Why doesn't David Brock (media matters) have his own show?

[Sir Jeffrey]

His entire show could be simply rebroadcasting RW lies on tv, radio, or print from the previous day and subsequently debunking them. It seriously makes them look like dumbasses.

I mean, look at how he slaughters O'Reilly here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501250001

<snip>

"During his "Talking Points Memo" on the January 19 edition of FOX News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly declared that "there's nothing wrong with grilling Condoleezza Rice about policy, but implying Dr. Rice is not sympathetic to the troops is way over the line." Later, he opined, "Boxer also went over the line by saying to Dr. Rice, 'Hey, you know, you put the troops in the background for your ideological loyalty to Bush.' That's what she said." And on his radio show earlier that day, O'Reilly opined that "to say that Condoleezza Rice doesn't have respect for the troops -- 'overwhelmed the respect for the troops'-- cheap shot all day long."

But Boxer never mentioned Rice's "respect for the troops." Rather, Boxer told Rice that "I personally believe ... that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth" (emphasis added), as the transcript shows (and as the Associated Press, The Washington Post, Reuters, and The New York Times all reported, among others)."

He has something funny/sad to write about EVERY DAY. He could fill an hour or two on AAR right? Or Donahue's old spot on MSNBC?

[idiosyncratic]

1. I agree . . . his web site is very informative

and it would be great to SEE or HEAR the items he features on his site.

A short version of "Outfoxed" like where they show O'Lielly saying he only said "Shut Up" one time and then showing video of him saying it over and over and over and over again!

[demnan]

2. I've heard him on various parts of Air America

and he always has something interesting to say. I agree. But I don't think it's likely he'll be on MSM anytime soon. He makes the rest of them look too bad.

Perhaps a stint on Air America.

[Maat]

3. I'd listen to David every moment he was on.

Actually, after reading David's book, 'Blinded by the Right,' I became politically active. Before, while as a social worker, I had worked out my need to serve my community. But, David was adopted, and so, I related as an adoptive (REAL) mother. David was close, and became even closer, to his father. I related.

I understand that, sometimes, something in our background attracts us to people who aren't good for us. That kind of happened to him. While attending university, he joined the rightwing forces (OF EVIL), because he felt comfortable in their closed, rigid, duplicitous society, I guess.

But, then, he came over from the BAD side to the GOOD side. And, I really like his sincere style of speaking, borne out of some bad experiences.

[TheUnspeakable]

4. I LOVED that book!!!

I wish everyone would read "Blinded by the Right" it gives you such an inside knowledge of how the RW media works and how sick and two-faced those people are. The very best thing is that it was written by someone on the inside-i love David Brock!!!!!!!!

[Maat]

6. Yep.

I liked 'Blinded' a bit better because it was a very heartwrenching personal account.

'Republican Noise Machine' is almost more scholarly, or documentary. I loved the info. in it, but liked the first book a bit better - the personal journey.

[Sir Jeffrey]

11. That is what I think would make him so effective...

and what makes his website so effective. He comes across as genuine. And you cannot discount the fact that as he was once one of them, he understands what appeals to their audience.

I mean, compare his approach and demeanor to Al Franken or Janeane Garofalo, for example. And I say the following as an avowed liberal/quasi-socialist. Al Franken comes off as a mildly funny, smug know-it-all jerk a la Ben Stein (who is also not very funny). Janeane Garofalo comes off as a shrill know-it-all who really doesn't know a lot. Now I respect those of you who disagree with me and like their comedy, shows, etc. but that's how I see it.

Brock comes across on his site as one who truly does know quite a bit and is merely pointing out how much "you" are being lied to. His work is not to ridicule liberals or fellate the administration. He really is looking out for "you".

And you said it:

"I understand that, sometimes, something in our background attracts us to people who aren't good for us. That kind of happened to him. While attending university, he joined the rightwing forces (OF EVIL), because he felt comfortable in their closed, rigid, duplicitous society, I guess."

What else could be a better message to tell all of those RINOs? "It is okay to vote for a DEM next time if you don't like the reps way of doing things lately."

Maybe I am reading into this guy too much. Or maybe I am just trying to get out of reading an assignment for class tomorrow. But I really think this guy could stir up big trouble with the "noise machine" if he had a big microphone.

[Sir Jeffrey]

5. Imagine driving in your car one afternoon to an appointment...

you are a businessman of some sort who is politically minded but uneducated. You want to learn all you can about what is going on. Out of habit, you turn on the AM radio and listen to Boortz, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc. because their shows are entertaining and, quite frankly, easy to listen to if you're dumb.

These folks are going to turn you into whatever they want because they go on and on about the same crap. There is no fairness doctrine and no equal time to speak of.

Now, imagine that after three hours of Rush, two hours of Hannity, and two hours of Boortz, you are driving home and David Brock's show comes on. As one of the previous posters mentioned, you would actually HEAR and VISUALIZE the lying that just took place yesterday. While it is still fresh in your mind, O'Reilly's rantings about Barbara Boxer in "freaked out female voice" would be in your memory still. You would start nodding your head along with the commentary after the soundclip going "Yeah, I remember that...maybe I can't trust that lunatic after all."

People are not going to choose to go to a website even if their "loony" lib friend tells them about it. Getting him ON THE AIR will cause this house of cards to tumble over.

Most people are generally good natured IMO. They just don't know they're being lied to. That is what was so scary about F9/11.

[Maat]

7. You make good points, Sir Jeffrey.

Maybe we can all e-mail Air America, and/or Sirius Left.

[w4rma]

8. I agree. A radio and/or TV show by Brock would rock. But, would

Clear Channel allow him on their station since his job will be to go after shows promoted by and dear to the agenda of Clear Channel?

[Sir Jeffrey]

9. Here is a link to the Columbia Journalism Review of the media...

Basically a list of who owns what. If you look at ClearChannel et al you will see a listing of the various local AM markets owned by each respective conglomerate. As you scan the list you will notice that there tends to be an awful lot of overlapping markets:

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/

What does that mean? Free markets. Somebody will want to take a chunk out of clearchannel's ass because, as we all know, the ONLY thing these jerkoffs care about is money. Hand over fist.

If clearchannel is raking in $$$$$$$ off of smear, slander, lies, etc. then there will also be $$$$$$$ to be made exposing the smear, slander, lies, etc. You are absolutely right when you say clearchannel won't want to air Brock or someone likeminded. Someone else will, if there is the possibility to make tons of money.

[K-W]

10. Clearchannel doesnt care what people say

as long as they make money. But I doubt Brock would try something through clear channel.

[GalleryGod]

12. I agree 100%

:bounce:

[theboss]

13. I simply can't trust him.

I have no problem with people who switch their politics. But if you knowingly lie in print, I can't forgive that.

[Sir Jeffrey]

14. I understand where you're coming from...

not wanting to have another David Horowitz around.

And I haven't read any of his books yet like some of the other posters(probably get to it this summer after I graduate).

But he is doing great work at Media Matters and is systematically dissecting nearly every RW hack with national reach. And from what I remember, there have been prominent Democrats in the past who have lied in print and at press conferences on a number of topics. I mean, I don't trust Bill Clinton as far as I could throw him, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a good president on domestic issues.