URGENT e-mail NBC and tell them factcheck.org is RNC!!!

[wndycty]

This morning on the local NBC affiliate they ran a story about political discourse on the internet. The reporter said that factcheck.org is a credible site for getting the facts on political commercials. As a matter of fact on last week's WASHINGTON JOURNAL Ed Gillespe admitted that factcheck.org is an RNC website. Please e-mail this reporter and tell them truth about factcheck.org and also let all media watchdog groups know about that. Here is a link to that report I was telling you about:http://www.mikesejournal.com/htt071304.html.

Here is an e-mail address by which to demand a correction: [e-mail]

HERE IS VIDEO GILLESPE ADMITTING THAT THE RNC FUNDS FACTCHECK.ORG!!!
http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=WJE&ShowVidNum=6&Rot_Cat_CD=WJ&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=15&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30

Go to Washington Journal Entire Program (07/12/2004)
It is at 2:10:54! He says factcheck.org is an RNC website. You should go to 2:08:45 for the start of the passage.

[eyesroll]

1. If he said it, he's lying

http://www.factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docID=70

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by an endowment from the Annenberg Foundation.

[wndycty]

7. See the edit on the original post. . .

. . .I posted video of Gillespe saying that it was an RNC site. Somebody may have some explaining to do. According to Gillespe. . .it is an RNC site!

[Don_G]

2. Whois

Lists it as belonging to the Annenberg Public Policy Foundation/University of Pennsylvania.

[wndycty]

9. Are they fronting for the RNC

See the link to the video I updated in the original post.

[LittleApple81]

3. He did say it on C-Span. I was watching. n/t

[wndycty]

8. I just posted video of it. . .

. . .somebody has some explaining to do.

[wndycty]

4. Here is a link to a thread in which he said it. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1974190

[stewert]

5. Check This Out.........

They do a pretty damn good job of debunking the Kerry vote on the laci and conner law, from what I have seen (which aint much) they seem pretty credible.

In an ad released July 8 the Bush campaign attacks John Kerry for missing many Senate votes but still finding time " to vote against the Laci Peterson law that protects pregnant women from violence." It's literally accurate, but artfully worded to avoid tipping off viewers to the real controversy over the bill Kerry opposed -- the legal right to abortion.

Kerry (and nearly half the Senate) supported a different measure that would have had the same effect without making reference to an "unborn child." That measure -- called the "Motherhood Protection Act'' by its sponsors -- would have made it a separate offense to inflict violence that “causes the termination of a pregnancy or the interruptions of the normal course of pregnancy.” It failed in a 49-50 vote with 43 other Democrats supporting it, along with Independent Sen. Jim Jeffords and four Republicans.

When the Senate passed the "unborn victims" measure, Kerry was among 38 senators voting against it, including 2 Republicans.

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=215

[wndycty]

6. I just updated the original post. . .Gillespe said it. . .

. . .could this be a case of debunking their own work so that when they "debunk" Kerry ads on Bush they can claim to be objective. PER Gillespe on last week's Washington Journal factcheck.org is an RNC WEBSITE. They may appear to debunk negative items on Kerry but do you think this could a misdirection? Very interesting. Watch the C-SPAN clip and tell me what Gillespe was talking about it. He admitted on C-SPAN that factcheck.org is their website. Is Annenberg University being used or are they a willing front?

[pretzel4gore]

10. $40 billion year disinfo....

confounding and confusing the story, making current events a mishmash no one can sort out.....intentionally of course, using public funds. notice how your energy has been expended on this thing!
just say foxnews/cnn are rnc operations. period.
they are the enemy of mankind. period...

[wndycty]

25. Very true. . .

:kick:

[erpowers]

11. He Could be Lying

Gillespe might be lying in order to keep people from going to factcheck.org. They have been really harsh on the Bush ads. They have continually called out his lies. It could be that he realizes that if he says the website is supported by the RNC, liberals, progressive, or anyone who is considering voting against Bush will not go to the website. This could help them in that people who are on the fence may believe the Bush ads without checking for the facts. If you look at the workers at the site their political views seem diverse. The only thing that seems bad is that it appears that factcheck.org has not put out a statement saying they are not associated with the RNC. I would suggest that everyone email them and ask them if the are in fact associated with the RNC. Maybe if enough people email them they will publicly state whether Ed Gillespe was telling the truth.

[wndycty]

12. That is a good start. . .

. . .did you watch the video? He said it. . .he said it was one of their sites. . .I don't know the truth, but I think it is important that we get the truth.

[qanda]

13. Kick

I saw that segment and I almost fell off my couch-- Those dirty dogs!

[robpopulace]

14. direct link to the video

using realplayer.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/wj071204.rm

He says he believes "factcheck.org" is "our" (an RNC) website.

As an added bonus, he's wearing the "technicolor dreamtie."

[Malikshah]

15. Need to send to PBS as well

During their newshour--they alway have the shill from factcheck on ...

This needs to make the rounds big time.

[wndycty]

24. . . .hopefully they will ask him what Gillespe meant

:kick:

[Robbien]

16. Sent an email.

Thanks for making it so easy by giving all the necessary links.

[wndycty]

26. Kick

:kick:

[Killarney]

17. wait... why would the RNC run factcheck.org?

factcheck.org debunks all the Bush ads! why would the RNC pay for that?

this makes no sense

[wndycty]

19. My theory. . .and its only a theory

. . .is that they might debunk harmless Bush ads so that they can be considered credible and objective when they go after Democrats. Of course that is only a theory.

[lostnfound]

40. You appear to be correct.

The latest crop of stuff there is by and large anti-Kerry.

[ContinentalOp]

18. I don't know who's funding it,

but after reading several of their articles they do seem to have a rightward tilt. Check out this ridiculous statement:

"The DNCÊad also flunks the logic test, criticizing Bush both for increasing theÊfederal deficit and also for not spending more -- which of course would increase the deficit even more."

Uh, no maybe if we didn't CUT TAXES then we could increase spending AND lower the defecit. It's factcheck.org that flunks the logic test.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=162

[midwayer]

20. Here you go

http://www.sunnylands.org/Civics/Experts/Commission.asp?id=National

See any names in here that interest you?

[midwayer]

21. Looks bi-partisan

Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands
Institutions of Democracy
The 2003 Congressional Retreat

The 2003 Congressional Retreat was held from February 28 to March 2, 2003 at the Greenbrier resort in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. This retreat brought together members of the U.S. House of Representatives and their families for a weekend of both substantive working sessions and social activities. The goal of the retreat was to help the House work more productively by bringing members of both parties and their families together in an atmosphere that fosters trust and respect, sustained personal interaction, and an understanding of some of the major challenges of the century.

Support for the retreat was generously provided by the Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands. The Center for Democracy and Citizenship at the Council for Excellence in Government and the Public Governance Institute managed the retreat with the Congressional Planning Committee, composed of eight Democratic and eight Republican members of the House of Representatives.

http://www.sunnylands.org/Civics/Experts/Pages.asp?id=Retreat

[wndycty]

22. Some, but there are a few names on the left as well.

:kick:

[wndycty]

23. Well what do we do? Was Gillespe lying, misinformed, what?

:kick:

[KharmaTrain]

27. Anneberg Is A Longtime GOOP Donor...

Just a couple of points to throw in here...FWIW...

First, Walter Annenberg...publisher of Reader's Digest, TV Guide and other publications...was a heavy GOOP donor...and a very close friend to both Nixon and the Rayguns. If I'm not mistaken he was selected ambassador to England or some juicy perk for all this folding green. Thus I have suspicions when I see the Annenberg name attached as being non-partisan.

Next, Annenberg sold his biggest media prize, TV Guide for big bucks (including a large donation to the foundation) from...<drumroll> Rupert Murdoch.

Discuss...

[wndycty]

28. Thanks for the info. . .

. . .please keep up the pressure. . .I would suggest that we also send e-mails directly to factcheck.org for clarification. . [e-mail]

[KharmaTrain]

29. Red Flag When I See A "Policy" Group That's Non-Partisan

That's one of the GOOP's oldest tricks. In theory, the AEI and the Heritage Foundation are "non-partisan"...yeah, right. Their charters, I'm certain, say so for tax purposes...and this allows them to quietly accept donations with little accountability.

I was dubious about the site when I saw it was being run by a former CNN Newsman, Brooks Jackson...who I heard interviewed and all but conceded the site was there to "debunk lies in the media"...another VERY BIG red flag.

More to chew on...possibly...

[wndycty]

30. Tell me more about Brooks Jackson. . .

:kick:

[KharmaTrain]

31. Here's A Quickie Google...

Found this on the PBS site...

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/bjackson.html

This week, Bill Moyers interviews Brooks Jackson, Director of the Annenberg Political Fact Check — a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania — a nonpartisan, nonprofit, consumer advocate for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.


Brooks Jackson is a journalist who covered Washington and national politics for 32 years, reporting in turn for THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, the WALL STREET JOURNAL and CNN. At CNN he pioneered the "adwatch" and "factcheck" form of stories debunking false and misleading political statements starting with the Presidential election of 1992. His investigative reporting for the AP and the JOURNAL won several national awards.
He is the author of two books: HONEST GRAFT: BIG MONEY AND THE AMERICAN POLITICAL PROCESS (Knopf, 1988) and BROKEN PROMISE: WHY THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION FAILED (Twentieth Century Fund: 1990).

...but here's one I found quite interesting...

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/president.2000/jackson.bush/

It's a CNN story from May, 1999 on how Bunnypants made his money....right at the start of the primary cycle...with the general stuff we know now. Pretty straight forward piece, and then nothing afterwards.

Hmmm....

[wndycty]

39. Kick

:kick:

[trof]

32. He said "I THINK it's an RNC site".

I "think" he's wrong.

[wndycty]

33. Well how hard will it be to make him and factcheck.org clarify. . .

. . .what he meant?

[trof]

34. Agree, needs to be done.

Can't get in to website just now.
Too many hits?

[wndycty]

35. Which one?

factcheck.org? You can e-mail them at: [e-mail] Can someone post this on Kos?

[trof]

36. factcheck. Thanks for e-mail addy.

[wndycty]

37. I assume there is so much traffic because. . .

. . .of that NBC report which will be running throughout the country and as I result I think it is very important that they address Gillespie's comments. . .can you imagine the damage this site could do if it is represented as being objective but really isn't?

[wndycty]

38. Kick

:kick: