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

[Thiebear]

Whether he attempted to do this or not: The NBC journalist got it right.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40308.html

Shutting it down was correct also

There were enough emails in the listed ones to prove a 'small' percentage were focused.

[aREDSKIN]

L,

IMO, it's without question for you to look at anything political objectively. Not that there is anything wrong with that I'd just hope you'd be a bit more open

minded and apply a bit more critical scrutiny when it comes to nefarious political behavior. Your continual spin is so blatantly obvious and typical of the leftist fellow travelers.

[MEANDWARF]

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.

If your keeping score of gaffes of the mouth Ashbury(whoops, sorry), our current VP have her beat 5-1 ratio margin, yada,yada, yada. Do you remeber Biden asking Chuck Graham to stand up and be recognized? The dude is in a wheelchair. Or recently telling Obama "That's one big:censored: deal" in front of news cameras. Yeah but Sarah is branded a dingbat because of 2 very bad interviews.

But getting off topic therfore I'll go on.

I don't believe that the liberal jounalists had any baring on the outcome of the last election. Heck with the anti-republican feeling that was going on in our country, McGovern could have won. Media bias sucks on both sides. You have Fox News, sorry Faux News vs everyone else that seem to throw up all kinds of stuff. Stories on what the OP posted and Spencer Ackerman memo ticks people off and I don't blame them.

[Larry]

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?

Wow, you're right.

One person, (who isn't even a reporter), stated something that she'd like to see happen.

And one other person, from the media giant Mother Jones, seconded the idea.

Wow, this is clearly the proof that everyone in the media except Fox News is engaged in a massive conspiracy to lie to the American People. That the very existence of this group was created for the purpose of this conspiracy.

Look! Here in this ES Gameday thread, a member of this board said that the Skins next play should be play action to Portis. And a second member agreed. Strategy! Conspiracy! Coordination!

[Henry]

Looks like the ones "coordinating their attack" were the obvious liberals like the people at Mother Jones. If that's the case this is hardly a "nuke". It's not even the least bit surprising.

Now on the other hand if there are quotes from a main stream, supposedly even handed and fair journalist that suggest that they abused their position of trust to further a hidden political agenda, we have an issue.

Don't get me wrong here. I hate the idea that "Journolist" even exists. I find the concept offensive regardless of which political party is involved (I'm sure the republicans have something similar). My point is that the specifics of the story aren't any worse than I would expect from such a website.

This.

I'm not a journalist, but as someone who has worked in print production for 20 years I've been around a lot of them. I've found journalists in general to be some of the most conceited, self-important schmucks on the plant (except for you, Burgold! ), especially the young ones (and a surprisingly large portion of journalists are young.) You spend a few hours at a ****tail party at the Press Club and you'll hear a dozen conversations like this. It doesn't mean there's a conspiracy. It means there are a lot of self-important, conceited jerks at the party.

This is also true if you sit in the press box at a Redskin game (something I had the privilege of doing a few times during my time with ES.) Some of the stuff you hear you can't believe is coming out of the mouths of supposedly respected journalists. I also remember visiting a sports journalist website once with Blade and Art and was amazed at the level of immaturity exhibited by the regulars there, towards us, our organization and the fans in general. I guarantee you that if we had saved some transcripts of some of those conversations we could have made a strong, strong case that there was a media conspiracy against Dan Snyder, Extremeskins and the Redskin fans. But in the end I don't think there was. I think there are just a lot of jerks in the business.

In this particular case I don't see a conspiracy. I do think that this list, as an exclusive list of liberal journalists and whoevers created to gab about politics, is a bad idea, and could easily morph into something of a conspiracy if not held in check. I don't have any problem questioning the integrity of people on the list quoted as trying to scheme against the right, and I don't have a problem slapping the people on this list around a little bit. But I don't see it as an indictment on the 'mainstream media' in it's entirety. That's a much larger entity than the people on this list.

[mardi gras skin]

Having bashed Fox News, I want to say that I love Mara Liason, I think Mike Wallace's son is pretty good, and I like Brit Hume. There are some things I like there. And though Ezra Klein works for the Post, I like most of the reporting I read there. I don't think journalism is dead by any means. And I'm happy to see articles like the one Thiebear posted above. There's a good chance here that we'll see a revival in journalistic ethics. That would be great.

[Kilmer17]

Okay Larry. Since EVERYONE on Journolist wasnt involved or trying to coordinate an attack, then NONE of them must have been.

[Burgold]

Having bashed Fox News, I want to say that I love Mara Liason, I think Mike Wallace's son is pretty good, and I like Brit Hume. There are some things I like there. And though Ezra Klein works for the Post, I like most of the reporting I read there. I don't think journalism is dead by any means. And I'm happy to see articles like the one Thiebear posted above. There's a good chance here that we'll see a revival in journalistic ethics. That would be great.

I do hope and kinda believe it's cyclic. I think that journalism enters that sensationalistic phase every now and then, but eventually people tune it out. Look at them Yellow Journalism period at the turn of the 20th Century.

I think we are stuck in another similar bad zone. It partly has to do with all the new fangled competing sources (cable, internet) and all the people shouting loudly, "look at me! Look at me!" like they're all young kids at a diving board eager for their parent's attention.

Eventually, the attention seeking behavior gets boring and people become hungry for substance and begin to demand it. At least I hope that's the case.

[Larry]

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.

I would assert that the reason for the change isn't that there is more competition.

Back in the Cronkite days, TV news was done because TV's FCC license stated that in exchange for their licenses, stations had to "serve the public trust". The TV news networks viewed their news organizations as something that they had to do, to keep their licenses.

Which didn't mean that they didn't care about their news show's ratings. Far from it. But ratings weren't their primary reason for existence.

----------

I also think that a big part of the reason for the decline in news is because of the constant cries of bias. Bias is now firmly defined as "failure to spin a story the way I want it to be".

You'll see in in every thread in which Fox News gets caught outright, intentionally, falsifying information: "But there was a news story a few weeks back, and 'the mainstream media' didn't portray that story the way I think they should have."

I, personally became very skeptical of claims of the vast media bias, back in the 80's, during the Reagan administration.

At the time, I was a regular listener to Rush Limbaugh. I didn't agree with many of his opinions, but I enjoy political news, and I figured that I could distinguish the difference between facts and opinion, and I wanted the facts.

And I was listening to him announce that 'the media' was spewing liberal propaganda at the American people. Brainwashing them as part of the liberal agenda.

His proof of this was that 'the media' had just announced that the federal deficit had set a new record, for the umpteenth year in a row.

And Rush was explaining to his audience that this fact was propaganda, because the media was not announcing that all deficits are solely caused by Congress, and nobody else.

"The liberal media" was announcing a fact, without any spin whatsoever.

And Rush Limbaugh was crying "conspiracy" and "propaganda" and "brainwashing", because the media

wasn't

announcing propaganda.

If 'the media' announces anything, they're going to be accused, loudly, of bias. Especially if they attempt to restrict themselves to only presenting facts, or their idea of the truth, or something.

If, however, the media, when doing a story about Issue X, runs a story which consists of "Republican spinmeisters claim A, and Democrat spinmeisters claim B", and publishes the Republican spin and the Democrat spin without any attempt to see if either is true, then, well, he can always defend his piece by saying "I was fair". "Fair" is defined as "I allowed 'both sides' two sentences to say whatever they wanted".

[Larry]

Okay Larry. Since EVERYONE on Journolist wasnt involved or trying to coordinate an attack, then NONE of them must have been.

So far,

1) You haven't found anything that says that two of them were conspiring.

2) And tell you what. You find me every single post in this thread in which a poster claims that he has proof that not one journalist in this group has ever slanted a story.

And I'll find you every single post in which someone claims proof that this entire group was founded for the specific purpose of conspiring to brainwash America.

Which one of us do you think will find more posts?

[Kilmer17]

So far,

1) You haven't found anything that says that two of them were conspiring.

Conspire-

2. To join or act together; combine: To plan or plot secretly.

Nossel and Stein are CLEARLY doing this.

[19Skins72]

Call me cynical but I think this happens all the time and that both sides do it - and they largely get away with it because way too many people are too stupid to understand the difference between unbiased news and partisan hackery - that or they are too stupid to care that they are being lied to.

[DjTj]

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.

What do you want them the journalists to compete for? Ratings? Speed? Variety? Endurance?

Maybe there is a competitive benefit in speed, since journalists are all trying to get stories to us as quick as possible. But I don't think that competition in journalism is good thing per se. It can easily lead to people taking opposite positions just for the sake of differentiating themselves. I think competition tends to create a point-counterpoint structure that makes the news more about the competition rather than about the truth.

I would like it if journalists gathered behind closed doors (or open doors) to discuss facts. There should be collaborative effort to find the truth. Backroom discussions about framing issues is not kosher for news reporting, however. For editorial writers, it may be reasonable (but I would also like to see that at least sourced to "liberal policy makers" or "sources in the Democratic Party" - like the way the sports media credits information it gets from Extremeskins).

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.

I agree that this should be criticized similar to Fox News. We can argue about who is really more organized and who has really been more successful in spinning the news, but what certain people on Journolist were trying to do is exactly what Fox News has been trying to do. It's just a matter of degree.

[mcsluggo]

Holy crap.... when exactly did the conservatives of America become such a sniveling group of wet-pantied whiners?

According to "the script" this is SUPPOSED to be the pervue of the liberals! but no more...

sorry for the interuption, carry on with the seance.

[mardi gras skin]

What do you want them the journalists to compete for? Ratings? Speed? Variety? Endurance?

The story. The investigation. I want them to all desire to be the one to break the news first. To be the next Bob Woodward hunting down the news like a bloodhound and getting it to the public first, most accurately. I don't know what motivates journalists to compete with one another to ferret out information like a detective, but that is what I want from reporters. Pride, awards, better positions at more prestigious newspapers, more lucrative salaries, future book deals. I don't care. I want them competing with each other.

A 400 person collaboration of media types of one ideology spanning numerous news outlets runs counter to everything I want from the news media. JournaList is a flawed idea.

[DRSmith]

Holy crap.... when exactly did the conservatives of America become such a sniveling group of wet-pantied whiners?

According to "the script" this is SUPPOSED to be the pervue of the liberals! but no more...

sorry for the interuption, carry on with the seance.

why do you have to be like that, it's not us it's the media. The media is just out to get us.

[Larry]

I would like it if journalists gathered behind closed doors (or open doors) to discuss facts. There should be collaborative effort to find the truth.

I do think that's a big factor.

I think there used to be a situation in which a reporter's job was to find the truth. That was their grail.

Now it seems more like the belief is that there is no such thing as truth. "Everybody is biased, therefore being openly biased is morally superior to people who falsely pretend to want truth."

I think that, in the Cronkite days, one of the things the media did was to help establish a National Consensus on basic facts. Things which both sides would agree on, and use, in their debates on the issues.

Even if these consensus points might have been overly simplified, or whatever. (I think it was pretty much agreed that racism was a problem in The South.)

It was a mixed blessing. The consensus allowed the nation to agree to end a lot of the obviously discriminatory practices in the south. OTOH, it also probably led to people assuming that discrimination didn't exist anywhere else. Or that if it wasn't obvious, then it wasn't there. Or that, when the whites only signs came off of the drinking fountains, therefore discrimination was over.)

But you didn't see people loudly claiming that Jim Crow laws didn't exist. That they were all invented by a vast conspiracy of anti-southerners.

(Whereas, now, I do see people announcing, in public, with a straight face, that discrimination no longer exists. That it's simply something invented by a political group as part of a conspiracy. That the government should abandon any attempt to prevent it.)

Yeah, in the 60's and 70's, there were people who were convinced that the CIA killed JFK. But those people were considered kooks by society. I contrast this with today, where polls show that slightly less than half of Republicans say that they think Obama was born in the US. Where we have state legislatures proposing laws to support these people.

I remember when powerful people were scared of the words "60 Minutes".

[mardi gras skin]

Eventually, the attention seeking behavior gets boring and people become hungry for substance and begin to demand it. At least I hope that's the case.

Me too.

[Hubbs]

If, however, the media, when doing a story about Issue X, runs a story which consists of "Republican spinmeisters claim A, and Democrat spinmeisters claim B", and publishes the Republican spin and the Democrat spin without any attempt to see if either is true, then, well, he can always defend his piece by saying "I was fair". "Fair" is defined as "I allowed 'both sides' two sentences to say whatever they wanted".

This is, by far, my biggest problem with the media today.

[mardi gras skin]

I would like it if journalists gathered behind closed doors (or open doors) to discuss facts. There should be collaborative effort to find the truth.

By the way, I agree with the open door conversations VERY much. But there should be a collaborative effort among journalists from various ideological backgrounds, not just one.

I love to watch open forum discussions, usually held on college campuses, where 3 or 4 media types from both the left and right are asked to comment on current events. In those forums, they're expected to be civil, they're given plenty of time to explain their ideas and answer questions. The more of that the better.

But closed door brainstorming of one particular ideology across various news outlets? That scares me. At least with Fox News, I know the slant. Embedded ideologues collaborating behind closed doors across some unknown expanse of journalism taints the whole news industry.

[DRSmith]

Maybe the media is not following stories anymore as they seem of late to be trying to uncover the lies others gleefully tell and report.

Take for example Fox running stories that are fabricated by Biggovernment and then the other news outlets hunting down the truth.

[Johnny Punani]

Of course, there is exactly one news organization which was founded for the specific purpose of advancing certain political views.

It's the one you constantly defend by pointing at imaginary boogymen.

BUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

wait...

BUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

[@DCGoldPants]

Actually, I am impressed.

Maybe these journalisto's are some sort of Illuminatti. I mean, if they were able to coordinate this while the WH was still under GOP control, AND keep the GOP from talking about it during the campaign. They are very powerful.

Maybe Obama is their hand chosen puppet.

[JimboDaMan]

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?

Wait. You're not really making the claim that Fox's conservative bias is simply a money-making strategy?

[aREDSKIN]

Wait. You're not really making the claim that Fox's conservative bias is simply a money-making strategy?

Well, IMO for Murdoch it is now as for Roger Ailes that's another question.