When a poll comes out that Media Matters doesn't like, how do they discredit the coverage? They lie.

Media Matters, the website devoted to "accuracy" and headed by self-admitted liar David Brock, has jumped on Fox & Friends for reporting on a poll they have decreed to be "dubious":

[Judge Andrew] Napolitano cited a study by HCD Research/Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion, which was conducted online and surveyed a sample of just 371 non-party-affiliated voters...

It was generous of Media Matters to include a link to the study itself; it was also stupid. Because the links prove that Brock's gang of media watchdogs are playing fast and loose with the facts.

Here's what the survey itself says:

A total of 371 independent voters participated in the test.

So Media Matters told the truth about the sample size? Well...no. Here's the rest of the paragraph that Brock's boys did not want to you know about:

Important: The sample was recruited primarily by Independent (No Party) affiliation status. However, respondents were asked their likelihood to vote for a particular candidate only after agreeing to participate in the survey. The total sample included 1275 voters.

Media Matters actually mentions this figure of 1,275 voters. Unfortunately, they cite it as being false!

(the New York Post, which published an article about the study the same morning, incorrectly reported a sample size of 1,275 participants).

No, David, the 1,275 figure reported by the Post comes right out of the study itself. Perhaps Brock was alleging that the New York Post wrongly set the independent voter sample at 1,275. Well, what does the Post article say?:

The Swift Vets study used 1,275 participants, including 371 independents...

So Brock's website just flat-out lied about the New York Post's report, which precisely restates what the study itself says. Brock's brigade then tries to impugn the validity of the poll:

But the particular questions gauging the reactions of those supporting Kerry drew from a subset of only 62 people -- those who were "definitely," "most likely," or "leaning towards voting for John Kerry."

Of course seeking independent voters rather than Kerry supporters was the whole point of the study, though Brock's dishonest website conveniently left that out. In any group of 1,275 the numbers get smaller as you refine the categories they fit in. You could make the "subset" even smaller by defining a particular age group, income level, or whether they are left-handed. That doesn't make the study "dubious". It's a known and recognized factor in statistical analysis.

What Brock's boys do is lie about the sample size not being 1,275 people, use a reductio ad absurdum to make it look even smaller, and then blast Fox & Friends and the New York Post for accurate reporting. Apparently the only reports that would pass muster with Media Matters are the ones that lie--as Media Matters did.