Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Left Gears Up to Fight Media Wars
From a glitzy new office in downtown Washington, the ideological war over the media is fully engaged.
Six years after its founding to counter what it said was "conservative misinformation," Media Matters for America employs a staff of 70 that spends 19 hours a day monitoring newspapers, magazines, broadcast and cable television, talk radio, and the Internet to counter reporting or commentary it deems to be inaccurate or biased.
Lou Dobbs recently described the group as part of "the vast left wing conspiracy," an ironic twist on Hillary Clinton's famous description of the conservative infrastructure arrayed against her husband when he was president and fighting off attempts to impeach him.
In fact, just a few miles away and across the Potomac, in Alexandria, Va., one of the groups Clinton was talking about, the Media Research Center, founded in 1987 by L. Bent Brozell III, is engaged in a longer-running attack on the media from the right.
Shortly after launching Media Matters, founder David Brock said he hoped his group would some day be as influential as Bozell's, and that day appears to have arrived. They have roughly the same budget ($10 million) and staff, and are equally adept at provoking the other side.
The MRC, as a rule, doesn't comment on Media Matters. Conservative publisher Andrew Breitbart, though, has no such rule.. "I'm 100 percent at war with those people," he recently told POLITICO.
One of the bloodiest battles in that war occurred last fall, when Kevin Jennings, an openly-gay educator hired by the Department of Education to run an anti-bullying campaign, became a conservative cause.
Jennings was under fire from critics because he once described how as, a 24-year-old teacher, he counseled a student having a sexual relationship with an "older man." Several conservative outlets and commentators said that by law Jennings had to report the incident, claiming the student was only 15 years old at the time, and the relationship thus constituted statutory rape.
Media Matters obtained the student's driver's license and proved he was 16 at the time, the age of consent in Massachusetts. While some may still question Jennings' judgment, he didn't break any law.
"This should put to rest claims made by Fox News and other conservatives that Jennings covered up 'statutory rape' or 'molestation,'" wrote Media Matters senior fellow Karl Frisch. "To continue reporting such reckless speculation is at best willful disregard for the facts and at worst journalistic malpractice."
The battle over Jennings convinced Media Matters that it needed to not only monitor other media but to do its own original reporting. On Monday, Joe Strupp, who covered the press for 11 years with Editor & Publisher magazine, will launch a new media blog after signing on as the group's first investigative reporter.
Joining a partisan organization is a change for Strupp, given that his press coverage with E&P, or in appearances on "Fox News Watch," was solidly non-partisan. However, Media Matters, he says, didn't ask about his political beliefs when it hired him, and his goal remains to do "straight-ahead reporting." Still, Strupp acknowledges that he represents a "new sort of wing for their organization."
Ari Rabin-Havt, vice president for research and communication at Media Matters, confirms that ideology was not discussed before he was hired. But don't expect Strupp to be investigating "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" or Talking Points Memo.
More likely, he'll focus on programs and outlets on the other side ideologically from Media Matters, or on hot-button issues the organization is interested in. "Joe knows where we're coming from," Rabin-Havt said.
"We never change the truth in what we're covering," Rabin-Havt said. "We do make choices here on what to cover. Every newspaper has editors that make choices about what they care about, which is why Fox News has very different stories than CNN, even in their daytime coverage."
So while Media Matters may increasingly hire journalists with more traditional news backgrounds, the reporting and writing still fits in with the organization's goals. Unlike a newspaper, Media Matters is not in the business of selling advertising, subscriptions or competing on a variety of beats. It also has a clear political agenda.
For instance, Media Matters hired Will Bunch, a veteran Philadelphia Daily News reporter and blogger, as a senior fellow last month. Bunch plans on remaining at the Daily News while also working on a book that seems well-suited for the Media Matters audience: "The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, Hi-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama."
Media Matters was launched with about $2 million in seed money from wealthy liberal donors who shared Brock's vision of combating what he called in a book "The Republican Noise Machine."
Assistance also came from the John Podesta-led Center for American Progress, a liberal policy and advocacy organization which includes billionaire George Soros as a major backer. The National Democratic Network, a think tank and advocacy organization, and progressive activist organization MoveOn.org, have also helped fund Media Matters. The New York Observer reported in December that last year it "received grants of at least $100,000 from more than a dozen foundations."
While Media Matters president Eric Burns and senior fellow Eric Boehlert are more visible presences on cable news and talk radio, founder David Brock remains chief executive and a major presence in the organization.
He plays a key role in strategy and fundraising, which supports the entire non-profit apparatus, and is typically at the office each day. "He guides us, gives vision," Rabin-Havt said.
That Brock has anything to do with the organization at all is more than a little ironic given his own role as part of the right-wing conspiracy. Two of Brock's notable contributions were his book "The Real Anita Hill," and a 1994 American Spectator article that spawned "Troopergate," leading to allegations that Bill Clinton, while Governor of Arkansas, used state troopers to arrange liaisons with women.
Brock later confessed that much of the Anita Hill book was false, apologized to the Clintons for the Troopergate article, broke with the right officially in a 1997 Esquire piece, and four years later explained his conversion in greater detail with his memoir, "Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative."
At the time Brock started Media Matters, the main counter to conservative media groups such as MRC and the even more established Accuracy in Media, founded in 1969, was Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a liberal watchdog group that launched in 1986 to target media bias and censorship. While FAIR offers some analysis online each day, it doesn't do so as comprehensively as the better-funded Media Matters, which has researchers posting clips of video and audio throughout the day along with frequently updated online content.
For the working reporters who are targets of Media Matters as much as they come under fire from conservative talkers Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, scrutiny from the Left is just as meddlesome as scrutiny from the Right, particularly when the group fixates on a single word in an article, which could be the result of newsroom haste or simple carelessness rather than any greater conservative conspiracy.
For instance, in a blog item last week entitled: "New York Times, please define ‘splits,'" Boehert took issue with a Times headline that said the GOP "splits" over Senator Jim Bunning's recent attempt to block an extension of unemployment benefits.
"But has the GOP really split?" he wrote. "In fact, couldn't the argument be made that the real news is that the GOP hasn't split, and that very few GOP voices are complaining about Bunning's increasingly odd behavior?"
Rabin-Havt, who like other Media Matters executives, arrived at the organization after working for a number of groups affiliated with liberal advocacy and the Democratic Party, said he thinks Media Matters has been somewhat misunderstood by mainstream reporters.
"The culture here, in this office, and I think reporters would be surprised by this, isn't one of sniping or disrespect towards the media," Rabin Havt said, adding that "being a reporter is such an incredibly honored profession, and plays such a role in our society and our debate, and we want people to do the best job they can."



21 Comments so far
Show AllThis is a WONDERFUL thing BUT...won't "The Choir" be the only ones reading this? We know how programmed the Right is and how their minds are sealed shut with SUPER Super Glue. Does this have any chance of doing any good as far as opening minds? What do you folks, think?
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
Yeah, they help. Their reports occasionally get cited in the MSM before this or that corporatist gatekeeper realizes who they are and shuts them down. They are more frequently quoted on indie and alt radio news and because of the overwhelming dominance of the corporatist-right press in breaking major stories even many of us in the true Left would not catch all the deliberate lies, omissions, spin and distortions without regularly listening to media reports by Media Matters and FAIR. We need a dozen or more groups like Media Matters and they should be scrutinizing local and State network affiliate reports as well as national news.
Media matters does serve a purpose, to keep in check the Right's mistatements, but what dissappoints me is they are quiet when Democrats (including right leaning Democrats) do the same thing (although I know that isn't their mission). Thus, it is so pro-Democrat, I've stopped visiting the site.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
There are a multiplicity of pro-right think tanks, far more biased right-wing media "watchdog groups," McNews networks, pundits and AM rant radio blatherers critiquing the media for liberal bias than there are groups like Media Matters. If anything there should be a dozen more leftish groups criticizing right-wing bias in the McNews. Also, Media Matters criticizes faulty coverage of right-wing Democrats as well because many in the DLC controlled Democratic Party are as right-wing as their Republican colleagues in the Congress and White House and in State level legislatures.
The very fact that the terms left and right are even used any more is just silly and anachronistic.
The 'left' has been defined by the 'right'. And vice versa.
Most people believe that democrats are leftists and republicans are the right. Why even use the terminology.
What passes for the left and progressive these days is....i am not sure. I think it has come to mean that you aren't an out and out racist and you don't condemn homosexuals.
Everyone else is on the 'right'.
The lack of historical knowledge and context is just too absurd and sophomoric. Well. We get what we deserve, i suppose. Everyone is a teenager now.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
"The very fact that the terms left and right are even used any more is just silly and anachronistic."
Only if you are a right-winger outside the Democratic Party or a right-winger inside it. It's the intellectual, moral and political laziness of too many people like you who let the right co-opt and redefine the "mainstream" left for 30 years that helped create the political landscape you now whine & sigh about.
Hmmmmm......
Thirty years. Perhaps longer than many have even been alive? :-)
I agree that branding the ideologies of a few rich people **right/left** is mainly a way of covering up the much more important **rich/poor divide** in political opinion.
Luckily, the author provides a list of backers of this "alternative" news site, just in case you're wondering if it is a "rich" or the "poor"-oriented information-distribution source.
**wealthy liberal donors who shared Brock's vision
**the John Podesta-led Center for American Progress, a liberal policy and advocacy organization
**billionaire George Soros
**The National Democratic Network, a think tank and advocacy organization
**progressive activist organization MoveOn.org
**grants of at least $100,000 from more than a dozen foundations
Looking at this list - it looks like yet another partisan organization funded by a handful of rich people that's been branded with hope-and-change memes.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
We need well funded groups like this in every State scrutinizing State and local reporting as well as national reporting and punditry. California and New York need several each.
It's been a long time coming, but their hiring or former right wingers and possible Zionists can produce the same uncertainty as Obama's hiring of Geithner, Summers and Emmanuel. On the one hand, these hires know the enemy. On the other hand it gives pause. But if Soros is behind them, it bodes well (if he's not a Zionist).
It's a serious mistake in these times of extreme economic hardship to continue elevating gay issues. Under the current economic circumstances where so many lives are negatively effected gay issues should take a back seat. To do otherwise is to invite contempt from the straight population whose lives are being ruined daily in very large numbers. It also strengthens radical conservatives and their constituents. It doesn't make sense to enable radical conservatism at this time with gay issues. Gay comments otherwise in today's circumstances should be seen as extreme.
While gay issues may not be what will move the most people to action at this time, we should not throw gays "under the bus" in the name of expediency. That's the type of thing political opportunists do. It becomes a habit of mind.
While I agree we should focus on economic survival issues, we need to show some integrity about human rights. If a person is being vilified or deprived of work or freedom because he or she is gay, then they deserve our support on that issue.
Many families have the gay uncle or lesbian cousin, co-worker or friend. I think that we might be surprised at the affection and acceptance that many otherwise traditional people show toward gay folks on a personal level, even when it is in contradiction to what their pastors, rabbis, priests, imams preach. Already the majority of people support civil unions for gay people. Why should we lag behind? We need to explain the difference between gay people and pederasts and support gay families in their desire to adopt children who might otherwise live in unstable situations.
We should build on the best in people and not let ourselves become divided.
Joe
I couldn't disagree more.
Only a degraded, amoral political calculus based on the pragmatism of expediency seeks to suppress and avoid human rights issues as you advocate.
"Gay rights" are human rights. Those who condone a status quo of intolerance and oppression, either because of simple homophobia or a rationalized conviction that "gay rights" are too inconveniently icky to promote, have no claim to the moral high ground.
Apart from being simply wrongheaded on its face, this argument also suffers from a perverse rationale in which sexual orientation and identity-- and the concomitant freedom to fearlessly express it-- is abstracted and reduced to mere preferences or affectations.
To note an absence of empathy in this perspective is an understatement. It's like looking at the landscape through the wrong end of a telescope, so that instead of magnifying objects, everything becomes tiny and seemingly clear, but with freakishly distorted details.
It's supercilious and patronizing to trivialize "the gay" into the equivalent of a perhaps worthy cause or mission, in its own way-- like cleaning out those closets and giving lots of good clothes to Goodwill. Or perhaps elective surgery, desirable but not urgent. To those concerned with The Bigger Picture... not a priority.
Sorry, it's offensive and frankly outrageous to suggest that gay Amerikans should "take one for the team" and cep their mouf shut until righteous (and straight) lefties can work their little problems into the agenda.
Gay issues are kept in the public eye for the same reason that celebrity glitz is: it distracts attention from all those rich people ripping everyone else off.
Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods and Gay Marriage are all trivial issues that get a thousand times more media attention than they deserve.
This doesn't mean I'm against either gay marriage or marital fidelity among celebrity athletes. I just like my newspapers to be filled with news.
I completely support people's freedom to have consensual sex with whomever they choose. I also support anti-discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Gay marriage is a seperate issue. I view the entire concept of state sanctioned marriage with contempt. I do not support expanding the concept of marriage; in fact, I think that there should be no state guarenteed benefits to the married at all.
Gay marriage is an incredibly divisive issue and support of gay marriage has become another in a long and tired list of liberal litmus tests.
I have several "liberal" gay friends who work themselves up into a moralistic lather on this issue while supporting Obama's Afghan policy and not caring at all about labor issues or other issues of economic justice.
I would like someone to find and demolish the word mill where the "phrase du jour" is manufactured for the airhead broadcasters on TV.
Joe
>>>>> L. Bent Brozell III
A more fitting appellation :-)
That it took what passes for the left in the USA so long to establish doppelganger organizations to fight their conservative equivalents long after their opponents had been muddying the media waters unchallenged is disturbing and pathetic. Furthermore, it is incumbent upon such organizations such as Media Matters to move beyond the funding model they, like their opponents use, "angel donors" like George Soros & Andrew Mellon Scaife.
-
Moreover . . .
Media Matters Blog, March 8, included a perfect example of prevalent rightwingy perversion of knowledge, (facts, reason, and sanity), the sort of bad temper and irrational rage that young and prospective voters are dispirited by, in not becoming politically active and growing into governance. The sort of thing Media Matters exposes and exhausts to defeat.
In this 'prominent' Red State screed, leftism is mischaracterized as imperiously violent murderous war-mongering, and rightism is falsely set forth as angelic, patiently long-suffering.
This item is a fine introduction to the Limbaughtic lunacy loose in the realm and the way it is arrested, for whoever is going to discover Media Matters for their first time:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003080001
Red State's Erickson: "It is and has always been the left" who resorts to violence
My comment on the page, (3:36 pm),
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003080001#763363
perhaps is of interest to some here asking what's the difference between 'leftism' and 'rightism,' or saying they see no difference, whereas there I explain the difference as I understand it. (Pull quote: "... right-brain thinking is political leftism, (inductive logic, where the sense of 'group' comes from), and left-brain thinking is political rightism, (reductive logic, deducing 'self' in the sensorium universe); so everybody is both a leftist and a rightist ....")