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.