I do not have time for this:
I'll stop quoting you right here. This side discussion began with my ROLL ON THE FLOOR LAUGH OUT LOUD response to what Ishmael said about Media Matters:
I'll just leave here with 2 links. The first relates to the claim that Media Matters is itself unbiased:

Taking Media Matters Down a Peg.

The second link relates to George Soros, whom one might think was a swell guy, from some of your sarcastic comments above:

The Soros Monitor.

Just following verbatim quotes this man himself has stated in the past should make one sick, let alone following his actions and involvement in many ugly matters.

Fire away. I've had enough here.

I'll check those links out and I will agree with you that Media Matters is definitely not unbiased - they don't even make that claim. But I'd like you to concede, if possible, that Horowitz and his Networks site aren't particularly interested in the truth of matters. That one compare and contrast, and there are more I could make, from his article on Media Matters really points it up. He uses about the same amount of words to translate his bias as the source material did in its entirety. Not someone I'd be handing blank checks too, personally.

It's fine you don't have enough time. I actually get that. Often when folks get past name calling or broad accusations and into the facts there end up being alot of facts. And then facts get fuzzy. At the end of it all, whether anyone's opinion has changed or not, both sides end up sorting through piles of quotes and links and whatnot. Usually, though not always, one person or the other gives up not because they've won or lost an argument but because it's just taking too long to go through everything.

To tell the truth, a great deal of what I was going to sort through ended up getting cut from my post because I realized just how long all that would take. I ended up trying to convey the spirit of my position through isolated examples rather than laundry lists. Some of the people I least like debating use this as a deliberate tactic. They hope the sheer tonnage of their cut and pasts and google-fu will just force anyone they're debating with to just wander off and find something more constructive to do with their time.

Edit: First impressions of the "Jawa Report" article on "Media Matters" is that calling Keith Olbermann "Keith Olbernut" implies a good deal of partiality and then attacking his work while linking to another conservative site for commentary rather than the original transcript is also a disingenous tactic. I think this guy is primarily interested in preaching to his choir, much like David Brock is for his, rather than offering us useful information. I could go into a more detailed critique of the actual claims and see where he's got a point and where he doesn't but there is that time factor again. Up to you. Did get an extra chuckle from seeing Byron York described as an investigative journalist, for the seriously corrupt American Spectator and back before he was an editorialist and pundit, and CNS treated as a straight news outlet without qualification.

Edit1a: After going to the "Hot Air" site, aptly named it seems, we find a fellow disputing Olbermann's claims that high-capacity clips were covered by a 1994 weapons ban that Bush and the Republican Congress allowed to lapse by...linking to a blog. The blog? Links to nothing. How do I take that at face value?

Edit2: SorosMonitor seems to be another Horowitz outlet at first blush but I can't track the funding. It does link to "Americans for A Drug Free America" which is clearly somebody's tool for going after Democrats. I find these sources to be highly suspicious. I did try to track down the "60 Minutes" transcript they quote from but had no luck. It's definitely out there though as I've seen multiple references to it from different sources. What I can't find is a non-ideological view of Soros. Liberals seem determined to back him but it's clear he's got some odd moral positions, at least by my reckoning, cedeing as he does his own culpability in some of his shady-seeming market operations by saying if it wasn't him someone else would be doing it. I do think the right is going after him, big time, because he's funding things they don't like and it's pretty cheap going after a Jewish survivor of the Nazi occupation of his homeland like they do. The kid was 14 years old and the only way he could survive was by trying to blend in with the people protecting him.

I end up with the impression of a very complicated person. He rabidly funds anti-communist groups in Europe and is credited with helping end communism there and also he turns around and backs progressive groups in America and organizations devoted to aiding the developing world. Much of what he has to say about Bush seems quite appropriate. On the other hand, playing dirty pool with monetary speculation and bringing serious misery to alot of people because of it just contrasts very sharply. I will say I don't know what to make of him. But I'm fairly certain I know why the conservative deep pockets are funding all these attacks and it's not because he's a canny capitalist.

Someone else here did and that was my main point.
Sorry, I disagree with your conclusion on Horowitz and the articles already linked to. Too boring for me to go into a tedious sentence by sentence rebuttal on this, as you understood.