Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.Kill ABC because in an ABC News debate, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos had pressed Obama with questions about Wright.
In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC..."
"...and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”Interesting double use of the word "kill." We need to kill ABC before ABC kills the discourse.
“We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”Throw chairs now. Kill. Rather violent ideation there. Imagine if a tea partier had used such language. Look at what Spencer Ackerman wrote:
"I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.Smash... through a plate-glass window... snapshot of the bleeding mess... live in a state of constant fear...
"And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."
Ackerman got some pushback, but only, it seems, because his strategy appeared ineffective. Mark Schmitt thought it would be bad to make the campaign "all about character" (as opposed to substance), and Kevin Drum said that it would be counterproductive because "the Obama brand" was about being above it all.
The Daily Caller may be picking the juiciest bits from the prize archive it has acquired. I would like access to the whole set of documents so that I can see for myself. The liberal/lefty journalists were eager to help their side, and perhaps conservative journalists do the same for their side. Is Strong smashing Ackerman's head through a plate glass window — rhetorically! — or is this an admirable study of ethics in journalism?
Posts
152 comments:
As Trooper would say (or is it Mort?): the only thing worse than lawyers are journalists. Or is it the other way around--either one looks OK to me.
(That's teach me to post without reading everything )
This whole thing is very interesting to read. I'll enjoy watching the attempts to spin.
The triumph of the left in the arts has produced similar results.
In Woodstock, my home town, the Woodstock Film Festival likes to fashion itself "fiercely independent."
The Festival came into existence in large part because of federal and state grants. The federal grants were greased by Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D), who is about as crazy liberal as you can get.
Two years ago, the festival was an Obama for President rally. Last year, the festival was devoted to "social justice." Don't know what the theme will be this year, but I suspect that the overall effect will be the Diversity Seminar.
In other words, the festival has become a propaganda arm of the state... while at the same time proclaiming its rebelliousness and independence.
The puppet masters have lost control of the strings. I wonder if Bob Schiefer will hear about this?
"Throw chairs...kill..." (and of, of course, smear opponents as racist.)
This violent, eliminationist rhetoric is the legacy of the 60's, when anyone with eyes to see could recognize, in the student radicals, the fascist brown shirts of the 30's.
Seems to explain why Wright fell off the radar so suddenly. Also lends credence to the accusation that the left goes on the offense blaming the right for the very things the left does, namely, physical destruction of property, personal assaults and intimidation tactics, reverse racism and pushing their cause and at any cost.
Alinsky would be proud.
And speaking of the fascist 60's, remember that professor who read passages by Mussolini to crowds of student radicals? And how the students cheered until he told them he was quoting Mussolini?
Imagine being a member of Journolist, and your name hasn't been mentioned yet. They are now trying to remember what they possibly might have said that will make them look like the fools and liars that they are.
Huh? I thought they were just talking about sports on there.
Jonathan Chait insists that the conversations were "mundane..... requests for references... instantaneous reactions to events, joshing around, conversations about sports, and the like...." Matthew Yglesias portrays it as talk about sports, links to published articles, and "failed efforts to get an interesting discussion going."
This is one of those stories that should be spread wide and far. These people show us what they really are all the time, but it just gets ignored.
I'd like to ask Libs why, if Republicans are racist, does the Left have to manufacture their "racism"? Occam knows the answer, but the Libs will pretend they don't.
sure have been a lot of stories lately about Obama not getting credit for his legislative fuckups. clue to the journofisters: you don't get credit for fuckups, you get blamed.
"or is this an admirable study of ethics in journalism?"
indeed a wonderful example of ironic summary and an excellent example of an oxymoron--all in the same clause. A twofer! Well done Professor
Thus far, I don't see why Breitbart thinks Ackerman's comments are career-destroying. He's a tad more blunt than the rest, but I think most of those on that listserve share his opinions. As revelations about others' comments drip out, they will probably "rally around the flag." Wonder how long it will take for cries of "Witch hunt!" and "McCarthyism!" to begin. As a result, it just might be career-enhancing for Ackerman.
I'm off to get some popcorn. This just might prove to be entertaining.
Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country?
This is one of those rhetorical questions that Captain Kirk would use to make robot brains explode:
He unites the country! But he doesn't! But he does! But he doesn't! But he does! Karl Rove! Squeak! Squeak! Fizzzzz.
LoafingOaf said...
Huh? I thought they were just talking about sports on there.
But, Loaf, sports WAS what they were talking about.
Randy -
I think that Ackerman's suggestion that they intentionally attack someone like Fred Barnes as racist -- for the sole purpose of distraction -- is a bit much for any respectable media organization to tolerate.
And these organizations wonder why their circulations continue to fall...
What "professional journalists" should do is what military officers do - be apolitical. Don't register for any party, no campaign contributions, etc. I won't hold my breath.
...and call them racists.”
Wow! This is a new and unique tactic for the left.
NOT!
In the mean time, about 30% of black men to time in prison (partly thanks to Bill Clinton and the "three strikes law", black unemployment is double or more than the national average, black men are falling further behind by almost every socio-economic measure. If you like being poor, living in the projects, depending on the government for handouts, being told you can't make it on your own, and having few opportunities to improve your lot in life, liberal policies are great.
The Daily Caller got the e-mail archive? When/how did that happen?
Let us add journalists to Henry VIs list
The most interesting thing to see, if it happens: How much play will this get in the WaPo or NYTimes or the like. If your own reporters are colluding with others to drive the message (that is, if they're acting as political consultants), do your readers deserve to read about it on the (web)pages of your own publication?
I would especially like it if someone webby won a Pulitzer for writing about this. Watch the head explodes (Obviously I mean that rhetorically) if that happens.
It shows us that the use of public slanders in the media to create a fear to speak truth on subjects is a weapon that the media now uses. Truth telling in public is always hard work that leads to general partisan accusations of someone being a wing nut or being out of the main stream. So what. But journolist shows that it is become the inside the media carefully telegraphed Fear of Slander, like a horses head sent from the mafia, that has become the weapon of choice. Ezra the terrible sent the Professor one of those inside warnings. He off handedly mentioned that it seemed like she had a blog tolerating anti-semitic comments. That was a backhanded complement to the Althouse's surging popularity as an opinion leader. Ezra was sending her that as his warning not to keep leaning to the right.
for all their violent rhetoric, I highly doubt any one of those Juiceboxers possesses the ability to out-punch a wet paper bag.
Throw chairs now. Kill. Rather violent ideation there. Imagine if a tea partier had used such language.
It doesn't require imagination. The Tea Party is accused of every henious act already. Evidence is optional.
"...a bit much for any respectable media organization to tolerate."
Well, that hardly puts a dent in his employment opportunities, does it?
The most interesting thing to see, if it happens: How much play will this get in the WaPo or NYTimes or the like.
INteresting isn't the word. Shocking would be more like it.
They should have released the archive in one big bomb and taken their medicine. As it is, it is going to be leaking out over a period of months and years. Death by a thousand cuts.
What is striking here is not so much the partisanship but the venal mediocrity of it all. Remember when this thing broke they claimed it was just a place for the "best and the brightest" to bounce ideas off each other. Now look at these e-mails. The quality of thinking is just horrible. Not one of them ever seems to have an interesting or original thought. It is no wonder big media is dying.
Imagine if Ring Lardner and HL Menken and those of that day could have had a "journolist". Wouldn't it have made for great reading if nothing else? Compare what that would be to this garbage. The quality of minds who are involved in and successful in journalism is just pretty low. And that goes a long way to explaining why no one reads newspapers or the big media anymore. It is not so much that they are partisan. It is that they are just boring and written by people with very limited minds.
Doesn't the Editorial Board have to address it?
Exactly how much can be swept under the rug?
Mmm, ann, it makes me think of Mark Steyn’s theme of how the Clintons would constantly use war metaphors, while not actually being willing to fight real war.
There's a very good possibility that any reporter/opinion writer at either the NYT or WaPo is a member of Journolist. How on earth could they do a story about this without admitting up front that they are a member? Then, what direction would the story go, if in the back of their minds they know they said something that they don't want to come out. Waiting, waiting for Big Gov to print those words.
why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country?
Sounds like he thinks that Obama seeks to usher in a post-racial America, but those evil rightwingers are obstructing that.
AllenS said...
Imagine being a member of Journolist, and your name hasn't been mentioned yet.
Here's the list (from TPM) of the journalists who signed on to the petition deploring the ABC Debate tactics. Likely not the brightest bulbs on the Journalist
Spencer Ackerman, Washington Independent
Thomas Adcock, New York Law Journal
Eric Alterman, City University of New York
Dean Baker, The American Prospect Online
Steven Benen, The Carpetbagger Report
Julie Bergman Sender, Balcony Films
Ari Berman, The Nation
Brian Beutler, The Media Consortium
Michael Bérubé, Crooked Timber, Penn. State University
Joel Bleifuss, In These Times
Sam Boyd, The American Prospect
Will Bunch, Philadelphia Daily News
Lakshmi Chaudry, In These Times
Michael Cohen, The New America Foundation
Lark Corbeil, Public News Service
Brad DeLong, Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal, UC Berkeley
Adam Doster, In These Times
Kevin Drum, The Washington Monthly
Gerald Dworkin, UC Davis
Henry Farrell, Crooked Timber, George Washington University
James Galbraith, University of Texas at Austin
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University, TPM Cafe
Merrill Goozner, (formerly Chicago Tribune)
Ilan Goldenberg, The National Security Network
Arthur Goldhammer, Harvard University
Robert Greenwald, Brave New Films
Chris Hayes, The Nation
Don Hazen, Alternet
James Johnson, University of Rochester
Michael Kazin, Georgetown University
Ed Kilgore, The Democratic Strategist
Charlie Kireker, Air America Media
Richard Kim, The Nation
Ezra Klein, The American Prospect
Mark Kleiman, The Reality Based Community, UCLA
Ralph Luker, Cliopatria
Scott McLemee, Inside Higher Ed
Ari Melber, The Nation
Luke Mitchell, Harper's Magazine
Rick Perlstein, Campaign for America's Future
Katha Pollit, The Nation
Joy-Ann Reid, The South Florida Times
David Roberts, Grist
Thomas Schaller, Columnist, The Baltimore Sun
Adele Stan, The Media Consortium
Jonathan Stein, Mother Jones Magazine
Rinku Sen, ColorLines Magazine
Matthew Shugart, UC San Diego
Matt Steinglass, Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Mark Thoma, The Economist's View
Michael Tomasky, The Guardian
Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks
Tracy Van Slyke, The Media
Consortium
J. Harry Wray, DePaul University
Kai Wright, The Root
Matthew Yglesias, The Atlantic Monthly
A "Popular Front"? Does Spencer Ackerman imagine himself a Loyalist paramilitary leader in 1935 Barcelona? Talk about delusions of grandeur.
There's a very good possibility that any reporter/opinion writer at either the NYT or WaPo is a member of Journolist.
They still are (that is, members of whatever vehicle of collusion that has taken its place). Did you happen to hear the montage yesterday on Rush of MSM "reporters" all saying the same thing using the same language, that Obama has "brought the economy back from the brink"?
I would especially like it if someone webby won a Pulitzer for writing about this.
Did I miss something? Have pigs begun to fly? ;-) As the people who sit on Pulitzer committees are these people themselves, or their friends, this is extremely unlikely to ever happen.
I think that Ackerman's suggestion that they intentionally attack someone like Fred Barnes as racist -- for the sole purpose of distraction -- is a bit much for any respectable media organization to tolerate.
Do you think so? It seems to me that Dave Weigel is doing pretty well for himself these days.
Ezra the terrible sent the Professor one of those inside warnings. He off handedly mentioned that it seemed like she had a blog tolerating anti-semitic comments.
That's a good example of how it works. I thought at the time that the implication was that Althouse was comfortable with anti-semitism and thus could possibly be an anti-semite herself. IIRC, quite a number of his friends chimed in to amplify the innuendo.
Everyone of those journalists quoted in this piece has never tried to disguise his or her political affiliations. The Nation, the Washington Independent, an opinion columnist for the Guardian?
Journolist didn't make Jeremiah Wright go away. Once Obama cut him loose, stopped defending him, the story was over. The only people who wanted to keep it alive were as partisan as the ones who are quoted in this piece.
Opinion journalists have opinions! Film at 11.
Doesn't the Editorial Board have to address it?
Exactly how much can be swept under the rug?
All of it? I mean honestly, those publications hardly looked into the qualifications of candidate Obama or asked how on earth a 47 year old junior senator with a resume thinner than a high school student could remotely qualified for the Presidency. I mean Palin's qualifications, fitness etc were examined to the nth degree as if somehow the Veep spot was of more importance.
Its not even sweeping it under the rug, its simply pretending it doesn't exist. They've been doing that for years.
MSM "reporters" all saying the same thing using the same language, that Obama has "brought the economy back from the brink"?
More likely that those are lazy reporters repeating a press release put out by the White House. But at this point, it's hard to tell.
This is so great. A literal liberal strategy session on how to bury news and an invocation to play the race card on a random republican to simply deflect from the story by "journalists".
And it names names too.
We now know that Spencer Ackerman,for example, is counseling that journalists accuse random republicans of racism, doesn't matter who. Just to deflect away from damaging stories about Obama.
Can anything he writes going forward, especially if it concerns republicans, be taken seriously? This is the guy who wants to smear ANY republican as a racist with no proof. Why should anyone believe anything he has to say as a journalist?
Whoever decided to start the whole journolist project, I love you!
I look forward to Garage Mahal's deflections.
This sort of thing has been going on for about 50 years. The big difference is that now the records are stored in a place where the outsiders can find them and say, "See? I was right. I knew they were going off a script!".
Now we know why Klein ended the list and deleted all of the e-mails.
mmm, i think i came up with a good new term:
"the banality of bias."
Yes, alluding to the phrase "the banality of evil" this is just commenting on how ordinary this all seemed.
"Hey, let's smear people in order to skew the news." Not a single shocked expression, just a banal discussion on whether or not its a good strategy.
This quote is the most telling, I think:
Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — ....
These pissants perceive no difference between someone with a long career as a correspondent for such MSM outlets as the Baltimore Sun and the New Republic on the one hand, and a political campaign strategist on the other. I'd say that's a highly informative bit of psychological projection on the part of the O-listers.
Fake wv: Journolist A group of self-styled journalists who list toward O.
"Opinion journalists have opinions! Film at 11."
No, apparently they don't. They have strategies instead.
They are all frauds, willing to smear innocent men as racists in order to further their hateful political goals. In a decent society that valued a truly free press, they'd be unceremoniously dismissed from their jobs and roundly condemned by all honorable people. In reality, they'll end up doing extra bits on NPR and celebrity fund-raising for Obama 2012.
Madison Man--re your questions: (1) NO (2) all of it
Remember that editors are the end result of the process that starts in J school; all of these bastards were from the same group that occupies JOurnalist--its a great example of natural selection and growth gone wrong.
I suspect that we will see the same response to this that we see from true believers of global warming to their proven conspiracy.
OBama has to have been one of the least vetted candidates in modern history. And now we know why. Because "journalists" buried the news, downplayed the news, deflected with smears rather than report the news and for all intents and purposes sold out their principles (just as the feminists did when they defended Clinton) to get Obama elected.
Thus, stories about how Obama was linked to a radical preacher for 20 years barely merited followups (Look over there it's a random racist republican!) . Stories about associations with an unrepentant terrorist barely worthy of mention. (What association? why is that relevant? That was 20 years ago, Obama barely knew him).
Yet, how many stories did we hear about Palin and her troubles in Alaska or her idiocy or her lack of experience and nothing about Obama's lack of experience or radical views.
How dare George Stephanopolous ask relatively tough questions about Obama's associations? That snake! Hasn't he got the talking points that he should instead be playing the race card against random republicans like Karl Rove?
What we are witnessing is the collapse of journalism as a profession. This is huge.
In my blogger profile in early 2009, I listed my favorite movie as:
"The collapse of the left in 2009: A documentary - and - Part II: The self-immolation of 2010."
Blockbusters!
Man - more please!
I love it when the halos come off!!
"What we are witnessing is the collapse of journalism as a profession."
More jobs to add to the "created or saved" tally when the National Endowment for the Arts starts handing out "journalism" subsidies.
50 comments into the thread and none of the usual miscreats have emerged--the DNC is slow generating its morning talking points apparently
Blogger Skyler said...
Yup.
And just like with Global Warming, smart people will eventually ask why, if it really existed, did so many people have to work so hard to manufacture the evidence?
The fact is that capriciously branding someone a racist is a great indicator of character, and the Left has shown their character to be utterly lacking.
Decent Americans will be repulsed when they figure out how they've been manipulated by the worms in the Dem/MSM establishment.
Until then, drip, drip, drip... Keep up the leaks, Breitbart!
oops--miscreants versus miscreats--would hate to pilloried for a typo
What we are witnessing is the collapse of journalism as a profession. This is huge.
Couldn't have said it better.
All of our worst suspicions about what goes on behind the scenes have just been confirmed.
"the DNC is slow generating its morning talking points apparently"
The Journolist server is down.
Fred Barnes' next column should be a hoot. Do you think Limbaugh will have any fun today?
Do you think the MSM will cover this story? They are part of it!
And I think the Daily Caller should hit the Forward button to you, Ann. This cache will provide grist for scholars of journalistic sleaze for years to come.
Scott said...
"What we are witnessing is the collapse of journalism as a profession. This is huge."
I agree Scott, this is huge, but I think I'd call it the collapse of the "Old Media" as the New Media picks up the baton and carries on.
There will always be some form of journalism, I only ask that it be fair and impartial.
Groan, I know, I know.
Do you think the MSM will cover this story? They are part of it!
Most media bias results not from how the media covers a story, but from which stories they cover.
The idea that journalism has ever been exalted is silly--Walter Duranty, Pulitzer prize winner, HL Mencken--virulent anti-semite who makes C4 look sane; the Hearst family who started a war with spain--and go back in history to the press coverage of the alien and sedition acts in the late 18th century and fast forward to their treatment of Lincoln and events surrounding the civil war.
The notion of the sanctity of the "investigative journalist" as in the watergate shit depended on a loser FBI second in command who, it could be argued, was settling scores--there is nothing sacred about hournalism--never has been and never will be. There are no Robert Redfords anymore--instead we have the Maureen Douds--queen of the the ellipses-- the insane Krugman--the talk show assholes ranging from Maddow and Olberman to Hannity and Or Oreilly.
Rely on these assholes, charlatans and liars and you will be truly fucked.
"... the talk show assholes ranging from Maddow and Olberman to Hannity and Or Oreilly.
I would not lump O'Reilly into this crew.
Sure, he's an asshole... arrogant, loves attention, etc.
The O'Reilly show really does present both sides of every issue. For every segment, O'Reilly brings in a partisan of the left and right and gives them a chance to state their case.
It is funny how violent they all are. Ackerman couldn't win a physical confrontation with the average junior high girl. Yet, he is wanting to "throw a chair"
WOW! Initially, I thought the uproar about journolist was "much ado about nothing" but I stand corrected.
Lincolntf said...
"Opinion journalists have opinions! Film at 11."
No, apparently they don't. They have strategies instead.
With all due respect, I think it's more like marching orders. These people seem more susceptible than one would otherwise expect to a herd mentality.
One (or maybe someone higher up the food chain, Paley at CBS was notorious for it) gets the idea and the lemmings run with it joyously.
ST--I dont have a TV so havent seen OReilly in years--will defer to your analysis--but you get me point, I hope, about the shouting pundits on both the left and right--these are the assholes that make 24 hour cable "news" work.
"and perhaps conservative journalists do the same for their side.
Maybe...any proof...what's that..none??? Well float it anyway...muddies the water...
@Roger J., who wrote:
"The idea that journalism has ever been exalted is silly..."
I would agree that a lot of the journalistic community's exalted self-image is pretense. But many of us who went into it after college did see it as a noble calling. And I tried to practice it, and have seen it practiced, on a professional level. I have no end of admiration for the working reporter. The work is hard and thankless; and when it's done well, the words and images are beautiful and moving.
Let me go out on a limb here: I think that if it is practiced on a professional level, a journalist's personal political beliefs are not that relevant. The problem is not the reporting, its the editing -- the selection, placement, and presentation of stories in the medium.
That's why editors and publishers HATE Matt Drudge. He takes their content and neutralizes their institutional bias by remixing it according to his own values.
Journalists will do their thing even if there isn't a newspaper or broadcast outlet to support them -- just look at the fine work by Michael Yon and Michael Totten. But the cathedrals of "professional journalism" -- The NYT, The WaPo, CBS, et al -- are collapsing. This is closer to what I meant. We can no longer take for granted that what they publish is true.
I'm shocked, of course, to see that the leftist journalists were actually conspiring to spin the news.
Shocked.
I mean, it's like they were corrupt from the get-go.
Who knew?
Just kidding.
I'm not really all that shocked. It's like finding out that your grandmother who was a pure sweet old lady was really a gun runner.
Wow. I never expected such a clear smoking-gun quote to emerge from the Journolist archives. Here spelled out in a nutshell is precisely what we suspected was going on. It's even nastier, that is more naked, undisguised, shamelessly Alinskian (I was going to say Machiavellian, but Machiavelli is too good for this shit) than I imagined.
Laid bare, for all to see: why and how the MSM played the race card-- nothing but a Molotov cocktail of slander & intimidation-- for the purpose of suppressing & distorting information about a presidential candidate.
Oh this is so good-- almost as good as the Climategate emails.
The "banality of bias" is an excellent way to put it.
Does it worry any of the Jornolist members that absent release of the real list and posts, they will not be able to defend themselves against fictitious charges? Who's to say, for example, that the recently repatriated Russian spies included two members of Jornolist? Or that the John McCain romantic involvement story that surfaced during the campaign originated on Jornolist? Hmmm. F
(I was going to say Machiavellian, but Machiavelli is too good for this shit) than I imagined.
Mach's Prince would never have been caught with his hand so far up the till.
scott--I think your post was very good and should be an example for what journalism ought to be--thanks for laying it out--it was damn good
Watergate really did ruin the newspaper business. Ever since then, the J-school grads have been mostly unmasked far left libs defending lib & Dem pols while they hunt for their very own Great White Republican Whale.
"This is so great. A literal liberal strategy session on how to bury news and an invocation to play the race card on a random republican to simply deflect from the story by "journalists".
And it names names too."
Will papers like WaPo have the sense to fire 'journalists' like Ezra?
I'm shocked, of course, to see that the leftist journalists were actually conspiring to spin the news.
So how did Breitbart know about the Daily Caller article before it was published I wonder? Was there conspiring going on between the two? Did they phone? Email? *gasp*!
RICO them all
Tomasky's demand that jlisters "throw chairs" reminded me of Bobby Knight. I wonder if that's what Tomasky had in mind at the time, and if he really considers Knight to be a good role model for political debate.
Deborah:
If integrity was the primary factor in their decison, the WAPO would fire Ezra.
If their business model is the top issue, I don't know if they believe it is more profitable to appeal to the left more than the right though I suspect that market leans left bigtime.
So how did Breitbart know about the Daily Caller article before it was published I wonder? Was there conspiring going on between the two? Did they phone? Email? *gasp*!
That's a reach, even for you, the Lord High King of reaching. This looks awful for your side. You know it, but just haven't come to grips with it yet. The only thing that's going to take the sauce out of this is a similar revelation on the right. Could happen...but I'm more inclined to believe these Journolist types are so inclined to believe their shit don't stink to the extent that they consider themselves invulnerable. I don't run into a lot of conservatives that have that mindset.
That being said, it could just be a factor of being in the highest echelons of a given field. Given the field that it's in, it's unlikely such an occurrence will come to light from the right side of the spectrum. There simply aren't enough people over there that high in that field.
That's a reach, even for you, the Lord High King of reaching.
But not unexpected.
Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them).
The MSM has now been proven to be without any reasonable doubt a One Party organ for the Democratic Party.
Nothing they write from here on, nothing, should be given any more credence than a fax from Nancy Pelosi.
The whole enterprise has been bullshit since at least 1970.
Unless they force us to watch, a la Clockwork Orange, I will never ever read a goddamned thing again at the combined effort output of the NYT/WaPo/CNN/NBC/MSNBC/NewRepublic/TheNation, etc.
This is far worse than I thought; those lying bastards can go straight to hell. Everything they write is and has been a lie, including the words 'and' and 'the' (HT Ms. Parker).
"Opinion journalist"
Isn't that an oxymoron? Like objective opinionist?
Integrity is doing the right thing when nobody is watching.
Journalist have no integrity. No morals. They are lazy and self-serving courrpt enablers of the far left agenda. Ever since they hid the crimes of Stalin and gave out accolades for lying they have proven to be a cancer on this nation.
I never wish for anyone to loose their job. In Obama's economy it is very unlikely that they could get another. All I request is that after every byline they list their credentials.
"Member of Jounolist, left wing activist, hack."
The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer.
None of this should be a surprise.
It only took 80 replies before we got the first (albeit tepid) "everyone does it, nothing to see here".
This is nothing big. Not even a fopah, right Garage?
As one who went to J-school, I cannot be more ashamed of the profession these days.
These guys are employees of non-profits, organized as corporations, correct?
So we have employees of corporations using their media outlets to coordinate a partisan message with the Democratic party, the candidacy of Obama in particular, and not caring if the message smears people as racists, true or not, because at least the "right" people get it because they deserve it?
The irony is that this would seem to be a violation of campaign finance laws, had it not been for Citizens United.
"Kill, smash, throw chairs . . . .
Big words, from big, manly men.
Not!
Modern day Madame Defarges, ensconced at the foot of the guillotine knitting an enemies list as the heads roll by.
and not caring if the message smears people as racists, true or not, because at least the "right" people get it because they deserve it?
This is what should be most damning to folks like garage unless my theory is correct that liberals just accept conservatives are racists as an article of faith.
Interesting but not surprising...no mention of the controversy on the Google news page. Everyone should type in "journolist" and "daily caller" in the google search box over and over again to force the story out. The top story is Lindsay Lohan going to jail...what a pathetic priority.
"Redundant" is the term you're looking for Joe.
I know my mother, a free-lance journalist and writer, had to take a course in "Jounalistic Ethics" for her degree. Not only is there no such course in the UW Madison catalog, the word "ethics" doesn't even appear once in the journalism section. It has apparently sadly and predictably been replaced with Communication and Public Opinion ("...propaganda goals of government..."), Mass Communication and Political Behavior, Interpretation of Contemporary Affairs and, (relatedly?) Creative Nonfiction.
Brian:
That is a good point and I believe it may be against the law for non-profit groups to be involved in politicking? IOW their donors get a tax deduction for charitable donations - if the org politicks, the deduction is not allowed.
But I could be wrong.
That's a reach, even for you, the Lord High King of reaching.
Just askin'. Breitbart tweeted it before the D.C. article was published. He is either clairvoyant, or someone at the D.C. told him about it. Wonder what else they talk about between themselves? Wonder if Althouse would like to see their correspondences.....like emails. Maybe even a 100k reward!
btw, i wrote out some thoughts on this, here:
http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/07/banality-of-bias.html
In GarageMahal's world, "Hey bud, would you help publicize the piece I'm about to post?" is equivalent to, "Hey guys, let's divert attention from that story that's making the rounds by engaging in random character assassination!"
Um, ok. I guess the Journolist's talking points server is still down.
Just askin'. Breitbart tweeted it before the D.C. article was published. He is either clairvoyant, or someone at the D.C. told him about it. Wonder what else they talk about between themselves?
Dunno. We do know that several leftwing journalists were debating the strategy (not ethics, not the right or wrong) of blackballing individuals as racists on purely ideological lines.
Can't but notice you completely ignore that aspect and only concern yourself which who is on Breitbart's rolodex.
Says a lot about you.
ahhhh the bad bad mainstream media again...shame shame. ... wish someone would take a second and explain that phrase to me..i just don't get it.
As sweet as all this is, the best is yet to come. From this point forward, we can dismiss anything coming from any writer on that list as "journolist propaganda". Doesn't matter if they're making a good point or have something interesting to share. "Coordinated journolist propaganda". End of story.
Hilarious.
Dunno. We do know that several leftwing journalists were debating the strategy (not ethics, not the right or wrong) of blackballing individuals as racists on purely ideological lines.
This conspiracy was so bad other people on the list disagreed with it. And isn;t this precisely what Breitbart is doing?
Ah! HD has joined us for the day. I believe, sir, that GM has one-upped your "the right came up with General Betrayus" comment with his fopah.
Welcome indeed.
From this point forward, we can dismiss anything coming from any writer on that list as "journolist propaganda". Doesn't matter if they're making a good point or have something interesting to share.
What a narrow-minded viewpoint.
This conspiracy was so bad other people on the list disagreed with it.
Yes they disagreed with it on grounds that it would not be effective, not that it was wrong.
And isn;t this precisely what Breitbart is doing?
Um no? Tell me garage, serious question; Is English your first language?
i just don't get it.
Color me shocked.
ScottM
Got anything besides singing "lalalalala" with your fingers in your ears? The Breitbart revelations are quickly turning into one big dry popcorn fart.
The bigger scandal is that this will not become a big scandal. There will be no front page story in NYT or WaPo about these machinations. Gibson and Stephanopoulos will not complain about the way they were treated or, for that matter, even asked if they have any complaints about their treatment.....A great many people are extremely cynical about the MSM, and this will increase and expand their numbers. The MSM will then write about the cynicism of right wingers and the harmful effects it has upon America.
Daily Caller may be following the Breitbart system of dribbling out the smallest news first, then building up to bigger fish...I think this works best for non-MSM media, because the MSM will say "no big deal, ignore this" and then the next day and even more damaging story comes out. Then the MSM has no more ammo and is forced to report it.
I am hoping this is the case and we can see Erza, Drum, and Yglesias's work soon....
HDHouse, why do Liberals have to manufacture all of their Republican = racism charges?
And when the Libs profit, politically and professionally, from the historical misery of racism shouldn't they be called out?
The reason I don't know a single honorable Liberal is that they all continue to profit from racism and slavery. They disgust me.
garage mahal and hdhouse:
Do you seriously find nothing alarming, or even a bit concerning, about some of those exchanges and posts (especially Spencer Ackerman's)? Or is this just one of those examples where you know there's a problem, even at least to some degree, but no way will you concede even one millimeter on the grounds of 1) it might make you seem weak and/or 2) the ongoing partisan war trumps ***everything***?
That's a serious question. I'd like to see the answer.
GM
Please point to said "lalalalala" singing. Actually, I'm not all that invested in this story yet, because the method has become pretty set. In the next few days we'll either get worse or nothing at all. Either way, in direct contradiction to your earlier comment, the other people on those emails weren't decrying the tactic because it was wrong and unethical...only that it would be ineffective.
Plus, the size of the popcorn fart is completely relative. It's the stench that will get you. This one stinks pretty bad too.
Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.
If published, isn't that a rare case of absolute proof of malice?
Keep the boots on BP's troat.. Kill ABC.. Hit back twice as hard.. find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card..
After 9/11, Bush called for Bin Laden to be taken “Dead or Alive.” Liberals jumped all over him.
Thank God the Obama Administration is so much more nuanced, articulate and diplomatic than cowboy Bush ;)
Ann, allow me to quote from one of your older postings: "Which came first, the proud defense of private property, or the shameful prejudices that polite people don't admit to anymore?"
Just sayin
HDH:
ahhhh the bad bad mainstream media again...shame shame. ... wish someone would take a second and explain that phrase to me..i just don't get it.
I shall do my utmost to help, sir.
In most cities of moderate size or larger there are printed accounts of the events of the previous day, financed through a combination of direct payment by readers and support from advertisers. These printings are commonly referred to as "newspapers." The dominant firms in this industry are located in the biggest cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago) or in the nation's capital (Washington, DC).
In many cities you will also find firms that broadcast signals through the air, or through coaxial cables. Some of these signals convey only sound, while others convey visual images as well. The former are called "radio stations" and the latter "television stations." Programming cartels of these over-the-air broadcasters are called "networks," as are the various providers of content via coaxial cable.
Collectively, these media of communication (print, broadcast, and cable) are called "the media." Those that provide the primary content that is most widely read, which is to say the major broadcast networks and the largest-circulation newspapers, are commonly referred to as the "mainstream media."
The major television news reports consist primarily of stories from that morning's major newspapers accompanied by somewhat diverting videotaped images. Hence, the "mainstream media" tend to speak with a common voice, informed by the editorial judgment of the NY Times and the Washington Post.
I do hope that helps.
reader @1:37
Good to see that post..
Its a question of does the end justify the means?
Reminds me of Vince Foster's note written shortly before his suicide: "I was not meant for the job or the spotlight of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport."
That's a serious question. I'd like to see the answer.
reader you been here long enough to know you'll grow a third arm before that happens.
I forgot to include the link in my previous comment. I didn't want to give the impression I was trying to put your words out of context
IDo you think the MSM will cover this story? They are part of it!
Media Matters posted their spin within hours.
Basically.. move on.. nothing to see here.
It made me laugh.
When I worked as a copy editor in the late 1980s, my paper fired a reporter who merely mentioned her job while making a complaint at the check in desk, when her flight was delayed. It was the editor's opinion that she'd intended that as an implication that she'd use the power of the newspaper to embarrass the airline and that was a violation of ethics. During my four years in that position I saw at least two other firings for other instances of unprofessional conduct outside of the actual writing assignments involved.
This was right about the time that the big J schools started taking over the path to a career in journalism, edging out a long tradition of taking an entry-level job in the mailroom or as an intern, and working your way up through different beats. We have not come out ahead in this switch.
HDH took too long to make his point with: "ahhhh the bad bad mainstream media again...shame shame. ... wish someone would take a second and explain that phrase to me..i just don't get it."
Try this next time HD "Alva" House:
"I got nothin'."
Hoosier Daddy:
That's funny. It's also a great idea (name) for a blog, so I reserved a variant (Growing A Third Arm) on blogger just in case I get inspired some day.
Yes, I have too much time on my hands today (but that won't continue).
LOL.
garage, your thoughts on the following quote:
If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self destruction.
Disturbing? Par for the course amongst liberals? Shocking? Normal? Enquiring minds want to know.
I notice also, that around this time CNN delcared a Reverend Wright free week. Do you think that any pressure was put to bear on CNN to maybe not push the story so as to not embarass Obama?
So do you see now how poor the decision in 2008 was? On important decisions, you can't take people's word for stuff. History, past actions, a record is all that is real, and someone with either none of it or not willing to show it, should be ineligible for any important job, especially one with responsibilities.
It did take our miscreants over nearly 60 posts to show up. And their drivel speaks for itself. Garage Mahal, by his own admission, poaches and eats road kill--and HDH has nine, count em nine patents, although the patent records dont seem to support his bullshit--Total losers both.
Garage Mahal, by his own admission, poaches and eats road kill
Eh, no. Not even close, jackass, by my own admission. I neither poached, or ate it, or ever mentioned I did. It's starting to make sense though - you guys either can't read, or you just read what you want to read.
This is a bit of a joke. We live in a 24 hour news cycle - meaning most stories disappear within 24 hours. The Wright - Obama story was the top story on all the major networks for a couple of weeks. No one out there - and I mean NO one out there was unaware of who Wright was or his connection to Obama. The story naturally ran its course. No one cared after a while. The economy, the war and many other issue were far more important.
The term main stream media was first coined by Walter Jenkins during the administration of Lyndon Johnson. President Johnson was fond of the saying that he wanted the press to on “the inside of the tent pissing out instead of the outside of the tent pissing in.” Mr. Jenkins was in charge of maintaining an clear even flow of news that would be going in the direction that the White House favors or what the called the “Main Stream.” It was also a handy device to refer to those members of the press who liked to pee on Mr. Jenkins when he took a wide stance in various men’s rooms in the Washington DC area.
(Truth Doesn’t Even Have It’s Pants On, The History of the Main Stream Media, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Playboy Press 2006)
@Matt, That's right. I can barely remember that obscure business about Sarah Palin's state-trooper brother-in-law. Just dropped right off the radar screen of the ADD-addled newsies.
For a good long elaboration on the spin cycle in reverse, read "America's Regime Class" in the latest American Spectator. Turning NYT & WaPo opinions into "news" is the job that the perfessers & juiceboxers work at 24/7. Turning facts in the WSJ & Washington Times into fables is their other task.
Imagine if Ring Lardner and HL Menken and those of that day could have had a "journolist".
Thomas Sowell in a column the other day quoted Ring Lardner (he believed): "Shut up," he explained. LOL
Hoosier Daddy asked, "Tell me garage, serious question; Is English your first language?"
You may not get an answer from garage as to whether his first language is English, but we do know, at least, that it isn't French!
To be a card carrying member of the Main Stream media it is required that you direct your stream solely at Republicans and conservatives. There has been long tradition of very pissed off journalists who enjoy voiding their bladders over anyone more conservative than George McGovern. It began with the rivalry between George Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst which originated in the frenzy that led up to the Spanish American War. Their competition was so fierce that it led to Mr. Hearst taking out his enormous penis to urinate on the steps of the White House to protest President McKinley’s inertia in light of the provocation of the Spaniards. This action led to two unforeseen consequences. The heavy yellow stream caused by Mr. Hearst’s addiction to pineapple juice led to the creation of the type of “Yellow Journalism” where the journalist is more important than the story. It continues to this very day in the work of such giants as Geraldo Rivera, Bill O’Reilly and Christine Amanpour. And the rumors of the size of his enormous penis led to long affair with Marion Davies as well as the fascination with black men by his granddaughter Patti that led to her alleged kidnapping by the Symboinese Liberation Army.
(Truth Doesn’t Even Have It’s Pants On, The History of the Main Stream Media, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Playboy Press 2006)
garage--not worth going back thru the archives but you did in fact cop to cleaning road kill in violation of the laws of the state wisconsin--you in fact described the process of cleaning it--now if you ate it or not, that is something you know--I would just tell you one word: kuru
Jackass indeed--no wonder your brain is giving out.
Trooper, i think, mentioned LBJ--a wonderful anecdote had LBJ, who hated the harvard clique he inhereted from JFK, requiring McGeorge Bundy to brief him while LBJ was pinching a loaf. this actually makes titus look like a dilletent
..and perhaps conservative journalists do the same for their side.
Is there proof of this, or is the statement just a lame attempt at creating a false moral equivalency?
It's like finding out that your grandmother who was a pure sweet old lady was really a gun runner.
Some years after her death, I did in fact find out that my sweet, demure, society-matron great-aunt and her then-boyfriend were rumrunners on Lake Champlain during Prohibition.
Roger
Again, wrong. In that post, if you read it, I said a sheriff deputy drove by, stopped, talked to us, and called in a tag for the deer. Did we call it in immediately? No. But we were not the vehicle that hit the deer either. If we were doing something against Wisc law, I would think we would have been cited.
So it turns out that the Journolist, like Obama, was exactly as rancid, juvenile, duplicitous, and destructive as conservatives suspected.
And, as with Obama, the rubes turned out to be those who defended them with the crazy rationalization that "maybe every single thing we've learned so far about the way they think, the way they talk, and the way they act will turn out to have no bearing on their true nature."
@garage
Diversion won't cut it, not this time. Your side has been caught out. Man up & own it.
Old Media died with Rathergate. One would have thought the New Media young turks would have gotten the message.
Apparently not.
Journolist didn't make Jeremiah Wright go away. Once Obama cut him loose, stopped defending him, the story was over. The only people who wanted to keep it alive were as partisan as the ones who are quoted in this piece.
Cutting him loose was not the end of the story, only part of it (and an interesting part at that; it was one of the first indications we had that for Obama, the one unforgivable sin is disrespecting him).
Obama spent 20 years in that church but told us he didn't know anything about the good reverend's anti-Semitism, racism and anti-Americanism because he wasn't in church on those particular occasions (previously he had claimed he was in church every Sunday). That was not just implausible, it was downright laughable. And yet, the media simply shrugged its collective shoulder and said well, that explains it.
Jeremiah Wright was Obama's good friend, mentor and spiritual adviser. Obama claimed he never made a political move without first checking with "the Reverend." It's not possible that he was unaware of Wright's views. And yet, ignorance was exactly how he explained away their 20 year association. And MSM said well, sure, he was surprised as anyone, shit happens.
Obama told us that he searched long and hard for a church that would "speak" to him. That he ultimately chose one espousing a Marxist liberation theology should have spoken volumes and should have been an area of inquiry for MSM. But as far as they were concerned, it was crickets chirping.
Could be the theology, the church, the pastor-as-minister didn't mean squat to the man. Could be he had (has) no particular religious convictions (he was, after all, brought up by atheists). Could be he was there only out of political expediency because he was told he'd never be a force in the black community unless he was connected to a church. Could be that was something worth exploring on behalf of a public that was making decisions based on the candidate's apparent character because there was precious little else for it to go on.
No, MSM had the narrative and image all worked out ahead of time and nothing was going to interfere with it. They became advocates and cheerleaders instead of impartial observers and reporters. That's the real story. And now we're getting to see a little of how the Obama sausage was made and, so far, it's neither pretty nor defensible.
t's like finding out that your grandmother who was a pure sweet old lady was really a gun runner.
We found 5 pistols in my grandmother's bedroom after she died.
They were all my grandfather's, but he'd been dead for 36 years.
Obama's church and racism:
"Black liberation theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy"
I neither poached, or ate it, or ever mentioned I did.
Of course you didn't poach it. Road kill is already somewhat cooked and a long slow simmer in hot water isn't really going to do much to improve it anyway.
Besides....I'm sure I've seen some photos on Trooper's website. //wink wink//
The fact that these Journolist types are known lefties has been offered as a ... well, I suppose someone thinks it's a defense of their actions. But that's so only if "leftie" is synonymous with "lying dirtbag shit shoveller." This is not necessarily so. It is not conceptually impossible for an honest man to offer a rationale for the leftist take on any particular issue. In fact, often I'd like to hear it, rather than the immature ranting, sulking and name-calling we usually hear from that side of the aisle. The two-party system demands adult behavior from two different parties if it is to work.
In other words, the problem with these "reporters" isn't leftoid bias, it's basic honesty. They are dishonest people, and they apparently see no problem with that.
Rod Dreher's take on this touches on the ethical issues. Very much worth a look.
Andrew Sullivan announces the start of a new magizine.
I guess he got so digusted by the Journolist geeks that he wanted to start a magizine about something really close to his heart.
Good luck Andrew!
Journolist didn't make Jeremiah Wright go away. Once Obama cut him loose, stopped defending him, the story was over. The only people who wanted to keep it alive were as partisan as the ones who are quoted in this piece.
Of course they did make the story go away, as they buried the story and didn't ask the proper followups. The issue was never that Obama defended him. The issue was why he was there for 20 years,knowing what the guy was saying. And that was never properly answered by Obama or his suporters to this day.
The people who wanted it to die were as partisan as the ones quoted on journolist and they did exactly what journolist's Chris Hayes described.
Lets go to the quote:
“I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,
In other words, Obama doesn't have to answer for his association with Wright, because what is offensive about WRight is buried and not followed up by reporters. Thus, supporters of Obama can simply say its partisanhip to even dig into the issue of a past association. Which is absolute crap. It was the left that was partisan on this.
Can you imagine if John Mccain were involved FOR 20 YEARS with some white supremacist preacher, do you seriously think past associations wouldn't matter or that the media would suggest what this preacher said DIDN"T matter?
Journolist didn't make Jeremiah Wright go away. Once Obama cut him loose, stopped defending him, the story was over. The only people who wanted to keep it alive were as partisan as the ones who are quoted in this piece.
Further, the fact that Obama DID eventually cut him loose after saying he could no more separate ties than separate ties from the black community (Wow, I'd be scared if I were the black community, considering how quickly he cut those ties) shows that the story should have only been expanded on. Because he wouldn't have had to cut his ties unless he found waht Jeremiah Wright said to be offensive. Or his campaign felt the association was troublesome enough that linkage to the preacher could bring down Obama's campaign.
If Wright's association was serious enough to warrant Obama to cut ties it should have been asked (until answered) by the media, then why did you not cut ties sooner until you were forced to because of the election? Obama has no answer to that other than he didn't know that WRight was saying the offensive things. WHich is absolute hogwash. Are we honestly suggesting that Obama is that stupid? That the preacher who christened his baby and married him to his wife ONLY said offensive things when Obama was out of the room.
Made up quote by Wright:
"WHere is Obama, is he here? No? Ok, then we can get on with our business - GOD DAMN AMERIKKKA!"
The church is a black liberation theology church. How can Obamas association with it FOR 20 YEARS not matter one jot to you and your lefty cohorts? do you have zero intellectual curiosity when it comes to associations with guys on your side?
It was obvious that Obama LIED about knowing the offensive things WRight said. In fact here's Obama saying he didn't know then that he DID know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdAKM5bPX2M
f coure the evidence was even in his book that he knew of Wright's racism because he qoutes Wrights sermon in his book:
“It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere … That’s the world! On which hope sits.”
And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpesville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House."
But would you expect different rhetoric from a black liberation theology church?
If journalists had bothered to read that, then his later obfuscation that he was "shocked to find racism here" would be greeted with skeptiscism by the media as it should have been, instead of covered up like it was.
Here's a question to libs - do you think OBama even knew he was in a black liberation theology church? Consdidering WRight seems to have spoken this way for years, and sold his speeches in the lobby of the church, and other preachers had to have spoken the same message, and the church's mission statement is suffused with the stuff, the only possible explanation that makes any sense is that Obama simply didn't know what church he was going to.
Or that Journalists didn't want americans to know so did their best to bury the story and change the focus to other stories (like sarah palin or racist republicans) or Bill Ayers.. oh wait, that one had to be buried too...
Post a Comment