What liberal media...

[Stuck in Seattle]

The Daily Caller has more. (http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/)

This is the same source that broke the story on "Journolist" that forced the shut down of that cabal of journalists that push the agenda of the left by uniting their message. It was a group of hundreds of reporters that were only allowed in on invite only. Somebody is now releasing transcripts of their attempts to coordinate media coverage to oppose the right.

[battle.borne]

Where is the outcry from the traditional liberals who value all sides and differing opinions? This is a disgusting article which every elected official should find appalling. We are getting to be more like Red China each passing day under this asshat!

[Nosebleed]

Of course the media is liberal. This is a prime example but there are plenty others. If Dick Cheney instead of Al Gore was going through a divorce with reports of being a "crared love poodle" by his mistress, the poor reporters would break their little fingers getting to the presses.

I just saw on a news site that the forest service described an illegal alien caught tending a marijuana farm in California a "displaced foreign traveler".

Man this stuff is making me sick...

Rick

[wolf_chatter]

Where is the outcry from the traditional liberals who value all sides and differing opinions? This is a disgusting article which every elected official should find appalling. We are getting to be more like Red China each passing day under this asshat!

You won't here any cry out and you know it. Liberals protect their own, Right Wingers do the same and thats the problem with this country. We keep voting in the same kind of scumbags. There aren't many decent choices out there because decent people don't want to run for fear of being dragged through the mud.

Anyone that wants to run for a political position is IMMEDIATELY suspect in my book. Left, right, middle or wherever they happen to fall.

[renowiggum]

I don't see anything particularly shocking in there myself. Then again, I don't have much opposition to the existence of a listserv like Journolist to begin with. Time, Salon, Politico and the Huffington Post aren't exactly bastions of carefully balanced opinionating.

I think that trying to amplify this into a "see, there really is a vast conspiracy" matter goes too far. I'm comfortable with journalists having opinions, and talking with their opinions amongst themselves. And I don't think that writing a protest letter (which, so far as I can tell is the only productive thing that article actually shows the "cabal" doing) is anything more than... expressing their opinion.

I do find this interesting, though:

Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.

On that, I agree completely. Gotcha journalism - which characterizes too much of both the mainstream press and talk radio - is vapid, and cancerous to any substantive debate.

[Stuck in Seattle]

I don't see anything particularly shocking in there myself. Then again, I don't have much opposition to the existence of a listserv like Journolist to begin with. Time, Salon, Politico and the Huffington Post aren't exactly bastions of carefully balanced opinionating.


Huffpo and others are openly liberal. I've no problem with that. As is Salon and Politico. Time is to, but they'd never admit it.

Oh I agree with the gotcha stuff...but it can't be eliminated. I expect people to talk and discuss ideas, but for "journalists" to unite by the hundreds and decide how to spin stories for particular candidates and worse, a particular party, while professing to be objective individuals is not right when people think they are getting balanced reporting. They discussed killing a story that hurt their preferred candidate by attacking media that ran the story and by attacking people on the right (basically at random) as racists to change the debate. Which if you followed the story during the campaign is pretty much what happened. And it's still the general plan. Most any criticism of the administration is labeled racist.

What I find funny yet annoying is that the way this all started coming out was that a supposedly conservative leaning blogger was hired by the Washington Post to blog about conservatives. But he was in fact a closet liberal that was on the Journolist spouting hateful and demeaning stuff about Republicans with his liberal buddies. When some of his comments were leaked he had to be forced out at the Post, but was of course immediately picked up by openly liberal media. So why pick a closet liberal to cover conservatives? It was a complete lie by the Post to appear objective while still criticizing the right.

[renowiggum]

What I find funny yet annoying is that the way this all started coming out was that a supposedly conservative leaning blogger was hired by the Washington Post to blog about conservatives. But he was in fact a closet liberal that was on the Journolist spouting hateful and demeaning stuff about Republicans with his liberal buddies. When some of his comments were leaked he had to be forced out at the Post, but was of course immediately picked up by openly liberal media. So why pick a closet liberal to cover conservatives? It was a complete lie by the Post to appear objective while still criticizing the right.

What I read about him was more that he was a man with his own opinions, who dared to criticize Drudge and some iconic Reppublicans. I think the portrait of him as some sort of arch-liberal posing as a conservative is the result of someone out to portray him as such.

Ezra Klein, who started Journolist had this (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/on_journolist_and_dave_weigel.html) and this (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/the_pitfalls_of_leaks.html) to say in the aftermath of that firing, and I thought everything he said was reasonable.

I'd say that this sums up his biggest problem... and discomfort with such a view is one of the big problems I see in politics today:

Getting a couple of e-mails cherrypicked from missives sent on one e-mail list serve is, at best, a snippet of one type of conversation Weigel has. A different type of reconnaissance would've made it look like he's a conservative extremist who admires Ronald Reagan and voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 primaries. A more accurate and full portrait can be found in Liz Mair's assessment: Weigel is an idiosyncratic libertarian who likes some politicians and media figures, and not others. And those likes and dislikes do not fall neatly across partisan lines.

Edit: Another (and incidentally the first such that I read) account of this incident here (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/06/weigel-wapo-and-the-tracy-flickization-of-public-life/58748/). In part:

Lots of folks seem oddly resigned to living in a culture where anyone who is even remotely a public figure must expect to be defined by the least flattering thing they've ever said or done. Let the public mask slip for a moment--heaven forfend you're foolish enough to do it in a recordable online context--and you've only yourself to blame when, predictably, it becomes the focus of today's Two Minute Hate. Is this a culture anyone actually wants to live in? Forget the cost to the public figures--does anyone really want to live in a world where the only people prepared to risk engagement in politics are either so rigidly self-disciplined and boring that they provide no fodder for these outrage kabuki rituals, or such consistent over-the-top blowhards that no particular comment stands out as a focus of outrage?

[Stuck in Seattle]

What I read about him was more that he was a man with his own opinions, who dared to criticize Drudge and some iconic Reppublicans. I think the portrait of him as some sort of arch-liberal posing as a conservative is the result of someone out to portray him as such.

Ezra Klein, who started Journolist had this (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/on_journolist_and_dave_weigel.html) and this (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/the_pitfalls_of_leaks.html) to say in the aftermath of that firing, and I thought everything he said was reasonable.

I'd say that this sums up his biggest problem... and discomfort with such a view is one of the big problems I see in politics today:
Getting a couple of e-mails cherrypicked from missives sent on one e-mail list serve is, at best, a snippet of one type of conversation Weigel has. A different type of reconnaissance would've made it look like he's a conservative extremist who admires Ronald Reagan and voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 primaries. A more accurate and full portrait can be found in Liz Mair's assessment: Weigel is an idiosyncratic libertarian who likes some politicians and media figures, and not others. And those likes and dislikes do not fall neatly across partisan lines.Edit: Another (and incidentally the first such that I read) account of this incident here (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/06/weigel-wapo-and-the-tracy-flickization-of-public-life/58748/).
His invite to be on Journolist is in itself and indictment. But there are conservative writers that like him personally, but find his statements on Journolist to be very revealing. Perhaps he was just trying to fit in? I don't know, but the things of his that I read could have been written by Joe Klein and been no less dismissive of the right.

[renowiggum]

His invite to be on Journolist is in itself and indictment.

Unless you accept that the allowable club included the nonpartisan, which is the characterization that Klein used of him, and was in his own description of who he allowed in. Someone that while not himself a liberal wasn't likely to take what he found there and go running to the press with it (which, as we can see, isn't a great incentive to a free discussion).

Perhaps he was just trying to fit in?

Which is his self-professed explanation.

Of course, I've also been reading a lot by Bruce Bartlett (http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/) who, because he dares to criticize GWB is probably seen as a pariah, too.

[Stuck in Seattle]

Unless you accept that the allowable club included the nonpartisan, which is the characterization that Klein used of him, and was in his own description of who he allowed in. Someone that while not himself a liberal wasn't likely to take what he found there and go running to the press with it (which, as we can see, isn't a great incentive to a free discussion).



Which is his self-professed explanation.

Of course, I've also been reading a lot by Bruce Bartlett (http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/) who, because he dares to criticize GWB is probably seen as a pariah, too.
I occasionally see links to Bartlett but haven't read him before. Lots of conservatives criticize Bush...he's no pariah or even marginalized for doing so IMHO. I criticize the Republican congress and mostly agree with Bush. But he should have just deposed Saddam then moved over to Syria and deposed Assad. There was no need to stay there after 2004. Sure the Shia would have slaughtered the Sunni like sheep until they surrendered to demographic reality. But getting bogged down there stopped the liberation momentum. All governments should rely on the consent of the governed - or they are not legitimate IMHO.

[renowiggum]

I occasionally see links to Bartlett but haven't read him before. Lots of conservatives criticize Bush...he's no pariah or even marginalized for doing so IMHO. I criticize the Republican congress and mostly agree with Bush. But he should have just deposed Saddam then moved over to Syria and deposed Assad. There was no need to stay there after 2004. Sure the Shia would have slaughtered the Sunni like sheep until they surrendered to demographic reality. But getting bogged down there stopped the liberation momentum. All governments should rely on the consent of the governed - or they are not legitimate IMHO.

On Bartlett, I'm not too familiar with his reputation in the conservative commentariat, so I was speculating based on the villification I've seen and heard in past instances where someone, such as Colin Powell, spoke poorly of the powers that be. I've seen it often enough that I expect it, at least when the profile of the person is high enough.

On Journolist, commentary on the latest round of leaks (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/first_time_as_tragedy_second_t_1.html), which reinforces my view that the story is nothing more substantive than a partisan hit piece, knowingly wrenching things out of context and scope:

The other piece of evidence in yesterday's story was a public letter signed by 41 members of Journolist protesting ABC News's conduct during one of the presidential primary debate. You may remember this one. Greg Mitchell, of Editor and Publisher (and not a member of Journolist), called it a "shameful night for US media." On Journolist, Tom Schaller, a professor of political science at the University of Maryland, wrote an angry letter and asked people if they'd like to sign it. Then the letter was posted in public. You can read it here. Some conspiracy.

There's a piece of that story, incidentally, that the Daily Caller -- and their Journolist beat reporter, Jonathan Strong -- knew but did not report. After the letter came out, I thought a lot about whether it was appropriate for a listserv including journalists to be used in that way. I decided it wasn't. I banned further letters from being circulated on the list. The Daily Caller had e-mails of me doing this, and of shutting down future attempts, but they declined to publish them, or even mention my policy. So the one actual attempt at coordination -- lame and earnest as it was -- led to a policy against future attempts at coordination. But the Daily Caller didn't report this. Didn't fit the narrative, I guess.

[battle.borne]

I don't see anything particularly shocking in there myself. Then again, I don't have much opposition to the existence of a listserv like Journolist to begin with.

The notion journalists are conspiring to massage news stories in one direction or another is anti-American. I'm shocked you don't find this to be an afront of everything traditional journalism aspires to be -- impartial and indifferent. The political websites you stated have different agendas, but they are known. That's hardly the same thing as journalists from around the country, working for different bureaus and stations, actively seeking to move the conversation in favor of one side, without regard for facts.

[renowiggum]

The notion journalists are conspiring to massage news stories in one direction or another is anti-American. I'm shocked you don't find this to be an afront of everything traditional journalism aspires to be -- impartial and indifferent. The political websites you stated have different agendas, but they are known. That's hardly the same thing as journalists from around the country, working for different bureaus and stations, actively seeking to move the conversation in favor of one side, without regard for facts.

I just quoted most of the news organizations that the story said had participating members, because that offers some perspective on who made up this list. It also goes to show why I think this whole thing has been blown ludicrously out of proportion.

News coverage has been polarized and political from the founding of the country. WR Hearst was hardly a paragon of impartiality. I expect conservative journalists try to move the conversation in a way that's favorable to conservatives, and I expect liberal journalists to do the same.

And given the list's creator saying that after one - one - coordinated protest letter, he banned and policed the board for such actions in the future... I think that the consipracy-to-conversation ratio of what was probably the real purpose of the list to be so close to zero as to be utterly unimportant and unworthy of the attention it has received.

And even if it wasn't - if the list was everything that its harshest critics imagine it to have been... I still wouldn't care, because I would consider them to be impotent at their goal in the long run, as non-conspirators rise up and provide superior reporting, out-competing those that are hamstringing themselves by trying to push a single-minded agenda. I would consider it a sad state of affairs in the short run, as it would lead to a large polarization where conservative folks only listen to conservative news, and liberal folks only listen to liberal news, while the undecided walk away in disgust... but that's close enough to today's environment as to make little difference.

[Stuck in Seattle]

I just quoted most of the news organizations that the story said had participating members, because that offers some perspective on who made up this list. It also goes to show why I think this whole thing has been blown ludicrously out of proportion.

News coverage has been polarized and political from the founding of the country. WR Hearst was hardly a paragon of impartiality. I expect conservative journalists try to move the conversation in a way that's favorable to conservatives, and I expect liberal journalists to do the same.

And given the list's creator saying that after one - one - coordinated protest letter, he banned and policed the board for such actions in the future... I think that the consipracy-to-conversation ratio of what was probably the real purpose of the list to be so close to zero as to be utterly unimportant and unworthy of the attention it has received.

And even if it wasn't - if the list was everything that its harshest critics imagine it to have been... I still wouldn't care, because I would consider them to be impotent at their goal in the long run, as non-conspirators rise up and provide superior reporting, out-competing those that are hamstringing themselves by trying to push a single-minded agenda. I would consider it a sad state of affairs in the short run, as it would lead to a large polarization where conservative folks only listen to conservative news, and liberal folks only listen to liberal news, while the undecided walk away in disgust... but that's close enough to today's environment as to make little difference.
Of course I disagree for a couple of reasons. First, the signed letter is what isn't important to me. It's the cooridination of message to A) Stop a story in it's tracks because it hurts their candidate. B) Do this by attacking fellow travelers that step out of line and C) Selecting conservative pundits basically at random and attacking them as racists in an attempt to change the debate by slandering other writers.

And that is basically what happened and is still happening.

And far more people get their news from ABC, NBC, CBS and newspapers than through alternative media. While the effect of the heavy dominance of liberals in these media outlets will continue to slowly diminish it is currently bordering on being a propaganda arm of the left during campaign season.

And I would not be surprised to see more Journolist stories leaking out over the next several days.

Funny how over the last year or so the debate has gone from "What liberal media? You're a crazy wingnut!" to "Of course the media's liberal. Everyone knows that. But it doesn't matter." With barely the blink of an eye. It's some progress at least.

[wolf_chatter]

Of course I disagree for a couple of reasons. First, the signed letter is what isn't important to me. It's the cooridination of message to A) Stop a story in it's tracks because it hurts their candidate. B) Do this by attacking fellow travelers that step out of line and C) Selecting conservative pundits basically at random and attacking them as racists in an attempt to change the debate by slandering other writers.

And that is basically what happened and is still happening.

And far more people get their news from ABC, NBC, CBS and newspapers than through alternative media. While the effect of the heavy dominance of liberals in these media outlets will continue to slowly diminish it is currently bordering on being a propaganda arm of the left during campaign season.

And I would not be surprised to see more Journolist stories leaking out over the next several days.

Funny how over the last year or so the debate has gone from "What liberal media? You're a crazy wingnut!" to "Of course the media's liberal. Everyone knows that. But it doesn't matter." With barely the blink of an eye. It's some progress at least.

all seem to have agenda's anymore. The death of real Journalism was years and years ago. MSNBC - saw a niche for left wing views and took it. Fox has the right, ABC, CBS are more middle but still lean left. I don't know what day it happened but I started noticing it during Reagan's reign. Maybe I just started noticing it more as I got older? At 41 now Reagan is the 1st President I ever really paid attention to. Those that are older maybe you have some thoughts?

[Stuck in Seattle]

O

And I would not be surprised to see more Journolist stories leaking out over the next several days.



As Predicted (http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/22/when-mccain-picked-palin-liberal-journalists-coordinated-the-best-line-of-attack/)

I like how they refer to the "unofficial Obama campaign" and one thanks them for the talking points and asks for more as he's going on TV to attack the choice of Palin. And how Joe Klein (always been a lib but used to be a good read, now he's gone over the top) thanks them for the tips on how to do his share.

This is going to go on for a while.

[renowiggum]

Funny how over the last year or so the debate has gone from "What liberal media? You're a crazy wingnut!" to "Of course the media's liberal. Everyone knows that. But it doesn't matter." With barely the blink of an eye. It's some progress at least.

I'd say instead that it's "of course there's liberals in the media."

I have no respect for any of the stories coming out of the daily caller on this, because of the highly selective way its being done. When a question from a California law professor - which was answered with a definitive "no" - about the FCC pulling Fox News turns into "Journolist liberals try to shut down Fox News," I'm inclined to take their story only with about an ocean's worth of salt.

More stories? Sure. They're trolling hundreds of thousands of e-mails on a witch hunt. Without revealing their source data, I'm pretty sure the Daily Caller could tell us any story they want us to buy.

I still don't see a definitive connection between Journolist and "the media" at large, which is the leap I think you're making above. I see individuals, not institutions, acting here.

[renowiggum]

After reading the latest piece, all I have to say is this.

If this is your evidence of a vast media conspiracy, then you aren't likely to convince a single thinking person who doesn't already buy the conspiracy. Looking at who is quoted, it's a bunch of liberal commentators, and the few "pruportedly nonpartisan" quotes they get are the sort of thing I've talked about with my roommate, on here, and with anyone else that might dig politics in general. I enjoy speculating on how the Democrats might try to frame a candidate. I particularly enjoy engaging in such speculation WITH Democrats, to see what people outside my own fence think.

Sometimes, discussing tactics is not the same thing as acting as some sort of impromptu tactical adviser as the "journalist" here would like to have you believe.

Context matters, and in context, I still see nothing - not a single thing - that causes me any surprise or agitation here. If a bunch of liberal bloggers tossing around their thoughts on Palin privately is something you find shocking, then there's not much I can say to change your opinion on this.

[Stuck in Seattle]

all seem to have agenda's anymore. The death of real Journalism was years and years ago. MSNBC - saw a niche for left wing views and took it. Fox has the right, ABC, CBS are more middle but still lean left. I don't know what day it happened but I started noticing it during Reagan's reign. Maybe I just started noticing it more as I got older? At 41 now Reagan is the 1st President I ever really paid attention to. Those that are older maybe you have some thoughts?
It's still real journalism and always has been, but it's been very left leaning for many decades. When the left could act as the gate keepers of information the fiction of unbiased coverage could be maintained. Talk radio, Fox News and now the new media have simply exposed their default setting to the public.

Again, I have no issue with biased journalists. I have issue with their efforts to completely stifle competing views and with the attempt to portray left leaning bias as unbiased in an attempt to sway public opinion. How do you get members of Journolist discussing their desire to have Fox news shut down by the government and it's just accepted by the other members. They don't want freedom of the press as much as they want control of the message.

[wolf_chatter]

I do believe that a larger portion of Journalists lean mor left than right and that tends itself to writing stories with a left-leaning slant. But I certainly don't think that all the media outlets have secret meetings to discuss who they go after and how on the right.

[Stuck in Seattle]

After reading the latest piece, all I have to say is this.

If this is your evidence of a vast media conspiracy, then you aren't likely to convince a single thinking person who doesn't already buy the conspiracy. Looking at who is quoted, it's a bunch of liberal commentators, and the few "pruportedly nonpartisan" quotes they get are the sort of thing I've talked about with my roommate, on here, and with anyone else that might dig politics in general. I enjoy speculating on how the Democrats might try to frame a candidate. I particularly enjoy engaging in such speculation WITH Democrats, to see what people outside my own fence think.

Sometimes, discussing tactics is not the same thing as acting as some sort of impromptu tactical adviser as the "journalist" here would like to have you believe.

Context matters, and in context, I still see nothing - not a single thing - that causes me any surprise or agitation here. If a bunch of liberal bloggers tossing around their thoughts on Palin privately is something you find shocking, then there's not much I can say to change your opinion on this.
Hmm. Well, I agree context matters (we disagree on the context in this case) but I also agree there's nothing that surprises me in the least. It's just what I expected; nothing more nothing less. But the more the curtain is pulled away and the more people understand about the motivations of journalists (on both sides) the better. And as I wrote above, in just a few years the narrative has already gone from the myth of liberal bias to the general consensus of liberal bias.

Also, a discussion between a few friends is one thing. 400 of the most recognized names in journalism uniting to strategerize swaying elections and public opinion and to smear and shut up people with opposing views is something different. But there are lots of people that see it your way.

[Stuck in Seattle]

I do believe that a larger portion of Journalists lean mor left than right and that tends itself to writing stories with a left-leaning slant. But I certainly don't think that all the media outlets have secret meetings to discuss who they go after and how on the right.
Sorry about the lack of response and continuity in some of the recent posts. I had to leave to run errands in mid post and came back and finished up two posts without going back and reading responses. But I think we've gone as far as we can here anyway. As always I respect your opinions and enjoy reading them.

[renowiggum]

But the more the curtain is pulled away and the more people understand about the motivations of journalists (on both sides) the better.

On this we agree. I'd rather read someone that's transparent about their opinions (even if only from time to time), than someone who tries to hid behind a mask.

400 of the most recognized names in journalism uniting to strategerize swaying elections and public opinion and to smear and shut up people with opposing views is something different.

But I just don't see that here. I see a handful of bloggers who participate on a list-serv with some more recognizable names tossing around their opinions and occasionally trying to stir up others. I don't see 400 united people in conspiracy, but the juciest excerpts someone could dig up. Because of the nature of the Daily Caller's articles on it, I expect the worst quotes they can find to be those they use, and so not seeing anyone I recognize - and not even recognizing half of the organizations they work for... I see no evidence of a conspiracy that leads to, for example, ABC, CBS, NBC, or other such places where it would be news. A guy going on TV wants talking points? Boring! From context, he's probably going on to provide avowedly liberal talking points. It would be like Brad or Mark getting interviewed by ESPN and asking folks on the board here what we think the best Wolf Pack tidbits to share might be.

I suppose it boils down to this: I don't think these quotes are representative of all the members of Journolist, nor of any more well-known ones (whoever they may be), nor of the primary content that would have been discussed there. I think you believe they are. When I see sufficient evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to reconsider... but I think if they had that, they'd have dropped it already.

[Nosebleed]

Receiving biased news from news outlet, ( not news analysts, you know what you are getting is biased), is worse than receiving no news at all. Despicable.

Rick

[student4ever]

Receiving biased news from news outlet, ( not news analysts, you know what you are getting is biased), is worse than receiving no news at all. Despicable.

Rick

That's why I don't watch Fox or MSNBC.

[Stuck in Seattle]

That's why I don't watch Fox or MSNBC.
In multiple studies Fox's reporting has been shown the least biased - including the major networks IIRC. One was by Princeton several years back. But I couldn't blame anyone for avoiding the editorial "personalities" on either one of those channels. Even I can't watch the ones on Fox more than an O'Reilly or Beck once a month or less. Except Greg Gutfeld's "Red Eye" as I DVR that and watch every morning while I'm on the internet...but that's a newsy comedy show.