Media Matters founder David Brock, a man who "built an empire to put Hillary in the White House," has just bit off more than he can chew when he decided to attack Matt Drudge from The Drudge Report, accusing him of being a "pipeline for Russian propaganda."
As many already know the Drudge Report is a news aggregator, linking to news articles from around the globe and is a top source of referral traffic to a number of outlets.
Media Matters attacks Drudge with the claim that Drudge has an "increasing affinity for and proliferation of Russian propaganda," referencing that Drudge has linked to multiple Russian news sources 400 times since 2012.
Not only has Matt Drudge duly noted the attack on him from Media Matters, but he linked to it, then doubled down with a "you want something to complain about, I'll give you something to complain about" type of Drudge style response, by linking to the front pages of three separate Russian news outlets directly under the Media Matters link, which has been up since during the middle of the night.
In Internet-speak, that is a classic case of trolling the enemy.
WAS IT RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA OR THE TRUTH?
A look at the examples that MM uses to "prove" their point is quite enlightening as it shows the same pattern that has been used by the MSM since President Trump was elected, specifically attempting to claim that anyone that wrote about the Wikileaks exposure of the DNC and Podesta emails, was pushing "Russian Propaganda."
During the 2016 presidential campaign, for example, several of the Drudge-promoted articles reported on the contents of emails and voicemails the U.S. intelligence community says were stolen from the Democratic National Committee or former Clinton campaign chair John Podesta by Russian hackers.
When Wikileaks first started publishing those DNC/Podesta emails, the American MSM barely acknowledged them, if U.S. citizens wanted to see the news, or the contents of the emails themselves, they had to go to the Wikileaks website, Independent Media, or foreign media outlets, until the story was too hot to ignore and then others, such as NYT, Wapo, CNN, Politico, and just about every other news outlet in existence were forced to start reporting.
Was it Russian propaganda or the fact that Russian outlets, along with other foreign outlets and Independent Media, bypassed the mainstream media and literally forced them to inform their readers of things that were exposed by the emails? News such as the chairwoman of the DNC at the time, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was actively working on behalf of the Clinton campaign and working against Clinton's primary opponent Bernie Sanders. Or the news that Veteran Democratic operative Donna Brazile, during her time as a CNN commentator, giving advance notice to Clinton’s camp about a debate question.
Here are some of the other examples Media Matters falsely claims is "Russian propaganda" that Drudge linked to:
Others promoted the claims of WikiLeaks founder and former RT host Julian Assange. Drudge highlighted coverage from Russian propaganda outlets of his attacks on Clinton and his contradiction of the U.S. intelligence community over whether Russia was the source of the Democratic emails he published.
Drudge has also regularly turned to RT and Sputnik for unskeptical coverage of statements from Putin and other Kremlin officials, including their denials of Russian election interference, their criticisms of the U.S. role in Syria, and their efforts to undermine NATO members.
And he’s frequently highlighted the Russian outlets’ conspiracy theories and hysterics, including their reports on meetings of the “mysterious Bilderberg Group,” debunked claims that Google manipulated its search results to favor Clinton, and warnings of increasing Western support for satanism.
Assange's assertion that Russia was not behind the attacks, is backed up by new investigative reports by forensic experts and former NSA experts, which say those emails from the DNC and Podesta were not "hacked," but provide evidence that they were "leaked" from the inside. For the record, none of those "experts" are Russian or have anything to do with Russian outlets or officials.
As to the second point quoted above, I actually laughed when I read it, who else do you link to when Russia is denying accusations that the mainstream media is plastering all over their headlines other than a Russian outlet quoting Putin and other Russian officials in their denials. It appears MM thinks that Drudge linking to a Russian outlet quoting their leader is any different than Drudge linking to the NYT or Wapo who are pushing "unskeptical coverage" of Democrats and Democratic officials.
As to the last point, is it really a "conspiracy theory" or Russian propaganda that the Bilderberg Group is "mysterious," when over a hundred world leaders, CEOs, Prime Ministers and other so-called "elite" gather yearly, at an "undisclosed location" to discus world issues, and they admit in their own code: "There is no desired outcome, no minutes are taken and no report is written. Furthermore, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued."
In other words, no one is allowed to know what they discussed, no reporters are allowed to cover the meetings, they issue no statements, and yet calling the group and their meetings "mysterious," is some kind of conspiracy?
What about the claim that noting the "increasing Western support for satanism," is a conspiracy theory?
It appears that no matter how many outlets unrelated to Russia report an issue, if Russia reports it and gets linked by Drudge, it is automatically labeled "Russian propaganda."
DOES IT MATTER WHO REPORTS THE NEWS IF IT IS TRUE NEWS?
I decided to take a look at the "Russian propaganda" as MM calls it, over at a couple of Russian news outlets, and while a few articles do indeed push the Russian leadership outlook, much like the MSM does for the Democrats in America, where stories about Russia have been proven "dead wrong," or have been retracted, deleted and employees fired over publishing fake news, but other stories are the same ones being reported by "American" news outlets.
Such as the meltdown by MSNBC's Chris O'Donnell", highlighted on RT under their "America News" category, but is also being reported by MediaIte, Washington Examiner, Daily Mail, Adage, Variety, TMZ.... in other words, outlets that have nothing to do with Russia. RT is also reporting about Hurricane Maria, the Dow Jones, St. Louis rioting and other items that are "news" which has nothing to do with "Russian propaganda," just information people are interested in.
Which brings up the whole malicious campaign against the Independent Media, including Drudge, by a Clinton supporters, MSM outlets in America, big tech companies, and David Brock, who is still having a temper tantrum because he built an empire to get Hillary Clinton into the White House and she blew it.
So the answer to the category question is a huge NO, it does not matter who is reporting the news, as long as it is real news and is informing the public and letting them decide.
This latest attack against Matt Drudge by David Brock's Media Matters is just the latest a string of attacks against the Independent Media that opposed Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election. Washington Post did it by publishing a link to a list of over 200 websites, claiming they pushed "Russian Propaganda," during the election cycle, then days later offering an editor's note saying they could not "vouch" for the credibility of the people that created the list.
The fact is nearly two-thirds of Americans, 65 percent, believe there is a significant amount of fake news in the mainstream media, according to a Harvard-Harris online survey of 2,006 registered voters was conducted between May 17 and May 20, 2017. Those numbers reflect the majority across the political spectrum, with 80 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of independents and 53 percent of Democrats distrusting the MSM.
Any story or piece of news that didn't fit the MSM narrative has been labeled "fake" or Russian propaganda," in an attempt by people like Brock and MSM, as well as liberals (yes, I know that was redundant) in an attempt to take back control of the masses.
Perhaps if the MSM started reporting the information Americans are interested in, instead of reporting what they in the mainstream media want Americans to be interested in, then many would not need to go to foreign news outlets to get the truth of what is happening here in America.
Denzel Washington said something last year that reflects how the majority of Americans feel about the MSM these days, when he said "If you don't read the newspaper you're uninformed, if you do read it, you're misinformed.
That is not Russia's fault, or Drudge's fault or anyone that links to a foreign news outlet, that is the MSMs fault.