Some other material they’ve produced is more like propaganda. Take their on the ground coverage of the fight over Republican Governor Scott Walker’s effort to remove collective bargaining rights for public employees. “While other media outlets did little more than relay union protesters’ grievances,” says Bluey, “we produced a Myths vs. Facts video, scored a sit-down interview with Gov. Scott Walker, and teamed with Reason.tv to report on other state budget showdowns.” The “Myth vs Facts” video portrays the pro-union protesters as unhinged extremists by opening and closing with random women comparing Walker’s actions to those of Nazis, and juxtaposes them with conservatives speaking in a measured tone. Another video gives Walker’s interview snippets with no critical context or even audible questions. It might as well have been produced by his own press office.
The investigative reporter will be, like Bluey, part of Heritage’s communications team, a situation that Bluey says does not present any journalistic quandaries. Gonzales notes that not every story the CMPP has done has been especially ideologically motivated. Gonzales points to Bluey’s reporting on the State Department, via the Voice of America Program, offering funding to the BBC, as an example of non-ideological muckraking. “A story’s a story, that’s what gets my juices flowing,” says Gonzalez, who worked in both the news and opinion sections of The Wall Street Journal.
Bluey points to another conservative think tank that is getting into the reporting game as a model: the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, which sponsors a network of statehouse reporters. Started in 2008, they now have reporters in 41 states, covering such issues as local disbursement of the federal stimulus spending program. “The work that think tanks and independent nonprofit journalists produce has never been more needed and valued than it is right now,” writes Jason Stverak, the Franklin Center’s president. Now there’s a rare statement that both liberals and conservatives could agree on.

Hey Ben, maybe the right might have a better go at it if they could somehow coordinate their message with some kind of online list serve … kind of like Journ-o-list.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 12 May 2011 at 04:24 PM
The right being allergic and hostile to actual facts, I predict this new enterprise will turn out like Conservapedia and the Creation Museum. The right is incapable of producing real journalism, because reality is known to have a liberal bias. They already have a number of "news" outlets (Fox, Newsmax, World Net Daily). As well, they have insinuated themselves into a number of mainstream news organizations -- ABC, CNN, CBS, Washington Post. So they really aren't lacking in news reporting, it's just that the public isn't buying the propaganda they are pushing.
You ask a great question: Is the goal of this new, improved rightwing journalism aimed at reporting from a conservative perspective, or aimed at smearing their political opponents? I contend that they are incapable of the former. I predict they will be one more rightwing outlet doing the latter. We'll see.
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 12 May 2011 at 06:07 PM
With the recent revelations that George Soros is funding most of the old school media as well as much of the Progressive news sources and Heritage is involved with the right-leaning news groups, I think it's fair to say that each organization must be judged by their content, not their funding sources. If we assume the bias than we will never believe the facts.
Besides ProPublica and Franklin Center do some great work.
#3 Posted by Joseph, CJR on Thu 12 May 2011 at 10:56 PM
"I think it's fair to say that each organization must be judged by their content"
If we did that then conservative outfits, such as the Heritage Foundation - http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/04/strawman-alert-the-big-picture.html -, would be discredited out of the gate.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 12 May 2011 at 11:17 PM
And a HUGE grain of salt needs to be taken whenever you read the produce of MRC fellow, Dan Gainor's latest squat.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/11/dont-hear-george-soros-ties-30-major-news-organizations/
Smearing ProPublica, the Center for Public Integrity, the economics profession ... "The Inet is coming! The Inet is coming!"
http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/eighteen_peabody_awards_grante.php
He's the worst kind of cretin.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 12 May 2011 at 11:18 PM
Sounds to me like just more of the same preaching to the choir.
#6 Posted by Sarah , CJR on Fri 13 May 2011 at 10:48 AM
Gee, the right wing think tanks were an ideological countermove to perceived media bias. The left-center then started their own. Media started to lurch right after right wing politicians whined and threatened. Progressive media on the internet started a counterweight. What' not to like. The problem has always been the mainstream right doesn't share the ethics of the mainstream left anymore they share them with the extreme right and extreme left. You just don't hear the voices of the extreme left anymore. Rev Al went mainstream, and Dennis Kuchinich is hardly a radical compared to his HR Republicans.
#7 Posted by Eclectic Observer, CJR on Fri 13 May 2011 at 11:40 AM
Ha! George Soros and Journo-list! Oooooooh booga booga. These clownish tropes are still around? Soooo 2009!
Isn't it time you dipsticks got a new script? :::eyeroll:::
#8 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 13 May 2011 at 02:04 PM
A lot of specialists state that credit loans aid a lot of people to live their own way, just because they are able to feel free to buy necessary things. Furthermore, a lot of banks present college loan for different persons.
#9 Posted by AllysonVargas, CJR on Wed 19 Oct 2011 at 04:28 PM