A Media Matters 50-state strategy

Bumped. I tried to get something like this going in New Jersey, but started too late. It's very doable, and it's fun, too. Matt

Driving into work this morning, I channel surfed between breaks in "The Bill Press Show," finally landing on the right-leaning WTAM, Cleveland's No. 1 AM radio station. Once there, I heard morning drive host Bill Wills speaking with a Fox News correspondent, both misreading and misrepresenting the president's illegal domestic spying program. It was a command performance, an exercise in what can happen when we let amateurs fill people's heads with outright lies.

Imagine this same frustration taking place in other cars, in other cities, with other ill-informed hosts distorting the news. Across the country, under the radar, right-wing spin and lies are infiltrating local markets, coloring the coverage. Unchecked.

But it doesn't have to be like that. With some help, we can push back, banding together to fight the right. With today's latest outrage, it hit me: The Media Matters 50-state strategy.

I, like you, love Media Matters. Their mission - "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" - provides Americans a wonderful service. Without watchdog groups like Media Matters, lies would go unchecked, spin not countered.

On a national level, the not-for-profit Media Matters is our collective truth squad, exposing the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and William Bennett, among many others. Already a strong community, Media Matters often receives its best stories thanks to reader tips. In fact, when Paul Hackett called Limbaugh a "fatass drug addict," the quote made it from my site to Media Matters to "The Al Franken Show" within a day. So its effectiveness is remarkable.

What Americans need and what Media Matters most likely can't provide - for purely financial reasons - is a local component, a 50-state strategy. Look how well the Democratic National Committee's similar practice has worked; we're seeing the fruits of our labor pay off with increased staffing and stronger local efforts nationwide. Knowing that mindless right-wing spin doesn't stop at the national level - if anything it increases locally - imagine how a well-funded regional Media Matters could counteract this growing trend?

Just look at WTAM. After Wills's show, the channel also airs Limbaugh's, to say nothing of afternoon drive host Mike Trivisonno's stunningly offensive, hate-filled program. When "Triv" isn't race baiting, marginalizing the poor or misrepresenting political issues like teaching creationism in schools, he's enabling an audience of rabid automatons - a group that went so far as to blame the victims of Hurricane Katrina for their plight. WTAM's other talk shows are just as bad, if not worse. If it weren't for Jerry Springer or coverage of Cleveland's professional sports teams, WTAM would be a simmering cesspool of right-wing hate.

And that's just one radio station. There are other outlets in Cleveland, other offenders. The same goes for markets across the nation, in cities much bigger than Cleveland and in towns with only a shadow of its population. And while many do a wonderful job keeping these outlets on their toes with calls, letters and small campaigns - many having powerful results - what we're lacking is national coordination, an infrastructure infusing its power into these local battles. That's where the Media Matters 50-state strategy comes in.

While Media Matters offers tips to those seeking to speak out, perhaps its latest development is its most promising. Bloggers and can now register with Media Matters to receive the latest news and information. Visitors can also sign up to receive the group's press releases, another valuable resource. It seems the infrastructure is starting to be in place. Could further coordination be next?

A dedicated Media Matters coordinator in each state would be an extremely effective tool. That way, this staffer could work with the state's bloggers and other progressives to monitor outlets, identify offenders and streamline responses. The communication wouldn't be one way, however, the coordinator would remain in constant contact with Media Matters' national office, keeping officials apprised of local activity. Media Matters' Web site could even expand with state-by-state pages, rounding up these grassroots efforts. Imagine the impact this initiative could have.

As bloggers, one of our best tactics is calling media on the carpet, pointing out slanted coverage and fighting back with the truth. But we're always calling for better coordination, better resources with which to do our job. This, to me, offers us the chance to kill two birds with one very powerful stone. It all depends on money, of course, so I'm sure a dedicated fundraising campaign would be necessary to fund local or regional staffers. Volunteers could work in a pinch, but a dedicated employee would be a far-better long-term solution, making more money a necessity.

I'm interested to hear what you think about the Media Matters 50-state strategy. As an advocacy group, Media Matters performs a much-needed service. Expanding it seems like a no-brainer, although to do so would require increased resources, namely money. Having a Media Matters presence in every state would bring an already strong program into our backyards, where it may be needed most.

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

10 Comments

Some Of Us Are Already Discussing This
During the 2004, three of us worked together and set up a website to promote letter-writing to newspapers that had endorsed Bush in 2000, using their own 2000 rationales to argue that they should not endorse him in 2004.  We got thousands of hits and contributed at least some of the pressure that helped change quite a few endorsements.

A couple of months ago we discussed the idea of putting together a group blog to do precisely the sort of thing you're talking about.  But we weren't really ready to start focusing on it till early next year.  

Since you've brought this up, I figure I may as well pipe up, and say, yes, this is an excellent idea, and rather than have a bunch of different people trying to do the same thing, we ought to see about working together.

You can email me at rad AT gte DOT net.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-12-20 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Some Of Us Are Already Discussing This
Why don't we just push to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time provision?
by dayspring 2005-12-20 02:37PM | 0 recs
Why "Just"?
It's not as if there was no bias before they went away.  

No one is going to do democracy for us.  Democracy is government we do for ourselves.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-12-20 03:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Why "Just"?
Because I'd rather have an investigative, ubiased media that calls both sides out on their bullshit than two ideologically polarized media infrastructures tearing each other apart.  Not that we even have one...
by dayspring 2005-12-20 03:41PM | 0 recs
Your Logic Escapes Me
Aside from the fact that it's completely divorced from reality.

(1) We've never had an unbiased investigative media. And probably couldn't have even if everyone wanted it.

Investigative reporting has florished most vigorously among those with a particular point of view--one of deep scepticism toward those with power, and great hostility to the abuse of power.

(2) The idea of an "unbiased objective media" is somewhat less riddled with contradictions. But historically, it derives from purely commercial concerns, as advertising replaced subscriptions as the primary source of revenue for papers.  This made it fiscally imperative to try to offend as few people as possible, and the ideology of "objectivity" made it sound all high-minded, instead of incredibly crass.

(3) Europe is still dominated by papers with clear political orientations. And they are much better informed than we are.

But, to return to the main problem with this comment, it simply has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

What we're talking about is creating a citizen media watchdog infrastructure. And this is something that any sort of media system would benefit from.  And citizens would benefit as well from taking part in it.  

A critical, engaged citizenry is exactly what a democratic media ought to crave and prize above all else.  It's much easier to get good writers and editors than it is to get a vibrant public.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-12-20 04:59PM | 0 recs
Thank you.
Just wanted to drop my public thanks for the detailed concept --- I will be sharing with the rest of the staff at Media Matters.  Cheers - David.
by David Grossman 2005-12-20 09:30AM | 0 recs
How This Could Be Implemented
This strategy--which could easily go beyond the 50-state approach to a local media market focus, (as well as breakdown to cover congresssional races)--could be implemented very effectively via a group blog using Soapblox tecnology (a scoop-like platform that's much cheaper & more easilyt tweaked by non-techie administrators--see My Left Wing, for example.)

A single blog would have a tree structure to take you from national to state to local media markets. Your cookie setting would determine the default view you would get:  The diaries would be filtered, so you would only see the ones appropriate to your particular state or media market. Front pages would be administered separately for each view, either by a single person, or preferrably a small group.  Even the blogrolls would be customized, to synergize as closely as possible with folks already doing state- or local-level blogging.

Such a framework would encourage individual diarists to take on manageable and significant pieces of work--such as tracking individual reporters, local columnists, or beats, which front pagers when then draw upon to highlight when significant turns of events raised their profiles.

Action alerts could be also be posted regularly on the front pages, with links to one or more diaries providing additional background information.

Soapblox doesn't yet have tags, but I understand they're in the works. This would help support the tracking of various different stories, talking points, reliable vs. unreliable sources, etc.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-12-20 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: How This Could Be Implemented
Great points. A good example of local differentiated blogrolling is GrowOhio's regional split.
by Joseph Hughes 2005-12-20 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: How This Could Be Implemented
I think local blogs are a key piece to the puzzle - in sending information up to Media Matters, and delivering information from MM back down to the local area. One staff person per state is just not going to be able to keep a handle on all media out there, especially in the states with more than one major media market.

Good statewide blogs are already out there - we should use them as a resource, and encourage bloggers in every state to band together and get one started if it doesn't already exist.

A network of 50 statewide blogs would be easier and more efficient for MM to work with than a universe of several thousand individual blogs. Plus state blogs are a good goal in and of themselves!

by lpackard 2005-12-20 10:31AM | 0 recs
My Idea Wasn't Predicated On Staff
First off, I don't see Media Matters having the staff to do this. They do great stuff, but liberal think tanks just don't have those sorts of budgets, alas.  

My original thinking--which should probably prevail whether Media Matters takes the lead or not--is that it should be a group of people who who edits/administers each page (down to the media market level, which means a lot more than 50 once it gets fully rolled out.)  This group can vary in membership over time, but should primarily emerge from those already working in the field--either people posting diaries or those who have blogs in the region concerned.

If Media Matters does want to take the lead on this, and wants to do it in a manner that could incur inhouse liability, then they would probalby want to have staff editorial veto power. But that's a far cry from having the staff need to write everything.  

I think it would probably be best to set up an independent entity, simply because it gets rid of a lot of possible headaches. If you get a lot of people involved, there are going to be screw ups that you can't control, and this should be perfectly acceptable, given an attitude that we'll be responsible for cleaning up our own messes.  But keeping entities separate would mean an extra level of insulation for Media Matter's reputation, which is an important consideration.

Another reason is because I think this sort of thing would thrive best in a bottom-up driven environment.  Perhaps it could be an affiliate entity.  But I'm fine with any form it takes, really.  I'd just like to see it take maximum advantage of the vast intellectual resources the blogosphere can link together.

I had my first experience of group editing like this with Independent Media Center in Los Angeles, starting with the 2000 Democratic National Convention, and running through January of 2002.  It's definitely doable.

As for the blogs already out there, I think this would be largely synergistic with what they're doing.  This project is conceived of in terms of media, which is very important, but it isn't the whole ball of wax by any means.  A detailed diary on Senate candidates and their positions on economic issues would be wonderful for a statewide blog, but totally out of place on this sort of blog.  It could, however, be an invaluable resource to link to in terms of a media-focused story--which is why the two blogs could have a very healthy synergistic relationship.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-12-20 11:03AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------