PDA

View Full Version : The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy




bobbyw24
07-22-2010, 05:10 AM
By FRED BARNES

When I'm talking to people from outside Washington, one question inevitably comes up: Why is the media so liberal? The question often reflects a suspicion that members of the press get together and decide on a story line that favors liberals and Democrats and denigrates conservatives and Republicans.

My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal. If they came from West Point or engineering school, this wouldn't be the case.

Now, after learning I'd been targeted for a smear attack by a member of an online clique of liberal journalists, I'm inclined to amend my response. Not to say there's a media conspiracy, but at least to note that hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.

My guess is that this and other revelations about JournoList will deepen the distrust of the national press. True, participants in the online clubhouse appear to hail chiefly from the media's self-identified left wing. But its founder, Ezra Klein, is a prominent writer for the Washington Post. Mr. Klein shut down JournoList last month—a wise decision.

It's thanks to Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller website that we know something about JournoList, though the emails among the liberal journalists were meant to be private. (Mr. Carlson hasn't revealed how he obtained the emails.) In June, the Daily Caller disclosed a series of JournoList musings by David Weigel, then a Washington Post blogger assigned to cover conservatives. His emails showed he loathes conservatives, and he was subsequently fired.

This week, Mr. Carlson produced a series of JournoList emails from April 2008, when Barack Obama's presidential bid was in serious jeopardy. Videos of the antiwhite, anti-American sermons of his Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had surfaced, first on ABC and then other networks.

WSJ.com Columnist John Fund reports on a media scandal. Also, Columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady breaks down the President's pledge to end bailouts and analyzes the Fed Chairman's latest visit to Capitol Hill.

JournoList contributors discussed strategies to aid Mr. Obama by deflecting the controversy. They went public with a letter criticizing an ABC interview of Mr. Obama that dwelled on his association with Mr. Wright. Then, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent proposed attacking Mr. Obama's critics as racists. He wrote:

"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. . . . This makes them 'sputter' with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704684604575381083191313448.html

YumYum
07-22-2010, 05:26 AM
There is another reason that journalist tend to be more liberal biased. C-Span did an interview with a re-known journalist who explained that during the Bush years journalist had to be very careful on what they wrote in fear of not only losing their jobs, but losing their lives.

Journalist were compressed in being able to express themselves under Bush/Chaney, and now, with a new president who allows journalist more freedom, we are experiencing a backlash from the Bush administration's suppression of journalism.

hugolp
07-22-2010, 05:41 AM
Amazing.

I sometimes have thoughs on this direction (media conspiracies and stuff) but try to put them asside thinking that is my own mind trying to rationalize what its just randomness.

It turns out I am still very innocent.

Cowlesy
07-22-2010, 06:08 AM
Then, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent proposed attacking Mr. Obama's critics as racists. He wrote:

"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. . . . This makes them 'sputter' with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

WOW. Checkmate.

Elwar
07-22-2010, 07:19 AM
:)

specsaregood
07-22-2010, 07:24 AM
C-Span did an interview with a re-known journalist who explained that during the Bush years journalist had to be very careful on what they wrote in fear of not only losing their jobs, but losing their lives.


If this was true, then you should have no problem listing me a handful of reporters that were murdered or died mysteriously during the bush years. You may begin.

jmdrake
07-22-2010, 02:10 PM
Shades of Operation Mockingbird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird) minus the secret decoder ring. I wonder if Fred Barnes is considering filing a libel suit?

osan
07-22-2010, 02:19 PM
...hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList...

...its founder, Ezra Klein, is a prominent writer for the Washington Post. Mr. Klein shut down JournoList last month—a wise decision.

Huh.... I have JournoList pages up and on this very browser as I type. Was it resuscitated?

As for "conspiracies", Barnes is pretty well on the money in both cases. I don't believe that journalists at large are part of any dark centrally-originated conspiracy. There is no need for it, just as the liberty movement requires no central base of control. Each of these "camps" represents cultures unto themselves and each has its own rules, even if only tacitly. If you're a young kid going into journalism school you will be introduced to that culture and its attendant rules. If you are an average young person, you will abide by those rules because you will want to remain in that world and know that if you do not, you will be shunned. Most people appear to care enough about inclusion to sell at least some of their principles for that sake. This is simple, average human behavior as may be commonly observed. There are those who swim against that current, but they are the exception rather than the rule, unfortunately. That' however, may be changing - good news for us.

From what I may loosely refer to as a "statistical point of view", there will always be some proportion of that sold-our-souls-for-the-sake-of-inclusion contingent who, for whatever reasons, genuinely take up the liberal cause and get involved in the extreme sorts of dishonest activities that Barnes cites in his article. Probably happens on the conservative side, too. It's politics, after all, and this sort of thing is only to be expected. That it is being exposed is great, and I hope that the bitterness and bile of the typical progressive liberal will be exposed in ever more damning ways and degrees. It cannot hurt the cause of liberty that these people are exposed as the wretched, peevish shrews they tend to be. I believe the same for the false, war-mongering "conservatives" who seem to think that this ridiculous crusade in the middle east is the best thing since sliced bread.

Keep exposing them all. Destroy their credibility. Destroy the arguments underpinning their bankrupt ideals, world views, and "solutions". Hammer away at them relentlessly with the truth until their positions are beaten to lifeless pulps such that even the most dishonest and imbecilic amongst us will not be able to publicly support them without looking like that which they are and drawing the ire of every decent and clued-in person around them.

Wow... I think I just had a Rev. BillyBob moment.

osan
07-22-2010, 02:33 PM
There is another reason that journalist tend to be more liberal biased. C-Span did an interview with a re-known journalist who explained that during the Bush years journalist had to be very careful on what they wrote in fear of not only losing their jobs, but losing their lives.

Based on fact or bullshit? Bush is scum, but not worse than Obama and in retrospect, arguably better... though this gets into degrees of "dead" and "pregnant", methinks.


Journalist were compressed in being able to express themselves under Bush/Chaney, and now, with a new president who allows journalist more freedom, we are experiencing a backlash from the Bush administration's suppression of journalism.

Any different now? Obama and his handlers are even worse. I blame the whorishness of the MSM for not taking Bush to task for his shameful and criminal actions in the wake of 9/11. I blame them equally for the kid-glove treatment they afford the miscreant currently stinking up the Whitehouse.

They coddled Bush up until there was less than a year remaining to his tenure and then they turned on him like wolves. Where was their fear of death then? Such claims are unvarnished bullshit. What, they suddenly got Jesus and their fear of death miraculously fled them? PUH-LEEEEEEZE. Most of those sorts are scumbags who go as the wind blows - they seem to have not the merest shred of personal or professional integrity because those ad dollars feel just a bit too good to put at risk. Fuck those assholes.

osan
07-22-2010, 02:34 PM
If this was true, then you should have no problem listing me a handful of reporters that were murdered or died mysteriously during the bush years. You may begin.

I hope you're not holding your breath.

Brian4Liberty
07-22-2010, 02:46 PM
As for "conspiracies", Barnes is pretty well on the money in both cases. I don't believe that journalists at large are part of any dark centrally-originated conspiracy. There is no need for it, just as the liberty movement requires no central base of control. Each of these "camps" represents cultures unto themselves and each has its own rules, even if only tacitly.

In addition, it doesn't take a "JournoList" for media "cooperation" to occur. There are luncheons, cocktail parties, dinner parties, family dinners, religious holidays, pillow talk, etc. Many ways for the group think and coordination to take place. And we can't forget that editors, managers and writers get to exert their power too.

Anymore, the word "conspiracy" is a way to discredit anyone who talks about certain trends that reflect common, ordinary, everyday human behavior.

michaelwise
07-22-2010, 02:50 PM
What Are the Race Baiters Trying to Prevent? More Race Crimes?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How would more race crimes be possible? We have many laws on the books making race crimes illegal. What are we going to do, repeal the race crime laws? What is the possibility of that happening? Zero percent?

The race baiting card is the only thing the administration has left. I wouldn't be surprised if the firing of that woman was planned to get more race baiting in the news to distract from the real issues.

I don't believe there is more racism in America. I believe there is less and less. There are no police reports to prove out more racism.

Where are the police reports of burning crosses on lawns and lynchings in America? There are none. They are making a huge issue out of nothing to waste TV news time on talking about a human interest story, a non issue.

Human interest stories have no direct affect on you. They are a complete distraction. Human interest stories are designed to destroy you.

Update:
The tea parties are not Anti-Africanites. They are not Anti-Mexicanites, They are not Anti-Latinoites. They are not Anti-Semites. They do not spew Anti-Africanism. They do not spew Anti-Mexicanism. They do not spew Anti-Latinoism. They do not spew Anti-Semitism. They do not make Anti-Africanic statements. They do not make Anti-Maxicanic statements. They do not make Anti-Latinoic statements. They do not make Anti-Semitic statements. "Racism" is the term that puts all of this stuff under one roof. Smart people can understand this. They can tell with proof when a specific person or group is being discriminated against. Most people can't.

The Tea parties promote Constitutional liberty and the rule of law.
Political cartoons are perfectly acceptable bashing a single person or group of people for their destructive ways.
The only obvious racist symbol I know is the KKK robe, because they made it so.

Make a list of racist symbols that are not acceptable so people will know not to use them. Here I'll start you out;

1) KKK Robe.

michaelwise
07-22-2010, 02:53 PM
I just registered journolist,org

Any ideas on what I should do with it?

I was thinking a "Fred Thompson forum" type of liberal media haven.

Or just putting up bits of the archive as they are made available...

Or a combination of both.

Talk about Jury Nullification and the people's power.

Romulus
07-22-2010, 03:17 PM
In addition, it doesn't take a "JournoList" for media "cooperation" to occur. There are luncheons, cocktail parties, dinner parties, family dinners, religious holidays, pillow talk, etc. Many ways for the group think and coordination to take place. And we can't forget that editors, managers and writers get to exert their power too.

Anymore, the word "conspiracy" is a way to discredit anyone who talks about certain trends that reflect common, ordinary, everyday human behavior.

yep. The conspiracy card is = to the race card. Attack the person, not the merit, is the MO of someone who has no argument.

Pericles
07-22-2010, 06:14 PM
Anyone notice a correlation between the decline in the quality of US news reporting with the number of reporters with degrees in Journalism.

Seems like the same thing happening with government staff and degrees in political Science.

Just sayin'.