(Update: Henry Farrell, GW professor and blogger at Crooked Timber, also someone who I respect a lot despite some disagreements, dropped me a note about this and gave me permission to post it. I have put it up at the end of the post, and I would ask you not to comment unless you have read Henry’s response as well. Also, Henry is my guest here, and although people can be tough with me, I will take it badly if people say mean things about/to him.)
Lots of people will have more interesting things to say about Journolist, and maybe I’ll try to post something else up as well, but for now. When I was reading Peter Finn’s reporting on the Washington Post website on the CIA for my previous post, and despite this being a widely reported, straight-facts story, and despite my long-time, continuing, unstinting admiration for Peter Finn as a reporter on national security and related issues at the WaPo, I do admit that one of the first thoughts in my head was … is he a JournoLister? And if he is, do I need to somehow discount his account as being part of a pre-conceived narrative? And if so, by how much?
In this kind of story, where it really is just reporting facts, no issue. But there are lots of other stories in this arena where that would not be my reaction. If this were, say, a post-Obama administration in which the Journolist crowd had somehow decided it was time to throw targeted killing, the CIA, and drones under the bus – and I, of course, would not know that but would now have to wonder about it – the question of discounting the reporting to address the pre-conceived narrative issue would not be a hypothetical question at all. We don’t know who is who – and the information asymmetry creates uncertainties that drive up social costs, as Ezra Klein might have said.
So: To all you non-JournoLister reporters out there, please be aware that your credibility has just taken a big hit, because we, your faithful readers, don’t actually know who is or who isn’t. You can thank JournoList for that, you can thank Ezra Klein, and you can thank the Washington Post, which has done its outstanding professionals absolutely no favors in any of this.
The most charitable thing that can be said for the WaPo as an institution in all this is that the ethics of reporting by bloggers is, at best, murky. Many old-school “reporters” have warned that the term, and the very professional concept of “journalist,” rather than either plain old “reporter” or clearly “opinion columnist,” is an exploitable ambiguity. The emergence of blogospheric superstars like Klein, grafted onto the institutional credibility and body and salary of a traditional paper like the WaPo, has shown that on steroids. One wonders why the Post didn’t address this problem back when the list first emerged into public eye – all the questions, in fact, that Byron York addressed to the paper and which it has so far summarily refused to answer.
Let me channel one MSM journalist who prefers to remain nameless because, s/he says … the business model is not just topsy turvey, it is one which has empowered a group of writers with many opinions on many things, but little reporting experience, and little supervision. That has been said alot; what this person adds is that it is really hard to question this inside the paper because these folks are regarded as the new thing in the business plan. Questions make you not a team player in the new, quite unsettled business model with its equally unsettled professional ethics. I suggested that perhaps the Post, and the Times, and others, needed to put some experienced journalists and editors in charge of the bloggers, and at the same time develop a much more serious set of ethics, transparency, and accountability guidelines. After all, as James DeLong points out, in effect the Post, and other outlets, have been utilized by their erstwhile employees to partisan political ends that, whatever the sympathies of the editors and publishers, is highly unlikely to be seen by the principals as a legitimate activity for a newspaper.
The reaction to what I thought was an obvious way of dealing with traditional ethics of a newspaper applied to a new medium … well, the reaction was to say, you must be kidding, are you sure that Klein is not negotiating a higher salary out of this? The Post is desperate to try and find a business model that works on the web; it is throwing anything against the wall and hoping it sticks. I think I understand that, leaving aside the resentment of the traditional newspaper reporter toward newcomers who not just have not paid their dues – they seem to be rewarded for junking the whole model of reporting and objectivity.
But what is it, exactly, that Klein in particular is selling? A year or so ago, I made what I thought was a mild reproach against Klein for what I regarded as a cheap shot at Greg Mankiw – agree or disagree with Mankiw, talking about his “unbearable lightness of being” does not seem any kind of accurate description; I added something akin to what I’ve said above about lack of reportorial experience or judgment. I was amazed at the volume of abusive web and email I got for something quite mild. The reaction in defense of a “policy analyst” was so ferocious, in fact, that so far as I can tell, his appeal is essentially celebrity.
That is no doubt unfair to him, because he is a smart guy who often writes interesting things, though as with all JListers, I now believe him entirely capable of suppressing facts in favor of his narrative – but it is, I think, quite accurate as to his followers. They celebrate him like a movie star, and protect him ferociously against any perceived slights. And while that is unfair to him and his analytic skills, celebrityhood is, I think, his market value to the Washington Post. They seem to be pricing him according to his celebrity – I don’t precisely mean here his salary, though who knows, but rather the fact that they did not take action to address the ethics questions much earlier, and the use to which the Post was being put by its employees. That too was a price they paid, to their benefit earlier, and, I trust, to their dismay today, although who knows since the Post has shut up on this topic tighter than, well, Dick Nixon.
But in that case, I too wonder if his market value has not just gone up – precisely as, I sorrow to say, every non-JList journalist’s value has now [thanks Factcheck!] gone down. Peter Finn, I have long admired your reporting, and I admit it was an unfair gut check that made me wonder, are you JList and will it affect this story. I apologize for the unworthy thought, and I am entirely serious in saying so. But I am equally serious in saying that the JList compadres have made it (for you and everyone else, since I have no idea who was on the list) an uncheckable reflex just the same. And to the WaPo and other media outlets, you could do something to restore your credibility by adding to every journalist’s byline for a year or two, “JournoList” or “Not JournolList.”
Note from Henry Farrell to me:
Dear Ken
Just to say that your post on journolist seems to me to be seriously misconceived. As a former member of journolist, I can tell you quite honestly that there wasn’t any story coordination, or anything like it. Nor, if you read the Daily Caller article carefully, despite its deliberately misleading headline, do they have any proof of same. A couple of the hotter heads on the list may sometimes have wanted journolists not to report on topic x or topic y, but no-one took them seriously. I’m on many listservs, and journolist was much the usual fare – a lot of arguments between people who disagreed with each other, gossip on journalism and sports, a fair amount of political speculation (which may have influenced people indirectly – but no more than any other conversation would), and a fair amount of exchange between journalists and academics and wonks on topics of their expertise. You’re really barking up the wrong tree here. There weren’t any marching orders – and indeed there was a fair amount of effort to make sure that it didn’t become a means of political organization. People with political appointments in the administration, Congress etc were banned from membership, and after the one more or less deliberate act of organizing (a letter of complaint to ABC news which was largely discussed in terms of concerns over journalistic standards – albeit it is probably fair that some people felt it more keenly because of their feelings over the candidate), Ezra banned people from any future such efforts.
PersonFromPorlock says:
Ah, The Scarlet “J.” And well deserved.
July 21, 2010, 8:20 pmSFC B says:
That or, the article was mentioned on J-List and a couple of its members used it as a launching pad to get people to email you.
July 21, 2010, 8:25 pmFormer Army MP says:
I have assumed for years that the media had a talking points site. I just figured it was more secret.
July 21, 2010, 8:30 pmKevin! says:
I think what’s really funny about this “conspiracy!!!” post is that Anderson has absolutely no trouble expecting us to trust his anonymous source and believe that they’re an authority on the subject.
July 21, 2010, 8:38 pmKevin! says:
“It’s outrageous that the Post worries about team players” *Rushes to anonymously bash employer on blog*
July 21, 2010, 8:39 pmDale Sheldon-Hess says:
It all makes sense now!
But tell me; how does the moon landing hoax fit in? And just how much is the Illuminati pulling Klein’s strings?
July 21, 2010, 8:39 pmKenneth Anderson says:
Kevin!: Actually, I’m not much worried one way or the other. Discount it to zero, fine by me. It’s part of the point. This is not the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, etc., etc. It is what it is, and, well, readers get what they pay for. So if you’d rather discount it to zero, no problem, please do. No worries. (Also, to be clear, did not say that person I was talking with was WaPo employee.)
July 21, 2010, 8:41 pmERH says:
My understanding that most JList members were not reporters but editorialists and pundits. It’s like the Fox news excuse, you know our opinion pieces aren’t by journalist.
July 21, 2010, 8:46 pmMolon Labe says:
What kills me is the JListers are so naive they think the world they want is the one they’re going to get.
July 21, 2010, 8:48 pmJohnJ says:
I think it’s always a good idea to consider the writer’s possible bias. The best defense is to consume from a diverse group of reporters and not “cocoon” oneself into a comfortable, trusted authority figure.
July 21, 2010, 8:49 pmGabriel Malor says:
Kevin! has unwittingly demonstrated the Journolist problem that Kenneth has identified: credibility is everything. For example, I’ve found Kenneth’s posts to be generally good, well-researched, well-written, and frequently based on verifiable facts. So, he has plenty of credibility and I (and his other readers) then tend to believe his anonymous correspondent. On the other hand, the Journolist incidents have dealt a blow to the credibility of journalists who may be assumed, rightly or wrongly, to have been members.
July 21, 2010, 8:50 pmSarcastro says:
Watch out, journalists! People who already think you’re biased will think you’re even MORE biased, cause they’ve read your opinions!
They could guess at them by reading between the lines in your opinion reporting, but now they KNOW!
July 21, 2010, 8:53 pmJohnJ says:
It occurs to me that what Jefferson said about judges holds true for journalists as well: “Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.”
July 21, 2010, 8:59 pmSwede says:
Sarcastro,
If you were dying from a heart attack in front of my eyes I would laugh maniacly while watching you suffer. Because you deserve it.
You racist.
July 21, 2010, 9:04 pmcce says:
Would someone please explain why liberal bloggers and journalists talking amongst themselves is supposed to be such an outrage? Perhaps someone should put a bounty on all of the email to and from the various libertarian “think tanks.”
July 21, 2010, 9:04 pmJustin says:
There are interesting issues about the Journolist, but this is…not one of them. This is over the top and kind of insane, and more of what I expect from Professor Bernstein than Professor Anderson.
As Henry from Crooked Timber explains
July 21, 2010, 9:05 pmSarcastro says:
But some of my best friends are Swedes!
July 21, 2010, 9:06 pmSwede says:
But then I’d have to apologize for it later.
You know, to keep my publicly funded job.
You racist.
July 21, 2010, 9:07 pmSwede says:
Look, can we all just agree that Fred Barnes is a racist and move on?
It’s no big deal.
July 21, 2010, 9:09 pmbyomtov says:
Would someone please explain why liberal bloggers and journalists talking amongst themselves is supposed to be such an outrage? Perhaps someone should put a bounty on all of the email to and from the various libertarian “think tanks.”
Because conservatives like to drum up these sorts of controversies. It’s a distraction.
Give Anderson credit for opening comments, though, unlike the coward Lindgren. I wonder if Lindgren ever actually practiced law, and if so, was he outraged at the idea that the other side got to present its case?
July 21, 2010, 9:10 pmKenneth Anderson says:
Byomtov: don’t give credit for opening comments too soon! I might decide to close them.
July 21, 2010, 9:13 pmjeff says:
Because Journalists discussing ways to curtail free speech is really no big deal.
July 21, 2010, 9:19 pmThe Dude Abides says:
This is fun! I love watching the rats scurry…
July 21, 2010, 9:20 pmJohnJ says:
Imagine if the people on the JournoList were coordinating campaigns against blacks, and then ask what the big deal is.
July 21, 2010, 9:22 pmSarcastro says:
I hear there’s this Internet Conspiracy site where some posters have discussed restrictions on the 1st, and even the 2nd Amendments! Only the 3rd remains safe!
July 21, 2010, 9:23 pmOwen H. says:
And maybe, so the public in general knows, they ought to wear distinctive clothing or maybe just a special badge, so we can see who is who.
What the hell happened to the liberatarian blog I used to read?
July 21, 2010, 9:23 pmOwen H. says:
btw Ken, what happened to the comments on your post about the new CIA guy?
July 21, 2010, 9:27 pmfrankcross says:
I don’t quite get this post. Until we see the full exchange on the list, not excepts selected by a partisan conservative and a leaker, I really don’t know that there was lots of bias, do we? People seem to be jumping to conclusions without really having the necessary evidence
July 21, 2010, 9:31 pmKevin! says:
Wouldn’t tagging someone as “Not Journolist” give readers to much assurance? They still might be participating in online discussion groups, or voting, or otherwise holding but not disclosing political opinions.
There are so many facts not in evidence this post deserves a Motion to Strike:
July 21, 2010, 9:33 pm1. Journolist constitutes a conspiracy to implement defined liberal aims.
2. It’s possible to carry out these aims via “defining the narrative”
3. Members of Journolist will carry out this conspiracy.
4. Members of Journolist have suppressed inconvenient facts in furtherance of this conspiracy.
4. ALL Journalists are suspect as possible Journolist members, even should they deny it.
5. Reporting done by Journolist members should be inherently suspect.
6. The Journolist experience demonstrates the superiority of the newspaper-objectivity standard to bloggers.
garry w. says:
The full press is on by the usual posse here to ridicule Anderson or any commenter who might be discomfited by a “free,” “watchdog,” and “objective” press associating in an under-the-radar network in service to a political agenda.
The F and D words come to mind:
Full Disclosure.
Or is that only for corporate and political entities?
Wait, that’s what they are, working for the cause and company.
July 21, 2010, 9:33 pmBrett says:
I imagine a conservative, coming from a movement dominated by a circlejerk of conservative think tanks, conservative media, and conservative commentators, would have a tendency to see conspiracies everywhere.
Seriously, the whole JournoList thing makes me laugh. Look at the whole “FNC Zasloff” Hate-of-the-Day – the man proposed a hypothetical on a discussion thread, people argued over it and usually opposed it, and that was that.
July 21, 2010, 9:34 pmSeattle Law Student says:
A guess – for conservatives calling yourself a Libertarian became hip, because Neo-conservativism is so last decade? [edit to fix spelling]
July 21, 2010, 9:36 pmgarry w. says:
Prof. Anderson,
Are you shamed into silence by now? Are you sorry you spoke up? Are you humbled by the quality of insult rejoinder (“so last decade” is so last decade) in response to your valid concern?
Why do most threads here start out with a series of cheap punches?
July 21, 2010, 9:43 pmSwede says:
Speaking of circlejerks, who should we brand as a racist (take your pick, it doesn’t matter) to deflect attention from the real racist and a particular congregant from his racist church?
July 21, 2010, 9:44 pmRSF677 says:
Professor Anderson’s post about Klein was on this day one year ago. Weird.
July 21, 2010, 9:46 pmKanchou says:
I can see is now:
“Are you now, or have you ever been a member of Journolist?”
And when I heard jlist, I usually think about this [NSFW] store:
July 21, 2010, 9:47 pmhttp://www.jlist.com
wm13 says:
Generally, when someone (i.e., in this case, the members of Journolist) who is in possession of documentary evidence chooses not to produce it, there is a strong presumption that the evidence is unfavorable to that person. I realize that, for most people, the advancement of their own political agenda trumps normal modes of logic, so I don’t expect this common, everyday rule to be applied by any left-of-center commenter.
July 21, 2010, 9:56 pmCareless says:
Given the history and origins of neo-conservatism, this doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Well, it doesn’t say anything bad about the members of Journolist, but Zasloff is pretty clearly shown to be an asshole. Is it newsworthy that a law professor at UCLA suggested that the government shut down Fox News?
July 21, 2010, 9:59 pmMac says:
Because they can’t defend the actions, especially those in question here, in any rational manner?
In this case, we find out that even a law professor is recommending that the Gov. pull the license of Fox. Now, I don’t know whether to be more alarmed at his complete disregard for the First Amendment or by the fact that a guy with, I believe, 5 degrees doesn’t know that cable does not operate under a license. Network News does not either. The stations who carry them operate under a license granted by the FCC. Cable stations do not need one.
And, there were alleged reporters, not just opinion types, who are caught in this and who are clearly trying to suppress facts to benefit Obama. Remember, for a lot of this time, it was Hilary who got creamed by the media and hurt by their refusal to investigate Obama. They would not air the complaints by Hilary’s campaign who talked of gross voter intimidation and fraud by the Obama people at the caucus states. See, “We Will Not Be Silenced” on youtube. These are not members of the vast right wing conspiracy, but Democrats who state that no one, not even Fox, would air their complaints.
If I am not mistaken, there are Journalism professors on this list with quite damaging comments.
Journalism is dead.
That could be why she said that only Fox gave her a fair hearing.
July 21, 2010, 9:59 pmFactchecker says:
Don’t you mean that every non-JList journalist’s value has now gone down, because the rest of us don’t know who is and isn’t on the list? It’ll be interesting to see if any journalists make public denials of having been on the list. I simply assume that they all were.
July 21, 2010, 9:59 pmKenneth Anderson says:
RSF677: Really? I was too lazy to look it up or put in any links. Maybe I have a special gene that clicks on once a year and says, Must Post About Ezra Klein. But now I’m going to crawl into bed with my laptop, turn off the modem, and re-work parts of my book ms. on financial regulation so I’ll be ready to discuss it with my co-author tomorrow. Off-topic, but writing a book on financial regulation while a big bill is being produced is like hitting a fly zooming around with a bb gun. Goodnight.
July 21, 2010, 9:59 pmFactchecker says:
Don’t you mean that every non-JList journalist’s value has now gone down, because the rest of us don’t know who is and isn’t on the list? It’ll be interesting to see if any journalists make public denials of having been on the list. I simply assume that they all were.
July 21, 2010, 9:59 pmJustin says:
wm13, that presumption typically doesn’t apply in this non-litigation-case, particularly when the people on the list have plenty of independent and non-malicious reasons for wanting to keep the entire list private.
July 21, 2010, 10:03 pmJustin says:
Also, the Daily Crawler is deceptively narrating, but the reality is that NOBODY agreed with Zasloff (a nonjournalist)’s point. Judis is made to appear that he’s agreeing with Zasloff but he does. What Judis says is
July 21, 2010, 10:11 pmNorm says:
There once was an J-list of web journos
July 21, 2010, 10:23 pmyou know, free press who liked cooking in hornos
but they had to be indigenous made
imported under Cap and (Fair) Trade
IOW, these guys e-swapped Feminist pornos.
cboldt says:
I think the observation that Journolist produces a hit to credibility, or better, objectivity and reporting “against bias,” is accurate. There is a hit.
July 21, 2010, 10:26 pmProf. Farrell’s remarks don’t really address that, instead, he asserts, quite correctly, I’m sure, that whatever happens isn’t some coordinated scheme, agreed by all 400 participants (or however many are active in any issue). The point isn’t presence of clear or direct coordination, it is the willingness to suppress stories, or figure out clever ways to obfuscate and slant.
Back to my original point, “perception is reality” works both ways, and when a reader perceives a credibility deficit, it’s REALLY there, in that one reader, whether or not correct, and whether or not justified.
pat says:
Ignorance of incredible proportions mixed with the conformity of a Chinese dance company. They are guilty of being dolts.
July 21, 2010, 10:30 pmDavid Welker says:
Fun quote number one:
That is pretty delicious. How about this:
Does Kenneth Anderson ever worry about HIS credibility?
To Mr. Anderson:
Even if there are a few inflammatory emails, do you think it is logical to attribute the content of those emails to everyone on the list, or only the authors of those particular emails? If blaming everyone on the list for things they did not write is the principle upon which you make judgments about individuals, then I hereby hold you personally responsible for all inflammatory comments here at VC made by anonymous commenters. I think that would make you pretty low in the credibility department.
Tempting….
Except, I can’t do that. Just because you are completely illogical, that does not mean I will follow you there. Besides, you can be criticized enough already for things that you have actually written without trying to attribute the writings of anonymous commenters to you.
Seriously, are you that unreasonable? Membership in an email list is now some sort of scarlet letter? That is not even close to logical or reasonable.
Oh, I get it! You really aren’t that crazy are you. This is really just a bunch of emotional BS. The JList should be released!! Otherwise, people like you (who are normally able to exercise logic combined with reasonable judgment in normal circumstances) will come to illogical conclusions and sweeping judgments about not only every JList journalist but also “every non-JList journalist.”
To sum up Mr. Anderson’s position:
According to Mr. Anderson’s “logic,” (and I use the scare quotes for a reason) if you are on the JList, you already are untrustworthy, regardless of whether you agreed with or even read what was written in particular emails or not. But wait! The “logic” does not stop there. If Kenneth Anderson doesn’t get the information he desires, he will be completely illogical regarding all journalists. (Except for those who work for Fox News, I assume) In other words, he will become like the majority of other conservatives in his mistrust of the so-called mainstream media. Whereas, he will return to being a normal human being capable of exercising normal logical faculties if he gets the information he so desperately wants (but is not entitled to).
Basically, Mr. Anderson is throwing a tantrum.
I am getting sick and tired of politics and how it turns the minds of otherwise intelligent people into Jello. And I don’t even care if you are a liberal or a conservative.
All I know is this.
Kenneth Anderson should be deeply embarrassed by this particular blog post. Really Mr Anderson? Really!?? You can’t do better than this?
I happen to believe that you can.
July 21, 2010, 10:30 pmOwen H. says:
It is? So if I claim someone is having an affair, if they refuse to produce proof they are not that proves they in fact are?
I assume that standing on one’s 5th Amendment rights is also proof of guilt.
July 21, 2010, 10:38 pmD.R.M. says:
Why should I believe Henry Farrell’s statements? Wouldn’t he have said the exact same thing if he was trying to cover up the fact that Journolist was routinely used for coordination? I don’t know the man; I have no reason to believe he wouldn’t lie like a rug.
Breitbart might call him out on it with quotes from the list if he lies? We don’t know Breitbart has the full archive. Maybe Breitbart has it, but, then again, maybe the version he got had some strategic pruning done to it first. If someone were trying to shut down the whole brouhaha, wouldn’t the most effective means be carefully removing all the most damaging bits, in a way that still left what remained looking like a complete archive?
The Google-hosted archive, which could have been opened up to public inspection, was irrevocably destroyed by Ezra Klein. The only people who can verify whether Breitbart has the whole thing, and thus the actual ability to publish the most damaging parts, are the very same people who have a motive to keep the most damaging parts from coming to light. Their credibility when making claims about the content of the list is accordingly zero. And thanks to Ezra Klein, no, there isn’t anywhere they can go to get it back.
July 21, 2010, 10:42 pmcboldt says:
David Welker: — Does Kenneth Anderson ever worry about HIS credibility? –
July 21, 2010, 10:43 pmI can’t speak for K. Anderson, or for D. Welker – but it’s objective reality that each of us has a certain amount of credibility. I don’t worry about mine, but I value credibility, and make an honest effort to clearly say my mind, and clearly understand my opponent.
I have written off many on the opposing side, in that I won’t engage with them. Read ‘em, shake my head (or roll my eyes) and move on. Rarely will I care enough to tell a partner in discussion that, from my point of view, their credibility is suffering. It’s much easier to just blow off the comment, and move on.
I think K. Anderson’s post here is meant in the nature of a constructive, critical observation.
Andrew L says:
David Welker: Given the substance and tone of your nearly 530 (!) word post, I’d caution you to think carefully before accusing Professor Anderson of throwing a tantrum.
With regard to your point: Your premise seems to be that all web-based discussions are created equal. But doesn’t it make more sense to distinguish between different types of discussions? Think about the difference between a classroom discussion and a discussion at a professional conference or a business meeting. Even without defining the exact parameters, I think it’s fair to say that to an extent, participants in these different settings have different degrees of responsibility for their own conduct and the conduct of fellow participants.
July 21, 2010, 10:45 pmOwen H. says:
I find it far more newsworthy that FOX commentators have repeatedly said things like how reasonable it would be to detain and intern any and all Muslims, including US-born citizens. Among other things.
July 21, 2010, 10:47 pmHot Air » Quotes of the day says:
[...] and related issues at the WaPo, I do admit that one of the first thoughts in my head was … is he a JournoLister? And if he is, do I need to somehow discount his account as being part of a pre-conceived [...]
July 21, 2010, 10:49 pmDave N. says:
Let’s play the normal game to detect partisan hackery:
If a group of conservative lawyers, journalists, political commentators, and others had a private discussion group open only to conservatives, and there was evidence that some of the members of the discussion group (certainly not all, or even a majority, but more than a couple) were actively using the discussion group to coordinate how they would respond to various issues and silence critics, which Journolist defender here would agree that my hypothetical discussion board is no big deal?
July 21, 2010, 10:54 pmDave N. says:
Do you have an actual citation for this? And no, Daily Kos doesn’t count as a credible source.
July 21, 2010, 10:56 pmJustin says:
Dave N., I’m pretty sure that place exists. It’s called The Corner.
July 21, 2010, 10:58 pmAislabie says:
The more of these e-mails I read, the more these folks sound like Jacobins, Montagnards even. Not in the epithet sense, but in the true historical sense. Radical republican bourgeois professionals and pamphleteers insulated in the capital, chasing out Feuillants, Girondists, and anyone else less that committed to the Revolution. The ends so knowingly justifying the means in the face of their stated principles. The treatment of everyone else not as loyal opposition (a concept that doesn’t exist) but enemies acting from base and dishonest motives who must be got rid of before power swings the other way. The blood lust. The cynical relationship with the fickle mob. The youth and stunning mediocrity of so many of the supposed elites involved. And, ultimately, overreach, blowback, disintegration, and humiliation.
July 21, 2010, 11:00 pmJustin says:
Good thing you didn’t mean it as an epithet, Aislabie.
July 21, 2010, 11:04 pmOwen H. says:
Heck Dave, just read Michelle Malkin. She isn’t shy.
July 21, 2010, 11:04 pmCareless says:
Setting aside the question of whether or not this is true, what the heck does it have to do with my question? Does Fox News not get reported on and called out for things it does/says?
July 21, 2010, 11:06 pmalkali says:
Prof. Anderson: To all you non-JournoLister reporters out there, please be aware that your credibility has just taken a big hit, because we, your faithful readers, don’t actually know who is or who isn’t.
I don’t think you really should be puzzled about that.
1. The word “journalist” includes both hard-news reporting and punditry. But it doesn’t appear that the JournoList included any hard-news reporters like your Mr. Finn.
2. Indeed, it would be surprising if a hard-news reporter like Mr. Finn joined JournoList, just as it would be surprising if Mr. Finn opined in print that he supported the election of a particular candidate in the 2008 Presidential election, or wore a candidate’s button. Hard-news reporters generally understand that they are supposed to avoid that kind of thing (whereas it’s fair game for pundits, columnists, bloggers, etc.).
3. With respect to pundits’ participation in the list, political listservs are common, and predate the Internet in other forms (e.g., Grover Norquist’s “Wednesday Meetings”). Are those all efforts to “shape the narrative”? I suppose that’s true in a sense, but it seems more appropriate to regard that as just one aspect of the complex ongoing public policy conversation in this country.
* * *
As a political liberal, I’m not wildly enthusiastic about JournoList, although I don’t think it’s unethical or corrupt or anything like that. I do think that people working in the blog form ought to provide transparency to their readers as much as possible, because that is one of the virtues of the form. There are limits, to be sure: when Ezra Klein and Henry Farrell meet to have a couple beers and talk politics, they don’t need to record and post their conversation. However, it does seem to me that they shouldn’t create what is essentially a private group blog, when they could just as easily be having that conversation on the public side of the internet.
July 21, 2010, 11:07 pmOwen H. says:
And I just want to say again, what happened to the comments on that other post, Ken? It’s bad enough when one of you blocks comments on a post, but to remove comments and lock a thread? Seriously dude, that’s lame.
July 21, 2010, 11:09 pmvxbinaca says:
Is J-List that anime merch selling site?
July 21, 2010, 11:10 pmOwen H. says:
You think some yutz posting on a private blog is somehow important? How about all the posters on any number of FOX commentary threads? Do they matter? because there are some seriously screwed up, bigoted idiots out there.
July 21, 2010, 11:12 pmMnZ says:
I love the way the JournoList defenders try to make this sound like it was no big deal. If it was no big deal, why were these communications kept amongst JournoList members? Moreover, if the Daily Caller is cherry picking, why doesn’t Ezra Klein just release the whole contents of JournoList? Did such extreme positions appear in the columns of JournoList members? I would argue that these revelations are highly damaging to JournoList members and journalism in general because it demonstrates that many prominent members of the media have very strong biases.
Despite journalists’ protestations to the contrary, biases are difficult to overcome. For example, behavioral economics shows that people will often demonstrate cognitive biases even when those biases work against their best interests. Similarly, it may be even harder for journalists to overcome their biases because their biases are arguably not against their self-interests. Based on the JournoList posts, it appears that they thought their biases were simply a reflection of the Truth.
Rather than guard against their biases, they wallowed in them.
July 21, 2010, 11:17 pmDave N. says:
Sneering aside, I believe you and I can read “The Corner” anytime we want. Journolist? Nah, we just need to take its members word that its all benevolent.
July 21, 2010, 11:22 pmJustin says:
mnz, if your sex life is no big deal, why don’t you put a 24/7 sex cam on the net?
The idea that the JList is a big deal BECAUSE it was private and its members like to keep it so strikes me as quite absurd. You really can’t figure out any non-malicious reasons why the JListers wanted to and continue to want to maintain their privacy?
July 21, 2010, 11:25 pmporterhouse says:
This is an outstanding post by Kenneth Anderson.
Just a few things to add. I voted for Obama in the general, but I supported Hillary in the primary. The “golden age” of the JournoList would have been November of 2007 through June of 2008–this is when they would have had their most influence…in the Democratic primary.
Remember, Obama did NOT win the delegate count outright, and by many counts Obama did NOT win the popular vote in the primary. Hillary lost the nomination because the mainstream media and the superdelegates FORCED her out when neither Obama nor Hillary were anywhere close to the number of ELECTED delegates necessary to win the nomination (technically superdelegates do not vote until the convention). This is really the period of time that needs to be investigated in order to determine the impact of the JournoList, because the superdelegates and Democratic establishment would have been influenced by the opinions of liberal thinkers.
July 21, 2010, 11:33 pmMark Field says:
I already assume that conservatives do this; vast right wing conspiracies need to coordinate themselves. Perfectly within their rights.
That doesn’t mean I think it’s a good idea. While I do think political movements need to communicate privately, it’s far too easy for these to take on the attributes of a middle school ingroup. If the Journalist members are guilty of anything, it’s probably this.
All of which pales beside the Beltway oligarchy, which protects its own and treats the rest of us like plebs.
July 21, 2010, 11:37 pmJustin says:
Dave N., is your argument really that “This is a big deal because there’s no conservative version of JList for which there’s widespread public awareness of which is also not public?
Um, ok. I’d think that argument sort of answered itself. The reason why I can’t come up with a private version of the Corner is because such a version would be private, and thus I wouldn’t know that it existed. But Conservative Liz Mair (Carly Fiona staffer) states:
Conservative blogger Jeff Duntz writes
mnz, I guess no conservative can be trusted, either. What are they hiding? The world wants to know!!!
July 21, 2010, 11:39 pmrpt says:
I’m sure Mr. Breitbart is ready to release the rest of the story. Gossip indeed from Mr. (Hacker?) Carlson.
July 21, 2010, 11:41 pmAnderson says:
I thought liberals were supposed to be the crybabies, but conservatives have them beat these days.
July 21, 2010, 11:48 pmSimon P. says:
You know, I’m a busy guy. Could someone distill for me the essence of this whole fever-dream?
I followed the links from Lindgren’s post quoting the Daily Caller a few posts ago and found nothing there but a contrived narrative stitched together from inoffensive, decontextualized comments that worried, ironically as it turned out, that there was no institutional mechanism that could correct mischaracterizations and bald-faced lies like those perpetrated by the Daily Caller or, as it turned out, the VC. Is that it, as to substance to this fever-dream, or is there more to it that I’ve missed?
I mean, kudos, VCers, for working to become the academic/apologist wing of the Republican media machine. Now I know where to go when I want some intellectually dishonest and misleading claptrap I can use to confirm that the Tea Party isn’t racist or that no one outside of Fox News can be trusted to report the news honestly. Or, I suppose, if I want to see a bunch of striving academics trip over themselves to become the leading academo-pundit on the Second Amendment, only to complain later about “bubbles” in legal academic work (while using the opportunity to take a jab at that latest bugaboo, “behavioral economics,” which everyone knows is just the Liberal’s foot in the door, opening the way to totalitarianism). How many VCers do I skip as a matter of habit, now? Five, six?
July 21, 2010, 11:50 pmW.D. says:
Hmm, as I recall, that mild reproach included references to “Ezra, Young Turk,” “young Ezra,” a “Generic Expert” who “deems himself up to taking on Greg Mankiw.” Nowhere did it even begin to address the substantive arguments of Klein’s post, favoring the who-does-he-think-he-is approach instead, with plenty of insinuations that Klein was making a quick buck off of his supposed “celebrity.” In short, it was a noxious, substance-free hit piece, one which Mr. Anderson later admitted was written under the influence of “too many muscle relaxants.” What’s not to like?
I have no idea whether in-house bloggers at old media outlets like WP are a trend that will last or not. But I doubt any of them are getting rich off it, and it’s hard to see how hiring wonky, engaged “young turks” (left, right, or center) to write informed opinion pieces heavy with facts and figures (and charts, and tables, etc.) is a detriment to the institution. They’ve been paying Krauthammer for lazy, factually challenged punditry for years, after all, and no one sees that as a harbinger of doom. (Ok, almost no one.)
July 21, 2010, 11:57 pmwinston says:
But if bat-shit crazy Lindgren says there is a conspiracy, there must be one.
July 22, 2010, 12:18 amTexEd says:
If we are to believe Henry and take his comments at face, then Henry and his colleagues should have no problem, in the interest of tranceparency, don’t cha know, publishing the entire archive of JournoList.
July 22, 2010, 12:28 amWe have hypothesized for several years that the anti-American, extreme-leftist, captive media has moved in lock step and coordinated what they report and don’t report. JournoList proves that we were right. However, there is no reason to assume that JournoList and it’s 400 members was the only mechanism to spread the poison.
The test is easy form here. Ask not what is to be reported, ask only what it not reported. Look at the issues, John Edwards, for example, that are not covered by the captive media. The JournoListers and their
secret replacemenet(s), over the next six months will NOT cover any story that makes Obama and his fools look bad. That will have to have been coordinated.
It has already started. Rachael, tonight, stuttered the drumbeat; it’s all racism. That will be the absolute attack on all Republicans, Tea Partiers and Americans; your opposition to Obama and his pimps is racism. It will be the JournoListers and their successors he direct this venom.
Sarcastro says:
If they talked, they must have conspired! I mean, leftists have no integrity, so it’s important to assume the worst, and then speculate wildly from there.
And neither is the story of Bush’s being a dry drunk Or Sarah Palin’s baby secretly not being hers! Damn conservative media.
That’s totally not crazy. Considering the awesome proof you have (an exlusive internet forum omg!) I think jumping off into shadow conspiracy land is totally sane. I mean, I expect to hear nothing about the oil spill or the economy or NAACP in the near future. Of course, if perchance I do it’s only to throw us off the scent or cause FOX forced them to.
But you repeat yourself.
Of course Obama is a pimp. I mean, he looks like one, right? Well, a pimp or a thug. Or maybe a rapper…
July 22, 2010, 12:40 amAdam Sullivan says:
And then you go on to a give us a neurotic hissy that can’t be categorized as anything but an angst filled distillation.
Sorry – the “smart people” were caught being stupid by Tucker Carlson. Including a UCLA Law professor suggesting that networks get licensed by FCC. Stations do. Networks don’t. The FCC can’t shut down or yank the license of Fox.
July 22, 2010, 12:48 amJeff Weimer says:
Thanks for providing the rebuttal, but I find Henry Farrell’s argument unpersuasive.
“A couple of the hotter heads on the list may sometimes have wanted journolists not to report on topic x or topic y, but no-one took them seriously.”
How does he know that? Can he know into the motives of those who read those threads? How can you prove a negative?
“I’m on many listservs, and journolist was much the usual fare — a lot of arguments between people who disagreed with each other, gossip on journalism and sports, a fair amount of political speculation (which may have influenced people indirectly — but no more than any other conversation would), and a fair amount of exchange between journalists and academics and wonks on topics of their expertise.”
Ezra Klein made this same argument last year. This scuttlebut is common to all listservs, as he admits. But it’s not the point, and it reaches into misdirection about the purpose and effect of journolist. Ezra Klein admitted that it was only open to left/center oriented people, so the opinions and exchange was within a limited ideological pool. So it was only wonks and academics that broadly agreed with the “journalists” already. So disagreements were automatically about degree rather than scope.
Really the question about journolist is, since you can’t prove a negative, who merely read the critical discussions and then made journalistic decisions that had broad effect based on them? We will never know, and that’s why it’s become important to know who was on the journolist and who was not. The uncertainty taints all who profess “journalism.”
July 22, 2010, 12:53 amDan Simon says:
I well remember the JournoListers’ letter condemning Charlie Gibson for asking Obama tough questions about Rev. Wright. At the time, I thought the letter ludicrous, but given its unprecedented nature, it simply never occurred to me to doubt either the sincerity or the intensity of the sentiments expressed in it.
However, had I known that the letter was actually co-ordinated via a private email list, I would have discounted the letter’s high dudgeon–it takes a lot less passion, after all, to hash out a joint statement on an existing email list than to create one from scratch in response to an event. And had I known that the letter was drafted as part of a deliberate attempt to tamp down coverage of the Rev. Wright story, I’d have discounted the sincerity of the letter as well.
In this case, JournoList functioned as a kind of “astroturf” organization for journalists, allowing them to appear to have spontaneously banded together when in fact they had already been acting in a coordinated, organized fashion. I don’t know if there were any similar such behind-the-scenes collaborations, but in this one, at least, the journalists involved clearly, and in my opinion unethically, misled their readers.
July 22, 2010, 1:00 amMidlantan says:
Your friend Henry sounds very thoughtful. Unlike Ken, unfortunately. He just continues to spout the same claptrap that makes us doubt the veracity or soundness of posts to the VC, in much the same way you claim to doubt the integrity of journalists who may or may not be associated with Journolist.
July 22, 2010, 1:30 amSarcastro says:
You’d think that was because the list was somehow sinister, when in fact:
So it is important to know who was involved in this thing that we don’t know what it was used for?
All we know is
See, the key is to assume horrible things, and then speculate about even more horrible things. That’s how you can keep hating people who disagree with you!
Welp, it ain’t proof. It ain’t even evidence, but it sure does fit the narrative. And in politics, sometimes that’s all ya need.
July 22, 2010, 1:31 amCareless says:
Setting aside the silliness of calling Journolist a “private blog” yes, I do think that what a full professor of law at a major university advocates in semi-public is more newsworthy than what some random anonymous person writes in a comment thread.
July 22, 2010, 1:31 amCareless says:
(especially when it’s a gross violation of the Bill of Rights)
July 22, 2010, 1:37 amCato The Elder says:
Pfft. Of course the Left would try to shoo people away from concrete evidence demonstrating how the hone some of their most odious tactics, including yelling “racist” at anyone who disagrees with them and their Messianic ideology. One can’t blame them for their consternation. Indeed, the structure of their political party, composed of a highly coordinated intellectual class directing a moribund lumpenproletariat, would naturally seem to leave them more open to the kind of invasion of privacy the Internet engenders — Democratic politics have since the ’30s had much more of a seedy underbelly than the rights’. Luckily it’s being exposed and archived for all to see.
July 22, 2010, 1:54 amSarcastro says:
Your definition of evidence is nearly as unique as your definition of concrete.
Props on calling it “Democratic politics” though! That must have been difficult.
July 22, 2010, 1:58 amKen Arromdee says:
What about the Daniel Davies quote? That certainly sounds like he wants laws against Fox.
July 22, 2010, 2:20 amEngineer says:
The DC caller threads have shown a few things that make the non-insiders uncomfortable:
1. Opinion columnists (ie. Ackerman, Pollitt) stating quite openly that they are not writing what they actually believe, but rather what they think is tactically useful for their party.
2. Groupthink that periodically meanders into suggestions of collusion. Even if there is no explicit collusion, the journolist strengthens the MSM monoculture. We expect that there is a certain uniformity of views at institutions NYT or WaPo, but a forum like the journolist extends the dominant culture across institutions.
July 22, 2010, 2:44 amDan Simon says:
Welp, it ain’t proof. It ain’t even evidence, but it sure does fit the narrative.
Ex-JournoList member Jonathan Chait has already conceded that the letter condemning Charlie Gibson’s tough questioning of Obama over the Rev. Wright issue was conceived and composed over JournoList. Are you arguing that the role of JournoList was revealed at the time? Or that the fact that the letter was organized in an existing private forum, in the context of discussions of how to blunt the Rev. Wright issue, rather than as a spontaneous collaboration among otherwise unaffiliated journalists, is of no concern to readers evaluating the letter?
July 22, 2010, 2:52 amStephen Lathrop says:
Speaking as someone who might have been on Journolist, if I had been, I readily acknowledge that I could have conspired with others in the mainstream media, if I had been a member of it, as I was, decades ago, sort of. Presumably, that leaves my credibility in tatters. But, full disclosure, it’s worse than that, because Rupert Murdoch offered me a job once, and I turned him down.
But feeling defensive, as I do, about the secretive coordination I could have done, what I want to ask is how would that have been different in effect, if I had done it and not disclosed it, than what goes on at News Corp. policy meetings?
Do people understand News Corp. is meeting out of sight and tendentiously coordinating news coverage, and are they furious that anyone would claim the others aren’t? That’s the scandal, right—our guys do it and your guys shouldn’t? Red team/blue team, we should win?
I feel sick about what’s happening in journalism—all of it. History shows that tendentious, crappy journalism is the natural order of things. It seems like a chance alignment of factors, a little swirl of anti-entropy, produced something better, for a few decades. I happened to grow up enjoying the benefits of that. Got used to it. I’m going to miss it.
July 22, 2010, 4:26 amAngus says:
I used to think that 9/11 was the worst crime of my lifetime. Then I heard about a couple of black guys standing in front of a polling place in Philadelphia, and I knew that 9/11 had just been dwarfed. Now, with the JList revelations, I know that my generation has managed to outdo the evil of the Holocaust. A century from now, Americans writing the history of this era will have 9/11 as a historical footnote. Journolist and its fallout will not be able to reduced to less than several lengthy chapters.
I call for Congressional hearings, maybe a permanent House investigative committee. Every reporter and editorialist in the country should be forced to appear and answer if they are now, or have ever been, a member of Journolist. They should also be compelled to reveal if they suspect that any of their colleagues are Journolisters. The very survival of human civilization depends on this.
July 22, 2010, 6:49 amleo marvin says:
Assuming, as Chait says, the letter was signed and openly published by the 41 (out of roughly 400) JournoList members, what difference does it make whether they networked it at JournoList or at Starbucks? It was transparently a collaborative project. They didn’t just wake up one morning and find letters to sign under their pillows.
July 22, 2010, 6:51 amSarcastro says:
I just heard that Mother Jones writers are not fans of Palin, and wrote about such on the List!!
Who knew?
July 22, 2010, 7:00 amsashal says:
in other news, National Review ., Weekly Standard and Washington Times Journalists cheered Bush election in 2004.
Seriously, there’s a great comment at the bottom of that Daily Caller post to the effect of “thanks for reminding us how good it felt when Obama got elected”. It was actually kind of lovely to read all the comments from the people on the journolist and brought a tear to my eye.
July 22, 2010, 7:06 amTwo things in particular stood out in the journolist’s comments. First, Michael Hirsch’s comment at the end about Obama’s term being a non-ideological presidency – something which now seems to be a source of misery rather than praise. Second, it’s Obama’s acceptance speech, where he says we may not get there in one year or one term but we’ll get there together. For everyone who expected dramatic change overnight that is the take-home it seems to me. Stimulus, healthcare, financial reform, tougher regulations all round, START treaty (the list goes on). America (or at least the adult portion of it) is getting there…
cboldt says:
– how would that have been different in effect, if I had done it and not disclosed it, than what goes on at News Corp. policy meetings? –
July 22, 2010, 7:11 amNot that there wasn’t ample evidence before the specific revelations from J-List participants, but the difference has been stated at least once on this thread, and I think you can discern it yourself, with some thought.
It’s the same difference that makes AP more powerful as an opinion maker and myth creator, than, for example, TIME magazine.
MnZ says:
My sex life is not relevant to my professional life. I make no representations in my professional life that are contradicted by the reality of my sex life.
If JournoLists members had represented themselves as being incredibly biased, prone to groupthink, and downright nasty, then I would agree that there is no story here. However, this scandal is much like the Goldman Sachs scandal. In public, Goldman Sach made certain representations to their clients and the public that were contradicted by their private correspondence.
July 22, 2010, 7:14 amOwen H. says:
Clearly it’s time to bring back the House Un-American Activities Committee.
“Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of JournoList?”
July 22, 2010, 7:20 amJustin says:
Not sure about “prone to groupthink and downright nasty,” but none of the members of journalist would deny biased. But do you post that YOU are incredibly biased, prone to groupthink, and downright nasty? Because you have clearly exhibited all 3 traits yourself on this thread, and I haven’t seen that disclaimer ONCE from you.
July 22, 2010, 7:30 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Liberal bloggers and journalists “talking amongst themselves” is not supposed to be such an outrage. Liberal bloggers and journalists talking amongst themselves about how to shape the news coverage in order to help liberal candidates is such an outrage.
(The fact that bloggers do it isn’t such an outrage; we don’t really expect them to be remotely objective. But opinion columnists, while expected to have an opinion, are still expected to be independent, not campaigning on behalf of a candidate. And reporters are expected to cover the news, not decide what to cover based on who it helps.)
July 22, 2010, 7:31 amJustin says:
Since people seemed to have missed/ignored it the first go round, even ignoring the Fox News policy memos and meetings, several conservatives – Fiona’s media director, Jeff Duntz – have admitted there are conservative Jlists out there.
July 22, 2010, 7:34 amEngineer says:
The latest DC piece on responses to Palin even more strongly implies collusion. Yglesias starting a thread called “The line on Palin”. Joe Klein thanking people for ideas in his article. An activist talking about how the “non-official campaign” for Obama needs to attack Palin. Participation by a “straight reporter” from Politico, a blogger from the Economist, and an official from Human Rights Watch (!).
July 22, 2010, 7:40 amcboldt says:
– reporters are expected to cover the news, not decide what to cover based on who it helps –
July 22, 2010, 7:40 amAnd who created that expectation? The media itself!
It’s a bogus expectation. Based on experience, I don’t expect reporters to be honest. They are skilled manipulators.
Justin says:
Engineer, I haven’t decided what my thoughts are on the latest spitout from the Daily Caller, but are you implying that members of the Human Rights Watch, when acting in their private, nonofficial capacity, are only allowed to have opinions that the Human Rights Watch purports to have as well?
July 22, 2010, 7:43 amSarcastro says:
[Only the ones with a name for themselves. I know a number of workaday reporters in the local scene, and they seem to not do too much other than interview people and write down what they said.]
July 22, 2010, 7:44 amSarcastro says:
Participation! I can only assume they got a ribbon.
July 22, 2010, 7:48 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Because Lindgren controls the internets! If there aren’t comments on his posts, there are no places to respond to him! He’s scared of you!
Really, people, get over yourselves. I enjoy posts with comments enabled too, but 90% of commenting on posts is basically masturbation for us commenters. It’s not “presenting the other side” in court. And the posts that people whine about lack of comments on are precisely the ones where the comments are likely to have the least substance — where commenters are just likely to preen about how superior they are for having better more liberal views than the blogger.
July 22, 2010, 7:49 amsashal says:
400 people chatting, literally tens of thousands of posts,… that’s all ?
If I spent a week working through every single post on yahoo.rec.needlepoint I could get worse…
Journolist reinforces my belief that most liberal pundits are way too nice. Remember what Eric Ericson over at Red State said about David Souter? Do we have to drudge up Limbaugh comments about a teenage Chelsea Clinton? That was in public; imagine what they say to each other in private.
The Daily Caller is “The Shame of” dishonest right wing propagandists Tucker Carlson and apparently criminal sadist Republican Dick Cheney’s old adviser Neil Patel.
The fact that Ann Althouse (!) is condemning Carlson’s puppet’s attempts at stirring up controversy as “weak” is telling.
So lump The Daily Caller’s credibility between Republican funded Politic.com and the extreme right-wing propaganda of Murdoch’s FOX liars, Breitbart’s criminals (see: O’Keefe), and the Republican cult leader Moon’s Washington Times.
Misinformation is their mission.
Mission accomplished.
July 22, 2010, 8:07 amMnZ says:
Really? Please explain my bias, groupthink, and nastiness.
I am neither a journalist nor an academic so I have made no implicit or explicit representations of my open-mindedness*, the independence of my thought, or my fairness to others with differing points of view. Nevertheless, I consider those generally good traits so your opinions on how I might improve in those ways would appreciated. (I would say that I have never wished someone’s death or plotted to maliciously and falsely brand someone in derogatory way.)
I work in consulting instead. If I privately contradicted my representations regarding my advice and analysis or my ability to deliver quality advice and analysis, I am quite certain that current clients and potential clients would like to know. Furthermore, they would be rightly concerned by such revelations and would justifably be less likely to seek my services. Finally, it would demonstrate a general unprofessionalism in my opinion.
*-I.e., the opposite of epistemic closure.
July 22, 2010, 8:07 amJustin says:
Mnz, the groupthink is evidenced by your reflexive attack on the journalist for rediculous reasons – that it’s private, for instance. Your nastiness is evidenced by the fact that you have thrown random insults at jlist members. And thanks for admitting that you are biased and not openminded, but none of the jlist members are reporters. Theyre pundits – theyre SUPPOSED to be biased. Many of them work at TNR, the Nation, American Prospect, Mother Jones, etc. Some of them are advocates. A few of them are academics. On the conservative versions of jlist, even campaign staffers are permitted, though jlist bans them.
There are reasonable issues with the existence of the jlist and its conservative counterparts. Some of these issues go to how Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC choose what to cover and how, and are far broader than the jlist itself. But you’ve managed to attack things about jlist that are utterly uncontroversial, such as the fact that they are composed of liberals and that they want to protect their privacy.
July 22, 2010, 8:12 amcboldt says:
– Please explain my bias, groupthink, and nastiness. –
July 22, 2010, 8:15 amAll that matters is the accusation. You stand accused. Wear it as a badge of honor, considering the source.
Snaphappy says:
I have heard that wm13′s email contains descriptions of how he rapes underage children. So long as wm13, who has documentary evidence of his email, chooses not to produce it, there is a strong presumption that the evidence is unfavorable to him.
See how that would work?
July 22, 2010, 8:16 amJoe T. Guest says:
Because you have J-Listers like Eric Alterman writing books and crowing about how right-of-center the media actually is, how there’s no coordination of talking points through a forum like J-List and so on. It’s Teh Hypocrisy.
July 22, 2010, 8:18 amBlue says:
Daliy Caller has put up what happened when Palin was nominated–a coordinated effort to figure out how to attack her.
July 22, 2010, 8:30 amBlue says:
And remember that a lot of straight reporters and producers–like that NPR producer who wished death on Limbaugh–were participating passively and picking up these talking points.
July 22, 2010, 8:32 amDean says:
I’d have to say that the “there is no coordinated effort” claim has been discredited by the DC story on Palin today.
July 22, 2010, 8:33 amEngineer says:
Coming soon: “coordinated effort is no big deal, happens all the time etc”.
July 22, 2010, 8:42 amKenneth Anderson says:
Tamerlane, personal attack on Henry Farrell – not okay. I deleted it. I realize it is mild by the standards of this thread, but as I said, on this thread … Henry’s my guest.
July 22, 2010, 8:51 amern says:
There’s an easy way of testing whether the members of JournoList were coordinating their stories, but it requires that the archive be completely open and its members known. Simply look at the stories before and after posts were made on the list. What we already know is that most left-leaning journos took much the same tack on, say, Sarah Palin, after the VP announcement. So, we look at the list of stories and compare them to the archive, then compare them to stories written by non-JournoList journos. Easy.
I suspect that what you’ll find is that most of the conversations occurring on JournoList were also being had by journos in bars and over dinner and in the office. Coordination happens. What the leak of the archive shows is not so much the coordination (which is mostly expected by ideologically similar groups of people, even without concerted effort) but the partisan vitriol behind it. Most of these guys try to come off as politically balanced, and what the archive has shown is that some of them are bat-shit crazy. Their coordination wasn’t just ideological, though, but tactical. That’s not so common.
The other thing the archives *do* show is that there was a very clear *intent* by many JournoList members to act as a kind of “onofficial” campaign for Obama. When it comes down to credibility, that certainly is a problem. They very clearly ignored stories, twisted facts, and in some cases suggested that false accusations be made in order to change the subject. That’s not journalism, but propaganda. That they hold these positions is not a surprise, but the fact that they were unashamed to admit it in a quasi-private space certainly is. It indicates that most of the people in the “room” had no problem with it. And that also harms credibility.
July 22, 2010, 8:53 amMnZ says:
My insults are hardly random.
You are twisting my words. I made no such admission nor have I made any denials. Given my knowledge of psychology, I know that I, like all human beings, demonstrate certain cognitive biases which may cause me to make poor decisions or take improper perspectives at times. I do my best to avoid poor decisions and improper perspectives by understanding that those biases exist and looking for ways to address those biases. I am tempted to say that I have an openmind about my alleged closed-mindedness but I think that would be an logically inconsistent statement.
I agree that Krugman is a pundit. However, some other members were involved with or engaged in some form of reporting including editors and news analysts.
July 22, 2010, 8:54 amcboldt says:
– Coming soon: “coordinated effort is no big deal, happens all the time etc”. –
July 22, 2010, 8:56 amIt’s already been advanced. “No different from what NEWSCorp does,” and “The libertarian think tanks do it,” etc.
Another line of defense is to define “coordination” so that the group isn’t coordinated.
The groupthink, bias, and sophomoric level of development are discernible without the J-list disclosures.
Gabriel Sutherland says:
Tom Maguire, at his blog JustOneMinute, has demonstrated the appearance of coordination between members of Journolist.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/03/who-doesnt-love-the-journolist.html
Ezra should turn over the entire archive to the Columbia School or Journalism and the Northwestern Medill School of Journalism. Its contents will continue to leak out. A better option is to use the archive as a valuable lesson for students of journalism.
July 22, 2010, 9:00 amRoll dem dice Hank! says:
“As a former member of journolist, I can tell you quite honestly that there wasn’t any story coordination, or anything like it. Nor, if you read the Daily Caller article carefully, despite its deliberately misleading headline, do they have any proof of same. ”
Let’s see how long this line works (my bet: Until Friday’s DC release).
– Coming soon: “coordinated effort is no big deal, happens all the time etc”. –
What about: THIS WASN’T THE JOURNOLIST I KNEW!
WHAT DOES “IS” MEAN? OK, WHAT DOES “COORDINATED” MEAN?
July 22, 2010, 9:06 amcboldt says:
– A better option is to use the archive as a valuable lesson for students of journalism. –
July 22, 2010, 9:07 amThe lesson is already learned. Don’t leave written tracks, don’t get caught. The activity described in the e-mails will certainly persist. It’s perfectly legal to produce and market misleading propaganda as “fourth estate – vital for the preservation of democracy.” Those are marketing slogans, and effective ones at that.
The antidote to propaganda is a suitably skeptical public.
Roll dem dice Hank! says:
“I suspect that what you’ll find is that most of the conversations occurring on JournoList were also being had by journos in bars and over dinner and in the office.”
Fantasizing about throwing “f***ing Nascar retards with sad Downs babies” through plate-glass windows then watching their eyes bulge as they die in front of you?
Wouldn’t that be weird to overhear while eating your burger at TGI Fridays?
July 22, 2010, 9:08 amGabriel Sutherland says:
The worst part of Journolist is that the coordination didn’t lead to better performances for the Washington Wizards. Matthew Yglesias just didn’t have any pull on pushing Caron Butler to penetrate more and shoot less.
Where was Joe Klein and his Time column on that one?
July 22, 2010, 9:09 amStephen Lathrop says:
Now you do have me confused. I think they’re both on the rocks now, but, looking back, I would have picked Time as the opinion maker and myth creator over AP. Perhaps you’re not old enough to remember Time in the 1950s-1960s? Are you saying it’s the extensive reach of AP, and by analogy of Journolist, that makes the difference?
Trying to address the issue on the terms I think you suggest, News Corp. impresses me as the most potent opinion maker and myth creator on the planet, leaving Journolist, which seems barely to exist by comparison, far behind. A better comparison would of course be the NYT, which probably does more to set the terms of debate than News Corp. (an extremely important advantage), but which seems notably less effective with regard to the myth and opinion stuff.
July 22, 2010, 9:09 amwm13 says:
Snaphappy, post your real name and email here, and I’ll email you my entire email archive.
July 22, 2010, 9:12 amKirsten says:
Anyone else notice this:
For years now, journalists have worried that the Internet threatens traditional news media.
Bloggers/”citizen journalists” use it to influence news cycles & narrative, they aren’t trained, work in their pjs, no ethics, etc. etc.
How ironic that the real ‘net threat turns out to be how the journalists themselves decide to use it.
Oops.
July 22, 2010, 9:14 amMark Buehner says:
I suggest Mr Ferrell release his copies of J-list emails to clear all this up. What we have seen is (unfortunately) too provocative to take anyone at their word on. Any good journalist would demand proof, right? We’re often reminded of the old saw about journalists checking out even their own mothers as sources. SO why are so many professional journalists expecting the public (and fellow outsider journalists) to take them at their word? Release the emails and we can all see for ourselves how harmless they are.
July 22, 2010, 9:18 amPersonFromPorlock says:
At which point I flashed on Baghdad Bob.
July 22, 2010, 9:19 amcboldt says:
– Perhaps you’re not old enough to remember Time in the 1950s-1960s? Are you saying it’s the extensive reach of AP, and by analogy of Journolist, that makes the difference? –
July 22, 2010, 9:22 amI’m old enough to remember.
In hindsight, AP is not a good example. I think AP’s ability to influence public impression is amplified by it’s wide dissemination across financially independent platforms, but that’s wasn’t my point.
Part of the myth of media is that reporters are independent. When a number of supposedly independent people report the same thing, it’s “corroboration.” When the supposedly independent people coordinate their stories in advance, it is not corroboration. Corroboration from independent sources is a credibility enhancement.
Snaphappy says:
Sorry, you may wish to live in a world where unfounded accusations somehow compel the accused to refute them, but I do not, which was kind of the point.
July 22, 2010, 9:24 amMick Langan says:
Does anyone else think that Mr. Farrell is trying to gloss over the point? Any community has an unspoken groundswell. Influence is not ownership, of course. But when the discussion is how to move the narrative, and the narrative actually moves in that direction, does Mr. Farrell’s claim have any credibility at all?
July 22, 2010, 9:25 amStephen Lathrop says:
You misread me. I don’t like coordinated political effort from journalists, whether at News Corp. or at Journolist. I do recognize they are at liberty to do it, and that for most of the nation’s history that sort of thing has been the norm. It is a big deal to see it now, because for a while there was less of it. The change is in the wrong direction.
July 22, 2010, 9:26 amcboldt says:
– journalists have worried that the Internet threatens traditional news media –
July 22, 2010, 9:27 amTraditional media was a cacophony of conflicting reports and opinions. What we had for a few decades was roughly a lazy public being lead around by the new facility of mass communication, from a few to many. The internet threatens the “from a few to many” monopoly. Good thing, too.
Blue says:
Again, the biggest issue isn’t the postings, although they are bad enough. It’s that there were hundreds of SILENT participants, many in supposedly straight news jobs, who were reading the rantings of Alterman, Klein, etc. and then silently using the developed talking points in supposedly straight news.
Take, again, that NPR producer. Can anyone seriously doubt that she was pulling themes from the listserve and introducing them into NPR stories she was writing?
July 22, 2010, 9:29 amAJStrata says:
With all due respect to Mr. Farrell – he can only speak for himself. He probably is upright journalist, but he cannot vouch for the working and thinking of everyone on Journolist.
And the journalism profession needs to understand they are open to the same scathing microscope they have applied to all other professions. I can tell you very few journalists understand or grasp science, which means they fail miserably to understand accidents at NASA, weapons system programs, medical miracles and disappointments, climate theories, etc, etc, etc. Mr. Farrell would probably like to claim people need a better understanding of his industry before passing judgement.
Well guess what, journalists should practice what they preach. I have seen so many biased and ignorant articles, demonstrating not journalism but lack of basic understanding, that I have lost all respect for the field of journalism. The ability to understand has been replaced with the ability to snipe with sound bites. A trivial and useless skill.
The profession is dying because it has become uniform in thinking and skill. It does not reflect America anymore. Evolution does work, and better information sources, from ordinary people with real life understanding, are evolving out of the internet.
Why do you think WUWT is the top climate site? Why is Campaign spot a premier source of political news? Whys is this site a good place to find information on the law?
The answer is right there in front of the journolist members.
July 22, 2010, 9:39 amMark Buehner says:
That is a relevant point. If Shep Smith was secretly sitting in on all of McCain’s media strategy sessions, I don’t think the controversy would go away because he wasn’t talking, just listening.
The proof will be in the pudding. Sooner or later (if it hasn’t happened) the full archive will be released and we will see the amazing coincidences of media outlaws magically springing the same tact on specific stories that just happened to be discussed on the j-list the day before. If that happens a lot of the apologists will have some things to answer for, particularly the ones asking us to trust them on the content of the emails.
July 22, 2010, 9:39 amcboldt says:
– It is a big deal to see it now –
July 22, 2010, 9:39 amThe signs have been there for decades. Headline stories on slow news days being the same on 75-80% of the papers, leading radio and teevee reports. If those outlets were independent, there would be more variety.
Only two competing memes for each issue is another sign of coordination, with coordination occurring in the respective camps.
I think this open revelation is a flash in the pan. That significant fractions of the media are internally collusive across supposedly independent platforms is going to persist – there’s no way to stop it, it just learns to hide better. Very few people in the public are even aware there is a J-List controversy. They’ll keep eating whatever crap suits their predisposition.
wm13 says:
This seems to miss the point. News Corp. is a single corporation. No one believes that the reporters there are functioning independently of each other. But I had believed that the journalists at, say, Time magazine and the Washington Post functioned independently of each other, and had not known until now that they hammered out a line and co-ordinated their activities to advance a particular agenda.
Incidentally, if anyone can find a conservative listserve where one of the participants suggests picking a random Democrat and launching a co-ordinated campaign accusing him of, say, aiding and abetting the Taliban, that will shock and upset me, and I will not subscribe to any publication associated with that participant, nor vote for a candidate who employs that participant.
July 22, 2010, 9:39 ammykeuva says:
I’m confused. How is a suggestion that the Washington Post should voluntarily decide to disclose whether or not their journalists belong to a certain group, run contrary to libertarian thinking?
July 22, 2010, 9:53 amMark Buehner says:
Berny Goldberg (formerly of CBS news) talked about this extensively- every MSM journalist in the country reads the New York Times religiously, so if the Times thinks its news, its news, and its much more likely to end up covered on TV and in other outlets. People wonder why conservatives have such an obsession with the NYT, that is why.
But that’s the old dinosaur way of doing business. Now via things like Jlist, journalists can apparently discuss what news is relevant without having to worry about presenting an allegedly unbiased vision to the public as a transfer mechanism. They can just huddle up and let the cool kids make the suggestions and follow suit if necessary.
Which is another issue I have with Mr Farrell’s statement. Just because he wasn’t interested in the coordination aspects of jlist, why would he assume nobody else was listening intently?
July 22, 2010, 9:54 amCarl Hardwick says:
…a lot of arguments between people who disagreed with each other, gossip on journalism and sports, a fair amount of political speculation (which may have influenced people indirectly — but no more than any other conversation would), and a fair amount of exchange between journalists and academics and wonks on topics of their expertise.
Has anyone ever listened to audio from wiretap investigations of conspiracies? Or think about what discussions are like in an engineering or programming group?
If you had, you would have heard exactly the sort of thing that Farrell mentioned. 99.99% of the discussion would have been gossip, idle chatter and some technical discussions about the job at hand.
Here’s why: It only takes a few sentences out of thousands to say “Here’s what we’re going to do….”. The rest is just random conversation with occasional short relevant discussions about the task.
From what I’ve read of the JournoList emails, there wasn’t any need to talk about what they were going to do. It was assumed that all the participants were going to actively try and promote the leftist agenda. There was no need to talk about that, which is why it hardly ever came up.
I’m sure that Steve Jobs one day said “Let’s build the iPhone4″. After that, the goal was never discussed again. They probably should have talked a bit more about antenna design, but that’s entirely another discussion. ;->
Farrell has what I call the “Hollywood” idea of conspiracies, people are always talking about the grand plan. But life is much more mundane than that. It’s one second of “Let’s do this” with thousands of hours of boring talk about practical matters that need to be done to accomplish the goal.
That’s what the JournoList emails show, the hundreds of email exchanges where the journalists/propagandists were trying to move the ball toward their desired goal. The emails show that they weren’t objective reporters, they were totally biased in one direction.
That’s why the credibility of the all the leftist media outlets has been lost.
July 22, 2010, 10:01 amBlue says:
It’s beyond that, Mark.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that one of the lower-level J-list members disagreed internally with the J-list slant on a story.
How likely would that person be to buck the clear consensus amongst their colleagues and disagree with them publicly? And how many times would the rest of the listserve tolerate such heterodoxy?
July 22, 2010, 10:04 amTT says:
“How is a suggestion that the Washington Post should voluntarily decide to disclose whether or not their journalists belong to a certain group, run contrary to libertarian thinking?”
You just don’t get the Liberaltarian thinking, that’s all.
It’s wrong for private parties to make private decisions.
That’s it in a nutshell. And if you disagree, you are a “f&#!$# Nascar retard.”
July 22, 2010, 10:08 amEngineer says:
To the people defending this stuff: if Mr. or Ms. Middle-America were to see the Palin messages (assuming Daily Caller is essentially accurate in its representations) they would be outraged at the attempt to manipulate them. That’s the main thing that matters
July 22, 2010, 10:10 ammemomachine says:
Hmmmm.
@ Henry Farrell
I’m sorry but the very first expose on DailyCaller.com has exposed that as a complete and utter falsehood. And each subsequent article has exposed more and more the inner workings of J-List and shown that it is indeed a central planning and coordinating system for organizing defense of Democrats and attack on Republicans. A hyper-partisan planning committee organized solely to destroy the opposition.
Kenneth Anderson wants us, me, to be gentle with you. I’d like to oblige but your view of J-List is completely at odds with what has been reported. Which to me says that you were a “lurker”. You were a recipient of J-List but not an active participant. You got the emails regularly but did not read them and only occasionally read a few.
Here’s the deal: release ALL of the J-List archive in your possession. Not a few, ALL. Without constraint or limit.
If J-List is being misrepresented then the evidence of our own eyes will exonerate.
If J-List in reality is a sewer pit of hyper-partisan Hell in the media then the evidence will condemn.
…
In other news: am I wrong in thinking that any past, current or future lawsuit against any employer of a member of J-List will be greatly enabled due to the written confirmation of “malicious intent”?
Could Palin sue WAPO for slander, libel and jaywalking on the internet and win?
July 22, 2010, 10:11 ammemomachine says:
Hmmmm.
@ Carl Hardwick
I’ve been a professional programmer since I was 13 years old back in the early 1970′s. I can’t say that I recall -any- dev meeting where we discussed how best to organize a response to discredit the sys-admin. I can’t recall a single instance where the members routinely decided to set up the DBA for ouster.
Generally engineers and programmers are concentrating on the job. Any “gossip” is incidental because we’re focused on solving the problem, completing the task, implementing the solution or getting for lunch. With a special emphasis on the latter as Curry Day was inviolate.
If your experience is to the contrary then all I can suggest is that perhaps you should reconsidering continued employment there. And if that is your experience everywhere … trouble follows where you tread perhaps?
July 22, 2010, 10:17 ampc says:
Andrew Breitbart was on that listserv?
July 22, 2010, 10:18 amKen Hahn says:
I’m sorry. The JournoList was the party line conference of the political left involved in journalism. It promoted opinion over fact. No member or former member can ever again be called a reporter or any other term involved with factual reporting. They must be called what they are. And that is propagandists. If that is harsh to Mr Farrell and his colleagues, so be it. Unless and until every member of the list is identified and every post on the list is published it is the only possible way to consider them.
Any non-JournoList reporter who is not trying to expose the manipulation of the news by Klein and his associates is as bad as the JournoListers. We have no reason to believe anyone in journalism without independent and believable sources to confirm their stories. The media spent ever bit of credibility they ever had in 2008. They have no value left to purchase any now.
There may be honorable and honest journalists out there. If so they need to report the whole JournoList story and expose its effects on reporting in this country. Until they do, I must consider them members of a profession that refuses to police its own and one that has all the integrity of the Mafia.
July 22, 2010, 10:20 ammack says:
I don’t see this as a big issue – most people for some years haven’t trusted the MSM to tell the truth or to report news objectively. Rightly or wrongly, the public perception has been growing for years that both political parties, the media, government, and corporations are all in bed together – with minor squabbles over how to slice the pie.
July 22, 2010, 10:21 amSarcastro says:
Proof by “does anyone really believe!”
July 22, 2010, 10:22 amRace Card says:
pc is a racist. Why? cause I said so.
July 22, 2010, 10:23 amcboldt says:
– Any “gossip” is incidental because we’re focused on solving the problem, completing the task, implementing the solution or getting for lunch. –
July 22, 2010, 10:24 amYou and Mr. Hardwick are in agreement. His point was that the ultimate objective needn’t be stated, it is understood. In some cases, strategic steps on the way were noted, e.g. “get Palin,” and sometime tactical suggestions were offered. Similar to how programmers might discuss relocating or locating a piece of code into a more generally useful subroutine.
Meanwhile, there is also discussion about what’s for lunch, which team won the game, jokes, banter, etc.
pc says:
I demand proof! Preferably in the form of a heavily edited video. Journalism!
July 22, 2010, 10:29 amSpock says:
I hear all the time how programmers from Apple and Microsoft and Google coordinate their efforts to destroy competitors…
So does Wal-Mart and Target…
…wait, that’s makes them a TRUST / Oligopoly, correct?
July 22, 2010, 10:30 amMark Buehner says:
Corrected.
Anybody see the other 12 hours of Katie Couric’s Sara Palin interview btw? Me neither.
July 22, 2010, 10:32 amSpock says:
“I demand proof! Preferably in the form of a heavily edited video.”
Sure, and then the employer can fire the employee. But the video guy, not the firing employer, is the REAL racist. At least that’s what my masters on the listserve tell me to say!!!
July 22, 2010, 10:33 amgeokstr says:
And the public perception, fueled by massive coordinated attacks from the rest of the media, has been that FoxNews leans right, so all listeners, fans and detractors, have been discounting what they say since their inception. And lest we forget, there is only one Fox, while there are countless other major media all opposed to them.
But the rest of the media has been lying about their “objectivity”, their “lack of bias”, and their trustworthiness for a hundred years, and they have been perceived by much of the public that way. Time, NewSpeak, NPR, PBS, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, WaPo, NYT, LAT, etc, ad infinitum, have been trading on phony claims of honest reporting for many decades.
(In the 1970′s a former NYT insider wrote a book about their “reporting”, and the title took their slogan “All the news that’s fit to print” and appropriated morphed it into “All The News that Fits”.)
I would have no objection if they’d just come out and state their biases, because then, as with Fox, listeners/readers can choose how much to discount what they see and hear. But they don’t and won’t admit anything, and continue to insist they don’t have slants, preconceptions, or hidden agendas. This mistaken perception by the public has allowed the national conversation to be artificially shifted to the left for a very long time.
It’s been well established for at least 50 years that the media, outside Fox and Talk Radio, in countless surveys of reporters, editors, producers, anchors, journalism professors, etc, where they are asked to self-identify, they are 9 to 1 or more:
- Democrats/liberals
- vote democratic
- donate to democrats
- believe in ideas far to the left of the national average
And yet it takes a revelation like this journolist expose to get the public to understand that the MSM has really been very biased all along.
To compare what people in the profession talk about in bars to what is being done in places like journolist is specious and disingenuous, unless you want to say that opinion makers for all these institutions go to the same bar every night. The new electronic media make this a very big, very coordinated bar indeed.
July 22, 2010, 10:38 ampc says:
The rest of the interview should be released so Palin can refudiate the contents. The entire interview was a conspiracy by the members of Journolist to discredit Palin’s genius.
July 22, 2010, 10:40 amProgressive says:
“The entire interview was a conspiracy by the members of Journolist to discredit Palin’s genius.”
Say, are you on a listserve by chance? Just checking if this is the New Party Line or not.
July 22, 2010, 10:46 amMark Buehner says:
True, it should be. Its almost like the media regularly takes provocative and embarrassing statements and ‘heavily edits’ their footage down to that. Whats amazing about Brietbert is how he managed to make the NAACP attendees look like they were agreeing with the heavily edited footage. Good thing that was the title of his post and premise of his story… but nobody remembers that now.
July 22, 2010, 10:51 amBuzz says:
With all due respect to Professor Farrell, he needs to account for why the press as a whole was in the tank for Obama, why the Rev. Wright story so effectively disappeared, why the press as a pack turned on Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber, on and on.
Perhaps no one was saying literally, “Let’s all attack Palin in unison,” but forums such as JournoList were effective echo chambers for the groupthink and herd instinct of a largely liberal MSM.
July 22, 2010, 10:57 amSarcastro says:
This just in: affiliation is the same as bias.
So no more trying to be fair or reporting both sides, folks! We’re on to you!
July 22, 2010, 10:58 amgeokstr says:
And let’s not forget the oral version of journolist, where a high ranking administration official/politician (Emanual), an influential democratic strategist (Carville), a loud mouthed but omnipresent democratic apologist (Begala), and a former high-ranking democratic consultant/adviser turned big-time so-called “journalist” (Stephanopolous) had phone calls every morning for many years to shape the party line and coordinate the attack.
It would be one thing if these were all partisan hacks, but Stephanopolous holds himself above all that now, as he softballs interviews with leftists and attacks those on the right.
July 22, 2010, 11:00 amPaul says:
Thank you.
July 22, 2010, 11:04 amCarl Hardwick says:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/22/when-mccain-picked-palin-liberal-journalists-coordinated-the-best-line-of-attack/
That DailyCaller article showing how leftist journalist talked about coordinating their attacks on Palin destroys Farrell’s counter argument.
I’d like to read his response to that set of JournoList emails. That wasn’t random chatter, it was a group of propagandists discussing the best way to create a false public identity for a political opponent.
It was bad enough that the leftist media was in the tank for Obama, it’s quite another thing (and much worse) for them to be seen as acting as if they were part of the Obama strategy and tactics committee.
Leftist journalists are no longer reporting the news, they’re generating their own biased version of the news. Even liberals can see that now, you’d have to be quite a fool to choose to continue to read false news. That’s probably why the leftist media has been losing readers and viewers from both sides of the political spectrum.
July 22, 2010, 11:15 amCarl Hardwick says:
Memomachine, you might read my original post again. I said exactly what you said, that when people are given a task to complete, they spend all of their time talking about accomplishing that task and zero time talking about the what the goal was.
I wasn’t defending Farrell, I was pointing out that his contention that he never read anyone talk about coordinating attacks was irrelevant. After the goal has been agreed on, no one ever talks about it again. I was disagreeing with Farrell, not supporting him.
July 22, 2010, 11:21 amFederal Farmer says:
I think we need reasonable restrictions on journalist’s First Amendment rights. Maybe one op-ed per month. Federal database of emails to track potential conspiratorial emails intended to defraud an election, etc.
July 22, 2010, 11:24 amslarrow says:
Here’s what the core of the problem is: in the conversation between many of us who are generally on the right and the professional journalists and analysts who tell us things day in and day out, we don’t trust you. So notwithstanding Henry Farrell’s reassurance about the banality of the list as well as some of the snarky attacks on Anderson’s argument on this thread, the problem is that we don’t trust you. What astonishes me is that even though a journalist’s product just is his credibility, this trust issue doesn’t seem in their eyes to be their problem. It’s our problem for being right-wingers or retards or just “seriously misconceiving” things.
Trust holds societies together, but it’s falling rapidly all around us. Where’s the sword of Domingo Montoya when you really need it?
July 22, 2010, 11:27 amVoice of Reason says:
I think this about sums up the great divide between liberals and conservatives on this JournoList issue. Only the most delusional of conservatives could say something like this with a straight face.
But I guess now that the shoe’s on the other foot, you guys have finally woken up to a non-partisan reality: the MSM stopped doing its job 20, maybe even 30, years ago. Everybody’s in the bag. Everyone’s on a team. Everyone is coordinating their messages. There is no genuinely investigated and reported news anymore–only regurgitated narrative.
July 22, 2010, 11:28 amEngineer says:
Lots of snarky comments from non-regulars. Did this post get linked on the “new” journolist or just on Kos?
The test for whether or not the “talking” is a big deal is simple: how would the average non-bloggish news consumer react upon reading these “innocent” discussions?
Is it “wow these smart people are sure working hard to understand the issues”? Or is it “these are Mafiosi trying to pull the wool over my eyes”.
July 22, 2010, 11:31 amAngus says:
The released the full transcript online. If anything, the edits make Palin look better than her actual performance.
You mean Breitbart’s story that begins: In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient..
Sure seems to be about Sherrod to me. And the “uproar” over the audience’s reaction is proof that many right-wingers do not comprehend people, particularly black ones. Sherrod had already introduced the story as one of redemption from her earlier wrong beliefs. The audience was laughing at the wrongheadedness of her first reaction (played up by her with exaggerated language), not agreeing with it.
July 22, 2010, 11:32 amG. Wernicke says:
Re the Journolist agenda for the past few years:
As far as I can tell, Hillary would’ve enacted healthcare so-called reform and advanced a more “international” approach to domestic policy, not unlike Barack has. Funny how, even now as SecState, she doesn’t get a great deal of coverage, glowing or otherwise, by her fellow-believer press.
Sarah had the Smart Ones scared silly, because she spoke unBidenlike sense and could connect. She’s a fox and now she’s with FOX, the unfailing curseword of the libruls because that outlet also connects and offers a different narrative from the in-lockstep rest of MSM. (I don’t watch it or any other TV “news,” but wouldn’t apologize if I did.)
Hillary and Sarah on the campaign trail
had to be taken out by the genius enlightened Progs, since everybody but the Fox-Nascar rubes knows that race trumps
sexgender in Hil’s case, and elitist grooming bests maverickfrom the sticksunsophistication.Now they got their man in, and anybody who criticizes him or Dem policy is to be tarred as racist. The J-list says so, but we already knew it. You can see it even on the thread comments here.
July 22, 2010, 11:34 amPaul says:
I can’t tell whether this is an ad hominem fallacy or No True Scottsman fallacy. Anyone here a philosophy major?
July 22, 2010, 11:42 amMike G says:
Sorry, Henry Farrell’s argument is basically:
A) A certain point of view was everywhere in the press
B) That same point of view happened to be pushed on Journolist
C) Trust me! The identical nature of B and A is total coincidence!
You know, I’m prepared to believe that Journolist was a lot less consequential than it’s being hyped to be– though I think it’s pretty much settled that at least the louder mouths on it were, in no ethical sense, journalists when they behaved that way.
But I’m not about to believe it as long as the people who have the evidence are sitting on it desperately trying to keep me from looking at it and saying, “Trust me!” The truth is, every time someone says “there was none of that on Journolist…” someone finds some of that.
It’s the coverup that kills ya, Henry. Trust me.
July 22, 2010, 11:45 amSpock says:
“The audience was laughing at the wrongheadedness of her first reaction (played up by her with exaggerated language), not agreeing with it.”
Yeah I bet.
And the guy who tells racist jokes. They are just laughing at the wrongheadedness of the joke, not the joke itself.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
July 22, 2010, 11:46 ambyomtov says:
Why do most threads here start out with a series of cheap punches?
Because many of the posts are cheap punches, much like this one.
And will someone go check on Lindgren? I think he’s off his meds, or something, and may need help.
July 22, 2010, 11:49 ampc says:
Does anyone know if there was a conspiracy on Journolist to ignore the truth about Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate? It would irresponsible not to speculate!
July 22, 2010, 11:50 amSpock says:
pc – stop being such a Nascar retard. We all know it was just “bar talk” about throwing conservatives through plate glass windows and laughing at people dying of heart attacks!
In fact, with all these “bar talk” lines, maybe everyone was drunk on the list. So no worries. It was just the vodka talking.
July 22, 2010, 11:58 amanonymous says:
Henry Farrell writes…[...]
JournOlist member tries and fails to control another debate. We absolutely need to learn the names of all the individuals on Journolist so we can see for ourselves what level of collusion and messaging actually took place. Rather than call for the bright light of day to fall upon the innocents who cannot possibly be accused of wanting, say… to watch Rush writhe in agony on the floor with his eyes bugging out while dying of a heart-attack, Henry calls for less light, no transparency, and most of all ‘no story, here, folks. Uh-uh, seriously misconceived, this is. Just trust your Uncle Henry, here, when he assures that nothing, nothing at all actually transpired as leading journalists and left-leaning members of the ‘unofficial campaign’ plotted and debated how to control which news the public actually got to here.
I didn’t think Henry go sink much lower, but in calling for less truth and less transparency, he’s managed to actually morph into one of the mushroom people. Please, no light.
July 22, 2010, 12:04 pmRebeccaH says:
With all due respect to Mr. Farrell, since he was a member of Journolist where the liberal groupthink seemed to be in sway, how can we trust his perception of things? That is another disservice Journolist has done. We can’t trust that any journalists are able to see past their own biases, especially the majority who seem to be liberal and Democratic-leaning. How else can the Obamaphilia of the campaign be explained?
July 22, 2010, 12:07 pmfishbane says:
I submit that if we are ever to take Anderson seriously, we need a full inventory of every mailing list to which he subscribes. After that is provided, we may need archives of those lists.
After that, I think we need to know what lists Breitbart is on.
July 22, 2010, 12:08 pmSarcastro says:
[Tu quoque, I think. But I'm no philosophy major, I just read internet forums.]
July 22, 2010, 12:09 pmJohn Skookum says:
The difference is that Volokh is an anonymous bulletin board anyone can join at will.
JList was an invitation only listserv, consisting 100% of people with an established connection to the media industry, and known by name and in most cases by reputation to the owner of the listserv as well as to each other. Presumably these are all smart people who have had some exposure to ethics training in the past.
The fact that nobody was willing to tell Ackerman to cool it with the fantasies of violent injury against political opponents, nor to jeer at the spectacle of a UCLA law professor proposing the government yank a (non-existent) broadcast license from a politically inconvenient cable network, tells me all I need to know about what kind of scum infest our news media. Their only objections were purely tactical. We get the message. The JListers would be fine with Chavista licensing of the news media, or mob violence against political opponents in the street, if it would advance the left-wing narrative free of consequences.
My God, is this ever going to damage their credibility, and the credibility of the entire one-party media. Just what they need right now, eh? For a bunch of smart people they sure are stupid.
July 22, 2010, 12:10 pmSarcastro says:
It is amazing how if you start with the assumption that there is a liberal bias in the media, you are able to prove liberal bias!
July 22, 2010, 12:10 pmDaniel Chapman says:
Speaking of embarrassing discussions on the internet… Someday many of you will probably want to destroy any reference to this one as well.
July 22, 2010, 12:13 pmSpock says:
Growing list of known members of the left-wing now-defunct JournoList listserv:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=413168890945
Google their names and start putting the pieces together!
July 22, 2010, 12:13 pmanonymous says:
Sorry, about the bungled edit. I feel sorry for Henry. I used to be a fan. I sincerely would have thought he’d be one of the few to realize that only the clear light of day will suffice. Perhaps Kenneth can talk some sense into him.
July 22, 2010, 12:14 pmSpock says:
“I submit that if we are ever to take Anderson seriously, we need a full inventory of every mailing list to which he subscribes. After that is provided, we may need archives of those lists.”
No thanks — all we really need is JournoList to destroy his credibility. We’re all set. ;)
July 22, 2010, 12:15 pmFloridan says:
Perhaps because Sarah and Joe are willfully ignorant?
July 22, 2010, 12:16 pmJane says:
Maybe that implicates you rather than journalism, though. Conservatives digress from many empirical issues; by reporting factually, journalists contradict conservatives on assumptions conservatives make about the world.
People don’t incorporate info that contradicts their beliefs; they just believe wrong facts more strongly and disregard the source of contradictory evidence.
That’s why conservatives trust fox despite poor journalistic practices- no contradiction.
July 22, 2010, 12:26 pmPatrick says:
“Perhaps because Sharah and Joe are willfully ignorant?”
of the Partyline, no doubt. And they have to be continually slammed because they’re, you know, so stupid (and racist- TM), as are the Merican tarded people who might just believe them if Sullivan can’t convince us Sarah has a lying uterus (a clear reactionary evil as compared to an Eva monologuing vagina.)
Typos are only instances of unintentional ignorance, so no worry there, Floridan.
July 22, 2010, 12:26 pmMike G says:
“It is amazing how if you start with the assumption that there is a liberal bias in the media, you are able to prove liberal bias!”
Which certainly makes more sense than your assumption, Sarcastro– that if liberal bias is definitively revealed to be going on behind the scenes in the media, it could not possibly exist in public.
July 22, 2010, 12:28 pmpc says:
Damning! Instead of a list of Who’s Who it’s a list of Who Cares?
July 22, 2010, 12:30 pmHarshaw says:
Maybe that implicates you rather than journalism, though. Conservatives digress from many empirical issues; by reporting factually, journalists contradict conservatives on assumptions conservatives make about the world.
People don’t incorporate info that contradicts their beliefs; they just believe wrong facts more strongly and disregard the source of contradictory evidence.
That’s why conservatives trust fox despite poor journalistic practices– no contradiction. “Jane”
There we have it in a nutshell. Journalists and Liberals [edited] aren’t people, apparently.
July 22, 2010, 12:35 pmSpock says:
“Instead of a list of Who’s Who it’s a list of Who Cares?”
If Who Cares, why are you here shilling for them?
July 22, 2010, 12:36 pmSpock says:
Sarah and Joe are willfully ignorant…my proof: The media. The media’s proof? JournoList. JournoList’s proof? The media. And so on.
July 22, 2010, 12:38 pmSpock says:
“Conservatives aren’t people, apparently.”
Yuppers. That’s why it’s cool to fantasize about bashing their faces through windows, etc.
No worries, since they are less than human.
July 22, 2010, 12:39 pmpc says:
Because I’m part of the conspiracy.
Breaking News! Opinion columnists have opinions! Join us for extended coverage of this shocking revelation!
July 22, 2010, 12:43 pmMnZ says:
Yes…these are common cognitive biases. Fortunately for the rest of us, progressive journalists – especially those on JournoList – have no cognitive biases.
July 22, 2010, 12:44 pmSarcastro says:
[You mean being liberal has been relieved? Having liberal opinions? That does not immediately require bias in one's work.
Or do you think all Supreme Court Justices with clear points of view are obviously biased as well, despite umpire analogies to the contrary.]
July 22, 2010, 12:46 pmSpock says:
“Opinion columnists have opinions! ”
If you cut and paste statements from others, is it really your opinion then?
July 22, 2010, 12:49 pmSpock says:
Remember when progressives would press the Noam Chomsky meme of “manufactured consent “??
July 22, 2010, 12:50 pmSarcastro says:
[The substantive (i.e. not "Biased journalists are clearly biased" or "No doubt it's a conspiracy!") criticism seem to be threefold.
First, that there was improper coordination among opinion journalists, making them less than independent.
-This has the most merit IMO, though I am not too shocked that editorialists talk to other editorialists. The fact that the opinion-sphere creates narratives is frustrating, but hardly new. Still, it would be nice if those on both sides cut it out. Alas, Talking point memos will still be going out to partisans on both sides tonight.
Second, that there was improper coordination with straight up reporters, creating a biased narrative.
-I see no proof of this. Some news reporters are part of the list, true. Still, while I think a liberal point of view is a safe inference (I'm looking at you, Shep Smith!), assuming bias based on that point of view requires a leap of faith not supported by these revelations.
Third, that some of the things said were way out of line, and bespeak bad character among individual members of the List.
July 22, 2010, 12:57 pm-Internet tough guys abound on the internet. If Limbaugh or Savage can talk about the deaths of the opposition on the air, liberals can do it too. However, I do recommend much mocking. I mean, can you imagine Spencer Ackerman in a fight?]
robert says:
“PC”? Sure, of course. (Except for that mendacious tool of the Right @#$! FOX, right?)
Anyway, since these Jlist guys and gals are mere opinionmongers and such, why not share more of their lofty, candid views, just as we’ve been treated to with the IPCC private (for a reason) emails?
July 22, 2010, 12:57 pmfalse seriousness says:
More hack, 4th rate scandal-mongering from Volokh bloggers.
I assume this means Anderson will publish all his emails to fellow travelers on the right. It’s only in the interest of transparency after all.
I look forward to combing through them for bias.
July 22, 2010, 12:59 pmrobert says:
Gatekeepergate!
July 22, 2010, 1:00 pmjohno says:
I thought it was interesting that several of the Journolist participants tried to undermine the disclosures by noting that these were, in their words, private emails. Doesn’t the media take “private” documents and use them all the time when they are relevant to their story?
July 22, 2010, 1:01 pmGuest12345 says:
At what point does the activity on JournoList raise it to the level of a PAC and therefore subject to FEC regulation and rules?
July 22, 2010, 1:03 pmrobert says:
False seriousness is true unseriousness?
False equivalence between Jlist clubby Big Media types who opine from “the facts,” as they or their cowriters and publications frame them, and independent professor writer types who reveal their (not so strident) politics and seek feedback is true equivocation.
July 22, 2010, 1:07 pmHarry Schell says:
If there is nothing in the JList archives that should be hidden, why is the archive not public? Why even expose yourself to the allegation or suspicion that you are burying non-existent turds?
Indeed, where is the birth certificate? The transcripts? The medical records? Whatever is in them that so scares Obama and cadre? I don’t know that there is anything, or care much (that does depend on what is there) but the assiduous burial of such mundane records IS very curioous.
As to coordination among leftist journalists, of course there is. It is a primary tenet of the practice of leftists to coordinate the meassage, use the right words, advance the “right” ideas. Remember when Bush didn’t have the “gravitas” to be President? Talking head after talking head seized on the word.
So far, there has not been a single word about the whole JList issue in the LA Times news or op/ed sections. Why is that?
As said early on by one poster, chew everything you hear thoroughly before swallowing, and check a lot of sources for information.
The meme about Obama’s “private army” (in the ObamaCare bill) ran around the right-wing blogs quite a bit before and after Ed Morrisey debunked it. If you think Bob Schieffer looks dumb for not asking Holder about the NBP dismissal, with the excuse he was on vacation, don’t make the same mistake.
July 22, 2010, 1:08 pmbyomtov says:
With all due respect to Mr. Farrell, since he was a member of Journolist where the liberal groupthink seemed to be in sway, how can we trust his perception of things?
After all, no one who actually knows what the discussions were about can be trusted to describe them accurately.
Think about this logic. Your reading of some selected messages and your personal prejudices about “liberal groupthink” mean you know more about it than a member. You are in effect doing no more than calling Farrell a liar.
July 22, 2010, 1:14 pmfrankcross says:
I would say that the oddest thing about this discussion is the belief that journalists are biased based on journalism from Daily Caller. If journalists are biased, the Daily Caller reports would therefore be biased and unreliable.
Much like Shirley Sherrod was taken out of context, this may be too. I don’t think we can say anything until we have full transcripts.
July 22, 2010, 1:16 pmSpock says:
“I assume this means Anderson will publish all his emails to fellow travelers on the right. It’s only in the interest of transparency after all. ”
I agree. If there is a right-wing version of “Journolist” it should be exposed.
So where is the evidence of it then?
You can’t label a salmon a salmon until we expose the Loch Ness Monster then?
July 22, 2010, 1:19 pmSarcastro says:
Yeah! And when Gore was a liar! Or Dean was unstable! Or Kerry was a liar!
The media seems biased against political candidates…
Some would think that the birth certificate thing would be proof that a negative inference leads you to la-la-land. But not you! You just keep on trucking like the ideological trooper you are!
July 22, 2010, 1:21 pmseen the light says:
These opinionmongers will no longer have a font to stand on when they clamor for disclosure from anyone or go on about hidden agenda or denounce implied collusion on others’ part, again.
Whatever happened to the “private is personal” liberal principle?
Post-liberalism: Alinsky’s still in, transparency out. Principle is superseded by principal now.
July 22, 2010, 1:24 pmElliot says:
Farrell says, ” I can tell you quite honestly that there wasn’t any story coordination, or anything like it. Nor, if you read the Daily Caller article carefully, despite its deliberately misleading headline, do they have any proof of same.”
The Lindgren post above detailing a coordinated Journolist effort to derail Palin contradicts what Farrel says. I’d be interested in hearing what he thinks. Perhaps he can forward a comment?
July 22, 2010, 1:25 pmcboldt says:
– The substantive criticism seem to be threefold. … –
July 22, 2010, 1:28 pmI received a simpler take. The weight given to the opinion or conclusion depends, in significant part, on the reader’s perception of the independence of the talker.
Sockpuppetry is an extreme example of multiple voices claiming, but not having, independence.
Spock says:
“I would say that the oddest thing about this discussion is the belief that journalists are biased”
Big logical error. The belief is that many PROGRESSIVE journalists are biased. And we are talking about specific people, and not the abstraction of “journalism.”
In fact, you can check out the list of the specific people here:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=413168890945
July 22, 2010, 1:37 pmrobert says:
Let’s see, Big Media gatekeepers are guarding the gate to their evidently embarrassing professional/political exchanges within their invitation-only ranks by calling the archives private or personal.
We need another Deepthroat or, better yet, a Russian-server hacker, absent the member journalists proving there’s no there there or non-member media investigating and not whitewashing this.
July 22, 2010, 1:40 pmHarryEagar says:
July 22, 2010, 1:51 pmRPT says:
This from “Anonymous”?
In other news, the “Climate-gate” emails controversy was proved completely bogus.
July 22, 2010, 1:59 pmRPT says:
The transcript of the 2001 Cheney energy market meetings would be nice as well.
July 22, 2010, 2:02 pmSonicfrog says:
And the proof of that is???? Oh, he works for FOX news. I’m convinced.
July 22, 2010, 2:02 pmSonicfrog says:
…. Or maybe you just THINK you’re a reporter!!! :-)
July 22, 2010, 2:04 pmPLR says:
I had no idea that certain elements of the blogosphere were running out of opportunities for manufactured outrage (perhaps they should consult with Lindgren, supra).
I blame Ms. Sherrod.
July 22, 2010, 2:06 pmPratfallo says:
Watch out, people! Just because we’re closing ranks, hiding something and attacking public concern over this doesn’t mean there’s anything there! We’re not biased as you paranoids muse, we’re just opinionmakers, I mean, writers with the proper non-FOX facts at our disposal, huge news outlets as megaphone, and a 100% interest in supporting Obama’s and others’ Progressive agenda. Your problem with us is only a projection of your own intellectual inadequacy. Racists.
July 22, 2010, 2:07 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Yes.
No.
July 22, 2010, 2:21 pmreally seen the light says:
Whatever happened to the “private is personal” liberal principle?
Must edit from my comment upthread due to unwillful ignorance: the “personal is political,” a liberal mantra for a couple of decades, until maybe WJC in the Oval office.
July 22, 2010, 2:24 pmMac says:
That is not a citation. Are we to presume that you can’t find one?
July 22, 2010, 2:38 pmYehudit says:
That reminds me so much of the dotcom boom. Wet behind the ears 20-somethings were treated like gurus because they could code and had a lot of energy and ideas. More senior people were fired or kept quiet for fear of being seen as old-fashioned. Also I heard stories of the kind of sexual harassment which would bring an HR department in immediately, except that these 30-person startups were too small to have a HR Dept.
This attitude also showed up in the 2010 campaign as the idea that Obama was “wired” and McCain was technologically unsophisticated. Untrue, but also irrelevant. 20-somethings in general (and especially those in media) are too inexperienced in life in general to understand that comfort with a Blackberry has no relation to managerial expertise.
Eli Lake coined the term “Juicebox Mafia” to describe the Ezra Klein clique, and boy does it fit.
July 22, 2010, 2:38 pmMac says:
Bull. I will give you a specific site. Go to the WSJ and search Climate-gate and you will get a much different opinion with proof.
July 22, 2010, 2:43 pmbyomtov says:
Watch out, people! Just because we’re closing ranks, hiding something and attacking public concern over this doesn’t mean there’s anything there!
“The fact that the accused is defending himself is proof enough of his guilt.”
July 22, 2010, 2:49 pmMac says:
Actually, I decided to save you the trouble. Here it is.
July 22, 2010, 2:52 pmMac says:
Very good point. Not unlike the NY Times being found guilty of contributing to a campaign by dramatically discounting MoveOn’s full page ad.
July 22, 2010, 2:54 pmFat Man says:
I have been alive for more than 60 years. I have read the NYTimes, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Time, and watched the 3 letter networks for much of that time. They have always been the cheering section for the left-wing of the Democrat Party. And more than that they have always been willing to run out on the field and punch an opponent in the kidneys.
Of course, everyone, who draws breath in this vale of tears, has an agenda. Everyone who opens his mouth or pushes a pen wants to fit every word into his narrative. We all use the bed of Procrustes to make sense out our experiences. Journalistic ethics is an oxymoron.
Journolist as not detracted from the credibility of the media for me. They haven’t had any for years. And if you have believed them, well, that is your problem.
Henry Farrell’s contribution is “move along, nothing to see here”. Sorry Henry, you are only correct in the limited sense that Journolist is not news, the media has been conspiring to maintain the party line and keep dissenters quiet for years. The evidence is the final product, which cannot be denied. Turn the light on and the cockroaches scurry for cover.
Kenneth: I was not disposed to be nice to Henry in the first place. When CT was new I read it for a while. It was quickly apparent that Henry and his friends were doctrinaire leftists who were hostile to alternative points of view. I stopped reading it and haven’t missed it. Discovering that Henry was part of Journolist is just as surprising as finding out that Eric Alterman was.
Remember Eric’s book: “Myth of the Liberal Media”? Of course you don’t. But he was lying. Again no surprise.
The only surprising thing is that anybody is surprised.
July 22, 2010, 2:55 pmMac says:
If this List is so benign and innocent, then why not publish all the names and e-mails? Why the extreme desire to hide it? Odd, if it is so not a big deal.
July 22, 2010, 2:56 pmfalse seriousness says:
You failed.
I think there’s a cabal of 4th rate conservative law professors. I think they’ve emailed each other at various times about various things; things that will demonstrate their bias (and / or foolishness), and their efforts to drive theories and narrative framing.
So, let’s see their emails so we can verify whether these law professors are biased (and/or foolish).
BTW, when the DC bureau chief for AP was emailing Rove, where was the outrage from Anderson et al? Breitbart and the conservative media is, right now, being exploded as a deliberate liar, and yet there’s only silence.
This forum is a joke.
July 22, 2010, 3:02 pmCalvin says:
What I find dishonest is not the efforts of those writers on the listserv who have publicly staked their flag in the liberal/leftist camp – much of this talk would be unsurprising in the editorial board room of a self-proclaimed leftist publication. What is dishonest is the claims of many of these writers to any sort of “objectivity” in their writing. Such a claim elevates them in most people’s minds above the partisan fray and gives them a legitimacy in their reporting and analysis that they have demonstrated that clearly they do not deserve. In other words, this listserv shows these “objective” writers to be nothing more than partisan hacks masquerading as journalists.
Journalists in purportedly “objective” publications draw much of their legitimacy from reporting and analyzing events from a position of universally shared values. They do not pass judgment on the news except to remark that it took place and to structure their stories in a manner as to best describe its components. While this process requires judgment calls (the use of one word over another is a judgment call and reflects values), those judgment calls are based not on an effort to persuade but to inform, i.e., to allow the readers to come to their own conclusions. Many of these journalists on the listserv appear to have completely abandoned this role and have sought to actively shape the news to fit their end, all the while pretending remain in the role of informers
July 22, 2010, 3:07 pmbyomtov says:
If this List is so benign and innocent, then why not publish all the names and e-mails? Why the extreme desire to hide it? Odd, if it is so not a big deal.
Because it’s the equivalent of a private conversation?
If your financial dealings are honest and aboveboard, why not publish your records and tax returns on the Web? What are you ashamed of?
July 22, 2010, 3:12 pmDave N. says:
false seriousness (what an apt name),
If you don’t like it here, don’t let the door hit you on your way out.
July 22, 2010, 3:13 pmAngus says:
Your refutation is an op-ed on the WSJ opinion page? Seriously?
July 22, 2010, 3:26 pmphilip wylie says:
You would “argue” that a group of law professor bloggers who are upfront about their politics is analogous to MSM opinion shaper blowhards with major audience share and expensively resourced print, TV and net outlets that proclaim objectivity or at least a monopoly on “true facts” (until called out on the lie with a Hey, we write opinion and you already know we’re biased, so don’t act surprised)?
False seriousness flunks in my class.
July 22, 2010, 3:36 pmfalse seriousness says:
I don’t like it here, but I view it as my patriotic duty to expose double standards and/or dishonesty – or the more obvious forms of foolishness (e.g., Geokstr).
I’m just getting overwhelmed here, that’s all. Can’t a guy grumble about being overworked?
How outraged are you about Breitbrat’s blatant deceit, which was a deceit aimed at conservatives? How come we aren’t getting multiple posts on that? But I guess we’ll move on to that once we get the emails that I’m sure are coming.
July 22, 2010, 3:37 pmfalse seriousness says:
Are you another 4th rate conservative law professor? man, this place is crawling with them.
I guess the first place you need to start is with actual facts about journolist. Try google and learn more.
Meanwhile, I’ll bet there are Federalist Society email lists, or CATO emails lists or whatever, where these wingnuts mouth their more odious theories. You join me in demanding the release of all these emails right? After all, many of these people occupy critical positions in our judicial and political branches.
July 22, 2010, 3:43 pmcboldt says:
– I view it as my patriotic duty to expose double standards and/or dishonesty –
July 22, 2010, 3:43 pmYou are doing a bang-up job of exposing yourself, LOL.
Jeff S. says:
“Breitbrat” too clever by half.
July 22, 2010, 3:45 pmKen Arromdee says:
I suspect most of the people asking for full disclosure of the contents are agents provocateur who are saying it to make their opponents look bad. They’re phrased in an absurdly general way which make it sound like “if you have anything that’s private, you’re guilty” rather than a legitimate request for disclosure.
A legitimate request would be based on the specific characteristics of the list and wouldn’t generalize to all private messages. Seeing the messages is important for the same reason that open records laws are important, but without the law part–we want to see messages related to what people do in their professional capacity that affects us.
July 22, 2010, 3:47 pmMac says:
In other words, anyone who disagrees with you is unpatriotic. Just like anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist. Got it.
July 22, 2010, 3:52 pmGuest12345 says:
Some people weren’t watching the Sherrod video and seeing Sherrod, they were seeing the way the crowd cheered Sherrod’s words. I know that lots of people only cared about Sherod’s story (e.g. SecAg) but which is more concerning: a) a single blowhard ranting, or b) a crowd in agreement with the blowhard.
July 22, 2010, 3:52 pmphilip wylie says:
CATO and Federalist Society are associations that are open and upfront about their principles, politics and debate, unlike this exclusive journalist serve-list that networks professionals who often claim objectivity and/or independence from coordinated, corrupted and colluded politicking.
Apples to apples, please, and less false seriousness.
July 22, 2010, 3:53 pmBlue says:
Exactly right. There was a great example of this yesterday. NPR had a segment on how the Obama Administration dealt with the Breitbart tape. On to “analyze” the story was none other than Eric Alterman, who was simply introduced as a guy who wrote “The Promise”, a book about the election.
So, the the NPR producer merely pull his name out of an electronic Rolodex?
Or, rather, was the NPR producer lurking on the Cabalist (the replacement for J-list), watching Alterman, Klein, etc. figure out how to spin the story, then played his or her role by surreptitiously booking him in as a putatively neutral analyst to disseminate those talking points?
I’ve no doubt that is EXACTLY how the J-list tended to work. Spend the day figuing out message, let those placed in supposedly objective newsrooms watch the developing message building, then hit a wide variety of publications in the evening (for TV/radio) or the morning editions of the major newspapers.
July 22, 2010, 3:54 pmMac says:
OK, Angus, and pray tell me just what publications you approve of? Better, instead of an ad hominum attack on the WSJ and myself, why not tell me exactly where in the article WSJ got it wrong? Or, does that require too much thought?
July 22, 2010, 3:54 pmScott Eudaley says:
If a corporation had destroyed emails after a controversy had come to light what would be your response? Aren’t we entitled to question whether they are hiding something untoward and what that might be? In a criminal case, the destruction of emails would constitute strong evidence for an obstruction of justice charge. In a tort case, it would weigh very heavily against the company. The assertion that these were “private” emails would carry no weight in those kind of cases and should not here. At the very least, we are entitled to interpret Ezra Klein’s destruction of the Journolist archives as an admission that it contained something(s) which could not tolerate the light of day.
Certainly many on the left jumped way beyond that conclusion over the Bush administration’s “lost” emails in the fired Justice department lawyers case. Oh my, the outrage and high dudgeon on the left over that case! The phrase “hoist on your own petard” comes to mind.
The snippets which have been released do not show any of those involved in a very positive light. However, I remind myself that these are only snippets. The Daily Caller is obviously releasing these in dribs and drabs to extend the story. I wish that they would stop that and release all that they have. I hope someone, somewhere has the entire archive and will release it. Only then will we have the full context to judge what was going on at Journolist. If this involved a private corporation’s emails, that is what journalists would demand and it is only fair that we hold them to their own standards.
Entirely independently of the Journolist scandal, the behavior of the news media in the 2008 campaign offers ample evidence that vast swaths of the alleged news media were actively working to promote the Obama campaign. And moreover, they were doing so in a manner which illustrated, if not active coordination, at least severe and massive groupthink. And I’m not talking about opinion pieces, but actual alleged news stories. When one week its “Caribou Barbie” in every news story, the next week the phrase “intellectual lightweight”, the week after “he’s so cool, hip and sexy”, then “he’s post-racial”, then “brilliant campaign illustrates executive ability”, then “his age is a question”, then “his legendary temper”, ad nauseam. It became so glaringly obvious that my wife and I made jokes about the “left-wing meme of the week”. And it has not improved during Obama’s administration.
If and when the entire Journolist archives are released, I will want answers to the following questions:
1) Does this show signs of active coordination among opinionists (the phrase “opinion journalist” should be considered an oxymoron–it is either one or the other)? If so, those involved stand revealed as mere sockpuppets who have no claim to independent thought.
2) Does this show signs of influencing actual news stories? If so, those involved have forfeited any right to be considered a journalist and, by all rights, should be fired for manipulating the news for partisan purposes.
3) Did anyone raise any concerns about journalistic ethics? Did anyone object to attempts to coordinate the news and how vociferously did they do so? Did anyone resign from the list in objection to what was going on? If so, they stand head-and-shoulders above their peers and deserve our respect, regardless of their politics.
4) What did the journalism professors say about what was going on? We already have an one example of a professor who is utterly unqualified to teach journalism given his contempt for the First Amendment and his cluelessness about the FCC. There is absolutely no context that can mitigate what he said. Did even one of the professors involved say “this is not what we teach our students”?
A few years ago, an icon of news reporting in the Bay Area retired, a man by the name of Dennis Richmond who worked for KTVU as a reporter and anchorman over several decades. Only after he retired did I learn that his political views were very different from mine. You simply could not tell what his political views were from his on-air work (and I watched him daily for over two decades). His colleagues said he worked very hard at reporting just the facts and only the facts. Even the barest emotion on-air was anathema to him. Outright partisanship was beyond the pale and a fireable offense. He was a demanding and hard man to work with. But the Bay Area was better for his reporting. When I think of what journalism could be, and should be, I think of Dennis Richmond.
July 22, 2010, 3:57 pmJK says:
Wow, looks like all the closed Lindgren posts on Jlist built up a lot of opinions waiting to burst forth in this comments section.
July 22, 2010, 4:04 pmJK says:
It’s hard to compare this to actions taken in the shadow of litigation, unless you’re trying to imply that something illegal was going on rather than just untoward. There strikes me as all sorts of innocent and non-nefarious reason on might not want private correspondence published, the foremost probably being a desire to avoid breaching the trust of the people you were corresponding with.
July 22, 2010, 4:08 pmJeff S. says:
Reasoned responses by defenders of the Journalistas:
The reporters are still objective and the op-ed writers do opinion, so get over yourselves.
It’s the conservatives who are biased, journalists set the record straight.
Oh, come on, don’t act surprised- you’ve known for years the main media was biased.
Trust us, nothing to this. Just elbows on the bar talk.
No need to reveal the emails because they’re boring.
They’re private, how dare you.
You, too!!! [with pointed finger]
FOX… Breibrat… FOX
July 22, 2010, 4:10 pmJK says:
My guess is he just means not the op-ed pages. News outlets in general just seem to be terrible at fact-checking the opinion pieces they print or air. WSJ is probably the most striking example of an excellent news department and pure drivel in opinion.
July 22, 2010, 4:12 pmJK says:
What’s up with the strawman summary meme lately? If your opponents are actually saying stupid things then quote them and call them out. If their comments are really that unreasoned why do you need to make up fake comments to ridicule?
July 22, 2010, 4:16 pmMac says:
I hardly consider e-mails among a group of 400 people to constitute “private” conversation. Also, remember the press delight when the hacker got into Palin’s e-mail account and deep disappointment that there were no smoking guns?
Maybe false seriousness will see a double standard here, but I doubt it.
July 22, 2010, 4:17 pmMac says:
Again, your opinion. Where is the “drivel” in the article/opinion piece? Ad hominums do not constitute refutation.
July 22, 2010, 4:20 pmfalse seriousness says:
What a drama queen.
Go cry elsewhere.
July 22, 2010, 4:21 pmfalse seriousness says:
You still haven’t done your homework.
Try again AFTER you do your homework.
July 22, 2010, 4:22 pmfalse seriousness says:
Jesus. You bought one stupid lie, and now you are using ANOTHER stupid lie to get out of the first stupid lie.
It’s amazing to me, and it’s a sign of bad faith.
You cannot watch her speech and reach that conclusion about the audience. You cannot. The only way you reach that conclusion is if you buy that LATEST lie from Breitbart. And that’s amazing.
July 22, 2010, 4:25 pmJeff S. says:
JK, p-a-r-a-p-h-r-a-s-i-n-g in summary to highlight the incoherence and incongruity of counter tacks (and attacks) made is sometimes OK, even in the courtroom and mainstream op-eds.
You had to try, though.
July 22, 2010, 4:28 pmbyomtov says:
I hardly consider e-mails among a group of 400 people to constitute “private” conversation.
And who designated you as the one to decide that?
Certainly many on the left jumped way beyond that conclusion over the Bush administration’s “lost” emails in the fired Justice department lawyers case. Oh my, the outrage and high dudgeon on the left over that case! The phrase “hoist on your own petard” comes to mind.
Gee. Since when are private emails subject to the same standards of disclosure as those of government employees working on government business? Maybe you could publish all yours, just to set an example of openness.
July 22, 2010, 4:28 pmJK says:
Why can’t you have a private conversation with 400 people? I don’t see anything strange about that at all. What in your opinion is the maximum number of people one can interact with in private?
July 22, 2010, 4:28 pmJK says:
Of course it’s my opinion. As it’s apparently your opinion that anything printed in the WSJ opinion section is prima facie true. Frankly I think the burden is on the person who believes a source is trustworthy.
July 22, 2010, 4:32 pmMr. L says:
Considering that the JournoList was a forum and not email or messaging, I don’t think there’s any expectation of trust to be breached. Moreover, the personal and professional disgrace consequent to having some of these messages released to the public (e.g. the ones about falsely smearing Republicans as racist in order to bury the Wright story or the Rush Limbaugh deathporn) seems to be on the same level as litigation or illegal activity. Don’t forget, there’s been at least one firing over JournoList.
July 22, 2010, 4:32 pmJK says:
I’m still not getting it Jeff, but maybe if you separate every letter in your response with hyphens understanding will dawn on me.
July 22, 2010, 4:35 pmScott Eudaley says:
I’m certainly not implying that anything illegal was going on. And I agree that there are non-nefarious reasons for wishing to maintain one’s privacy. However, the journalism profession claims a unique place in society and demands certain privileges in return. Moreover, it is utterly cavalier about demanding just such releases of private documents from all other types of organizations. It has sued in court for the release of such documents, repeatedly, in the name of “the public interest”. As I noted, the press showed no such concerns about privacy, Executive Privilege or the legitimate need of the President for private consulation in regards to the Bush Administration emails. And let’s not forget about the Pentagon Papers.
Enough questions have been raised about the activities of Journolist that it rises to the level of “the public interest”. The only way to answer the many legitimate questions over their activities is a release of the entire archive.
It is hypocritical in the extreme to demand transparency of everyone else but not yourself.
July 22, 2010, 4:37 pmDon says:
“Frankly I think the burden is on the person who believes a source [the WSJ] is trustworthy.”
All to the good, JK. This means you will prove to us Jlist members are trustworthy and that they’ve proved their sources and publications are trustworthy, and especially that they are all above colluding in Progressive politics for Obama and the Democratic agenda.
July 22, 2010, 4:42 pmbyomtov says:
Ken Arromdee,
A legitimate request would be based on the specific characteristics of the list and wouldn’t generalize to all private messages. Seeing the messages is important for the same reason that open records laws are important, but without the law part–we want to see messages related to what people do in their professional capacity that affects us.
Those calling for release of the messages will simply not be satisfied with anything less than the full list, and probably not even that. Remember, you can always argue that an incomplete release hides not just frivolous and irrelevant emails, but the real smoking guns. The rage machine is working hard, and as you say, much of the response is simply irrational.
Further, it’s not clear why someone (Klein?) ought to release emails that the authors intended and expected to be private. Suppose you were on some sort of political list that got in the news, through no fault of yours. Would you want your emails published, especially without your permission? What about other messages that maybe quoted some of yours, and so on?
And do you think that the full list would get an objective reading? I don’t. Just read some of the commenters here. So what would be the point? Informal comments can always have the worst possible interpretation put on them, and that’s exactly what would happen.
July 22, 2010, 4:42 pmfalse seriousness says:
BTW, this is wrong. I’m talking about the emails Lindgren, Anderson, et al (and apparently Wylie), share discussing whatever it is they may be discussing. I wish to probe them for bias or foolishness. I believe 4th rate, conservative law professors send each other emails, and share lists, as do organizations like the Federalist Society. I believe they express things that do not appear in other forums.
It is absolutely not a false equivalence. While I understand you want a lazy and cheap way out, it’s not working.
July 22, 2010, 4:42 pmPaul says:
Whatever “Sarcastro” does, it obviously does not involve fulltime employment…
July 22, 2010, 4:45 pmSarcastro says:
Because having an opinion in private means you must have bias in public! Professionalism is all a farce! We need to lobotomize all judges and journalists! It’s the only way the truth can be safe!
July 22, 2010, 4:45 pmbyomtov says:
Enough questions have been raised about the activities of Journolist that it rises to the level of “the public interest”. The only way to answer the many legitimate questions over their activities is a release of the entire archive.
This is pretty self-serving. The same people raising questions are the ones demanding disclosure because “questions have been raised.”
If I raise a lot of questions about your business dealings can I argue that “enough questions have been raised” that it rises to the level of the public interest?
July 22, 2010, 4:46 pmMark Field says:
I think it’s more that there’s not much going on in the real world right now, so people turn to gossip and personality. There’s been a whole string of unusually hackish posts here lately, and it brings out the worst in everyone.
July 22, 2010, 4:48 pmSarcastro says:
Telepathy again! You could make a fortune on stage!
July 22, 2010, 4:49 pmJK says:
I think that might be where we disagree. I kind of expect people to be more vigorous in defending their own rights than the rights of others. I agree with you that these emails should be released, I’m just not that outraged that the people in the list-serve aren’t willing to give them up. I probably wouldn’t even If I thought they should ultimately be released because I’d be worried about giving up sources, etc.
Certainly as a Lawyer I would try to protect the privacy of my clients’ information even if I believed that both the law and justice weighed on the side of releasing. I have to make a living after all, and who wants to hire the lawyer who gives away his clients’ information without a fight?
July 22, 2010, 4:51 pmJK says:
It was closed to the public so there was definitely some level of trust to be breached, but I don’t think you’re crazy to argue that it was pretty minimal. I don’t really agree, but I see where you’re coming from.
July 22, 2010, 4:54 pmphilip wylie says:
False seriousness keeps missing the point almost as the point. How would (topnotch) law profs in discussion be equivalent to Big Media players in a hush-hush political forum among themselves? They wouldn’t be. Sorry, friend.
Farce or true believer?
July 22, 2010, 4:57 pmSarcastro says:
[Funny how Brietbart's headline was "In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient"
[Also "The conservative online news entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart is, forthe moment, doing little to dispel stereotypes about bloggers. During arecent visit to his home on the west side of Los Angeles, Breitbart,41, is working from his own basement. Barefoot. At the beck and call of his own kids." - NPR.
Course this puffery is clearly a decoy for NPR's true and insidious liberal agenda.]
July 22, 2010, 4:57 pmPlugInMonster says:
Journolist is the Venona Papers of 2010.
July 22, 2010, 4:58 pmJK says:
“Prove” is way to strong a word, but I don’t disagree that any journalist, whether in this group or not, needs to establish a reputation for accuracy and honesty before reasonable people should take their reporting as prima facie true.
I’m obviously not going to make the case right now, but my conclusions from reading the WSJ is that their news section is generally accurate and honest, but their opinion section includes too many errors to be trusted as a news source. It fine to facilitate rumination on a topic, just not for the accuracy of factual assertions.
July 22, 2010, 5:01 pmHarry Schell says:
Okay, just how do YOU explain Obama’s apparent need for secrecy, when he could so easily make fools out of ideological troopers like me?
July 22, 2010, 5:05 pmMac says:
Thank you Don. My mind was having a hard time getting around that bit of absurdity. One would think that if x says y is not trustworthy, he should be able to give an example. Yet, two posters here say the WSJ or the Opinion page is not trustworthy without one example to back up their opinion. If it is so untrustworthy, you would think you could come up with many examples and certainly examples in the story in question. To say I need to prove that the WSJ is trustworthy is kind of like proving you are not a racist or have quit beating your wife.
However, I await JK’s proof that, “Jlist members are trustworthy and that they’ve proved their sources and publications are trustworthy, and especially that they are all above colluding in Progressive politics for Obama and the Democratic agenda. ”
I won’t be holding my breath, though.
July 22, 2010, 5:08 pmfalse seriousness says:
This is getting comical.
Looks like your point is that only Journolist is held to this standard, and nothing else meets it – unless liberals are involved, then you may reevaluate.
Pathetic.
Will you join me in demanding Fox News emails then? They qualify as a Big Media player don’t they? That’s your standard right?
July 22, 2010, 5:08 pmPratfallo says:
Breitbart works from his basement, doesn’t wear shoes in his house, and has kids! Let’s all sneer and know we can’t trust him. Thank you, Journolistas, for being way more professional!
July 22, 2010, 5:13 pmSarcastro says:
The only explanation possible is a big secret that was somehow not relieved by birth announcements or a certificate of live birth.
It can’t be that he doesn’t care enough about the small minority of birthers, it’s not like he’ll ever get your support on anything ever.
Or he wants you to keep digging a hole to crazytown.
Or he knows that if he gives in to that request, then he’ll have no reason to not give in to the hundreds of others that have been ginned up.
Gotta be the Kenyan thing.
July 22, 2010, 5:16 pmSarcastro says:
[erm, it seemed pretty complementary to me.
"Andrew Breitbart blew into Washington recently for what amounted to a victory lap.
"The Internet entrepreneur spent last week soaking up accolades from conservatives for having offered guidance to the two twenty-somethings who posed as a pimp and prostitute and took a hidden camera into several ACORN offices. The pair filmed workers from the national liberal community group appearing to aid them as they inquired about starting a brothel -- a move that has put ACORN on the defensive and made the activists, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, instant conservative heroes.
"But in the end it's Breitbart who may be the biggest winner." (The Washington Post)
Is that fawning enough for you? Or do you see a sneer behind 'conservative' or something?
As for me not having a full time job, I do. Though when I'm not on a trial, my time is rather flexible, though my hours are long.]
July 22, 2010, 5:21 pmKamal says:
I had to dig down a few of your jlist scare stories to be able to find one you allowed comments on. I don’t really have much to say here except that these are really some of the most stupid stories I’ve seen recently, and seems to try to be a distraction from Fox “News” being caught peddling right wing talking points verbatim, even across their more “moderate” entertainers like O’Reilly (yes, compared to the rest on there, he is a centrist).
July 22, 2010, 5:25 pmJK says:
Please do not put in quotes non-quotations. Thank you.
July 22, 2010, 5:26 pmMac says:
I was wondering if there is a Saul Alinsky rule that says whatever is truly egregious should be treated as a joke or failing that as not very important and far too inconsequential to be concerned about? Ha, ha, silly fuss over reporters colluding, how very silly. So I thought I would see what Jefferson had to say on the subject. Here it is.
“The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers… [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.” –Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632
Ha, ha, ha, silly, silly Jefferson. I guess it was a slow news week back on 10/13/1775, too.
July 22, 2010, 5:26 pmRPT says:
Are you advocating that Tucker Carlson be prosecuted as was the Palin email hacker?
July 22, 2010, 5:26 pmMac says:
I take it that means we are not getting an answer from you? I didn’t really expect one. But, nice try at diversion.
July 22, 2010, 5:28 pmRPT says:
Even better than “Climate-gate”.
July 22, 2010, 5:30 pmMac says:
Source, please? Are you sure you are not confusing Fox with MSNBC who’s anchor woman, I can’t recall her name, admitted she was using White House talking points?
July 22, 2010, 5:30 pmTom Hodgkins says:
“Gotta be the Kenyan thing.”
From the J-list to the Kenyan racism boogeyman by someone trying to put obnoxious associations onto those concerned about the J-list and its implications as to the integrity of news.
Is there any, or should we agree that it’s all bias and politics, weak protestations to the contrary, and that the MSM is a good propaganda machine, a Mixmaster on the Right and a fleet of concrete mixers on the Left?
July 22, 2010, 5:31 pmKamal says:
He’s someone who takes sources and citations seriously, it seems.
July 22, 2010, 5:33 pmElliot says:
This makes the recent proposal from the FCC (FTC?)that we all pay a tax to support journalism even more interesting.
Regarding private emails… Does anyone have an expectation an email shared with 400 of your closest friends is private?
July 22, 2010, 5:33 pmGuest12345 says:
Did you watch the speech? Did you see where they were nodding and cheering and laughing as she was describing her racist behavior? Is there some unknown law of physics that prevent a person from drawing a conclusion from what they observe?
July 22, 2010, 5:34 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Were the plebs sovereign?
July 22, 2010, 5:34 pmJK says:
I already answered your question in a response to to Don that I posted while you were presumably writing your’s. I understand this happens from time to time, but it’s good practice to scroll up before posting yet more snark.
As to the points:
1. It’s my opinion based on years of reading the WSJ off and on that the opinion section is not a reliable source of factual information. No I’m not going to write an essay demonstrating my reasons for that. The idea that it’s unreasonable for me to say, “the WSJ opinion section is drivel” without writing an essay explaining my reasons is silly. You’re free to disagree with my assessment.
2. I do not and never did vouch for the veracity of any Jlist members, your insinuation that I did is simply a lie.
July 22, 2010, 5:35 pmMac says:
If you have some proof that such dealings are dishonest, and what proof you have along with other questionable activities raises questions, then I would say, yes. JList fits that criteria.
July 22, 2010, 5:35 pmJK says:
Note that I would say the same thing about the opinion section of all major news papers I’ve read regularly, not just The Journal.
July 22, 2010, 5:43 pmKamal says:
Seriously? Turn to another news channel dude. As I’ve asked before, watch Rachael Maddow, or even Chris Mathews. They’ve been doing really good exposes on the lies fox news is peddling to their views. ACORN, Black Panthers, Shirley Sherrod , etc.
July 22, 2010, 5:46 pmMac says:
But, I was siting a specific article. You responded that the WSJ is drivel. You did not respond that this and this in the article is false. You did not need to write an essay, just point out why the article does not support my thesis, and in which way it is in error. To say, WSJ opinion is drivel, is intellectually dishonest and lazy.
July 22, 2010, 5:46 pmScott Eudaley says:
Obviously, it is important to hold government employees to stricter standards than private citizens. However, as my previous post noted, there are also legitimate reasons why POTUS might want to keep some emails private too, despite the intense protestations of the news media.
Moreover, the news media have demanded of many private organizations the release of precisely such private information in the name of “the public interest”. The news media has shown absolutely no reluctance to publish any and all private information it gets its hands on because of “the public interest”. Remember the publication of the Palin emails? I believe the Journolist affair rises to the level of “the public interest”, and I am simply asking the journalism profession to abide by its own standards.
The “then why don’t you publish all your emails” rejoinder is a rather sad and pathetic response. There is no “public interest” in me or my life. I am not accused of a crime or any untoward activity. You haven’t shown any evidence that my emails are a matter of “the public interest”. And you would be bored to tears. Unless, of course, you’re really interested in knowing that I bought an oven thermometer and appliance timer from Amazon and I’m going to see Salt this weekend (the subjects of my most recent emails).
Compared to most commenters here, I am a model of openness. I write under my own, given name (is “byomtov” your real name or an alias?). You can google me if you want. Note that I live in California. I have a nominal doppelganger in Massachusetts that I have never met (although it is almost certain we are distantly related).
That might be difficult since I’m retired.
What you described is exactly how the news media behaves routinely. That’s precisely why I keep using the phrase “the public interest” in quotes. It has, for decades, been the news media’s sanctimonious justification for any invasion of someone’s privacy, no matter how sleazy or destructive. Their hypocrisy is blatantly obvious and it is delicious to turn it on them. I would be modestly happy if the sole result of the Journolist affair was a new-found respect for privacy in the ranks of journalists. But I doubt that will happen.
July 22, 2010, 5:46 pmJK says:
That’s an incorrect description of the conversation. You asked another poster what publications he trusted after he discounted your reference to a WSJ opinion piece, and I simply pointed out that there is a difference between not trusting the news section of a publication and not trusting the opinion section.
My point was that one can discount opinion pieces without being a hack that claims reputable news outlets are unreliable when they contradict one’s worldview (as you seemed to be implying). I have expressed no opinion regarding the veracity of the article you referenced, nor do I intend to.
July 22, 2010, 5:54 pmScott Eudaley says:
I think we agree. I’m not surprised they’re fighting tooth and nail to keep it private, since it obviously contains much that might be embarassing. I am simply noting that the shoe is on the other foot now and they don’t like it very much. I do find it a little surprising how quickly they trot out the very same arguments that they dismiss so cavalierly when uttered by others. Hypocrisy thy name is Journolist.
I doubt very much that sources are a real concern on their part. I’d be very surprised if particular sources were ever mentioned since sources are their mostly closely guarded secrets, especially from competitors.
With that, I now must go. Even though retired, I am busy.
July 22, 2010, 6:06 pmPaul says:
Sarcastro: [Tu quoque, I think. But I’m no philosophy major, I just read internet forums.]
Don’t cut yourself short. After all, you’ve posted 22 comments on this thread today. Perhaps an honorary doctorate in blog commenting is in order?
July 22, 2010, 6:14 pmRight on Left Coast says:
Coming here from Instapundit- whats also clear is how this JournoList is no news- its obvious to any serious news reader just how coordinated the MSM and Obama campaign were, so its obvious that the J-listers should be just as clueless, as to be caught red-handed.
Its over for NYT, WAPO, MSNBC, CBS- dead man walking.
July 22, 2010, 6:19 pmJK says:
Thanks for the disclaimer.
July 22, 2010, 6:26 pmJoseph Slater says:
Well actually there’s the extension of unemployment benefits, the still pretty-recent financial markets regulation, Kagan crusing toward Justice-dom, and yeah, the whole Breitbart thing. But this story fits the victim-of-media-conspiracy meme that the right has been pushing for a long time, so it’s getting a lot of play here.
If you read this blog long enough, you will hear that the following institutions are (somehow unfairly) dominated by “the left”: the media; law schools, the courts, the ABA, and basically the whole legal profession (including big firms); academia and the public schools; “elites” in general; most pillars of popular culture; and for those counting, currently most levels of government. Yet apparently this is all ecause of nefarious conspiracies and not at all because the country might not in fact be as conservative as the poster thinks it is / should be.
July 22, 2010, 6:58 pmHarryEagar says:
No
July 22, 2010, 7:13 pmMichael B says:
File under primary file: The Presidency as Door-to-Door Salesman
File under primary file: A Pravda-esque Press
File under secondary and supportive file: The Most Credulous Generation the U.S. Has Known
If one doubts that secondary and supportive (and absolutely necessary) filing, what other American generation was more credulous than the current generation? The Revolutionary War generation, the greatest generation America has known? The generation that confronted the Civil War in the U.S., arguably America’s second or equally greatest generation. The generation that confronted WWI? The one that confronted WWII? Or the successive generations that confronted WWIII, the Cold War?
Not a bit of it. The current generation has elected a highly accomplished door-to-door salesman to the presidency, repeatedly inviting him into their homes via various media – ergo, at least arguably so, the most credulous generation this country has known, bar none, bar not a one.
July 22, 2010, 7:19 pmMark Field says:
Touche.
July 22, 2010, 7:24 pmmykeuva says:
This would be very amusing if it wasn’t so sad. Your argument boils down to: You can’t believe the rightists in the media, just watch the leftists in the media describe it!
Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews? Seriously?
The point, sadly, is that everyone is biased, b/c everyone is human. The notion of “independent” or “objective” journalism is a farce.
Your post is indicative of this entire “liberal media” argument that has been going on for quite some time. People on the left constantly attack news providers such as fox news as biased, or not real news, while they pretend that places like the New York Times or the Washington Post are bastions of objectivity. Your post illustrates that type of thinking quite nicely: Fox is BS, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow (of all people) say so!
This entire argument would go away if everyone admitted that all people, journalists included, present news with a slant. In most cases, they don’t do it maliciously, they simply do it b/c they’re human.
July 22, 2010, 7:25 pmSonicfrog says:
Sarcastro was not the one claiming to be a reporter, it was the other guy.
July 22, 2010, 7:37 pmmattski says:
Well, here’s what one conservative thinks:
Sure, everyone is biased. But all biases aren’t equal.
July 22, 2010, 7:41 pmMichael B says:
“… As a former member of journolist, I can tell you quite honestly that there wasn’t any story coordination, or anything like it. Nor, if you read the Daily Caller article carefully, despite its deliberately misleading headline, do they have any proof of same.” Henry Farrell
Highly imaginative, Henry. Two queries follow:
How, beyond your own limited communications, could you even conceivably assure the public that “there wasn’t any story coordination”?
A well considered and responsibly argued reply, though not expected, would be of interest.
And how, even within your own limited associations and communications, can you assure the public that what you say in this vein is true? There is ample circumstantial evidence that supports the contrary view, and not merely “ample,” it is arguably overwhelming evidence in support of the contrary view.
A well considered and responsibly argued reply, again, would be of interest.
And Henry – a “well considered and responsibly argued” reply will not include such self-regarding assertions as “I can tell you quite honestly”. Forward the reply, and let others be the judge of your reasoning prowess, your argument, on its own grounds.
July 22, 2010, 7:43 pmSonicfrog says:
My thoughts on the Sherrog flap.
I was very busy when this first broke, but when I heard about it, I had the same feeling I had when I first heard about “B” girl’s supposed mugging for Obama. There was obviously information missing, and when that is evident in the political arena, you can usually be sure that something is rotten in Denmark.
Here is the deal. When you watch the first version of the video, it’s not really that damning in the first place. When she does talk about not helping the white farmer to the fullest extent, there is a bit of laughter and chuckling from a few in the crowd, but it’s not like the whole place erupted with applause. We know nothing about the few who reacted, yet, it’s not hard to imagine that at least some of them have been, or believe they have been screwed over by a white person or white society, and who among you would get a little satisfaction hearing of someone else screwing them for a chance, if only by proxy.
So not only does the first video not show what Breitbart claims, but it would have been very easy for the White House to handle this effectively… Assuming of course there is anyone competent currently working there.
The unedited video starts with an almost revivalist feel, with a nice church organ bit playing in the background. And that revivalist feeling sticks with the audience, who utters a few “Ah-mens”, “Al Rights” and “Haleluliah’s” scattered throughout, which also explains some of the spontaneous reactions to the “not helping the white man” comments. Mrs’ Sherrod starts off by telling the audience that her father was murdered by a white man when she was seventeen, and goes on to describe some of the injustices that occurred during the civil rights movement. She uses that to lead to the part where she talks about the white farmer. As you watch the whole thing, you see it clearly shows that Mrs Sherrod was simply telling the audience about a vital life lesson she learned, and she ended up going to bat for the guy she originally held in contempt, above and beyond her assigned responsibilities. Those of you who have not had to learn a lesson or two of that nature in your lifetime, please stop reading this and go do something else, because you’re wasting your time reading this.
My question is this: Is it actually racism to mistrust a group of people with whom you’ve had bad dealings in the past? If we’re going to go by the standard definition – Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race – then, in Sherrods case, and maybe some in the audience, does this really show racism?.
Meanwhile, Breitbart is still saying that he only got the original video in edited form. OK. Reveal the source so we can have a crack at that person.
July 22, 2010, 7:48 pmSarcastro says:
The lesson is, never try. Also that our parents were all suckers.
July 22, 2010, 7:48 pmJerry Kramer says:
Mykeuva,
Matthews is tingly up the leg legit, experiencing frissons of truthiness over Obama.
Maddow is passionately demonstrative, too, and not the white Republicanman’s bitch she.
Proof that most independents, moderates and conservatives are wrong.
July 22, 2010, 7:53 pmMac says:
July 22, 2010, 8:01 pmSarcastro says:
[Say what you will, but Maddow killed last night. Was a great show.]
July 22, 2010, 8:03 pmMac says:
Ok, instapundit is a no go as is WSJ. Who do you like and trust in the media or on the web? Just wondering.
July 22, 2010, 8:04 pmPaul Trefoil says:
Sonicfrog asks of Breitbart: “OK. Reveal the source so we can have a crack at that person.”
On this thread and ostensibly not in support of Anderson’s call for journolist disclosure, that has to be dissonant croaking at its finest.
July 22, 2010, 8:04 pmRay says:
Sarcastro, duly noted that you said, “Maddow killed last night. Was a great show.”
July 22, 2010, 8:11 pmCalderon says:
Not too sure of your point by including all of these examples. Professors at law schools are demonstrably to the left of “the country” at large, measured by the median voter, as are college faculties (which is what I presume is meant by “academia”). People posting on this blog that those two institutions are dominated by the left would have a solid empirical basis for their claim. I also recall reading that lawyers as a whole vote 70% Democratic, which again is more left than the country, but my google-fu is failing me in confirming that statistic.
July 22, 2010, 8:13 pmAlanDownunder says:
To answer a question posed by a prof on Journolist, but not addressed as serious, let alone agreed to, by any of its participants:
Just because it abuses free speech, Fox should not lose its broadcasting licence. Neither should Lindgren’s feverish partisan hit-and-run conspiracy theory fantasy posts be banned. In each case, just ignore the rabid frothing at the mouth.
July 22, 2010, 8:14 pmtom swift says:
“they seem to be rewarded for junking the whole model of reporting and objectivity”
Intellectually, you’ve run off the tracks already.
The J-list problem isn’t bias or a lack of objectivity. To expect a journalist, reporter, columnist, or any other scribbler or TV reader to be unbiased or objective is to set the bar unrealistically high. They’re not supermen, and we can’t expect them to act like supermen.
The problem is honesty. When a forum or list circulates plots to fabricate charges against public figures (and remember, “any one will do” for a target), it no longer has much to do with journalism, but rather a lot to do with propaganda of the vilest sort.
Honesty is the difference between a serious news organization and an amateur Ministry of Misinformation.
July 22, 2010, 8:22 pmMartha says:
The more Sarcastro, the better, imo.
July 22, 2010, 8:24 pmMac says:
From Fox News, esp. Glenn Beck to Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Lou Dobbs etc., they have all defended this woman. Fox did not report on her until after she got fired. You blame them for assuming that when the NAACP throws the woman under the bus and calls her a racist and the Obama administration insists she resign, they should all say, “Well now, wait a minute, does a Black organization and a Presidential administration of a Black President really have the full story on this woman?
Actually, if the White House had listened to Beck, it would never have happened as he said repeatedly that the entire clip had to be viewed. The NAACP was the only one with the whole clip unless they gave it to the White House. No one else had it at the time she was fired. The NAACP was running scared since they just decided to call the Tea Party racist, without proof, and they over reacted. Now, the Pres. and NAACP and your dear Mathews and Maddow are trying to blame their sorry behavior on Fox. What wimps!
And, there is video and signed affidavits on the Black Panther thing and the guy’s own words. And, why did ACORN lose Federal funding if it was all just a lie perpetuated by FOX? But, don’t pay any attention to FOX, or Congress or anyone else.
You are really, really gullible, I am sorry to say, but keep watching MSNBC. It was Maddow, come to think of it, who admitted to using White House Talking Points, wasn’t it? As a regular viewer, you should know which one it was.
July 22, 2010, 8:26 pmMSNBC can’t afford to lose you as a viewer. That would take them from 5 people to 4, wouldn’t it?
Jeff S. says:
AlanDownunder, the politics of name-calling, insinuation and personal destruction a la Alinsky, as well as projection psychodynamics, are pretty much understood up here in this hemi, in case you weren’t aware.
July 22, 2010, 8:34 pmSonicfrog says:
Uhm… Thanks? “Ribbit”.
July 22, 2010, 8:39 pmMac says:
Good post. Thanks.
Breitbart does not know the source. He received it anonymously. He tried to get the complete video from the NAACP, but they would not give it to him. He did not go with the clip, as it was not complete, until the NAACP called the Tea Party racists.
I would think someone at the NAACP had to send it, as no one else had access. Why, I don’t know. Maybe someone there does not like the lady. Who knows? I will forever be disappointed over Deep Throat. Such a mundane reason he had for giving the info. I had thought it would have been some high minded principles, but no. So, it is anyones guess as to why this was sent to him.
You said:
“Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race — then, in Sherrods case, and maybe some in the audience, does this really show racism?.\\”
Have to disagree here. Racism has existed long before mankind knew of genes. The fights in No. Ireland and among different factions of Islam and in Rwanda, for instance, show that mankind does not seem to need much of an excuse to find differences among us to hate. I have long wondered if somewhere way back in our cave man days this was somehow necessary for our survival and so got passed down in our genes.
You can even see it in the JList comments esp. the one about Limbaugh. She hates him because he believes differently than she. I guess that should not come as a surprise. But, I see so much hate on the Left towards the Right or anyone else who disagrees with them that it is getting very close to having all the elements of racism’s evil.
Anyway, enjoyed your thoughtful post.
July 22, 2010, 8:39 pmMac says:
Sigh. Again, Fox does not have a broadcasting license. They are cable and are not controlled by the FCC. ABC, NBC et al do not have them either. The stations who broadcast their shows have the license and the FCC has control over them. The Prof. in the JList who said that was woefully ignorant of facts. As I said above, I don’t know whether to be more outraged over his disregard of the First Amendment or his abject ignorance.
July 22, 2010, 8:43 pmJK says:
I’ve got no real problem with instapundit, I just thought it was funny that the guy notified us where he linked in from before pasting his banal talking point.
In case you really care where I read my news, I’d say The Economist is my favorite source and the only news publication I currently subscribe to. After that – and despite your claim that I don’t like the WSJ – I’d say the news section of the Journal slightly edges out the NYT or the WP (news sections again) and it’s the only daily I’ve subscribed to for any significant period of time besides my local paper. I watch my local news on TV probably 2-4 times a week.
I’m sure I’m a Communist for doing so, but I also listen to NPR in the car.
I read all sorts of opinion stuff like blogs (obviously) when I have the time, but it’s more for entertainment than information gathering. I don’t like to get news from opinion pieces. Maybe that’s whats causing you confusion, I guess I’m kind of old fashion in seeing an important – although admittedly blurry at times – distinction between opinion and news. I guess the modern system for many people is to skip the news section and go right to your preferred commentator where you pick up the news in the course of their arguments.
July 22, 2010, 8:46 pmJeff S. says:
Sigh. Again, Fox does not have a broadcasting license.
The Party talking point posters know all that, Mac. Are we supposed to believe this performance?
I don’t. There are either paid commenters here to distract or discredit, Klein’s identical twin has gone undercover to cover, or some luvs are having fun jerking chains. IMO
July 22, 2010, 8:54 pmSonicfrog says:
Ha Ha. I don’t watch MSNBC. Nor am I a liberal. If you knew anything at all about me, you would know I’m a small “L” libertarian – the only one registered in my district.
Sorry, but I don’t buy Breitbart’s contention that he originally got only that little snip of video. But, let’s say for a moment that he did. I would assume Breitbart paid the supplier of the vid some good $$$$$. Are you going to tel me that if B were willing to pay some $$$ for the edited version, as, if it contained the “racists evidence” it is purported to show, it would be worth the extra $$$ to got the video in toto? And if the seller held back, and said he only had that one part, would you be a little suspicious. Sorry, but it doesn’t add up.
Are you still going to trust a guy who would frame this in such an inflammatory fashion, with out even waiting to see what the whole video was?
July 22, 2010, 8:59 pmbyomtov says:
Breitbart does not know the source.
ROTFL. Bought any bridges lately?
July 22, 2010, 9:06 pmDon says:
Well, Jeff S., this can’t be for real: on a thread about the problem of journaListos engaged in behind the scenes political agenda networking, JK, who’s not sympathetic to the dismay over JList, pats self on back with
“I guess I’m kind of old fashion in seeing an important — although admittedly blurry at times — distinction between opinion and news.”
July 22, 2010, 9:06 pmcboldt says:
– Are you still going to trust a guy who would frame this in such an inflammatory fashion, with out even waiting to see what the whole video was? –
July 22, 2010, 9:09 pmit doesn’t talk to trusting Breitbart, but Vilsack and some unnamed person in the WH (if one chooses to believe Sherrod’s statement) trusted the video enough to demand Sherrod’s resignation.
SenatorX says:
Sure, everyone is biased. But all biases aren’t equal.
Liberal bias. First among equals?
July 22, 2010, 9:22 pmleo marvin says:
I’m with you. It’s amazing how often I find my confirmation bias vindicated by events as I perceive them.
July 22, 2010, 9:25 pmMac says:
Then there is no point in continuing the discussion. If everyone with whom you disagree is a liar, there is nothing to talk about.
July 22, 2010, 9:29 pmwhit says:
actually, many on the left ALSO claim that NYT and Washington Post are biased – corporatist right wing biased, just not nearly to the extent that fox is. and that they are not as willing to outright LIE like “faux news”
spend some time on DU,etc. that’s the conventional “wisdom”
July 22, 2010, 9:32 pmKen says:
When Dan Rather lied about the sitting President – and even used faked documents – I started to get it.
When the press patted him on the back and talked about his impressive career – I got it a little more.
When the investigation quibbled about the faked documents – I finally got it.
When the press gave Obama a free pass which resulted in the election of this incompetent man – I wasn’t even surprised.
The free press is an essential part of our democracy – now that it is gone we better hope something replaces it. My only hope is that the current press collapses before they foist another disaster on us.
Maybe, just maybe, a few of you ‘journalists’ will get the point and start doing your job – if recent history is any indication that won’t happen – but I can always hope.
July 22, 2010, 9:32 pmDon says:
I’m with you. It’s amazing how often I find my confirmation bias vindicated by the facts as I perceive them.
Then, leo, join the less sarcastic call for full disclosure to dispell the prejudgment over any perceived JList bias. Any self-respecting journalist would be insisting on releasing the evidence, even personal correspondence, except for forged TANG documents and climate scientology correspondence.
There’s a limit, you know.
July 22, 2010, 9:35 pmSarcastro says:
[If ya gove the J-Listers the benefit of the doubt, ya gotta give it to Brietbart too. Though I do find I cannot believe that he was posting the video only for the crowd's reaction, given the tile of his post.]
July 22, 2010, 9:35 pmJK says:
Because, of course, thinking that anyone you disagree with is a liar is exactly the same as thinking that everyone you disagree with is a liar.
[edit]note, personally I’m willing to give BB the benefit of the doubt. It’s certainly possible he got played.
July 22, 2010, 9:41 pmJK says:
Sarcastro and I have a private forum where we sync our messages.
July 22, 2010, 9:45 pmDon says:
Ken, Hurricane Dan’d rather whip up tempests in a teapot than weather the real vagaries of elections.
He gave it an heroic try, just didn’t understand variable climatology, that’s all. (Nobody does.) But his media brethren got it, they’re being cleverer. Atmospherics are fine but unstable, so much better to go underground for the big tremors– JList. More.
July 22, 2010, 9:45 pmleo marvin says:
Then how did this thread get to 350 comments?
July 22, 2010, 9:59 pmkrugman's doppelganger says:
We have to wonder how many reporters and editorialists around the world are now wondering why they weren’t invited to join the club. Weren’t their progressive credentials impeccable?
July 22, 2010, 10:06 pmMac says:
What I meant was, if the facts that are available to us are to be completely dismissed, then what’s the point in talking? Someone wondered how Brietbart got the video. I have been painstaking in the comments to accurately relate the whole story as we know it. If at the end, facts that we know, without an ounce of proof, are dismissed as, “He’s a liar”, then I don’t know what further point there is to the discussion. The posters who wanted the facts, including myself, have them by now. The others do not want them.
I don’t know Breitbart. I don’t know if he is a liar or not. I think if he is caught out in a lie, it would greatly damage his reputation and he would have a reason not to want that to happen. But the JList folks should have thought the same and didn’t.
I doubt the posters who called Breitbart a liar know him either and, unlike with Dan Rather, where we have proof he lied, there is no proof here, so name calling seems a waste of time. I suppose if he does know and, as this had to come from the NAACP, maybe he is protecting his source. Journalists do that all the time. I have no way of knowing and have no way of knowing if he had the whole clip at the start instead of just the snippet. One knows the NAACP had the whole clip and presumes they watched it and they threw her under the bus, so to assume if Breitbart had the whole clip and just gave out one part, seems thin.
At any rate, FOX is supporting her and Glenn Beck was supporting her while the White House and NAACP was throwing her under the bus.
I am just kind of tired of arguing with people who think they have made a sound argument by impugning the source i.e. the WSJ or FOX while not refuting anything or calling people liars as if that adds much to the debate.
Got to go anyway.
July 22, 2010, 10:27 pmbyomtov says:
If everyone with whom you disagree is a liar, there is nothing to talk about.
Yet there are a ton of people here essentially calling Farrell a liar.
As for Breitbart (and, yes, Vilsack) anyone who looks at a two-minute clip of a much longer speech, provided by someone who obviously has an agenda, and draws conclusions without asking questions and seeing the context is either uninterested in the truth or an idiot.
It’s really irrelevant whether Breitbart had the whole video. He would have posted what he did either way.
July 22, 2010, 10:30 pmAngus says:
Mac,
July 22, 2010, 10:31 pmIt is not an article. It is an op-ed opinion piece. Do you accept everything liberal opinion columnists write as completely and utterly true?
Moneyrunner says:
One of the fascinating things about the JournoList fiasco is not that the members of the media are assholes. That was obvious for years. They are actually bigger assholes when they talk amongst themselves.
The second thing that interested me is that the list was limited … only about 400 members. But this was not an elite crew. It included an obscure staffer for a public radio station in California who wanted to see Rush Limbaugh die in front of her so she could have an orgasm. So a legitimate question before us is this: until the names of all 400 are published, the jerk who writes or edits your local birdcage liner … say one of the editors of the Virginian Pilot, could be a JournoList member who also gets his jollies hoping to see Conservatives die.
July 22, 2010, 10:41 pmMoneyrunner says:
What I Learned From the Shirley Sherrod Case
(1) Shirley Sherrod is a racist (she’s just changed the people she hates).
July 22, 2010, 10:47 pm(2) NAACP is racist.
(3) MFM can’t read.
(4) MFM doesn’t care.
histery says:
Before he decided that Journolist was a vast, evil conspiracy, here is a note that Tucker Carlson (of the Daily Caller which has been “leaking” this crap) wrote asking to join:
Dear Ezra,
I keep hearing about how smart the policy conversations on JournoList are, and am starting to feel like I’m missing out by not reading them. Could I join?
I realize you and I don’t share the same politics, but I can promise you I have no interest in flaming anyone or even debating (I get enough of that). I’m just interested in knowing what smart progressives are saying. It strikes me that’s the one thing I’m missing in my daily reading.
Please tell me what you think. If it makes you uncomfortable, ask around. I’m pretty sure we know a lot of the same people.
All best,
Tucker Carlson.
July 22, 2010, 11:14 pmkrugman's doppelganger says:
Tucker’s a sly one, ain’t he?
Cite, please. All this would prove is he wanted an ear to the Progressive convo and they wouldn’t let him in on it. Klein’s pretty slick, too.
Or was that an attempt at parody?
July 22, 2010, 11:27 pmpc says:
Cite. Apparently Tucker got all butthurt.
July 22, 2010, 11:37 pmleo marvin says:
This is the sort of honesty journalism needs more of: trolling for clicks by showing exactly the kind of loathsome character assassination he practices on his own site.
July 23, 2010, 12:05 ammemomachine says:
Hmmmmm.
1. “Cite. Apparently Tucker got all butthurt.”
Apparently Tucker got the last laugh. And he who laughs last, gets all the web traffic.
2. 368 comments? I can see I have my reading cut out for me tomorrow.
3. “Before he decided that Journolist was a vast, evil conspiracy, here is a note that Tucker Carlson (of the Daily Caller which has been “leaking” this crap) wrote asking to join:”
And curiously enough J-List did turn out to be a nefarious tool for collusion, political chicanery and defamation.
4. “[If ya gove the J-Listers the benefit of the doubt, ya gotta give it to Brietbart too. Though I do find I cannot believe that he was posting the video only for the crowd’s reaction, given the tile of his post.]”
gove. A combination of “give” and “gave”? A tense indeterminate version of the word? I kinda like it. I suggest we all spread it around as much as possible eventually forcing Websters to put it in the official dictionary.
A monument to Sarcastro like “grok” is to RA Heinlein and “refudiate” is to Sarah Palin. :)
July 23, 2010, 12:19 amAdam Sullivan says:
I can’t wait till the JList emails on bringing down Hillary and creating “superdelegate” momentum come out.
Pumas, fauxgressives, oh my!
People forget that Obama got less than half of the primary popular vote. He did not walk off with the nomination – it was handed to him.
Those old wounds will re-open with the JList salt poured on them.
July 23, 2010, 12:37 amLeo says:
Ken,
I teach media ethics in a School of Journalism. Can you please point me to a good, objective article that summarizes this JournoList affair? I am looking for something I can give my students to read, preferably something not written by a journoLister or the Daily Caller.
Thanks
July 23, 2010, 1:00 amAdam Sullivan says:
Not what you asked for, but a damning perspective from someone inclined to side with the JournoListers.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/07/the-line-on-palin.html
July 23, 2010, 1:27 amzuch says:
When he claims that a federal employee was pursuing racist policies, he didn’t even watch the clip he posted or do any kind of rudimentary checking of fact:
That’s an actionable lie. So why should we believe anything else this profoundly dishonest sack’o'sh*te said?
Cheers,
July 23, 2010, 1:58 amzuch says:
Yeah, but I know for a fact you hate Norwegians. I can tell from the sneer in your typing.
Cheers,
July 23, 2010, 2:03 amzuch says:
For those not inclined to go looking, link here. Click it. Watch it. Devastating.
Cheers,
July 23, 2010, 2:20 amzuch says:
How about when one of their affiliates insists in court that they have no obligation not to broadcast known falsehoods … and win?
Cheers,
July 23, 2010, 2:25 amzuch says:
Yeah, FauxSnooze and Ben Gleck supported her after the administration went after her … you know, knee-jerk kind of thing, anything to attack the administration on. And after it had been shown (again) that Breitbart was a lying sack’o'sh*te.
But that was hardly FauxSnooze’s attitude the first day, before the whole thing was shown to be a cobbled-together RW slime-job.
Cheers,
July 23, 2010, 2:33 amzuch says:
Oh. You mean, like “major league a$$holes”? Truly incredible what you learn from purportedly private comments….
Cheers,
July 23, 2010, 2:38 amSonicfrog says:
Nice logical fallacy there:
I don’t agree with one person, and think that one person is not being truthful.. is lying, Therefore, anyone I disagree with are therefore liars.
It’s been a long time since my statistics and logic class, but that would be a false dichotomy I believe. (?)
July 23, 2010, 3:11 amFormer Conspirator says:
He won the primary by winning the delegate math as was agreed by all the parties. He won the superdelegates over because he won the non-superdelegates through the 53 primary contests.
What part of this was a liberal MSM conspiracy? The part where the MSM piled on every time he failed to close the deal (e.g., off the top of my head, NH, PA, OH, TX), the part where they completely ignored the math well past February even though it was more or less settled that he had already won the raw delegate count, or the part where they refused to even question Hillary’s motives when she continued to launch very damaging attacks against Obama into March and April–even openly questioning whether he might be a Muslim–even though she was by that point mathematically eliminated from the nomination?
I mean, good grief. This comments section is why I don’t read Volokh daily anymore. The interesting legal discussions have taken a back seat to conservative bitching about everything under the sun.
How many posts are we up to now on JournoList? Five? In a day?
The only contributor who makes interesting posts to this blog anymore are Volokh himself. For the sake of his own name, I think it’s time to either set some limits on the partisan bullshit or boot some of the partisan hacks from the conspiracy and get back to blogging about the law.
July 23, 2010, 3:33 amEngineer says:
The latest DC post is about Olbermann and how the Jlisters think he is pompous and misogynistic.
More interesting is the implicit hypocrisy. Katha Politt, Lindsay Beyerstein etc. apparently won’t criticize Olbermann publicly. He can get away with it because he is on “their team”.
July 23, 2010, 5:53 ammattski says:
I wouldn’t discount David Frum’s view of the unique peculiarities of American conservatives.
We can look around and find examples of egregious bias left and right. But if you’re looking for a larger pattern then, yes, conservative bias is more rooted in emotionally held, fear-based beliefs than is liberal bias. Take fundamentalist Christianity as an instructive example.
July 23, 2010, 6:49 amMoneyrunner says:
For loathsome character assassination I cede the crown handed me by leo marvin to Shirley Sherrod who changed the focus of her racist hatred from poor white farmers to Republicans in general and the Bush administration in particular. Joint winner with Sherrod is leo marvin who’s perfectly willing to defend this kind of racism, to the NAACP which also finds it perfectly acceptable, to the Obama administration whose playing of the race card ended up getting trumped, to Sarcastro whose defense of Liberal fascism makes him a legend in his own mind.
Take the trophy home and have a party Brownshirts, you’ve earned it.
Cheers
July 23, 2010, 7:13 ambyomtov says:
Sarcastro: [Say what you will, but Maddow killed last night. Was a great show.]
For those not inclined to go looking, link here. Click it. Watch it. Devastating.
She absolutely nailed it.
July 23, 2010, 8:09 amcboldt says:
– She absolutely nailed it. –
Is this an accurate take on Maddow’s presentation and argument?
Did Maddow have additional argumentation or conclusions? Or is the above blockquote from TPM a fair summary statement (by that, I mean “reasonably complete,” not “mediocre” or “run of the mill”)?
July 23, 2010, 8:23 ambyomtov says:
Did Maddow have additional argumentation or conclusions?
Watch it and decide for yourself. I’m not being snarky. It was a twelve or thirteen minute segment and I’d rather not try to summarize it in a blog comment. Clearly, opinions will differ and I’m sure you will disagree with some of it, but maybe not all, and in any event I think you will find it an interesting piece.
July 23, 2010, 8:30 amcboldt says:
– Watch it and decide for yourself. –
July 23, 2010, 8:47 amI might. Meanwhile, are you willing to opine as to the extent the TPM summary is complete and accurate?
I just finished reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy, to attempt to discern the nutshell impression one is supposed to obtain on hearing the code phrase, “Southern Strategy.”
And not to play hide the ball, the words in the TPM piece that have my mental attention are “terrify” and “victim.” After reading the Wiki piece, I find myself unsure of the impression Maddow intends from the code phrase, “Southern Strategy.”
cboldt says:
– I’d rather not try to summarize it in a blog comment. –
July 23, 2010, 8:52 amYou agree with Sarcastro, “She nailed it.” One can reasonably assume you two share agreement on what the “it” is. I’m just requesting you articulate the position Maddow took with more detail than “agree.”
Is the TPM summary fair (accurate), or unfair (inaccurate – overstated, understated)?
Sarcastro says:
[I'm always down to summarize something that shouldn't be reduced!
It was about how current tactics by Fox and the GOP are the legacy of the Southern Strategy of portraying white people as victims, or potential victims, of cultural imperialism from blacks. Thus, blacks are the real racists. And if white folks don't unify against whatever black people want, they will be marginalized by black imperialism.
So Wallace talking about how he's going to kick out anyone who wants to cause trouble or attack the Southern "way of life" is of a part with the current frenzied coverage of the NAACP being the real racists, the NBPP thing and Sherrod Brown. They all fit the narrative of white people as victims of black intolerance.
Ugh. That skips a lot of examples of this narrative through the years, but gets at the main thesis at least.]
July 23, 2010, 9:08 amcboldt says:
I left out the primary conclusion that TPM assigns to Maddow, or I think it’s the primary conclusion.
Removing the current event from what TPM assigns Maddow, the contention is “The right-wing tactic of characterizing black people as being racist against white people is nothing new in this country.”
July 23, 2010, 9:11 amSarcastro says:
[In a nutshell, this is it, IMO.]
July 23, 2010, 9:15 amJoseph Slater says:
Absolutely!
My point of including all these examples was including all the examples — to show that at least some folks on the right seem to think that almost all influential institutions in U.S. society are on “the left.” Heck, I recall a thread on affirmative action in which “big business” in general was accused of being liberal-leftist. If I had poured over the history of posts here, I could have given more examples. The point is that if you think pretty much all of society is to your left, it might be because you’re on the right. Nothing wrong with being on the right, per se, but one should have some self-awareness. And not be a sucker for conspiracy memes and/or “poor me I’m such a victim” memes.
July 23, 2010, 9:19 amcboldt says:
Sarsactro, is this a fair reduction of the first part of your summary?
“Current tactics by Fox and the GOP … [aim to incline the viewer that] blacks are the real racists. And if white folks don’t unify against whatever black people want, they will be marginalized by black imperialism.”
Did you mean Shirley Sherrod where your wrote Sherrod Brown?
July 23, 2010, 9:21 amSarcastro says:
[I did, and it is. Though it's a fair reduction only of my attempt to reduce what I thought Maddow was saying, so your mileage etc. etc.]
July 23, 2010, 9:24 amcboldt says:
– In a nutshell, this is it, IMO. –
July 23, 2010, 9:31 amYou cited two stories that are recently in the news. The Breitbart/Sherrod/NAACP events, and the Philadelphia/NBPP events.
Would it be reasonable, or unreasonable, to reach a different conclusion about the presence of racism between the incidents at the bottom of those stories? In other words, is racism present in both, absent in both, or present in one and absent in the other?
I’ve read posts here that assert the NBPP incident embodies an example of white against black racism, on the part of the “suits” called to the scene. Angus insinuates this argument by pointing out the call that asserts voters are being intimidated by white men in suits.
I note that just as an example that my question as to reasonableness of reaching different conclusions probably requires more than a “yes/no” answer, if I am to understand where you draw the line.
cboldt says:
– Though it’s a fair reduction only of my attempt to reduce what I thought Maddow was saying –
July 23, 2010, 9:36 amI think then, that regardless of how one sides on that point, the question of justification for reaching an opinion is missing.
If I understand correctly, one of Breitbart’s complaints is that NAACP’s assertion that Tea Party is racist is based on a fabricated truth. This gets to sufficiency of evidence, whether or not some faction of the Tea Party was chanting “nigger.”
I think that is a separate issue from where, on a spectrum of “racist action/attitude,” one says “unacceptable.”
cboldt says:
Is it ever acceptable to point out an action or statement by a black person that might be taken as racist against white people?
July 23, 2010, 9:43 amIs it ever acceptable to make a clear accusation that an action or statement by a black person is rascist aginst whites?
rain or bow? says:
Exactly WHO is being terrified of the black man and WHO is doing it? Is this another smear against the Tea Party or just the Whiteman in general?
To me and many I know, the worst part of the Maddow Prog Netroots tactic is not the gross stereotyping of a hating, scared, lower brain reacting Southern mentality controlled by TV showing FOX and NASCAR 24/7; it’s how the notion of racism is being damaged when wielded by our Enlightened Betters as a club to hit political opponents, nearly all of whom ARE NOT racist.
That real racism exists, in the form of white on black, black on white, black on Asian, black and white on Jew, white on latino and vice versa, is deplorable and, in some cases, actionable, is not in doubt. But white on black hate is not so nearly prevalent as Democratic political operators would have us believe, and the pushback on the part of people who are tired of the gratuitously gross J’accuse will be either to think in color, as do the racemongers, but differently, or to dismiss all Progressive “sensitivities” (race, gender, orientation, eco, global, redistribution) as clubs with which to beat up the rest of us trying to get along.
Many of us are tired of being put on the defensive by aggressive, lying provocateurs. How is Maddow’s line any different from the “you’re against God, country and apple pie” charge unprincipled politicians and neighbors flung at opponents and differently thinking Americans back in the fifties?
That the Jlist shows prominent members of the press suggesting people be groundlessly accused of racism to neutralize their effectiveness is enough for me. Maddow goes too low in describing today’s Southerners as suckers for racist exploitation to blunt any and all criticism of Obama (and I suppose border policy). She killed all right, certainly her integrity, at the very least.
July 23, 2010, 9:56 amcboldt says:
Again, in the spirit of not hiding the ball:
July 23, 2010, 10:04 amI believe the “chants of nigger” story to be a hoax, initiated by a reporter, Lewis’s aide, Brenda Jones, and Rep. Andre Carson.
I believe the “spit on” story to be an example of converting a “sprayed it instead of saying it” event into an intentionally sinister event.
Therefore, I think the NAACP is, at best, slinging accusations of racism [citing these precise events] with insufficient justification.
I think the two NBPP actors exhibited racism, “Kill whitey babies,” “ruled by a black man” are, to me, clear signals. I find the testimony of Hill, that the black poll worker was intimidated by the NBPP members, to be credible.
I don’t think the white men in suits at the Philly polling place acted in a racist fashion.
Mark Field says:
To be fair, Prof. Kerr has good legal posts when he’s not off enabling the vast right wing conspiracy, and a few others are sometimes capable of interesting posts; while I often disagree with Profs. Somin and Bernstein, they do get into historical issues which I find interesting. But the herd certainly could be thinned and we’d all be gainers: addition by subtraction, as Branch Rickey would say.
July 23, 2010, 10:09 ambyomtov says:
<i. “The right-wing tactic of characterizing black people as being racist against white people is nothing new in this country.”
I would characterize it slightly differently. Not so much “blacks are racist against whites,” in a universal sense, but rather the invocation of the Threatening Black. Maddow said, “They are coming to get you,” is the message being sent. Not all of “them,” but enough.
This was a big part of the segregationist message, after all. So the whole NBP thing plays right into it, as does the idea that Sherrod was out to use her government position (which she didn’t have) to take white people’s land, etc. I urge you to watch the clip. I don’t doubt you’ll have some sharp disagreements with it, but I think you’ll see where she is coming from.
July 23, 2010, 10:18 amMoneyrunner says:
Sarcastro:
Am I getting you right? It’s those awful Republicans and Fox?
Welllll! How’s this fresh from Senator James Webb (D-VA)
How did the whites in the South fare?
I quote this article extensively because it may not be available to non-subscribers.
How does this modern day Democrat conclude?
I didn’t vote for Webb. I thought the “macaca” election was a shameful example of media malpractice; something that’s obviously still going on. But it puts the lie to the assertion that this is a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Lots of people are getting tired of the old race baiting playbook that now seems to have only one play left in it.
July 23, 2010, 10:35 amcboldt says:
– So the whole NBP thing plays right into “[not all of the blacks, but enough of them] are coming to get you,” is the message being sent. … as does the idea that Sherrod was out to use her government position (which she didn’t have) to take white people’s land, etc. –
Do you think that is a fair, or unfair summary of Maddow’s position?
Is it acceptable, or unacceptable to disseminate, as news, the NBPP Philly polling place activity? Does that publication comprise sending an unacceptable message?
While some people may be stupid enough to think Sherrod was involved in the taking, most understand that her position involved rendering legal help, and by her own admission, she took into account the color of the skin of the person in front of her, and admitted she at least though about diluting her effort on that basis alone.
July 23, 2010, 10:36 amPlugInMonster says:
So nice of you to impugn Prof Kerr’s integrity. Now kindly, fuck off.
July 23, 2010, 10:38 amJoseph Slater says:
Cboldt:
Byomtov beat me to it, but let me also say that one take on the NBPP story is that some folks were pushing it to appeal to fear/racism in whites. In this view, the NBPP story itself was not a big deal in the cosmic scheme of things, but it was constantly trumpeted on Fox News because it plays into a broader story about Scary Black Folks coming to get you — and the black president is on their side! And this “Dems favor scary militant blacks over white folks” has been a notable theme in some Republican/conservative circles over the decades.
This is not to defend the actions of the NBPP members (and to answer your question, I certainly think black folks can be racist), but to question why they got so much publicity. It fits with Beck saying that Obama is racist against white people, Limbaugh calling health care reform “reparations,” the Breitbart “Federal official discriminates against white folks!” smear, etc., etc.
July 23, 2010, 10:39 amElliot says:
Racism is a state of mind?
July 23, 2010, 10:41 amSarcastro says:
[cboldt, I didn't do Maddow justice. There are more examples in the piece (Quotes from Beck and Limbaugh Steve King) making a continuum to today. With a larger sample size, it does look more and more like an effective tactic and less like the usual 24 hour news exaggeration.
Though I do agree that the left carelessly throwing around accusations of racism does not simplify things. Nevertheless, the specter of general black racism trying to take this country away is a fear tactic, presence of "clear signals" or not.
To sum up, 1. While of course racist blacks exist, they are not a threat to America's way of life. 2. the right is using the threat of imperialistic blackness to unify white with them.]
July 23, 2010, 10:44 amCalvin says:
Given your online screen name, it’s not clear how you want your comments to be taken, or if they can be taken seriously at all. But, in an attempt at honest discussion, here goes: I don’t think anyone has a problem with a journalist, even an “objective” one, sharing his opinion in private, while maintaining objective integrity in his work. What is disturbing is the unabashed discussion and willingness to figure out how best to twist the narrative, suppress facts, and smear the opponents. Talk of the “unofficial campaign” to elect Obama, the call to label people racists to destroy their credibility, and the talk of how to shape the agenda to best cast a light on a certain candidate, issue or party – these are some of the problems, here. I hope you can see that.
July 23, 2010, 10:46 amSarcastro says:
[Moneyrunner, just cause Web doesn't like affirmative action does not mean he's saying blacks are coming for your way of life.
PlugInMonster it was clearly a joke, and one Kerr would have chuckled at, I'll wager. Calm down.
cboldt , what Joseph Slater said. Perhaps Fox just thought the NBPP was more newsworthy than I did, but is sure does fit into a pattern of their coverage. And if you look at more fringey opinion folks, it becomes pretty clear this is a well the right enjoys going to.
If you don't mind some reading, I think this post by Ta-Nehisi Coates says it very well.]
July 23, 2010, 10:57 amcboldt says:
– Racism is a state of mind? –
July 23, 2010, 10:59 amWhy not? People harbor all manner of prejudice while keeping their mouth shut and otherwise appearing passive. That doesn’t provide much in the way of mutually observable evidence of anything, but I’m not uncomfortable with the notion that there are passive racists.
– 1. While of course racist blacks exist, they are not a threat to America’s way of life. 2. the right is using the threat of imperialistic blackness to unify white with them. –
I agree with “1,” but not with “2.”
In the case of the NBPP case, I suspect there are black and white people who are concerned (or believe, without being concerned) that the remedy/punishment was watered down. I don’t think the NBPP represents a significant “threat,” because is it small in size and and is obviously racist. Likewise, I don’t see the KKK as a present threat.
I think there are very few white people who think or are concerned they will personally suffer racial discrimination. Rather, I think the concern is that the social and legal reaction varies significantly, depending on races. I haven’t studied the statistics of incidents or reporting, but by way of example, is there any difference in white against black “hate crime” compared with black against white? A little off topic, to the extent it represent a penalty enhancer or separate offense, I find “hate crime” to be an odious creation, crime is crime. But “hate crime” is a convenient shorthand here.
Sarcastro says:
[Calvin, I refer you to my first foray into brackets on this thread. Opinion columnists with agendas are nothing new. Your accusations would ring true if news reporters were engaging in such acts, but I do not see any evidence of that.]
July 23, 2010, 11:01 ambyomtov says:
cboldt,
If I understand correctly, one of Breitbart’s complaints is that NAACP’s assertion that Tea Party is racist is based on a fabricated truth.
1. Then let him address that and defend the Tea party. How did posting the Sherrod video, essentially putting out a lie, help his case in any rational sense?
2.The NAACP did not assert the Tea party was racist. It asserted it included racist elements. Mark Williams, anyone? (This assertion was made before Williams was booted.)
Is it ever acceptable to point out an action or statement by a black person that might be taken as racist against white people?
Is it ever acceptable to make a clear accusation that an action or statement by a black person is rascist aginst whites?
Yes. Of course. But it’s also possible to misrepresent and exaggerate incidents and play on people’s fears. It’s also possible to be pretty damn selective. Black guy with a nightstick is a threat to the Republic. People carrying guns to Obama rallies and talking about “watering the tree of liberty with tyrants’ blood?” Hey. Just exercising Constitutional rights. Complaining about a “Kenyan” president? Just ordinary rhetoric?
July 23, 2010, 11:05 ammack says:
There are racists of every ethnicity and race – there are some in the membership of every political party. Both parties play the race card – such that it is nigh impossible to have an honest debate about social programs, education, or immigration. The motives of those in positions of authority or power in playing the race card is to further or to consolidate their hold on power and too advance their agenda.
Mostly, IMHO, the players at the top who play the race card are not themselves so much racists as they are cynical opportunists. Hard core racists are generally relegated to the fringe of parties or movements or they are part of movements that are considered fringe or extremist.
When those in a position to play the race card attempt to do so, they are doing so in an attempt to demonize a movement or party or person and label them as beyond the pale – such that they are identified as extremist or a fanatical fringe element. A group or individual so attacked has to fight the rebranding or they and their voice will be effectively destroyed politically or as a voice of social change.
Race is not the only card that is played in this way – violence towards women, sexism, and violence or abuse or neglect of children are also used in a similar fashion.
In a way it all ties back to the victim culture – if you want to have the moral high ground then you need to claim to be a victim – because if you are a victim then obviously your hands are clean and you can’t be held to blame or held responsible. And if you are a victim then you have the right to denounce your victimizer and of course decent people will shun or ostrasize the victimizer.
Thus victimhood is a means to power – which is why victims are on display at statehouse and capital hill hearings all the time – why politicians seek out press conferences and photo-ops with victims – and why everyone and their brother play the victim card back and forth.
An example of this outside of race is the Brady Campaign and the NRA – the Brady Campaign trots out victims of gun violence – the NRA trots out victims of gun control and we have a victim off contest – the Brady Campaign claims the NRA is outside the mainstream and supports policies that kill children – the NRA claims the Brady Campaign is outside the mainstream and they support policies that leave honest law abiding citizens defenseless against criminal predators. Who has the most compelling victims wins in the media and probably with the public – only if it is a draw or standoff does the debate ever move beyond the victim/race card contest to a debate of the issues. And even then, both sides will attempt to continue to cast the specific issues and policy choices in light of appeals to victimhood.
So, of course all involved are calling each other racists and claiming to be victims – whether they do so directly or indirectly. All sides are seeking out comments past or present by anyone associated with their opponent to make the charges stick.
It is a sick industry that has ironically grown from basically positive roots – those roots are that racism, sexism, and such are no longer openly acceptable in our society and are considered and actually are outside of the mainstream of our culture.
The other hope I see in this is that the more the race and victim card is played without real merit, the less and less effective it becomes and the closer we can get to having real debates on real issues. As to the specific merits of the NAACP/Breitbart/Sherrod charges – I don’t know.
July 23, 2010, 11:08 amcboldt says:
– And if you look at more fringey opinion folks, it becomes pretty clear this is a well the right enjoys going to. –
July 23, 2010, 11:09 amI think that accusation at least swings both ways. See resurrection of the Health care protest stories (chants of “nigger,” spit on Cleaver) to support the assertion that the Tea Party is insufficiently aggressive in weeding out racism among its ranks.
Call ‘em racist, and they have to expend energy defending that charge, which takes time and attention from their “Taxed Enough Already” message.
See J-List discussion of falsely accusing Fred Barnes or some other “righty” of racism, in order to create such a distraction.
Now I’ll go read the Ta-Nehisi Coates post.
cboldt says:
– Black guy with a nightstick is a threat to the Republic. People carrying guns to Obama rallies and talking about “watering the tree of liberty with tyrants’ blood?” –
July 23, 2010, 11:20 amJust as I overstated “NAACP called the TEA Party racist” (and that was a consequence of quick typing, see later remark where I note the charge more correctly as lack of enthusiasm, or not aggressive enough to denounce), your comment that “a guy with a nightstick is a threat to the Republic” overstates a point of view. The threats to the Republic are radically disparate treatment, based on race; and deficit in simple honesty.
FWIW, the fellow with the gun was a black man.
– How did posting the Sherrod video, essentially putting out a lie, help [Breitbart's] case in any rational sense? –
I’m not clear on which is the first video, and which is the second, but I don’t think it matters as far as my impression goes. Breitbart has an agenda. We can argue over what that is, but I think the NAACP tape of Sherrod’s speech, the administration reactions to it, and the public reaction are more significant. Sometimes irrational people manage to instigate useful and constructive debate. I even think flinging false charges is informative, at least as to who is doing the flinging (and that goes both ways too). I would not have spent hours researching the “chanted nigger” story, if it hadn’t been for the charge being so widely and repeatedly reported.
Elliot says:
It certainly helped the larger case of making Obama look foolish. Perhaps Obama, Vilsack, Sherrod, and Breitbart can get together for a beer in the Rose Garden?
July 23, 2010, 11:21 amSarcastro says:
[No doubt.]
July 23, 2010, 11:21 amSonicfrog says:
+ 1. Couldn’t have said it any better.
The more you ascribe racism to trivial things, the less meaning and power the definition has. Again, the definition: the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
July 23, 2010, 11:24 amJoseph Slater says:
Mack says: In a way it all ties back to the victim culture — if you want to have the moral high ground then you need to claim to be a victim
A point certainly worth noting in a thread about how conservatives are victims of a massive left-wing media conspiracy.
July 23, 2010, 11:45 amcboldt says:
I just finished reading, and re-reading, and re-reading again, the post you linked: The NAACP Is Right – Ta-Nehisi Coates.
July 23, 2010, 11:46 amI also followed the embedded link to We’re not racist, you racists – by Dave Weigel – 7/16/10; and from there, the embedded link to Opinion: On being labeled as ‘racist’ – Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler – 7/14/10.
A few thoughts and impressions. First, I wonder if the phrase “The NAACP has long history of liberalism and racism,” attributed to Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler by Dave Weigel, was ever expressed by Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler. It doesn’t appear in the opinion piece that I read. It’s relevant, because much of what Weigel and Coates have to say revolves around that sort of notion.
I think the Coates piece is either an example of projection – accuse the opposition of what you are doing; or is expressing a truism, that one can distract an opponent or reverse the outcome of an argument by inverting the inquiry, or by employing projection.
I’ll read it again to see if it has a more precise point or accusation.
byomtov says:
FWIW, the fellow with the gun was a black man.
Not this one
I even think flinging false charges is informative, at least as to who is doing the flinging (and that goes both ways too). I would not have spent hours researching the “chanted nigger” story, if it hadn’t been for the charge being so widely and repeatedly reported.
That strikes me as a strange point of view. But are you as willing to condemn Breitbart for false charges as you are the NAACP? I mean, there seems to be a great deal of anger on the right over what are considered false charges about things being yelled (Though I’m not convinced they are false. I’m curious about your hours of research). Where is the condemnation of Breitbart for a blatant and obvious lie? Jonah Goldberg defends him. You suddenly find false accusations useful? (And yes, Vilsack is an idiot.)
your comment that “a guy with a nightstick is a threat to the Republic” overstates a point of view.
It overstates yours. But how much news coverage do you think it deserved? Is Maddow wrong to say that the story was rather overblown?
July 23, 2010, 11:52 amMoneyrunner says:
Byomtov illustrates perfectly the way the Left want the Right to react to illegitimate charges of racism … by denying them. Tried that for decades. Like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown it didn’t work which is the reason tools like byomtov want that game to go on.
The game has changed, and changed largely due to Limbaugh, Beck, Fox and Breitbart. Especially Breitbart because he knows how the Left reacts and he’s carefully crafted his traps. The Sherrod affair is a classic. And while the tools on the Left are trying to turn the focus on Sherrod, the real racism was exhibited by the NAACP audience; a group that just tried to throw the Tea Party under the bus.
Bottom line, if you level a charge of racism at the Right, at the Tea Party, or at Fred Barnes or Karl Rove to change the subject, expect to be exposed all over the media as bigots. No more bleats of “I’m not a racist” after the race-baiters move on to their next victim. Thanks to Andrew Breitbart and an Army of Davids with their own video cameras and their own news outlets, that nation of race cowards (thanks Eric Holder) is going to stop cowering. If it makes you uncomfortable for a while, sorry about that.
Cheers.
July 23, 2010, 12:03 pmcboldt says:
– But are you as willing to condemn Breitbart for false charges as you are the NAACP? –
July 23, 2010, 12:07 pmNo, because Breitbart produces the evidence, then expresses a conclusion or opinion that is arguable. The reader can view his evidence, and disagree with his opinion. NAACP, on the other hand, appears willing to make an accusation on flimsy or non-existent evidence.
– I’m not convinced they are false. I’m curious about your hours of research. –
I don’t think you’ll ever be convinced they are false. My hours of research was looking at and time-line organizing probably 20-30 reports, some print, some tee-vee news. My conclusion that the report of chanting a slur is a hoax is based on numerous factors, and stands regardless of “absence of video.” See my remarks in The Discrediting Of Breitbart at TalkLeft for more detail, if you want.
– You suddenly find false accusations useful? –
Yes. It’s evidence of the investigatory discipline and honesty of the person making the charge.
– But how much news coverage do you think [the NBPP story] deserved? Is Maddow wrong to say that the story was rather overblown? –
There are two NBPP stories. The initial incident deserved passing coverage, concluding that the actors were removed and will be in the justice system, as everyone agrees they should be. The second story is the handing of the actors by the justice system. That deserves more play because it caused more action by bigger players in the government. I disagree with Maddow’s opinion as to the extent of coverage.
ravenshrike says:
*blinks* No it’s not. She admits to doing so. Admittedly, she later went back and helped them out, but she still discriminated against them in the first place.
July 23, 2010, 12:08 pmMark Field says:
Maybe Prof. Volokh could add special HTML code to label jokes from now on. Apparently I need it.
July 23, 2010, 12:17 pmSarcastro says:
[Funny, that wasn't Brietbart's original headline. Seems less like a masterstroke and more like butt-covering to me.
As to the NAACP audience cheering or whatnot, I daresay there are a number of explanations other than approval. Perhaps they knew the context. Perhaps cheering on the speaker is how they roll there. But you keep on with your black people are racist narrative, if it makes you happy.
And the NAACP said the Tea Party had racist elements. This was met by some serious racist invective by the Tea Party Express. No, the Tea Party isn't a racist organization, but it seems to flirt with racists more than I'd like.
But keep chortling that you are wining the racism war. Really, when you exult in throwing poo at someone who threw poo at you, there isn't much to smile about.]
July 23, 2010, 12:17 pmcboldt says:
– People carrying guns to Obama rallies and talking about “watering the tree of liberty with tyrants’ blood?” Hey. Just exercising Constitutional rights. Complaining about a “Kenyan” president? Just ordinary rhetoric? –
July 23, 2010, 12:21 pmI think I addressed the Kenyen thing above. What’s racist about that? Obama has self-declared having a Kenyen father. Some people think there is a legitimate legal inquiry as to whether or not a dual-citizen at birth is eligible for the presidency, notwithstanding the 14th amendment and Wong Kim Ark cases.
On the first point, is it your contention that being a pro-RKBA advocate, or that open carry at a political rally is a racist activity? I’m fairly obviously a pro-RKBA dude, because I think personal independence and limited government are nifty, and result in societies reaching (good) places they don’t get under centralized control, etc. I don’t view myself as a racist, but I’m open to finding out that you think I am.
Elliot says:
Has anyone found a link to the actual Tea Party resolution the NAACP passed? I haven’t. Maybe I’m looking in all the wrong places. I realize it has to be submitted another committee in October, but I’d like to see what the convention produced.
July 23, 2010, 12:23 pmcboldt says:
– Has anyone found a link to the actual Tea Party resolution the NAACP passed? –
July 23, 2010, 12:29 pmIt hasn’t been published or made public by the NAACP. There is a news report (As NAACP aims to stay in national debate, charge of tea party racism draws fire” – By Krissah Thompson, Washington Post, July 14, 2010) that includes:
Sarcastro says:
[the NAACP's statement seems to imply ya gotta wait.]
July 23, 2010, 12:31 pmcboldt says:
– the NAACP’s statement seems to imply ya gotta wait. –
It also reverses the alleged victim/incident associations.
– when you exult in throwing poo at someone who threw poo at you, there isn’t much to smile about. –
That too, swings both ways. The NAACP is making a direct accusation here, and the public evidence is equivocal at best, and as far as I can tell, the evidence contradicts the spitting accusation.
And this is not a claim by some isolated element in the organizatio