The Daily Caller reports that some in Congress may be interested in investigating Media Matters relative to its tax exempt status. I'm no area expert; however, if there are legitimate questions to be raised - and there may well be - this is something I believe we should all support. What's important is that it be focused only on the tax issue and not content. My only real complaint with some of what's been going on around this is when it has drifted into targeting, or attacking specific journalists for their reporting based upon Media Matters as a source. We need to challenge it based upon facts and truth, not one's decision to publish it. I'm not seeing any Dan Rathers in the media surrounding this whole Media Matters topic and when the right starts channeling Hillary Clinton and her vast right wing conspiracy nonsense, it needs to be treated the same way it was when she made her ridiculous comment. It should be dismissed. The right needs to defeat the left, not become it.
Congressional Republicans are now interested in examining Media Matters For America‘s tax-exempt status, The Daily Caller has learned. Doing so would cause the GOP to wade into the complex world of tax laws that govern “exempt organizations” such as Media Matters and more than 1 million other charitable organizations that are exempt from federal income tax.
Media Matters’ critics have questioned its tax-exempt status for some time. The Internal Revenue Service has a series of requirements that must be met before organizations can qualify. Successful applicants pay no federal income tax because the government presumes such charities perform services that benefit the public. Donors also may deduct their charitable contributions.
The actual story here might be the reverse of how Carlson et al frame it here. This sounds as though the White House uses Brock and Media Matters to conduct a proxy war against its perceived enemies in the news media and to push its propaganda out through the MSM.
Frankly, given that the right is now in the process of building out a counterpart to both CAP and MMfA (it's about time duh!), maybe it's time to start beating them, instead of complaining about them? Just a thought, anyway. Also, for the record, some friends on the right can hate on me if they want, but I've pushed items to Ben Smith from the right and never had him turn something down over ideology. He's published items based upon tips from me and has always treated me fairly and it's only fair to him that I acknowledge it given some of the back and forth today.
Maybe the real point is, we have to continue to get better on the right when it comes to media? I think we are and that's why I'm happy to be working with the Breitbart sites, for example. Opportunities like that didn't exist in the recent past. Don't get mad, get even fwiw.
Newt Gingrich, who may be headed for fifth in Iowa, is playing a similar game. He says that he’ll rally in South Carolina and Florida. This is even more daft than Perry’s game plan. In South Carolina, it’s hard to see how Gingrich would do any better with evangelicals than he is doing in Iowa (not well at all)....
The Romney camp doesn’t appear to care one way or another whether Gingrich continues. He’s as much a help to Romney (in serving as a useful foil for the former Bain Capital executive) as he is a hindrance. His ability to land rhetorical blows is vastly diminished now that his own character and record have been shredded.
Aside from her usual and now laughable slash and burn antics, should we really be surprised the WaPo's resident conservative genius has suddenly decided South Carolina is a whatever and has moved on to Florida? No, of course not. What's truly laughable is that the WaPo pays our gal Jen-Jen for anything alleged to be analysis. They should make her work in a cheerleader's uniform, though I doubt it would do much to help her main man Mitt.
... next week, whatever the outcome in South Carolina, everyone moves on to Florida and it starts all over again. So who wins Florida, and does that race give the winner a lock on the nomination?
We were thrilled to see the venerable Dr. K. had come to the same conclusion we had, as argued in yesterday's somewhat controversial (among our twitter friends) post, "Amazing Grace: Is Rick Santorum the new Sarah Palin?"
"It's all about media and momentum," says Fox political analyst Larry Sabato, seemingly troubled that "the process is being rushed. One reason why no big themes are being developed is because there isn't time" …
But there IS time, Dr. Sabato, and there ARE big themes if you know where to look, that "panoply of media, old and new" where fans of the Shining City can disintermediate the lamestream media narrative at will: C-SPAN, blogs, facebook, twitter, not to mention the town halls themselves, under the radar till Tuesday's "unexpected" Iowa caucus results.
Now a larger audience is getting a taste of this authentic, thoughtful, knowledgeable, deliberative, experienced, articulate, principled, humorous and good-hearted man, very much a formidable opponent in any debate with the current Leader of the Free World …
If one takes the full 58 minutes to watch a substantive and informative Brian Lamb, Michelle Fields interview (at bottom) upon which FishBowlDC's latest hit job on Fields is based, you will find out what a truly despicable hit job it is, lacking in both substance and accuracy. The interview is very worthwhile for those inclined to take politics, media, and most especially their nexus, seriously. FishBowlDC should also correct a manufactured quote from Fields - see below.
Fields reveals herself to be thoughtful, substantive and accomplished, albeit still relatively young in age. But that isn't what FBDC wants you to think, or know of her, obviously.
”What we’re doing is almost like citizen journalism. Which is basically when an individual who doesn’t have that much training in journalism has the tools of modern technology to capture a live event, but doesn’t’ have a background in journalism.” Hear that kids? Screw school and hard work. Get an iPhone and go capture yourself a job in journalism. Really, Michelle. You’re off to a super start. There’s 58 and a half more minutes to go.
Actually, Fields took school very seriously based upon her telling of it, was extremely active in Libertarian causes and organized activism and, given her age, her grasp of New Media, as opposed to old, seems almost intuitive at this point. I'd wager she's also vastly more informed than they on her subject matter based upon the reading she cites. Unfortunately, FBDC didn't allow any of that to get in the way of their petty attempt to malign someone who looks to be a rising star in Right-side media - and clearly Fields is that for reasons that matter, not simply because of her good looks.
When talking about her reporting on the Occupy movement, she says, “We’re not doing what a typical journalist does. Which is they go.. They have their mic, they do their standup, maybe interview two or three people, put together B-Roll.” Hear that, Martha Raddatz? All those trips to Iraq PALE in comparison to the time that Michelle braved the front lines of Wall Street.
Acutally, they do pale as compared to Fields work in this instance. Fields went with the textbook Right-side view of the movement, was pushed down and apparently hit by police, treated with kindness by the protesters, and so came away with an entirely different, if snap-shot view of events. And because she is of the Right, her reporting has far more authenticity than would that of your typical mainstream media journalist. Her efforts there reveal all the best a more citizen-based media has to offer, as an adjunct to traditional media. That FBDC would so malign it only demonstrates their wholly superficial, if not downright silly, view of such matters.
Later in the interview, she opines on the differences between the today’s reportage and yesterday and tells us that “people want biased journalism. They want people to tell them what their opinion is.”
Factually, what Fields is saying there is that people want their news people to be more honest about who they are and what they think, not tell the consumer what to think. Current trends in media completely support that conclusion. FBDC turns it on it's head to fire but one more embarassingly errant shot at Fields.
In fact, the quote below (emphasis added) isn't even accurate. It pieces together two different disconencted sentences. And what Fields actually says in the second sentence is, "People want someone to tell them what they think," not "to" as FBDC suggests. They, again, meaning the anchor, or journalist. FishBowlDC needs to offer up a correction for the misquote, assuming they have any standards for something akin to decent journalism.
As the interview winds down, Lamb asks where Michelle would like to see her career go. She says she would like to be “in the media. As a journalist. Maybe an anchor.” Let’s not get carried away, Michelle. Reality can be a dear friend sometimes. Lamb asks if America is ready for an anchor who gives opinions and Michelle doubles down on her journalistic philosophy. “I think people want opinions. People want someone to tell them what to think.”
Along with discussing her own political coming of age, such as it is, Fields discusses her late Father, the values instilled in her by him and her thoughts on media, both New and old, all with the depth and substance one hour allows. The clips Lamb includes are telling and point to her already significant contributions via New Media.
From millionaires and billionaires advocating for higher taxes, while refusing to make voluntary contributions to pay down the national debt, a quote from the Washington Post's Ben Bradlee on Herman Cain, "He had it coming, didn't he," her work has often gone viral for good reason. It contains insights, or observations establishment media doesn't seem able to deliver, for whatever reason - ones that people want, based upon web traffic. Her explaining Reddit and Twitter to the aging Lamb is also telling, as far as the changing of the guard in media. For a student of New Media and the new faces coming up that will be making it, the Lamb, Fields interview is well worth one's time.
Read the FBDC item, then take time to watch the full hour and decide for yourself which is supercilious and not much worth one's time, as opposed to what appears to be a very substantive young woman well on her way to saying something important enough that many people will want to hear it via New Media.
It's hard to imagine what kind of petty jealously would allow what now seems to be a vendetta of sorts, aimed at discrediting Fields, painting her as simply some bimbette. So, yes, the attack is utterly sexist, undeserved and, frankly, rather despicable in its attempt to marginalize a bright, young new voice. Perhaps FBDC editor Betsy Rothstein is simply feeling her age and that life and media are passing her by, or the writer, this Peter Ogburn, can't manage to get a date. But, whatever it is behind it, it certainly can't be any more worthy, or worthwile, than is the shoddy and malicious bit of work it ultimately produced.
Winners: Romney (who might have revived his frontrunner status) and Bachmann.
Losers: Gingrich and Paul.
Here's a little something Rubin appears to have missed entirely. My Tweet:
Chris Wallace is wrapping up Mitt Romney and tying him in a knot
Rubin also entirely misses perhaps Romney's biggest strategic error. By pretending to already have the nomination locked up, he's been busy talking compromise, while many are looking for a Conservative. I pointed that out in real time on Twitter, as well. If it resonates with Iowa voters, as it did with me, a WaPo hack like Rubin in the tank for Romney isn't going to be able to help him at all.
I get that Mitt is making it look like he's debating Obama, but in context, it makes him look detached from this particular discussion -- by the time Mitt shifts Left for the general election, he'll be on the other side. Geesh!
I think the debate was, in many ways a wash, but Newt had as many, if not more, strong moments, than weak ones. Frankly, I don't want Newt, I still like Perry. But suggesting he was a loser, as some Beltway pundits and flacks like Rubin are doing is purely a reflection of their seeing what they want to see.
As I also noted on Twitter last night, the media and GOP establishment lined up against Newt may be his biggest asset right now. Thanks, Jenn. Via the AP at your paper's site - of all places - here's where Chris Wallace humiliated your guy, in case you missed it.
However, Fox News’ Chris Wallace, with help from Santorum, bore in on Romney’s biggest liability: his changed positions on gun control, gay rights and particularly abortion. Romney gave his standard response about having a change of heart regarding his former support for abortion rights. He then got drawn into a complicated back-on-forth about what he meant when he vowed in 1994 to be a better defender of gay rights than Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., whom he was trying to unseat.
However, Romney wasn't so sure footed when it came to Chris Wallace's question concerning Romney's positions on abortion and gay marriage. This will only serve to reinforce the reservations conservatives have had towards Romney.
Newt Gingrich - True to the tortoise-like nature of his campaign, he started slow but finished fast and strong. He was on the defensive early in the debate when he jostled with both Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann on Fannie & Freddie.
... But by the end of the night, Newt had the audience eating out of the palm of his hand. It all started with his proposals to restrain the power of the judiciary and continued with his statements on the UN, the Keystone Pipeline, and even immigration when he said on his first day as President he would drop immigration lawsuits against Arizona, Alabama, and South Carolina and cut off federal aid to sanctuary cities. Newt struck the right balance of historical perspective, eloquence, and good humor.
Stepping back from any heated ideological dog in this fight on my part, were I a serious journalist, or reporter for the Post, I'd be embarassed by this comment from op-ed page editor Fred Hiatt.
One can judge Rubin's work as an op-ed page contributor however they choose. But having concentrated in Journalism and done some reporting, before opting for a career in business some years ago, for a ranking Post editor to pronounce her "an excellent journalist and a relentless reporter" based upon her career suggests the terms don't actually mean very much at the Washington Post these days. Perhaps it's who and not what one knows that matters more at the Post.
The Commentary editor John Podhoretz, who is the half-brother of Rubin, writes that Rubin "labored daily from her home in suburban Virginia [...] never missing a news story, never missing an op-ed column, reading everything and digesting everything and commenting on everything. She is a phenomenon, especially considering that for the first two decades of her working life, she was not a writer or a journalist....
"In South Carolina this afternoon, TX Gov. Rick Perry held a press conference to detail his economic plans," writes PJ Media's Bryan Preston: "The very first reporter tried distracting him by bringing up the birther nonsense. Perry was having none of it; he cut the reporter off in mid sentence, said the issue is a 'distraction' and put the focus right back on his plan … Every reporter who brings this up from now on should be treated with equal or greater contempt." Good to see a potential POTUS refusing to let the lamestream media control the narrative spin.
Republican candidates should categorically reject the notion that President Obama was not born in the United States. It is a complete distraction from the failed economic policies of the President.
Seems to me the pussyfooting advice of old-school campaign advisers cautioning against saying anything controversial drains the life out of the authentic — if sometimes unpolished — American voices of the Tea Party favorites whose vision has given us hope of regaining the Shining City …
First off, Ace is a buddy, so I'm not intending to insult him when I say, I think we can put him in that "reasonable" conservative camp - whatever that means. Here he is on Romney, who everyone now knows piddled all over his shoes in Ohio today.
We're going to nominate this guy? Really? Behold this profile in cowardice.
I use this story to illustrate the current dilemma facing the Republican candidates for President: the red meat you throw at the base is so enticing but it can quickly come back to haunt you. In short: why would you go there?
Below are Rubin's headlines at RightTurn (into a ditch) today: Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective. She covers a range of domestic and foreign policy issues and provides insight into the conservative movement and the Republican Party.
Paul Ryan Speech: The politics of division Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) had no idea that the day before a major speech at the Heritage Foundation the Republican contenders for the presidency would conduct themselves in such a shabby manner.
A day down the drain for Rick Perry -- EXCLUSIVE: Jeb Bush denounces birtherism -- EXCLUSIVE: GOP governors blast birther gambit -- Perry: Unfit and unserious? -- Perry’s low blow on immigrant health care -- Rick Perry’s tax-and-spending plan: Less than meets the eye? -- Perry: New team, same result?
Seriously, as a blogger, Ms. Rubin, you've been given a wonderful opportunity at the Post, assuming they and not Romney 2012 are paying your salary right now. Do you not feel the slightest responsibility in terms of keeping whatever readership it affords you at least somewhat reasonably informed on the day's events in any serious manner? Perhaps you could simply take a leave of absence and go to work for Team Mitt if this is all so critical to your existence? It's a thought, any way.
Finally, whatever's going on, and whatever you do, or don't do, about it, you might at least pause to think a bit at this point. You are truly embarrassing yourself, your paper and conservative blogging as a whole, at this point - not to mention doing a terrible disservice to your Washington Post-provided readership, as well.
Certainly, one's elevation to the Post's conservative blogger of record should come with at least a modicum of professional responsibility to prevent someone from devolving into pure flack, or hack status, should it not?
