Media Matters' war against Fox

[JudeBrando]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html#ixzz1Hq0U9WUp

"The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

...narrowing its focus to Fox and a handful of conservative websites... The shift reflects the centrality of the cable channel to the contemporary conservative movement, as well as the loathing it inspires among liberals — not least among the donors who fund Media Matters’ staff of about 90... The new strategy, he said, is a “war on Fox.” In an interview and a 2010 planning memo shared with POLITICO, Brock listed the fronts on which Media Matters — which he said is operating on a $10 million-plus annual budget — is working to chip away at Fox and its parent company, News Corp.

Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox’s top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck’s show. The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy or other causes. And it has hired two experienced reporters, Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik, to dig into Fox’s operation to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor.

The group will “focus on [News Corp. CEO Rupert] Murdoch and trying to disrupt his commercial interests —..."


Silence and eliminate the voice of dissent to Leftist Statism. Information control. Propaganda.

It's coming...

 

[mysteronyx]

If Fox wasn't so dishonest and inaccurate, would there be such an entity?

Second, is Media Matters dishonest and inaccurate?

 

[leftysergeant]

Fox is doing it to ACORN, Planned Parenthood and the unions. If they want to whine and throw a tantrum about it, too bad. We'll listen when they banish Breitbart, Malkin, Beck and pimp boy O'Keefe from any of their outlets.

Gored ox is what's for dinner.

 

[daredelvis]

Silence and eliminate the voice of dissent to Leftist Statism. Information control. Propaganda.

It's coming...

Very clever comrade. I'm sure your issues will be addressed in the reeducation camp. It was very helpful of you to report yourself in this post.

Do svidanya,
The Committee

Daredelvis

 

[Tricky]

Speaking of media wars, does anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh really believe anything they read on Politico? I'll wait to see if this is picked up by any major news outlets.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I heard a guest on the Hannity radio show talking about how "the left" only smears it's opposition and wants to silence dissent......

This reminds me of the religious right crying "persecution" when it is criticized for persecuting homosexuals.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Fox is doing it to ACORN, Planned Parenthood and the unions. If they want to whine and throw a tantrum about it, too bad. We'll listen when they banish Breitbart, Malkin, Beck and pimp boy O'Keefe from any of their outlets.

Gored ox is what's for dinner.

FoxNews isn't a 501(c)(3) organization like MM is. If they intend to participate in this purely partisan activity (which it must be by their own admission, since they view FoxNews as the leader of the GOP) they need to change their status to one that's a bit more legal.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It is not a partisan view that Fox News is a leader of the GOP. It's an observation of reality. For example, most of the GOP Presidential primary candidates were employed by Fox or frequent guests.

 

[Puppycow]

FoxNews isn't a 501(c)(3) organization like MM is. If they intend to participate in this purely partisan activity (which it must be by their own admission, since they view FoxNews as the leader of the GOP) they need to change their status to one that's a bit more legal.

Hmm. I don't what the rules are that govern what 501(c)(3) organizations can and cannot do. Can you enlighten us as to what rule they might be violating?

 

[Thunder]

Fox News is part of the RNC political machine.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hmm. I don't what the rules are that govern what 501(c)(3) organizations can and cannot do. Can you enlighten us as to what rule they might be violating?

Good point, there are plenty of Right Wrong 501c organizations.

 

[geni]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html#ixzz1Hq0U9WUp

"The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

Yada yada yada. Yes the PR line was fairly predictable. Was there anything you wanted to disscuss.

 

[Spindrift]

FoxNews isn't a 501(c)(3) organization like MM is. If they intend to participate in this purely partisan activity (which it must be by their own admission, since they view FoxNews as the leader of the GOP) they need to change their status to one that's a bit more legal.

Since when can't a 501(c)(3) be partisan?

 

[TheAntiV]

Doesn't this sort of think just bring more attention to Fox News and boosts their ratings which they've been constantly boasting about? There's an easier way to hurt Fox: just don't watch them.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Silence and eliminate the voice of dissent to Leftist Statism. Information control. Propaganda.

It's coming...

Okay, so you don't like propoganda... and you're concerned about criticism of Fox News?

What?

 

[Puppycow]

Doesn't this sort of think just bring more attention to Fox News and boosts their ratings which they've been constantly boasting about? There's an easier way to hurt Fox: just don't watch them.

I've heard that argument before, but I don't really buy it.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It is not a partisan view that Fox News is a leader of the GOP. It's an observation of reality. For example, most of the GOP Presidential primary candidates were employed by Fox or frequent guests.

Your opinion notwithstanding, the stated shift in MM's mission puts it outside the bounds of a 501(c)(3) organization.

 

[Ausmerican]

Your opinion notwithstanding, the stated shift in MM's mission puts it outside the bounds of a 501(c)(3) organization.

Again, can you point out how it is outside those bounds? What specific violations is MM guilty of?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Hmm. I don't what the rules are that govern what 501(c)(3) organizations can and cannot do. Can you enlighten us as to what rule they might be violating?

Google is your friend. It isn't that hard to type 501c3 into the search bar and immediately stumble upon the definition and limitations of such an organization.

For any individuals incapable of such a trivial feat:

Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

I don't see anything in there that exempts an organization whose stated mission is "guerilla warfare and sabotage" and bringing down a legal commercial enterprise via such tactics in that section of law.

 

[Puppycow]

Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual,

So far, so good.

no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda,

What is the legal definition of propaganda? The ADL is a 501 (3) (c) and they make statements of opinion all the time. Does this count as propaganda?

or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)),

No problem that I am aware of there.

and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

Assuming that "participating or intervening in a political campaign" is narrowly defined, no problem that I am aware of there, either.

Anyway, I'll let the lawyers figure it out.