Is the White House manipulating the media through Media Matters?

posted at 9:15 am on February 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The Daily Caller has a multipart exposé on David Brock and Media Matters which will surprise … well, probably no one who reads this site.  Speaking with former and current employees, Tucker Carlson, Vince Coglianese, Alex Pappas, and Will Rahn paint a picture of Brock as paranoid and out of control, but still supremely effective at getting his message out through the mainstream media:

Extensive interviews with a number of Brock’s current and former colleagues at Media Matters, as well as with leaders from across the spectrum of Democratic politics, reveal an organization roiled by its leader’s volatile and erratic behavior and struggles with mental illness, and an office where Brock’s executive assistant carried a handgun to public events in order to defend his boss from unseen threats.

Yet those same interviews, as well as a detailed organizational planning memo obtained by The Daily Caller, also suggest that Media Matters has to a great extent achieved its central goal of influencing the national media.

Well, in the interests of full disclosure, I often carry a handgun to public events  — where it is legal to do so — thanks to threats that turned out to be real enough to prosecute.  Then again, I’m not funded by gun-grabbers like George Soros, either.  Given the personal attacks that Media Matters is given to making, I have no doubt that at least a few of their threats are not “unseen” as in “unreal,” but it’s more than a little hypocritical to carry around a concealed weapon (presumably illegally, especially in Washington DC) while supporting tougher gun-control regulations.

The DC has plenty of juicy and salacious anecdotes about Brock, but the real story is how successful Brock has become in shaping the narrative of the national media.  MSNBC is a given, but it’s also become a hard-Left backwater.  Media Matters has done better than MSNBC in setting the table:

But MSNBC executives weren’t the only ones talking regularly to Media Matters.

“The entire progressive blogosphere picked up our stuff,” says a Media Matters source, “from Daily Kos to Salon. Greg Sargent [of the Washington Post] will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff.”

“If you can’t get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent’s always game,” agreed another source with firsthand knowledge.

Reached by phone, Sargent declined to comment.

“The HuffPo guys were good, Sam Stein and Nico [Pitney],” remembered one former staffer. “The people at Huffington Post were always eager to cooperate, which is no surprise given David’s long history with Arianna [Huffington].”

“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff,” the staffer continued. “So did Joe Garofoli at the San Francisco Chronicle. We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post]. Brian Stelter at the New York Times was helpful.”

“Ben Smith [formerly of Politico, now at BuzzFeed.com] will take stories and write what you want him to write,” explained the former employee, whose account was confirmed by other sources. Staffers at Media Matters “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith, they knew they could dump it at Plum Line [Greg Sargent’s Washington Post blog], so that’s where they sent it.”

Smith, who refused to comment on the substance of these claims, later took to Twitter to say that he has been critical of Media Matters.

However, their real success has been accessing the halls of power, especially the Obama White House:

A group with the ability to shape news coverage is of incalculable value to the politicians it supports, so it’s no surprise that Media Matters has been in regular contact with political operatives in the Obama administration. According to visitor logs, on June 16, 2010, Brock and then-Media Matters president Eric Burns traveled to the White House for a meeting with Valerie Jarrett, arguably the president’s closest adviser. Recently departed Obama communications director Anita Dunn returned to the White House for the meeting as well.

It’s not clear what the four spoke about — no one in the meeting returned repeated calls for comment — but the apparent coordination continued. “Anita Dunn became a regular presence at the office,” says someone who worked there. Then-president of Media Matters, Eric Burns, “lunched with her, met with her and chatted with her frequently on any number of matters.”

Media Matters also began a weekly strategy call with the White House, which continues, joined by the liberal Center for American Progress think tank. Jen Psaki, Obama’s deputy communications director, was a frequent participant before she left for the private sector in October 2011.

Every Tuesday evening, meanwhile, a representative from Media Matters attends the Common Purpose Project meeting at the Capitol Hilton on 16th Street in Washington, where dozens of progressive organizations formulate strategy, often with a representative from the Obama White House.

The actual story here might be the reverse of how Carlson et al frame it here.  This sounds as though the White House uses Brock and Media Matters to conduct a proxy war against its perceived enemies in the news media and to push its propaganda out through the MSM.  The DC’s descriptions of attacks on reporters and media outlets who don’t fall in line would make MMFA a very valuable pitbull for Jarrett and Obama, and one with some plausible deniability, at least until now.  This should really be the screaming red flag in the article, rather than some of the salacious tidbits about Brock.

Interestingly, just a few days ago someone else connected the White House to Media Matters, along with a warning that their relationship could cost Obama the next election.  The name of that right-wing nut?  Alan Dershowitz:

Much more newsworthy than the silly spitballs Blumenthal threw with his screaming article was Dershowitz’s conviction that Blumenthal and his buddies at Media Matters (a media watchdog organization affiliated with the Democratic party and which has recently been widely accused of engaging in anti-Semitism) were going to cost this president the election.

Asked at the pre-event press conference whether he had seen Blumenthal’s article, Dershowitz’s immediate and angry response was: “I have, and let me tell you, Max Blumenthal and Media Matters will be singlehandedly responsible for [Obama] losing this election.  They [the Democrats] cannot win the election and keep this affiliation with them [Media Matters].”

When shown this statement, all Blumenthal could muster (via Twitter) was that “I haven’t been at mmfa [Media Matters] since 2007.”  It was pointed out that Blumenthal’s then-current Facebook page listed him as working for the “progressive organization Media Matters for America.”  Blumenthal did not respond, but he has since altered his Facebook page so that only those “lucky” enough to be his FB friends can see it (although you can still look at the dozens of pictures he posts of himself there).

Dershowitz could be wrong, though.  It might be that the only thing keeping Obama competitive for a re-election bid is Media Matters.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

They would have done better not to include the parts about mental illness. Now its sounds more like a hit piece.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 9:17 AM

“State run media” is not just rhetoric, no matter how much some people would like it to be.

Doomberg on February 13, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Of course the WH is manipulating the media – what a silly question.

disa on February 13, 2012 at 9:19 AM

So much for a free and independent press….

Sorry, President Madison.

ted c on February 13, 2012 at 9:20 AM

We need a cool name for this fake scandal. Where’s crr6 when you need her?

/

Lost in Jersey on February 13, 2012 at 9:21 AM

This sounds as though the White House uses Brock and Media Matters to conduct a proxy war against its perceived enemies in the news media and to push its propaganda out through the MSM.

is this Son of JournoList?

ted c on February 13, 2012 at 9:21 AM

When will Congress investigate this illegal conduct. It is unlawful to intentionally interfer with contractual relationships. Does anyone know how the right to free speach interacts with intentionally interferring with someone’s contractual relationship with sponsors?

RedSoxNation on February 13, 2012 at 9:21 AM

the only thing keeping Obama competitive for a re-election bid is Media Matters.

That, and the incompetence of the Republican field.

notropis on February 13, 2012 at 9:22 AM

For some time now there seems to be a coordinated dissmenination of rhectorical news in the media. When a certain even occurs nearly all press outlets will use the same adjectives in describing it. Rush Limbaugh has shown this several time during what he calls the “media montage” segment. If this kind of coordination occured in other industries some would consider it a monopoly.

Don_Tanna on February 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM

The people in these institutions that engage in this are corrupt–they’re sellouts–they are NOT professionals. A man who sits down and is fed a story that was produced by some “news clearinghouse” and fed to them by the White House and contains a narrative that the White House wants to get out is not a professional.

ted c on February 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Is the White House manipulating the media through Media Matters?

No. The media are the willing propagandists for the left. Always have been, always will be. Media Matters is a ruse, and a patently transparent one at that.

Rixon on February 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM

I often carry a handgun to public events — where it is legal to do so — thanks to threats that turned out to be real enough to prosecute.

Um wow. I feel for ya’. I haven’t had to do that for more than a decade. And it wasn’t because they wanted me personally, just the cash I had to carry.

I can’t imagine what it would be like to have personal enemies.

Shooting someone, or getting shot at, is not an experience I would ever want to go through…again.

cozmo on February 13, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Is this illegal???

ted c on February 13, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Dershowitz could be wrong, though. It might be that the only thing keeping Obama competitive for a re-election bid is Media Matters.

Exactly.

ButterflyDragon on February 13, 2012 at 9:25 AM

“Is the White House manipulating the media through Media Matters?”

It’s not manipulation when both sides agree on an intermediary.

Dusty on February 13, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Whatever. Lefties all assume that FoxNews coordinates with some Vast Right Wing conspiracy… the Koch Brothers… if not the White House itself (when Bush was there). But a free and independent press only means that some will be aligned with a White House and others will not. Nothing new. Jefferson and Adams each had their own media too.

rhombus on February 13, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Glenn Beck is right yet again. Is anyone surprised by this? Anyone?

NickDeringer on February 13, 2012 at 9:27 AM

is this Son of JournoList?

ted c on February 13, 2012 at 9:21 AM

No question.

Syzygy on February 13, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Back in the day, the White House and the federal government was at the mercy of the media. Nowadays, the leviathan has grown so large that it is self-perpetuating. WH info–>MMFA–> news outlets—>news outlet people —>WH jobs

its a wash, rinse, spit, repeat cycle. A news vortex, spinning and spinning and very tightly controlled. F&F news doesn’t get in, nor does it get out. Bad news doesn’t see the light of day. It is the Memory Hole and Ministry of Truth all wrapped in one.

George Orwell didn’t write a dystopian novel, he wrote a how-to manual.

ted c on February 13, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Dershowitz could be wrong, though. It might be that the only thing keeping Obama competitive for a re-election bid is Media Matters.

Actually, the only thing keeping Dear Liar competitive is the Stupid Party being stupid. That and a complicit fellow marxist MSM.

rbj on February 13, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Wrong question! The right one is, “How will the pupper media pretend it is not merely the propaganda voice of the marxist anti-God Obama administration?”

Don L on February 13, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Wasn’t this established already?

vityas on February 13, 2012 at 9:29 AM

MMFA is obsessed with FNC. Just visit their page (if you dare). It is consists of 98% FNC stories.

Funny thing is… I don’t watch FNC much because it’s too squishy for me.

mankai on February 13, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Goodness … David Brock looks like a corpse with no teeth. I guess working for the left ages you dramatically. He could be a zombie for all I know.

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 9:30 AM

had I known one could make a 1/4 mill. running a non profit I would’ve gone into the charity business.

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Isn’t Brock one of those fabulous boyz who used to pretend to be conservative? I get so confused.

platypus on February 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Brock as paranoid and out of control, but still supremely effective at getting his message out through the mainstream media

It doesn’t exactly take a genius to do that when the so-called “mainstream” media is so pathetically biased in the first place.

cicerone on February 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Exposes on the relationship between the White House, Fox and the conservative media have found equally entangled relationships. Why is anyone surprised by this? When the media model is ratings driven, which means corporate sponsorship driven, of course they are going to go along with whichever Administration favors corporatism. Do you think the “unprecedented” embedding of media outlets and the armed forces during the early years of Iraq were a coincidence? The media hasn’t been “independent” for years. But they aren’t marxist, they are corporatist which means they tend to favor whomever is currently in power.

libfreeordie on February 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM

I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to find that George Soros is controlling the media for Emperor Hussein…

wildcat72 on February 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM

*waits for the Ronulans to show up and roll their eyes at the accusation of anti-semitism*

MadisonConservative on February 13, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Good thing the major media outlets have picked up on this scandal and are disowning MMFA.

/fantasy

mankai on February 13, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Awww! Conservatives are so scawie of Media Matters.

Uppereastside on February 13, 2012 at 9:32 AM

The mainstream of the MSM really looks like a whirlpool.

ted c on February 13, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Gosh, all this complicity and intrigue -I haven’t seen such since the elitist GOP and their puppet media punditry took down the dreaded Sarah Palin.

Nothing new – neither party is for freedom -just their own ruling class protection and embellishment.

Don L on February 13, 2012 at 9:33 AM

We will discuss this in detail, here on HA…

right2bright on February 13, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Awww! Conservatives are so scawie of Media Matters.

Uppereastside on February 13, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Actually, you got it backwards. MMFA and their boss, Mr. Soros, fear free-thinking American Conservatives.

kingsjester on February 13, 2012 at 9:36 AM

But they aren’t marxist, they are corporatist which means they tend to favor whomever is currently in power.

libfreeordie on February 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Yeah, I remember the fawning they gave Bush and Cheney on a regular basis.

BigWyo on February 13, 2012 at 9:36 AM

David Brock is so weird. First a hatchet man for the Right, then a hatchet man for the Left? Who does that? He made his bones writing about Bill Clinton’s affairs, which opened the whole Paula Jones can of worms, when as a homosexual Brock has his own personal sexual life he certainly didn’t want to get out. How could he go from hard Right to hard Left like that? If he didn’t like being a hatchet man for the Right, then why did he do it? The only other one I can think of who did that is Arianna Huffington, and perhaps she was conservative only because her husband (who later declared himself gay) ran for the US Senate (CA-R) as a Repub.

Brock and Huffington … what are their personal values? Did either of them explain why they switched from Right to Left?

Paul-Cincy on February 13, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Funny thing is… I don’t watch FNC much because it’s too squishy for me.

mankai on February 13, 2012 at 9:29 AM

libs assume anyone who disagrees with them is being manipulated by faux news. Faux freakin’ news! Listen up libs! That’s not clever & Fox is center left.

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I wonder how many fluff news stories were created out of whole cloth in this lil’ relationship and how many real news stories died an untimely death???

I think some post-mortem examinations are in order.

Whatever happened to that “spiked NYT story” about some voting thing?

ted c on February 13, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Goodness … David Brock looks like a corpse with no teeth. I guess working for the left ages you dramatically. He could be a zombie for all I know.

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 9:30 AM

1) He looks like a zombie.

2) He needs brains.

3) If it quacks like a duck…

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on February 13, 2012 at 9:38 AM

[Uppereastside on February 13, 2012 at 9:32 AM]

That isn’t even sensible. No check for you!

Dusty on February 13, 2012 at 9:38 AM

but it’s more than a little hypocritical to carry around a concealed weapon (presumably illegally, especially in Washington DC) while supporting tougher gun-control regulations.

The rules don’t apply to the Nomeklatura – the real 1%.

forest on February 13, 2012 at 9:38 AM

I swear, if you want to know what the Left is up to anymore, just look at what they have accused the Right of doing, and then you know exactly what their manipulations are.

They are so devoid of imagination they cannot concieve that the Right isn’t doing exactly the same things they are just on the other side.

jaydee_007 on February 13, 2012 at 9:38 AM

The Democrats are the pimps, and the MSM are the hookers!
Has something changed in the last couple of decades?
The pimps seem to beat the hookers a little more, and people don’t seem alarmed and turn their heads! It’s acceptable!

KOOLAID2 on February 13, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Is the White House manipulating the media through Media Matters?

Do Democrats lie and steal? Is water wet?

Archivarix on February 13, 2012 at 9:38 AM

But they aren’t marxist, they are corporatist which means they tend to favor whomever is currently in power.

libfreeordie on February 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM

yep. The media sure favored G-dub. I completely agree.

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 9:39 AM

The funny thing is that the fact that Media Matters works closely with the White House somehow makes them more credible.

Johnny 100 Pesos on February 13, 2012 at 9:39 AM

yep. The media sure favored G-dub. I completely agree.

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I guess I was the only one who saw the media’s shameless boosterism during the buildup and first year of the Iraq war…..

libfreeordie on February 13, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Chart: Funding op research for the left

Call it “political archaeology.”

When wealthy donors want to help dig dirt about the right, they often turn to American Bridge 21st Century.

Roll Call describes the super PAC as “the opposition research hub of the Democratic fundraising apparatus.”

freedomplow on February 13, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Years ago Connie Chung was being interviewed and the question asked to her was, “How do you know what news to report?” her answer was, ” we run it all through the White House.” Connie was not seen on TV for at least two years.

mixplix on February 13, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Quelle horreure!

Isserley on February 13, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Del Dolemonte on February 13, 2012 at 9:44 AM

I guess I was the only one who saw the media’s shameless boosterism during the buildup and first year of the Iraq war…..

libfreeordie on February 13, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Here’s a clue, cause apparently you haven’t got one.

The Iraq war was a bi-partisan engagement. The dems voted in favor (unlike Libya – Obama’s personally approved war). As soon as the dems jumped ship, so did the media.

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Do Democrats lie and steal? Is water wet?

[Archivarix on February 13, 2012 at 9:38 AM]

Which should be the refrain every time a Dem tries to sell their candidacy as moderate or right-leaning.

Dusty on February 13, 2012 at 9:44 AM

I guess I was the only one who saw the media’s shameless boosterism during the buildup and first year of the Iraq war…..

libfreeordie on February 13, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Yeah, you were.

kingsjester on February 13, 2012 at 9:45 AM

The media hasn’t been “independent” for years. But they aren’t marxist, they are corporatist which means they tend to favor whomever is currently in power.

libfreeordie on February 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM

What? Even the Sainted Cronkite? What kind of “corporatist” was he? Yeah, he was a real Nixonian corporist buttboy and that Rather, he was really in G HW Bush’s pocket. snicker

rhombus on February 13, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Personal connections and at least two common friends have made it clear to me that Brock has serious mental issues. Very serious. Mis-medicated (and taking them only on an erratic basis to beging with) issues.

I always thought they overdramatized this at least a bit because he seemed able to hold it together in public. I guess the masque was even more thorough, albeit flimsy, than I thought.

Very sad.

dieudonne on February 13, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Ed buries his lede here.

It’s not that MMFA is a mechanism for turning the MSM into propaganda tools that’s the biggest story, its that anti-semitism and gross demagoguery that are the chosen very frequent methods of attack. The President attacks “bankers” on practically a daily basis as the cause of our economic problems and the Israelis are blamed for our foreign issues. Overt anti-Semitic attacks are the daily bread of Media Matters and the real scandal is that the White House is leading that strategy.

MTF on February 13, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Do you think the “unprecedented” embedding of media outlets and the armed forces during the early years of Iraq were a coincidence? The media hasn’t been “independent” for years. But they aren’t marxist, they are corporatist which means they tend to favor whomever is currently in power.

libfreeordie on February 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Hogwash, and you know it.

al-AP, otherwise known as the Associated Press, “favorded” the Bush Administration in 2004 by suing the White House to force Bush to release all of his military records. At the same time, they happily covered up his Democrat “opponent’s” military records.

F-

Del Dolemonte on February 13, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Obviously, information is quite a valuable commodity–that goes without question. What is it that drives the left to build such an enormous, complex apparatus to control information. I mean, if their ideas were valid, or reasonable, then people would see them as such and agree with them. That simply must not be, thus they are relegated to build these back-channel, information manipulating schemes to a)produce b)reduce c)promote d)demote e)validate or f)repeat various snippets of information as a means to influence people and their behavior. Appears a bit paranoid.

ted c on February 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM

How is that different from the Bush whitehouse manipulating the media through Faux?

liberal4life on February 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM

The Iraq war was a bi-partisan engagement. The dems voted in favor (unlike Libya – Obama’s personally approved war). As soon as the dems jumped ship, so did the media.

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 9:44 AM

And yet wouldn’t the leftwing marxist media oppose the war on principle? Oh wait, perhaps they are (as I just said) in favor of power and currying favor and being invited to parties. Shocking! I don’t think you can really show any evidence that the media was opposed to the war until Democrats joined the war mondering debacle that was the 2002 authorization of force vote.

libfreeordie on February 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Isn’t Brock Romney one of those fabulous boyz who used to pretend to be conservative? I get so confused.

platypus on February 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM

FIFY

timberline on February 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Yeah well how will voters know about this if the media is part of the problem?

Vince on February 13, 2012 at 9:50 AM

They would have done better not to include the parts about mental illness. Now its sounds more like a hit piece.

Zaggs on February 13, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Fight fire with fire.

Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.

Don’t try to compete with SuperPACs by not having one.

Etc.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 9:50 AM

FIFY

timberline on February 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM

FOCUS.

Romney is not the enemy, t-line.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 9:51 AM

al-AP, otherwise known as the Associated Press, “favorded” the Bush Administration in 2004 by suing the White House to force Bush to release all of his military records. At the same time, they happily covered up his Democrat “opponent’s” military records.

F-

Del Dolemonte on February 13, 2012 at 9:48 AM

I like that you put “opponent” in quotation marks, you’re starting to recognize the similarities between the two parties.

libfreeordie on February 13, 2012 at 9:51 AM

even if Bush had tried to manipulate news through Fox, that’s merely 1 outlet—and its the “Israel of all news outlets” FWIW. That is certainly a world apart from having a tight-fisted control over major newspapers, 3 major news networks, and at least 2 cable news channels.

ted c on February 13, 2012 at 9:51 AM

I guess I was the only one who saw the media’s shameless boosterism during the buildup and first year of the Iraq war…..

libfreeordie on February 13, 2012 at 9:41 AM

You must mean the very first NY Times editorial after the war started:

From here, the sound of the war that began last night is inaudible. As veterans realize and almost every writer on the subject of war has reminded us, the experience of this new, unwanted war will be unknowable except among those who will be there for the fighting.

Del Dolemonte on February 13, 2012 at 9:52 AM

And yet wouldn’t the leftwing marxist media oppose the war on principle?

libfreeordie on February 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM

did they oppose Libya? no

do we any longer hear about casualties every day on the news? no

The left wing Marxist media supports their left wing Marxist dictator.

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Del Dolemonte on February 13, 2012 at 9:48 AM

I like that you put “opponent” in quotation marks, you’re starting to recognize the similarities between the two parties.

libfreeordie on February 13, 2012 at 9:51 AM

No, I didn’t put the 2004 Republican incumbent’s name in quotes.

Del Dolemonte on February 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM

The Caste and Incurious.

rogerb on February 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM

How is that different from the Bush whitehouse manipulating the media through Faux?

liberal4life on February 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM

read my above post…it’s not clever!

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM

How is that different from the Bush whitehouse manipulating the media through Faux?

liberal4life on February 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM

A. The “they did it too” argument is weak on its face.

B. Evidence that Bush coordinated with FNC? Pointing to on-air personalities and analysts that agreed with Bush is not the same as evidence that FNC was coordinating its reports with the White House.

C. FNC actually has leftists on the air (and always has). Where are all the right-wingers at MMFA?

mankai on February 13, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Journalism, a profession top to bottom eaten by corruption.

So has anyone figured out how many JournoListers are on MediaMatters speed dial?

MNHawk on February 13, 2012 at 9:55 AM

the war mondering debacle that was the 2002 authorization of force vote.

libfreeordie on February 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Please post the exact text of that 2002 Iraq Resolution, and please bold the passages that you find “war mongering”.

This should be good; all that document did was state facts.

Del Dolemonte on February 13, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Peace out Hot Air, at least for a long while.
 
libfreeordie on February 9, 2012 at 6:04 AM

 
What was it, three days or so?

rogerb on February 13, 2012 at 9:55 AM

What WH doesn’t try to help control their narrative by getting news help? Any program, message or other bit needs to get widespread attention and the WH would be silly to not try to get it out there in the format that it is intended–I see no problem with that one bit. However, this WH is unique in that “message control” means that, aside from the message format, there is no issue with the content. Any problems arising after the message goes downrange–ie, is released, is merely attributed to “poor messaging” and not to content. That is fundamentally fatal flaw that presumes that the informational formatting of the content alone, and not the content itself, can be flawed and the corrective schemes of the MMFA/ABC/Time etc can ultimately institute corrective remedies to improve the message, thus the response.

ted c on February 13, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Yeah I remember the Iraq war media, daily body counts, embedded reporters showing anything that bleeds, sitting congressmen calling the troops murderers and the media uncritically convicting them in the court of public opinion (the Haditha Marines), I remember how they quietly swept scandal after scandal under the rug. Gitmo was never mentioned, those unsupervised kids who “tortured” prisoners were all explained away as “the fog of war” and “war makes people to horrible things”, it was never the direct responsibility of the President. In fact I can barely recall the last President’s name.

Mord on February 13, 2012 at 9:57 AM

What was it, three days or so?

rogerb on February 13, 2012 at 9:55 AM

hahahahahahahahahaha

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Media Matters (a media watchdog organization affiliated with the Democratic party

Dammit, Ed will you proofread this crap? Every story I see has that word ‘democratic party’ in it!

You continuously refer to them as ‘democratic’ and you feed into their word games. It is an attempt to make them sound noble Ain’t nothing ‘democratic’ about the ‘rats and you know it.

This is as irritating as ‘give back’.

Lanceman on February 13, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Guantanamo, drone attacks, Patriot Act, wiretapping, surge…

Abomination! Fascistic!

/2008

It’s all good.

/2009

mankai on February 13, 2012 at 9:58 AM

How is that different from the Bush whitehouse manipulating the media through Faux?

liberal4life on February 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM

You assert it. You have no proof. This is an article with proof. Hannity says he’s never followed or even gotten any talking points from the Bush White House. Proof? You just say stuff. That’s why you have no credibility here. It’s a waste of time to read or reply to your stuff.

Paul-Cincy on February 13, 2012 at 9:58 AM

But they aren’t marxist, they are corporatist which means they tend to favor whomever is currently in power.

libfreeordie

Delusional. And I know the media love to now flog themselves about how they were complicit in the Iraq war run up, blah, blah, blah. But that is just another way for them to keep up their stupid meme that Bush lied! We were duped! Oh, he’s evil for lying to us!! No, he didn’t. They got leaked all the same data and reports that Saddam was making nuclear weapons. Perhaps that’s why they weren’t so opposed to it. And if Bush hadn’t told Saddam for a friggin year that we were going to invade, there would have been recoverable weapons. Instead, they went to Syria and here we are left w/the retarded, lefty chant, “Bush lied. People died.” Preach it, libfree!!

JAM on February 13, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Goodness … David Brock looks like a corpse with no teeth. I guess working for the left ages you dramatically. He could be a zombie for all I know.

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 9:30 AM

I can believe he’s flaky and aging prematurely for it. He opportunistically works for the American Spectator to make a name for himself. Then comes out as the leftist we can be sure he always was. He’s gay. Homosexuality is, unfortunately, often a symptom of an unstable condition of mind. That’s been documented.

rickv404 on February 13, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Is the White House manipulating the media through Media Matters?

No. The media are the willing propagandists for the left. Always have been, always will be. Media Matters is a ruse, and a patently transparent one at that.

Rixon on February 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Correct , not media manipulation ,but propaganda coordination and people manipulation.

the_nile on February 13, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Libfree is delusional

If that were the case, the lsm would have had 24/7 coverage of W and FNC in cahoots

cmsinaz on February 13, 2012 at 9:59 AM

You’d have a hard time convincing me the Democrats don’t control the message coming out of D.C. Look at the way every media outlet (I say this with the automatic exemption of Fox News, which may be the only honest news outfit around now) attacks the tea party! Are you going to tell me there isn’t one media outlet that recognizes what brought about the tea party, who the tea party really is, and why it’s a good thing? We have 3 networks plus cable outlets doing the news, yet there isn’t a dimes worth of difference between them, when it comes to a take on a news story. Does anyone actually believe they all reach the exact same point all by themselves? Does anyone really believe they are in such lockstep that 8 different news organizations can see an event and view it exactly the same way? Common sense should tell you that’s just not possible.

bflat879 on February 13, 2012 at 10:01 AM

FOCUS.

Romney is not the enemy, t-line.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Read Romney’s political record. It would put Obama to shame.

timberline on February 13, 2012 at 10:01 AM

The Triad: White House > Media Matters (Soros) > MSM

albill on February 13, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Obviously, information is quite a valuable commodity–that goes without question. What is it that drives the left to build such an enormous, complex apparatus to control information. I mean, if their ideas were valid, or reasonable, then people would see them as such and agree with them. That simply must not be, thus they are relegated to build these back-channel, information manipulating schemes to a)produce b)reduce c)promote d)demote e)validate or f)repeat various snippets of information as a means to influence people and their behavior. Appears a bit paranoid.

ted c on February 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM

It’s not about ideas ,it’s about power. That’s why rinos too are seduced by the liberals.

the_nile on February 13, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Almost all of the media is in the tank for Obama and have been since he started running for president. This is why it’s going to be so difficult to defeat him in November, no matter who the Republicans run.

talkingpoints on February 13, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Ed Morrissey, here’s another article confirming what you are reporting.

timberline on February 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM

did you already give up libfree?

wuss

DHChron on February 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Dammit, Ed will you proofread this crap? Every story I see has that word ‘democratic party’ in it!

It’s their official name. Be calm.

dieudonne on February 13, 2012 at 10:10 AM

so, the_nile posits that if you control the information, you control the power.

I wonder how that works for “education” as well? One would think that if you control both daily information, as well as the processing of new information and learning that that would also be a pathway to power as well. Have liberals also deposited themselves at the fountainheads of education? Well, lookie there, that certainly happens to be the case in both public school and university level education. Quite a stranglehold that they’ve got on those institutions as well.

I might think that the_nile is onto something….

ted c on February 13, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Is the White House manipulating the media through Media Matters?

Yes, yes they are. Based upon what I’ve read about Media Matters and it’s various “involvements,” yes, I’d say that they’re working on behalf of or in collusion with the White House, such as Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama and Anita Dunn may call it.

Lourdes on February 13, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Is the White House manipulating the media through Media Matters?

Yes…and other sites, too.

Lourdes on February 13, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Almost all of the media is in the tank for Obama and have been since he started running for president. This is why it’s going to be so difficult to defeat him in November, no matter who the Republicans run.

talkingpoints on February 13, 2012 at 10:08 AM

It’s an “agenda.” The Left established the agenda, scouted out an available candidate and then hoisted that candidate while pursuing their agenda (which candidate is an emissary of). Candidate, Obama, gets to feel like it’s all about him but the fact is, he’s part of that agenda.

Lourdes on February 13, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3