The Watchdog's Watchdog

    BrockThe front page of Friday's Washington Post includes reporter David Farenthold's hit piece on Bernie Sanders. Much closer in tone and content to Charles Krauthammer on a bad day than legitimate journalism, Farenthold's commentary is expertly debunked by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich at Huffington Post and macroeconomist Dean Baker of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

    Accordingly, and because there are so many flaws and obvious errors in Farenthold's reasoning, I'm not going to try to unpack all of them here. Moreover, the main focus of this piece is not how Farenthold dishonestly panders to the neo-liberal ideology of Washington Post owner/Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Instead, it's the failure of media watchdog Media Matters to respond.

    But first, let's devote a few paragraphs to Farenthold's article. He starts with an aggressive take down of Bernie's proposal to eliminate tuition at state colleges and universities.

    Under the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost.

    To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition, colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.

    States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty, and provide professional development opportunities for professors.

    No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based financial aid, or the construction of non-academic buildings like stadiums and student centers. (Emphasis supplied.)

    Farenthold's analysis:

    And with the government paying for college, colleges would run by government rules. Sanders’s rules. For one thing, Sanders thinks student centers are a waste of government money. He would make sure they did not get any more of it.

    What's obviously wrong with this paragraph? First, Farenthold falsely implies that government would be paying tuition for all colleges when in fact Sanders' proposal comprehends only state schools. This leads to the fallacy that colleges “run by government rules” would mean a significant change in the status quo. In fact, the covered schools already run by government rules since each and every one is owned and operated by a state, city, or county.

    Second, Farenthold sets Sanders up as a king whimsically micro-managing schools. In fact, Sanders insists on decentralized decision-making. Third, Farenthold's allegation that Sanders “would make sure that” there would be no more students centers does not follow logically from anything that Sanders has proposed. Sanders insists that federal monies allocated for college tuition at state schools pay the actual costs of educating students. States, however, will still be free to provide additional funds, beyond their one-third share of academic expenses, to pay for additional services and non-academic buildings.

    Certainly, the tuition-free proposal raises questions. Will states have to spend more on higher education than they do now? Will states have the wherewithal to fund student unions and gym? Does Sanders really believe that these centers don't further the educational mission of universities and colleges? These are questions to which, I'm sure, Sanders or his team would have responded if they had been asked. A good journalist would have asked. Farenthold didn't.

    Again though this piece ultimately isn't about Farenthold's reactionary folderol. It's about the failure of Media Matters to rebut it.

    Founded by David Brock in 2004, Media Matters' mission is prominently featured at its website.

    Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

    Although the center's primary focus may be debunking right-wing media cant, it also trains a gimlet eye on the mainstream media with stories challenging CNN, Newsweek, and USA Today currently at or near the top of its home page. Recently, Media Matters has published a number of articles alleging bias in the New York Times' coverage of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email address and server while she was Secretary of State.

    In light of its stated mission and practice, Media Matters had a moral obligation to highlight the many inaccuracies in Farenthold's story; all of which stem from the writer's conservative assumptions and worldview. Friday afternoon, I emailed an employee at Media Matters to ask whether it was planning to respond to Farenthold's piece which by then had been on the Post's website for about 24 hours. My contact thanked me for the flag and said an editor would look into it. Nothing has been posted and it appears that nothing will be.

    It would appear that Brock, who is a Clinton bundler and runs the pro-Clinton SuperPac Correct the Record, has decided that, with few exceptions, his website will not highlight partisan attacks on Bernie Sanders. The watchdog's watchdog has one eye firmly shut.

    IRS guidelines note

    all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.

    Assuming there is an unstated policy at Media Matters to turn a blind eye to conservative media misinformation, it would seem that the organization is violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the Internal Revenue Code. Certainly some of the organization's underwriters may feel cheated to learn that conservative misinformation that hurts Hillary Clinton's chief Democratic rival is being ignored. Given Brock's high-profile role as a Clinton flack and in light of Media Matters' dubious decision not to report on Farenthold's dishonest article, Brock is ethically bound to separate himself fully from the day-to-day operations of Media Matters and to ensure that the organization's direction is wholly outside of his control. In his place, a truly independent director should be appointed.

    Topics: 

    Comments

    Oh poor Hal, sad because Media Matters didnt' write the story he wanted them to, the old canard " violating the spirit, if not the letter" - I suppose MM writing about the media's ignoring Sanders is not sufficient either. What are those "few exceptions" where Hal approves of MM noting partisan attacks? Where are the huge coverups they're doing? (it's not the crime, it's the coverup, says the other popular canard). Frankly I thought Robert Reich was good enough stepping in - does it have to be an article across-the-board?


    PP - Wouldn't you describe Farenthold's piece as a blatant example of conservative bias in the media?  If so, how can you justify Media Matters' failure to report on it? The one article MM has posted defending Sanders from unfair media coverage was on USA Today's failure to cover any of the top Democratic candidates fairly including Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. 

    There are no recent front page articles at MM that focus solely on unfair commentary against Sanders while there are many protecting only Clinton from allegedly unfair reports and editorials.  It is true that Eric Boehlert, who works for Media Matters, reported on how the media has by and large ignored Sanders but MM did not post it in its main section, instead you have to hunt through the blogs section to find it.  Salon, by contrast, cross-posted it right on its front page.

    Salon has not cross-posted, however, Robert Reich's response to Farenthold's Washington Post hit.  This is interesting in that Alternet has posted Reich's response and Salon often cross-posts from Alternet.  Salon may still post Reich's answer to Farenthold.


    "allegedly" - your taint is pretty transparent.

    Okay, I don't think the Times has played totally fair with Clinton, although Brock's complaints are way over the top, but then it hasn't with Bernie either.  Do you think the Farenthold story is an example of conservative media bias?


    1) why are Brock's complaints "way over the top"? 2) Reich glossed over the complaints. Even if he has a "mandate", the Republican congress will cripple it the best they can. Sanders doesn't have a track record pushing this stuff through, so why the optimism? Yes, government will add controls like the "no child left behind" program that seems to be testing testing testing. And I don't see the vision for next generation campus-based education. No, I dont see it as such a hit job - but they should ask similar tough questions of all candidates - we'll if Trump even had a plan.

    I also think colleges are way overpriced - was just checking out Columbia's rates. It might be good to have controls to bring down costs "reasonably" whatever that might mean.but I dont get where the price hikes have come over 30 years unless it was always absurdly expensive, just funded in the background better.


    The cost has gone way up while the number of underpaid adjunct profs has increased. The two main explanations are decreased state funding and an increase of overpaid administrators. I haven't seen a convincing case made on either of these issues so I'm not sure what's happening with the cost spiralling out of control.


    1) Brock said there's a "special place in hell" for the NYT because of its coverage of Hillary Clinton's rule-breaking exclusive use of a private email server.  Now, that's over-the-top.  2) I'm not sure how this is relevant.

    Okay, twice I've asked you whether the Farenthold piece in the 2nd most important newspaper in the country qualifies as an example of conservative media bias.  And twice you've answered my question with a question.  Since you seem unwilling to answer, I'll ask a different one:

    Given that Clinton is more conservative than Sanders, would you agree that MM's obsessive focus on stories that it claims are biased against her but the virtual absence of such stories about Sanders on its homepage demonstrates that Media Matters has a conservative bias?


    1) they specifically lied and protected the "anonymous source" that said Hillary was under criminal investigation when she wasn't. That's journalistic malpractice. Brock was not over-the-top. It was character assassination - from a paper that's done it over and over.

    2) you asked me firstif it was a conservative "hit job". It's biased on the conservative side, but I've seen much worse. You can bet when Hillary releases more detail, the cuts will be much harder and will of course lead to Benghazi + email server + Clinton Foundation something, likely a small detail about Monica Lewinsky.

    3) a friend used to say Budweiser spills more beer in a day than Sam Adams brews in a year. Apply the same logic to Hillary smears vs. Bernie.


    1) Lied?  What is your evidence the paper knew it was reporting something that was false?  In any case, is it your argument that the Times deserves to go to "a special place in hell" because A) it accurately reported that Clinton violated federal rules when she failed to preserve emails on the government's record-keeping system and B) it first erroneously reported that there was a criminal investigation into her use of a private server and then corrected the record to reflect that the investigation is apparently civil in nature and is not directed solely at Clinton.

    2) I did not ask you if it was "a hit job". I asked you if the article was a "blatant example of conservative bias".  You apparently agree it is so how can you defend Brock's failure to cover it at his site?

    3) Latest media fail - Sanders drew 26,000 people to a rally in Boston Saturday.  Eight years ago, Obama drew 24,000 to an event in New York City which has a metro area 3X the size of Boston.  Sanders's rally was the largest ever in that Democratic city for a Democratic candidate.  Yet, only the Boston Globe covered it and Media Matters ignored it.  Care to defend that editorial choice?

    4) On another note, you have repeatedly argued that we shouldn't hold Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq War against her since she was a new Senator who was just getting a feel for the place and couldn't take a partisan position against W.  You also claim she now gets it and would be a peace-promoting president.  Really?  Late last week, she called for the US military to enforce a "no-fly zone" over Syria - an idea Obama calls "half-baked" - and Sanders opposes.  Such action would be tantamount to an act of war.


    1) so if I describe you as a child molester and withdraw it after a week, all copasetic? 2) OK maybe wasn't hit job... Anyway not outrageous to ask where the trillions come from and what the repercussions are. The best laid plans o mice and men... 3) not sure what outrage I'm supposed to have - must be getting old 4) you totally screw up what I said re Hillary and Iraq, then and now. Forget it, enough trying to clarify.

    Sanders doesn't have a track record pushing this stuff through, so why the optimism?

    A point to be considered, since the president doesn't introduce legislation. Any bill would need co-sponsors, along with real support from a (in this case) minority party before it ever got to the point of being considered by the Republican Congress. A President Sanders would need a chorus of full-throated Democrats behind him in order to push any of his plans through ... does he/will he have it?


    But he will have a large group of supporters that he can call on to rally for passage of bills and put pressure on congress.  This is going to happen whether he is in the Whitehouse or serving his term out as Senator. He tells his supporters he can't do it alone without their help. 

    Congress has been useless for a long time.  We still have to clean out that swamp. No matter who we send to the Whitehouse.  

    Media doesn't pay much attention to liberals or progressives in congress so we think they aren't there or willing to work with a liberal Whitehouse. 


    Salon may not post it because there are changes going on at Salon.  Joan Walsh was editor in chief and has left to work on The Nation. 

    http://www.thenation.com/authors/joan-walsh/

    I read Reich's response as soon as he posted it on his face book page.  I follow him and so do many others. 

     


    Salon has now posted Reich's response to Farenthold and the Post.  Walsh's departure is interesting but she was Salon's fullest-throated Clinton supporter so I doubt she would have pushed to include Reich's article.


    I always found her fair. She was the reason I read Salon for so many years. Nicholes is a big fan of Sanders at The Nation. 


    I only look at Media Matters if some article on another site links to it. Maybe twice a year. I think The Daily Howler is a much better site for calling out the bullshit in the MSM. I also read enough to call out the bullshit on my own without wasting time on a site that tells me things I've already seen for myself.


    My state,NM already covers 100% of instate tuition and it is paid for by the rubes who buy lottery tickets not the already strapped taxpayers. Under Bernie's socialist plan the many already near bankrupt states would have to raise billions in new revenues to cover his mandate.

    Farenthold's weak ideological attack should be welcomed it was a softball distracting from the fairyland economics of Bernie's electioneering rhetoric.


    "My state,NM already covers 100% of instate tuition and it is paid for by the rubes who buy lottery tickets not the already strapped taxpayers."  Don't the rubes pay taxes?


    42% of Amerikan workers don't pay federal income tax and if you don't pay FT you don't pay state tax either, at least not here in NM. This is the demographic who voluntarily buy lottery tickets to try to secure a retirement income and at the same time send their and other peoples children to  our Universities.

    This is the perfect system for our End Stage Capitalism where poorer people pay to educate their own and other's children, many  graduate only to find low wage positions so they don't pay income tax and start working on their retirement fund two dollars at a time which will educate the next generation of low wage graduates.


    These sound like good reasons to elect Bernie and support his plans 1) to eliminate tuition at state schools paid for by a tax on Wall Street transactions, 2) for much higher taxes on the wealthiest to pay for needed social programs, 3) to increase social security payouts.


    'Tax on Wall Street transactions', you temperature must be spiking due to The Bern and causing your hallucinations. Wall street dictates policy to its minions in  Washington not the other way around.


    The Republican Party would never allow a tax on Wall Street transactions to pass. We would need a huge Democrat majority of 70 or more Senators as many Democrats are also beholden to the big money. As money buys TV ads, and corporate controlled for profit TV is as effective a medium at spreading lies and misinformation and controlling dumbass voters as has ever existed in the history of civilization.

    Even if Bernie had a magic tax wand to make it come true, the casino players on Wall Street would shift trading to the Cayman islands or beyond.

    If we elect a Democrat as President in 2016 the most important thing we realistically could hope for will would be to:

    Prevent more taxcuts for the rich, paid for by the Republican push to privatize and profitize Medicare and Social Security. An action that would lead ultimately to the collapse of both programs after they are 'gamed' and bled dry by Wall Street.


    End Citizens United and pass public funding of elections and then Wall Street won't matter because they can't buy congress critters. That will happen and much sooner then you think. 


    Latest Comments