The Conservative Message Machine Money Matrix

by Chris Bowers, Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:36:31 AM EST

In an absolute, must-read, can't turn your eyes away article over at Alternet, Don Hazen writes about Rob Stein and his famous Power Point presentation:Consider that the conservative political movement, which now has a hammerlock on every aspect of federal government, has a media message machine fed by more than 80 large non-profit organizations - let's call them the Big 80 - funded by a gaggle of right-wing family foundations and wealthy individuals to the tune of $400 million a year.

And the Big 80 groups are just the "non-partisan" 501(c)(3) groups. These do not include groups like the NRA, the anti-gay and anti-abortion groups, nor do they include the political action committees (PACs) or the "527" groups (so named for the section of the tax code they fall under), like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which so effectively slammed John Kerry's campaign in 2004.

To get their message out, the conservatives have a powerful media empire, which churns out and amplifies the message of the day - or the week - through a wide network of outlets and individuals, including Fox News, talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, Ann Coulter, as well as religious broadcasters like Pat Robertson and his 700 Club. On the web, it starts with TownHall.com

Fueling the conservative message machine with a steady flow of cash is a large group of wealthy individuals, including many who serve on the boards of the Big 80.

Rob Stein has brilliantly documented all of the above in "The Conservative Message Machine Money Matrix," a PowerPoint presentation he has taken on the road across the country, preaching to progressives about the lessons that can be learned and the challenges that need to be overcome.(...)

As veteran investigative reporter Robert Parry argues, Bush's electoral victory proved that the conservatives have achieved dominance over the flow of information to the American people - so much so that even a well-run Democratic campaign stands virtually no chance for national success without major changes in the media system. "The outcome of Election 2004 highlights perhaps the greatest failure of the Democratic/liberal side in American politics: a refusal to invest in the development of a comparable system for distributing information that can counter the Right's potent media infrastructure," according to Parry. "Democrats and liberals have refused to learn from the lessons of the Republican/conservative success."

Read the entire piece. This is all very similar to what we have previously discussed with David Brock's The Republican Noise Machine, but it is required reading anyway. Among other topics, the article also discusses the danger of the top-down nature of the mirror organizations we are starting to develop, and how it would be wrong to think that progressives can simply emulate what conservative have already done.

The Republican Noise Machine is modern conservatism. It is the modern Republican Party. People like George Bush are simply products that have been filtered through it.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

Comments

13 Comments

Sort by

permalink

cooperation

My question is, how can we get the 527s to cooperate and coordinate without creating some sort of top-down structure where, at the very least, we can make sure that there is little duplication of efforts, that they communicate effectively, that they are setting and meeting goals, and that their paid staff people are being held accountable?

Also, how can we get the 527s and Democratic Party to cooperate and coordinate without breaking campaign finance laws?

by Alex Urevick 2005-02-08 07:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: cooperation

This is what I'm reffering to:

"Our major obstacles are atomization, balkanization and minimalization of our grassroots and national groups, our donors and our political operations," Stein adds. "We have very few effective strategic alliances among existing organizations (more this time electorally than ever before); very few organizations with the scale necessary to make a major impact; too few passionately progressive, politically motivated individual donors who know one another and work together; lack of long-term strategic thinking; lack of appropriate and necessary coordination and discipline; to name a few."

by Alex Urevick 2005-02-08 10:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

The link is not working ...

I think the link may be down for some reason.

by MurshedZ 2005-02-08 07:46AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The link is not working ...

Their site is down- give it a minute...

by Alex Urevick 2005-02-08 07:50AM | 0 recs

permalink

from another point of view

It is actually amazing to me that despite the big Message Machine and years of impotent Democratic Party leadership that we are not a lot worse off.

Despite it all, the Presidential race was very close.

by quoi 2005-02-08 08:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Exactly

Yes, this is exactly true, and why there is much reason for optimism in the mid and longer term, if not the next couple of years. Our side has grown very lazy in the last few decades. Getting smacked around a little can wake people up.

by Andmoreagain 2005-02-08 09:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

What we can do ---

We don't need to (and may not be capable of) matching the other side. But we must at least partially follow their model. We must create partisan think tanks and find money/jobs to keep political talent fed and clothed during off years.

We must also develop content for media and ideally own media outlets. A multiplicity of smaller ones in key markets can compensate for the lack of a single mega outlet like Fox. We don't need to match the other side.

Air America and other syndicated talk shows will need to grow much more in penetration.....but they need not match the GOP station for station, market for market.

We'll continue to build on the internet - but nobody should think for a second that it will be nearly enough. It's a start. People will have to get out from behind their keyboards.

True believers need to go into fields to carry the message....journalism, media, politics......of course the Right Machine encourages this. We can do this on our own right now. Young readers, in search of careers....are you listening?

by Andmoreagain 2005-02-08 09:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What we can do ---

But who is building these organizations? Is anyone funding them at a level which will make us competitive with the conservatives? It's really disheartening that liberals took forever to see the problem but this awareness won't do any good unless something concrete comes out it. Should we take up a collection for a think tank or a progressive media (relations) group?

by KDMfromPhila 2005-02-08 09:50AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What we can do ---

There's plenty of money out there, but so far that hasn't translated into effective organizational structures being built...

by Alex Urevick 2005-02-08 10:32AM | 0 recs

permalink

Big Money operates quietly

As I understand it, it's happening under the radar, and big donors are involved. Center for American Progress is already up and running. So in general the blogosphere will not hear much about this until announcements are made, unless of course people like us people start ponying up and pooling large sums (say, 7-8 figures) and plugging into the big-player circuit.

by Andmoreagain 2005-02-08 11:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What we can do ---

...we must at least partially follow their model...

I disagree. If you look at studies in the last few years, television is on the way out, displaced as an entertainment and information gateway by the Internet. Big Media will still play a role, but they will turn to the conversations that are happening online to guide their programming choices, because the Internet is a much better guide of popular tastes and opinions than Nielson ratings could ever be. Because of television's decreasing relevance, market forces will cause producers to seek out ways to bring back those viewers, and the way to do that is by providing the same immediacy and involvement of the internet. Decentralized control of media programming is already happening on American Idol where fans vote to keep certain characters on the show, and just today I read that fans are attempting a revenue drive to come up with the $35 million to produce another series of Star Trek: Enterprise. Another good example of this phenomenon is Al Gore's INdTV, which will air viewer-created content. It would be hard to create a more decentralized television model than that. No-one can say if these last two projects will be successful, but the ideas are out there, and if you spend enough time observing the shifting sands of the internet, you'll see that ideas start out small and then snowball. Eventually, they make permanent impressions in big important arenas like politics or the economy. Music file-sharing and open source software are two great examples of this.

In the future, I predict a tighter coupling between decentralized online communities and mainstream journalists so I would like to see small progressive organizations that can interface between online communities and journalists; a kind of blogger referral pool for connecting the decentralized community to the media and to provide grassroots voices to them, and to help translate those voices into a more media-friendly message, things like advice on how to communicate on television, etc. This is the sort of job for highly connected political operatives who already have the media connections and are closely tracking the netroots.

by MrOnion 2005-02-08 12:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What we can do ---

I think any change starts with the message. If you continue to believe the right is somehow brainwashing people or that the left can do the same, you are walking/running down the wrong path. The success of right wing radio has something to do with their messages resonating with the people.

You have to be honest with yourselves. First of all the election was Bush's to lose from the start - the fact that it was close is an amazing accomplishment. Second of all the rightward shift of power in this country is in direct response of the Democratic Party being more interested in maintaining control of Washington, then doing what's is right.

Air America is a joke, because it thinks brain washing is the key. Well no, open discussion about the issues of the day is what makes the right wing radio so popular, not just repeating the left wing talking points and ripping on Bush. Having the money donations to keep it on the air, barely, is not enough to get people to listen.

Rush Limbaugh is not on the air because rich republicans put him there; he is there because he has an audience he grew for the last 20-30 years. The free market at work, they may not always like what he says, but they are interested in what he is saying.

Right/left it doesn't matter - right/wrong does. Only true believers on both sides don't understand that and believe they are always right!

by Classical Liberal 2005-02-09 05:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

Open discussion my tuckus.

Talk radio is effective because it entertains as it inculcates. I listened to Rush Limbaugh during the Clinton impeachment, and he's quite a showman, whose witty and incisive banter is saturated with Reep propaganda, so that the casual listener comes away having absorbed more political ideology than he realizes. He would also take calls occasionally from people who disagreed with them, and for some odd reason they were always incoherent boobs. I'm sure his call screener had nothing to do with that.

The problem I have with AAR is that they are not entertaining enough, that they're too cerebral. In Los Angeles we have a Pacifica station for people who want dry news and open discussion interspersed with vague stabs at humor. To properly counter RW talk radio needs entertainers willing to ruthlessly savage the criminals who are running our country.

In my opinion.

by catastrophile 2005-02-09 05:30PM | 0 recs