Naming Names on the JournoList
At Liberty Pundits, Mark Levin and Melissa Clouthier round-up 62 of the apparently 400 names on the JournoList; click over to her Melissa's post to scan the list. Is it accurate? Well, there's one easy way to find out!
Afterward, Melissa writes:
Let’s see, folks from the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time and Newsweek magazine. These are not children. These are people we’re supposed to respect as objective, “smart” (a friend said this about the whole notion of “smart”: I do get weary of the left needing to apply the word “smart” to themselves all the time. To make that distinction, “a smart…conversation”
as opposed to all the stupid ones that don’t involve them. because if they don’t involve them, they are by definition stupid…), and fair.
The Journolist story is important. It demonstrates a inbred, ideological group-think that drives the modern media in both print and on TV.
As Kathy Shaidle adds:
This morning, the Daily Caller rolled out additional damning details from the archives of Journolist, the “missing link” that finally proves the existence of that once mythical creature, Liberalis Medius Biasus.
I remember when everyone from “media guru” Jeff Jarvis to Glenn Beck (as he recalled on the air yesterday) assured us (often with an indulgent chuckle) that while there was some ideological self-selection going on in the makeup of the nation’s newsrooms, hey, it wasn’t like reporters and editors were, you know, calling each other up every morning, plotting about which stories they were going to bury and which conservatives they’d smear today.
That was crazy talk!
Ooops. Turns out, the only thing wrong with that paranoid, nutbar conspiracy theory was the assumption that reporters were still using the phone.
Though in retrospect, that might not have been a bad idea for them if they still were.
Related: "Old & busted: ‘Liberal media bias? Get real!’ New hotness: ‘Well, of COURSE the media has a liberal bias. Don’t act so surprised, rube!’"
Related: Orrin Judd adds:
The tone of many of the missives these folks sent each other seems unfortunate--wishing death or harm to people with whom they have political differences--and the presence of some serious reporters on the list is disturbing, but, for the most part, if a bunch of liberal opinion writers want to bitch amongst themselves about how awful the Right is, the exercise is pretty harmless. If anything, the danger is to themselves, as they could begin to mistake their little bubble for reality. But, for instance, our friend Rick Perlstein was on the list and, in the meantime, he also had his own list of pet conservatives from whom he'd gather the opposing viewpoints.So there's nothing wrong with the list per se. Nor does this seem like a conspiracy to shape the news, no matter how much a few participants might have wished it to be one.
On the other hand, it's awfully hard to take seriously the indignation of the participants and their friends that the contents of the list leaked. One struggles to recall any of them expressing similar concerns when the press has been the recipient of leaks regarding conversations within government, business, the political parties etc. And it won't do to claim that they are private figures. We afford the Press certain special rights and privileges precisely because it serves a public or quasi-public function. Just as they often expose what people thought were private communications, because they believe there is a news value inherent to those communications, so too must they live with the fact that their own communications may be newsworthy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?
Serpico and Karen Silkwood could not be reached for comment.