MediaMatters

See also: David Brock

Media Matters for America' is a progressive-identified not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) interest group and think tank, formed in 2004, with a goal of "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Its publication is Web-based.

David Brock, a former conservative, is chief executive officer.

It received substantial start-up funding from Democratic advocates, and, along with the questions on Brock, has had its neutrality challenged. Other media monitoring services, less subject to ideological challenge, say it fills a niche and is reasonably accurate. Leo Hindery, a Democratic contributor, said "There are people like Mike Lux [a Democratic consultant who runs an important ad agency],who are into the strategy point of view, there's Podesta [ and the Center for American Progress ], who's into the think tank/intellectual side, and I think the third part of the triangle is David's initiative."

Funding

The organization's website does not prominently list funding. A critic, Byron York of National Review, lists:

• Susie Tompkins Buell
• Leo Hindery
• Peter Lewis
• George Soros
• Bren Simon
• Gail Furman
• James Hormel
• New Democratic Network
• MoveOn.org

Role and neutrality

The Providence Phoenix pointed out that political media monitoring has been more the province of the Right, as with groups such as Accuracy in Media (AIM) and Media Research Center (MRC). Organized liberal media criticism had been largely the domain of only one group: the 20-year-old Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). This article raised some concerns from the relatively small number of non-ideological media monitoring groups, such as Bryan Keefer, of CJRDaily.org, an online media-monitoring site created by the Columbia Journalism Review: "In terms of accuracy, they’re generally pretty good as far as they go,...But they are "self-consciously lefty.... They’re really only looking for things where liberals have been treated unfairly or where conservatives have gotten away with things." Some right-wing media-monitoring groups are more aggressive, such as Discover the Networks from the David Horowitz Freedom Center and JihadWatch from Robert Spencer.

"I looked around, and aside from FAIR and blogs, it was a pretty empty space," says Brock. FAIR senior analyst Steve Rendall says he welcomed the new entry, noting that FAIR concentrates largely on reporting issues in the mainstream media while Media Matters focuses "on right-wing commentators most of the time." Brock said that he is in a niche, and not trying to do extensive content analyses and monitor standards and practices. "We have a more narrow mission," he says. "To work against undue conservative influence in the media."

The Phoenix stated the challenge, "Given his own history, Brock knows plenty about conservative pressure. But he’s also aware that questions continue to dog him in his new incarnation. Who is the real David Brock, and why should we trust him?"

Harder for Brock is the cloud of suspicion that continues to hang over his work, in light of his ideological journey and confessed unethical behavior. "Once somebody has demonstrated himself to be an utterly untrustworthy liar," asks Tom Rosenstiel of the Washington, DC–based Project for Excellence in Journalism "why in the world would anybody think he has credibility now that he has switched teams?" Brock responded, " "If people don’t know me it can be difficult and it’s a totally legitimate and understandable question. In the history of ideological conversions, I’m not really aware of any that have changed twice."

Recent activity

In October 2009, Brock said, of Fox News,"Our analysis of their programming has led us to the unavoidable conclusion that Fox is no longer operating as a “conservative news organization,” but as an outright partisan political operation – and brazenly so."

Populism

Staff columnist Eric Boehlert asks why the mainstream media are confusing the legitimate term "populism" with "connection with the right-wing movement that obsessively opposes President Obama. Far from being a populist surge, the movement, led by talkers like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh who pollute the airwaves through smears and innuendos, remains completely divorced from the traditional sense of what "populism" has stood for in American politics." He observes they do not use the more accurate term "right wing populism". He says it happens because the press allows it, citing a Wall Street Journal article in that equated the legitimate populism of the Ross Perot campaign with "Tea Party activists -- whom he described as tapping into a "populist vein" ... Really? Perot supporters in 1996 spent an entire summer month forming wide-eyed mini-mobs in order to make sure that Americans could not discuss the day's important topics at town hall forums? They showed up at rallies with loaded handguns? They routinely compared the president to Adolf Hitler and paraded around with swastika posters? They formed angry crowds around members of Congress and followed them to their cars in parking lots, and hung politicians in effigy? "