The Methodology of Media Matters, AKA Media Antimatter

2009 July 17
by David Swindle

Oh how I used to love Media Matters, the left-wing media “watchdog” group founded by former conservative journalist turned Democrat activist, David Brock. When the site started up in May of 2004 I was almost at the peak of my developing career as a leftist polemicist. Each week I sought out new arguments to attack the Bush Administration, the War in Iraq, and the Conservative Movement. And there were few sites better in aiding this task than Media Matters.

The organization defines its mission in these terms:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

The principal method by which Media Matters pursues the foregoing mission is by posting its ”research” on its website. This amounts to reading and watching the media and then writing rebuttals to what conservatives and Republicans say.

Sometimes Media Matters actually follows its mission’s guidelines, acting as a fact-checker for right-leaning pundits by pointing out genuine errors. One example is Media Matters’ recent post on Pat Buchanan’s questionable claim that President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has never written a law review article.

Posts of this nature really are not what draw people to Media Matters, though; they certainly were not when I was a “progressive.” No, what I sought out were Media Matters’ examples of the wild, angry rhetoric of the Conservative Movement. Whenever Ann Coulter or Michael Savage would say something that was politically incorrect or a bit rough around the edges, then Media Matters would highlight it alongside its examples of “conservative misinformation.”

By situating its condemnations of harsh conservative rhetoric alongside errors of fact, Media Matters made a blur of opinion and research. It appears to have recognized this error. Now, factual challenges are grouped in a designated research section, while attacks on rhetoric are relegated to the Media Matters blog. Good for them.

In spite of this improvement in organization, however, the practical effect is essentially unchanged. Media Matters amounts to a political antimatter — an unnatural, expensive injection into the national dialogue. While purportedly seeking to clarify the American political discussion, it instead only intensifies the partisan back-and-forth with its conservative caricatures. The site routinely highlights rhetoric it doesn’t like, without considering the context that caused it. For example: Why is it that conservatives are so passionate about defending the American Idea? What drives them? Perhaps if these questions were considered, then the rhetoric might make a bit more sense.

Most leftists don’t read conservative books, listen to talk radio, or watch Fox News. And part of the reason is because the image of the unreasonable conservative has been so thoroughly perpetuated by the Left, with Media Matters leading the charge. If leftists only get a chance to grapple with the conservative political tradition through Media Matters’ filter, then they’re really missing out. I certainly was — until I took the time to actually confront Conservatism on its own terms and let the ideas speak for themselves.

  • Share/Bookmark

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

3 Responses leave one →
  1. TexGEOas permalink
    July 17, 2009

    Oh, let them play, David. I don’t think liberals and progressives really want any dialog. Most of the lib replies I see on blogs are simply personal attacks. Almost never see a discussion on issues using real facts! With liberals its always like a religious argument… you know… like they can’t permit themselves to discuss any alternate viewpoint. Reminds me of the defenders of Biblical inerrancy. There are just no voices on this earth they wish to hear but their own. Let them play. There’s no use in messing with them.

  2. WR Jonas permalink
    July 17, 2009

    I personally feel so much better knowing there is a liberal out there trying to understand conservatives . It helps knowing I am not a drooling , raving idiot to love my God and my country.
    Now , if we could get a few Republicans Senators to feel that way we may be making some progress.
    Nah, not a chance . To ask any Republican to stand up and cast a vote for white guys is probably over the top.

  3. David Swindle
    July 18, 2009

    Tex,
    When I was a leftist I wanted dialogue. Many — most — of my “progressive” friends seem to want dialogue also. Many on the Left certainly don’t, they might as well be Neo-Stalinists who take the “I can’t be your friend if you don’t share my politics” attitude of Che Guevara.

    It’s still worth talking and debating with many of them, though. (However I’ll agree with you that some are certainly a lost cause and that argumentation alone often isn’t enough to change minds.)

    Perhaps my enthusiasm for dialogue comes from the fact that if it weren’t for David Horowitz being willing to debate and dialogue with me then it’s most likely I’d be writing for Media Matters instead of him. Minds can be changed, he and I are both living proof.

    For more on understanding the Left as a religious movement I can’t recommend Horowitz’s “The Politics of Bad Faith” with greater enthusiasm. It’s my favorite of his texts. It’s the quintessential book on the subject, though Jamie Glazov’s recent “United In Hate” also has some compelling insights that build on Horowitz and others’ work. See my essays on Glazov’s book:
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34919
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34758

    Thanks for your comment,
    David

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS