It hasn't been a good month or so for the smear merchants at Media Matters. Breitbart.com has been shining a light on how the "non-partisan" organization coordinates with the mainstream media to promote leftist narratives for a long time. But when the Daily Caller's expose hit the web, it sent the tax-exempt 501(c)(3) into panic mode. The Daily Caller's sources provided insider information on just how extensive the collusion with the "press" was, and new attention was focused on David Brock's erratic behavior. From a public standpoint, they clammed up and refused to address the stories being written about them. Odd, considering their mission is to "correct misinformation" in conservative media. Their silence spoke volumes.
It seems as if they thought they had found a great diversion when Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke names. Riding on the phony "War on Women" narrative Democrats had concocted as a way to avoid discussing Obama's failing presidency, Media Matters went all-in organizing boycotts of Limbaugh's advertisers and keeping the lemmings happy with overstated numbers and laughable claims of success. When the Fluke story ran its course, David Brock was once again faced with having to deal with prominent liberals starting to publicly question what he and his organization were really about. In order to steer the conversation back to Rush Limbaugh, he penned an op-ed at Politico.
At Media Matters for America, we have monitored “The Rush Limbaugh Show” every day since our founding in 2004. There is no example we can recall in which Limbaugh, or any other media figure, levied attacks of the tone and duration of those leveled against Fluke.
It is for that reason that Media Matters, along with numerous other groups, have begun to educate advertisers about the damage their financial support of Limbaugh’s program can do to their brands.
If you've spent the last few years in a cave, you wouldn't know how some of the left's media figures have attacked women like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and others. The left's "tone and duration" of attacks have been multiple orders of magnitude worse than what Limbaugh said about the activist the media tried to pass off as a simple law student. Brock is delusional. Why is he bringing this up again, though? Why the need to defend Media Matters's reasons for going after Rush? Who is the real audience for his op-ed?
Maybe Alan Dershowitz, in an interview on Newsmax.com on March 18th, can shed some light on who Brock might be trying to reach:
But he said his comments about Media Matters – the liberal site bankrolled by billionaire financial George Soros -- appear to have had an effect. Dershowitz said he believes the organization is no longer in regular contact with President Barack Obama’s White House.
“The tent of the Democrats isn’t wide enough to include the bigotry of Media Matters and the White House has to clearly disassociate itself.
“Since I’ve spoken about this, my information is the White House has had no communications with Media Matters. They have not been invited to the White House.
“So we are seeing statements of mine and others having some impact, he said, adding that he now hopes Obama will formally disassociate himself in the way he repudiated the Rev. Jeremiah Wright before his 2008 election.”
Could it be that the Obama administration, struggling to combat the image it is not really as pro-Israel as they'd like people to believe, has distanced itself from Media Matters? The lack of access would be a severe blow to Media Matters' credibility within the Democrat Media Complex -- and a gigantic blow to Brock's ego.
Dershowitz' hints that others are also talking about the blatant anti-semitism which came from Media Matters' Senior Fellow, MJ Rosenberg. He doesn't name them, but you can assume he's talking about people high in the pecking order within liberal circles. Could the recent decision by mega-donor, Peter Lewis, to quit being a member of the Democracy Alliance -- a donor network of liberal 1%ers who choose which leftist organizations get their charitable contributions -- be related to the attention that was paid to Rosenberg's inflammatory rhetoric against Israel? Dershowitz's comments coupled with a huge donor's decision to separate from Media Matters's funding base could be a sign that the left's power players may see Brock as a liability. That would explain Brock's sudden explanations as to why his outfit would go after Limbaugh, who they've been going after for years. A virtual "Hey, guys! I'm still doing your dirty work! We're cool, right?"
Aside from the trouble their anti-semitic Senior Fellow is causing, the new media is becoming more and more effective in combating the narratives Media Matters thought they had a lock on. The Fluke story is now only a story within the left's fringe. Even the mainstream media has moved on. Breitbart.com - and many others - didn't let the Democrat Media Complex control the story, and they were forced to give up. Brock is trying to justify his role within the Complex because more and more people are learning how they work, and his and Media Matters' role only works behind the scenes.
We're winning the narrative. We're taking it to the smear merchants who thought they could be anti-semites and no one would call them out on it because they were part of the left's establishment. The left can no longer count on controlling the message and forcing the opposition to play on their turf. More importantly, fraudulent organizations like Media Matters can no longer feel safe to employ anti-semites while simultaneously accusing others of the same. They used to be able to pull the "race card" and "anti-semite card" without repercussions, but the new media has changed all that.