Media Matters for America responds…
Paul Waldman, of Media Matters for America, sent this e-mail about yesterday’s post:
I have to take issue with a couple of the things you said about Media Matters in your post “What Can You Trust…” They may seem like minor points, but they are actually pretty critical to us.
You toss in Media Matters with other groups that are attempting to “prove” media bias – this is a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. Media Matters does not try to prove bias. Media Matters does not allege bias. We have a strict rule that we never, ever, ever charge anyone with bias. We never use the word “bias.” We correct misinformation in the most straightforward way we can.
We don’t talk about journalist’s motives or what we think might be in their hearts. Our work stems from two basic beliefs: First, that conservatives regularly lie, deceive and misinform, and their misinformation finds its way not only into their explicitly ideological media sources but into the supposedly mainstream media as well; and second, that journalists have been so beaten down by conservative criticism that they pass on misinformation and spin all the time. We look for this misinformation and correct it.
As for David Brock, we are all too well aware that his renunciation of his conservative past creates a credibility problem. The way we deal with that issue is by being as transparent and careful as possible. Every time we make an empirical claim it is based on the most credible sources we can find. There is no commentary on the Media Matters site.
As for Rosenstiel’s comment, it is the same lame cop-out so many journalists use when they say, “If we’re being criticized by the right and the left, we must be doing our jobs.” If you’re being criticized by someone who has a clear set of beliefs, you can just dismiss the criticism out of hand without addressing its substance. How convenient!
You seem to be implying that people who “fight political battles rather than attempt to come to a better understanding of how the news media work or how/why journalists behave as they do” can’t be producing a legitimate or valuable critique (and correct me if I’m wrong here). Frankly, that’s beyond ridiculous. Do we have a “political” agenda? Of course. But saying that means our work is without value is just as absurd as saying that who a journalist voted for offers “proof” of their “bias.” Either the points we make are legitimate or they aren’t. I’d encourage you to spend a few minutes at our site and see if you’d like to amend your comments.
Feel free to post this if you like.
Paul Waldman
Senior Fellow
Media Matters for America
Mr. Waldman:
Thank you for writing to Rhetorica. I appreciate your interest.
I am well aware that Media Matters for America does not use the term “bias.” But that doesn’t mean that’s not what MMA is talking about. In my opinion, MMA simply approaches it through the back door by stating that “conservatives regularly lie, deceive and misinform, and their misinformation finds its way not only into their explicitly ideological media sources.” If it quacks like a duck, well, you know.
I think MMA might do a greater service for America if it abandoned the first of its basic beliefs and put its talent to work trying to come to a better understanding of how politicians communicate with the news media and why they do so in particular ways.
I agree that “journalists have been so beaten down by conservative criticism that they pass on misinformation and spin all the time.” But that’s still a bias. If a reporter consciously passes on information known to be spin or deception to avoid charges of bias (or other political discomfort) by conservatives, that’s a bias.
We can quibble all we want about the word “bias,” but I’ll concede that MMA is doing something a bit different from FAIR and AIM–and a bit better. I’ll also tell you that as a liberal, I’m glad MMA exists and is fighting real instances of conservative spin and deception.
I make no claims, nor take any position, about Mr. Brock. I think MMA’s work speaks for itself, and Mr. Rosenstiel should look there for the answer to his question.
I’m concerned with motive.
I’d ask you to re-read my entry carefully, especially this part:
Caveat: I am not claiming that ideologically-driven or interested research is useless or unimportant. Applied research, for example, attempts to solve real problems–certainly interested. I’m drawing the distinction between politically-driven research–i.e. research to solve the problem of winning politically–and “pure” research meant to increase understanding of a given phenomenon.
And I made this rather strong generalization (i.e. a fallacy I use for rhetorical purposes):
Any research that proceeds from ideological concerns is necessarily flawed and should be met with more than academic skepticism; its motives should be scorned.
I certainly think it’s a good idea to fact-check the news media and political spinmeisters, but I have to scorn the motive that approaches it with the attitude that “conservatives regularly lie, deceive and misinform.” (Which, by the way, may be entirely true. I’d rather an academic do a proper study to prove it sans the conservatives-are-regular-liars motive.)
A proper academic attitude would be to fact-check the press and politicians regardless of faction for the purposes of coming to a better understanding about how the press-politics relationship works and what that means to citizens. MMA is not an academic institution. MMA does not have an academic purpose; it has a political purpose. And my criticism of it assumes that academic motives for research are better. Is that fair? No.
In terms of my own politics, I cheer what MMA does. In terms of my professional interest in establishing theory regarding the press-politics relationship, I have to be very careful about relying on your claims and representations.
UPDATE (1:50 p.m.): Dan Mitchell writes to Romenesko:
In pursuing the truth, we often screw up. And for mostly institutional reasons, the biases of political manipulators (like, say, Tim Graham or David Brock) surely shape how political news is presented. But it certainly isn’t because the reporters themselves are engaged in partisanship. Not knowingly, anyway.
This shaping Mitchell speaks of is one of the things MMA hopes to expose. Wouldn’t it be interesting if MMA did this without a political agenda? What might we learn?
