What? No mainstream media covering this? Shocking!

[Ashock]

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/19/us...cp-speech/

How many more years will pass until mainstream media stops covering this crap up? I'd say about 15-20, until the current generation of degenerates that runs the mainstream network/cable news croaks.

Thank god for Breitbart and the Internet. It's becoming much more difficult to deny and cover up the truth. Oh yeah, another 20-25 years and the current generation of non-serious Internet users will croak also.

[Jester]

Thank god for Breitbart and the Internet.

This has opened my eyes. Why isn't this mid-level functionary's rambling anecdote front page news!?

Thank god for Breitbart and the internet!

-Jester

[kandrathe]

How many more years will pass until mainstream media stops covering this crap up?

I'd say never. Tucker Carlson's blog, The Daily Caller, just posted a story on how the media coordinated media fixing to the damaging association of Rev. Jeremiah Wright with Obama.

"In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

"I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically."

Or, take the outright racist slur used by Warren Ballentine in a recent discussion with Juan Williams, a moderate liberal, "it's OK, you can go back to the porch, Juan."

The strategy is clear. The debate is over. If you oppose them, you are an uncle tom, or a racist, closet KKK, degenerate homophobe and a liar.

[Jester]

How many more years will pass until mainstream media stops covering this crap up?

I'd say never. Tucker Carlson's blog, The Daily Caller, just posted a story on how the media coordinated media fixing to the damaging association of Rev. Jeremiah Wright with Obama.

Journolist is hardly big media conglomerates conspiring together to fix an election. It's an overtly liberal (and I might point out, *private*) e-mail list, where journalists from the left talk amongst themselves about their job, the issues, strategy, etc. No kidding they're talking about what they're going to do about the Jeremiah Wright controversy when that's dominating news cycle after news cycle. They're professional opinion-mongers.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I find this cadre of journalists professionally derelict and morally bankrupt in that they believe it is acceptable to advocate out right demagoguery, overt slander, and using their profession to destroy their own more less liberal peers? This is free speech? It is the equivalent of these national news organizations planning counter-protests to shout down public speakers that don't spout their brand of politics, and handing out the rotten fruit. This is the state of journalism? Whatever happened to reporting on the events of the day? You know, capturing the news, not manufacturing the news. How would we feel about our jobs if we knew a large cadre of journalists were watching our every move waiting to hoist us upon our own petards? Or, worse, just slanderously labeling us with despicable and repugnant slurs.

Regarding the original post. It would not be news at all if the NAACP hadn't gone out of it's way to smear the millions of people involved in the Tea Party movement, by the actions of repugnant fringe who showed up at a public rally. But, then you have a video of a federal USDA official at a NAACP event, just outright telling the crowd she discriminates on the job, based on race. Should there be a resolution, demanding that the USDA root out the racism which is evident within their ranks? Or, was this just a mistake by one misguided individual, who was terminated from her position for this mistake?

Is our media independent? Is it becoming two propaganda machines (one left, and FOX)?

[Jester]

Looks like there was more to this story than just Breitbart's signature "gotcha". But it doesn't matter that the point of the story was that it isn't all about race, that all people need to work together against discrimination and poverty. It doesn't matter that the incident was decades ago. It doesn't matter that the man's wife says that Sherrod, in the end, went above and beyond for them. It doesn't matter that she found them a second lawyer, after the first refused to help. It doesn't even matter that the supposed victim of this horrifying racism and its purportedly hypocritical perpetrator became good friends.

No, what matters is that Breitbart got a scalp. Reminds me of the ACORN "pimp" absurdity, also a Breitbart project - the damage is done today, and the truth only comes out in dribs and drabs later, too late to help anything.

-Jester

[Ashock]

Check this one out. this is on ABC news right now. Well, maybe not.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/docume...ah-wright/

[Jester]

I find this cadre of journalists professionally derelict and morally bankrupt in that they believe it is acceptable to advocate out right demagoguery, overt slander, and using their profession to destroy their own more less liberal peers? This is free speech?

First, yes, this is free speech. That's exactly what it is. Not only that, it's free *private* speech, a conversation among friends that has only been made public by the dishonesty of their ideological opponents. In private, people blow off steam, they rant and rave, they make sarcastic and excessive comments. It happens, it's locker room talk. This is quite explicitly what Journolist was created for.

Second, as is quite clear from reading the link, while some people were advocating aggressive, street-fighter tactics (notably the hot-headed Spencer Ackerman, the source of the juiciest quotes) others thought that this was a mistake, and that they should keep to the high road. Once again: this is a *private discussion*, amongst individual journalists, and not a policy planning meeting. Different ideas abound, based on the personal opinions of the journalists, and do not reflect anything more than that.

It is the equivalent of these national news organizations planning counter-protests to shout down public speakers that don't spout their brand of politics, and handing out the rotten fruit.

Once again, this is *not* a "national news organization". This is individual journalists, who do not control anything more than their own columns, talking amongst each other. This is not controlled from on high.

This is the state of journalism? Whatever happened to reporting on the events of the day? You know, capturing the news, not manufacturing the news. How would we feel about our jobs if we knew a large cadre of journalists were watching our every move waiting to hoist us upon our own petards? Or, worse, just slanderously labeling us with despicable and repugnant slurs.

You would be in the business of journalism, as it exists, and has existed for all time. It's a rough world out there. From Grub Street to the New York Times, the history of journalism is one of street-fighting, an all-out, no-holds-barred war over public opinion. Some fight the war with honour, including many on the Journolist. But that doesn't change the nature of the fight.

It would not be news at all if the NAACP hadn't gone out of it's way to smear the millions of people involved in the Tea Party movement, by the actions of repugnant fringe who showed up at a public rally.

Or, y'know, a repugnant fringe who was the public face of the movement.

For Ms. Sherrod, see my other post. Not so simple as, say, Mr. Williams.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Or, y'know, a repugnant fringe who was the public face of the movement

The umbrella of 'tea party' is gigantic, and yes, even [in]famous people do stupid things, and the movement excises them and moves on. For example, I like Victoria Jackson as a comedian, but she is not the best representative of the tea party movement. I think even Sarah Palin has some admirable qualities, in that home spun, ranchers wife moxie sort of way. I don't know many women who'd be comfortable skinning a moose. I'm hoping she'll get more comfortable in public and shed the "fantastic plastic super smiley persona" she wears on camera, and learns to reveal her inner human.

Looking at liberal icons... Bill and Hillary are a kettle of cold fish; Bill must be hard to support if you harbor any support for the equality of women, and Hillary tends to be harsh and shrill, and occasionally nice when her game face is on. Then there are the famous ones, like Rosie O'Donnell, "Don't fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers."

AND... looking at conservatives... Rush Limbaugh is hard to like, polarizes opinion and probably drives more people to the liberal camp than he might attract to the conservative one, and the ones he attracts tend to be impolite, abrasive, boors like him. Too much mouth, not enough cogitation.

Basically, many famous people, who end up on our radios or TV screens, don't have a very developed filter between their brains and their mouths. What makes them entertaining is our fascination with their cheeky banter, until it gets to serious topics. Add alcohol, or drugs, and it's 10 times worse.

Perhaps, this "entertainment" aspect is the worst of it. I pine for the days when you chose candidates based on their actual record of accomplishments, and their written thoughts, rather than packaged meaningless sound bites, and campaign commercial mud slinging contests.

Who should I pick for President, the racist, or the communist?

[kandrathe]

For Ms. Sherrod, see my other post.

Yes, this story is the gift to the conservative blogosphere, that keeps on giving. Hmmm, that's odd. Ms. Sherrod,was given a job at the same institution, working for the same person whom she was suing for discrimination.

A billion dollars is serious money. This is probably why the Administration wants to distance themselves from Ms. Sherrod. Her ties to the RDLN may be hiding some skeletons and associations that will be embarrassing to the President.

[Maitre]

I find this cadre of journalists professionally derelict and morally bankrupt in that they believe it is acceptable to advocate out right demagoguery, overt slander, and using their profession to destroy their own more less liberal peers? This is free speech?

First, yes, this is free speech. That's exactly what it is. Not only that, it's free *private* speech, a conversation among friends that has only been made public by the dishonesty of their ideological opponents. In private, people blow off steam, they rant and rave, they make sarcastic and excessive comments. It happens, it's locker room talk. This is quite explicitly what Journolist was created for.

Second, as is quite clear from reading the link, while some people were advocating aggressive, street-fighter tactics (notably the hot-headed Spencer Ackerman, the source of the juiciest quotes) others thought that this was a mistake, and that they should keep to the high road. Once again: this is a *private discussion*, amongst individual journalists, and not a policy planning meeting. Different ideas abound, based on the personal opinions of the journalists, and do not reflect anything more than that.

[snip]
-Jester

Jester,
I grabbed just the beginning of your post here because I wanted to be sure I understood you. I'm concerned that you're giving someone a pass for having a private conversation about a charged issue and expressing a personal opinion. I don't deny your assertion that such discussions take place, but my concern is that people with such opinions are in a place of control (either control of dissemination of information like journalists, or disbursement of millions of dollars like Ms. Sherrod). I also don't deny that some people maintain bigoted opinions and share them with like minded people, but I challenge the idea that such people (or anyone for that matter) could separate their private opinions from the discharge of their public responsibilities.
In my mind, the eradication of racism, classism, sexism or any form of bigotry in practice should be considered separately from the eradication of same in thought.

These points aside, with regard to the "outing" of someone for their unsavory public comments has degenerated in popular culture to the very "gotcha" mentality that another post mentions. It's hip to catch someone of some notoriety making an ill considered statement, but not because they hold such an opinion: instead there is some thrill and profit to finding evidence of someone ruining their career or reputation. The profit is not in addressing someone's opinions, but it catching them in being so careless as to express their private opinion in front of a microphone. Society has therefore declared that it is not wrong to maintain a bigoted opinion, but it is wrong to express that opinion publically.

Sorry for the incomplete thought, but I've gotten this far and have to go to something else. I'll see if I can bring this to a close sometime later...

[--Pete]

Hi,

I don't know many women who'd be comfortable skinning a moose.

Man, I'm glad I'm not a member of a Lodge.

. . . and learns to reveal her inner human.

You sure there is one?

Kidding aside, she has done an excellent job of demonstrating both her ignorance and her stupidity. She might be able to get a political makeover and learn to fake sincerity. She might be tutored to the point where her ignorance is tolerable. But there's nothing to be done about her stupidity. Do we really want yet another moronic 'leader', or have we had enough of them in the past fifty years?

I pine for the days when you chose candidates based on their actual record of accomplishments, and their written thoughts, rather than packaged meaningless sound bites, and campaign commercial mud slinging contests.

Have those days ever actually existed, or are they a fable told to children to give them hope in our political system? Besides, even if they've ever existed, the point is moot. We can't run a twenty-first century election on eighteenth century technology. Radio, TV, the Net, are here to stay. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know it's not just wishing them away.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Once again, this is *not* a "national news organization". This is individual journalists, who do not control anything more than their own columns, talking amongst each other. This is not controlled from on high.

It is interesting that these *leaks* from JournOlist begin to appear after it is shut down. The list had over 300 select subscribers, so this in not just a small conspiracy of hot heads, slightly manipulating the news. This is a cadre of so-called professionals conspiring to alter the viewpoint of political debate through manipulative machinations of the press. We might call that propaganda.

"From 2007 until last month, some 300 liberal journalists and policy wonks exchanged ideas and commentary on a secret, off-the-record Internet email group called JournoList. It was shut down after portions leaked, leading to the resignation of Washington Post writer David Weigel last month over his intemperate criticism of conservatives he was covering."

[Jester]

It is interesting that these *leaks* from JournOlist begin to appear after it is shut down.

Horsepuckey. Ezra Klein shut down the list because of the leak. He was quite explicit about this. It was used to destroy the career of Dave Wiegel. As soon as a private e-mail list became a scalp-hunting tool for the Republicans, it was shut down. Simple as that.

The list had over 300 select subscribers, so this in not just a small conspiracy of hot heads, slightly manipulating the news. This is a cadre of so-called professionals conspiring to alter the viewpoint of political debate through manipulative machinations of the press.

Except that there was no consensus, and no authority. This is clear even from the overtly biased links we´ve seen here so far. Some more radical voices thought that the way to fight the noise machine was to make even more noise. Others thought this was a self-defeating tactic, and that the way forward was to contrast the hype on the right with a solid discussion of the issues. Since this was a discussion, and not a conspiracy, some participants went one way, and some the other.

We might call that propaganda.

We might call that the free expression of opinion.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Kidding aside, she has done an excellent job of demonstrating both her ignorance and her stupidity. She might be able to get a political makeover and learn to fake sincerity. She might be tutored to the point where her ignorance is tolerable. But there's nothing to be done about her stupidity. Do we really want yet another moronic 'leader', or have we had enough of them in the past fifty years?

This is an interesting example, of the other topic in this thread. Is she really moronic, or has she been portrayed that way by the same extreme biases shown in the JournOList? Before she got stupid, she did run Alaska, and people there seemed to like what she was doing. Where she has been unpopular has been with the established old guard of both Republican and Democratic parties. McCain chose her to win a portion of the conservative electorate he was losing, however, they didn't support her, or even defend her against the orchestrated continual campaign to impugn her, and her family. The Presidential election devolved into a Palin vs Obama battle, and whose upstart fire brand was more presidential. And in a battle between a strong right of center rural woman, and a strong black left of center urban man, the electorate deferred to the better credentials of Obama. Oh, yeah, McCain was running. Wasn't he? I don't know of any other recent Vice Presidential candidate who's had a tabloid journalist move into the home next door to grab into the sensationalist gold mine.

[Chesspiece_face]

Is she really moronic, or has she been portrayed that way by the same extreme biases shown in the JournOList?

No, she's really moronic. The level of retardation regarding her curiosity concerning issues of knowledge or learning can only be described as absolute. Palin is a living example of the adage "People rise to their level of incompentence."

[--Pete]

Hi,

Is she really moronic, . . .

Where were you in '08? The campaigns were so much fun that I watched entirely too much CNN. Stupidity? She impeached, tried, and convicted herself of it nearly every time she opened her mouth. Which is why they finally muzzled her.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

We might call that propaganda.

We might call that the free expression of opinion.

Unless it is orchestrated... Even when its run in a private listserv run by the Washington Post, or by the RNC. They have the right to express their opinions in private. The danger here is in the collusion of a 5th column across organizations to manage the group think of the press. To make examples of those that don't march in step, so that the others will fear to get out of line. How would we feel if other organizations colluded in this way?

It was actually a progressive democrat, Mickey Kaus writing for Slate, who allegedly first outed Ezra Klein's JournoList, and that led to another leak (off the record), by another progressive on the list, that eventually got Dave Weigel fired.

"But though there's something wrong with people using e-mail lists to destroy someone else's career, there's nothing wrong with e-mail lists. People like to communicate with others in their profession and others who think in a broadly similar fashion to the way they do. And of course they like the opposite, as well: I'm a member of a bipartisan dinner series and offered to start a bipartisan list serv with Tucker Carlson. And then there are list servs, like the Republican one, where coordination actually happens.""A tale of two -- actually, many more than two -- listserves"

At least Ezra Klein attempted to separate his list from the DNC, and political staff of sitting politicians.

Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare.

Ugly from the left, ugly from the right, and ugly face on.

[kandrathe]

She impeached, tried, and convicted herself of it nearly every time she opened her mouth. Which is why they finally muzzled her.

Although, it was also a game. I watched as the press continually thought of obscure questions, outside of her areas of expertise, to try to trip her up, and yes, she got a little flustered with questions like, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?". The obvious answer is "Which one of Bush's doctrines?"

Of course, you never hear of those times when, Obama stumbles on soft balls, like when Rob Dibble asked him who one of his favorite White Sox players was when he was in Chicago.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I watched as the press continually thought of obscure questions, outside of her areas of expertise, . . .

Like her claim to knowledge of foreign relations because she could see Russia from Alaska? Yeah, once she'd exposed her ignorance, they did have fun at her expense.

Of course, you never hear of those times when, Obama stumbles on soft balls, like when Rob Dibble asked him who one of his favorite White Sox players was when he was in Chicago.

Had I known that Obama didn't care for sports, I'd have voted for him twice. An American political figure who doesn't believe that baseball, football, basketball, and ice hockey are the be all and end all? What next, Unicorns?

--Pete