Posted on 07/22/2010 3:57:59 AM PDT by tobyhill
I've written before about Journolist, a liberal email list that conservatives have claimed was the center of a liberal media conspiracy but in reality was anything but.
The Daily Caller, a conservative website, has a new story claiming to have obtained evidence that Journolist was everything conservatives feared: the epicenter of a deep liberal plot to control media discourse. "It's everything you may have suspected," comments an excited Sarah Palin. "It is no less corrupt than the comically propagandistic Fox News and the lock-step orthodoxy on the partisan right in journalism - but it is nonetheless corrupt," asserts Andrew Sullivan.
The story revolves around two email threads. I've reviewed them both, and it utterly belies the wild account in the Daily Caller and the even wilder reactions by Palin, Sullivan and the like. The first thread came on the heels of a Democratic primary debate in Pennsylvania, in which the moderators almost completely ignored public policy and asked both candidates a series of questions revolving around Barack Obama's alleged lack of patriotism or American-ness. Some members of the list, put off by the ABC News team's questions, decided to write a letter expressing their umbrage.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
If they’re going into defensive mode the story has them scared and its worth pursuing.
So a libtard journalist reviewed a libtard journalist site and found nothing wrong.
And there are still useful idiots out there buying this crap.
We are doomed.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but me thinks that this is going to be a treasure trough of examples...
Ann Coulter’s article today rebuffs this guy...There were many more than just two threads in there...
Yep and any MSM source allowing them the platform is also afraid that they’ll now be exposed. I bet they’re yelling at these liberal idiots to get them out of this mess.
We have a local news/opinion writer who sounds like she never writes anything without checking it with journolist.
Her name is Dumas so you can imagine the responses that brings.
“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
What a joke ! The only place I see Sullivan is on Chris Matthews Sunday AM Obama slobberfest, and that is a wide open leftist journolist.
“moderators almost completely ignored public policy and asked both candidates a series of questions revolving around Barack Obama’s alleged lack of patriotism or American-ness.”
i see
its against “public policy” to question a candidate’s patriotism or American-ness.
so we might as well elect someone who is un-American and a traitor
we did that
and its working well so far
as long as your objective is to destroy America
which, apparently, it is.
Exactly the same tactic used unsuccessfully in defending the lies surrounding all gw research... these people MUST BE DESTROYED... at the end of the day... they must ALL be unemployed... demand it... I am.
LLS
Let the games begin. Popcorn, anyone?
Wouldn’t it be interesting to see a Journolist or similar email communications when the media circled the wagons to protect Dan “Courage” Rather?
The defenses I've read are all similar. The strawman is that J-List is a top-down coordination organization, with clearly stated specific goals and assignments. They erect that image, then knock it down and claim anything LESS than that preserves original thought across the spectrum of media outlets that participate.
Good touch on author’s credit. From now on... Author’s Name (D-JournoList).
May have been posted on FR already.
When McCain picked Palin, liberal journalists coordinated the best line of attack (All on the first day(
This article was posted earlier maybe they can debunk this too.
http://yesbuthowever.com/naacp-black-panthers-9000068/
Just read this, and look at the tags, and you will see who got BO elected and how (New Yorker, Time, Bloomberg, Newsweak, Politico, etc):
The conversation began with a debate over how best to attack Sarah Palin. “Honestly, this pick reeks of desperation,” wrote Michael Cohen of the New America Foundation in the minutes after the news became public. “How can anyone logically argue that Sarah Pallin [sic], a one-term governor of Alaska, is qualified to be President of the United States? Train wreck, thy name is Sarah Pallin.”
Not a wise argument, responded Jonathan Stein, a reporter for Mother Jones. If McCain were asked about Palin’s inexperience, he could simply point to then candidate Barack Obama’s similarly thin resume. “Q: Sen. McCain, given Gov. Palin’s paltry experience, how is she qualified to be commander in chief?,” Stein asked hypothetically. “A: Well, she has much experience as the Democratic nominee.”
“What a joke,” added Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker. “I always thought that some part of McCain doesn’t want to be president, and this choice proves my point. Welcome back, Admiral Stockdale.”
Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation noted that Obama’s “non-official campaign” would need to work hard to discredit Palin. “This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away …… bang away at McCain’s age making this unusually significant …. I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama].”
Ryan Donmoyer, a reporter for Bloomberg News who was covering the campaign, sent a quick thought that Palin’s choice not to have an abortion when she unexpectedly became pregnant at age 44 would likely boost her image because it was a heartwarming story.
“Her decision to keep the Down’s baby is going to be a hugely emotional story that appeals to a vast swath of America, I think,” Donmoyer wrote.
Politico reporter Ben Adler, now an editor at Newsweek, replied, “but doesn’t leaving sad baby without its mother while she campaigns weaken that family values argument? Or will everyone be too afraid to make that point?”
Tags: Avi Zenilman, Barack Obama, Ben Adler, Bloomberg, Chris Hayes, Daniel Levy, Ed Kilgore, Hillary Clinton, Jeffrey Toobin, Joe Klein, Joe the Plumber, John McCain, Jonathan Stein, Matt Yglesias, Michael Cohen, Mother Jones, Newsweek, Nick Baumann, Politico, Republican Party, Ryan Donmoyer, Sarah Palin, Suzanne Nossel, the American Prospect, The New Yorker
Exactly. Whenever challenged in this manner, Progressives immediately exhibit almost identical, and predictable behavior:
1. Deny the accusation. ("Richard Pryor" Mode)
2. Accuse the messenger of being an evil, lying propagandist from Hell. (Alan Grayson Mode)
3. Smear the opposition further by accusing it of doing precisely what they themselves are doing. (V.I. Lenin mode)
4. Dismiss the controversy entirely as an intentional distraction from getting good things done for The People. (Barack Obama mode)
WSJ nailed this in Notable and Quotable yesterday.
I love his excuse of “only a few” of the emails were liberal. And that once again they are not viewed in it’s whole context, yet when these same journalists report anything on the Tea Party activities, they use a single example to paint the entire group as racist!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.