A July 20 CNSNews.com article by Matt Cover is a thinly disguised "BiasAlert" from its parent, the Media Reserach Center, a lengthy rebuttal to Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen, whom Cover claims "made several inaccurate statements about the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act during a news conference."
Cover stretches things to declare Van Hollen wrong, however. For instance, Cover's rebuttal to Van Hollen's statement that "you need a two-thirds vote to cut an oil and gas subsidy for the purpose of reducing the deficit" is that "The legislation does not specify whether ending certain tax expenditures would constitute a tax increase."
But haven't conservatives regularly portrayed ending tax subsidies as a tax increases? Yes, they have: An April 27 CNS article by Fred Lucas quotes a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner that a proposal by President Obama to cut oil and gas industry subsidies "would simply raise taxes and increase the price at the pump."
The article comes off as more an oppo-research hit piece rather than a "news" article. How does that sit with the MRC's nonprofit tax status?