So. in 2004. we're coming full circle — and now we get Brock's lively new site.

It makes no bones about it: it goes after Rush Limbuagh, Fox News, conservative websites such as World Net Daily, and writers such as Ann Coulter on specific items involving accuracy. And if you read it to genuinely see what it has to say, it does score some points on inaccurate info not only being repeated by being repeated repeatedly (most listeners do not do a Google search to confirm accuracy).

Its most shocking item: a guest on Fox's Hannity and Colmes who said of the torture of Iraqi prisoners that "frat hazing is worse than this. " Media Matters correctly points to detailed press reports detailng what went on...which was a tiny bit different than hazing.

Indeed, if the soldiers were merely behaving like college kids in a fraternity, then someone ought to immediately email a very irate Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez , commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

This morning it was announced that he ordered the most severe level of administrative reprimand for the seven U.S. soldiers invovled in the photographed abuse of Iraqi prisoners. (Sanchez obviously never lived in a fraternity....). And someone also ought to tell top conservative bloggers such as Citizen Smash and John Cole who have been at the forefront in eloquently condemning these not-typical abuses.

So there IS a need for groups on the left and right that monitor the media and point out inaccuracies that listeners will accept as fact — but these media monitoring groups on the right and left do have political anchors, otherwise known as an "agendas."

If you really care about media accuracy, and want to learn more about it, then you should read materials from media watchdog groups on BOTH sides. Then YOU decide......