Daily Caller: When McCain picked Palin, liberal journalists coordinated the best line of attack

[joeknows]

Sarah Palin was picked because she was a woman. it is that simple.

the McCain camp calculated that if they could get a large percentage of the disenfranchised Hillary voters they could win with the swing from it.

thank god that americans were not as stupid as they assumed and most anyone i know with half a brain knew this was the reason she was picked.

[Nickclone]

Conservatives make me sick, they do the exact same thing, but they take it to the extreme. They spin it around, exaggerate and straight up lie and pass it off as news, but when some liberal journalists talk about how weak a candidate is and how to expose how weak she is, it's a giant conspiracy? I love how the cons have turned into a pathetic pack of crybabies.

[Smoot Point Really]

Bias, Thy name is Predicto.

The funniest thing is that folks like Predicto will ***** endlessly about FoxNews and other Murdoch owned companies... However, you have a private group (invitation only) set up in order to get very like-minded individuals in the media to communicate. And nothing is fishy... What BS... There is very little credibility here... At least Murdoch is in the business of making money. What is the motive for JounoList?

[Smoot Point Really]

Conservatives make me sick

I'm a conservative... Have a good day.

[Larry]

Funny that the time in the OP was immediately after when she was first announced ASF.

Classic define the opponent strategy...being practiced by supposed:silly: journalists.

Funny that there is no strategy shown here twa.

Classic invent a boogyman strategy...being practiced by a supposed questioner.

[TimmySmith]

Conservatives make me sick, they do the exact same thing, but they take it to the extreme. They spin it around, exaggerate and straight up lie and pass it off as news, but when some liberal journalists talk about how weak a candidate is and how to expose how weak she is, it's a giant conspiracy?

Do you understand the word conspiracy? Rush and Fox can report from a biased position but there is not and never has been any evidence of a coordinated attack.

Ironic that most people defending the Journolist in the thread are talking about Palin (in the exact terms mentioned by the Journalists I might add). When really, Palin is not the issue, the attempted coordination is the issue.

[CrabR]

Late to the game for this thread.

Look when your candidate is incredibly ill-informed, poorly spoken, with some pretty out there ideas and you hide her away for two weeks keeping her from speaking to the media at all...leaving everyone to only poor over her past and her prior remarks and associations...don't blame the journalists for finding that and putting it in print.

Frankly, I think it's hilarious that people want to blame the media for Palin being a Wild Alaskan Dingbat, instead of actually admitting the fact that she was an awful choice for VP.

BTW, "What exactly does a Vice President do all day"? /facepalm

You hit the nail on the head

She is the reason i voted democrat in 08.

The problems with the political parties is they strive to appease their BASE and the base are far from what mainstream America wants. That is what McCain had to do to capture nomination and it cost him the election

PS

vps stand behind the Pres and smile and hide in undisclosed locations

[Burgold]

I think this is side to the issue.

Palin didn't need spin and conspiracy.

We all heard her. Her interviews on ABC and CBS garnered HUGE ratings and even though the reporters were throwing softballs at her she failed. Can you imagine any professional politician garnering a swing and a miss to "What newspapers do you read?" Even if you don't read any, all of us can name ten newspapers off the top of our head, can't we?

We also saw her during the debates.

So, the judgements made on Palin likely aren't the results of the media's manipulation. It was the result of direct evidence. It was her words, her unedited performances that drove opinion.

(That's not to say that if there were a cadre of journalists plotting to tell a unified story to push their agenda it would be okay. That would be horrible, but the people made up their mind about Palin based on Palin. She was judged by the majority of her peers and found lacking.)

[aREDSKIN]

Here's even MORE proof of the coordination and attempted framing, in a very specific way, of a news event. The libs in this thread can deny deny deny all they want but the overwhelming evidence is too much to spin away.

The single biggest thing journolist can do is to lay the analytical framework within the media elite necessary for an actual Obama debate win to be viewed as such by a sufficient proportion of media elites that voters know it was a win.

Of course, this only works if Obama does as we expect (and McCain is a terrible debater, btw).

But even Gore’s uneven Debate 1 performance in 2000 was deemed a win initially by a viewership that was demographically to the right of the electorate (lower minority viewership in 2000 of debates, more male, more GOP, etc…)… but Bush was winning on several media narratives and thus got the benefit from the intense 72 hours of post-debate coverage.

Journolist’s greatest challenge is to make sure an actual win by Obama translates into winning the battle for political impact.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/29/political-operatives-on-journolist-worked-to-shape-news-coverage/2/#ixzz0v4RCe1yB

[Burgold]

So, your saying that if Obama wins a debate and the journalists tout it as a win then that is proof of a liberal conspiracy?

(I can't quite parse out what your saying, but that seems to be the gist)

[Bang]

So, your saying that if Obama wins a debate and the journalists tout it as a win then that is proof of a liberal conspiracy?

(I can't quite parse out what your saying, but that seems to be the gist)

Come on now. If they got together and even just discussed how to best use their newspapers to push an agenda you have to call foul.

It'd be one thing if they were doing this solely in opinion pieces, but it doesn't seem so.

You could argue from the standpoint that they may have done it the same way they'd have tried to keep a horse or a paper clip from being elected president, but you can't argue that you don't see that that sort of collusion is not acceptable.

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

Funny that the time in the OP was immediately after when she was first announced ASF.

Classic define the opponent strategy...being practiced by supposed:silly: journalists.

twa-just because everyone asked the same questions of her and found the same exact stuff about her right after she was announced does not a conspiracy make.

The Right has spent 2 years trying to validate the Wild Alaskan Dingbat as a legitimate candidate for VP and now for President, all while at every step she has proven herself woefully inept, sooner or later the Right is just going to have to wake up and realize that there is no conspiracy against her, and that the things that are reported about her, not to mention the very words of her mouth prove her woeful unpreparedness for leadership of the United States of America. Sooner or later the Right is just going to have to wake up and accept reality, and stop blaming everyone else for Palin.

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

Too bad Palin's not half black....those being suspicious of foul play here could pull the race card :evilg:

[Bang]

Wild Alaskan Dingbat.

:ols:

That got me pretty good

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

Too bad Palin's not half black....those being suspicious of foul play here could pull the race card :evilg:

Well I gotta admit it is early, so this might not mean a lot, but that's about the dumbest thing I've read all day.

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

Well I gotta admit it is early, so this might not mean a lot, but that's about the dumbest thing I've read all day.

It's the first thing I typed while lying in bed today....and coming from you that's a compliment

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's the first thing I typed while lying in bed today....and coming from you that's a compliment

Uhhhh....oh kay......:doh:

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

Uhhhh....oh kay......:doh:

You wouldn't understand. Anyways, sorry for distracting you from the conversation.

[DjTj]

The funniest thing is that folks like Predicto will ***** endlessly about FoxNews and other Murdoch owned companies... However, you have a private group (invitation only) set up in order to get very like-minded individuals in the media to communicate. And nothing is fishy... What BS... There is very little credibility here... At least Murdoch is in the business of making money.

There's something a little bit disturbing about this post. Making money is apparently a virtuous goal.

What is the motive for JounoList?

While fighting for what you believe in is not.

Neither should trump fairness and ethics in journalism, and I wouldn't absolve anyone just because they are "in the business of making money." Does it make it more okay if the liberal journalists think that an Obama win will likely get them a job in the administration or in a think tank? That it will help them sell more books? If their motive was money, would that actually make it better?

Journalism used to be a competitive industry. Not one where people formed "coalitions" for the advancement of certain political views.

This whole idea that competition or money will fix things just seems completely wrongheaded here.

Propaganda is propaganda, whether motivated by money or power or heartfelt belief. Making journalists compete against each other for scoops or for ratings is not going to guarantee us honest news or impartial reporting. If anything, competition has driven our news to be more biased and more sensational.

The era of the most honest news reporting was probably the mid-20th century when the networks didn't have to compete with cable news and Walter Cronkite ruled the airwaves. It was an era when newspapers didn't compete with the internet, and the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers and the Washington Post broke Watergate. The pre-Nixon era was also one of much less partisan rancor. It is competition, both financial and political, that has increased bias.

When there was less competition, it was easier for reporters to set ethical rules for themselves. When they were less worried about paying the bills and less concerned about which party was in power, the media was willing to answer to a higher calling and follow principles. Nowadays, the motivations are different, and media businesses are under a lot more pressure. This competitive environment is when things are more likely to go awry.

[Ax]

Wild Alaskan Dingbat

You're definitely a more convincing comedian, than anything else.

[Kilmer17]

Funny that there is no strategy shown here twa.

Classic invent a boogyman strategy...being practiced by a supposed questioner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy

Strategy- refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.

…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 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.

Soooooo

The PLAN is to spin it as sexist, the goal is to negate "the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket.

How is this NOT a strategy?

[Larry]

Do you understand the word conspiracy? Rush and Fox can report from a biased position but there is not and never has been any evidence of a coordinated attack.

1) Nor is there, here.

2) OTOH, that has been outright proof of Fox News taking GOP press releases and running them, word for word, including errors, as if they were a news story, without mentioning where they came from.

I recall (but don't know if I can find documentation) that the founder of Fox News has outright stated that he founded the network for the specific purpose of slanting the news to favor one political party.

I also recall there being a leak, a few years back, of Fox instructing their reporters, in writing, to use certain key words and phrases to refer to the Democratic candidate, and other specific words and phrases to refer to the Republican.

And we've had one poster, here on ES, report (anecdotal, single source) that there is exactly one news organization in which spin of news stories is coordinated.

In short, there's exactly one place in which these despicable acts occur. One place that deliberately lies to people in order to shape their thoughts.

And a bunch of people are pointing somewhere else, and making claims of nefarious conspiracies. Because the conspirators have told them to.

[Larry]

Here's even MORE proof of the coordination and attempted framing, in a very specific way, of a news event. The libs in this thread can deny deny deny all they want but the overwhelming evidence is too much to spin away.

Checking the gap following his trumpeting of "MORE proof", to see if maybe the proof was in ninja text, or something. Nope. Nothing there.

Suggestion: If your leadoff sentence is to announce "Here's even MORE proof . . . ", it really helps if there's some proof, somewhere.

(Unless, that is, you're objective is to convince people who believe in boogymen that the boogyman actually exists. In which case, merely announcing "Look, the boogyman! Right here! Proof!", preferably in all caps, is sufficient.)

[mardi gras skin]

The era of the most honest news reporting was probably the mid-20th century when the networks didn't have to compete with cable news and Walter Cronkite ruled the airwaves. It was an era when newspapers didn't compete with the internet, and the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers and the Washington Post broke Watergate.

I agree with this completely, but news isn't just competing with other news services. The general explosion of media entertainment options means advertising dollars are spread all over the place. News is entertainment now. Except for C-Span, the News Hour, and NPR, I don't see many models for news distribution that insulates it from the general ratings pressures of the entertainment industry.

But specific to the conversation of JournaList, there is no denying just how shady this is. Competition BETWEEN JOURNALISTS is very good. I don't want journalists (across numerous news outlets no less!) gathering behind closed doors to discuss the narrative they will pass on to me. It smells rotten and I don't trust them at all.

Everything that bothers me about Fox News bothers me about JournaList. I am surprised that reasonable posters here, clear minded about the problems with Fox News, are so quick to dismiss Ezra Klein's collection of ideologues as no big deal.

[Larry]

Come on now. If they got together and even just discussed how to best use their newspapers to push an agenda you have to call foul.

Agreed.

Now, can you show me where that happened? Cause so far, all I see is a bunch of people claiming that it did, and claiming that the fact that all of them are claiming the same thing proves that it's there.