Posted on 07/22/2010 8:26:03 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
New e-mail messages published by the Daily Caller Thursday show a coordinated effort by the JournoList's members to destroy Sarah Palin the moment she was named John McCain's running mate on August 29, 2008.
Some even discussed how the former Alaska governor's decision to have a Down Syndrome baby rather than abort it could be used against her.
As the attacks ensued, the Nation's Chris Hayes wrote, "Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get."
Witness America's so-called journalists conspiring to destroy a woman most of the nation had not even heard of yet:
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?"
Will everyone be too afraid to make that point? This man is currently the National Editor of Newsweek.com!
But there's more:
Ed Kilgore, managing editor of the Democratic Strategist blog, argued that journalists and others trying to help the Obama campaign should focus on Palin's beliefs. "The criticism of her really, really needs to be ideological, not just about experience. If we concede she's a ‘maverick,' we will have done John McCain an enormous service. And let's don't concede the claim that [Hillary Clinton] supporters are likely to be very attracted to her," Kilgore said. [...]
Suzanne Nossel, chief of operations for Human Rights Watch, added a novel take: "I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views."
Mother Jones's [Jonathan] Stein loved the idea. "That's excellent! If enough people - people on this list? - write that the pick is sexist, you'll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket," he wrote.
Another writer from Mother Jones, Nick Baumann, had this idea: "Say it with me: ‘Classic GOP Tokenism'."
Wow! If enough people on this list write that the pick is sexist, you'll have the networks debating it for days.
Getting a sense of just how much control these folks had over the news cycle?
Now enter Time's Joe Klein:
"We're reporting that she actually supported the bridge to nowhere. First flub?" [...]
Time's Joe Klein then linked to his own piece, parts of which he acknowledged came from strategy sessions on Journolist. "Here's my attempt to incorporate the accumulated wisdom of this august list-serve community," he wrote. And indeed Klein's article contained arguments developed by his fellow Journolisters.
It sure did:
--Does the McCain campaign actually think that Hillary supporters will be lured to the ticket by a militant pro-lifer who also believes in the teaching of intelligent design?
--Palin exploded her state's coffers by imposing a windfall profits tax on the oil companies...sort of--no, exactly--like the proposal Barack Obama has made and John McCain has attacked. Apparently, she also supported the Bridge to Nowhere, despite her disclaimer at today's event. So how does McCain explain putting a tax-raising porker on his ticket?
This kind of coordinated attack by journalists should really be offensive to folks on both sides of the aisle.
The need for an independent press is essential to our democracy. That so many members of the media took ideas from one another as to how to sabotage a politician is disgraceful.
As Rush Limbaugh wrote me yesterday:
These people and their tactics are not new, we've seen them before in other countries and other times. They want to destroy contrary and opposition voices and views. They will climb over the law and the people to achieve their aims...They are all the same. They are leftists, disguised as lawyers, judges, scholars, professors, teachers, reporters, anchors, senators, representatives, legislative aids, congressional staff, federal bureaucrats, etc. There is NO Media. We know that now. There is just an incestuous relationship among all these various groups and a revolving door connecting them all.
Indeed.
In the last few days thanks to the Daily Caller, we have learned that the folks on this list acted to bury the Jeremiah Wright story in the spring of 2008, plotted to destroy Palin that fall, and then celebrated when their candidate Barack Obama won the election.
Think there really is a free and independent press anymore?
I worked in the print media for 20 years.
Everything you’ve read here is an understatement.
When these Union thugs start sitting on the boards of publicly traded companies what chance will talk radio have of continuing? ISP service providers hosting sites like Free Republic will be be made to shut them down. It's getting close to second amendment time about now.
I think you can read the Pink Swastika free online....The Hidden Hitler is quite long but very interesting and well researched.
I think Beria was more in charge of secret police than propaganda.
This Journo-list is media sluts trying to impress each other. Also functioned as an old (lefty) boy network and union hiring hall.
That may be true, but reality has an ugly tendency to make such scholarly observation meaningless. Reminds me of a recent historical observation that struck a chord with me. It involved the historical analysis of the US Postal service,* of all things :
"The new party system, by 1840, had thus compromised the independence of the mails and a large part of the print media, with no small consequences. Among other defects, the subsidies created incentives to read newspapers [distributed WAY below cost] rather than books. This democratization of the news produced a population of people who thought they knew a great deal about current events, but who lacked the theoretical grounding in history, philosophy or politics to properly ground their opinions."
* The postal service, from its inception, was created to operate at a virtual total loss, as a necessary public good. Politicians, created franking privileges and later newspapers, many of which were created by the political parties to spread their ideas exclusively, exploited the low, almost free means of spreading the wealth word.
Correct...It's not just leftist ideology, they are out there for fame and glory and the big money. Sex too....out to impress naive girlfriends and to get new ones with a big score or takedown. Don't forget the university J-schools that produce these amoral atheist critters and must share some of the blame
I don't know about them, but I typed "journolist" into the search box at WaPo and the only result in the last week or so is Ezra Klein's wimpy rebuttal of the controversy.
Zero hard news coverage. They are suppressing it.
Julius Streicher, Nazi Propagandist, excecuted for crimes against humanity after Nuremberg trail.
Something for those Urinalfisters to contemplate.
The difference between NRO’s The Corner and these guys...is one of openess v pretense.
Notice the story DailyCaller dropped today: following Palin’s nomination several of these perps discussed how to bring her down...it’s not the same thing at all.
There was prize-winning lying-journalism in the 1930s ( Walter Duranty in the NYT) so I’s have to say that this dates at least from the time of Roosevelt.
As a writer, I contend that the eseenial modus operandi of journalsim is inherently flawed — you need to know that journalists don’t know anything. I mean a n y t h i n g.
The entire concept of journalism is all about reporting an event: “a fire broke out at 9 pm last night in a building on the corner of Main St and Broadway.” That’s all they can do. I’ve been in foreign countries with journalists who don’t speak the language, have no idea of the history or current events of the place they are in — they are all led around by the nose by government press liasons, spend most of their time drinking, and send in a piece based on a press release given to them by the government of wherever they are. The only informed people on any publication are the sports writers. They at least know what game they are covering and how it’s upposed to be played.
“all americans have to realize the NEWS, is a finished product designed to sway your political opinion in their direction.”
Someone from another planet might wonder whether this sort of journalistic complicity gave Noam Chomsky the kernel of the idea behind ‘Manufacturing Consent’.
/s
Indeed, it does. The words of these urinalists are strikingly similar to the sort of mud we've seen slung at Governor Palin on this very website.
I don't watch them either, but I would give you odds it's not...
Is Jon Stewart going to do a take on the Journolist? Or will it be a smear on Breitbart and FNC? Three guesses.
I think you're being naive to suggest they're after sex with women. Well, maybe the "womyn" are...
Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm.
Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation.
Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a fixed or medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
The typical elements of a cause of action for defamation are:
A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party;
If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
Damage to the plaintiff.
Within the context of defamation law, a statement is considered to have been “published” when it is made to a third party, meaning somebody other than the plaintiff in the malpractice action. The reference to “publication” refers to this communication to a third party, regardless of the means of communication, and does not mean that the defamatory statement has to be in print.
Damages in defamation actions are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff. Depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction, a plaintiff may be able to sustain a defamation action on the basis of mental anguish, even in the absence of any other claim of harm or damage.
Freedom of speech and assembly does not give you right to conspire against any one person.
“Zero hard news coverage. They are suppressing it.”
400 names and at least two years worth of material. We are only on day three of this story.
The Daily Caller is going to be my first stop in the morning for months to come.
The journolist’s have had their little, manipulative, grimy, Marxist paws on ever single story.
Think of all we have to look forward to like (just a few off the top of my head)...
-suppressing info about who was on Air Force One when it buzzed New York City
-Certifigate - birth certificate
-Rezco
-Nobel Prize
-Olympics
-Senate seat for sale
-Climategate
-Tickelgate - Rahm and Massa
-Sestak/Ramonoff (spelling?)
-Oil spill
Drip...Drip...Drip
An incredibly significant piece of self incriminating evidence. Sadly...not as politically effective as calling them gay.
(sheesh...I really don't get it...)
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.