Over at CJRDaily, Brian Montopoli has a delightful piece on why David Brock's left-wing "Media Matters" web site makes its right wing alternatives look like, well ... raving, lunatic wingnuts.
Here's the crucial excerpt, right out of the first paragraph, comparing Media Matters to right-wing barf bucket Media Research Center:
Media Matters -- MRC's competitor on the left -- is, for example, a consistently useful resource, largely because the organization tends to limit its criticisms to specific instances of media malfeasance, and then supports those criticisms with documented facts and clear, transparent reasoning.
And that's what counts. It doesn't matter whether you agree with MM's ideological stance or not, what you just can't deny is that their pieces are focused and fastidiously documented. They supply names, places, dates and more than enough links so you don't have to take their word for anything. And, critically, as Montopoli points out, each article typically discusses a single event or incident. You won't find wide-ranging, scattershot accusations like "massive right-wing conspiracy" -- just meticulously-researched pieces.
Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, on the other hand ... well, there always has to be someone at the tail end of the bell curve, doesn't there?