Yesterday, Ben Smith at Politico reported that David Brock's Media Matters For America group is basically abandoning all pretense of being a media watchdog group and is just going to concentrate on fighting "guerilla warfare" and "sabotage" against Fox News.
Media Matters never had any mainstream credibility to begin with, so I'm not terribly surprised by this move. However, I would note that they have no credibility, not necessarily because they are explicitly political so much as the work they do is dishonest and shoddy as a rule. (I'm still waiting for MMFA to correct a lengthy attack on me from two years ago -- but I won't hold my breath.) It's actually a badge of honor among most right-leaning reporters and bloggers to have done something that they find risible.
In any event, it's really remarkable just how bad MMFA is at their supposed mission. To be perfectly blunt, even the most comitted conservatives are often less than impressed by certain personalities and aspects of the conservative media machine. It's a big tent, after all.
But as Nietzsche once said, "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." MMFA is really, really insipid.
I mean, as a professional journalist, I'm not sure how I feel about James O'Keefe's methodology. But with a few hidden cameras and next to no money, he's taking a wrecking ball to some of liberal America's biggest institutions. MMFA blows $10 million a year and what do they have to show for it?
David Brock, who runs MMFA, appears to be really good at raising money, but terrible at media criticism. I can't imagine he's now going to succeed in his new mission of "sabotage," either (though it's not like MMFA has ever known the difference between honest critisicm and underhanded assualt). I can't believe that MMFA continues to operate in the haphazard fashion that it does, and I can't imagine that some on the left aren't at least embarassed by how pathetic and ineffective it is.