November 2, 2011

Journolist.

Who they were, where they worked.

(Via Instapundit.)

(If you don't remember what JournoList was, click the tag below for all my old posts on the subject.)

88 comments:

AllenS said...

My old list had only 107 names. The stench was worse than I thought.

Bob said...

And actually, I have a copy of the list with 157 names, and it may have expanded more than that.

Pogo said...

Not the Fourth Estate, but a Fifth Column.

Now aimed at lynching Cain.

AllenS said...

I would hope that bloggers would take this information into consideration when linking a story involving these people.

Examples: Ari Berman - The Nation - Journolist Member

Kevin Drum - Washington Monthly - Journolist Member

WV: farks

bagoh20 said...

That's a crowded bubble - deafening, I'm sure, but with a clear harmonic.

virgil xenophon said...

Minor corr: Henry Farrell (#43) listed as George Wash Univ is also a main contributor at Crooked Timber and listed as such on their home page..

Shouting Thomas said...

A completely corrupted press.

What a concept!

Beta Rube said...

The kids are in full 2012 campaign mode. Not an objective syllable among them.

ndspinelli said...

Are you sure he didn't mix this list up w/ the Bernie Sanders for President Committee?

Pogo said...

Like PRAVDA, but covert.

Gotta admit, though, they do seem to be able to steer the narrative wherever they want.

Pogo said...

Wouln't it be more useful to know who's not on the current (supersecret) list?

That'd be like, what, less than 10 MSM journalists?

Lucien said...

The site linked to had this quote up:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.” Robert Heinlein

When I first heard Elizabeth Warren's spiel about how no captains of industry really make it on their own, I though ot the quote from Heinlein, but didn't have it handy.

ooonaughtykitty said...

I think IOTW has a better run down... including photos... of the Journolisters.

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=29858

The comments section... from what i recall at the time... is hilarious. :)

Scott M said...

Why are you guys so angry about people utilizing their college degrees toward their originally intended use? One doesn't get a journalism degree to report on such banality as who, what, when, where, why, and how. You get a journalism to CHANGE THE WORLD, BABY!

traditionalguy said...

Journolist definition: a collusory venture that misleads marks to benefit one candidate over another.

They sound like another political party to me.

Crony socialism needs these crony journalists to cover up its moves.

Patrick said...

Interesting that Sullivan didn't get the nod. They must still have been pissed about his early support for the war in Iraq.

ndspinelli said...

John Nichols didn't make the cut.

Scott M said...

Interesting that Sullivan didn't get the nod. They must still have been pissed about his early support for the war in Iraq.

That begs the question, "was there a cabal within a cabal?" or, at the very least, who were the gatekeepers? What little star chamber decided who's credentials and ideology was pure enough to be allowed in?

deborah said...

Juicebox Mafia, indeed.

Roger J. said...

Cant wait for our resident lefties comments on this one.

I actually have no problems with the birds of a feather issue--this is freedom of association and like minded people (although a bit short on minds) can get together and do as they please. as long as it doesnt involve young children, corpses (as mr obama would pronouce it) or animals.

The only problem I have are the protestation of pure motive when these scum bags pontificate about other like minded groups, such as the tea party.

Oh well--marks the continual decline of American politics.

garage mahal said...

In which people who look away at news orgs that hack people's cell phones pretend to be outraged with journalists emailing each other.

Roger J. said...

Oh--and as trooper would say, the only worse than a jouralist is a lawyer (and conversely)

Where is trooper by the way?

Scott M said...

In which people who look away at news orgs that hack people's cell phones pretend to be outraged with journalists emailing each other.

In which most of us don't read British news and, if memory serves, responded negatively when the details came to light. Neither of which details your opinions about the Journalist issue. Deflect much?

Franklin said...

Is there a whiter group of racists anywhere outside of Stormfront than the Journolist? What a bunch of hate-filled, evil, anti-democratic, bigoted, totalitarian...fucks.


And fuck Cabalist too. If there's any doubt that these psychopaths are still operating, just look at the stories about Cain...hey, anything's better than talking about the economy.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

I believe the appropriate phrase is, "The Usual Suspects", not only in terms of who, but also the organizations for which they work.

Interesting Politico is well-represented.

Roger J. said...

Oh--and as trooper would say, the only worse than a jouralist is a lawyer (and conversely)

Where is trooper by the way?


Take a look over at his place.

Joseph said...

How wonderful would it be if another leaker spilled the beans on whatever network replaced Journolist?

rick said...

Michael Berube, professor at my alma mater Penn State, is a member. Also writes for Crooked Timber. Between Berube and Penn State Prof Michael Mann, he of climate hockey stick fame, the university has seen the last of my contributions.

BTW, Penn State has the highest tuition of any state related university in the US.

franglo said...

Most of the people on that list are openly, publicly liberal. So what's the scandal? That liberals exist and email each other? I know for some of you, that is the scandal.

Herman Cain is being lynched? Herman Cain has a past. He settled a sexual harassment suit. Do you really think that a democrat wouldn't have their sexual harassment suit made public? I don't get it. Are you claiming MSM bias for bringing this to light? Really? Did you just forget the 2008 campaign? Did you forget the Clinton administration? Whitewater? Kenneth Starr? Is your contention really that Democrats receive less scrutiny in the media? Think about it for a second. I can throw some more names out there. David Vitter?

The MSM "buried" allegations of Clinton's misconduct? Hello Gennifer Flowers?

Who do you think you are fooling/convincing? Or is it just that, now that you have a chance to play the race card that you spent the last two years harping about, you are going to play the race card?

Shouting Thomas said...

garage, you dumb fucking stooge, you know that's not the complaint.

The complaint is that these Journolisters are little more than PR agents of the Democratic Party, and unpaid workers in President Obama's re-election campaign.

Can you open your mouth or type a letter, garbage, without utter a deliberate fucking lie?

Who pays you to deliver these lies? If you're doing it for free, you not just a stooge... your a fucking idiot of a stooge.

traditionalguy said...

Every High Tech Lynching first has to signal the lynch mob, and then agree on a tree, and then buy a rope, and then tie a noose, and only then open the spontaneous proceedings to the public.

That's hard work. Every internet tool that makes their work more productive must be used.

Michael said...

"In which people who look away at news orgs that hack people's cell phones pretend to be outraged with journalists emailing each other."

Conservatives, of course, condemn hacking and any curious person would know that to be true. In stark contrast the writer of the above would under no circumstance condemn journolist. No serious person can converse with ideologues, particularly stupid ones.

SMGalbraith said...

If I were a liberal (or conservative) journalist, the last thing I'd want to hear from is people with the same ideology as mine. What's the point?

Heck, I'd want to join a list of people with opposite views from mine. Especially if I was on the left. Let's see, liberal college education, liberal newsroom or editorial office, liberal friends and acquaintances.

AND you also need a liberal list of your peers sending back and forth liberal ideas?

These folks aren't really guilty of biased journalism; they're guilty of lousy journalism.

Roger J. said...

I'm sorry that I am not worked up too much about journalist--the legacy media has operated like this for generations. In the old days, the local news media and commenters took their cues from the NYT. The internet has enabled them to be a bit more direct in their internal communications; eg, journalist.

I am not surprised nor shocked. In fact, if one didnt suspect there was such an operation, they would be extraordinarily naive--

Anyone seeking public office (or, for that matter, "impartial" reporting,) needs to be aware of the snakes in the grass and take appropriate precautions.

Journolist is a scandal only for the naive among us.

Oh=-and the bleaters on this thread that allege they are only emailing each other, like family members email about family events, are the worse fucking liars. They are the useful idiots. Just admit the truth--too hard for you assholes.

Pookie Number 2 said...

What's interesting to me is that hacking (which is unqualifiedy deplorable, full stop) exists to find out information that can then be provided to the public. This is an example of journalists having the right goal and an unacceptable means.

Journolist exists to shape the information that is provided to the public. That's not even a valid goal.

Jeffrey said...

Wow. A lot of Jews on that list.

franglo said...

What did Jornolist DO besides EXIST that scandalizes conservatives?

A bunch of AVOWED LIBERALS (the Nation magazine!) were EMAILING each other!

How do you know they weren't on other email lists besides this one? What do you actually know about what was written on the list?

Do you think Drudge, Breitbart, Bill Kristol, Roger Ailes and someone from the WSJ editorial board have ever emailed each other? Would you be shocked if they did?

Roger J. said...

franglo--the head stooge of the useful idiots--
Here's the question: WHY were they emailing each other?

It goes to motive.

I know--they wanted to know how aunt minnie was doing; and how little sasha was doing in preschool

The said thing is that if you believe the bullshit you post, your are certifiable.

Chip S. said...

franglo, without apparent intended irony, asked:

Did you just forget the 2008 campaign?

That would be the campaign during which the John Edwards paternity story had to be broken by the National Enquirer, I believe. The one in which the Journolisters agreed to do their best to suppress the Rev. Wright story. The one in which Barack Obama got a free pass from every MSM outlet in existence.

But please do go on about the Clinton years. I'd love to know how a story that was broken by Matt Drudge is an example of MSM diligence. Props to them, I guess, for not ignoring an impeachment trial.

Roger J. said...

And because I am equal opportunity cynic, a suspect both the left and right have mechanisms to coordinate messages--

Both the left and right make every effort to coordinate their messages

dont see this as a scandal--as I said above, its freedom of association and its up to the individual to evaluate the messages received.

Christopher in MA said...

Franglo vomited "Did you forget the Clinton administration?"

Yes. Yes, I do. "Nuts and sluts." "You never know what will turn up when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park." "Better put some ice on that." "One free grope." "American women ought to get on their knees to give him a blow job for keeping abortion legal." The left certainly showed its true opinion of women then.

"Remember Gennifer Flowers?" Yes. Do you remember the MSM insisting the voice on her tapes wasn't Clinton and refusing even to consider the possibility?

Tell you what, Franglo. When the traitors at Journolist decide to investigate the chatter about Little Black Jesus' "friendship" with Kal Penn, then I might take your nonsense seriously.

And Garage - don't you have a cut and paste function that will just post "SQUIRREL!" on every Althouse thread? It'd save you time and be at least as coherent as anything else you post.

edutcher said...

franglo said...

Most of the people on that list are openly, publicly liberal. So what's the scandal? That liberals exist and email each other? I know for some of you, that is the scandal.

When you claim to be reporting the news objectively, but you're communicating with each other to set up a story line to advance the Lefty agenda, particularly at the expense of someone else's personal life or reputation or their professional life, while claiming there's no collusion - that's the scandal.

franglo isn't really that dumb - he just plays one on the Internet.

And if the Conservatives, Libertarians, or Republicans were doing this sort of thing to the Lefties, you'd hear franglo screaming in Peking.

ooonaughtykitty said...

Oldie but goodie... Iowahawk's take on "Chat Room ala JournoList".

http://bit.ly/fsNFP

:)

Roger J. said...

it appears that franglo's bleatings have been appropriately eviscorated.

I eagerly await his or her's rejoinder.

franglo said...

Barack Obama got a free pass

Other than the fact that you hate Obama and have since the inauguration, what did he get a pass on? His paternity suit? His sexual harassment suit? His missing birth certificate? Patronizing a black church in Chicago? Reverend Wright saying some bad things about America? Knowing Bill Ayers? Rezko? WHAT EXACTLY did he "get a pass" on? We know about those things because they were reported in the media!

PEOPLE VOTED FOR HIM ANYWAY. You know why? Because they decided that the things you believe are discrediting didn't matter. Was that the result of an MSM coverup, or just that they think differently than you?

People voted for Obama. Of their own free will. Get over it.

frank said...

@Scott M: "You get a journalism to CHANGE THE WORLD, BABY!"

Now wait just one damn minute! At UW=1L I was told "we're the social engineers." Stop horning in on our rice bowl!!

Roger J. said...

Franglo: indeed people voted for an unvetted half black dude that promise to heal the planet and stop the rise of oceans

and how as that worked out, precisely?

All it says is that 53 percent of voters were idiots.

franglo said...

Obama's doing exactly what I voted for him to do, in my opinion. Conservatives have been saying he's a disaster and the worst ever since before he made a single decision as president.

How in the world would I ever give a shit what conservatives think about Obama? The formative political experience of my life has been the invasion of Iraq, aka the dumbest single executive branch move in American history.

Dark Eden said...

Liberal: What did Journolist do that was soooo bad!

Conservative: Collude to promote stories harmful to the right and bury stories harmful to the left.

Liberal: I mean just tell me! So liberals email each other big duh!

Conservative: Yes, they email each other about colluding on stories to help the Democrat party.

Liberal: Tell me one thing that is so bad about email! Luddites! Technophobes!

Conservative: Collusion... Democrats... hello? Can you hear me?

Liberal: Its like that story about epistemic closure. Conservatives only see what they want to see!

chrisnavin said...

One of the primary goals of political parties is to keep and maintain power.

If you pay too much attention, you'll get disappointed.

I believe you're free to associate with whom you chose, and coordinate the "message," but the country may not profit from your actions, maybe only your political party. True believers and closed minds act that way, generally, right and left.

Rose said...

garage mahal said...
In which people who look away at news orgs that hack people's cell phones pretend to be outraged with journalists emailing each other.

And what makes you think they weren't doing that, and more?

Actually - I don't mind them ferreting out information by any means they can figure out, if they report the findings accurately. They could certainly use their skills to unseal Obama's sealed private college records, for example.

What I mind is them NOT working to unseal those records at the bidding of their master. And it oughtta curl your toes, too mahal - because what one day you cheer, the next day may turn on you and yours.

franglo said...

Dark Eden: They are liberals. Why wouldn't they want to collude to help liberal causes they believe in?

Why wouldn't other people want to listen in on that conversation?

Could there be a spectrum of people on an email list, going from activist to observer, that would want a space to have a conversation?

Do you think that people on the right, from government workers to think tank members, to pundits, ever work together to craft a message/ push a story/ brainstorm? Would that be a scandal to you?

Roger J. said...

Ahh Franglo--I do appreciate your stating precisely what your basis for voting was--and I will not criticize it--your vote goes for what you want.

But other people may have other considerations other than your formative experience about Iraq--and their views are simply the equal of yours. We will find out what the people think about Mr Obama's stewardship next November.

frank said...

@frangloo: "People voted for Obama. Of their own free will."

People voted for Hitler. Of their own free will.

Bruce Hayden said...

Part of the problem is that the MSM has appeared to a great extent to act in concert in pushing the agenda of the Democrats in general, and their Presidents in particular. All together, they ignored all the Clinton sex scandals, that included the charges of actual physical assault and rape, as well as John Edwards' relationship while his wife was dying of cancer, while piling onto threatening Republicans. Now, they are suppressing stories about all the corruption in the current Administration, including gun running, shoveling money to their political friends and relatives, etc., while pushing such things as the Cain settlement.

At one time, we thought that they did this by reading the NYT, and taking its lead. And, everyone could thus ignore what appeared to be concerted action as merely laziness.

But what Journalist did was to show that this concerted action by the MSM was not through laziness, but was a overt conspiracy by a number of liberal journalists and their like, and the conspiracy was to use their perches in the MSM, etc. in order to intentionally shape the news to the advantage of the Democrats, all while maintaining the pretense that the MSM was the neutral reporter of news, instead of being an arm of the DNC and Democratic White Houses.

In other words, publishing the list and some of its emails was like Toto pulling back the drapes on the Wizard, when it comes to the claim of the MSM being the unbiased reporter of news.

Scott M said...

Dark Eden: They are liberals. Why wouldn't they want to collude to help liberal causes they believe in?

Thus, franglo puts a fork in any future criticism he might harbor against balance news coverage on Fox.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Other than the fact that you hate Obama and have since the inauguration, what did he get a pass on? His paternity suit? His sexual harassment suit? His missing birth certificate? Patronizing a black church in Chicago? Reverend Wright saying some bad things about America? Knowing Bill Ayers? Rezko? WHAT EXACTLY did he "get a pass" on? We know about those things because they were reported in the media!

A couple of thoughts - one is that it's about how the story is presented. CNN described itself as a "Revered Wright-free zone" which contrasts markedly with its coverage of Perry's rock.

The birth certificate issue was thankfully proven moot (heck, we had Obama's birth announcement), but I think Obama's misrepresentation of his relationship with Ayers as "someone who lives in my neighborhood" was a bit of a story. Also, there wasn't a whole lot of discussion of his actual performance as a community organizer or teacher - was he successful, and how is that defined.

These are minor details - Obama's primary weakness is his refusal to consider the possibility (I'd describe it as the overwhelming likelihood) of adverse economic outcomes stemming from his mostly well-meaning policies - but the media's efforts were not (if I can use this phrase) fair or balanced, and I assume that this affected how he was perceived.

Christopher in MA said...

Lord, Frank, let people know before you Godwin a thread. The franglo beating was just getting good.

Chip S. said...

Other than the fact that you hate Obama and have since the inauguration, what did he get a pass on?

Brilliant retort.

But since you ask, let's see...

Who in the MSM investigated Obama's connections to Tony Rezko? Who asked what role his '04 campaign may have played in the leaking of Jack Ryan's sealed divorce records? Who investigated the "programming error" that allowed Obama's '08 campaign to make an end-run around federal contributions law? What stories were there about Obama's previous membership in the hard-left New Party? How about the manner in which he screwed up his only previous executive job, running the Annenberg Challenge?

No, don't trouble yourself with facts, franglo; they're not on your side. Just keep shouting "hater!" It's all you've got.

franglo said...

Who in the MSM investigated Obama's connections to Tony Rezko?

You lost me there, right off the bat. That story was beaten to death. Guess what. There was no there there.

And so it goes with the majority of "scandals" pimped out by the right during this administration. But keep trying.

Christopher in MA said...

"WHAT EXACTLY did he get a pass on?"

His skin. As was pointed out by no less than well-known reich wing Rethuglican Gerry Ferraro, were Little Black Jesus merely Chicago ward heeler Barry O'Bama, barely one-term senator with no record other than the ability to croak "present," he'd have been laughed off the national stage.

"Conservatives have been saying he's a disaster and the worst ever since before he made a single decision as president."

I apologize, franglo. I didn't realize you were only eleven years old. Perhaps you should pick up a history book and read about the deference and cooperation the left gave "selected, not elected pResident Chimpy Bushitler." Or merely admit, as I said in another thread, that politics ain't beanbag. If the GOP isn't spotwelding the SCOAMF's balls to the floor, I have no use, nor need to vote, for them.

wv - 'matingl.' Chris MacMatthews' description of his leg after an Obama speech.

cubanbob said...

franglo said...

Maybe you might have heard of Vietnam. Now there was a world class clusterfuck brought to us courtesy of the democratic party from start to finish.

Thanks for demonstrating that not only are you young but also dumb. Back in the day Soviet Life had better journalistic standards the JornoLists.

edutcher said...

franglo said...

Obama's doing exactly what I voted for him to do, in my opinion. Conservatives have been saying he's a disaster and the worst ever since before he made a single decision as president.

Clearly he forgets ZeroCare, Stimulus I, II, and III, the GM bailout, Fast and Furious, Libya (truly the dumbest thing anyone's pulled since Jack Kennedy said, "We have to make our power pertinent in the world and Vietnam seems to be the place"), QE I, II, and III, Moochelle's Vacation Summers...

How in the world would I ever give a shit what conservatives think about Obama? The formative political experience of my life has been the invasion of Iraq, aka the dumbest single executive branch move in American history.

Because the economy GodZero's destroying is the one in which franglo will have to live as much as the Conservatives he so hates?

franglo said...

ed-- I'm not dumb enough to forget that the financial crisis began in 2007. Not January 2009.

Scott M said...

ed-- I'm not dumb enough to forget that the financial crisis began in 2007. Not January 2009.

Careful how you tread. There's a whole heap of CSPAN video showing the Democrats in Congress defending Fannie and Freddie in the years leading up to the housing collapse, Maxine Waters and Barney Frank not the least.

frank said...

I 'understand' frangloo, what with me spending my 'formative years' with 4 tours in vietnam. Went there a JFK liberal, came back as a twisted, mindless Republican. I've seen life from both sides now--don't worry, be happy. I'm cliched out :-).

Matt said...

Nobody on that list wrote the original Cain story at Politico. So what is the point of linking to the list other than to try and vindicate Cain for two sexual harassment cases?

At this point blame Cain not journalist for doing their job.

traditionalguy said...

Franglo...You seem all upset that anyone hates god, I mean Obama.

But if you are an America first middle class person who believes in the rule of law, then The Lawless One, who favors America last and Government Workers getting high paid sinecures for doing nothing but destroying the middle class's employers, then Obama hated us first.

edutcher said...

franglo said...

ed-- I'm not dumb enough to forget that the financial crisis began in 2007. Not January 2009.

Is he smart enough to remember it was started when Willie expanded the CRA to include subprime mortgages and worsened when the Friend of Angelo and Slobbering Barney did everything they could to make sure none of Dubya's attempts to head it off before it started succeeded?

Of course, he does. But that's not in the KosKidz playbook.

Chip S. said...

franglo said...You lost me there, right off the bat.

I'm sure that happens to you a lot. So I'll keep this comment a simple as possible.

Media bias takes several forms. One of them is simply failing to report unfavorable stories. That's not always feasible, especially in the case of actual criminal prosecutions. Another is devoting a disproportionate amount of effort to digging up "dirt" about the other side, and setting a low bar for what constitutes scandal (see the NYT re John McCain's "affair"). Yet another--its most sophisticated form--involves the subtleties of word choice.

For example, when the Rezko story became impossible to ignore, the Times reported on it by restating the facts already in the public domain while adding these touches: a headline referring to Rezko as "an Obama patron and friend", and a story that "reported" this:

Mr. Obama says he never did any favors for Mr. Rezko, who raised about $150,000 for his campaigns over the years and was once one of the most powerful men in Illinois. There is no sign that Mr. Obama, who declined to be interviewed for this article, did anything improper.

The story--and I do mean story--concludes with this sentence:

People who know Mr. Rezko describe him as warm and personable.

Yes, that's some hard-hitting journalism on display right there. Why, Mr. Obama himself denied any impropriety! Nothing to see here, folks. Just move along.

Lest I lose you again, let me explain this in the simplest possible terms: If a guy like Rezko goes on trial for stuff involving another politician (Blago), it's impossible for the MSM to simply not report on it at all. What the MSM can do--and demonstrably tried to do in the Rezko case--is to spin it so as to minimize the damage to the people they're boosting.

The story I've quoted from isn't the last word on Rezko, obviously. But as the NYT's initial report, it demonstrates how its editors wanted to spin the story. This is how media bias works, and why it's not always simple to quantify.

BTW, it's a little late in the game for you to simply deny the existence of media bias. There's a whole book on the subject by a respected political scientist.

Hope I didn't lose you, there, amigo.

wv proutort: Just the thing for those times when a madeleine just won't do.

cubanbob said...

edutcher said...

He is too young and dumb. He thinks that the world didn't exist before his time and nothing that is wrong now didn't have it's roots in the past. Now which party first created Freddie mac and Fannie Mae and then privatized them while offering the full faith and credit of the United States to back up their paper? Which party created all of the banking regulatory agencies and their missions? Which party pushed for loans for the unqualified? Hint: it isn't the republican party.

Bruce Hayden said...

Nobody on that list wrote the original Cain story at Politico. So what is the point of linking to the list other than to try and vindicate Cain for two sexual harassment cases?

I thought that one of the two guys posting the stuff was a Journolister. If not, I have no doubt that there are those at that organization who were.

In any case, they apparently couldn't get the other people involved to talk, which is why the story was third or fourth person. The settlement(s?) was sealed and they didn't have a complicit judge on hand to (illegally) unseal it, as Obama had done against his opponent for the Senate and his divorce pleadings.

So, we are back to the point we were with Clarence Thomas - that the facts aren't really what matters, but rather, the possibility of the charges. Unless, of course, it is a major Democratic politician who is at issue, and then, the facts don't matter either, just the politics (e.g. Bill Clinton and John Edwards).

franglo said...

"Democrats alone are responsible for the financial crisis.

Not the boom and bust cycle innate to the capitalist system.

Not the collapse of trillions worth of unregulated mortgage-backed derivatives.

Democrats. They did it all."

Is that argument supposed to convince anyone who is not already a die hard conservative? Or is it the argument you use to convince yourselves?

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chip Ahoy said...

Why now? I think the list is published again and an issue again because Politico figures somewhat prominently.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

franglo said...

"Democrats alone are responsible for the financial crisis.

Not the boom and bust cycle innate to the capitalist system.

Not the collapse of trillions worth of unregulated mortgage-backed derivatives.

Democrats. They did it all."

Is that argument supposed to convince anyone who is not already a die hard conservative? Or is it the argument you use to convince yourselves?


Well, if we're going by facts instead of KosKid talking points,

YES!!!!!

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Calypso Facto said...

the dumbest single executive branch move in American history

a. You obviously have a very limited scope of history. Are you 12?

b. Unlike Obama's illegal war in Libya, the invasion of Iraq was authorized in accordance with the War Powers Resolution by the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, 296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate. Lots of blame to go around there.

Fen said...

Allen I would hope that bloggers would take this information into consideration when linking a story involving these people.

Examples: Ari Berman - The Nation - Journolist Member

Kevin Drum - Washington Monthly - Journolist Member


Great idea! Anything coming from these weasels should be considered in the context of what narrative the MSM is trying to shape.

And thanks Ann for posting this link. Now its easier for me to know who to shun.

And if the walls ever come down, we know who to tar and feather.

Fen said...

"was there a cabal within a cabal?" or, at the very least, who were the gatekeepers?

There always is.

C.S. Lewis defined it brilliantly with The Inner Ring.

Cedarford said...

Bruce Hayden - a overt conspiracy by a number of liberal journalists and their like, and the conspiracy was to use their perches in the MSM, etc. in order to intentionally shape the news to the advantage of the Democrats, all while maintaining the pretense that the MSM was the neutral reporter of news

A true cabal, centering in NYC.

Had this been done by bank officers, SEC regulated officers of firms, it would have triggered RICO statutes.

Had it been a cabal of a large group of like-minded Christian evangelical generals quietly conspiring to shape military events and public perception of those events - so as to help in the ousting of Barack Obama and democrats - everyone of them, of the supposedly by tradition "neutral" military - would deserve to be purged. We can't abide nascent Juntas.

The liberals and progressive Jews of the media that seek to shape the news as a progressive narrative, not just report it? Well, we have traditionally given the star media and star producers special access to the powerful, use of government assets to help them "do their job", special diplomatic status, exemption from liability and libel laws.....

All on grounds that a "free press" is essential to inform the public in an objective manner.
That could change.

Fen said...

Libtard: Do you really think that a democrat wouldn't have their sexual harassment suit made public? Did you forget the Clinton administration? Is your contention really that Democrats receive less scrutiny in the media? The MSM "buried" allegations of Clinton's misconduct?

See, this is why the MSM echo chamber rots your brain. Turns you into a sheep.

The Libtard is completely ignorant of that ABC had the story on Lewinksy and sat on it - censorship by omission. Drudge is the one who broke the story. The MSM only followed up after Clinton was outed.

Same pattern with the CBS memo hoax, the Swift Boat Vets, etc.

If information is power, why would you continue to use information brokers that lie to you? They keep you stupid. And they're the reason liberalism doesn't survive in a venue that allows for feedback.

Robin said...

Hillary Clinton once trumpeted the evil of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" that was supposedly conspiring to create all the negative publicity about her husband's presidential administration.

But when a real, actual, non-fantasy conspiracy to manipulate and control media themes - Journalist - manifests itself, when its "ho hum, what's the big deal?"

Anga2010 said...

OK (okay), I've had enough of you two doing your "Blogolist" thing and if I'm not the first one to tell you, let me be the first to say that y'all are getting kinda kreepy.

jcally said...

Can some one help out a first-time commenter? I'm not getting this "conspiracy". Looking at the list, I'm not finding a single surprising name - as in a journalist or blogger whose political ideology wasn't already clearly present in their writing. It looks more like a who's who list of liberals that make the Right angry. Wouldn't a mole in the straight reporting staff of the Wall Street Journal or CNN be required for this to work as a "fifth column?" Also (no small point) wouldn't Obama-lovers want Cain to be the R nominee??

jim said...

The talking points are strong with this one.

Surely this sudden resurgence in interest in the online gossiping-&-whining machine that is/was JournoList as a malevolent powerhouse of leftist influence is simply a coincidence, amirite?

Yes, shameful spectacles such as an ongoing parade of national elected representatives having to kiss Rush Limbaugh's ring in public every time he takes offense - or people non-ironically wondering out loud whether FOX is giving the GOP its marching-orders, & not the other way around - pale in comparison to the stunning reveleation that there are news writers who sometimes spin news stories for a non-right-wing purpose. WHY DO THEY HAET AMERICA?????

Helpful Hint: Obama vs. Cain would make Reagan vs. Mondale look like a horserace. Herman Cain falling from contention as the GOP nominee for 2012 is the LAST thing in the world America's liberals want to see. For reference, try parsing ANY of his better-known public statements ... or comparing several of them over time on ANY single topic (make sure to bring a shovel & pack a lunch).