Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Little

Tucker Carlson takes on Media Matters.

Rate this topic

13 posts in this topic


I feel like Flounder in Animal House-"This is gonna be GGRRREATT!"



 



Those that are interested, read along.



http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/



 



He jumps right out of the gate and shows how Brock got Don Imus and Lou Dobbs fired.



THEN, claims knowledge of David Brock's drug use AND some Mental Illness issue.



 



What FUN!


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like Flounder in Animal House-"This is gonna be GGRRREATT!"

 

Those that are interested, read along.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/

 

He jumps right out of the gate and shows how Brock got Don Imus and Lou Dobbs fired.

THEN, claims knowledge of David Brock's drug use AND some Mental Illness issue.

 

What FUN!

 

Tucker Who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by nipsip View Post

 

Tucker Who?

 

Oh, and they got the "target list", too.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

 

One of those singled out for scrutiny in the memo is PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, a self-described libertarian. Thiel “directly funded, through a small government group, prior racist attack videos by James O’Keefe, the right-wing operative who staged the recent ACORN video sting,” states the memo. “Thiel’s role in funding such attacks has gone completely unremarked and largely uninvestigated.”

 

“An opposition research team will serve to hold Thiel and others like him accountable.”

News Corp

 Fox News Channel

 Fox Business Network

 Fox News’ websites

Conservative news sites

 WorldNetDaily

 BigHollywood.com

 NewsMax

 BigGovernment.com

Conservative think thanks

 The Heritage Foundation

 American Enterprise Institute

 Cato Institute

News Corp executives

 Rupert Murdoch

 Chase Carey

 David DeVoe

 Lawrence Jacobs

 James Murdoch

Conservative donors

 Peter Thiel

 Richard Mellon Scaife

 Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

 John M. Olin Foundation

 Koch Family Foundations

Fox News executives

 CEO Roger Ailes

 Senior vice president Michael Clemente

 Vice president of news Sean Smith

 Vice president of new editorial product Jay Wallace

 Fox Business Network executive vice president Kevin Magee

Fox personalities

 Glenn Beck

 Sean Hannity

 Bill O’Reilly

Fox senior production and corporation staff

 Hannity executive producer John Finley

 On the Record executive producer Meade Cooper

 O’Reilly Factor senior executive producer David Tabacoff

 Fox & Friends executive producer Lauren Petterson

Political figures

 Carly Fiorina

 David Vitter

 Eric Cantor

 John Boehner

 Mitch McConnell

 Michele Bachmann

 Steve King

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hot Air's take on the developing story. If I was in the habit of reading or watching the manipulated news poured into my head from MM by their shills in the MSM I would feel totally violated. Being a good stooge and believing hte "adjusted story product" and seeing the Enemies list should want to make those gullible fools want to take a long hot shower th scrubb off the feeling of being used as a tool.

 

Is the White House manipulating the media through Media Matters?

posted at 9:15 am on February 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

 

The Daily Caller has a multipart exposé on David Brock and Media Matters which will surprise … well, probably no one who reads this site. Speaking with former and current employees, Tucker Carlson, Vince Coglianese, Alex Pappas, and Will Rahn paint a picture of Brock as paranoid and out of control, but still supremely effective at getting his message out through the mainstream media:

 

Extensive interviews with a number of Brock’s current and former colleagues at Media Matters, as well as with leaders from across the spectrum of Democratic politics, reveal an organization roiled by its leader’s volatile and erratic behavior and struggles with mental illness, and an office where Brock’s executive assistant carried a handgun to public events in order to defend his boss from unseen threats.

 

Yet those same interviews, as well as a detailed organizational planning memo obtained by The Daily Caller, also suggest that Media Matters has to a great extent achieved its central goal of influencing the national media.

 

Well, in the interests of full disclosure, I often carry a handgun to public events — where it is legal to do so — thanks to threats that turned out to be real enough to prosecute. Then again, I’m not funded by gun-grabbers like George Soros, either. Given the personal attacks that Media Matters is given to making, I have no doubt that at least a few of their threats are not “unseen” as in “unreal,” but it’s more than a little hypocritical to carry around a concealed weapon (presumably illegally, especially in Washington DC) while supporting tougher gun-control regulations.

 

The DC has plenty of juicy and salacious anecdotes about Brock, but the real story is how successful Brock has become in shaping the narrative of the national media. MSNBC is a given, but it’s also become a hard-Left backwater. Media Matters has done better than MSNBC in setting the table:

But MSNBC executives weren’t the only ones talking regularly to Media Matters.

 

“The entire progressive blogosphere picked up our stuff,” says a Media Matters source, “from Daily Kos to Salon. Greg Sargent [of the Washington Post] will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff.”

 

“If you can’t get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent’s always game,” agreed another source with firsthand knowledge.

Reached by phone, Sargent declined to comment.

 

“The HuffPo guys were good, Sam Stein and Nico [Pitney],” remembered one former staffer. “The people at Huffington Post were always eager to cooperate, which is no surprise given David’s long history with Arianna [Huffington].”

 

“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff,” the staffer continued. “So did Joe Garofoli at the San Francisco Chronicle. We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post]. Brian Stelter at the New York Times was helpful.”

 

“Ben Smith [formerly of Politico, now at BuzzFeed.com] will take stories and write what you want him to write,” explained the former employee, whose account was confirmed by other sources. Staffers at Media Matters “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith, they knew they could dump it at Plum Line [Greg Sargent’s Washington Post blog], so that’s where they sent it.”

 

Smith, who refused to comment on the substance of these claims, later took to Twitter to say that he has been critical of Media Matters.

However, their real success has been accessing the halls of power, especially the Obama White House:

 

A group with the ability to shape news coverage is of incalculable value to the politicians it supports, so it’s no surprise that Media Matters has been in regular contact with political operatives in the Obama administration. According to visitor logs, on June 16, 2010, Brock and then-Media Matters president Eric Burns traveled to the White House for a meeting with Valerie Jarrett, arguably the president’s closest adviser. Recently departed Obama communications director Anita Dunn returned to the White House for the meeting as well.

 

It’s not clear what the four spoke about — no one in the meeting returned repeated calls for comment — but the apparent coordination continued. “Anita Dunn became a regular presence at the office,” says someone who worked there. Then-president of Media Matters, Eric Burns, “lunched with her, met with her and chatted with her frequently on any number of matters.”

 

Media Matters also began a weekly strategy call with the White House, which continues, joined by the liberal Center for American Progress think tank. Jen Psaki, Obama’s deputy communications director, was a frequent participant before she left for the private sector in October 2011.

 

Every Tuesday evening, meanwhile, a representative from Media Matters attends the Common Purpose Project meeting at the Capitol Hilton on 16th Street in Washington, where dozens of progressive organizations formulate strategy, often with a representative from the Obama White House.

 

The actual story here might be the reverse of how Carlson et al frame it here. This sounds as though the White House uses Brock and Media Matters to conduct a proxy war against its perceived enemies in the news media and to push its propaganda out through the MSM. The DC’s descriptions of attacks on reporters and media outlets who don’t fall in line would make MMFA a very valuable pitbull for Jarrett and Obama, and one with some plausible deniability, at least until now. This should really be the screaming red flag in the article, rather than some of the salacious tidbits about Brock.

 

Interestingly, just a few days ago someone else connected the White House to Media Matters, along with a warning that their relationship could cost Obama the next election. The name of that right-wing nut? Alan Dershowitz:

 

Much more newsworthy than the silly spitballs Blumenthal threw with his screaming article was Dershowitz’s conviction that Blumenthal and his buddies at Media Matters (a media watchdog organization affiliated with the Democratic party and which has recently been widely accused of engaging in anti-Semitism) were going to cost this president the election.

 

Asked at the pre-event press conference whether he had seen Blumenthal’s article, Dershowitz’s immediate and angry response was: “I have, and let me tell you, Max Blumenthal and Media Matters will be singlehandedly responsible for [Obama] losing this election. They [the Democrats] cannot win the election and keep this affiliation with them [Media Matters].”

 

When shown this statement, all Blumenthal could muster (via Twitter) was that “I haven’t been at mmfa [Media Matters] since 2007.” It was pointed out that Blumenthal’s then-current ******** page listed him as working for the “progressive organization Media Matters for America.” Blumenthal did not respond, but he has since altered his ******** page so that only those “lucky” enough to be his FB friends can see it (although you can still look at the dozens of pictures he posts of himself there).

 

Dershowitz could be wrong, though. It might be that the only thing keeping Obama competitive for a re-election bid is Media Matters.

 

 

Now you know what a Mushroom feels like. Being kept in the dark and fed Horshdumplings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Its NON SSTOP fun.  They got a good one:



 



T



 



Quote:



his morning.



 



A little after 1 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2009, Karl Frisch emailed a memo to his bosses, Media Matters for America founder David Brock and president Eric Burns. In the first few lines, Frisch explained why Media Matters should launch a “Fox Fund” whose mission would be to attack the Fox News Channel.



“Simply put,” Frisch wrote, “the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around any more. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole.”



“We must take Fox News head-on in a well funded, presidential-style campaign to discredit and embarrass the network, making it illegitimate in the eyes of news consumers.”






This one goes on to chronicle Brock's descent into paranoid madness. 



Glad to see someone take on the Democrat mouthpiece.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This story is strange and interesting. The author of the expose was doing the circuit on news shows yesterday. There were a lot of odd details, but the overriding idea is that Media Matters uses its influence to toxify news outlets to push the progressive agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


What makes me laugh, then cry is that you can trace Media Matters propoganda campaigns to THIS website, and the words written by the Democrat followers.  They either know the drill and come here and squawk, or they are ignorant and come here and squawk the Soros agenda.  And do you know what they have been known to say?  "You are a slave to Fox News."



Mass hysteria.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I found interesting is that "reporters" at the WP, NYT, MSM, etc. take their stories without any vetting and just run with them. They listed some of the "reporters" and there is one guy at MSNBC (where else) who will appearantly take ANYTHING unattributed. Even the people feeding him stuff hold him in contempt.

 

Reminds me of Dr. Bernard Nathanson who founded (with others) NARAL and later became a strong pro-lifer (after performing 70,000 abortions by his own count). He said that they would just tell reporters anything, would make crap up, would make up numbers, etc., etc., etc. and the "reporters" would just take it and post it without any checking. He realized just how in the tank most reporters were for liberalism.

 

BTW, I believe this also happens with the conservative press but not to the degree of the MSM because they are so much larger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I found interesting is that "reporters" at the WP, NYT, MSM, etc. take their stories without any vetting and just run with them.

 

They listed some of the "reporters" and there is one guy at MSNBC (where else) who will appearantly take ANYTHING unattributed.

 

Even the people feeding him stuff hold him in contempt.

 

Reminds me of Dr. Bernard Nathanson who founded (with others) NARAL and later became a strong pro-lifer (after performing 70,000 abortions by his own count).

 

He said that they would just tell reporters anything, would make crap up, would make up numbers, etc., etc., etc. and the "reporters" would just take it and post it without any checking.

 

He realized just how in the tank most reporters were for liberalism.

 

BTW, I believe this also happens with the conservative press but not to the degree of the MSM because they are so much larger.

 

Liberal Howell Raines is a case in point; his feelings of white guilt - euphemisticallly characterized as "...the sensibilities and insecurities of the Times' white Southern editor..." - induced a myopia that precluded him from taking appropriate action in the case of the infamous Jayson Blair fiasco at The New York Times.

 

 

 

Howell Raines

 

From a blog:

 

 

"Jayson Blair: A Case Study of What Went Wrong at The New York Times

 

Posted: Dec. 10, 2004On May 1, 2003, 27-year-old New York Times reporter Jayson Blair resigned amidst charges that he plagiarized a story about the family of an American soldier in Iraq.

A scar on the reputation of one of the country's most influential newspapers, the Blair scandal launched a massive internal review of The Times' hiring, management and reporting practices and led to a staff shake-up ending with the resignation of two of the paper's top editors.

 

During the debacle, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. called the Blair scandal "a low point" in the paper's 152-year history.

 

What Went Wrong

 

 

Jayson Blair joined The New York Times summer internship program in June 1998 after a Times recruiter visited the University of Maryland where Blair was editor-in-chief of the school's independent student newspaper, The Diamondback.

 

According to Times staff, Blair was a promising and talented writer who had previously interned at The Boston Globe and at The Washington Post. Because of his performance as an intern over the first summer, the paper's editors asked him to return the following year.

 

Blair advanced quickly, not only because of his skill but, according to findings of an internal report commissioned after the incident by Times editors, because he may have become favored as part of a "star system" that advanced some reporters close to then-executive editor Howell Raines.

 

After four years in the internship program and as a junior reporter, where, at times, he made more mistakes than any other reporter in the paper's Metro section, Blair was given a full-time reporting position.

"He was given a regular tenured reporting job despite the misgivings of his immediate boss," the report said of Blair. "He was put on high-profile national assignments with his new supervising editors receiving no notice of the serious problems that had marked periods in his previous four years at the newspaper."

 

Blair's editor Jonathan Landman told the Siegal committee -- a committee of 25 staffers and three outside journalists led by assistant managing editor Allan Siegal -- he felt the fact that Blair was African-American played a large part in his initial promotion to full-time staffer.

 

"I think race was the decisive factor in his promotion," he said. "I thought then and I think now that it was the wrong decision."

After several more mistakes, poor evaluations and a period of leave during which Blair was said to be dealing with "personal problems," a memo sent by Landman, warned management "to stop Jayson from writing for The New York Times. Right now."

 

The memo resulted in a short suspension from deadline writing but failed to get Blair fired. In 2002, Blair was promoted to the national desk to cover the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings, according to the report released by the Siegal committee.

 

"The Blair thing was complicated but at its simplest, he worked for our Metro desk and they knew some of his problems and when he was transferred to the National desk, they weren't made aware," Siegal told the Online NewsHour.

 

Blair wrote 52 stories during the sniper attacks. In one instance, Fairfax County, Va., prosecutor Bob Horan claimed that 60 percent of a story written by Blair, in which he was quoted, was inaccurate.

Despite such accusations and a slew of corrections the paper was forced to make in the wake of his reporting, Blair continued to cover critical stories for the Times, moving from the sniper attacks to national coverage of the Iraq war.

"That national berth for sniper coverage enabled him to slide into military coverage of military families on the home front of the war in Iraq," the Siegel report said. "It was on the home front stories, in March and April 2003, that Blair committed the egregious plagiarism and fabrications that landed like a bomb on The New York Times."

 

A review of Blair's time on the National desk found that on many occasions when Blair should have been on assignment out-of-state, he was in fact e-mailing or speaking to his editors from his Brooklyn apartment or from another floor of The Times office building.

 

AS TOLSTOY MIGHT put it, functional newsrooms are all alike; dysfunctional newsrooms are all dysfunctional in their own way...

 

The New York Times put up with Jayson Blair as long as it did because of Howell Raines, whose brief, disastrous reign as executive editor was brought to an end as a result of Blair's misdeeds. Empowered by publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. to shake up what both men saw as a culture of complacency, Raines instead unwittingly tore apart the institution he loved. As Seth Mnookin describes it in his fine new book, Hard News: The Scandals at the New York Times and Their Meaning for American Media (Random House), within just a few months Raines had managed to drive out good reporters, disenfranchise his veteran midlevel editors, and change an environment in which everyone felt invested in the paper to one in which the only real hope, the only reason to keep coming into work every day, was that Raines would somehow self-destruct.

 

That Raines did. Factor in the Times' iconic status as well as the ever-complex politics of race (Blair is African-American), and the fall of Blair - and of Raines - stands as perhaps the most widely publicized media scandal ever. The Times itself has only begun to recover, and its woes continue to be invoked whenever the sins of the mainstream media are laid bare ...

 

The Jayson Blair scandal was never about Jayson Blair ... "The real cause of the tumult that gripped the paper," Mnookin writes, "could be found in the ways in which Raines's narcissistic personality had manifested itself in his leadership." ... if Blair hadn't written fictional and plagiarized articles for editors who were overworked, frightened, and boiling over with resentment, his misdeeds likely would not have multiplied to the point where they ended Raines's reign; seriously set back the career of his managing editor, Gerald Boyd, who, like Raines, was forced to resign; and severely tarnished the reputation of what is still the best daily newspaper in the country, if not the world.

 

AT THE TIME the Blair scandal was unfolding, there was a lot of talk about what Blair's misdeeds had to teach us about the supposed sins of affirmative action. This was simplistic at best, racially clueless at worst; as Glass, Kelley, Mike Barnicle, and others have demonstrated, white journalists are every bit as capable of making up stories and plagiarizing the work of others as African-Americans.

 

Somehow, though, when a journalistic scandal involves someone who's black - Janet Cooke, Patricia Smith, Jayson Blair - conservatives nod sagely that none of this ever would have happened if they hadn't been hired because of their race.

 

But if Blair's story is most definitely not a cautionary tale about affirmative action, his race is, nevertheless, relevant to what happened at the Times.

 

That's because Raines himself was unusually susceptible to the charms of an ambitious young black reporter. A liberal who grew up in segregated Alabama, Raines was a lifelong crusader for racial equality; his sincerity was unquestioned, even if it occasionally came across in a condescending manner.

 

Blair did get his foot in the door at the Times through a minority internship program, but affirmative action hardly explains what happened once he was put on staff.

 

In Mnookin's telling, though, how Blair's race may have played to the sensibilities and insecurities of the Times' white Southern editor explains a lot."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, Little. It makes sense why you hear the same ridiculous liberal statements over and over. It's no coincidence at all. They are spoonfed all from the same bowl of putrid curd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly, Little. It makes sense why you hear the same ridiculous liberal statements over and over. It's no coincidence at all. They are spoonfed all from the same bowl of putrid curd.

 

thats hwo liberal talking points are......its always funny when some here rail against other (reps and conservastives) say something they deem as talking points and then use thier liberal talking points to refute them........highly enteratianing. But those lefties dont use talking points, they are all free thinkers and highly intelligent (or so they think)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.