WSJ: The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy

[Rex Tomb]

Also did Barnes forget about this

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200902110016

Caught red-handed using GOP talking points, Fox caves with apology ... for typo

February 11, 2009 2:24 pm ET

Yesterday, Media Matters noted:

In purporting to "take a look back" at how the economic recovery plan "grew, and grew, and grew," Fox News' Jon Scott referenced seven dates, as on-screen graphics cited various news sources from those time periods -- all of which came directly from a Senate Republican Communications Center press release. A Fox News on-screen graphic even reproduced a typo contained in the Republican press release.

My, how a day of criticism from media critics and progressive bloggers changes things – even at Fox News. Today, Scott offered... an apology of sorts (emphasis added):

Yesterday on Happening Now we showed you how the stimulus bill has grown over time. Our story prompted by a news release from the Senate Republican Communication Center. There point that a $56 billion proposal in September has grown to $838 billion in five months. In compiling the story, our producers and researchers did what we always do -- we verified the accuracy of the material. But in double checking the newspaper quotes referenced in that news release we made the same mistake they did. We labeled a Wall Street Journal article as having run in 2009 when in fact it was 2008. That was our error, and we apologize.

Of course, I’m kidding.

See what Scott does there? He apologizes, not for passing along a one-sided argument made in a Senate Republican Communications Center’s press release as Fox News’ original reporting, but for reporting the typo.

In his initial report, Scott didn’t tell his audience that the citations in his report were based entirely on a press release from the Senate Republicans – a fact he glosses over in his half-hearted apology for the typo.

I’d question Fox News’ journalistic integrity; that is of course if they had any to question in the first place.

Using the extreme left website that is Media Matters doesn't help your case. Anything sponsored by George Sorros completely discredits your point, in my opinion.

[Rex Tomb]

The Daily Show.

If you really think the Daily Show is unbiased... wow.

Jon Daily is one of the most left-wing talking heads out there. True, most of his show is farce, but his interviews with liberals and conservatives are so dramatically different. Pander to the liberals, grill the conservatives. He couldn't pin Newt down though. Gingrich 2012!

[Larry]

Using the extreme left website that is Media Matters doesn't help your case. Anything sponsored by George Sorros completely discredits your point, in my opinion.

Ignoring well documented facts doesn't help your case.

Fox News took a Republican Party press release, and ran it, word for word, as though it were a Fox story. Right down to the typos.

[Smoot Point Really]

Ignoring well documented facts doesn't help your case.

Fox News took a Republican Party press release, and ran it, word for word, as though it were a Fox story. Right down to the typos.

We're talking about 500 liberal journalists here... From many different media outlets. You aren't really on topic.

[Madison Redskin]

If Palin were liberal (homely & androgynous), these journalists would be loving her no matter what she said.

Liberals are homely and androgynous? WTF?

[mardi gras skin]

I still think NPR does a solid job, they certainly try to make a point of presenting both sides and leaving the conclusion up to the listener.

I like NPR because they do tend to present each side, but it has a left leaning bent. It feels centrist if you live in Maryland but its liberal programming in Tennessee. The way the stories are framed creates a bias to my ears at least.

[mardi gras skin]

I’d question Fox News’ journalistic integrity; that is of course if they had any to question in the first place.

That quote is from Media Matters. Fantastic

[jpyaks3]

Using the extreme left website that is Media Matters doesn't help your case. Anything sponsored by George Sorros completely discredits your point, in my opinion.

So you are disputing that they copied point for point even down to the typos the Republican Senates talking points? Or are you just blindly attacking Media Matters and for some reason George Soros?

[IHOPSkins]

......posting one or two posts from that doesn't indicate a "vast left wing conspiracy".......

If William Ayers Babysat for Obama....do you think people would be concerned?

Well maybe the Left in the form of Ben Smith thought so

....The McCain campaign approached us with a story they had on Obama, which needed a second source to confirm. They had found a young woman in Hyde Park who had played with the older Obama girl on occasion, and knew about babysitting William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn did for the Obama girls.....

.....So, Ben Smith refused to do a write-up on the Ayers/Dorhn babysitting…despite getting two different people who didn’t know each other to verify that this happened on more than one occasion.....

http://hillbuzz.org/2010/07/22/our-experience-with-journolist-member-and-committed-obama-operative-ben-smith-during-the-2008-general-election/

[jpyaks3]

If William Ayers Babysat for Obama....do you think people would be concerned?

Well maybe the Left in the form of Ben Smith thought so

....The McCain campaign approached us with a story they had on Obama, which needed a second source to confirm. They had found a young woman in Hyde Park who had played with the older Obama girl on occasion, and knew about babysitting William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn did for the Obama girls.....

.....So, Ben Smith refused to do a write-up on the Ayers/Dorhn babysitting…despite getting two different people who didn’t know each other to verify that this happened on more than one occasion.....

http://hillbuzz.org/2010/07/22/our-experience-with-journolist-member-and-committed-obama-operative-ben-smith-during-the-2008-general-election/

Let me get this straight some random right wing blog came to someone with 2 whole sources about something and is shocked that someone didn't run with it? Why in the world should Ben Smith believe anything coming from Hillbuzz. If I was a journalist and some trash site like Hillbuzz came to me I would be very skeptical of anything coming out of it.

Why if this was such a huge story did one of the non-left wing conspiracy media places run with this, if it was so important you would think the McCain campaign would mention it or FoxNews would cover it or are they all part of the conspiracy too?

[Jeeb]

BOOGABOOGABOOOGA!!!!

Liberals are violent AND

Liberals are limp-wristed sissies

Liberals are lazy, welfare-sucking do-nothings AND

Liberals are the ruling elite, using their almost limitless power to destroy America

Liberals are a tiny minority with no voice AND

Liberals run the entire news media, in addition to Hollywood

Liberals are hateful, vicious people AND

Liberals all want to sing Kumbayah and hold hands around a campfire

[Tarpon75]

I like NPR because they do tend to present each side, but it has a left leaning bent. It feels centrist if you live in Maryland but its liberal programming in Tennessee. The way the stories are framed creates a bias to my ears at least.

I would have to agree with you.

[polywog999]

BOOGABOOGABOOOGA!!!!

Liberals are violent AND

Liberals are limp-wristed sissies

Liberals are lazy, welfare-sucking do-nothings AND

Liberals are the ruling elite, using their almost limitless power to destroy America

Liberals are a tiny minority with no voice AND

Liberals run the entire news media, in addition to Hollywood

Liberals are hateful, vicious people AND

Liberals all want to sing Kumbayah and hold hands around a campfire

Yeah, everybody knows this already...

[Thiebear]

You people suck at staying focused . Straight to random bashing...

Bias'd is different than 400 people subscribing and sharing ideas...

Taking talking points from the RNC is different if its one Newschannel.

CNN taking Gibbs talking points is different.

Both are lazy and biased, but that is a one for one situation.

400 different journalists/Teachers brainstorming angles is a LOT of possible coordination.

Even if only 10% decide to publish, their coordination causes others to follow suite and the reporting news is lost.

[Burgold]

I agree with the TB. If true, this stinks. It certainly doesn't stink less than a network with an agenda (because that's 1,000s or 10,000's of newsman, techs, administrators, executives, and directors all in on a plot. Their reach and influence will be much greater and more insidious than 400 teachers, reporters, and others. Heck, one local channel has a team that's bigger than 400. However, those 400 coordinating their mischief is wrong on a very high level.

I do warn that 400 is a big and small number simultaneously and it also depends how many of those 400 are decision makers. For example, I can't just pick up and run a story. It has to be approved first, edited, and signed off on. That's not to say that I couldn't make trouble if I wanted to and if a group of my cohorts decided to we couldn't create a big mess. That's why something like this is terrible if it's acted on and if it's true. I tend to believe that this probably is true that this conpiracy did happen and I hope those guys never find work in the legit press again. If that's what they are then they ought to join a think tank, PR group, or lobbying firm.

[TimmySmith]

I agree with the TB. If true, this stinks. It certainly doesn't stink less than a network with an agenda

One network is one channel among 100's. It's also well known and accepted to be biased. You can tune in or not. Fox, Rush and other right leaning media outlets might feel coordinated, but they are in competition with each other. This Journolist is a coordinated entity comprised of left leaning representatives from so called legitimate magazines, newspapers, blogs, television and radio commentators which normally have no affiliation. A true conspiracy.

[Burgold]

One network is one channel among 100's. It's also well known and accepted to be biased. You can tune in or not. Fox, Rush and other right leaning media outlets might feel coordinated, but they are in competition with each other.

They are? Really? How many talk stations coordinate their programming? How many times do these guys build off each other and use each other to trumpet each's causes? By the way, saying FOX is only one media outlet and then in the same 'graph saying FOX, Rush, and other Right leaning media outlets... seems to indicate more than one, doesn't it?

I'm not going to defend this conspiracy because if it is what it is then it is shameful, wrong, and dangerous. However, don't be blind or make excuses to the other esp. when the other generates and reaches as many as it does.

[Thiebear]

You see fox news you see "bias"

You see CNN news you see "bias"

40 (10%) different people from different papers/locations etc. = not so easy.

I was watching Wolf the other night on the USDA and the softball questions were amazing in their setup.. but i expect it. No different than Fox removing a sentence.

I guess it comes down to... it should be rooted out and ended. Thats how you keep the 4th branch going. This way we can look back in 80 years as others have pointed back to Jeffersons time. Seeing it is key.

[Larry]

BOOGABOOGABOOOGA!!!!

Liberals are violent AND

Liberals are limp-wristed sissies

Liberals are lazy, welfare-sucking do-nothings AND

Liberals are the ruling elite, using their almost limitless power to destroy America

Liberals are a tiny minority with no voice AND

Liberals run the entire news media, in addition to Hollywood

Liberals are hateful, vicious people AND

Liberals all want to sing Kumbayah and hold hands around a campfire

Actually, I thought the best example I've ever seen of political groups arguing things which contradict themselves, was when we were debating WMDs, and whether or not to invade Iraq.

The Republicans were yelling:

We have to invade Iraq, right now, whether he has WMDs or not, because we all know that the instant that he does get them, a terrorist will use one against New York.

and, simultaneously, yelling:

And he's had WMDs for a dozen years. (And no terrorist has used them.)

Meanwhile, the Democrats were all yelling:

Saddam doesn't have any WMDs.

and, simultaneously,

And if we invade, he'll kill thousands of our troops with his WMDs.

[Larry]

BTW, since I haven't stated an opinion, here.

Yeah, this could be something really big, and something evil.

OTOH, this could be "Climategate, Part II":

Hack 500,000 emails.

Pick 5 sentences out of the 500,000 emails which, taken out of context, can be easily spun.

Yell, loudly and often, that this proves that "everybody who holds political position X is a co-conspirator".

Wait a day, and then have somebody else loudly yell the same thing.

Wait a day, repeat.

Wait a day, then have somebody else announce that, since all these other people are yelling the same thing, then there

must

be something behind it.

Wait a day, and then the first yeller announces that since the third yeller quoted the second yeller, that makes what they're lelling more true.

And so on.

I've seen this theater, before. I'm waiting to see if they manage to come up with something other than a bunch of spinsters quoting each others spin, and claiming that because we're all on message, that makes the message true.

[SkinsHokieFan]

They are? Really? How many talk stations coordinate their programming? How many times do these guys build off each other and use each other to trumpet each's causes? By the way, saying FOX is only one media outlet and then in the same 'graph saying FOX, Rush, and other Right leaning media outlets... seems to indicate more than one, doesn't it?

I'm not going to defend this conspiracy because if it is what it is then it is shameful, wrong, and dangerous. However, don't be blind or make excuses to the other esp. when the other generates and reaches as many as it does.

It tends to happen. Not overtly of course.

However, you can see a story start to gain momentum in the left wing blogosphere. Then TPM and Daily Beast pick it up. Then Olbermann and Maddow. Then the traction is really there and the rest of the MSM is on it

[Larry]

It tends to happen. Not overtly of course.

However, you can see a story start to gain momentum in the left wing blogosphere. Then TPM and Daily Beast pick it up. Then Olbermann and Maddow. Then the traction is really there and the rest of the MSM is on it

Unless, of course, the subject is Fox News.

Then, it happens overtly and deliberately.

[Thiebear]

BTW, since I haven't stated an opinion, here.

Yeah, this could be something really big, and something evil.

OTOH, this could be "Climategate, Part II":

I've seen this theater, before. I'm waiting to see if they manage to come up with something other than a bunch of spinsters quoting each others spin, and claiming that because we're all on message, that makes the message true.

Larry,

Do you believe there should be an Invite only group of Journalists and Academics that toss around ideas for stories to run with or not run with.

[Larry]

Larry,

Do you believe there should be an Invite only group of Journalists and Academics that toss around ideas for stories to run with or not run with.

1) As you've described it, no, there's nothing wrong with that.

2) I haven't seen anything, yet, that says that this is what we're talking about.

For example, I, personally, belong to a restricted-membership internet forum in which people frequently discuss their opinions on current political events. Several of the members of this group are involved in "the media". Others hold highly-placed positions in the government, including classified national security positions, and Supreme Courts. (And many, many, others think that they are influential.)

Again: I've seen this script before. And it was completely manufactured. Easily, demonstrably, so.

(And despite the fact that it was easily, demonstrably, manufactured, many, many, people believed it, still believe it, and continue to claim that it's true.)

Which doesn't mean that there isn't anything to this story. Some times, there really is a wolf.

I'm just saying that if there's something there, then it will come out. And quickly.

But until that time, it's going to take more to convince me than a couple of partisans making grandiose claims of fast conspiracies, and citing, as proof, other partisans making identical grandiose claims.