David Brock, author of the best-selling Blinded by the Right and head of the Web site Media Matters.org, has written a new book, The Republican Noise Machine. In a Georgetown house built "circa 1860," according to a plaque, with a well-stocked liquor bar (three kinds of whiskey), fresh flowers, and a library that includes the National Review, The Weekly Standard, and The Cheese Plate, he talks about book publishing, Rush Limbaugh, and the sins of his past.
Why did you write the book?
The question I tried to answer is, “How did the conservative movement reach a point that it dominates our political discourse?” I think people know FOX is the No. 1 cable network. And they know there's an awful lot of right-wing talk radio. But I don't think they know the back story -- that this did not happen by accident. There has always been a market for right-wing media, going back to the '50s and '60s. But there have been structural changes in recent years that have allowed the right-wing material to be distributed widely. And these changes have helped conservatives become the most cohesive political movement in recent memory.
When you say structural changes, are you talking about a shift in institutions?
Yes. Let me put it in personal terms. In 1986, I was working for The Washington Times. It had a circulation of roughly 100,000 and was losing millions of dollars a year. When we published things, they didn't go very far. Today, the readership of The Washington Timeshasn't changed. But the ability to lift an article off the page of The Washington Times has become enormous. An article can be posted by Matt Drudge, who gets 6.5 million visitors every day. It may be read on the air by Rush Limbaugh. The author of a Washington Times article may go on TV with Bill O'Reilly. You're instantly reaching millions. The same situation is not true for liberal-advocacy journalism.
In Republican Noise Machine, you say people used to ask why you were blinded by the right. Now they want to know why much of the country is. Can you explain?
In the early 1970s, there was an aggressive and well-funded effort to market the conservative ideology to the American public. You had an ideological faction within the Republican Party that didn't even hold sway within its own party. The first thing they did was make the party reflect their small faction. Then they stepped beyond that, creating a network of think tanks to challenge the authority of the universities and to market ideas like school choice, Star Wars, faith-based initiatives, and privatization for Social Security. The conservatives were waging what they called a war of ideas, and they had the help of subsidized, right-wing publications like the New York Postand The Weekly Standard and people like Rupert Murdoch, who were willing to lose $400 million or $500 million on the chance FOX would become profitable. In some ways, they were able to purchase the debate.
Is [George] Soros going to buy it back?
Well, I don't think it'll be one person. Going back 20 or 30 years, there have been five or six family foundations that were responsible for bearing most of the financial burden for the conservative movement. They now provide a general operating system that sustains the institutions and the philanthropy of the right. Over the years, the right has spent their money strategically and have managed to brand an ideology. There is a lot of money for liberal philanthropy, but it hasn't been targeted into the ideas sector. The work is more issue-specific and issue-driven in liberal circles. And there have not been many institutions that tell the public what it means to be a progressive.
Do you think they could?
Yeah, I do. One of the differences is the budgets of conservative organizations are heavily tilted toward communications. It's much more Madison Avenue. When a book is commissioned, they pay attention to how it's promoted. They also know there's been a breakdown in cultural authority and that, these days, a National Review Online chat can mean more than a New York Times book review. They have bookers who spend all day trying to get their “experts” on cable because they know that a cable show -- even one that doesn't have a huge audience -- can still create a buzz. Some liberals say, "Oh, those are just shout fests." They look down on them. Overall, they don't place the same emphasis on the sound bite. Maybe it comes from a resistance to having to sell your ideas. Their attitude is, “The research is solid, and that's good enough.”
So for the past 10 years, we've been seeing right-wing books that are shoddy in reporting, scholarship, and even logic -- and are selling like hotcakes. I can use my own as an example: When The Real Anita Hill came out in 1993, Limbaugh promoted it, and I got on the Today show. Really, I don't think his role can be overstated in the media and politics. But you don't have to take my word for it. Look at The American Spectator. They've called him the successor to [Ronald] Reagan.
How many copies of The Real Anita Hill sold?
125,00.
And Blinded by the Right?
140,000.
You spent $100,000 on an anti-Limbaugh ad for cable television. Clearly, you think he's more than just a big idiot.
One of the huge mistakes progressives have made is to write him off as ineffective and, frankly, as a crackpot. They seem to think he's nothing more than fringe nonsense. It's not the case. The Washington Post's media critic, Howard Kurtz, says he has more influence than Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, or Peter Jennings. And there's the viral nature of radio. That means he's reaching more than just his listeners. If there's one Limbaugh fan in an office of 10 people, well, that one person can poison the whole well with misinformation he's gotten from Limbaugh.
When I heard the things Limbaugh said about Iraqi prisoners, I thought, “If a liberal commentator said something like that, it would be on the crawl on FOX News and would be known all over the country.” But when a conservative says it, you publish an article about it and put it on a Web site, and you may still not get the word out to a big audience. That's one of the reasons we did the ad. Still, you'd like to get to a stage where you don't have to pay to get your point across.
What's the best chance for liberals in the future? Internet? Radio?
The Internet may become liberal talk radio. As I say in my book, only 20 percent of the public considers themselves liberal. But nearly 40 percent of the people who get their news from the Internet call themselves liberal. But I think you have to try everything. In the early to mid-1970s, conservatives threw an awful lot of money at a problem. Some things worked. Some things didn't. Right now, the progressives are also in an entrepreneurial phase.
Blinded by the Right came out two years ago, and you've had time to reflect on the things you wrote about. Any new insights?
I don't think so. I gave that book my best effort. There was no stone left unturned, no thought I didn't express. I was closing out a chapter, and it feels it feels very freeing in that way. It's not like I'm struggling not to talk about it now. I was a bit stuck in those years, and now I feel unstuck.
You once talked about feeling uncomfortable with conservatives. How are things with the liberals?
There was a part of me that was never comfortable with the way people on the right would channel emotional aggression into politics. It's a significant part of what motivates the right wing. There's another part that had to do with the difficulty with sexuality. It's not only that I was gay. There was also the issue of subjugating my own values, such as the fact I was pro-choice, to the ideological movement. Part of my story was a recovery of values, and I couldn't have gotten out of the right wing if I didn't have a conscience. Afterward, I spent time in self-reflection and tried to become more balanced. There have been times when it's been hard -- like when I'd encounter people who worked for the Clintons or met people I'd written terrible things about. I think that is to be expected.
Remember, I didn't jump out of bed and do this. This has been a seven-year process. And, as a whole, the people I've met have been open to the idea that people can change. It helps if they read Blinded by the Right, to be honest with you. It also helps if they get to know me a little bit. Then they can judge my sincerity. Is there skepticism? All ideological converts face this. I think that comes with the territory. And, yes, there was a time when I thought about leaving Washington. But I felt if I have something to contribute, I should stay and find my way.
Tara McKelvey is a Prospect senior editor.
