is not what I would call journalism. It's not even a review. It's just a dumb quote from a highly partisan republican pundit, republished by a highly partisan liberal watchdog site, without any commentary. The quote itself is highly questionable, and doesn't appear based on factual evidence. So I'm having a hard time rating this piece. In the end, I had to give it low ratings, because it's simply not journalism.

2.8

by Jim Lang - Sep. 12, 2008 - See Full Review (6 answers)

I really don't know how to rate this blog entry. First, I don't believe that obviously biased opinions of political strategists are news, the endless presentation of them by cable and radio talk shows notwithstanding. Second, I don't think that merely repeating them without comment in a blog makes much of journalistic contribution. Other Media Matters posts that take more of a "fact check" approach to media comments provide content that can be evaluated.

4.9

by Jack Dinkmeyer - Sep. 12, 2008 - See Full Review (12 answers)

As usual MediaMatters comes up with the goods. The old adage, "an argument with a fool is no argument," explains why it’s becoming so extremely difficult to intelligently review McCainisms–that is, outrageous distortions, ridiculous lies, and don’t-do-to-us-what-we’re-doing-to-you strategies. Examples: both McCain and Cheney used the pig-lipstick quote that caused McCain to scream foul; Hillary endured Republican sexist attacks, but any attack on Palin "attacks motherhood and apple pie ...

3.1

by Chris Finnie - Sep. 12, 2008 - See Full Review (12 answers)

If this is good journalism, then so is my digital recorder. All it does is repeat a Q&A that happened on a TV show. The clip of the exchange would hopefully present the same information. So this adds little value. It's a Republican operative repeating the campaign talking points. Hardly what I'd consider news. Some of what Feehery claims is actually even true. Palin has energized the Republican base. The rest is blatant nonsense. But this report doesn't trouble itself to point that out.

1.3

by Francis Lilly - Sep. 13, 2008 - See Full Review (10 answers)

By recognizing the "leading" question format, it is almost certain this was a propaganda interview. We will most likely be seeing much more of it as NBC expunges legitimate opposition discourse from its MSNBC subsidiary (i.e. Olberman, Matthews) while replacing them with those more controlled and who toe the line. Publishing the interview text is merely the next step in "propagation" to those who missed the show, but accept motherhood statements that reinforce their predisposition, while ...

4.5

by Dwight Rousu - Sep. 12, 2008 - See Full Review (12 answers)

The good journalism of Media Matters uncovers the horrible journalism of Feehery and MSNBC in framing a protective shield that he claims should protect Palin from any inquiry or criticism. Anybody who advocates bringing on the end times for Jesus is not a normal everday American who should be promoted to the steps of the white house.

2.7

by Joel Kulenkamp - Sep. 12, 2008 - See Full Review (6 answers)

2.2

by Mandy Brown - Sep. 13, 2008 - See Full Review (6 answers)

1.9

by Holly Stevenson - Sep. 12, 2008 - See Full Review (6 answers)

1.4

by Roland F. Hirsch - Sep. 12, 2008 - See Full Review (10 answers)

This piece has minimal journalistic merit. It is almost entirely devoted to a verbatim quote from another source. That does not qualify as journalism.