Clark vs. O'Reilly, Soros vs. VRWC

It was already more than a week ago when I saw a clip of Bill O'Reilly interviewing Wesley Clark (link at crooksandliars.com). Now, it's my understanding that an interview should shed light on the interviewee. But the main thing we learn from this interview is that O'Reilly, the interviewer, hates George Soros. O'Reilly compares Soros to former head of the KKK David Duke and calls Soros "the most radical individual in the United States of America." Dang -- Soros must be one bad dude, right? But when pressed by Clark to explain his animosity, O'Reilly can only muster a vague reference to Soros' investment activities in France and the UK.

George Soros is not a very public figure, so I don't think a lot of people have much with which to form an opinion of him, other than smears against him. He is, at the least, a complicated man. For instance, his father was a notable academic who did work in Esperanto, and George is one of the few native speakers of Esperanto. How cool is that?

A lot of conservatives like to point to President Reagan as a major factor in the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe, but you can't ignore the funding Soros provided to opposition, pro-Democracy groups. As much as his detractors like to paint him as a wild-eyed commie, Soros has a solid anti-Communist record. Where Soros stands out is that a lot of anti-Communists are more against socialism than they are against authoritarianism; with Soros, it's the other way around.

Conservatives also make much of Soros' funding of progressive organizations such as MoveOn.org and the Center for American Progress, portraying Soros as this shadowy figure working behind the scenes to buy public opinion with his billions of dollars. This he does to some extent, but what he spends is a drop in the bucket compared to his counterparts on the political right. The Bradleys, the Scaifes, the Coors, and many others all have the resources of Soros, and they are all as politically active -- on the other side of the issues. Their money goes to right wing organizations such as the AEI, the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute, and they support the careers of think tank denizens such as Dinesh D'Souza and Victor Davis Hanson.

I've written about think tanks before. The vast majority are right wing; their fellows are paid to promote the party line. Even in media outlets that have a reputation for being left leaning, the "expert" commentators are mostly from these conservative or conservative-libertarian think tanks. It's not for a lack of experts with a different viewpoint -- the think tanks are simply more active in getting their message out.

When you're listening to a news program, and they bring an expert on the show, they might not tell you anything about the organization this person represents. I would encourage you to pay attention to who is paying this expert's salary, and look it up on the internet. There are a few places you can do this... RightWeb by the International Relations Center is a good resource. As of last year, I wasn't so impressed, but since then they've been busy updating their database. Still better than RightWeb is MediaTransparency.org.

On the MediaTransparency site, not only can you find out where any particular "expert" is getting their paycheck from, but you can also find out the size of the foundations from which they draw said paycheck. You can find, for instance, that the Bradley Foundation alone has more than $700 million ready to spend on conservative causes. How about H. Smith Richardson's foundation? (H. Smith who?) Nearly half a billion in assets. And so on. So when I hear moaning on the right about George Soros' contributions to his pet causes, please forgive me if I roll my eyes.

[22 MAY 2007 08:40:00] UPDATE: I forgot to mention FAIR's annual study of think tank references in the media. You can find last year's report (for 2005) on their website. The 2006 results should be posted in the next few weeks.