Media Matters Suppresses the Truth on Partner Abuse
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 – Media Matters for America systematically suppressed information designed to assure a factual depiction of partner violence, according to RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting). Two hundred scholarly studies now show men and women are equally likely to engage in domestic violence.[i]
On Tuesday November 20, Media Matters posted an article on its website titled, “On Your World, Mark Rudov Falsely Claimed ‘Women are Equal-Opportunity Domestic Abusers.’”[ii] In support of its claim, Media Matters cited a 10-year-old survey that scientists say contains slanted questions, thus biasing the results.
Over the next four days Media Matters readers submitted 63 comments, 32 in support and 31 disagreeing with the original article. Many of the 31 posts cited specific research findings and provided links to the studies.
But Media Matters did not post any of the comments that provided a contrasting view of domestic violence, not even comments that highlighted research findings.
In response, RADAR issued an Alert on Monday, November 26 notifying people that Media Matters had prevented their readers from reading both sides of the discussion. Within hours of the Alert, Media Matters posted the 31 opposing comments. These developments were documented in detail in a subsequent RADAR Alert.
“It is outrageous that Media Matters, which presents itself as an objective media watchdog organization, covered-up key information in the critical area of domestic violence,” comments Elizabeth Crawford, director of the Domestic Violence Counseling Center in Charleston, W. Va. “As a result, abusive women are denied the help they need and victimized men are ignored.”
The May 2007 issue of the American Journal of Public Health featured a report by Centers for Disease Control researchers that concludes women are the sole perpetrator in 70% of cases where the other partner was non-violent.[iii]
And the recent November issue of the Illinois Bar Journal included a report that reveals false allegations of domestic violence are often used as a legal tactic in divorce actions.[iv] Each year more than one million restraining orders are issued that do not involve any allegation of physical violence.[v]
R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation’s approach to solving domestic violence. www.mediaradar.org.
[i] http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
[ii] http://mediamatters.org/items/200711210003
[iii] http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941
[iv] http://www.isba.org/IBJ/nov07lj/590%20Family%20Law.htm
[v] http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-Restraining-Orders.pdf
| More from Press Release
Stumble It!
December 6th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
..Good job mark at… RADAR
It’s good to see that my donations to your’e organization…. is paying for tangeable results!!
December 6th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
..Pardon my grammer challanges….
…I’m an Appelachian American…And English is my second language!!
December 6th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
“As a result, abusive women are denied the help they need and victimized men are ignored.” – Elizabeth Crawford
Isn’t it amazing how she starts off with ‘women needing help,’ and then mentions ‘victimized men.’ Typical. Women are diagnosed, men are demonized. I wouldn’t be fooled for a second into thinking this woman is on our side.
Women will always be seen as VICTIMS, whether they are victims or perpetrators. As long as we’re under Stalinist matriarchal rule, nothing will change.
December 6th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Oh PLEASE!!!
“comments Elizabeth Crawford, director of the Domestic Violence Counseling Center in Charleston, W. Va. “As a result, abusive women are denied the help they need culpability and victimized men are ignored accused.”
What we all need is MORE “Domestic Violence Counseling”, right Ms. Crawford?
I propose LESS “domestic” violence provisions.
Assault is assault. If a party want’s to procede, let criminal court prevail WITHOUT
“special considerations” for circumstantial evidence and hearsay!
Suddenly, perjury and contempt would actually mean something.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Divide and Conquer! It is the job of the Socialist to make us all into hyphenated Americans with special group rights, instead of humans equal before the law.
If they cannot take two-thirds of your salary, those in power will settle for one third in taxes and another third in fines. With ever more new laws to enforce and thus penalties to collect the Sozis don’t want to hear that one of their new laws actually exacerbates the problem it was created to ameliorate.
Women do not respect ineffectual men. Men do not hold in esteem women who bully them. Men react with violence when women act like men. American culture teaches women to despise their own femininity as weak and needing special protection. Is it any wonder that in such circumstances any person in the wrong would use such special provisions?
December 6th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
If perjury and contempt were meaningful, most of the Judges and Lawyers would be in jail.
In our society, we have to rely upon RADAR and the like, the Glenns and the Rinaldos and the Careys and the Davids, to bring the Truth to the front. Sure as Hell is place where polythene dogs give up all hope, our Institutions show contempt for Truth.
Well done RADAR for your consistent persistence.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:14 am
It is important that this Media Matters issue was documented because now it can be brought up in court, along with other outrages, to show that there is an engrained cultural misandry.
That is why I felt it necessary to document the McClatchy newspaper scandal of their publishing the same anti-male “Brokered Brides” article again on December 5th after that article had been complained about on November 11th for its blatant mistruths, one-sidedness and bias. Outrageously, despite knowing that they were interfering with a child custody case where the man could not speak to the media, the McClatchy Newspaper Corporation decided to print the ex-wife’s story despite the fact that she wasn’t allowed to talk to the press any more than the ex-husband was.
Documenting this stuff is critically important.
Supreme Court Justices Kennedy and Souter are prone to side with men on issues that are identified as “feminist overreach”, as can be seen from their votes in the Castle Rock decision of 2005 (woman sued the local police department for failing to arrest and permanently incarcerate an ex-husband for violating a restraining order). The conservative justices will vote on the side of men if a case is clearly defined as feminist overreach.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Keep in mind that, in the Castle Rock case above, the ex-husband had abducted and murdered all 3 daughters after not being arrested and incarcerated for violating a restraining order.
The Supreme Court still voted 7-2 to not hold the local Police Department responsible!
Justice Stevens and Bader-Ginsburg dissented saying “government is responsible to arrest people. That is why we pay taxes.”
What this tells me is that we can totally destroy feminism if even ONE of us would actually go to COURT with our grievances against feminism rather then endlessly post here at MND and other forums.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
jim..
“What this tells me is that we can totally destroy feminism if even ONE of us would actually go to COURT with our grievances against feminism rather then endlessly post here at MND and other forums. ”
..I don’t think we can destroy a cultural paradigm that has been carefully constructed by the best linguist’s of our time…overnight!!!
I believe lawsuits (not unlike the Duke lacrosse lawsuit)..Will just start to get so expensive, that it will trump all the feminist pork dollars. Then the tax payers will say …enough hysteria!!
December 7th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Jim Peterson said: “if even ONE of us would actually go to COURT”
That’s what I’ve been doing!!
Perhaps it takes more than ONE. Or perhaps fora like this could do a better job of supporting those who do go to court.
Thundering silence when my cases and Greg Amunrud’s cases were pending before the Supreme Court probably did not help.