Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Media Matters spending 20 million to influence the news in favor of Obama reelection

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 14, 2012, 11:12 a.m. EST by tomahawk99 (-26)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

David Brock (media matters) meets week with Valerie Jarrett. What kind of news organization is this?

67 Comments

67 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

20 million seems low in today political circus. that's less than a dime a citizen

I don't support the bombing of other nations

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

you're the one bombing

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago
[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

you are welcome, i'll be here all week.

[-] 2 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Since we cant get right wing money out of politics, I am glad to see anyone putting up the bucks to oppose their agenda and the religious fanatics. Hope your post is true.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

typical liberal, you think whatever the left does is OK.

[-] 0 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Typical idiot, assuming and generalizing.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

You are assuming that what there is no left wing money in politics? This is a democracy not everyone is left wing. But to have MM trying to shut down any conservative news media and to be in cahoots with the WH, now that's bad.

[-] 0 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Id say it levels the playing field given fox news partnership with the right, and the right dominating radio.

Did i say there was no money on the left? No. I said im glad for any money on the left.

Id love to see murdoch behind bars....or at least stripped of the right to call anything associated with him "news". Hope he reaps what he has sown.

Later.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

so you want to censor the news just because it is perceived as conservative. Think if i said that about Media Matters or MSNBC, CNN, 'I don't agree with them put them in jail. ' Sounds like the old (and new) Soviet Union/ Russia. you can't or censure the media and that's what you want to do.

[-] 0 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

You seem to be unaware of the legal actions taking place because of the illegal activities by Murdochs minions.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

you said that anything associated with him shouldn't be called news. Only the government could do that;so the government should determine what can be called news . That's scary, listen to what you are saying.

[-] 0 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Yeah, im scary that way...good thing im not in charge...

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

And where did you get the $20,000,000.00 number from ?

And did you use toilet paper when you were thru ?

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

bensdad, now that's below even you. You are just upset because your beloved media matters has been caught with their pants down.
http://forum.pressdemocrat.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9979&p=89777

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Thanks, for giving me a tour thru the sewers to find the sources
cut directly from their web sites


Media Matters head coordinates with White House, builds super PAC The head of Media Matters for America -- now out coordinating a new super PAC to help President Obama get reelected -- is operating his nonprofit organization in close coordination with the Obama White House, a new investigative report out Monday says.
David Brock, according to the Daily Caller, has collected a $250,000 annual salary for his work at MMFA, which includes daily screeds against Fox News Channel and other media outlets that allow conservative perspectives in their reporting.
Media Matters manipulating headlines? Brock's group, founded in 2004, is spending $20 million this year in a campaign to influence news coverage that sheds a positive image on the current administration as well as progressives and lawmakers in Congress.


And guess who Daily Caller is ?


Founded by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran of print and broadcast media, and Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Cheney,


anybody smell a fox here ?

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

Does it mean its wrong? Why are you so concerned about media matters? is tthat where you get your talking points.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I know you wont believe me - I HAVE NEVER looked at their web page - never get talking points - I always find it interesting where "news" and "information" is sourced
It probably does not bother you - but if you dig far enough in many tp web sites - you will find koch, etc

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

where do you get your news ? Look at whose funding your news sites.

I would tend to believe Tucker as he interviewed media matter employees. Remember John Edwards? Remember who broke the news on this mistress scandal. TMZ the entertainment rag. So don't judge a book by its cover.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7030) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Where are they getting the 20 million from? Have you got a link?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7030) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

That's a link to this thread still no mention of 20 million dollars coming from anywhere. Are you trying to get my hopes up? What an insanely simple tatic.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

:) look it up yourself, there is this thing called Google that is a search engine. I'm not going to send you the link, find the info yourself and make up your own mind about the subject.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

What exactly does this have to do with Occupy Wall Street?

We are a Working Class Movement, not a liberal Obama supporting Movement.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

this is true. that's why i brought up the meddling of media matters in the election (they are a tax exempt organization and shouldn't be doing that)

[-] 2 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

OK, but MM can do what they want. Let them spend their money on what they want to .

It has nothing to do with OWS.

I also do not care if they are tax exempt of not. That is the system. Let the system deal with it.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

what do you represent, must be one of those anarchist

[-] 2 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

I see.

I have learned the hard way in my discussions with people on this form, whom the young people call "trolls," that when a retort post to a question or an inquiry is something that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, we are in a checkmate situation.

So Tommy Hawk I am considering you checkmated until I have a clear and concise answer to my question.

I will no longer respond unless you keep to the topic at hand, and respond in a mature manner. I am willing to have a discussion, but I am not going to waste my time with childish dribble.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

you obviously don't play chess, and i gave you an answer, if you disagree with it fine its a free country. please don't respond to me as you promised.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

In 1986 David Brock joined the staff of the weekly conservative news magazine Insight on the News, a sister publication of The Washington Times. After a stint as a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, in March 1992 Brock authored a sharply critical story about Clarence Thomas's accuser, Anita Hill, in The American Spectator magazine. A little over a year later, in April 1993, Brock published a book titled The Real Anita Hill, which expanded upon previous assertions that had cast doubt on the veracity of Anita Hill's claims of sexual harassment. The book became a best-seller. It was later attacked in a book review in The New Yorker by Jane Mayer, a reporter for The New Yorker, and Jill Abramson, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. The two later expanded their article into the book Strange Justice, which cast Anita Hill in a much more sympathetic light. It, too, was a best-seller. Brock replied to their book with a book review of his own in The American Spectator. In the January 1994, issue of The American Spectator, Brock, by then on staff at the magazine, published a story about Bill Clinton's time as governor of Arkansas that made accusations that bred Troopergate.[2] Among other things, the story contained the first printed reference to Paula Jones, referring to a woman named "Paula" who state troopers said offered to be Clinton's partner.[2] Jones called Brock's account of her encounter with Clinton "totally wrong," and she later sued Clinton for sexual harassment, a case that became entangled in the independent counsel's investigation of the Whitewater controversy and eventually led to the impeachment of the president. The story received an award later that year from the Western Journalism Center, and was partially responsible for a rise in the 25-year-old magazine's circulation, from around 70,000 to over 300,000 in a very short period.[citation needed] Three years later, Brock surprised conservatives by publishing a somewhat sympathetic biography of Hillary Clinton, titled The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. Having received a $1 million advance and a tight one-year deadline from Simon & Schuster's then-conservative-focused Free Press subsidiary, Brock was under tremendous pressure to produce another best-seller. However, the book contained no major scoops. In Blinded by the Right (2002), Brock said that he had reached a turning point—he had thoroughly examined charges against the Clintons, could not find any evidence of wrongdoing, and did not want to make any more misleading claims. Brock further said that his former friends in right-wing politics shunned him because Seduction did not adequately attack the Clintons. He also argued that his "friends" had not really been friends at all, due to the open secret that Brock was gay.[6] In July 1997, Brock published a confessional piece in Esquire magazine titled "Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man," in which he recanted much of what he said in his two best-known American Spectator articles and criticized his own reporting methods.[7][8] Discouraged at the reaction his Hillary Clinton biography received, he said, "I . . . want out. David Brock the Road Warrior of the Right is dead." Four months later, The American Spectator declined to renew his employment contract, under which he was being paid over $300,000 per year. Writing again for Esquire in April 1998, Brock apologized to Clinton for his contributions to Troopergate, calling it simply part of an anti-Clinton crusade.[2] He told a more detailed story of his time inside the right wing in his 2002 memoir, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, in which he settled old scores and provided inside details about the Arkansas Project's efforts to bring down Clinton. Later, he also apologized to Anita Hill. In 2001 Brock accused one of his former sources, Terry Wooten, of leaking FBI files for use in his book about Anita Hill. Brock defended his betrayal of a confidential source by saying, "I've concluded that what I was involved in wasn't journalism, it was a political operation, and I was part of it. . . . So I don't think the normal rules of journalism would apply to what I was doing."[9] Brock directly addressed the right-wing "machine" in his 2004 book, The Republican Noise Machine, in which he detailed an alleged interconnected, concerted effort to raise the profile of conservative opinions in the press through false accusations of liberal media bias, dishonest and highly partisan columnists, partisan news organizations and academic studies, and other methods. Also in 2004, he featured briefly in the BBC series The Power of Nightmares, where he stated that the Arkansas Project engaged in political terrorism. About the same time he founded Media Matters for America, an Internet-based progressive media watchdog group "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

David Brock is a democrat operative trying to censure a news agency (Fox) and influence an election in favor of Obama

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7030) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

All good Americans are trying to influence this election in favor of Obama, to not do so is like a love letter to Osama Bin Laden.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

Sounds like the Hugo Chavez world where elections are free but not fair. Influence is ok, what media matters and other lefty goons do is not.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Fox Lies is a fascist propaganda installation. And will be outlawed soon.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

And I suppose Rupert Murdoch and his propaganda machine are working for Obama?

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

do you have any reports that foxnews is financing anyone to ensure that Obama isn't re- elected?

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

a site with the word vengeance in it isn't very promising.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

I don't see your point. The facts are there, supported by multiple links to authoritative sources. Accept the truth or don't.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

both parties are crooked, why waste your time trying to defend either one? they both know what's best for us, right?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

How much has FLAKESnews spent?

How much has Heritage spent?

How much has Crossroads spent?

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

I don't think that any of those you listed are paying to get Obama re elected. What is different is that media matters is working with the Obama administration, come on does that seem right?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The question I'm asking, is how much has been spent against this administration?

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

i don't know, why don't you tell me? There definitely is evidence against Media Matters and MSNBC and links going directly to the Obama Administration. that's bad, try to top that.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I have no idea, but since you know how much one spent, shouldn't YOU know?

You shouldn't pass lies about the links either.

I just checked both sites and there is no prominent link.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

your logic makes no sense. You are the one accusing the other networks of spending money for something (you don't even say what on), and you expect me to go out and prove what you say. Boy are you dumb.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Actually, I did say what it would be spent on.

You lied about the links.

What else did you lie about?

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

don't change the subject, show me what foxnews and the others are paying to not have Obama reelected. Come on anything..

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You would have to understand FLAKESnews purpose, and I don't think that's possible for you.

You would also have to understand Roger Ailes and his purpose for FLAKESnews.

You would have to ask how much Karls, American Crossroads, has spent and their not telling.

Actual research is for too much to ask.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

you have nothing. Media Matters is caught with their pants down trying to influence an election in cahoots with the Obama administration and you have no comment other than to try to accuse others of doing something that you are sure that they are doing but have no reports (sounds like Dan Rather's fake evidence against Bush).

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

MM is run by a guy who used to be a rightie operative but got fed up and sick of the EVIL and started MM to help undo do what he helped in doing.

Dan Rather, a more genuine journalistic American hero would be hard to find, had nothing to do with the document in question while reporting on the true and proven story about the disgraceful history of Bush's military service. The document which [was] authentic, was unfortunately reprinted for clarity probably by some young intern who had no idea modern printers no longer contained old typewriter fonts. And that's what happened. In the heat of the controversy, Mr. Rather, took the blame and gave an ultimatum. CBS, owned by Viacom, a giant 1% firm, seized the opportunity to fire a real journalist (a thorn in the side of outlaw operations) and did so summarily. It was a crime buried under the 8 year crime and punishment we still feel today of the Bush-Cheney presidency.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

David Brock is a democrat operative. Dan Rather was caught with false evidence against Bush, you can try to spin that however you want, but you won't win. Rather was disgraced.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

In 1986 David Brock joined the staff of the weekly conservative news magazine Insight on the News, a sister publication of The Washington Times. After a stint as a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, in March 1992 Brock authored a sharply critical story about Clarence Thomas's accuser, Anita Hill, in The American Spectator magazine. A little over a year later, in April 1993, Brock published a book titled The Real Anita Hill, which expanded upon previous assertions that had cast doubt on the veracity of Anita Hill's claims of sexual harassment. The book became a best-seller. It was later attacked in a book review in The New Yorker by Jane Mayer, a reporter for The New Yorker, and Jill Abramson, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. The two later expanded their article into the book Strange Justice, which cast Anita Hill in a much more sympathetic light. It, too, was a best-seller. Brock replied to their book with a book review of his own in The American Spectator. In the January 1994, issue of The American Spectator, Brock, by then on staff at the magazine, published a story about Bill Clinton's time as governor of Arkansas that made accusations that bred Troopergate.[2] Among other things, the story contained the first printed reference to Paula Jones, referring to a woman named "Paula" who state troopers said offered to be Clinton's partner.[2] Jones called Brock's account of her encounter with Clinton "totally wrong," and she later sued Clinton for sexual harassment, a case that became entangled in the independent counsel's investigation of the Whitewater controversy and eventually led to the impeachment of the president. The story received an award later that year from the Western Journalism Center, and was partially responsible for a rise in the 25-year-old magazine's circulation, from around 70,000 to over 300,000 in a very short period.[citation needed] Three years later, Brock surprised conservatives by publishing a somewhat sympathetic biography of Hillary Clinton, titled The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. Having received a $1 million advance and a tight one-year deadline from Simon & Schuster's then-conservative-focused Free Press subsidiary, Brock was under tremendous pressure to produce another best-seller. However, the book contained no major scoops. In Blinded by the Right (2002), Brock said that he had reached a turning point—he had thoroughly examined charges against the Clintons, could not find any evidence of wrongdoing, and did not want to make any more misleading claims. Brock further said that his former friends in right-wing politics shunned him because Seduction did not adequately attack the Clintons. He also argued that his "friends" had not really been friends at all, due to the open secret that Brock was gay.[6] In July 1997, Brock published a confessional piece in Esquire magazine titled "Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man," in which he recanted much of what he said in his two best-known American Spectator articles and criticized his own reporting methods.[7][8] Discouraged at the reaction his Hillary Clinton biography received, he said, "I . . . want out. David Brock the Road Warrior of the Right is dead." Four months later, The American Spectator declined to renew his employment contract, under which he was being paid over $300,000 per year. Writing again for Esquire in April 1998, Brock apologized to Clinton for his contributions to Troopergate, calling it simply part of an anti-Clinton crusade.[2] He told a more detailed story of his time inside the right wing in his 2002 memoir, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, in which he settled old scores and provided inside details about the Arkansas Project's efforts to bring down Clinton. Later, he also apologized to Anita Hill. In 2001 Brock accused one of his former sources, Terry Wooten, of leaking FBI files for use in his book about Anita Hill. Brock defended his betrayal of a confidential source by saying, "I've concluded that what I was involved in wasn't journalism, it was a political operation, and I was part of it. . . . So I don't think the normal rules of journalism would apply to what I was doing."[9] Brock directly addressed the right-wing "machine" in his 2004 book, The Republican Noise Machine, in which he detailed an alleged interconnected, concerted effort to raise the profile of conservative opinions in the press through false accusations of liberal media bias, dishonest and highly partisan columnists, partisan news organizations and academic studies, and other methods. Also in 2004, he featured briefly in the BBC series The Power of Nightmares, where he stated that the Arkansas Project engaged in political terrorism. About the same time he founded Media Matters for America, an Internet-based progressive media watchdog group "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

David Brock is a democrat operative

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

So, no research on your part.

Just accept whatever Roger tells you.

Super PACS are unfortunately legal now.

That wasn't Media Matters doing, it was the "conservative" SCOTUS.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

go read your talking points from media matters or the white house. Obama is now using super PACs and don't forget the SCOTUS is fairly split liberal/conservative.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I did my research, you didn't do yours.

Go back to FLAKESnews and become what you watch.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

you are so dumb, that i feel sorry for you.

[-] 0 points by youngblood (1) from Eureka, CA 2 years ago

buck ofama

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Who cares? Turn off your TV and look for news from unbiased sources.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

are you saying that you don't believe that media matters is doing this?

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I'm saying I don't give a shit. I don't watch CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News. The people need to wake up and stop blindly accepting what is being fed to them through the TV and start to draw their own conclusions.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

what is your conclusion then, about media matters? the subject is relevant as no one wants outside money influencing an election.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

You're right. No one wants outside money influencing an election. That's why we need to overturn Citizens United and reform the lobbying that is currently allowed in DC. We need the people to be heard just as loudly as the corporations that pay untold millions of dollars to fund attack ads and lobbying efforts.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

don't forget Unions as well, they have their hands in it as well.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

Brock just exposed having a armed (with side arm) body guard in D.C. Funny since Brock supported strict gun control movement.