The “Media Matters” Effect: Fueling Partisan Coverage

Media Matters (right) has again demonstrated its influence in parts of the mainstream media. This past week saw a three-way shouting match among the left-leaning site, CNN and commentator Bill O’Reilly. It began with O’Reilly’s comments during his September 19 radio show. The pundit described recent lunch with Reverend Al Sharpton at Sylvia’s, a black-owned restaurant in Harlem. According to a Media Matters transcript of the exchange, O’Reilly said he was surprised by the similarities between the eatery and those patronized by whites: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun." The item was posted on Media Matters the afternoon of September 21, adding to a large collection of complaints the site has against O’Reilly. By September 26, CNN picked up the story and began airing news reports asking if O’Reilly’s comments were racist. CNN anchor Rick Sanchez (left) led the charge, reporting on the fallout (much of it manufactured by CNN) and inviting guests to debate on his show. O’Reilly fired back, arguing that his comments were simply "benign" and that he was quoted out of context. On his own show, O'Reilly said “Media Matters fabricated the story, and major media outlets picked up the fabrication, trying to diminish me and the Fox News Channel.” However, during this segment he described his original words as a productive “discussion of race” without replaying the original tape.

This was not the first time O’Reilly has squared off against criticism from Media Matters. During an interview on Irish television, O’Reilly was asked about the controversy he generates in the United States. O’Reilly turned the tables, accusing the host of pulling material from the “assassination website” Media Matters. He then dodged giving a real answer, saying “I can’t possibly answer that question, I don’t know what the discussion was." O'Reilly and other pundits are understandably aggravated by Media Matters because the restaurant controversy is only one in a series brought on by the site. Last spring, the editors were responsible for bringing to light the disparaging remarks Don Imus made about the women’s basketball team at Rutgers University. Public outrage grew until Imus’s show was canceled a week later. A New York Times article noted that the Media Matters post echoed across the blogosphere so loudly that within a few days "both [Imus's] radio and television outlets were getting out 10-foot poles." But this latest ordeal with O'Reilly has only intensified the spotlight on Media Matters. The site, launched in 2004, says it is “dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” However, as this Newsday article from last year notes, the site has clear connections to Senator Hilary Clinton: "Two years ago, she advised [founder David] Brock on creating the group, encouraging the creation of a liberal equivalent of the Media Research Center, a conservative group that has aggravated Democrats for decades...[Clinton] thinks he provides a valuable service, according to people familiar with the relationship."

Critics of the site say it is out to libel any personality that does not tow the Democratic party line. Noel Sheppard, a contributing editor at the conservative media site NewsBusters, charges "Hillary and her backers have created an advocacy network whose expressed goal is to take down all of her critics in the media." Other opponents say Media Matters resorts to quoting out of context in “smear” campaigns. This is an exaggeration. While items posted on the site can become a lightning rod for controversy, they still carry an extremely professional tone and do not resort to any partisan name calling. Clips are presented far from “out of context”--transcripts of television or radio appearances can span many pages (see example here) and give readers a true idea of what preceded and followed the words in question.

The point I want to make here is twofold. First, CNN and other media outlets are obviously visiting Media Matters and using material provided there as fodder for stories. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann routinely uses material featured on the site, which in turn lands him a positive mention from the group. Media Matters has emerged as a clearinghouse for transcripts and video clips of controversial comments made by conservative hosts. Secondly, I believe this relationship hurts the reputation of the media outlets involved. Rather than monitoring O’Reilly’s show themselves, CNN seemed to wait for something juicy to rise to the top, pre-packaged by Media Matters. This type of reporting, where the network is clearly taking leads from an activist website, gives credence to critics who say the channel has a liberal bias. Consequently, O’Reilly can launch into counter-attacks about a liberal press conspiracy against him. Both sides have valid arguments here. All the while, Media Matters does a reliable job of documenting what at times can be truly vile or hateful words coming from the right. Each has a role to play along the media spectrum, but some type of firewall between the parties would go a long way towards ensuring a more civil discussion on topics as important as race.

Adventures in the Blogosphere: Rather and Petraeus

In light of many important media stories in the news this past week, I decided to take a drive through the blogosphere. Two especially good posts caught my eye, and I wanted to take the opportunity to respond with my own comments. I’ve included copies of these comments below, along with permalinks which will lead you to the external sites.

My first visit was to BuzzMachine, a popular blog about both mainstream and online media. It is written by Jeff Jarvis, an associate professor at City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism. He’s been published across a variety of media, and is an occasional guest on cable news. His posts are usually detailed, thoughtful and eclectic.

In light of the lawsuit by Dan Rather (left) against CBS for violating his contract, Jarvis published a scathing post knocking down many of Rather’s assertions. I found the piece to hit several points dead on, and my comment can be found here.

Secondly, I visited MediaMatters, a progressive media watchdog group. Last week’s column by senior fellow Eric Boehlert looked at the media’s coverage of the “General Betray Us” newspaper ad (right) placed by MoveOn.org. Boehlert has written for Salon.com and has covered media and politics extensively. However, just as I was finishing my reply, the comment thread for this post was archived and new posts are no longer accepted.

-----

Cross-Post of “Buzz Machine” comment:

Jeff,

This was a rather blistering post, but I think it speaks for how a lot of journalists and others in the media are feeling. Mr. Rather is unwilling to admit there was a mistake, and even contends his apology was forced. He is blowing his own journalistic horn at the same time claiming distance from the fact checkers and others who played a part in the 60 Minutes error.

I agree with you that suing for $1 would have the same point of principle without making Mr. Rather appear even more greedy and egotistical. He is clearly at the end of his career and this latest stunt only further sours his reputation.

However, I was wondering if you think there is any credence to Rather’s complaints about corporate media ownership. In his “Larry King Live” interview, he warned that large media conglomerates and their political connections are a threat to the future of journalism. While his theories of CBS abandoning the “truth” to appease the White House are unsubstantiated, it doesn’t mean similar things could not happen in the future. Do you think there is such a risk, or can alternative media act as a check on this power, much in the way bloggers touched off Rathergate three years ago?

-----

Comment on “MediaMatters" column:

Eric,

I think you make several excellent observations in this column. News of nine more American service members being killed did go unnoted during the frenzy surrounding Petraeus’s testimony, even though it further illustrates the point that coalition forces are still paying a heavy price because of Iraq’s instability. Thank you for citing that poll (from Fox News, no less) showing American’s skepticism of Petraeus’s honesty .

I think you make excellent points about the media underreporting the true content of MoveOn’s ad. Instead, they were all too eager to turn it into a polarizing political issue that would ignite emotion on both sides of the aisle. I saw reports of the ad that did not discuss anything beyond the “Betray Us” headline before diving into political punditry. Conservatives were subsequently able to lambaste the entire ad without challenge.

Do you think this type of single-track coverage is systemic to today’s mainstream media, or was this a special case because of the circumstances surrounding the general’s long-awaited testimony? Many in the media were probably looking for a simple, soundbite friendly way to cover hours and hours of congressional testimony. A single newspaper ad reflected the sentiments of many anti-war critics, and proved to be a debate-worthy topic. It certainly has had an effect, and more people are probably familiar with MoveOn’s ad than anything Petraeus actually said before congress.

Public Radio: An Evolving Tune

Before diving into my specific field of television news, I wanted to take this opportunity to explore a somewhat older but still extremely relevant medium. A presentation by Ira Glass (right) this past weekend at USC's Visions and Voices series highlighted some of the best story telling on radio today while also noting a variety of issues currently facing public broadcasting. Glass is executive producer and host of Chicago Public Radio's This American Life, which can be heard on more than 500 public radio stations across the country. The program is unique in that it is devoted to long format stories based on a different theme each week. During the event, Glass demonstrated how a story bursting with action, dialogue and music can propel a narrative along in a way that keeps listeners tuned in.

Such carefully woven radio pieces are true works of art, and are just one reason why NPR remains popular among American adults. Glass pointed out that NPR is still a leading source for news. On a given day, more people listen to “Morning Edition” than watch top television programming in the same timeslot. He attributed a recent slip in NPR listenership to normal fluctuations in the radio market. However, such fluctuations may continue because of evolving technology and changing consumer taste.

NPR has been scrambling to reach out to new audiences in new ways. The rapidly-growing popularity of MP3 players has led more listeners to desire on-demand or "time-shifted" programming that is recorded before-hand. Listeners no longer need to be near a radio at a specific time to enjoy a given program. Consequently, NPR now offers an enormous library of its content in free downloadable podcast form. A 24-hour stream of NPR content is also available on any computer with an internet connection. These new models present a different set of business challenges, because an à la carte approach to programming means listeners can bypass "pledge drives" that account for much of a station's financial support. Stations have toyed with the idea of finding larger sponsors to back the growth of mobile content.

Meanwhile, shifts in commercial radio may in fact be driving more listeners to NPR. Increasing consolidation of terrestrial music stations has resulted in more homogeneous offerings. At the same time, the universe of talk radio is dominated by conservative hosts. This has propelled more moderate and liberal listeners towards NPR, which has a debatable elite liberal slant. Additionally, a decline in hard news on most types of local stations has listeners searching for alternative outlets. NPR often fills this void, with its member stations carrying a variety of locally-produced news and syndicated national programming.

Another challenge facing public radio is an aging demographic, as younger listeners seek out news and entertainment from sources that are increasingly varied and diverse. Today's average NPR listener is 51 years old. The organization wants to attract younger crowds without "dumbing down" the content on which it prides itself. One response has been the "Bryant Park Project", set to debut this fall. The program is meant to draw listeners in their 20s and 30s. A listen to one of the pilot episodes reveals a much more casual approach to the public radio genre. The hosts sound younger and more dynamic, at times seeming to go off script and banter with one another. In a story about a new 1,822-foot tall building under construction Dubai, host Alison Stewart asks a reporter if Canada is "bummed" now that Toronto's CN Tower has lost its place as world's tallest building.

During his presentation, Glass spoke of the power of narrative in journalism. A powerful story, he said, can reach a "backdoor" deep inside the mind of a listener. There will always be a place for this type of journalism, as it offers a break from the flow of headlines and sound bites that dominate most media. Glass said his goal with any piece is to "make it real" to such a degree that it is like experiencing the actual world. Whether such content is delivered via conventional radio, MP3 player or cell phone is probably irrelevant. Years from now, hopefully listeners will remember the power of a specific story rather than the gizmo they used to receive it.