An op-ed that appeared Wednesday at Investor’s Business Daily dubs the JournoList “The Smoking Gun For Media Bias:”
The point is, this is America’s “mainstream” media, supposedly. Except it’s not. It’s in fact a support wing for one party and one vision for America. And as with the rest of the progressive movement, it’s concerned not with the truth, but with power.
And that was written before this morning’s JournoList document drop du jour from Jonathan Strong of the Daily Caller, who writes, “When McCain picked Palin, liberal journalists coordinated the best line of attack:”
In the hours after Sen. John McCain announced his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate in the last presidential race, members of an online forum called Journolist struggled to make sense of the pick. Many of them were liberal reporters, and in some cases their comments reflected a journalist’s instinct to figure out the meaning of a story.
But in many other exchanges, the Journolisters clearly had another, more partisan goal in mind: to formulate the most effective talking points in order to defeat Palin and McCain and help elect Barack Obama president. The tone was more campaign headquarters than newsroom.
The conversation began with a debate over how best to attack Sarah Palin. “Honestly, this pick reeks of desperation,” wrote Michael Cohen of the New America Foundation in the minutes after the news became public. “How can anyone logically argue that Sarah Pallin [sic], a one-term governor of Alaska, is qualified to be President of the United States? Train wreck, thy name is Sarah Pallin.”
Not a wise argument, responded Jonathan Stein, a reporter for Mother Jones. If McCain were asked about Palin’s inexperience, he could simply point to then candidate Barack Obama’s similarly thin resume. “Q: Sen. McCain, given Gov. Palin’s paltry experience, how is she qualified to be commander in chief?,” Stein asked hypothetically. “A: Well, she has much experience as the Democratic nominee.”
“What a joke,” added Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker. “I always thought that some part of McCain doesn’t want to be president, and this choice proves my point. Welcome back, Admiral Stockdale.”
Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation noted that Obama’s “non-official campaign” would need to work hard to discredit Palin. “This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security / right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away …… bang away at McCain’s age making this unusually significant …. I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama].”
And there’s your takeaway soundbite. Back in the 1920s, the iconoclastic H.L. Mencken wrote that “It is the prime function of a really first-rate newspaper to serve as a sort of permanent opposition in politics.”
Flash-forward almost a century, and his would-be successors see it not as as permanent opposition, but an element of the “non-official campaign” of one’s party’s presidential candidate.
As we noted in 2008, it was astonishing to watch John McCain not immediately grasp that the Beltway media he had worked so hard to cultivate as a senator would, once he secured the GOP presidential nomination, instantly drop a moderate Republican for a full-fledged liberal (or at least what passes for liberal these days) Democrat.
So who’s going to be first GOP candidate who understands and articulates to his or her supporters what the new rules are: the media he or she will be doing interviews with on the campaign trail define themselves not as “objective” journalists, but part of the opposition’s “non-official campaign?”
Well yeah, besides this potential candidate, of course.
I get the feeling that this morning’s comments among Palin’s defenders throughout the web (and particularly at Hot Air) will likely be… spirited….
The “spirited” discussion of Sarah Palin is taking place on all sides and in all venues these days.
Attempting to escape the great Refudiate blockbuster read-all-about-it on tuesday, I turned to local sports radio in the car for a brief respite and was subjected to — you guessed it — more Palin. I don’t need to tell you it was entirely negative. After all, they fancy themselves “journalists” too. “Pedigreed” and everything.
They genuinely fear her. I mean even more than spiders and American exceptionalism.
Ain’t it cute?
Absolutely right, Hopkins.
They are terrified of Palin and always have been.
I think Ed deserves credit for articulating the most important requirement for victory in 2012:
“As we noted in 2008, it was astonishing to watch John McCain not immediately grasp that the Beltway media he had worked so hard to cultivate as a senator would, once he secured the GOP presidential nomination, instantly drop a moderate Republican for a full-fledged liberal (or at least what passes for liberal these days) Democrat.
So who’s going to be first GOP candidate who understands and articulates to his or her supporters what the new rules are: the media he or she will be doing interviews with on the campaign trail define themselves not as “objective” journalists, but part of the opposition’s “non-official campaign?”
YES! Who will it be?
McCain was the media’s favorite Republican precisely because he could always be counted on to attack other Republicans. However when it came down to a choice between McCain and an actual Democrat, the media instinctively chose the real Democrat.
Yet again the left wing moonbats prove that when they accuse the RIGHT of coordinating and arranging and Astro turfing things it is simply a PROJECTION of how they themselves ALWAYS act and they just cannot conceive of any else not doing the same.
This should be the final nail in the coffin of the fast dying totally discredited left wing, moonbat, biased, State Propaganda disseminating Lame Stream Media.
Well said praggmatist . Just like the way Michelle and Zero live the party life in the White House. They think this is the way the repubs have lived it up before them in the White House. They think they are owed all this . Entitlement mentality fostered through affirmative action. They have no uunderstanding of the work it took Reagan to get to be POTUS or even Bush for that matter working as Governor. Sarah Palin works tirelessly, these clowns play golf and go on holiday because they think that’s what these people did all along.
Maryann, you have it partly wrong. They do not only because they think they are entitled they do it because they have never had a job besides organizing and they don’t know what needs to be done and how to do it. Executives juggle a lot of balls in the air and all Barry knows is campaigning
This follows the logic of a thief – they view the whole world as a pack of thieves.
This can also be applied to the left when they hurl the invective – racist.
We should have little problem if writers representing publications with an openly left-wing editorial philosophy behave as advocates on behalf of a particular candidate. Some slack must also be cut for the ones solely known to be opinion journalists. Those claiming to be objectively dispassionate and “above the fray”, however, have disgraced their profession. Of course, it is needless to add that there is no justification whatsoever for anyone ever blatantly lying. These outrageous revelations don’t surprise the cynics among us. We realized that something was very wrong ages ago. We can only hope that the more naïve citizens are now paying attention. The very survival of our constitutional government hangs in the balance. Time is rapidly running out.
It seems to me there is an illegality in this matter as well. The Wapo pays Ezra Klien, for example, to in essence work as a propagandist for the Democrats, for that is what the Journolist shows is going on. This is a political value to the Dems. Shouldn’t Klien’s salary be reported as a political donation?
Yes, and aren’t all the quotes exemplifying “bias” coming form opinion guys? I await liberal blogs shocking expose on how Bill Kristol was actively working for a McCain victory.
Well, yawn. I have a hard time getting too bent out of shape on this because I/we have known this since at least mid-2008. The problem is not that this is true. The problem is that the MSM/LSM will not, of course, publicly admit to it. Their followers/readers don’t care and, in fact, warmly support this sort of behavior while it is in their favor. No, the big question is, how to make main street America fully aware of what is happening/has happened to their supposedly “non-partisan” press?
The question in my mind is at what point does the conspiring that occurred on journolist meet a legal definition of sedition?
Of course it is the Gray Lady, the venerable New York Times, the virtual den mother of the liberal left media, that sets the tone and decides the content for the rest of the pack. ‘All the News That Fits’; the party line, that is.
Bryan @ #5: How about RICO instead of sedition? What is gratifying is that the left-wing print media is slowly dying (and don’t call them Liberal, because they’re not; it’s a term they absconded with so as not to be called socialists). They are losing readers and money and this recession has accelerated the process a bit. And yes, Carla @ #6 is right – all the NYT does is print the party line; at this point its logo is about as truthful as the Washington Post’s banner on its editorial page proclaiming it to be an “Independent Newspaper.” The only thing it is independent of is truth.
Don’t look now but it seems like Sarah was in front of the story once again.
She was derided for chastising the media for makin’ stuff up.
As it turns out, that’s exactly what they were doing
And continue to do…
As long as these left wing people talk about the person, the truth is there for all intelligent people to see, they cannot beat the issues. The right is correct and the issue is true, if the left had an answer or truth on their side, they would argue the issue. Not argue lies or put the people on the right down.
How small and full of hate the left is showing themselves. Nothing but hate speech, prejudice exists for the majority of these freedom haters. Watch the show, see the truth, establish and prove the issues correct. While the left smolders in their own vile.
In future campaigns GOP’er ought to set media standards that tells the press up front what will be tolerated and what won’t:
1.) Hit pieces on family should be taboo.
2.) Quotes taken out of context are frowned upon.
3.) Ambush style journalism, a la Katie Couric, will result in being shown the door.
4.) Asking irrelevant questions are grounds for immediate termination of interviews. Especially those which result in leg tingles.
5.) Candidate personal privacy is sacrosanct.
6.) When subjects of national security are involved the safety of American troops is always the priority.
7.) etc., etc., etc.
As much as the MSM has pretty much discredited itself since 2008, future candidates should weigh the network and news outlet ratings before agreeing to be interviewed, the bulk of face time with any given reporting entity should go to those which reach the broadest audience. In this case Fox News would be given almost unlimited access and WaPo, NYT, and LAT would be very limited, nobody reads that crap anyway. ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN are looking a little iffy as they tend to slant things only to the two coasts and ignore the flyover parts. There are, after all, a limited number of seats on the bus.
The only point of dispute I have with your post is that candidates personal life should be open to investigation. The only restriction to this investigation is than any information that is publicly dispensed must be true. For example a politician could have been convicted of any number of sex crimes and latter had the record expunged, but the facts of something like this are a factor that the voters should be allowed to consider when voting. Other information might include, owing back taxes, military record, DWI’s as examples.
I whole heartily agree, a candidate’s criminal record should be investigated thoroughly. IRS histories should be; “on the record”, as well as things like DWI convictions. These things go to the character of the man. However, I was thinking along the lines of the hit pieces done on the Palin family, i.e., “was Trig really the illegitimate son of daughter Bristol and not really Sarah’s baby?”. Then the heyday that ensued after the press learned that Bristol was indeed preggers out-of-wedlock; rumors of a Palin divorce from “unnamed sources, and other fabrications, these things certainly infringed into the personal life of the candidate Palin. To be able to just “make stuff up” in order to sell a newspaper, or in the case of the Jurnolist, to sell a favored candidate to the voters, is an outright abuse of power. So called reporters who engage in such antics should be called out for these libelous and slanderous statements.
IMHO, an honest reporter delves into a politician’s position on issues, policy stands, voting records, friends and associates, etc., and leaves out the other stuff that has no bearing on qualifications. I can point to Barny Frank as an example, he went to Congress in 1981 and did not reveal his homosexuality until 1987, do you think that if the voters had been aware of this little character issue that he would have been re-elected quite so easily? Yet the press did not have much to say about it until his boyfriend got in trouble running a gay escort service out of the Congressman’s house. Then there was another boyfriend given a lucrative position at FannyMae in an obvious Pay-for-Play scheme.
There are laws, ya know.
I guess the real question you’re asking is – would any congressional district in the USA knowingly send the boyfriend of a pimp to congress to represent them?
K.T.
That sums things up nicely.
And not to flog a dead horse too hard, but perhaps we ought to look more closely at long form birth certificates in the future. I still remain skeptical of Obama’s eligibility to serve in high office. Why else would he spend millions to fight multiple lawsuits when it would just be sooooo much easier and cheaper to produce the BC? I’m not the smartest man in the world, but I have figured out that the presence of smoke generally means there’s a fire.
Just sayin’.
“It is the prime function of a really first-rate newspaper to serve as a sort of permanent opposition in politics.”
This might explain why it is so hard to find a first rate paper anymore and why the circulation numbers of the rest are in a death-spiral.
One of the aspects I find most interesting about the entire J-List thing is that it was a “private club”, a place where they felt free to openly and unhesitantly express their feeling and opinions. Odd that those opinions were so often base and vulgar; these being high-minded, college-educated, elite, brain-trust types and all. It looks a lot like a Leftie version of a Klan meeting.
There seems to be an almost total lack of dispassionate, rational discussion, more a sense of a frat-house juvenile bunch of bullies out to get their way. It is truly sad to think that most of these people are graduates of respected Universities.
I don’t watch/read the MSM anymore…just too annoying. Does anyone know it the MSM is covering the Journolist story? What little MSM I’ve seen in passing…I’ve seen nothing on this. Can they REALLY get away with not covering it? Seems to me this is a huge story.
9. geokster
I would add another point.
At the beginning of the interview I would have the candidate advise all the viewers that a complete and unedited version of the interview would be made available at the candidate’s website after it was broadcast by the network. That would put a wrinkle in the “taken out of context” editing that has been the norm for the last twenty years or so.
Great point, Anton! Spot on!
If the interview is shown in its entirety, bloopers, outtakes, and all, the MSM folks can’t cherrypick the editing to create false impressions. The contrary side is true as well, of course, an empty suit will be revealed as being exactly that!
All conservative candidates should make the provision a complete, exact copy of the entire interview being delivered to the at the end of the interview be part of the appearance contract. In this digital age, that is a snap to do!
Mr. Driscoll:
You’ll pardon me if I don’t join you in breathlessly awaiting the Great Purge of Journolisters from their employment at purportedly unbiased media outlets, right?
The rational blowback from the Journolist revelations SHOULD be that Ezra Klein maintained a private self-selecting “professional black-list”.
But with the exception of David Weigel,(and perhaps one or two other hapless clowns), the rest of these flacks and hacks will make out just fine.
I think that when ” journalists” conspire to control information with the intent of helping a political candidate then they are not journalists. They should loose any legal ability to keep sources confidential. Would this be fun for some prosecutor in the future.
When I was growing up, it was a point of honor for both professors and journalists to not let their personal views creep into their teaching/reporting.
Even Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite kept their predilections under wraps until, later in life, they both felt freer to come out of the closet. (Cronkite had at least left active reporting before we were exposed to his full blown Leftism)
I never knew what my sundry political science professors believed personally, although their teaching assistants were less reticent about sharing their viewpoints.
A few years ago, I was stunned to hear a college professor say he felt duty bound to use his position to inculcate “correct” thinking into the brains of his captive audience.
Now we’ve got this cadre of dweebs parading as journalists, shallow in historical understanding & themselves coming out of institutions where their professors have been tweaking their brains for a very long time.
“Journalistic ethics” is, apparently, an oxymoron, while this crowd freely conspires to make politics happen along lines they personally think are correct, from their own narrow, brain dead and limited perspectives.
Other institutions are, apparently, not strong enough to counter and expose them in real time. This President is delighted when the prejudice goes in his favor, helps elect him, and scowls miserably at what still survives of media voices that see through him.
The depth to which we’ve descended cannot be measured. Suffice to say, it is profound.
Well said. Sadly, the low level of professionalism seems to be everywhere and objectivity has fallen into disfavor. We all lose when journalists act like cheerleaders, for either party. (with apologies to cheerleaders)
- Cronkite had at least left active reporting before we were exposed to his full blown Leftism
I don’t know. I think in reality it just took a lot of us a while to recognize full blown Leftism when we saw it. Certainly, Cronkite’s leftist “reporting” about the “unwinnable” war in Viet Nam was nothing but aid and comfort to the Communists.
As for the Journolist, the media was engaged in out-and-out deceit right from the very start of the campaign. Some of us noticed and commented on it then. Most didn’t care. Now look where we are.
In response to the reminder of Mencken’s dictum that “[i]t is the prime function of a really first-rate newspaper to serve as a sort of permanent opposition in politics” these JournoListers could always say, “But we *are* a permanent opposition — to conservatives and the Republican Party.”
Journalists, a descriptive term only, are leftwing radical ideology haters, and the old saying “misery loves company” fits right into the journolist’s purpose. It allowed the hate from the leftist Press to feed and prosper with pats on each others backs and challenged each to strive to be the best haters they could be.
Not only will the Journolisters not “make out fine,” they’ve managed to smear every member of their profession with this scandal. I don’t know who belonged, so I’ll trust none of them.
Journalist is now a synonym for fraudulent hack. Good job, guys.
Exactly. The left keeps trying to re-invent the wheel and in this case has taken a perfectly good profession (journalism) and flattened some of the edges with bias.
Look at the court and our constitution and the same thing has happened: a perfectly good document gets twisted into uselessness by lefty justices as Kagan certainly will do, once seated.
Or, how about education? We used to place quite high, now we’re graduating illiterates and socialist drones.
Essentially anything they (the left) get their hands on is changed in such a way as to lessen it’s value or usefulness- just like the wheel- which historically has served us well over the centuries.
I cringe when I think of the economy, the enviornment, and other areas where the left will perform the same un-needed repairs by re-inventing them too.
I wonder who on Journolist dug up the rape kit story and encouraged bloggers to use it to smear Palin?
I was forced to watch CNN’s coverage of the Republican National Convention and noticed that during Palin’s speech the director called for one of the hand-held video cameras to move around as far as possible backstage to capture a shot of the Governor speaking with her text scrolling by on the glass paddles of the ‘prompter.
Think about this: you rarely even SEE the ‘prompter in a video shot of Obama, but CNN wanted the world to see her reading her speech.
A cheap shot if there ever was one.
Tit-for-tat I suppose — I saw Fox coverage of an Obama speech where Fox got a similar angle. It was on the screen for maybe 10 seconds.
IMO cheap shots are crap like the rumors of Palin’s youngest being her grandson. That was one of the gaudiest of cheap shots. There was no basis in fact – just one moron blogger’s made up rumor that the rest of the MSM (Main Stream MORONS) ran with like a trout on a dry fly.
What we need is a pack of Jack Anderson-like journalists. IMO he was the last of the true investigative reporters.
#20 Belinda, The rape kit story was a total fabrication(that is a lie) that has been traced back to the Obama campaign.
what is the point of this article, that there are groups of left leaning journalists..? of course there are, just like groups of right leaning journalists. It is ignorant to suggest otherwise.
the only question regarding Governor Palin is Why..? she added no new voters to the the ticket, she energized those that would have already vote GOP. So what was the strategy behind her selection..?
McCain ended up with the same percentage that would have voted for him anyway, and the distraction and resulting friction and endless nonsense about her clothes, etc, only served to confuse his already weak campaign.
Politics 101; your running mate must add voters that were not previously leaning towards your ticket. If this is not accomplished, it is the wrong choice.
If you think adding Palin did not energize the Republicans, then you weren’t conscious during the campaign.
Alex,
As Jim Treacher wrote this week, “Old & busted: ‘Liberal media bias? Get real!’ New hotness: ‘Well, of COURSE the media has a liberal bias. Don’t act so surprised, rube!’”
As far as Palin, she might have added a fair number of Hillary-supporting PUMAs, if she hadn’t been eviscerated so quickly by the frightened JournoList and crew. She certainly shored up McCain’s standings with RINO-weary conservatives.
Ed, thank you for the response,
There is massive bias in media; liberal, conservative, and otherwise. Its part of the Media Empire and has been for decades, albeit today nobody cares if its out in the open. We don’t have journalism any longer, it is advertising and marketing wrapped in bad packaging.
A good article would be ownership structure of the worlds media, just let the facts speak for themselves. The Banking system would be another good article, ive yet to see anything resembling reality of the financial structure we are beholden too..investigative journalism is sorely missed.
Palin; she added nothing to the Ticket that was not already there. If a politician cannot reach outside their parties core, they can never be elected and should not be part of the ticket.
In response to both Ed and alex.. I’m going to try to kill two birds with a rock:
alex, you said, repeatedly:
~~Palin; she added nothing to the Ticket that was not already there. If a politician cannot reach outside their parties core, they can never be elected and should not be part of the ticket.
Read Ed’s response, again.. he is trying his level best to educate you.. he points out: ~~ As far as Palin, she might have added a fair number of Hillary-supporting PUMAs, if she hadn’t been eviscerated so quickly by the frightened JournoList and crew. She certainly shored up McCain’s standings with RINO-weary conservatives.
I agree with him, completely. It’s also conceivable this was an opportunity to ‘introduce’ Palin to the Big Time…
Can you think of a better way?
I had a really great reply to Alex and then hit a wrong button and it vanished.
What Helen said, X 10. Sarah Palin is now a force to be reckoned with within the GOP, maybe not as a presidential challenger in 2012, but still a woman with great influence on the direction of the party. Frankly, I think she’d be a good and effective successor to Micheal Steel at the RNC.
Geokster says: “maybe not as a presidential challenger in 2012.” And why not? Quite frankly, she is much more suitable to perform her duties as a POTUS than to do an administrative and vastly symbolic job of a RNC’s Chairman.
And the irrefutable proof is in the way she survived the unprecedented (for the US but not for the any communist country) onslaught by Obama’s monstrous, totalitarian propaganda machine.
And what more, she did it entirely on her own, with the unconditional support of her husband and best friend, Todd and a plethora of her dedicated fans.
The GOP’s NOMENKLATURA hasn’t lifted even a finger to help her. Quite the opposite; in some cases (Romney and Huckabee) couldn’t refuse themselves making disparaging jabs towards her. And McCain’s silence, when she was being attacked by the Lying Media and undermined by her own staff is even more shameful.
All that saga is a certificate to Palin’s incredible, almost super-human strenght of character and the strongest indication that she is superbly, both morally and profesionally prepared to lead, not only the US but the entire FREE WORLD in that dramatic moment.
If we are discussing core values and addressing them, then great, Governor Palin is a good choice. She can feed the core and revitalize them, act in a supportive role, and work raising funds from them. This will be the extent of her capacity for the GOP.
If we are discussing political strategy for the ticket, Governor Palin is not a good choice, UNLESS she is paired up with someone that the Core is not otherwise going to vote for.
And therein lies the problem; she cannot headline the ticket, that will never happen. I know many people here are die-hard Gov. Palin supporters and this is tough to read, sorry. But she does not attract support from powers that manage GOP funds and organization, so i don’t see how she can be placed to headline the ticket.
So we are left with Gov. Palin as VP on a ticket where the Nominee is not attracting the core of the GOP…unusual and difficult to see occurring.
Political strategy does not allow for passion or emotional attachment, it must be completely objective and cold calculating triangulation of varying interests and voting groups to achieve voter turnout. Everything else is secondary.
“How can anyone logically argue that Sarah Pallin [sic], a one-term governor of Alaska, is qualified to be President of the United States?”
Then in the next breath, they tell us how a one term senator from Illinois is the most qualified person to ever run for the office of President.
Who is it your quoting Mark..?
President Obama was a mistake, never said different. However President Obama has Zilch to do with Governor Palins ability to bring in the swing vote.
Boiled down version;
All things equal 40% of voting public will vote GOP, 40% of Voting Public will vote DEMO. It is that 20% that swings in the breeze where elections are won / lost. If Governor Palin cannot attract at least 12-15% of that swing vote, it is a mistake to place her on the ticket. The election is lost.
I kept it simple so you don’t get off track again.
We don’t want to replace our unloved, moslem-communist traitor, babykiller and pervert with that dimwit bimbo from Alaska. I’ll write in Alan Keyes before that! The GOP is filled with persons just as evil as the Dems. The good guys are not going to win in November because there are very few good guys. The GOPers may win some seats, but they are just as rotten as the Jackass Party. Taiwan, Belize or Singapore look better and better. Do you really want to live in a country filled with people who voted for obama?
“Do you really want to live in a country filled with people who voted for obama?”
Somehow, I manage to do that quite happily every day.
The better and more correct answer to the question: “Q: Sen. McCain, given Gov. Palin’s paltry experience, how is she qualified to be commander in chief?,” is NOT what was suggested, e.g., “A: Well, she has much experience as the Democratic nominee.” The better answer to this question is: “A: Gov. Palin is CURRENTLY the Commander-in-Chief of the National Guard of Alaska. She has deployed them XX number of times to locations such as XX for reasons of XX. How much experience does Candidate Sen. Obama have as CinC?” Palin was so much more qualified than Obama, and there were so many similar questions asked about Palin where the sharp contrast of her experience vs. Obama’s could have been related by McCain. If only he had truly wanted the Presidency, he would have and could have kicked major ass by comparing Palin’s experience with Obama’s lack thereof. McCain’s campaign really underscored what a poor campaigner he is, and revealed the fact that he never really had to campaign for his AZ Senate seat in all the years he was re-elected. He didn’t have a clue how to do it, as opposed to Palin, who was chomping at the bit to get at Biden and Obama. Unlike McCain, she exhibited very strong campaigning skills, and a true desire to win.