On Jounolist

[Kathianne]

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/aug/01/controversy-proves-collusion-among-liberal/


Controversy proves collusion among liberal journalists
Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Conservatives have long claimed that the media is biased against them and tries hard to shape stories in ways that help Democrats and hurt Republicans. This has sometimes been dismissed as paranoia - as in my former MSNBC co-blogger Eric Alterman's book, "What Liberal Media?" - but it turns out to be truer than they imagined.

If this were a Hollywood movie, there would have been clandestine meetings in basements or bars or parking garages. But since it was real life, it was just an e-mail list, called "JournoList," set up by the Washington Post's Ezra Klein. It had over 400 members, including reporters at top publications like the Post, the New York Times, Newsweek, Politico, PBS, Time, etc.

Like most email lists, much of the content was profane or sophomoric - like Alterman's reference to Bush supporters as "f***ing Nascar retards," public radio producer Sarah Spitz's expressed desire to stand by laughing as Rush Limbaugh expired from a heart attack, or blogger Spencer Ackerman's fantasies about shoving conservative pundits through plate-glass windows. Such explosions might raise doubts about these figures' objectivity or ability to cover news honestly, but overall they are more embarrassing than incriminating.

But there was worse. Some JournoList members talked about getting the FCC to shut down Fox News, or about denying web traffic to rivals deemed too conservative. And, most troubling, there were concerted efforts to choose a storyline and spread it across the outlets for which they all worked, so as to manipulate the public's perceptions. When John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, JournoList participants coordinated their attacks...

[Little-Acorn]

This is a major bombshell.

And how many of the mainstream media have plastered it across their front pages?

Let me guess:

Zero.

Except Fox News.

How'd I do?

[Gaffer]

This is a major bombshell.

And how many of the mainstream media have plastered it across their front pages?

Let me guess:

Zero.

Except Fox News.

How'd I do?

Your batting 1000 so far.

[BoogyMan]

Looks like batting 1000 to me. Liberals, especially liberal journalist morons, are typically hypocritical as they implement their do as we say not as we do type of mind numbing foolishness.


This is a major bombshell.

And how many of the mainstream media have plastered it across their front pages?

Let me guess:

Zero.

Except Fox News.

How'd I do?

[Palin Rider]

This is no bombshell: journalists have been talking to each other since the first newspaper was published.

They can (and do) "collude" about articles all they want: as I said, it's nothing new. The editors still have the final say about what gets run.

[Kathianne]

This is no bombshell: journalists have been talking to each other since the first newspaper was published.

They can (and do) "collude" about articles all they want: as I said, it's nothing new. The editors still have the final say about what gets run.

Yes, this was different. Sure the city reporters/Washington reporters, would meet in local pubs and discuss whatever. This was nationwide, meetings online discussing memes to back Obama and discredit those they deemed 'undesirable.' That is pretty much Soviet style government media.

[Palin Rider]

Yes, this was different. Sure the city reporters/Washington reporters, would meet in local pubs and discuss whatever. This was nationwide, meetings online discussing memes to back Obama and discredit those they deemed 'undesirable.' That is pretty much Soviet style government media.

If they actually had the power to print whatever they wanted, you might have something to be worried about. But they don't.

Even if they did, they still have nothing to do with the government. Every paper and network in the country works to manipulate public opinion through its editorials and pundits (both on the left and right). That's what the First Amendment and a non-government media does.

[Gaffer]

This is no bombshell: journalists have been talking to each other since the first newspaper was published.

They can (and do) "collude" about articles all they want: as I said, it's nothing new. The editors still have the final say about what gets run.

The editors are on the list too.

[Palin Rider]

The editors are on the list too.

So if people who worked for you were on one of the same email lists you read, would you blindly follow every suggestion they posted to the list?

[Kathianne]

So if people who worked for you were on one of the same email lists you read, would you blindly follow every suggestion they posted to the list?

Haven't read them, have you? Yet you think that by the nature of 'journalists' they would show some standing up for their own ideas? Yet, that happened few and far between. Indeed, by looking at the dates and checking 'news' articles, NOT just editorials, you can find the same catch phrases within.

[Kathianne]

If they actually had the power to print whatever they wanted, you might have something to be worried about. But they don't.

Even if they did, they still have nothing to do with the government. Every paper and network in the country works to manipulate public opinion through its editorials and pundits (both on the left and right). That's what the First Amendment and a non-government media does.

Actually it was noted over and over again, how there were spam letters printed in papers across the country-in letters to editor, sometimes within the same paper.

Editorials written by editors, that reflected the then unknown journolist discussions of days before, showing up on the same day or within days of each other-often again, like 'news' articles with near word-for-word phrases.

[Palin Rider]

Haven't read them, have you?Haven't read what? If you have links to anything, I'll be glad to look at them.


Yet you think that by the nature of 'journalists' they would show some standing up for their own ideas? Yet, that happened few and far between. Indeed, by looking at the dates and checking 'news' articles, NOT just editorials, you can find the same catch phrases within.Which also happens all the time with Fox, Newsmax, and the rightwing bloggers. That's one of the drawbacks of the First Amendment: you have to read many different sources to get a decent picture of what's going on.

[Gaffer]

So if people who worked for you were on one of the same email lists you read, would you blindly follow every suggestion they posted to the list?

What it amounts to is the people on the list were/are involved in a propaganda conspiracy to push an agenda. They are writers, editors and reporters of major news organizations and they are attempting to influence stories and news. This is TASS. They have become nothing more than a government house organ.

[Abbey Marie]

If they actually had the power to print whatever they wanted, you might have something to be worried about. But they don't.

Even if they did, they still have nothing to do with the government. Every paper and network in the country works to manipulate public opinion through its editorials and pundits (both on the left and right). That's what the First Amendment and a non-government media does.

Here, let me fix that for you:

Almost every paper and network in the country works to manipulate public opinion through its editorials and pundits on the left...

[Palin Rider]

What it amounts to is the people on the list were/are involved in a propaganda conspiracy to push an agenda. They are writers, editors and reporters of major news organizations and they are attempting to influence stories and news. This is TASS. They have become nothing more than a government house organ.

Even if you're right about an organized effort to influence opinion, where exactly is the government involved? I have yet to see any evidence of that.

[Palin Rider]

Here, let me fix that for you:

Almost every paper and network in the country works to manipulate public opinion through its editorials and pundits on the left...

And you're sure of this because...

[Gaffer]

Even if you're right about an organized effort to influence opinion, where exactly is the government involved? I have yet to see any evidence of that.

It was the media that put the government in power with their bias. Find stories in the main stream media that condemn the government or put the administration in a bad light. Stories that follow up FOX reports and blog reports don't count.

I doubt you old enough to remember any administrations except this one and the last one. Compare the reporting on this administration and any other in the past.

The MSM is one big network of socialists, all working together. The soviet news agency.

[Kathianne]

Haven't read what? If you have links to anything, I'll be glad to look at them.

Which also happens all the time with Fox, Newsmax, and the rightwing bloggers. That's one of the drawbacks of the First Amendment: you have to read many different sources to get a decent picture of what's going on.

You haven't a clue to what you are harping about, that much is clear. Go to Wikileaks fool. You scroll through the tens of thousands.

"No hidden agenda," LOL!

[Kathianne]

Even if you're right about an organized effort to influence opinion, where exactly is the government involved? I have yet to see any evidence of that.

Here you go, 'no agenda,':

http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/07/22/speaking-of-the-journolist-acting-as-obamas-non-official-campaign/


Speaking of the JournoList acting as Obama’s ‘Non-Official Campaign’…
July 22, 2010 - by Ed Driscoll

Share |

Meet Jared Bernstein. He’s the Obama campaign adviser who was also a member of the JournoList:


Jared Bernstein, chief economist for Vice President Joseph Biden, served in 2008 as an economic adviser to the Obama campaign. At the same time, he was a member of JournoList, the controversial progressive email list.

Bernstein’s bio at Politico, which appears not to have been updated since 2008, states: “He is an economic adviser to the Obama campaign.”

He was known to many for his regular appearances on the financial channel CNBC. His primary employer in 2008 was the Economic Policy Institute, a pro-labor progressive think tank, but according to his bio when appointed to the Obama-Biden Administration, he also was a member of the Panel of Economic Advisers of the Congressional Budget Office.

Reached today at the Office of the Vice President, Bernstein revealed that his position with the Obama campaign was as something called a “surrogate.” “I was not paid by the campaign,” he explained. “They would call me from time to time to represent their positions, that side of the debate.”

Asked when he left JournoList, Bernstein replied, ‘‘I think I left the list around the time I came here.” Bernstein was announced as Chief Economist and Economic Policy Adviser to the Vice President-elect on December 8, 2008....

...It would appear that Bernstein’s presence on the list violated Klein’s first rule, since he met the test of working “for the government in any capacity.”

Official campaign, non-official campaign — close enough for (literally in this case) government work.

... Lots of links at site.

[Gaffer]

Here you go, 'no agenda,':

http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/07/22/speaking-of-the-journolist-acting-as-obamas-non-official-campaign/

Lots of links at site.

yeah, no agenda there. :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

And you're sure of this because...

And you're sure of your position because...?

As for mine, you can start with re-reading the OP. That should be a really good clue.

[Palin Rider]

Here you go, 'no agenda,':

http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/07/22/speaking-of-the-journolist-acting-as-obamas-non-official-campaign/

Lots of links at site.

So a campaign adviser joins an email list that a bunch of reporters are on. As long as everyone on the list knows who one another is, how is this a problem? Were advisers from other campaigns not allowed to join?

[Palin Rider]

Find stories in the main stream media that condemn the government or put the administration in a bad light. Stories that follow up FOX reports and blog reports don't count.There are non-FOX-related stories that criticize the government every day. (And that's not even counting the WSJ.) Do you really need links? They're not difficult to find.


I doubt you old enough to remember any administrations except this one and the last one. And you would be wrong.


The MSM is one big network of socialists, all working together. The soviet news agency.The White House doesn't censor the NY Times; the Kremlin censored Pravda all the time.

[Kathianne]

So a campaign adviser joins an email list that a bunch of reporters are on. As long as everyone on the list knows who one another is, how is this a problem? Were advisers from other campaigns not allowed to join?

You. Just. Caved. Thanks.

[Palin Rider]

If you can't demonstrate how it's a problem, there's nothing to cave to.

[Kathianne]

If you can't demonstrate how it's a problem, there's nothing to cave to.

You lose. Indeed there may be many that dislike me, however, even those believe me. Why? I don't lie.

[Gaffer]

There are non-FOX-related stories that criticize the government every day. (And that's not even counting the WSJ.) Do you really need links? They're not difficult to find.

And you would be wrong.

The White House doesn't censor the NY Times; the Kremlin censored Pravda all the time.

Any criticism of the government by the MSM is because someone else already reported on it and exposed it the world. More often than not its bloggers who bothered to investigate. Something the MSM doesn't do any more. In most cases they keep the news buried until they absolutely have to release it.

I don't think I'm wrong. I'd bet you can barely remember the clinton years.

The white house doesn't need to censor the MSM, they do it for themselves. Why do you think they all want talk radio, FOX and the bloggers silenced. The MSM of today is the same as the old TASS, your too young to remember that one. And the kremlin still censors pravda today. Reporters that dig to deep have accidents, like falling out of windows.

[Palin Rider]

You lose. Indeed there may be many that dislike me, however, even those believe me. Why? I don't lie.

I never accused you of lying, either. You just haven't explained why it's so horrible for a spokesperson on a political campaign to talk to reporters, and vice versa.

[BoogyMan]

There is a big difference in being open to viewing a scenario from all sides and being so open minded that your brain has evacuated the hole, PR.

The point of this discussion is that many in the left wing media abdicated what journalistic ethics they might have laid any kind of claim to in order to aid in the election of a specific political candidate.


Even if you're right about an organized effort to influence opinion, where exactly is the government involved? I have yet to see any evidence of that.

[Palin Rider]

Any criticism of the government by the MSM is because someone else already reported on it and exposed it the world.Of course, you can't prove this. Nobody can.


I don't think I'm wrong. I'd bet you can barely remember the clinton years.I don't lie, either. End of story.

It doesn't bother me if people want to persist in delusions they can't prove and have no evidence to support. I'm just not interested in getting sucked into stuff like that. Want to convince me of anything? You'll have to do it logically.

[Palin Rider]

The point of this discussion is that many in the left wing media abdicated what journalistic ethics they might have laid any kind of claim to in order to aid in the election of a specific political candidate.
What did they do that was journalistically unethical? So far, no one has made a basis for this accusation.

[BoogyMan]

What did they do that was journalistically unethical? So far, no one has made a basis for this accusation.

Start your education here (http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/29/political-operatives-on-journolist-worked-to-shape-news-coverage/) my young padawan.

[Palin Rider]

Start your education here (http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/29/political-operatives-on-journolist-worked-to-shape-news-coverage/) my young padawan.

Okay, I'll suppose just for argument's sake that Jounolist's ban on political operatives really existed. In which case, they didn't enforce their ban by not going after Jeff Hauser. Careless, yes. Unethical? Not unless the list moderators intentionally decided to let Hauser stay.

What else ya got?

[BoogyMan]

When members of the press get together and set out to frame the news in such a way as to influence the outcome, there is a serious ethics issue, not to mention there is a complete and total betrayal of any kind journalistic integrity.


Okay, I'll suppose just for argument's sake that Jounolist's ban on political operatives really existed. In which case, they didn't enforce their ban by not going after Jeff Hauser. Careless, yes. Unethical? Not unless the list moderators intentionally decided to let Hauser stay.

What else ya got?

[Palin Rider]

When members of the press get together and set out to frame the news in such a way as to influence the outcome, there is a serious ethics issue...If one person on an email list or other online group wants to do something, it doesn't mean that everyone else in the group will. We of all people should know that.


...not to mention there is a complete and total betrayal of any kind journalistic integrity.The price we pay for a free press is that many media sources WILL compromise journalistic integrity. If a newspaper or broadcaster is doing something that you find objectionable, don't buy their issue or tune them in. It's your responsibility to search for the truth (if you want it) by looking at multiple sources.

[LuvRPgrl]

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/aug/01/controversy-proves-collusion-among-liberal/

Hey, you and RSR need to learn how to spell journalist, :laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

If they actually had the power to print whatever they wanted, you might have something to be worried about. But they don't.

Even if they did, they still have nothing to do with the government. Every paper and network in the country works to manipulate public opinion through its editorials and pundits (both on the left and right). That's what the First Amendment and a non-government media does.

Yea, you scream first amendment, didnt you read the part where it said something about closing down Fox news and conservatives online

OHHHHHHHHHHH, YOU FORGOT THAT PART,

[LuvRPgrl]

If one person on an email list or other online group wants to do something, it doesn't mean that everyone else in the group will. We of all people should know that.

The price we pay for a free press is that many media sources WILL compromise journalistic integrity. If a newspaper or broadcaster is doing something that you find objectionable, don't buy their issue or tune them in. It's your responsibility to search for the truth (if you want it) by looking at multiple sources.


Oh, so you are excusing their lack of integrity by blaming us for not ignoring them?

Fact of the matter is journalists are public servants. They control information that the public is suppose to receive so they can be informed accurately to make properly informed decisions in a democracy.

In a democracy specifically, it is the single most important right, followed by ownership of guns
It was Thomas Paines "common sense" that set of the revolution of 1776


IT wasnt addressed absolutely first in the Constitution for no reason at all

[LuvRPgrl]

And you're sure of this because...

because she reads......critically.....

[Palin Rider]

Yea, you scream first amendment, didnt you read the part where it said something about closing down Fox news and conservatives online

OHHHHHHHHHHH, YOU FORGOT THAT PART,

No I didn't. The First Amendment lets people say stuff like that. It doesn't just apply to Fox.

[Palin Rider]

Oh, so you are excusing their lack of integrity by blaming us for not ignoring them?

Fact of the matter is journalists are public servants.

Nonsense. They're employees of for-profit companies, nothing more. They report the news in whatever way the corporation's officers think is appropriate. It's been that way for well over a century now.

Personally, I don't like it any more than you do, but it's an inevitable consequence of having a completely free press. Lots of its members will be responsible, as you describe, and lots of others won't. Those who aren't are biased in favor of the right as much as the left.

[Palin Rider]

because she reads......critically.....

Then she should have no trouble defending her points with supporting material and logical arguments..................

Should she........?

[red states rule]

Another perfect example of the bias and hypocrisy of the liberal media. MSNBC (aka DNCTV) has been the worst of the worst for openly supporting Obama and their contempt for anyone who opposes Obama's policies





In today's "People In Glass Houses" segment, Chris Matthews accused Fox News of being shills for the Republican Party just minutes before he said "the scariest three words in the English language are: President Sarah Palin."

MSNBC's "Hardball" on Tuesday began with a lengthy segment in which Matthews, with the help of co-conspirators from the Huffington Post and Media Matters for America, made the case that the Fox News Channel was a platform to assist Republican candidates to get elected.

Obviously missing the irony, the very next piece dealt with why President Obama ought to replace Vice President Biden with Hillary Clinton to not only assist him in getting reelected in 2012, but also set her up to win in 2016.

Still oblivious to the hypocrisy, Matthews ended the program with his take on why the thought of Palin becoming president is scaring "tens of millions of Americans, and not just Democrats."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/08/04/chris-matthews-accuses-fox-being-gop-shills-then-attacks-sarah-palin

[LuvRPgrl]

No I didn't. The First Amendment lets people say stuff like that. It doesn't just apply to Fox.


WOW, now you are really showing how you get your information second and third hand dude.

The first amendment was written specifically to apply to POLITICAL speech, not personal speech, personal freedoms, pornography or personal freedom of expression

BUT FREAKING POLITICAL SPEECH, WHICH SPECIFICALLY DOES APPLY TO FOX


WHAT THE HELL KIND OF FASICST STATE DO YOU WANT WHERE THE GOVT CAN CLOSE DOWN TV STATIONS BASED ON THEIR POLITICAL SPEECH???


BESIDES, THAT IS ONE TIME YOUR PRECIOUS ACLU WOULD GET INVOLVED, AND RIGHTLY SO,
BUT SINCE IT IS ONLY A PIPEDREAM OF THE CONTROL FREAKS OF THE LEFT, WE DONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE ACLU DEFENDING FOX NEWS

[LuvRPgrl]

Then she should have no trouble defending her points with supporting material and logical arguments..................

Should she........?

Actually, she wouldnt. The evidence is abundunt. But even if she did,

what you are doing is obvioius. You are obfuscating and acting like a good little liberal or a politician would in a debate

You deflect and change the topic

You respond to only little parts of the arguement

you avoid the big picture and main point by arguing little points that are irrelevant to the main point

or you say its always been like that

fact is, you refuse to accept the truth and you do have an agenda, its just not so hidden to many of us

Fact is, the media is heavily biased to the left
and its morally, ethically wrong, and they even lie to try and hide it.

[LuvRPgrl]

What did they do that was journalistically unethical? So far, no one has made a basis for this accusation.


It doesnt matter what someone will state about this, you will simply reply with something like:

oh, journalists have been doing that for years
or, so, FOX does it
or , fill in the blank

arguements I used to use on my mom when she caught us red handed

question for you is,,,what can a journalist do that you would consider unethical?

[LuvRPgrl]

Nonsense. They're employees of for-profit companies, nothing more. They report the news in whatever way the corporation's officers think is appropriate. It's been that way for well over a century now.

Personally, I don't like it any more than you do, but it's an inevitable consequence of having a completely free press. Lots of its members will be responsible, as you describe, and lots of others won't. Those who aren't are biased in favor of the right as much as the left.


SO, would you say the same thing about doctors?


Fact is, they are given the PRIVLEDGE of airing over the PUBLIC airways, and thus have a higher responsability than your normal run of the mill for profit private company.

The public DEPENDS on these people for accurate informationl. Some people are very limited on which news source they can go to, people who claim to present the "NEWS" are obligated to present the truth as much as they can

NOT to mention, because of their unique posistion, reporters often have privledges and rights that normal citizens dont have and that brings them out of the realm of your normal "for profit" company

they are given these extra rights and privledges and protections normal citizens dont get because they are public servants doing a job that is vitally needed in order for a democracy and free people to flourish and exist.

They are given acccess to places we cant go and they are obligated to report the truth, not their agenda, because that is why they are given access, so they can INFORM us of the FACTs of the event

[BoogyMan]

Isn't that precious?! Somebody reads and regurgitates HuffPo! LOL

The ever present hypocrisy of those claiming a middle of the road kind of view is that had something like this been done on the right, the din of disgust would deafen us all, and the middle-roaders would be in there with the loudest of the screamers.


If one person on an email list or other online group wants to do something, it doesn't mean that everyone else in the group will. We of all people should know that.

The price we pay for a free press is that many media sources WILL compromise journalistic integrity. If a newspaper or broadcaster is doing something that you find objectionable, don't buy their issue or tune them in. It's your responsibility to search for the truth (if you want it) by looking at multiple sources.

[revelarts]

PRider, sounds like your saying,
it's OK, or at least we have to put up with the left colluding to influence elections with the news media and that we shouldn't believe what they have to say anyway. AND that we should just sit down and get over the balled faced hypocrisy when we find that the lefts been lying about NOT being as biased as the evil right and FOX news.

Personal I think we should complain and call reporter to the standards they espouse.


I used to work a local VA newspaper. 15 years as a graphic artist. I can tell you that during my time there that the reporters where to a person left leaning. they didn't have to collude. There mindsets wese fixed and for most unassailable. Editors on down. It did effect the news, the questions they asked and who they asked. That's not to say many of them didn't try to be fair but for some fair was harder to see and write.

I qualified my statements because there were some very notable exceptions to the rules. A few left leaning people that could easily see past there own box and write and talk fairly. Honestly remarkable reporters, careful and outstanding. and there were many more left reporters that did managed to see pass their leftest view on certain issues when presented with the facts.

I've been told that since I've left there's much more of a mix left and right reporters.

It's funny while I was there at least ALL the photographers where on the right. I sat next to them in the newsroom.

But the MSM is not a monolith but they do tow the gov't-corp- status quo of the the people in power line.

there are stories that they don't touch and the gov't does directly influence them on a regular basis.

Gov't do apply pressure to new orgs and so do corporations. I've seen the latter 1st hand. Presidents of corporations coming to the newsroom and sitting down with the owner and news editors and the story changing in the paper the next day.

the influences on news are many and start with the reporters biases then the editors then the publishers but finally the center of gravity are people in power willing to lean on news org editors and writers.


Listen to the this reporters investigation into the subject of journalistic freedom.
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2009/11/27/podcast-show-13/

this whole site is informative. everyone would be doing themselves a favor to check it out.
the owner of the blog is Sibel edmonds she's a former fbi translator and whistle blower. She's reported in secret to the 9-11 commission on the problems and the uncomfortable findings of fbi wiretaps before 9-11 that would put a lot of folks in jail but she was gagged and her Full story has yet to be told..... in the U.S. press... LEFT OR RIGHT. it's been in British press and a few online sources.

Lots of great interviews there. the site leans left But she's a real patriot and understands her freedoms is fighting for them.

[Palin Rider]

PRider, sounds like your saying,
it's OK, or at least we have to put up with the left colluding to influence elections with the news media and that we shouldn't believe what they have to say anyway.
Not quite: what I'm saying is closer to "We have to put up with the left and the right colluding to influence elections with the news media, and that we should take what they say with not just a grain but a boulder of salt."


Personal I think we should complain and call reporter to the standards they espouse. I have no problem with that, but such complaints are probably ignored unless they come from major advertisers.


the influences on news are many and start with the reporters biases then the editors then the publishers but finally the center of gravity are people in power willing to lean on news org editors and writers. I completely agree. And I'll be happy to check out your link.

[Palin Rider]

Isn't that precious?! Somebody reads and regurgitates HuffPo! LOLI rarely read HuffPo and I haven't done so recently. Try again.


The ever present hypocrisy of those claiming a middle of the road kind of view is that had something like this been done on the right, the din of disgust would deafen us all, and the middle-roaders would be in there with the loudest of the screamers.
What makes you think this isn't done on the right, and that the left and center doesn't know it? There's just no rope to hang anyone from (including Journolist members).

[BoogyMan]

I rarely read HuffPo and I haven't done so recently. Try again.

Sure, I believe you. :)


What makes you think this isn't done on the right, and that the left and center doesn't know it? There's just no rope to hang anyone from (including Journolist members).

There is plenty of rope, the problem is that you being part of the middle of the road gang (those who stand in the middle for fear of actually having to take a meaningful stand on something) are incapable of addressing the issue as a problem.

I never claimed the right doesn't do this, what I have pointed out is the desperation to claim the left doing it is meaningless.

[Palin Rider]

I never claimed the right doesn't do this, what I have pointed out is the desperation to claim the left doing it is meaningless.

I already agreed that the left does this. So I'm not the desperate one in these parts. :cool:

[SassyLady]

Here's the Society of Professional Journalist Code of Ethics website:

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

I like this part:



Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:


—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.


I would think being on the Journolist and colluding re what would be reported and what would not be, would breach some part of the Code of Ethics section on Act Independently.

PR - I know that you might want to shrug off the responsibilities of the press, but I personally think it is sad that corruption isn't just in the government, but also in what we thought would be our watchdogs.

Unfortunately, the press is more interested in getting the "scoop" than in reporting the facts, even if those facts are counter to their personal beliefs.

[Gaffer]

Here's the Society of Professional Journalist Code of Ethics website:

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

I like this part:



I would think being on the Journolist and colluding re what would be reported and what would not be, would breach some part of the Code of Ethics section on Act Independently.

PR - I know that you might want to shrug off the responsibilities of the press, but I personally think it is sad that corruption isn't just in the government, but also in what we thought would be our watchdogs.

Unfortunately, the press is more interested in getting the "scoop" than in reporting the facts, even if those facts are counter to their personal beliefs.

I disagree on one point. They are not interested in scoops any more. It's all about who they can influence and spreading their agenda. They are no longer watchdogs, they are guard dogs for the government and special interests.

[Kathianne]

I disagree on one point. They are not interested in scoops any more. It's all about who they can influence and spreading their agenda. They are no longer watchdogs, they are guard dogs for the government and special interests.

You wrote the same as my own thinking. If they cared about scoops, they wouldn't be coming up with talking points to spread their message.

[Palin Rider]

Here's the Society of Professional Journalist Code of Ethics website:

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

I like this part:



I would think being on the Journolist and colluding re what would be reported and what would not be, would breach some part of the Code of Ethics section on Act Independently.

PR - I know that you might want to shrug off the responsibilities of the press, but I personally think it is sad that corruption isn't just in the government, but also in what we thought would be our watchdogs.

Unfortunately, the press is more interested in getting the "scoop" than in reporting the facts, even if those facts are counter to their personal beliefs.

Does a group of reporters talking informally among one another about what they might want to report represent a conflict of interest? Does it compromise their integrity?

If so, how?

[Gaffer]

Does a group of reporters talking informally among one another about what they might want to report represent a conflict of interest? Does it compromise their integrity?

If so, how?

When they are conspiring to cover the story in a particular way and bury stories that do show their person or people in a good light, then yeah, there's a conflict of interest. Discussing what's going to be published or buried and attempting to control all the news presentation is called a conspiracy. The journolist is a conspiracy of reporters and editors to manipulate the news. It's that simple.

[Palin Rider]

When they are conspiring to cover the story in a particular way and bury stories that do show their person or people in a good light, then yeah, there's a conflict of interest. Discussing what's going to be published or buried and attempting to control all the news presentation is called a conspiracy. The journolist is a conspiracy of reporters and editors to manipulate the news. It's that simple.

Controlling all the news is impossible without direct government censorship. End of story.

I'm sure that every member of that email list knows it, too.

[Gaffer]

Controlling all the news is impossible without direct government censorship. End of story.

I'm sure that every member of that email list knows it, too.

The governments working real hard on that censorship. It's called the fairness doctrine. Until then the reporters and editors have to make do through emails and correspondence.

The story's just getting started.

[Kathianne]

Controlling all the news is impossible without direct government censorship. End of story.

I'm sure that every member of that email list knows it, too.

It's not the 'end of story,' not even close. Prior to the journolist being made public, it was only a guess, no longer. One can see by dates, the progression of discussion, the few dissents, then the stories at may still be googled from news searches. Again, the list of members also shows government/administration folks, interacting with the debates, advising and consenting.

I can't figure you out, either you're ignorant on the topic or you refuse to see what's before your eyes.

[Palin Rider]

It's not the 'end of story,' not even close. Prior to the journolist being made public, it was only a guess, no longer. One can see by dates, the progression of discussion, the few dissents, then the stories at may still be googled from news searches. Again, the list of members also shows government/administration folks, interacting with the debates, advising and consenting.

I can't figure you out, either you're ignorant on the topic or you refuse to see what's before your eyes.

So far, all that's passed before our eyes on this thread is one column out of the Nashville paper and one blog, neither of which quotes ANY message posted on this "bombshell" email list. NOT ONE.

You're now hinting at all this incriminating evidence, so "where's the beef?"

[Kathianne]

So far, all that's passed before our eyes on this thread is one column out of the Nashville paper and one blog, neither of which quotes ANY message posted on this "bombshell" email list. NOT ONE.

You're now hinting at all this incriminating evidence, so "where's the beef?"

Your lack of curiosity is breathtaking. I don't do pablum, seek out what has been stated. The journolist topics are easily accessible online. If you have a clue to news writers, check out their bylined works for days after discussions. Not difficult.

[Palin Rider]

Your lack of curiosity is breathtaking. I don't do pablum, seek out what has been stated. The journolist topics are easily accessible online. If you have a clue to news writers, check out their bylined works for days after discussions. Not difficult.

You and I both know that it doesn't work that way. Whoever makes a point first is responsible for bringing the evidence into the discussion.

Let me give you an example: There's now evidence that a number of these alleged "journolist emails" were complete frauds.


It seems that someone has leaked a vast number of “Journolist” emails to The Daily Caller, and that now that the Caller has the emails in hand and its staff can see for itself that there’s no story here they’ve resorted to making things up. Today, for example, the Caller has a piece entitled “Liberal Journalists Suggest Government Shut Down Fox News” (http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/liberal-journalists-suggest-government-shut-down-fox-news/2/) that doesn’t cite any examples of a liberal journalist suggesting the government shut down Fox News.
Source (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/new-made-up-journolist-scandal/)

[Kathianne]

You and I both know that it doesn't work that way. Whoever makes a point first is responsible for bringing the evidence into the discussion.

Let me give you an example: There's now evidence that a number of these alleged "journolist emails" were complete frauds.


Source (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/new-made-up-journolist-scandal/)

No, we don't know any such thing. I'm not playing by your rules, nor do you have to play by mine, at least not those I make as a poster. ;)

I'm not going to play the 'this one is wrong' game.

I put the information out, use it or not. I'm not doing the work for those that choose to be ignorant. I usually read quite a lot before I post on something. I also am not one to not back off if I'm wrong, in fact I'll apologize for being wrong.

If you are curious the information is easy to find and prove whatever to yourself.

[Palin Rider]

No, we don't know any such thing. I'm not playing by your rules, nor do you have to play by mine, at least not those I make as a poster. ;)

I'm not going to play the 'this one is wrong' game.

I put the information out, use it or not. I'm not doing the work for those that choose to be ignorant. I usually read quite a lot before I post on something. I also am not one to not back off if I'm wrong, in fact I'll apologize for being wrong.

If you are curious the information is easy to find and prove whatever to yourself.

So you can't prove the allegations in the OP (because you would have no reason to refuse to if you could). Doesn't affect me either way; I'm not keeping score.

[Kathianne]

So you can't prove the allegations in the OP (because you would have no reason to refuse to if you could). Doesn't affect me either way; I'm not keeping score.

Yes, I could. No I don't want to spend my time reading, copying & pasting, what I've read before. Then spending more time to write why I believe it demonstrates collusion.

Now if you really cared whether or not you and others in the country were being manipulated you'd do your own research. But certainly not required. Stay ignorant and stay with Think Progress, MoveOn, and Huffington Post. It's all you need.

[Palin Rider]

Now if you really cared whether or not you and others in the country were being manipulated you'd do your own research. As I said before, I do exactly that, by reading left, right, and centrist publications. If others prefer not to do that, there's nothing I can do for them.

It's a shame that some of them want to pat one another on the back in online forums, however.

[SassyLady]

Does a group of reporters talking informally among one another about what they might want to report represent a conflict of interest? Does it compromise their integrity?

If so, how?

If they are colluding about what political information to disseminate and what to not disseminate ... then yes, it does compromise their integrity and represent a conflict of interest.

[Kathianne]

If they are colluding about what political information to disseminate and what to not disseminate ... then yes, it does compromise their integrity and represent a conflict of interest.

and if it were 'informal' we wouldn't repeatedly see the same phrases repeated in sources throughout the country. Oh yeah, there wouldn't be a journolist. By the very nature of the group, the most non-liberal being Jonathan Turley, small and informal went out the window.

[red states rule]

You and I both know that it doesn't work that way. Whoever makes a point first is responsible for bringing the evidence into the discussion.

Let me give you an example: There's now evidence that a number of these alleged "journolist emails" were complete frauds.


Source (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/new-made-up-journolist-scandal/)

You make this way to easy PR





The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

“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.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

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. “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.”

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/liberal-journalists-suggest-government-shut-down-fox-news/2/

[red states rule]

and if it were 'informal' we wouldn't repeatedly see the same phrases repeated in sources throughout the country. Oh yeah, there wouldn't be a journolist. By the very nature of the group, the most non-liberal being Jonathan Turley, small and informal went out the window.

National Review had a good article on the Journolist




snip


So I was interested to see that a Journolister headed an e-mail — or “e-mail thread” — “The line on Palin.” He was not being ironic, as far as I can tell. He was really and truly formulating a line. And the line was this: “John McCain picked someone to help him politically, Barack Obama picked someone to help him govern” (Biden).

You know, I remember hearing that a lot, from the Left, in the immediate post-Palin days. Do you?

Okay, some more line-formulation — I’ll quote from a Daily Caller piece on Journolist:

After Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat, threatening to kill the health care legislation by his presence, [a Washington Post reporter] stressed how important it was for reporters to highlight what a terrible candidate his opponent Martha Coakley had been.



“I think pointing out Coakley’s awfulness is vital, because it’s 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats.”

It seems to me that journalists don’t think and talk this way, or should not; party operatives think and talk this way. Party operatives sit around coming up with the line. To see journalists doing it is a little . . . sick-making.

Always, there is the herd mentality — we see the herd at work. A big-time writer said, “Listen folks — in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have.” What he meant was, people from ABC had asked Candidate Obama about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. That was intolerable; the askers had to be “killed.”

And don’t you love that “in whatever venues we have”? Oh, they have a lot! Most of the media, in fact.

Another big-timer gave a link to a piece he had written and said, “Here’s my attempt to incorporate the accumulated wisdom of this august list-serve community.”

Another big-timer, on another subject: “As a side note, does anyone know what prompted Michael Barone to go insane?” Barone is not insane; he is one of the best political minds in America. Often, he expresses conservative opinions — and that, of course, is what makes him “insane,” according to some. Back in the USSR, they used to put those with dissenting views in nuthouses. They were merely ill, you see.

One thing that struck me about Journolist was the sheer thuggery of the talk. I mean, it’s a little shocking. Here you go:

It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [something] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

Well, that’s good to know! The same Journolister wrote, “Let’s throw Ledeen against a wall.” That would be Michael Ledeen, one of the country’s foremost experts on the Middle East (and Italy and other things). Or “throw him through a plate glass window.” This guy seems to have a thing for plate-glass windows. “I’ll bet a little spot of violence would shut him right the fuck up, as with most bullies.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MTBkMThlNmE0NzBiZTJjM2RmMTc3OWQ2OWMxYmIwOWE=

[revelarts]

The journalist situation is rotten.
It shows in a small way the left bent of many reporters and how far they'd LIKE TO, (even if not being able too) control all news. Present it from their POV and shut down alternative voices.
And it's not going to stop. They'll use blackberries instead now. or hang out a bars probably. there's been no one fired or reprimanded over this yet right?

ANd the beat goes on.

but on the other side of the coin...

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FFYY8xgWlhU&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FFYY8xgWlhU&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


different news orgs have different pressures but most of them let truth slip out from time to time. Whether or not really important news becomes a well known story is another thing. Sadly you've got to check news left right center up and down, local and international to try to see what the hecks going on in the world now a days.

[Kathianne]

The journalist situation is rotten.
It shows in a small way the left bent of many reporters and how far they'd LIKE TO, (even if not being able too) control all news. Present it from their POV and shut down alternative voices.
And it's not going to stop. They'll use blackberries instead now. or hang out a bars probably. there's been no one fired or reprimanded over this yet right?
...


Actually at least this one was forced to resign:

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


Washington Post blogger David Weigel resigns after messages leak
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 26, 2010; C01

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.

Weigel, whose tenure lasted three months, apologized Thursday for writing on a private e-mail exchange that Matt Drudge should "handle his emotional problems more responsibly and set himself on fire." He also mocked Ron Paul, the Texas congressman, by referring to the "Paultard Tea Party."

(Washington Post's ombudsman comments)

The Daily Caller reported more inflammatory comments on Friday, with Weigel writing that conservatives were using the media to "violently, angrily divide America" and lamenting news organizations' "need to give equal/extra time to 'real American' views, no matter how [expletive] moronic." When Rush Limbaugh, who has called for President Obama to fail, was hospitalized with chest pains, Weigel wrote: "I hope he fails."

These and other remarks were drawn from Journolist, an off-the-record listserv for several hundred independent to left-leaning commentators and journalists that was founded in 2007 by Ezra Klein, now a liberal blogger for The Post's Web site.

Post Managing Editor Raju Narisetti said Weigel had called and offered to resign Thursday evening and he accepted on Friday...

However, he's back in a guest shot:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR2010080506105.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

and his topic:


Five myths about the 'tea party'
By David Weigel
Sunday, August 8, 2010; B03

The grass-roots conservative activists who march under the "Don't tread on me" Gadsen flag and the "tea party" label have put a new twist on Gandhi's maxim: First they were ignored; then they were ridiculed; then they began to fight. They battled health-care reform and then the Republican establishment, which became angry about the less-than-seasoned candidates it was suddenly saddled with.

In short order, the movement that few people took seriously early on has become the most obsessed-over and overanalyzed political backlash since the 1960s. And as long as both parties are trying to understand it and publishers are putting out tea party books every month, it's worth busting a few myths about the movement...

He's also over at Slate now, owned by??? Yep, WaPo:

http://www.slate.com/id/2262806


David Weigel is a Slate political reporter and MSNBC contributor.

[Gaffer]

They change offices and change titles, but nothing changes.

[revelarts]

And there you go.

the stuff there writing about is only what's been said outloud in the newsrooms.

but ...um... you know its sound about like what people on this forum say about the left. But the people here don't claim to be unbias or fair.

[Kathianne]

And there you go.

the stuff there writing about is only what's been said outloud in the newsrooms.

but ...um... you know its sound about like what people on this forum say about the left. But the people here don't claim to be unbias or fair.

What are you talking about here? I'm unsure of your point.

[bullypulpit]

Just another exercise in the generation of baseless conspiracy theories emanating from the fever swamp of the right wing-nut punditocracy.

[Sweetchuck]

Jounolist...

Sounds like Bawny Fwank is saying it.

[LuvRPgrl]

Just another exercise in the generation of baseless conspiracy theories emanating from the fever swamp of the right wing-nut punditocracy.

You really enjoy listening to yourself, dont you?

[BoogyMan]

It must be comforting for you to know that there are legions of left wing nutjobs in the press lining up to frame the news so as to support the agenda of the American socialist movement.


Just another exercise in the generation of baseless conspiracy theories emanating from the fever swamp of the right wing-nut punditocracy.

[revelarts]

What are you talking about here? I'm unsure of your point.


And there you go.
---you pointed out how the one known person that retired is back at anther position---


the stuff there writing about is only what's been said outloud in the newsrooms.
but ...um... you know its sound about like what people on this forum say about the left. But the people here don't claim to be unbias or fair.
In newsrooms people talk openly about there political views and random thoughts about or against the the other side. Many talk like bully pulpit does here. (the right winger are crazy and dangerous and stupid superstitious Nuts the world would be better off...) Some talk like Gaffer (the left winger are crazy, dangerous, decadent, blind, limp wristed idiots the only thing worse are the @#% Muslims and the world would be better off...).

But most of them don't write it down.

[Kathianne]

---you pointed out how the one known person that retired is back at anther position---


In newsrooms people talk openly about there political views and random thoughts about or against the the other side. Many talk like bully pulpit does here. (the right winger are crazy and dangerous and stupid superstitious Nuts the world would be better off...) Some talk like Gaffer (the left winger are crazy, dangerous, decadent, blind, limp wristed idiots the only thing worse are the @#% Muslims and the world would be better off...).

But most of them don't write it down.

Your points with this match up with PR's regarding meeting informally in a bar. That's one newsrooms, one bar, or many bars with different people. What the problem with journolist was many like-minded folks, from journalism and some political operatives from one party, getting together and coming up with writing and editorial points.

[red states rule]

A great example of destroying the liberal media and the lies they report with facts

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdnznzZueu" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdnznzZueu" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[Kathianne]

The governments working real hard on that censorship. It's called the fairness doctrine. Until then the reporters and editors have to make do through emails and correspondence.

The story's just getting started.

Sometimes you think I'm overly optimistic or naive. For once, ta da!

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AE266EE0-97C9-4FB7-AAC6-4A5FEB36A99F


FCC finally kills off fairness doctrine
By: Brooks Boliek
August 22, 2011 03:22 PM EDT
The FCC (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/FederalCommunicationsCommission) gave the coup de grace to the fairness doctrine (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/FairnessDoctrine) Monday as the commission axed more than 80 media industry rules.


Earlier this summer FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski agreed to erase the post WWII-era rule (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47669.html), but the action Monday puts the last nail into the coffin for the regulation that sought to ensure discussion over the airwaves of controversial issues did not exclude any particular point of view. A broadcaster that violated the rule risked losing its license.


While the commission voted in 1987 to do away with the rule — a legacy to a time when broadcasting was a much more dominant voice than it is today — the language implementing it was never removed. The move Monday, once published in the federal register, effectively erases the rule.


...

Genachowski (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54541.html) said in a statement that the move was aimed at promoting “a healthy climate for private investment and job creation.” Both the Obama administration (http://www.politico.com/politico44/) and the FCC have come under criticism by business groups over laws and regulations such as health care reform and net neutrality rules.



I don't have much hope for health care reform changes, without SCOTUS, but net neutrality? As goeth fairness doctrine?

[Gaffer]

Sometimes you think I'm overly optimistic or naive. For once, ta da!

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AE266EE0-97C9-4FB7-AAC6-4A5FEB36A99F



I don't have much hope for health care reform changes, without SCOTUS, but net neutrality? As goeth fairness doctrine?

I do like being wrong on these kind of things.