Liberal Bias? — What Liberal Bias?!

Instapundit reader, Elliott Davis: “The best part about Eric Alterman’s participation in Journolist is his authorship of What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News.

Best of the Journolist so far:

Dave Weigel, formerly of the Washington post, reacting to “ACORN Ratf*cker, James O’Keefe’s arrest:

Weigel’s response: “HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.”

“Deep breath.”

“HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHA.”

“He’s either going to get a radio talk show or start a prison ministry. That’s was successful conservative ratf*ckers do for their second acts,” Weigel wrote, likely alluding to Nixon aide Charles Colson who converted to Christianity after a stint in prison for obstruction of justice and founded Prison Fellowship.

Weigel on Matt Drudge:

This would be a vastly better world to live in if Matt Drudge decided to handle his emotional problems more responsibly, and set himself on fire.

Spencer Ackerman, of Wired: On how to deal with the Rev. Wright controversy:

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.

If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.
Chris Hayes, The Nation on Wright:

“I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA on yanking Fox News off the air:

“I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”

Sarah Spitz NPR on her wish that Rush Limbaugh would die of a heart attack:

Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.

In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”

Josh Berman, LA Weekly on Obama’s 2008 victory:

11 months ago I burst into tears by myself on a plane while watching Hardball when my mind wandered to the image of President Obama being sworn in. I’ve been fighting it ever since.

A triumphant Spencer Ackerman

Let’s just throw Ledeen against a wall. Or, pace Dr. Alterman, throw him through a plate glass window. I’ll bet a little spot of violence would shut him right the f*ck up, as with most bullies.

UPDATE:

Sarah Spitz has issued a tepid apology for her comment about Rush Limbaugh, which she claims does “not represent the values by which I conduct my life.”

I think she shouldn’t have bothered. She apologizes to anyone I may have offended? When she was spewing out her bile, she had no trouble aiming it quite directly at Rush. But now that she’s been found out and feels the need — for entirely self-serving reasons — to say she’s sorry, she can’t bring herself to apologize directly to Rush. Apparently, even after all this, there’s still too “much hate in me,” as she told her colleagues. The best she can do is apologize to “anyone” who “may” have been offended by her statement that she gleefully imagines Rush Limbaugh having a fatal heart attack so she can “laugh out loud like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out.”

We all say stupid things from time to time — maybe not that stupid, but pretty darn stupid nonetheless. Is it really that hard to address the person you’ve directly offended, even if you don’t like that person, and say you’re sorry? And if you’re too consumed with spite to do that, wouldn’t it be better to just zip it?

UPDATE II:

See Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker for a list of 65 Known Journolisters

*

Journolist pix via iOWNTHEWORLD.
*

Share

Journolisters On 2008 Election: Insufferable D-Bags Even In Victory

We already knew they were sore losers. They’re also despicably sore winners, as the latest Daily Caller document drop reveals. I’ve been noticing how disturbingly violent in their rhetoric, some of these guys are…Spencer Ackerman, once again, distinguishes himself:

LAURA ROZEN, FOREIGN POLICY (NOW POLITICO): Can you imagine if these bozos had won?

Nov. 7

LAURA ROZEN: People we no longer have to listen to: would it be unwise to start a thread of people we are grateful we no longer have to listen to? If not, I’ll start off: Michael Rubin.

MICHAEL COHEN, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: Mark Penn and Bob Shrum. Anyone who uses the expression “Real America.” We should send there ass to Gitmo!

JESSE TAYLOR, PANDAGON.NET: Michael Barone?  Please?

LAURA ROZEN: Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich (afraid it’s not true), Drill Here Drill Now, And David Addington, John Yoo, we’ll see you in court?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, THE NEW YORKER: As a side note, does anyone know what prompted Michael Barone to go insane?

MATT DUSS: LEDEEN.

SPENCER ACKERMAN: Let’s just throw Ledeen against a wall. Or, pace Dr. Alterman, throw him through a plate glass window. I’ll bet a little spot of violence would shut him right the fuck up, as with most bullies.

JOE KLEIN, TIME: Pete Wehner…these sort of things always end badly.

ERIC ALTERMAN, AUTHOR, WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA: F**king Nascar retards…

What’s this fascination Ackerman has with throwing people through plate glass windows?  Remember this from the Jeremiah Wright emails?

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.

What’s up with these people?

A commenter like that on most right wing blogs would get banned for such violent, unhinged rhetoric.

RELATED:

Dr Zero: Whistling Past The JournoList Graveyard

Doc’s 2 cents is always worth reading:

The general public will be able to digest this story, and they won’t like the taste.  They’ve already got a low opinion of journalists.  It will plummet even further once they get a few bites of JournoList.  No magazine, newspaper, or network that continues to employ any of the people quoted in the Daily Caller story can be trusted by any fair-minded person as a reliable news source.  Period.

The discussion of false racism charges is an outrage. The American public is growing very tired of being pummeled with the racism club.  The cynical plan to pick a random conservative – “who cares?” – and slander them as racists will mix with disgust at the NAACP for trying the same wretched tactic on the Tea Party movement.  The once-feared Race Card is looking rather tattered around the edges.  The Left has been putting a lot of effort into shuffling those cards into the deck for the 2010 and 2012 campaigns.  The nitwits at JournoList just made them much more difficult to play.

By the way, Wired is standing by Ackerman. As Jim Treacher says, “Apparently, lying about somebody who disagrees with you is a “political leaning.”

Share

New Daily Caller Journolist Document Drop: This Time Lefty Crapweasels Discuss Ways To Shut Down Fox News

The first part of the piece by Jonathan Strong deals with our lefty heroes’ rabid dislike for Rush Limbaugh, and the town hall protesters, last summer. We’re  uncouth, and nasty anti-everythings – reminiscent of brownshirts …icky-icky-poo! (Because we all know that the brownshirts represented the out of power minority!) There’s nothing here you haven’t already heard from any garden variety internet troll.

The second half is more ominous because here, they may have had some influence with the White House. Their pig-pile on Fox News foreshadowed the White House’s attacks on Fox News later that Fall:

The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

Good lord. Fox News doesn’t care if it doesn’t get invited to all the right parties. The horror.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Tribal identity, really? Conservatives are like a foreign, exotic culture to these misfits.

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”

And so a debate ensued. Time’s Scherer, who had seemed to express support for increased regulation of Fox, suddenly appeared to have qualms: “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”

But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

I’m “genuinely scared” that Johnathan Zasloff is a Professor of law with influence over young minds. I have no idea what connections (if any) Zasloff has with the White House, but can it be mere coincidence that in October of ’09, The White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, led a  broadside against fox news, that seemed organized and calculated to delegitimize the news organization. When the White House tried to exclude Fox from the “Pay Czar” interviews, the WH Press pool came to it’s defense, and the White House blinked. After being called “Nixonian” by not only right of center pundits, but some in the MSM, as well, the White House finally backed off.
Back to the Journolisters:

Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”

John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”

Back when progs had a monopoly on the news, they were totally against censorship…now that there are competing ideas…. different rules.
*
Anyway, pssst: The next time some lib disses Fox News, say, “did Jonathan Zasloff tell you to say that?”
*
Previously

*
UPDATE:
*
Byron York spoke with Rush Limbaugh this morning for his reaction to the latest Journolist revelations: Limbaugh responds to JournoList death wish report
*
Also Blogging:
*
*

*

Share