Liberal reporters and 'Jounolist'

Forums: Politics, Media, Bias, Op Duped By Op
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Interesting. Looks like some of the more liberal media has been caught with their pants down with their partisan posts at Jounolist.

Jounolist was an email listserv made up of hundreds of liberal commentators and journalists. Its existence made conservatives very mad, because they were not allowed to join it.

This series of emails is even more explosive than the ones that took down Dave Weigel. This one proves that there was a vast, left-wing conspiracy to call Republicans racist and force everyone to stop talking about Reverend Jeremiah Wright in 2008.

Look how far it went:

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.

Well! This proves that weekly columnist and political science professor Thomas Schaller conspired to draft an open letter -- the most insidious form of correspondence -- signed by his fellow travelers in this secret plot.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/20/journolist_reverend_wright

But why should this surprise anyone?

Anyone recall RatherGate? Phoney, forged military orders supposedly issued to Bush showing favoritism in the National; Guard. Rather's leftist producer, Mary Mapes, coordinated the '60 Minutes' segment where Rather 'revealed' the scandal with Kerry operatives in the DNC and their 'Operation Fortunate Son' campaign.

The liberal media has always worked with liberal politicans. I think it comes from being picked on in high school... Wink

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,521 • Replies: 16

No top replies

@A Lone Voice,

Quote:

Interesting. Looks like some of the more liberal media has been caught with their pants down with their partisan posts at Jounolist.

And what branch of rocket science are you in? You don't even realize just how deep your own stupidity is, ALV.

an open letter -- the most insidious form of correspondence -- signed by his fellow travelers in this secret plot.

I think that they'll likely get the electric chair for this and they, of course, deserve it.

1 Reply

How to tag this one, hmmmmm? It's a keeper for sure!

0 Replies

@JTT,

An open letter? Do you even know what the issue is here?

Journolist was a 'members only' website; looks like someone snitched them off, and revealed their posts to the world at large.

You are aware of David Weigel being forced to resign from the WAPO?

Washington Post blogger David Weigel resigns after messages leak
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 26, 2010

David Weigel, who was hired by The Washington Post to blog about conservatives, resigned Friday after leaked online messages showed him disparaging some Republicans and commentators in highly personal terms.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504413.html

The key word here, silly lib, is LEAKED...

You fools live in your own little echo chamber, don't you?

Expand your mind a bit; it will make you a better person...

2 Replies

@A Lone Voice,

Quote:

You fools live in your own little echo chamber, don't you?

An open letter is an example of an echo chamber?

You were so intent on gotchaing somebody that you got gotchaed and I doubt you understand that now even when it's been pointed out to you.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Please describe how the Journolist website was an 'open letter'?

You do know what it is we're discussing? Journolist was an invitation only board for liberal reporters, along with some from academia? Started by Ezra Klein?

I really believe you do not know about this, and I'm seeing the usual lib = good, conservative = bad kneejerk reaction which is so common here...

0 Replies

@A Lone Voice,

Quote:

Journolist was a 'members only' website; looks like someone snitched them off, and revealed their posts to the world at large.

It wasn't a website at all. It was an email correspondence group. You have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about, again....

I love how every now and then you read something that you think must be particularly cutting to Liberals, come post it here on A2K, and inevitably display your lack of mastery of the subject for all to see. Tell us - what exactly is the big deal here?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@A Lone Voice,

Quote:

I really believe you do not know about this, and I'm seeing the usual lib = good, conservative = bad kneejerk reaction which is so common here...

I don't believe that you can find me saying that conservative = bad. I did say that one particular conservative, you, was awfully dumb. But you hardly stand alone in this. How many others, I can't rightly say, but right on up to Tucker himself, ... really ******* dumb. It's hard to comprehend how dumb.

You post an article that you unwittingly think [I'm not sure that "unwittingly" quite captures it, but ...] disparages liberals/Democrats when in fact, it is an article, dripping with sarcasm, about just how dumb conservatives/Republicans can be.

I mean, come on, ALV, the first sentence was a dead giveaway, ... again, how did you miss it? The part about Tucker Carlson, him doing real journalism. I don't believe that Tucker could spell the word.

And,

This one proves that there was a vast, left-wing conspiracy to call Republicans racist and force everyone to stop talking about Reverend Jeremiah Wright in 2008.

'vast', do you know what that means?

Look how far it went:

Yeah, look at how far this VAST left-wing conspiracy [which was limited to the guys on this private email group] went.

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.

He upped the ante from there.

“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.

Well! This proves that weekly columnist and political science professor Thomas Schaller conspired to draft an open letter -- the most insidious form of correspondence -- signed by his fellow travelers in this secret plot.

He created, nay, he conspired to draft an OPEN LETTER, now that's the stuff of conspiracies, let me tell you, in fact, it was Nixon's favorite trick, OPEN letters to the media telling them what he was planning to do with respect to Watergate and the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia.

See the writer of that article points it out, clearly, so no one but a moron could possibly miss his meaning,

an open letter -- the most insidious form of correspondence .

And what puts the clincher on just how malevolent this conspiracy was, he got a bunch of other people to sign this SECRET open letter.

0 Replies

Got the article open!

Quote:

Journolist scandal: Liberals planned open letter
Tucker Carlson uncovers the vast conspiracy to defend Barack Obama in 2008

I was wrong. You didn't even have to go as far as the first sentence. The title, above, tells it all.

Please, you've got me so curious now, ALV, how in heaven's name did you ever think that this pointed to a scandal that illustrated just how devious those who supported Obama could be?

No, really, I wanna know!

There were nine paragraphs, not counting the outside quotes. Not a one of those paragraphs, in any way, shape or form, supported your wacky notions.

Really, I'm not shittin' ya, I wanna know!

1 Reply

@JTT,

Because the article from Salon (which you might agree is a left wing rag) essentially dismissed the whole issue.

It cherry picked (worse than it accused Tucker of doing) bits and pieces of the isse to provide - dripping with sarcasm, as you say - the typical left wing approach to any issue where the left is caught dirty.

Hmmm; members of the left wing media discussing how they can help elect a left wing Dem as president. Who would have guessed?

As you saw from my second link (the Washington Post) the matter was treated a bit more fairly.

You do realize the 'open letter' was never sent?

BTW, did you chuckle at Hillary's 'vast right wing conspiracy' nonsense from a decade or so ago? Bet not...

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I believe I also referred to it as a board? Actually, it was a bit more than a chain link email, wouldn't you say?

This is kind of cutting to libs, don't you think? Discussing amongst themselves how to best shape the news to elect a liberal? I could just imagine the progressives here if a group of right wing reporters or academics had done so.

But then again, that would never happen. You don't find many people with conservative views hired in the media and academic left wing echo chambers...

But you're correct about me coming here occassionally and pointing out a left wing president's and congress' flaws. Just returning the favor when people such as yourself eagerly did so a few years ago when people who disgusted you were in charge. Smile

1 Reply

@A Lone Voice,

Quote:

But then again, that would never happen. You don't find many people with conservative views hired in the media ... left wing echo chambers...

Some might suggest that you have cojones, but it is clearly just plain old stupidity.

Quote:

More than 20 years after Vice President Spiro Agnew's famous attack on the American press, the myth of the "liberal media" endures.

...

Agnew's rhetorical barrage in November 1969 was to reverberate into the century's last decade. However deceptive, it struck a populist chord of resentment against media conglomerates. Rahter than challenge the "liberal media" myth, right-leaning owners have encouraged it -- and media under their control have popularized it.

The VP conveniently neglected to mention that a year earlier the majority of endorsing newspaper editorials backed the Nixon-Agnew ticket. And three years later, ... the same ... duo received a whopping 93 percent of the country's newspaper endorsements. (Since 1932 every Republican presidential nominee except B Goldwater has received the majority of endorsements from US daily newspapers.

-------------------------
Reagan 77 % in '80 & 86% in '84
G Bush 70% in '88
--------------------------

Reporters' "liberalism" has been exaggerated quiote a bit, as Duke University scholar Robert Entman found ...

The much ballyhooed conclusions that journalists are of a predominately leftish bent failed to square with data compiled by researchers without a strongly conservative agenda.

Mark Hertsgaard has astutely pinpointed "the deeper flaw in the liberal-press thesis" -- "it completely ignored those whom the journalists worked for. Reporters could be as liberal as they wished and it would not change what news they were allowed to report or how they could report it. America's major news organizations were owned and controlled by some of the largest and richest corporations in the US.

owned by people who were anything but liberal

To the extent that personal opinions influence news content, they are most often the beliefs of the President of the US and other high federal, state and local officials, since they dominate the news." [Herbert Gans - sociologist]

"In terms of the syndicated columnists, if there is an ideological bias, it's more and more to the right" [Reagan's media point man, Donald Gergan]

The more honest conservatives [exclude yourself, ALV] readily admit to an asymmetry in their favor. ... Adam Myerson, editor of Policy Review magazine, ..., which drew up much of the Reagnite agenda. "Journalism today is very different from what it was 10 to 20 years ago. Today, op-ed pages are dominated by conservatives."

Unreliable Sources - A guide to detecting bias in news media

MA Lee and N Solomon

Quote:

Even open-minded people will often find themselves unable to take seriously the likes of [Noam] Chomsky, [Edward] Herman, [Howard] Zinn and [Susan] George on first encountering their work; it just does not seem possible that we could be so mistaken in what we believe. The individual may assume that these writers must be somehow joking, wildly over-stating the case, paranoid, or have some sort of axe to grind. We may actually become angry with them for telling us these terrible things about our society and insist that this simply 'can't be true'. It takes real effort to keep reading, to resist the reassuring messages of the mass media and be prepared to consider the evidence again."

David Edwards - Burning All Illusions

1 Reply

@A Lone Voice,

Quote:

Because the article from Salon (which you might agree is a left wing rag) essentially dismissed the whole issue.

What they dismissed is the incredibly, profoundly stupid rantings of a bunch of right wing idiots. And you fall squarely into that category because you quoted it like it was the gospel showing the duplicity of liberals.

And you have the temerity to try to fudge your way out of your own dumbass mistake.

Quote:

BTW, did you chuckle at Hillary's 'vast right wing conspiracy' nonsense from a decade or so ago? Bet not...[/quote

No, I don't remember it. But I'm more than willing to hear a balanced observer like you fill me in.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
But then again, that would never happen. You don't find many people with conservative views hired in the media ... left wing echo chambers...

Some might suggest that you have cojones, but it is clearly just plain old stupidity.

Quote:
More than 20 years after Vice President Spiro Agnew's famous attack on the American press, the myth of the "liberal media" endures.

...

Agnew's rhetorical barrage in November 1969 was to reverberate into the century's last decade. However deceptive, it struck a populist chord of resentment against media conglomerates. Rahter than challenge the "liberal media" myth, right-leaning owners have encouraged it -- and media under their control have popularized it.

The VP conveniently neglected to mention that a year earlier the majority of endorsing newspaper editorials backed the Nixon-Agnew ticket. And three years later, ... the same ... duo received a whopping 93 percent of the country's newspaper endorsements. (Since 1932 every Republican presidential nominee except B Goldwater has received the majority of endorsements from US daily newspapers.

-------------------------
Reagan 77 % in '80 & 86% in '84
G Bush 70% in '88
--------------------------

Reporters' "liberalism" has been exaggerated quiote a bit, as Duke University scholar Robert Entman found ...

The much ballyhooed conclusions that journalists are of a predominately leftish bent failed to square with data compiled by researchers without a strongly conservative agenda.

Mark Hertsgaard has astutely pinpointed "the deeper flaw in the liberal-press thesis" -- "it completely ignored those whom the journalists worked for. Reporters could be as liberal as they wished and it would not change what news they were allowed to report or how they could report it. America's major news organizations were owned and controlled by some of the largest and richest corporations in the US.

owned by people who were anything but liberal

To the extent that personal opinions influence news content, they are most often the beliefs of the President of the US and other high federal, state and local officials, since they dominate the news." [Herbert Gans - sociologist]

"In terms of the syndicated columnists, if there is an ideological bias, it's more and more to the right" [Reagan's media point man, Donald Gergan]

The more honest conservatives [exclude yourself, ALV] readily admit to an asymmetry in their favor. ... Adam Myerson, editor of Policy Review magazine, ..., which drew up much of the Reagnite agenda. "Journalism today is very different from what it was 10 to 20 years ago. Today, op-ed pages are dominated by conservatives."

Unreliable Sources - A guide to detecting bias in news media

MA Lee and N Solomon

Quote:
Even open-minded people will often find themselves unable to take seriously the likes of [Noam] Chomsky, [Edward] Herman, [Howard] Zinn and [Susan] George on first encountering their work; it just does not seem possible that we could be so mistaken in what we believe. The individual may assume that these writers must be somehow joking, wildly over-stating the case, paranoid, or have some sort of axe to grind. We may actually become angry with them for telling us these terrible things about our society and insist that this simply 'can't be true'. It takes real effort to keep reading, to resist the reassuring messages of the mass media and be prepared to consider the evidence again."

David Edwards - Burning All Illusions

A link, perhaps?

Or is the fact that you are using a decades old study to prove your point an indication that you can't provide one?

2008: 495 to 215 for Obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008

2004: Kerry 128, Bush 105

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/endorse_10-26-04.html

Go ahead and do the research for results from 2000 and the nineties.

So to get this correct, you're stating there is no liberal media bias today?

A majority of the U.S. population considers itself conservative instead of liberal; the left, existing in its own echo chamber, reports the news based on their own ideology , as the Journolist issue shows.

And it looks like the left here exists in that very same ideology bubble...

1 Reply

@A Lone Voice,

Quote:

So to get this correct, you're stating there is no liberal media bias today?

Show how there is. Show that there hasn't been a steadily increasing concentration of all media sources in the hands of the most conservative people in America.

Explain how the Bush gang of criminals was able to ram through an illegal invasion, two of them actually, based on a pack of lies, with the liberal press/media standing guard.

Quote:

Or is the fact that you are using a decades old study to prove your point an indication that you can't provide one?

All you and those like you operate on is a decades old meme.

You still haven't explained how an incisive observer like you could be so easily duped by language that you use everyday.

Folks like you just don't think, you listen to the Becks, the O'reilly's the Banalities and you just mouth the memes that they mouth.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
So to get this correct, you're stating there is no liberal media bias today?

Show how there is. Show that there hasn't been a steadily increasing concentration of all media sources in the hands of the most conservative people in America.

Explain how the Bush gang of criminals was able to ram through an illegal invasion, two of them actually, based on a pack of lies, with the liberal press/media standing guard.

Quote:
Or is the fact that you are using a decades old study to prove your point an indication that you can't provide one?

All you and those like you operate on is a decades old meme.

You still haven't explained how an incisive observer like you could be so easily duped by language that you use everyday.

Folks like you just don't think, you listen to the Becks, the O'reilly's the Banalities and you just mouth the memes that they mouth.

So you can't provide a link to your timely study from, what, 1982?

I actually agree with you that the media took a hike during the beginning of Bush's first term. But it wasn't because they were conservative, or even moderate. It was because of 9-11.

Instead of reporting, they were essentially cheerleaders. But that certainly went away by the time of the 2004 election. Recall Rathergate and his producer working with the DNC?

But anyway, 9-11 affected the media just as it affected everyone else in the country. Big trauma caused the media to fall asleep on the job.

I wonder what caused them to fall asleep during the 2008 election? Besides the coordinated effort, as we see on Journolist, to help Obama get elected?

Libs such as yourself are lazy thinkers; it's much too easy to blame Beck, Limbaugh, or any other personality to avoid discussing actual ideas. There's a reason over 40 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservative, while only 20 percent identify themselves as liberal.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx

Or do you just blame 'the stupid Americans'...?

1 Reply

@A Lone Voice,

Quote:

Or do you just blame 'the stupid Americans'...?

You can't help but. GWB was elected, twice for god's sake when it was apparent from the outset that the man was a dolt.

Not to mention you're getting royally duped thru your own stupidity.

0 Replies

Liberal reporters and 'Jounolist'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know