3. Conservative Media Watch Organizations Alleging "Liberal Bias"
Fortunately, their OWN record on accuracy competes with the best works of fiction 

3.1 "Accuracy In Media (AIM)"

As one might expect, "Accuracy in Media" is notable for its lack of accuracy.

Here's an example listed by Terry Krepel at ConWebWatch:

Political Corrections, Part 3: The Perils of Insulting People
Reed Irvine is forced to apologize for trashing a journalist. Now, will he admit to lying about Al Gore?
By Terry Krepel

As screw-ups go, this was a big one.

In an action that pretty much screams "out-of-court settlement to avoid getting sued for libel," Accuracy in Media's Reed Irvine spent a good chunk of his June 27 column apologizing for AIM's trashing of a reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Apparently, the apology's appearance in Irvine's regular column was part of the deal as well, since it also appears on NewsMax.

Irvine, though, did what he could to bury the lead. He spends the first half of his column, titled "The Perils of Journalism," defending the principles behind the creation of AIM and some of its early accomplishments. It is not until the sixth paragraph that Irvine begins his mea culpa, which has its origins in an accusation that Inquirer reporter Jeffrey Fleishman fabricated a story on a Serb-conducted massacre in Kosovo in 1999, shortly before the U.S.-led NATO coalition began its bombing campaign against Serbia.

This is no mere "we regret the error" stuff (though Irvine does say exactly that at one point). It was a decidedly vicious attack. How vicious? Here, in Irvine's words, is what AIM is apologizing for:

Accuracy in Media retracts all of its assertions challenging the authenticity and credibility of Jeffrey Fleishman’s reporting in the Philadelphia Inquirer about fighting at Racak on January 17, 1999. Fleishman was in Racak. He reported the fighting at the time, as did other reporters. Our description of his reporting as "pure fiction" and "imaginative writing" was unfounded, and we should not have compared him to Janet Cooke. It was unfair of AIM to publish assertions about Jeffrey Fleishman’s reporting without first making an attempt to contact him.

Krepel at ConWebWatch has covered AIM quite a bit. This link provides a list of posts at ConWebWatch relating to AIM, many of which show examples of AIM passing off so-called "facts" that unsurprisingly turn out to be non-facts or misleading statements. 

Brock (page 77) has a couple of examples:

AIM's research was sloppy; its reporting was phony; and its facts, when checked, were shown to be flat wrong. In AIM's campaign to discredit New York Times correspondent Raymond Bonner, [founder Reed] Irvine, citing two unnamed sources, charged that Bonner had been affiliated with two left-of-center organizations: the Institute for Policy Studies and Pacifica News Service. The Times investigated and reported that Irvine was wrong on both counts. Targeting the Washington Post's Karen DeYoung, Irvine reported a rumor that she had stepped out of her role as Central America reporter and hand-carried a diplomatic letter to Maurice Bishop, the Marxist prime minister of Grenada. DeYoung had not carried the letter and told Irvine so before he published the false item.⁶
...During the Clinton era, he vigorously promoted crackpot theories suggesting the death of White House lawyer Vincent Foster was something other than suicide. 

Via SourceWatch, I came across this Kuro5hin post on AIM:

AIM was founded in 1969 by Reed Irvine, who was an economist with the US Federal Reserve Board at the time. An essential glimpse into AIM's history is provided by a well-researched Group Watch report published in 1989, brought to us courtesy of The Public Eye.

The report states that in its early history in the mid-1970s, AIM amounted to little more than Reed Irvine and then-Executive Secretary Abraham Kalish attempting to call attention to themselves. They sent letters to numerous newspaper editors that espoused their "cause" of fairness, accuracy, and balance in media reports. If the newspaper failed to publish their letters, Irvine and Kalish would purchase space in the offending paper and print their letters in that slot. By 1975, AIM was able to purchase stock in major media outlets, which allowed them to attend shareholder meetings and promote their "cause" there also.

In this article, then-Communications director Bernard Yoh is quoted as saying of AIM, "people erroneously call us conservative and right-wing. It really makes me sad because we try very hard to do everything evenhandedly." Unfortunately, AIM is worse than that. It is not only a right-wing and "conservative" organ, but it also claims to be your one-stop source for "accuracy" and bias-corrected information. This is different from say, claiming to espouse "traditional", "patriotic", or "American" viewpoints. This is a serious case of grand deception.

On AIM's numerous right-wing ties, a direct quote from the article is most appropriate:

AIM has intimate ties with many conservative causes. As an example, AIM heads the list of groups attending the 1986 Conservative Political Action Conference. The group also has a predisposition to attack journalists that write about and seem sympathetic to leftist and even centrist movements. AIM has a record of supporting Nicaraguan contra leaders such as Jose Francisco Cardenal. AIM also supports the Committee for a Free Afghanistan, a U. S. group that has backed the Afghan rebels beginning in 1981.

AIM, and Reed Irvine in particular, has all the essential attributes of the militant right wing. AIM delivers its gospel of "accuracy" to the heathen through a daily radio commentary, a newspaper column, and a bi-monthly newsletter, as well as various other conduits. A few selected gems from AIM's colourful history reveal them to be an entourage of lunatics whose sanity some might be inclined to bring into question:

• Attacking the "blatantly pro-Communist propaganda" of PBS (public television network). (Link)

• In AIM's first year, Irvine stated that Students For a Democratic Society, the Progressive Labor Party, and a number of other organisations should be charged with sedition in light of the Vietnam War. "If you're going to halt treason, you've got to do it while it's small," Irvine explained to the Village Voice in 1968. (Link)

• In 1982, AIM successfully instigated the firing of Raymond Bonner from the New York Times for reporting the massacre of civilians by American-trained soldiers at the village of El Mozote in El Salvador.

• Irvine encouraged the use of napalm against Salvadoran gorillas in AIM Reports such as this one.

• Irvine also encouraged the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq during the Persian Gulf crisis.

• In an odd departure from the mainstream conservative line about the Kosovo intervention of 1999, Irvine slandered a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter for allegedly inventing the story about a 1999 Serb-led massacre in Kosovo. This is very strange, since the establishment is generally quite interested in implicating the Serbs and exaggerating the dimensions and unilateralism of their atrocities against the Kosovar Albanians. In addition, the massacre in question occured before the NATO bombing campaign began, thus making it even a more precious ideological gem for the militant right since claims that NATO bombing precipitated the process can be deflected. 
  But not Irvine. His reasoning was simple - Clinton used this made-up massacre as a part of his justification for the NATO bombing campaign. Apparently Clinton-hating was more important than being consistent or even rational in respect to the party line. Fortunately, Irvine was forced to write a retraction, eventually. Though, it's very funny retraction, considering the retraction itself is buried beneath a wealth of irrelevant nonsense.

• At CBS shareholder meetings, Irvine frequently denounced Walter Cronkite as a Soviet pawn. At a 1986 meeting, Irvine requested that Cronkite be removed from the CBS board of directors for his [alleged] support of unilateral disarmament.

Or, in short, AIM does not seem to be concerned with attacking sources of "media bias" nearly as much as drowning any voices it finds ideologically objectionable in a sea of abuse and calls for censorship.

Peter Hart and Steve Rendall of FAIR wrote this in 1998 about AIM:

Accuracy In Media

Accuracy in Media (AIM), launched in 1969, is closely associated with founder Reed Irvine. In AIM's first year, Irvine advocated that Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers and the Progressive Labor Party be charged with sedition during the Vietnam War. "If you're going to halt treason, you've got to do it while it's small," Irvine said at the time (Village Voice, 1/21/86).

Much of AIM's work is dedicated to getting those they disagree with fired. In 1982, AIM engaged in a campaign against Raymond Bonner of the New York Times, criticizing the Central America correspondent for reporting that U.S.-trained troops had massacred civilians at the Salvadoran village of El Mozote. AIM and its media allies (notably the Wall Street Journal editorial page) were successful in getting Bonner removed from his beat; years later, U.N. excavations at the site confirmed his story (Extra!, 1-2/93).

This censorious attitude is linked to the group's disdain for the First Amendment: AIM used to offer as a premium the book Target America, by AIM board member James L. Tyson, which proposed that mandatory government "ombudsmen" be placed at each of the major networks to ensure "accuracy" and "fairness" when dealing with "large, difficult questions."

AIM has frequently criticized media coverage of its corporate backers (for example, oil and chemical interests), but much of Irvine's advocacy has little or nothing to do with media. In the 1990s, he urged the use of napalm against Salvadoran guerrillas (AIM Report, 3/90), as well as encouraging the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq during the Persian Gulf crisis (Seattle Times, 1/16/91).

In recent years, exposing alleged Clinton conspiracies (and Republican complicity in the plots) has been the major focus of AIM's work, including the conclusion that independent counsel Kenneth Starr has suppressed evidence in the Vince Foster case. Dismissing Hillary Rodham Clinton's charges of a right-wing conspiracy, Irvine retorted (AIM Report, 2/98) that "the only conspiracy I knew of was the conspiracy of the Republican leadership to protect Bill Clinton."

I think that is more than reasonable evidence indicating that AIM's credibility is close to non-existent.