Topic: Accuracy in Media
Shouldn't winners of awards from Accuracy in Media be proponents of, you know, accuracy in media? Apparently not: The winners of this year's Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award are Michelle Malkin and Mark M. Alexander.
Eric Boehlert has dutifully catalogued a representative list of Malkin's distortions and outright false claims. The columns for which Malkin won her AIM Award were described by AIM chairman Don Irvine as "reporting the facts about illegal immigration that the media typically leave out." Uh, not so much. They focus mostly on the alleged Aztlan "reconquista" concept, which Malkin does not prove exists beyond a fringe movement (not to mention largely promoted by white supremacists as a scare tactic).
Alexander, proprietor of the conservative website Patriot Post, won for a column attacking polls conducted by "Leftmedia television and print outlets" as "largely a reflection of MSM indoctrination -- and thus comports with a liberal viewpoint." But as we've noted, this conflicts with an AIM study that used opinion polls to prove liberal media bias -- which failed to factor in the untold millions of dollars spent over the past few decades by AIM and other conservative groups to promote the idea that liberal media bias exist.
So, AIM is giving Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Awards to one person famous for inaccuracy and another who contradicts AIM's own behavior. Way to go, AIM!
