An online meeting place for liberal alleged journalists and academics is called, not surprisingly, Journolist. The people over at Tucker Carlson's website, Daily Caller, have acquired the archives of Journolist, and the content of those archives gives us a glimpse into the mindset of the liberal media. It ain't pretty. In fact, it's downright ugly. The alleged reporters on Journolist come from Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon, the New Republic, the Nation, the Washington Independent, etc. They come from pretty much the whole range of the liberal media.
Daily Caller has only begun to release the Journolist content. In it's first release, Daily Caller showed how the media conspired to kill stories about the hate-filled Reverend Wright in 2008 in order to protect candidate Barack Obama:
The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”
Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”
Gibson and Stephanopoulos are Democrat-friendly media types, to say the least, but still, the "journalists" at Journolist didn't like their candidate Obama being asked any tough questions. No way. Who the hell did Gibson and Stephapoulos think they were interviewing, Sarah Palin or some other GOP'er ? Obama was only supposed to get softball questions, and prying into his background was definitely verboten. After all, he was only trying to become President Of The United States. There was no reason for America to know anything about his background. For that matter, we still don't know that much about him.
The Journolisters started strategizing:
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.”
Other Journolisters disagreed with Ackerman's 'pick any conservative and call them a racist' strategy, but tellingly, NOT ONE DISAGREED ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT'S DESPICABLE TO FALSELY ACCUSE SOMEONE OF BEING A RACIST. Instead, some Journolisters disagreed because they thought the strategy might backfire on Obama. Journalistic principles and integrity was a non-issue. They were all on board with falsely smearing a conservative, any conservative. It was just a question of whether it would work or not. Lately, it seems pretty obvious the liberal media has concluded that falsely calling conservatives racists is a GREAT idea and will work just fine. They've been at it non-stop for well over a year.
All the Journolisters did agree that ABC must be stopped (from vetting Obama):
Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”
Of course, it absolutely was about defending Obama. Did you ever hear the liberal media complain about any questions that were asked of Palin, or the army of media that descended on Wasilla, Alaska to rip through every shred of Palin's life ? Nope. Nothing was out-of-bounds regarding Palin, and the Journolisters were the attack dogs. What the Journolisters engage in has nothing to do with journalism, and everything to do with advocacy at ALL costs.
The Journolisters decided to write a letter to protest against the media asking...Obama...questions (er, isn't that what the media is supposed to do ?):
The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”
I certainly agree that Media Matters has tons of experience in that sort of thing, which helps explain why a former Media Matters employee who now works at another liberal propaganda site, ThinkProgress, has created a fraudulent video that falsely accused the Tea Party of promoting racism. ThinkProgress manufactured another fake Tea Party racism story a few days later.
Daily Caller wrote another article about the sweethearts over at Journolist. In this story, the freedom-of-the-press-loving Journolisters advocated government censorship of Fox News:
“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.
Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”
But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”
Scherer seemed alarmed [thank god someone was alarmed]. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”
John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”
To the Journolisters, freedom of the press isn't a constitutionally protected right, it's just a tactic. Censorship is fine with them if it furthers their goals. Such decent Americans, this bunch. And don't even get me started on these Journolist scumbags referring to Fox News as "unethical" and "shameless." If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.
The compassionate Journolisters also talked about how they'd like Rush Limbaugh to have a heart attack so they could stand by and watch him die. This is sweet:
If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.
But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, that isn’t what you’d do at all.
In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.” [Oh honey, I've known for a looong time how much hate there is in you folks].
Spitz’s hatred for Limbaugh seems intemperate, even imbalanced. On Journolist, where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies, it barely raised an eyebrow.
The Tea Party movement was also vilified. I know, what a shocker:
In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama’s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.
On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.
“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”
Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed. “They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,” Yeselson wrote. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? 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).”
“I’m not saying these guys are capital F-fascists,” added blogger Lindsay Beyerstein, “but they don’t want limited government. Their desired end looks more like a corporate state than a rugged individualist paradise. The rank and file wants a state that will reach into the intimate of citizens when it comes to sex, reproductive freedom, censorship, and rampant incarceration in the name of law and order.”
Whew. Alinsky would be so proud. At least us Tea Partiers aren't "capital F-fascists." That's a relief. For a minute there, I thought they REALLY hated us.
It's about time Mirriam-Webster adds some new liberal definitions for the words 'racist' and 'Nazi' to it's dictionary, because to liberals those words now mean 'anyone who disagrees with liberals.' It's really nothing more than that. I can't even take this stuff seriously anymore. It's like watching a progressive disease, with an emphasis on the word 'progressive.'
Clearly, these are some.....Serious Journolists. Seriously demented, but serious nonetheless.
About This Blog