–updated below–
The breathless headline reads…
Well, this is another first for Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller. A story about Journolist listserv participants has gotten Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh on the same talking points. In the first hour Rush even played one of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s greatest hits.
The irony is that the people being accused are avowed and openly progressive reporters. Obviously, this fact is missed by the right.
[...] Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”
Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
[...]The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”
The Nation? Mother Jones? Are you telling me Daily Caller and the 4,000+ Facebook lovers of this story aren’t aware that these two publications lean left?
There’s no doubt whatsoever that Obama had an easier time with the media than any other candidate in 2008. No one but Obamaphiles would argue otherwise. But the conspiracy huffing and puffing about known liberal journalists from the Daily Caller is really one for the books.
It’s particularly hilarious given that Huffington Post and Salon are also known liberal bastions. Thomas Schaller (Baltimore Sun) is a proud progressive who makes no secret of it, as are Eric Alterman and Spencer Ackerman. Michael Tomasky was the American Prospect’s editor-at-large a few years ago, a progressive magazine. These are known facts to anyone paying attention.
Why it would surprise or be considered news that any of these progressives would push back against Jeremiah Wright is beyond me.
That Daily Caller, Limbaugh, Beck and no doubt other radio wingnuts will be trumpeting this nonsense as if it’s news illustrates just how stupid they think their audience is. If they believe it, which the Facebook numbers prove, they’re right.
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan gets suckered here too. It’s like these people just woke up in Oz. The reporters and op-ed writers are openly progressive. They report facts, but in an election season people thought they’d be non-committal? We’re not talking about Chuck Todd or Shep Smith, even Wolf Blitzer, to name high profile traditional journalists that have no open leaning and do not write for progressive magazines. Honestly, I’m just stunned at the naïveté.
What are they doing trying to start a race war?
Actually, I thought the liberal press handled the Wright controvery wrong too but for other reasons. They did no reflection on how is was that Obama….. Mr. no drama, Mr. “let’s all come together and sing kumbiya” hooked himself up to such a flame thrower in the first place or for what reasons.They also cried racism at the smallest critism. They actually accused Hillary of racism for praising LBJ and her supporters were racist for sure.
This cynical use of the race meme works both ways.That is why I think articles like the one written by Douthat should not just be brushed aside and ignored.
I learned working with HS kids that if you never acknowledged what was legitimate in their fairly absurd arguments over something, you could never work them through it. Politics as it is played in the US is not very far removed from HS.
You’re more generous than me — I say politics in the US are played at the junior high level, with not infrequent excursions to the grade school playground …
Ha! I think you are right Joyce,I give them too much credit!
Hillary praising LBJ was a very small part of the racism charge – it started when Bill made some very unfortunate remarks about the s. carolina primary win for Obama. Neither Hillary or Bill are racists – careless remarks were made. Obama was constantly accused of being a misogynist, for, among other things, giving Hillary the finger for crying out loud – we all see whatever we want to see. the racism thing as related to Hillary is pretty tired – I thought we were done with all that.
criticism
I do think that if a candidate on the right in ’08 had had a Jeremiah Wright in their wings, that the left would have howled mightily. As it was, it was amazing to see how quickly all was tamped down about “God damn America” Wright.
And the explanations and defences of the man: he is a prophetic voice, it’s the African American way of enjoying their church services….
And then Obama gave a lovely speech and everybody agreed it was over, no big deal after all.
I remember when I heard Wright frothing at the mouth and god-damning america, I thought it was the end for Mr. Obama. I was wrong.
But they sure had no trouble vilifying Bill and Hillary Clinton for any imagined racial slighting of their candidate.
It was despicable.
The right did go after Obama on Jeremiah Wright. Sean Hannity never stopped. It was all over Fox constantly, continually, non-stop.
You are right about that Taylor. I was talking about the libs.You watch Fox so we don’t have to.
Oh, I know, I was responding to Pilgrim.
I guess that goes double for Rush?!
Really I would just jump off a bridge if I had to listen to that drug addled gasbag!
I was talking about the libs too.
Seems to me the left went after McCain for Rev. hagee or whatever that wingnuts name is. And just like Obama, Mccain dropped him like a hot potato.
But Tucker carlson?! The same smarmy schmuck who got his ass kicked by Jon Stewart?! BWAHAHAHA!
Carlson once said he would write anything if he got paid for it.
You’re right secular about the McCain/Hagee thing. I remember it well.
Nice try, Taylor, especially using the bullying words like “wingnuts” and “stupid” to elevate your argument. That might stop some of your readers from following to its logical conclusion the disquiet this revelation induces. “Don’t want Taylor to think I’m a wingnut!” You get lots of gold stars for Groupthink Enforcement Tactics.
However, for those unafraid to think for themselves….
The problem is not the views of these journalists. If those names are familiar to you, you obviously know they are coming from the left.
What’s offensive is the attempted coordination of responses among people who represent themselves to be journalists. We like to think journalists are independent thinkers. What this shows is that all these progressives are not journalists. They’re PR people–political hacks and flacks. Which then raises further questions, such as “why?” Why be so in the bag for a candidate that you try to get other so-called journalists to follow your message strategy? Is it because you’re a fanboy? That might be legitimate, if a bit pathetic. Or is it because someone on the campaign has promised you something? Have you disclosed this?
Again, if you’re a flack, all that stuff is transparent. You’re getting paid to spin the messages, come up with the counterpunches, slip the “racism” allegation into discourse to give your candidate a tactical advantage. It’s a well-paying gig. But to get that gig, you have to give up any pretense of independence. When I read Spencer Ackerman or Eric Alterman, I know their biases, but I expect them also to be independent — independent of candidates, and independent of other journalists — coming to conclusions based on their reporting and their evaluation of the evidence. I don’t expect, and most readers don’t expect, that what Eric Alterman writes was vetted by Spencer Ackerman, or suggested by him, or vice-versa. That’s why it’s a scandal with very long legs.
But, go ahead. No harm in trying. Repeat wingnut ten times and maybe Tinker Bell will fly again.
“You get lots of gold stars for Groupthink Enforcement Tactics.”
And you get lots O stars from the clueless, driveby smacked ass committee.
It is actually kinda refreshing to have these chickenshit wingnuts, repugnantklaners and teabaggers stop by and try to take the focus from the facts and that they and their repugnantklan/teabagger heros and talking point suppliers are the most racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, just plain old stupid element in American society.
Thanks dimwit, I needed a reminder of why even Obama is WORLDS better then any repugnantklaner/teabagger out there.
You get lots of gold stars for Groupthink Enforcement Tactics.
Obviously, you’re a drive by commenter, because you haven’t a clue about what goes on around here. “Groupthink”? Wow. That should come with a spew alert for my readers!
When I read Spencer Ackerman or Eric Alterman, I know their biases, but I expect them also to be independent — independent of candidates, and independent of other journalists — coming to conclusions based on their reporting and their evaluation of the evidence.
You are *extremely* naive.
None of us, including myself as a political analyst, with biases are going to lie like Rush, Glenn Beck, Sean and his mini Mark Levin, etc. But when it comes to major election cycles, we all line up for the good guy, which in 2008 was most assuredly Mr. Obama.
It should be clear that people with leanings are in no way going to jettison those leanings in a presidential election.
Next you’re going to tell me that Charles Krauthammer doesn’t fit this same mold.
I call them “wingnuts”, because those I listed don’t deserve to be called conservatives. I know a lot of people who are conservative, but wouldn’t give Rush, Beck or the blather posted today on Daily Caller the time of day. My dear, sweet, well informed older sister being one, just one, but I could name many others.
As for their listeners & the people who Facebooked this ridiculous story, maybe stupid is harsh, but that they’re swallowing this silly manufactured crap seems to make the word apply.
Lastly, I am very fair when it’s deserved. I’m as critical on Democrats as I am on Republicans. Ask anyone around here. But sometimes the shoe fits. This is one of those times.
Daily Caller is absolutely the worst. I dropped by a few times when Carlson first started it and found nothing of value. Can’t remember the last time I took a look.
“As for their listeners & the people who Facebooked this ridiculous story, maybe stupid is harsh, but that they’re swallowing this silly manufactured crap seems to make the word apply.”
Naaaah, in my honest opinion stupid is giving these meat puppets WAY to much credit. I mean they believe insane assclowns like limpwithnoballs, handjobity, blech and Olielly. Not to mention Ms. Dimbulb herself sarah palin. The same assclowns that STILL think the war criminal in chief was a GREAT President.
You are FAR to kind to them.
Well, sec, you’re not exactly unbiased, now.
I guess it’s like Colbert said “It’s well known that facts are liberal.”
I’m new to this blog, and find this discussion interesting. But I do think that what made the DC story newsworthy is not the political leanings of the plotters, but rather the assertion that it was OK to simply make up a charge of racism against political enemies. That seems beyond the pale no matter what your political affiliation is. Or at least it should be.
Hello DavidBNYC and welcome.
It shouldn’t shock you to know that many on the left think Republicans are racist, which began with the Nixon-Buchanan Southern strategy, with the current activity by many in the Tea Party adding to this belief.
It’s not surprising that the attacks on Wright re: Obama got all the attention, while as what was mentioned above re: Hagee & McCain hardly caused a blip on the right.
As the poster below (vailbeach) wrote (far better than I could) it’s one thing to give examples of racism; quite another to single out individuals for charges of racism simply because you disagree with their politics. Labeling someone like Fred Barnes a racist? That’s just stupid and, frankly, evil.
If you want to talk about “groupthink,” vailbeach is correct, but in the mentality to circle the wagons during an election cycle, especially when it was the first African American, which is part of what this is about.
I was called racist and worse through amateur diaries, vilified on Obama blogs, my character was defamed, lies spread, and progressive males wrote vile things about me during the primaries, too.
This has been going on for years.
Oh, I think we are very much in agreement. I know very well the propensity of some who call themselves progressives to play the race card whenever they feel like it, with little or no consequences. The reason this got so much play on conservative sites right now is that it dovetails (fairly or unfairly) with the narrative around the NAACP leveling racism charges against the Tea Parties. Conservatives are arguing that this purely a political strategy with little or no basis in reality. The journolist thread gives a lot of ammo to this argument…
I think the Journo listserv does indeed serve conservative purposes very well on that, DavidNYC.
The unfortunate thing is that there is a lot of racism in the Tea Party, which was proven through Mark Williams.
I’m in the minority on this one, but I think a better use of Daily Caller for conservatives would have been to give greater weight to this press release that shows the Tea Party ousting him.
http://www.thenationalteapartyfederation.com/press_room.html
Daily Caller is talking to the choir. The left isn’t paying attention and for independents it’s just inside baseball.
It still doesn’t prove conservatives have a plan, so this story will not help, except to salve the choir.
Second to last paragraph:
…Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama BRAND pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”
I always find that these references to corporate marketing strategy are quite interesting.
The ‘product’ has a flaw, divert attention. Whether it’s a defect with a car, a baby stroller, or any flaw in the ‘design process’ it does eventually effect the impression of the ‘product.’
Actually, although I don’t look at this site every day, I look at it enough to have a very high opinion of it, and of Taylor. I think of Taylor as among the best netroots bloggers, and most independent, in that she is not always predictable in how she comes out on things. I was angered by this particular post’s “nothing to see here” tone, and hence the Groupthink cracks, which now on reflection seem a little harsh.
You’re way off if you think my position on this is somehow in defense of Limbaugh, Beck or anyone else in the right-wing media stream. I see how they try mightily to set the tone of coverage to their followers, down to the precise wording of their spin. I have respect for some of the commentators over there, but not many.
What I’m defending is so old-fashioned I feel like a ghost. People used to go into journalism because they wanted to experience the world and write (or broadcast) about it. Those who became opinion-mongers could be identified along the political spectrum, usually, but they still considered themselves reporters first, obedient to nothing but the truth, their consciences and their editors.
Obviously, that has broken down, and some of the break-down has been to the good. But I’m not happy with all of what’s happened, and Journolist strikes me as one very unfortunate mutation of the great institution of journalism. To say “I think Karl Rove is a racist and I’m going to demonstrate it in my writing,” is one thing. To say, “we should all respond to stories about Rev. Wright by calling Karl Rove a racist” is a PR tactic that is, frankly, inimical to journalism, and should have caused en masse defections from the group.
This is not about your biases or mine. This is about principles that should drive every journalist regardless of his or her bias.
I didn’t think your position was because of Rush, et al. I was explaining why I used “wingnuts,” because the use is specific.
During the ’08 primaries & elections, it should have become VERY CLEAR to everyone that journalism had shifted. Andrew Sullivan missed it because his guy was being favored. I did not miss it because even before I took sides I was getting hate mail & site attacks because I was reporting on Obama things that few would.
This Daily Caller story is a wake up call for some people, but for me it is not. It’s laughable to me people haven’t seen the germination of this phenomenon long ago.
I’ve never considered myself “netroots,” though I don’t care if people do. Come this August I will have been writing on the web for 16 years, though the first years certainly weren’t huge years on the web. The “nothing to see here” reaction is because I saw journalism change drastically during the beginning dotcom build up, which was during Clinton impeachment.
The reaction to what was been blasted by Daily Caller today stuns me more than any part of the story. I’ve been writing about the media bias for a long time. Where has everybody been?
Fair enough. My position is that opinions are part of journalism, but that coordinating opinions you’re willing to express because of peer pressure from like-minded journalists who are all worried about the effect on a particular candidate is wrong and goes beyond the problem of objectivity. It’s flackery at that point. These writers want to have it both ways, but it doesn’t work.
I understand and I sympathize with people today waking up to reality.
There is very little objectivity in journalism in presidential election cycles, very little. This reached a height never before seen in American politics in 2008.
Because of it, I get charged all the time with being either “Obama hater” or “in the tank for Clinton.” You pay a very high price for partisanship. I don’t regret it, because the pile on of Clinton in summer 2007 was so over the top, with more involved, but we don’t need to rehash the past.
Because of what I saw happening, I swore that 2008 was my last on the partisan line, which is why Sarah Palin got a clean slate from that day forward. It’s why I work hard at being straight, not partisan, except when the story just tilts too far and screams for it.
Writers and cable talking heads have been having it both ways for years. And guess what, it does work. Richard Wolffe stayed on MSNBC to opine, got a book deal while covering his subject for Newsweek, then kept opining on MSNBC even though he’d joined a pr firm. Jonathan Alter tried to push Clinton out of the primaries, later gets access to Obama for his big book, just published.
Daily Caller’s blaring headline assumes this is news. It is not.
See Fox News, which even on non-opinion hours is dreadfully biased.
It does work. It makes networks millions.
It keeps insiders in their jobs when they support the establishment.
Notice all the players were men?
It’s another part of the story, but that won’t get a blaring headline.
Ah, I see where you’re coming from. You’re talking about an audience of political news consumers for whom it is news that left-wing journalists who write for left-wing sites/publications are…left-wing. In that sense, you’re right. Daily Caller is pandering to that crowd in the breathless way that story is promoted.
What I found disturbing was different. It was the coordination, the idea that the Journolist members should band together and launch an attack on the reputation of someone not involved in the Wright/Obama story, purely as a diversionary tactic. Even if you’re a partisan pundit, I think that crosses the line, not because it’s mean to Republicans, but because it’s dishonest. It’s PR. Even among partisans, there is a necessary distinction between advocacy journalism and PR. A left-wing flack should not find left-wing journos willing to play along with a fact-free allegation. The reporter still has to act like a reporter, getting facts and stuff. If the left-wing flack and the left-wing journo are the same person — even worse.
Sure it “works” commercially for a few well-connected journos. It doesn’t work for the rank and file journos, and its unethical. Acceptance of it also teaches news consumers not to trust the media — a trend we need to see reversed.
Man, I actually went to that odious site to read the “story” the headlines for columns looked like something from the “Onion”
========
Taylor Marsh:
(A) “I understand and I sympathize with people today waking up to reality.
There is very little objectivity in journalism in presidential election cycles, very little. This reached a height never before seen in American politics in 2008.”
(B) “Daily Caller’s blaring headline assumes this is news. It is not.”
========
So, many people are waking up to reality, to a bias in journalism that has reached a height never before seen by you. But, this isn’t news?
If it is not news, then JournoList members and any other “leaning” journalists should proudly identify that they are self-consciously selecting what they report, and ignoring what they don’t want to report, in the service of electing particular people. This should not harm anything, and should make them more popular and transparent.
Is the “journalist” reporting what would be of interest to someone outside the fringes of politics, or is he consciously making his best, biased case for his cause? Is he working for a political party, or for the reader?
No, it’s not news, AndrewMG. I’ve been writing about it for years.
People see Fox “News,” listen to Rush and Sean, et al. who lie through their teeth daily. They not only have an agenda, but they put out blatant falsehoods.
Look at what Breitbart did to Ms. Sherrod (post up now on it). Swiftboating at its worst.
What’s news is people trumpeting Daily Caller story are so naive as to think it’s not been happening for years.
I could see your point that extreme bias shouldn’t be news to many people, and it isn’t news to you, and you have written about it (could you give a link?).
You wrote “[edited] The bias reached a height never before seen in American politics in 2008.”
That still leaves it as news to many people. The amount of reaction shows this. By definition, it’s news to people if they didn’t know it before. It seems a lot of people didn’t know, or they suspected but gave the benefit of the doubt.
You wrote “Because of what I saw happening, I swore that 2008 was my last on the partisan line..”
I see that this recognition of bias was a big deal for you. You changed what you would write about (it seems). Why isn’t this a big deal for other people who are realizing what you did two years ago? Why complain about them learning something that was just as important to you?
It seems that this story about intentional, coordinated, bias is interesting to many people. It’s news.
Look, conservatives get force fed “intentional, coordinated, bias” bs from Fox, Rush, Sean et al. all day long and have been for 20 years in Rush’s case. They are just blind to their own gullibility. If you want to call that news to some, well, maybe, but it isn’t to me and actually should be to anyone.
My archives are replete with stories on media bias going back years. I reported on it during the primaries when everyone was ignoring it. I’ve been busting right-wing “intentional, coordinated, bias” for 16 years.
What’s news is that people only read from the usual suspects that support their own views. That’s not my fault. It’s the fault of partisans who won’t look beyond their own nose, which applies to Rep. & Dems.
It’s not surprising, only confirming, to find that the lefty (cough) “journalists” wanted to quieten down the Jeremiah Wright story.
Taylor,
I’m disappointed that you don’t get the connection in the Daily Caller’s expose of the liberal media’s bias in support of Obama to that same liberal media’s repeated sexist, misogynist attacks on Hillary Clinton. As one Clinton supporter put it in 2008, racism is taboo in the liberal media, but it’s open season for sexism and misogyny.
And lest you’ve forgotten, the Obama campaign smeared both Hillary and Bill Clinton as racists to siphon off their African-American supporters. Much later, after the damage had been done, Obama hung his head during a televised debate with Hillary and admitted “the Clintons are not racists.”
Thank goodness for Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, who repeatedly debunked the Obama campaign’s ugly smears against the Clintons.
Are you kidding?
Ispice, I already did this story, for months. Long ago I proved the connection, so that’s why it’s not news to me.
That it’s news to others is the real story here, because as I said several times above, I’ve been writing about it FOR YEARS.
So because the Daily Caller blasts a KNOWN fact I’ve been reporting on I’m supposed to be impressed?
I peeled this onion three fricking years ago.
Well, Taylor, you aren’t going to find very many on the journolist addressing the issue since the Daily Caller story broke. They’ve probably conferred with one another and decided to ignore it, and hope it will go away. I’m thinking of guys like E.J. Dionne, Eugene Robinson, Nick Kristoff, Frank Rich, etc., etc., and the Huffington Post certainly won’t apologize.
I was a lifelong Democrat who considered myself a progressive until 2008. What the left-wing Dems did to Hillary was too much for me. I left the party, and I’m now one of those independents that the Obama team is worried about in the coming midterms.