In this thread, Poptech and I got into a Battle of the Cites as between SourceWatch and DiscoverTheNetworks. See post #32, post #38, post #49, post #50, & post #51.
Now, this isn’t exactly a hijack, since the relative credibility of sources (WRT global warming, in this case) is what Poptech’s thread in question is about. But I believe this particular cybershouting match reflects a worldview cleavage that deserves a separate, focused debate, hence this thread.
Wikipedia says of SourceWatch:
The David Horowitz Freedom Center is a conservative [citation needed] foundation founded in 1988 by political activist David Horowitz and his long-time collaborator Peter Collier. It was established with funding from philanthropies, such as the Olin Foundation the Bradley Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.[1]
<snip>
2006 change of name
In July 2006 the center changed its name from the Center for the Study of Popular Culture . . .<snip>
Purpose and scope
The original intention of the CSPC was to establish a foothold in Hollywood. It serves as a platform for conservative speakers and debates between conservative and liberal speakers.
In 2003 Horowitz expanded the scope of the CSPC to include monitoring what his organization views as an ingrained hostility towards conservative scholarship and ideas within academia. He established Students for Academic Freedom to further that goal.
<snip>
Programs
The Center has the following ongoing programs.[6]
<snip>
Discover the Networks is a database of leftwing agendas, activists and causes,[7] with a Java applet to display their interconnections in graphic form.[8] This description can include Jihadists, “anti-American” strains of anti-Iraq War activists, and libertarians, who Horowitz considers “allies of the left”. After two years of development, went online in February, 2005, with a staff of two at a cost of about $500,000.[9]
<snip>
Effectiveness
The Center claims credit for a “growing willingness of conservatives to identify radicals as ‘leftists’ and not ‘liberals’” and for getting “mass market conservatives” such as Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Tom DeLay to use terms like “fifth column”, “hate America left” and “Shadow Party”.[18]
CriticismChip Berlet, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization devoted to “combat racism and promote civil rights through research, education and litigation,” identified the CSPC (now DHFC) as one of 17 “right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable.” Berlet accused Horowitz of blaming slavery on “‘black Africans … abetted by dark-skinned Arabs’” and of “attack[ing] minority ‘demands for special treatment’ as ‘only necessary because some blacks can’t seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others,’ rejecting the idea that they could be the victims of lingering racism.”[19]
Responding with an open letter to Morris Dees, president of the SPLC, Horowitz stated that his reminder that the slaves transported to America were bought from African and Arab slavers was a response to demands that only whites pay blacks reparations, not to hold Africans and Arabs solely responsible for slavery, and that the statement that he had denied lingering racism was “a calculated and carefully constructed lie.” The letter said that Berlet’s work was “so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself.”[20] The SPLC replied that they stood by the accuracy of the report,[21] and subsequent critical pieces on Berlet and the SPLC have been featured on Horowitz’s website and personal blog.[22][23]
DiscoverTheNetworks says of SourceWatch:
A project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), SourceWatch describes itself as an “encyclopedia of people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda.” The subjects of these entries are individuals, issues, and organizations whose objectives and ideologies run the entire left-to-right political gamut.
SourceWatch also seeks to expose what it calls the “propaganda activities of public relations firms” and the activities of organizations working “on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests.” These “exposes,” which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities.
<snip>
As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users. Says SourceWatch: “You don’t need any special credentials to participate – we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques.” While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that “ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques.”
The SourceWatch database is composed (as of early May 2007) of some 612 topics, 27 of which are classified as “main topics.” These include: Academia, Activism, Aviation, Communication, Corruption, Countries, Economics, Environment, Events, Government, Health, Human Rights, Ideologies, Industry, Information and Privacy, International Issues, Issues, Lists, Media, Organizations, People, Politics, Religion, Site Administration, Sociology, Sources, and War/Peace. Within each of these categories, SourceWatch provides information on related groups, individuals, and issues of concern. The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.
Consider for instance the “Activism” category, wherein there is an article depicting expressions of concern about violent acts of ecoterrorism as nothing more than right-wing fear-mongering and selective outrage: “Since 1990, there have been numerous attempts by industry front groups, PR firms and conservative think-tanks … to associate environmental activism with terrorism. … While conservative groups routinely denounce both peaceful protests and vandalism as the equivalent of terrorism, they remain silent about violent attacks against environmentalists and animal rights activists.”
<snip>
Consider also how SourceWatch describes the organization Holy Land Trust (HLT), which spreads false propaganda about Jews robbing Arab lands and brutalizing Arabs in a repressive state of military occupation. Rather than mention any of these facts, SourceWatch merely cites HLT’s self-description as “a Palestinian not-for-profit organization established … to promote and support the Palestinian community in its struggle … to achieve political independence … and … to assist in building an independent Palestine that is founded on the principles of nonviolence, democracy, respect for human rights and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.”
The founder of SourceWatch is Sheldon Rampton, who also serves as CMD’s Research Director. Rampton was formerly an outreach coordinator for the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua, a group established in 1984 to oppose President Reagan’s efforts to stop the spread of Communism in Central America, and currently dedicated to promoting a leftist vision of “social justice in Nicaragua through alternative models of development and activism.”
Although its profiles and articles are user-created, SourceWatch employs an editor, Bob Burton, to oversee the project. Prior to his work at SourceWatch, Burton served as a researcher and campaigner on environmental issues for the Wilderness Society in Australia. He is the co-author of Secrets and Lies: The Anatomy of an Anti-Environmental PR Campaign.
SourceWatch says of DiscoverTheNetworks:
DiscoverTheNetworks (DTN) is a database/search website meant to track “the left” and terrorists, with an implicit connection between the two, with some similarities to SourceWatch. It is a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. DiscoverTheNetworks was launched on February 15, 2005, but Horowitz claims it was two-years under development. The About Us section explains, DTN:
is a “Guide to the Political Left.” It identifies the individuals and organizations that make up the left and also the institutions that fund and sustain it; it maps the paths through which the left exerts its influence on the larger body politic; it defines the left’s (often hidden) programmatic agendas and it provides an understanding of its history and ideas.
It continues:
By browsing this database, and familiarizing oneself with the agendas of the individuals and organizations it contains, with the scope of their activities and with the tens of millions of dollars available to support them, a user of this base will find ample evidence for the existence of this left and for the fact that it is a major player in the political destinies of the nation. (See in particular the organizations and individuals associated with ANTI-WAR groups and The Shadow Party.)
The movement to protest the war in Iraq reconfigured the presidential campaign of 2004 and has affected American policy not only in Iraq but in the War on Terror generally. It has changed the face of the Democratic Party and of American politics in general. What is the nature of this ‘??anti-war’? movement, who are its leaders, and what are its agendas? The scope and features of this database allow for definitive answers to these questions.
…The database also provides group profiles of the organizations engaged in organizing opposition to the Patriot Act, as well as to frontline homeland security defenses such as border control (GROUPS/IMMIGRATION) and the linkages between them. Following the network of these organizations and individuals through the base reveals that they have agendas and perspectives that range far beyond the legal issues themselves and are rooted in their radical opposition to the American status quo. These agendas are anti-corporate and socialist.[1]DTN copies the Campus Watch formula, but is applied to the broader political movement, as the About Us section explains:
Other concerns are certain to be raised that we will not regard as legitimate but rather as veiled expressions of distress over the factual information revealed on the site. A cry of such distress has already greeted a perfectly reasonable database called Campus Watch, provided by the Middle East Forum. This site records and analyzes the views of leftwing academics concerning terrorism in the Islamic world, views that can fairly be described as apologetic and even sympathetic to the radical Islamist cause. Critics of Campus Watch, many of them with views identical to those reviewed on the site, have claimed that the very enterprise of posting such critical reviews is ‘??McCarthyism’? and an Internet ‘??witch-hunt’.? Such responses reflect an anti-intellectual attitude that seeks to embargo the political debate before it takes place.[2]
Overall, DTN is a Smear Portal on academics, journalists, and activists on the left. It is a website where all the smears and red baiting that can be found in FrontPageMag, Campus Watch, and similar-ilk-organizations are put under one roof for “research”
<snip>
Smear Portal
The DTN website contains a section on individuals, and states: "This section examines activists for leftwing agendas and causes, radical egalitarians, and opponents of American ‘imperialism’ "[3]. It applies a smearing by association to the well known “leftists”. Namely, DTN provides a list of leftists and intersperses the names/photos of demonized “terrorists” or people the neo-cons love to hate. For example, the first person on the list is “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi” (a demonized terrorist) and next to him is Al Sharpton. It continues, Dennis Kucinich, Fidel Castro, George Soros, Harold Ickes, Howard Dean, Jane Fonda, Jesse Jackson, Jim McDermott, etc. Guilt by association is implied, but there isn’??t any association between many of the people on the list. The only thing that is attempted here is to smear some of the individuals involved, implying that there is an association with unsavory terrorists - although they forgot to add OBL! NB: DTN considers John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi as leftists, thus its remit is rather wide.
Noam Chomsky’s DTN profile reveals further the bias of the author and director of this website. Most of the smears, misrepresentation and abuse in this section derive from David Horowitz’s The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky, The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky, Part II: Method and Madness, etc. There is a long list of articles of a similar nature by the likes of Horowitz, Peter Collier, Elliot Jager, Bruce Thornton, Anders G. Lewis, Benjamin Kerstein, Paul Crespo etc.[4]
Just like Campus Watch, DTN has a strong pro-Likud zionist bias. Several of the individuals it targets have been critical of Israel. The Issues section of the website lists The Middle East, and it ports much of the material available on Campus Watch and Middle East Forum.
Poptech says – or somehow implies – that SourceWatch is not credible because of its wiki format. And because it is sponsored by the Center for Media and Democracy.
I say DiscoverTheNetworks is not credible because it is a project of David Horowitz. As I have argued before on this board – see this thread, this thread, and this thread – the dude’s a pure-D crank. There are intellectually honest conservatives in America, but he ain’t one of 'em.
As for the wiki-format thing, I’ve known RWs (far more than LWs) to bash Wikipedia for the same reason, and I don’t get it. Why do RWs seem to have such a problem with “consensus reality”?! (Is it because the facts have a liberal bias? ;))