Admittedly, Media Matters doesn’t have a deep well of credibility, but even I was shocked by the sloppiness of this hack-attack yesterday. Their headline:
Nate Silver takes the Hot Air out of Cato’s stimulus attack
And opening line:
Right-wing blogger Allahpundit put some Hot Air behind a piece of Cato Institute research that sought to attack stimulus spending as unfairly tilted in favor of Democratic congressional districts.
Except, you know, it wasn’t a Cato study. It was a Mercatus Center study. If Media Matters had even bothered to look at the actual study, pausing just a few moments from launching their attack, they would have seen that. Here is the study, technically a ‘working paper,’ but the title page is very clear, Mercatus Center: George Mason University.
Media Matters also identifies the study’s author, Big Government Contributor Veronique de Rugy, as a “Cato Scholar.” But, their own link for de Rugy makes it clear that she is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center and used to work at Cato. AKA, in the past. Does Media Matters even follow their own links?
Sure, these may seem like minor points, but getting obvious facts so completely wrong is indicative of the drive-by, hit-and-run style of analysis employed by Media Matters.
There is, actually, a much more substantial error on their part.
They close their political hit on de Rugy with this jewel:
Occam’s Razor says that given two competing theories, the simpler explanation is better. But Occam didn’t account for the fact that the simplest explanation often gets in the way of a good old right-wing conspiracy theory.
To Media Matters, anyone who disagrees with them is “right-wing” and obviously peddling a “conspiracy theory.” Really, Media Matters? There isn’t room for an honest intellectual disagreement? In your worldview, de Rugy, who received a PhD in Economics from the Sorbonne, is just some right-wing partisan hack simply because you disagree with her conclusion? Nate Silver, on whose critique of de Rugy’s study you hang your entire study, certainly doesn’t agree with you.
Media Matters must have missed the very civil debate between de Rugy and Silver. (They responded to each other throughout the day.) From Silver’s second response:
Veronique de Rugy has issued a fairly gracious response to my critique of her study on the disbursement of stimulus funds, the crux of which was that she had failed to account for a variable (the presence of a state capital) that was extremely important in predicting the allocation of stimulus funds (because much of the money is intermediated by state governments).
Most importantly, she has promised to evaluate some of my concerns and to re-run her analysis. This is terrific — and she is to be commended for her responsiveness. de Rugy is also to be commended for having released portions of her dataset** on the Mercauts Center website (something which she had done originally).
And, this:
She says it wasn’t and I take her at her word, particularly given her fairness and transparency in responding to me. But I don’t really see raising the possibility that the bias was deliberate as being particularly “inflammatory” — it was manifestly a *possibility*, given how obvious the design flaw was relative to how smart and capable de Rugy obviously is.
The respected IBM Center for the Business of Government noted the back-and-forth in a post titled, “A Civilized Debate”:
The exchange is worthy of attention because it highlights two great points:
1) We really like seeing smart people getting past their initial suspicions of each other in order to begin hammering out some fundamental questions about the quality of Recovery.gov data and potential issues in the stimulus package itself.
We’ll never get very far in understanding what works and how well it works if we can’t get to points of basic agreement across partisan or ideological aisles about the ground rules of analysis. This civilized debate underscores how partisan and toxic much of the discussion over the stimulus (and other recent government plans) has become.
“…how partisan and toxic much of the discussion…has become”? Sounds like they’re very familiar with Media Matters.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
26 Comments
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by CO2HOG: via @BigJournalism Media Matters Criticizes Study Without Even Looking at It http://bit.ly/c0tWmP #tcot…
“…how partisan and toxic much of the discussion…has become”? Sounds like they’re very familiar with Media Matters.
Soros' propaganda organ has no place at that table.
You don't need to read a study you are going to attack with the same talking points regardless of what it says. These folks are concerned with peoples perception, not facts.
http://www.PoliticalCentrist.com News and views for independent voters
Soros' "Media Murders" is nothing but a front for Nazi propaganda and anti-Israel hate speech, they don't deal in "facts" they deal in "facade politics" and "perception" manipulation.
Nothing about them says "news" it only says hate and vitriol for Israel and for our American republic.
This is just another example of "Some say" journalism (H/T Laura Ingraham, in reference to Matt Lauer style of interviews).
IMHO, one of the largest and most insidious failures of modern journalism is the "some say" fault. They report talking points from sources as the asserted facts themselves. While one could parse words and find that the piece gets away with it by saying things like "Some experts assert that . . . ", the purpose of the piece itself is to get the reader to unwittingly accept the assertion as truth.
Newspapers are especially getting bad at reprinting talking points from plaintiffs' attorneys. Usually in connection with some sob story about how some unlucky person was injured or lost money. But the story is told from the plaintiff's viewpoint, of course with a 60 Minutes style rebuttal "opportunity" (sometimes) provided to the accused.
Hate is like oxygen to liberals/progressives. Without it they wouldn't be able to survive. It's not enough for then to be filled with hate though, they have to use the SAM, Saul Alinski Media, to force their hatred onto society. I used to think that the bigotry of progressives was well known and would never surprise me. I have been proven wrong because the bigotry they have shown over the last year has reached what I thought was unreachable levels. It is the Greatness of the American People that is screwing them. The majority of "We The People" are rejecting their hate, proven by their abysmal ratings, and getting lower everyday. For decades the progressives have been trying to create racism and racial tension, and after all their work they are finally being rejected openly, and their future is bleak. In my mind, it's about time these bigots be rejected by the People, and it couldn't happen to a "nicer" group of bigots. Perhaps college students may stand and reject the bigoted professors soon. One and 1/2 semesters was enough hate indoctrination for me. It was more like a Madrasah than a school.
God Bless The USA
Suck it, Media Matters.
This is concrete proof that Media Matters, a "media watchdog," should put the emphasis on "DOG."
I always get worried when I read crap like the following:
"We’ll never get very far in understanding what works and how well it works if we can’t get to
points of basic agreement across partisan or ideological aisles about the ground rules of analysis."
As reasonable as that may sound on the surface, the whole point of all this is that the left insists on framing the debate. They won't "agree" to any "ground rule" that is unfavorable to them, such as how the CRA created corrupt financial incentives, or how the system of scientific research grants compels science toward conclusions that are politically favorable rather than honest science.
[...] » Media Matters Criticizes Study Without Even Looking at It – Big … [...]
Anything David Brock is involved with, like Media Matters For Amereica – INSTANTLY LACKS credibility.
MMFA is a left wing muck racking operation funded by Nazi collaborator George Soros, nothing more.
The dung heap of history awaits MMFA.
They should spend less time in their community bathhouse and study the Bible.
lol! yup.
Could you imagine if Soros was an equally creepy conservative. The media would ridicule him the death. Does anybody recall the contempt with which lib mediettes spit out the name Richard Mellon Scaife?
[ Eli's Hammer ] I don't have a pony in this one…but I am confused. She made a mistake or mistakes in her model, then was called on it by another researcher…she owned up to the mistake and the two went on with their independent research. That is what I am reading. Her research WAS flawed…but now she is in the process of revising the data…so we are waiting for the results of the new data?
I don't see the big whup…left or right.
This was NOT a "civilized debate."
In his critique, Silver says "my bet is that this is all a bunch of noise resulting from an incomplete — and possibly deliberately biased — research design," even though he admits that the design of the recovery database helps lead to her conclusion. It isn't her fault the bias exists (if there is one).
His "solution" is to include so many variables in the analysis that the ultimate point gets washed-out, that districts which tend to vote Democratic received more money. In his second reply, he then says "given that she has used her study to testify before the Congress, I believe it proper to hold her to a fairly high standard. That she is now willing to revisit her assumptions speaks highly of her, but until she does, her original study should be given no deference."
She did not agree that her assumptions were wrong, only to look into the effects of certain variables. Furthermore, people testify before Congress all the time. Are we going to hold Al Gore to this standard?
What he is basically saying is "keep your mouth shut."
Hey, that's an insult to dogs!
Silver is well known as a left-leaning polling expert who at his site published multiple analyses of why Scott Brown could not win right up to the day of the election!
Before Mr. Flynn criticizes Media Matters for sloppy research, he should attend to his own. He says, "Media Matters also identifies the study’s author, Big Government Contributor Veronique de Rugy, as a 'Cato Scholar.'” Small problem—the reference to "Cato Scholar" in the Media Matters piece was a direct quote from the Hot Air/AllahPundit article that MMFA was describing.
In fact, it appears that the MMFA writer's sin was to take AllahPundit's mistaken "Cato scholar" reference at face value and assume that the study came from from Cato. When I checked this morning, MMFA had corrected its story to indicate that the study came from the Mercatus Institute. It had also referenced the correction at the end of the article and expressed regret for the error. Hot Air had not corrected its reference to de Rugby as a "Cato scholar."
Media Matters is simply the poor stepchild of "news" organs like Pravda. Media Matters exists to service the lies and the growing fascism of the Democratic Party along with the rest of the national socialist media. Goebbels would be proud.
Oh, and given their liberal tilt Media Matters is also complicit in the gang rape of Lady Liberty and the U.S. Constitution with the unilaterally partisan passage of ObamaCare. Now there's a legacy one can hang their hat on!
Media Matters is to real journalism what village idiots are to Mensa – and unfortunately the rest of the lamestream media falls into that same category.
I believe they indirectly funded by several George Soros organizations. They are a propaganda tool of the left.
Furthermore, John Podesta's Center for American Progress is another Soro's front group. I personally think they are indirectly running the Obama administration by "helping" Obama pick Czars and political appointees. O is just an empty suit with Soro's indirectly calling the shots.
Form Sourcewatch
"The Center for American Progress is classified as a 501(c)(3) organization under U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The institute receives approximately $25 million per year in funding from a variety of sources, including individuals, foundations, and corporations. From 2003 to 2007, the center received about $15 million in grants from 58 foundations. Major individual donors include George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steve Bing, and Herbert M. Sandler. The Center receives undisclosed sums from corporate donors.[5]"
Some open government groups, such as the Sunlight Foundation and the Campaign Legal Center, criticize the Center's failure to disclose its contributors, particularly since it is so influential in appointments to the Obama administration.[8]
I guess a journalist's ethical standards and obligations are just suggestions, rather than rules to abide by
I had pointed out this error of Flynn's, but it got lost somewhere between last night and now. Thanks for trying to sort out the silliness!
Great pick-up Mike. Keep hammering them…love it.
Facts are a distraction in our postmodern world. The real question is: How does this data make you FEEL?
You must be logged in to post a comment.