The years’ long Media Matters War on Fox News was intended to destroy Fox News, as expressed by David Brock in 2011:
The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel….
“The strategy that we had had toward Fox was basically a strategy of containment,” said Brock, Media Matters’ chairman and founder and a former conservative journalist, adding that the group’s main aim had been to challenge the factual claims of the channel and to attempt to prevent them from reaching the mainstream media.
The new strategy, he said, is a “war on Fox.”
In an interview and a 2010 planning memo shared with POLITICO, Brock listed the fronts on which Media Matters – which he said is operating on a $10 million-plus annual budget — is working to chip away at Fox and its parent company, News Corp. They include its bread-and-butter distribution of embarrassing clips and attempts to rebut Fox points but also a series of under-the-radar tactics.
Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox’s top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck’s show.
It didn’t work out.
Fox is crushing the competition as the go-to cable news outlet for political events. So much so that CNN is close to abandoning hard news coverage, while MSNBC carves out the small wacked-out progressive fringe with bizarre self-destructive hosts and commentators. Megyn Kelly is a star who strikes fear into Media Matters.
The war is over, and Media Matters is declaring, ahem, victory, as reported at HuffPo:
But in the coming years, Fox will no longer be the center of Media Matters’ universe. That’s because the group believes it has effectively discredited the network’s desire to be seen as “fair and balanced.”
“The war on Fox is over,” said Media Matters Executive Vice President Angelo Carusone. “And it’s not just that it’s over, but it was very successful. To a large extent, we won.”
According to its strategic plan for the next three years, a copy of which was provided to The Huffington Post, Media Matters envisions shifting its focus to new, increasingly influential targets, including Spanish-language media, social media streams, alternative online outlets and morning and entertainment sources. It will enhance its state media and issue-based monitoring, as well as continue its focus on right-wing radio and legacy outlets.
“We’ve always said, ‘Media Matters watches Fox, so you don’t have to,'” said Bradley Beychok, the group’s president. “That remains true. Fox News isn’t going to stop lying, so we’ll stay on that beat. But, our success regarding Fox News means that our talented team will carry out our mission in different ways consistent with a new strategic vision responsive to the transforming media environment.”
Uh huh. Greg Gutfeld had it right:
Media Matters declares victory over FNC. In other news, fleas declare victory over cat.
— GregGutfeld (@greggutfeld) December 13, 2013
Carusone is the guy who organized the boycott movement against Rush Limbaugh, as we detailed. Limbaugh remains the King of talk radio, as the “StopRush” movement now consists of a small number of delusional dead-enders who don’t seem to realize the real world has move on. Media Matters also declared victory over Limbaugh.
My suspicion?
Media Matters is moving on to help Hillary, although it can’t announce it as such. The War with Fox News and Limbaugh and much of conservative media was lost. The new war is beginning, and Media Matters doesn’t want to fight old and losing battles.
As much as I detest how Media Matters has poisoned the public discourse, the folks at Media Matter are not stupid people. But they must think you are, otherwise they would not have declared victory.
(Featured Image: David Brock on Al Sharpton Show)
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
No, they’re probably not.
But those providing the funding are.
One a similar note, I have decided that it is time I showed some mercy and quit slapping NFL line backers around in public.
Much like those ObamaCare videos directed to the invincibles, they take their base as dupes.
Not only their base, but the populace in general
What a victory.
Never have so many ignored so much delusion from so few.
What did P.T. Barnum say?
“There’s a Leftist/Commie/Prog SUCKA born every minute?”
The base for Marxist Media Fooling America is mostly dupes and fools.
The declaration of achievement of usurping Fox as a media giant with their refocus on “other media matters” is amazing as to how delusional progressives are.
If at first you don’t succeed, declare victory and move on. 🙂
“…the folks at Media Matter are not stupid people.”
Stupid is as stupid does, and Media Matters entertains us with this Baghdad Bob moment.
One thing I’ve noticed when I listen to Rush, Sean, Mark Levin (all of whom are on my local top AM radio) that no large, blue chip companies advertise on those talk radio shows. They seem to be dominated by Internet security app. companies, buy flowers and have them delivered, buy window blinds, and other very small niche companies. (Nothing wrong with that, of course. I just wonder how they can afford fees related to those huge audiences.)
I understand those large companies tend to try to avoid even the slightest political controversy as a distraction from selling goods and services. So maybe they never did advertise on conservative talk radio programs. But the Media Matters campaigns, plus some of thuggish follow-up by radical leftists with email threats, further intimidated these big companies from a normal, ordinary ad buy. Recall the Scott Walker, Act 10, Madison capital showdown – and all of the thuggish behavior on the part of those “peaceful” public union workers – issuing various kinds of serious threats. (None of which was seriously punished after all was said and done.)
The fact that Rush, Sean, Mark, et al, continue to stay on the air and get huge ratings, suggests those local radios find it profitable to continue running them, of course.
I do think some of those big blue chip companies advertise on CNN, MSNBC, obviously PBS & NPR as “sponsors”. (I admit I seldom watch those outlets, but when I have, thought I did notice that kind of advertising.)
That’s a very good point. I suppose the best way to find out (although perhaps not the easiest) is to see a chart of advertising revenue over the years that Rush has been there.
In a related story, Japan just announced victory over the United States in WWII.
Why not declare victory?
Leftists will believe anything.
Hey Media Matters, Chip, chip, chip, chip chip.
“According to its strategic plan for the next three years, a copy of which was provided to The Huffington Post…”
I wonder if it was written in crayon.
these proggie drones are truly delusional
“If you like your victory, you can keep it.”
So Media Matters are hoisting the “Mission Accomplished” banner, huh? ROFLOL!!
Since the war of words is now over, does this mean more creative methods will be in play? If the White House again tries to freeze out FNC from its press room, would the other network correspondents willingly risk audits and “access” for this convenient pariah?
“the folks at Media Matter are not stupid people”
Well, they’re dumb enough to think that Fox is conservative.
It’s the Viet Nam approach. Declare victory and go home.
William A. Jacobson: It didn’t work out. Fox is crushing the competition as the go-to cable news outlet for political events.
1. High ratings does not equate to journalistic credibility.
2. Most people still get their news from broadcast television.
When it comes to credibility I’ll believe Fox over NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, etc.
Of course you will.
Where do you get your news Zach??
Among other places, this blog.
Zach gets his news from John Stewart, of course. Doesn’t everyone?
“2. Most people still get their news from broadcast television.”
Yes, but an expert assures us that high ratings do not equate to journalistic credibility.
That is correct. Media Matters bases its claim of victory on having eroded Fox News’s credibility with the public. So it would be incorrect declaring Fox News won by having higher ratings, when 1) it doesn’t have higher ratings overall, and 2) higher ratings don’t equate with credibility.
As for the Media Matters claim, we might look to at public opinions of the credibility of Fox News.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/fox-news-credibility-low-poll_n_2632084.html
Of course, public opinion of credibility doesn’t equate to whether Fox News is, in fact, properly informing their viewers.
http://www.examiner.com/article/study-finds-fox-news-viewers-more-misinformed-than-non-news-watchers
You can cherry pick polling data all you want. It’s all partisan evaluation, here’s from the PPP poll the HuffPo link uses as it’s source:
The Pew Survey in 2012 found that Fox News ranked the same in trustworthiness from a public perception as The NY Times. The attacks on Fox were not just from Media Matters, but from Democratic politicians and writers.
Media Matters, by its own words, didn’t set out just to damage Fox News’ reputation, but to investigate and destroy it. It failed.
William A. Jaconbson: You can cherry pick polling data all you want.
If most people trust other news sources than Fox News, and there are a large number of other sources, while the minority trusts Fox News and only Fox News, then of course, Fox News will be the most trusted “single outlet”. That’s called cherry-picking.
William A. Jaconbson: Media Matters, by its own words, didn’t set out just to damage Fox News’ reputation, but to investigate and destroy it.
People on the right seem to trust Fox News because it confirms opinions they already hold, rather than challenging them.
“People on the right seem to trust Fox News because it confirms opinions they already hold, rather than challenging them.”
News Item:
Grape stomper stuck in bucket for 72 hours insists released frantic 9-1-1 call “cherry picks” single episode of unfortunate ordeal.
I believe Zachriel has the relationship backwards. I’ve come to distrust most news organizations because they try to tell me things I know to be untrue.
Witness the most recent example of the media’s story on “If you like your plan you can keep it.” To many of us, it has be obvious from the start that there was no way that could be true in practice, yet many in the media reported it as an ironclad fact that you could take to the bank. Then it was merely half true, an acceptable blurring of the lines that happens when politics gets involved in anything. Now it is Politifact’s Whopper of the Year.
Either they have no clue what they are talking about, or they do and are obfuscating with intent. Either way they are of absolutely no use to me.
Oh yes, they also keep getting caught throwing stuff down the memory hole. Today’s egregious example:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/denver-post-stealth-edits-out-socialist-from-profile-of-arapahoe-school-shooter/
Voyager: I’ve come to distrust most news organizations because they try to tell me things I know to be untrue.
Sure. As we said, you have to account for the commercial and political constraints they work under.
Voyager: Either way they are of absolutely no use to me.
So do you live in an information vacuum, then?
If CNN and MSNBC are what constitutes air, most of the country is living in hard vacuum.
I go wherever I can get the raw data. CNN, MSNPC, the New York Times, et all, don’t supply that any more, and they have tampered with what they do provide. When reporters are open changing interview quotes the data cannot be trusted, period, full stop.
This is basic data integrity; when part of the data has been tampered with, it makes the entire dataset suspect.
Voyager: I go wherever I can get the raw data.
But you didn’t say where. The original post, for instance, linked to Business Insider, Mediaite, and its own previous posts several times.
@Zach please inform us where you think there IS jornalistic credibilty. Where are your opinions formed?
Journalistic -I shouldn’t type while eating breakfast.
It’s best to acquire information from as many sources as possible, from as many countries and cultures as possible, while also being aware of the commercial and political constraints news sources work under.
Best approach to truth or best Sukiyaki?
That’s funny; a poster who claims to read numerous sources (or says it’s best, whatever that means), yet all his posts read like press releases from Media Mutters.
And there’s nothing sillier than claiming all news sources are valid, as if the WSJ (or parts of the NYTimes) are no different than the clown shows at Pravda, Al Jazeera, Puffington Host, ThinkProgress, and the Korean Central News Agency.
But then who am I to mock the greatest accomplishment of the Left: the idiocy of Multiculturalism, where reason, logic, and a thousand years of art, literature and science, have been replaced with “feelings”, political correctness, a disdain for individual rights, and open contempt for Western Civilization.
MikeInCA: And there’s nothing sillier than claiming all news sources are valid …
Of course, we said no such thing, indeed, quite the contrary.
Media Mutters: of course, we said no such thing, indeed, quite the contrary.
Actually you did, since your only distinction was as many sources as possible. Which is ridiculous, for the above reasons.
and who’s “we” Kemosabe? Are there other people in the basement with you? Since you’re not sitting on an editorial board, the use of “we” makes you sound a bit odd.
MikeInCA: your only distinction was as many sources as possible
That is incorrect. We also stated that you need to account for the commercial and political constraints news sources work under, which are often considerable.
Media Mutters: That is incorrect. We also stated that you need to account for the commercial and political constraints news sources work under, which are often considerable.
no, wrong again. Accounting is not the same as discarding, and you apparently discard nothing; which again is ridiculous.
And still you won’t answer: are there other people in the basement with you? C’mon, have one of them answer! Inquiring minds want to know!
MikeInCA: ccounting is not the same as discarding, and you apparently discard nothing; which again is ridiculous.
Yes, accounting for the reliability of a source may mean discarding the source entirely. On the other hand, William A. Jacobson, and other bloggers on Legal Insurrection, often rely on information provided CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, among others, as a basis for their own articles. It’s not clear what sources you would completely discard.
OFF-TOPIC
MikeInCA: And still you won’t answer: are there other people in the basement with you?
We typically ignore off-topic commentary and questions, but a number of theories have been proposed concerning our use of nosism. If Zachriel were legion,
group of poseurs
ultimate expression of internet group think
hive
commune of pedants
committee
weird cult
collective pseudonym like Bourbaki
five people
collective
tri-unity
imaginary playmates
being of more than one mind
royalty
the Z-team, a team of Zachriels
schizophrenic
someone with a tapeworm
best friend is a pooka
dissociative identity disorder
a bizzare pseudo-world affectation
gaggle of grad students
Jovian clique
a group of concerned citizens
Got a mouse in your pocket?
Media Mutters:group of poseurs,
ultimate expression of internet group think,
hive …
Ha! good ones! You’ve got some strange ideas, but at least you have a sense of humour.
Here’s a comment of mine about Media Matters from August:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2013/08/saddest-day-in-stoprushs-life/comment-page-1/#comment-468481
I agree with Prof J that Media Matters is shifting its strategy to promote Hillary. That seemed evident when David Brock came out publicly against the Hillary documentaries both CNN and NBC were planning.
But the shift in strategy was inevitable. Rich left wingers and foundations wasted tens of millions of dollars on Media Matters as it failed in its original mission. Even left wingers want some accountability in how their money is used. It’s irrational to keep paying Brock and Boehlert salaries amounting to multi-hundreds of thousands per year and get no measureable results. I think it’s a safe bet the directors of the foundations and the family offices that fund Media Matters forced the change. Media Matters failed at its stated mission, and I’d speculate that the donors finally told Brock to implement a new strategy or they’d write smaller checks. Or stop writing checks entirely.
Media Matters failed?!? Not at all! They convinced their choir that FOX News isn’t credible! Job done, time to moveon.org!
Fox executives are probably hoping for another such victory.
lol
“Laughing all the way to the bank.” — Wladziu Valentino Liberace
Hey, Brocky, how’s that(cough)”Victory”
working for ya, Bro??