Liberal Media Exposed (Warning - Very Lengthy)

[Tenacious D]

**CAUTION: This is a lengthy post. If you are frightened of, angered by, frustrated because of, or simply do not prefer a lot of reading - stop now.**

Having the audacity to accuse the national media of a pervasive liberal bias will usually put you on a fast track to being likened to conspiracy theorists and alien hunters.

Turns out that might not be so crazy after all.

In fact, the recently exposed "Journolist" site - an ultra-private email list serv for an estimated 400 liberal media members, think tank wonks, and other influential others - shows it to be far worse than even the most outlandish claims made against it, including these tidbits:

• The Washington Post's Republican / Conservative correspondent, David Weigel, "...spends all his time going to conservative and Republican events and claiming to be an objective reporter there to cover them fairly. In between these events Weigel goes online and vents on JournoList to 400 other journalists — many who claim to be of the “objective” variety — about just how much he hates those “ratf**ker” (his word) conservatives and Republicans."

• Weigel also wrote, "I’d never been shy about the fact that I was pro-gay marriage and pro-open borders."

• "According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate (Obama)."

• "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.”

• Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama. “It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.

• NPR's Sarah Spitz remarked to the suggestion of Rush Limbaugh dying from a heart attack, that she would "Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment."

• Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group provided his reason for the Tea Party movement, by saying, "Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).”

• Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,”he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”
  
  

Journolist was created by Ezra Klein, a liberal blogger for The Washington Post, and was intended to be, "An insulated space where the lure of a smart, ongoing conversation would encourage journalists, policy experts and assorted other observers to share their insights with one another." Admission to the site was by invitation only, and would be given based on two rules. "The first was the easy one: No one who worked for the government in any capacity could join. The second was the hard one: The membership would range from nonpartisan to liberal, center to left." Apparently, those meeting the criteria leapt at the opportunity to join, once invited, believing their messages would be privately held amongst this select group of like-minded others.

However, not everyone agreed that the site was as harmless as Klein purported, but instead, "Conservative critics had feared the discussions served as a means for liberals to coordinate their message to the public."

Recently, one of the members of the site granted Tucker Carlson, a well-known Conservative pundit and editor of The Daily Caller, access to the site. Soon thereafter, the captured authors, quotes and screenshots were made public in his expose of the Journolist site.

Here's the original story from The Daily Caller:
Washington Post reporter David Weigel resigns amid political e-mail revelations | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment


Here's an explanation of the Journolist site from its originator, Ezra Klein (discussing the recent resignation of a member of the site, after his messages were made public):

Ezra Klein - On Journolist, and Dave Weigel


It should paint the whole, "Tea Party members are racists" in a whole new light.....amongst many, many other things, as well.

Thoughts?

 

[MystifyingVol]

Who knew that LG had a membership to Journolist? It all makes sense now.

 

[Tenacious D]

Who knew that LG had a membership to Journolist? It all makes sense now.

I thought the exact same thing, myself.

But even the most hate-filled, liberal-leaning diatribes on that site showed some coherent thought-process, I quickly ruled out any participation he might have had.

But he could have been one of their mouthpieces, the way he positions his arguments.

 

[lawgator1]

This has been bandied about a lot by Fox lately. The thing is, when you look at who actually makes the vast vast majority of these offensive comments, its liberal bloggers or activists. The same thing could be said of right wing activists and bloggers who tout the other side.

Likening the people in question to the mainstream medai and trying to thereby portray the mainstream media as liberal co-conspirators is like saying that Breitbart is the guy running the GOP press room.

 

[IPorange]

LOL at getting "frustrated by lengthy posts."

 

[kptvol]

I don't think a single one of the names Tenacious specifically mentioned can be pigeonholed as bloggers.

 

[MystifyingVol]

David Weigel the Washington Post's Republican / Conservative correspondent
Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor
Sarah Spitz of NPR
Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA

Liberal bloggers and activists? I can agree with the activists part, much like you are a liberal activist.

 

[emainvol]

I don't think a single one of the names Tenacious specifically mentioned can be pigeonholed as bloggers.

You are correct, however, I still think this is a bit overblown. Let's be honest here, conservative journalists are somewhere doing the same thing, and honestly, I don't care.

 

[IPorange]

You are correct, however, I still think this is a bit overblown. Let's be honest here, conservative journalists are somewhere doing the same thing, and honestly, I don't care.

You should. What we are discussing here is an end to a free and independent press. Now we have a press that is defined by political borders.

 

[emainvol]

You should. What we are discussing here is an end to a free and independent press. Now we have a press that is defined by political borders.

What are we going to do about it? The media is full of idiots, and we all know it. It ain't going to change.

 

[Lexvol]

I don't think a single one of the names Tenacious specifically mentioned can be pigeonholed as bloggers.

Don't you get it KP? Broad generalizations about the Tea Party are ok...but in situations regarding liberals context and specific analysis is required.

 

[sjt18]

Likening the people in question to the mainstream medai and trying to thereby portray the mainstream media as liberal co-conspirators is like saying that Breitbart is the guy running the GOP press room.

No it isn't. You need to read Goldberg.

Liberals in the MSM are comparable to fans of a particular SEC team. No matter how hard they may really want to act objective... their bias will always filter their senses.

Like Goldberg said, they go to the same parties, have the same friends, learn from the same professors, belong to the same organizations, and generally speaking exist within a paradigm that is far left with no overlap with the right. They believe in the same things and share the same value set.

 

[emainvol]

Don't you get it KP? Broad generalizations about the Tea Party are ok...but in situations regarding liberals context and specific analysis is required.

People ask me why, as a liberal, I have so much disdain for other liberals. The double standard bull**** is one of the reasons. Then again, I hate a lot of conservatives for the same reason. I am really just an angry, cynical bastard. It's a good thing I like guns.

 

[emainvol]

No it isn't. You need to read Goldberg.

Liberals in the MSM are comparable to fans of a particular SEC team. No matter how hard they may really want to act objective... their bias will always filter their senses.

Like Goldberg said, they go to the same parties, have the same friends, learn from the same professors, belong to the same organizations, and generally speaking exist within a paradigm that is far left with no overlap with the right. They believe in the same things and share the same value set.

How is the other side any different? That's what I don't get here, this work both ways and we all know it.

 

[sjt18]

The answer is what we are moving toward- a partisan press. The whole notion of the non-partisan "objective" press is anti-American. From the founding to around 1900, the press was expected to be partisan. There was a running dialogue on the issues with different sides using the press to try to convince the public.

Both parties became "progressive" in the early 1900's and the press mostly followed suit. Our country had effective one party rule from Wilson to Carter.

 

[sjt18]

How is the other side any different? That's what I don't get here, this work both ways and we all know it.

It isn't except for candor. Can you name a single conservative news source or commentator who denies their bias?

 

[volinbham]

I wonder if the bias is any different now than say 50 years ago.

I agree with Emain that it is not only liberals that do this. I guess the difference is that now we have a growth in the conservative bias news media. Doesn't make bias right but in the end we all know that to understand an issue you need to hear it from multiple sources - only then will you start to see what's really going on.

 

[droski]

How is the other side any different? That's what I don't get here, this work both ways and we all know it.

the problem is that 90% of the actual reporters are self described liberals. just like college professors.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

I wonder if the bias is any different now than say 50 years ago.

I agree with Emain that it is not only liberals that do this. I guess the difference is that now we have a growth in the conservative bias news media. Doesn't make bias right but in the end we all know that to understand an issue you need to hear it from multiple sources - only then will you start to see what's really going on.

I think its always been this biased. For example, there are only a couple of pictures of FDR in a wheel chair

 

[emainvol]

The answer is what we are moving toward- a partisan press. The whole notion of the non-partisan "objective" press is anti-American. From the founding to around 1900, the press was expected to be partisan. There was a running dialogue on the issues with different sides using the press to try to convince the public.

Both parties became "progressive" in the early 1900's and the press mostly followed suit. Our country had effective one party rule from Wilson to Carter.

I agree with this, there has to be a visible, public debate. Not only will it further the discourse, but it won't bore us all to death.

 

[Tenacious D]

You are correct, however, I still think this is a bit overblown. Let's be honest here, conservative journalists are somewhere doing the same thing, and honestly, I don't care.

They not only sought to ignore the story, but to actively subdue it - and then collaborated as to how to besmirch those who refused to do so, all involving a presidential candidate in the heat of the primary. When is journalistic integrity and a full portrayal of the facts involved, regardless as to whether it harms or helps any particular candidate - more necessary?

Why do these candidates all spend millions and millions of dollars when seeking elected office? Predominantly, to buy air time. Why? Because that gives them the greatest and best means to reach their voting audience, and innumerous studies show that the amount of air time affects the outcome of a race, and in most cases, significantly so. Well, if that's all true, wouldn't the opposite be as well? If putting your message "on the air" best spreads the word for you.....wouldn't you gain a similiar and equal advantage be had should that same power be wielded in suppressing information against you? In this case, it seems inarguable that these members of the liberal left not only attempted, but actually succeeded in withholding information about then Senator Obama, for the benefit of his candidacy and their own personal preferences. Of course, this not only violates the foundational premise of journalistic integrity (for those bound by it), but a far more damning indictment is that such was willfully done at the disservice and direct expense of ensuring for the best interests of an informed voting populace.

I am uncertain as to how the collusive efforts of those involved can be overstated, really.

Do I believe that Republican / Conservatives network and do the same? No, I don't. In fact, were I asked the same about the liberal media a few weeks ago, I would have answered the same, believing that it would be an impossible crime against their personal conviction, even for them. Now, should similiarly irrefutable and inarguable evidence prove that the GOPers were doing the same, I would be equally quick to admit to allege the same.

Some things should extend beyond politics, even for me, and this is one of them.

 

[Tenacious D]

This has been bandied about a lot by Fox lately. The thing is, when you look at who actually makes the vast vast majority of these offensive comments, its liberal bloggers or activists. The same thing could be said of right wing activists and bloggers who tout the other side.

Likening the people in question to the mainstream medai and trying to thereby portray the mainstream media as liberal co-conspirators is like saying that Breitbart is the guy running the GOP press room.

I wonder why its only being "bandied" about on Fox, and nowhere else? It's interesting that such is the case, given that the members of this site openly discussed the desire to shut their network down. Who knows what the liberal media would choose to report, at that point. I guess whatever they wanted us to know, and not those things that they preferred we didn't. You know, like they all now do...except Fox.

I'm curious to know how you could possibly know who made which comment, and how many were provided on each subject, when it remains unknown as to how much of the database was compromised, befire being deleted?

I believe that your comment hoped to attribute these comments to only a select few of the more extreme or "fringe" members of the site, and which likely don't represent the overwhelming opinion of the majority of its many other users. Is that correct?

That's ironic, given the fact that it's the exact same tact which you routinely employ in trying to castigate members of the Tea Party, Tennessee fans, conservatives, et al. You find the craziest, lowliest, most absurd representation you can find, and spend an enormous amount of time attempting to explain how an isolated example is indicative of the whole. Are you asking that we believe that the fringe elements are telling in some instances, but not others?

Most likely, you are simply evidencing what so many others accuse you of doing - to say whatever is most convenient, however contrarian to previous statements it may be, so long as it advances your argument, and supports that which you personally believe, however ignorant or misguided it may so obviously be.

 

[Tenacious D]

You should. What we are discussing here is an end to a free and independent press. Now we have a press that is defined by political borders.

And personal preferences, not to mention professional pressure from peers.

The article talks describes how they were ready to eat their own in George Stephanopoulos (of Clinton Administration fame) for simply asking then Senator Obama a question on Rev. Wright?

This is certainly "about" liberals, but its a problem that truly affects far more than any single group - it affects the entirety of the process, and each of us, indiscriminately. Suppose that Emain is correct, and the GOPers engage in the same. This time it was the liberals, and next it could be the GOPers - either way, we get screwed.

How to change it? I don't know - but the further political polarization of this country certainly can't be helping matters.

 

[Tenacious D]

the problem is that 90% of the actual reporters are self described liberals. just like college professors.

And if you are taught that it's right / wrong....and you hear that hear that it's similiarly right / wrong 90% of the time.....pretty soon, someone else's "right" or "wrong" becomes your own.

 

[kptvol]

What are we going to do about it? The media is full of idiots, and we all know it. It ain't going to change.

Disagree. Maybe we do, but there are a crap ton of people that don't.