Only because a friend reminded me did I even recall a hot
journalistic project launched by Steven Brill back in the days of
the high-tech bubble. Brill called it, with all due modesty,
Brill's Content. It was supposed to serve as a "media
watchdog," but instead became an attack dog, most famously in its
inaugural issue smear of Kenneth Starr. Brill invested millions,
his rag went nowhere fast, and some three years later it shut down,
unread and unmourned. More interesting was that racy Salon
had written it off long before as a "snooze."
Now comes a successor of sorts to Brill's, launched by
a sort of Brill, David Brock. His most immediate problem will be to
keep what readers he attracts to his new MediaMatters.org site
awake. More on that in a moment.
Let's deal with the exciting part first, namely the method of
MediaMatters' launch -- via a well-placed story in Monday's New York Times, much
like Richard Clarke making his debut on "60 Minutes." The gist of
it is this: Brock's site will monitor conservative media for bias
and misrepresentation, he's raised $2 million from liberal high
rollers to underwrite this project, he's hired a half-dozen
researchers to do the actual work, and he hopes their tracking of
Rush Limbaugh & Co. will provide "fodder for fledgling liberal
radio talk shows being started across the country, including those
of the comedians Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo." Whether any of
these remain in business the Times does not say.
More exciting still is word that Brock's project came about with
the help of former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta's Center or
American Progress, the political action think tank serving the
interests of past and future Clinton presidencies. That's what it's
all about. Even the Times acknowledges that Brock is a
"liberal activist." He'll be playing politics, in other words, not
practicing journalism. Which probably explains why it was the
Times that broke the story. In happier days, Brock always
went to Howard Kurtz with his exclusives. Strange how Kurtz's
Washington Post had not a word to say about the birth of
MediaMatters.
The content of Brock's content can only improve. Please don't
nod off while I walk you through some of the opening day's high
points. On the home page there's a grand opening "Dear Friends"
letter from David, who's identified here as "Founder of Media
Matters of America." In the "About Us" he's also listed as
President and CEO, a spiffy title for someone heading what he
describes as a "not-for-profit progressive research and information
center..." It's time to emulate another progressive and throw those
medals away.
Along the left margin are some of the site's bread and butter:
regularly updated items challenging the veracity of conservative
reports. The headlines alone are stunning in their witlessness. By
Salon snooze standards, they are the stuff of a deep coma.
The top item as I type reads, "Washington Times reporter
wrote commentary accusing Kerry of proposing tax plan with loophole
for wife's family." That's followed by "Limbaugh accused liberals
of hating the military." Now I know the meaning of conundrum: I
can't decide if an earlier head "Limbaugh wrong on the minimum
wage" was funnier. Whatever happened to "Worthwhile Canadian
initiative"?
Brock claims his site will also monitor "marginal, right-wing
websites that often serve as original sources of misinformation for
well-known conservative and mainstream media outlets." It's not
quite working out that way. One of the left-column items announces:
"WorldNetDaily's Kohn: 'evidence' suggests Kerry having an affair
with New York Times reporter." On the evidence it's
clearly a kooky report, one that would have gone nowhere if not for
David, apparently up to his old ways. Now everyone in the
mainstream will be acquainted with the claim. At the same time
David ignores the salient aspect of the Kerry-N.Y. Times
connection: that Kerry was once involved with the woman who is now
the wife of that paper's executive editor. David still has his work
cut out for him.
One might also suspect that David is really motivated by
ideological greed. Here we are, living through the most intense
period of liberal media bias since Watergate, all in the name of
ousting a man named George W. Bush. Yet David officially claims
conservatives rule the roost. His upcoming book will make the same
argument. If he has an ounce of intellectual discernment left, his
site will go after Slate's Will Saletan, if only for
speaking out of school.
In yesterday's Washington Post, Saletan, who's been
skewering Bush, tells Howard Kurtz: "I'm not burdened like a lot of
daily folks by having to appear objective." (My emphasis.)
He then says: "I feel at liberty to just say out loud what other
reporters are saying under their breath."
How lucky that Saletan is a free man. Whatever Brock is, it's
something else.
topics:
Mainstream Media, Business, Military
