The “New Racism” like the New Black Panther Party is a political phony smear utilized to destroy political opponents. Likewise, the JournoList JournoGate story is important because it is the indisputable evidence of a “vast Hopium Guzzler conspiracy” – a Big Media CARTEL to destroy anyone who opposed and opposes Barack Obama by smearing them as “racists!”
No longer is racism confined to Eliza slavery narratives and segregation horror of dogs, water cannon, lynchings and rape. Now “racism” is shouted when a 25 year old African-American multi-multi-millionaire basketball player leaves the team and the team owner is upset thereby opening himself to the charge of being a “slave master” and the super rich player a “runaway slave”. The “New Racism” is a parody which dilutes actual racism.
The JournoList JournoGate scandal is also a worry to Superstar race-baiter Barack Obama. The loss of “good will” (to borrow from trademark law) associated with the negative term “racist”, the tarnishment and dilution of his weapon of choice for 2012 – the race card – makes it that much more likely that a challenge in 2012 will occur. If the race card loses its value entirely, a possible challenge from within the Democratic Party can emerge (we’ll have much more of this soon). No longer will African-American supporters be labeled “racists” or “self haters” or “racist enablers” for their courageous support of Hillary Clinton. White Hillary Supporters likewise can engage in political activity without the smear “racist” hurled. The race card wall is the only defense left for Barack Obama and his army of JouroList Hopium Guzzlers and the dreams of 2012.
The JournoList JournoGate is an indisputable fact about the Pro-Obama, Anti-Hillary, Anti-McCain/Palin Big Media bias during the primaries and the general election.
Some of the less than functioning are saying “so what” about the Dailycaller story. Their defense is that the JournoListers were known progressive op-ed people. But these dolts are clearly not reading the story with any precision. This sentence from the DailyCaller article should silence them if they have any honesty left or any brain cells functioning:
“Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal.”
The Big Media cartel is in coordinated defense mode even as the various Hopium Guzzling members employ the Sergeant Schultz defense “I know nothing!” When the JournoList JournoGate scandal began to unravel Ben Smith pretended as if it was all new to him even though he was a long time participant in JournoList. It was just like the W. Bush days when Tim Russert and other Big Media obfuscaters pretended they where not privy to secret facts about Scooter Libby. Tim Russert was “central to the CIA leak case” which involved Scooter Libby but Russert pretended he was Sergeant Schultz (Russert also pretended he was Sergeant Schultz during the Don Imus “ho” scandal).
Instead of telling the truth when the JournoList JournoGate scandal began to unravel with the Weigel scandal, Ben Smith played dumb to dumb down his readers:
“Weigel first had to apologize for a tweet expressing incomprehension of “bigots” who oppose same-sex marriage. He’s now apologized for intemperate, leaked emails sent to a large, private listserv started by his Washington Post colleage, Ezra Klein. [snip]
I quoted him in 2008 as the leading expert on strange Obama smears. He also comes from the Washington tradition of responsible, ideological reporting at places from Reason to The American Prospect that don’t require the sort of formal, careful neutrality that traditional newspaper reporters (like me) grew up with.[snip]
There’s a broader debate in journalism right now over whether reporters should strive for neutrality at all, or whether they should bring their own views and experiences into their writing. The Post’s Klein, Weigel, and Greg Sargent (along with the fired Dan Froomkin) are the latter model, along with those at newer outlets from TPM to the Breitbart empire. Most of the rest of the Post’s political reporters, and most of us at POLITICO, are the former. My personal view is that ideological and neutral journalism can flourish side by side, each going places the other is unwelcome, and each correcting for the other’s weaknesses. (And neutral reporters don’t have to be allergic to ideology: I’m on Journolist, Klein’s off-record listserv; I also get in on private conservative conversations when they’ll have me.)[snip]
One thing nobody argues is that publications should misrepresent and misidentify their own reporters.”
Ben Smith thinks he is objective? He has guzzled so much Hopium he can be classified by the DEA as a drug mule. Ben Smith did not report about JournoList until this week and did not tell his readers what they needed to know – facts he knew about back in 2008 and which he did not report in 2008. Ben Smith was on JournoList as were many of Politico’s supposedly “straight news” reporters but not one wrote in 2008 or ever about the strategy of JournoList participants to label as “racist” those who discussed Jeremiah Wright and were not duped by Obama’s “race speech” which did not answer any of the questions raised about Obama’s 20 years plus relationship with the toxic reverend.
Yesterday Ben Smith continued to deceive his readers and Politico continued to deceive their readers.
I was surprised to read on The Daily Caller yesterday that a POLITICO colleague of mine was among those “participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.” [snip]
So I asked Zenilman, my former assistant on this blog, who left POLITICO in November 2008, what he’d written. He dredged up the e-mails, which came in response to others’ angry comments about ABC’s moderation of a presidential primary debate. (Carlson also sent them to VandeHei.) [snip]
The sloppy line in The Daily Caller, though, gets at a real, and reasonable, concern that I’ve heard from readers and commentators: A handful of POLITICO reporters, myself included, were members of the now-defunct listserv, which has been portrayed at times as a kind of cabal aimed at, among other goals, doing physical harm to Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh and destroying Fox News. (POLITICO was also the first publication to report on the list, much to the dismay of some of its participants, and that piece remains a useful explanation of what Journolist was.)
As I’ve written before, my view is that I’ll listen in on any conversation that I’m allowed to listen in on. [snip]
But I’m also sensitive to the perception from readers that, in particular, admission to a conversation itself reflects some kind of tacit stamp of ideological approval, though participating in that list certainly didn’t require any overt test. I asked POLITICO editor-in-chief John Harris for his thoughts on the question.
“I understand why people are troubled. The very fact that you’re let on suggests that they’re accepting you into a club,” he said, adding that he had not “seen anything on Journolist that compromises POLITICO.”
“I knew you were on it, I knew Mike Allen was on it,” he said. “It seemed appropriate to me to have you following a conversation where you might learn something germane,” he said, adding, that he understood, accurately, that we were there “more as observers than as participants in an ideological conversation.”
But Harris also said he agrees with Andrew Sullivan’s criticism of the list, which is more intellectual than ethical.
“[S]ocialized groupthink is not the answer to what’s wrong with the media. It’s what’s already wrong with the media,” Sullivan wrote.
Harris said he worried about “cliquishness” and “groupthink.”
“This is true for reporters and even for ideological commentators: You don’t play on one team or another — you play on your own team,” he said.
I don’t have particularly strong feelings on where and how ideologues should have conversations with one another, and it doesn’t seem like a terribly pressing issue. The list was free of the sort of effective coordination some critics allege, and many of its participants disagreed with one another bitterly, while others on the list mostly lurked silently. I can’t recall any substantive difference between what people wrote privately and publicly. Like many private e-mail conversations, it had no shortage of stray inflammatory and ill-advised comments, and many, many more mundane ones.
I’d add only one thing: I never found out any good secrets on Journolist. It wasn’t that kind of list. But to get the flavor of it, you can read conversation that mirrors it on Twitter. That platform — although it’s in principle open and democratic — in fact reflects more or less the same virtues of hashing out ideas and the dangers of the herd mentality.
Ben Smith is either delusional or a liar. He says he never found any “good secrets” at JournoList nor was he troubled by the “groupthink”. He apparently found nothing “germane”. But the fact remains that a coordinated campaign to label Hillary Supporters and any opponent of Barack Obama as “racists” – by the Left wing of the journalism establishment! – is one hellava story – if Ben Smith had reported it at the time of the “bitter and clingy” Pennsylvania primary!
Ben Smith pretends JournoList was a silly collection of Drudge and Limbaugh haters and killers but the story is much more nefarious than the strawman Smith builds then knocks down. We corrected the not functioning link in the Ben Smith article which he claims as some sort of badge of honor for Politico because they were “the first publication to report on the list”. What Ben Smith fails to mention is that that “report on the list” came in 2009 well after the information would have been useful to the Hillary Campaign and the McCain/Palin campaign.
The article from 2009, (written by Michael Calderone, who’s beat was the Media) which Ben Smith lauds is quite comic as a defense:
“For the past two years, several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics have talked stories and compared notes in an off-the-record online meeting space called JournoList.
Proof of a vast liberal media conspiracy?
Not at all, says Ezra Klein, the 24-year-old American Prospect blogging wunderkind who formed JournoList in February 2007. “Basically,” he says, “it’s just a list where journalists and policy wonks can discuss issues freely.” [snip]
But some of the journalists who participate in the online discussion say — off the record, of course — that it has been a great help in their work. On the record, The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin acknowledged that a Talk of the Town piece — he won’t say which one — got its start in part via a conversation on JournoList. And JLister Eric Alterman, The Nation writer and CUNY professor, said he’s seen discussions that start on the list seep into the world beyond. [snip]
Last April, criticism of ABC’s handling of a Democratic presidential debate took shape on JList before morphing into an open letter to the network, signed by more than 40 journalists and academics — many of whom are JList members.
But beyond these specific examples, it’s hard to trace JList’s influence in the media, because so few JListers are willing to talk on the record about it.
POLITICO contacted nearly three dozen current JList members for this story. The majority either declined to comment or didn’t respond to interview requests — and then returned to JList to post items on why they wouldn’t be talking to POLITICO about what goes on there.”
Calderone should have talked to Ben Smith, or Mike Allen, or Laura Rozen. To his credit, Calderone did disclose some of the JournoList members such as Allen and Smith. But Mike Allen who has been lauded repeatedly as the “most influential journalist in DC” never confessed the secrets of JournoList when it mattered. Indeed Calderone mostly focuses on the opinion writers of JournoList but downplays that “straight news reporters” were members of JournoList. These many “straight news reporters” failed to mention the “call them racists” strategy but neither Calderone, nor Smith, nor Allen thought that race-baiting was news.
We need a full list of the “straight news reporters” who failed to inform their readers of the pro-Obama race-baiting “call them racists” strategy that was deployed against Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and John McCain and Sarah Palin:
“One byproduct of that secrecy: For all its high-profile membership — which includes Nobel Prize-winning columnist Paul Krugman; staffers from Newsweek, POLITICO, Huffington Post, The New Republic, The Nation and The New Yorker; policy wonks, academics and bloggers such as Klein and Matthew Yglesias — JList itself has received almost no attention from the media.
A LexisNexis search for JournoList reveals exactly nothing.“
As we noted in our previous article, the Head Kook of DailyKooks killed a newsworthy story about his friend and business partner Jerome Armstrong (both were involved in the politically equivalent variant of a “pump and dump” scheme which mimicked the real life stock “pump and dump” scam Armstrong was prosecuted over) using a listserve called Townhouse. The difference between Townhouse and JournoList is denied but the denial is an obvious lie:
“Several members volunteered that JList is unlike listservs such as Townhouse, the private, activist-oriented group formed by liberal blogger Matt Stoller.
“No one’s pushing an agenda,” said Toobin. [snip]
John Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic, described JList in an e-mail as “a virtual coffeehouse” where participants get a chance to talk and argue.[snip]
“It’s sort of a chance to float ideas and kind of toss them around, back and forth, and determine if they have any value,” said New Republic associate editor Eve Fairbanks, “and get people’s input on them before you put them on a blog.”
Indeed, the advantage of JList, members say, is that it provides a unique forum for getting in touch with historians and policy people who provide journalists with a knowledge base for articles and blog posts. [snip]
Alterman said it’s important that there are “people with genuine expertise” on the list.”
Comically, Calderone does discuss the JournoGate scandal to come:
“But what if all the private exchanges got leaked?
That’s been the subject of some JList conversation, too, as members discuss the Weekly Standard’s publication of a 2006 e-mail posted to the private China Security Listserv by diplomat Charles Freeman, who last week withdrew his name from consideration for a top intelligence job.
Michael Goldfarb, a former McCain staffer and conservative blogger who published the e-mail, was not part of the China list and therefore hadn’t agreed to any off-the-record rules.
Asked about the existence of conservative listservs, Goldfarb said they’re much less prevalent.
“There is nothing comparable on the right. E-mail conversations among bloggers, journalists and experts on our side tend to be ad hoc,” Goldfarb said. “The JournoList thing always struck me as a little creepy.”
Kaus, too, has seemed put off by the whole idea, once talking on BloggingHeads about how the list “seems contrary to the spirit of the Web.”
“You don’t want to create a whole separate, like, private blog that only the elite bloggers can go into, and then what you present to the public is sort of the propaganda you’ve decided to go public with,” Kaus argued.”
It’s creepy because it’s a CARTEL. A cartel, which like Townhouse, suppresses news. It’s a cartel which produces propaganda and suppresses news and information.
As to the “expertise”, that is a fiction. A law professor “expert” on JournoList suggested Fox News be suppressed with coercive government action on a list populated with those protected by the First Amendment. The “expertise” consisted of incorrect and silly understanding about cable television as opposed to broadcast television (and don’t miss Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer’s hysteria and ahistorical musings).
The members of the Big Media Cartel that did not inform readers of the race-baiting JournoList should be fired. There is no excuse for those who failed to live up to the First Amendment responsibilities while enjoying First Amendment protection when they failed to report about the “call them racists” strategy.
“Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal.”
The list of those who should be fired is being compiled:
“ALLEGED JOURNALISTS WORKING BEHIND THE SCENES, UNKNOWN TO THEIR READERS AND LISTENERS, TO ADVANCE ONE CANDIDATE, TO SUPPRESS NEWS WHEN IT REFLECTED POORLY ON BARACK AND TO LAUNCH ATTACKS TO DISTRACT?
THAT’S NOT JOURNALISM. WE’VE SEEN THAT BEHAVIOR BEFORE — IN THE FILM “THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT.”
WE PROPOSE AN IMMEDIATE STEP TO TAKE, MAKE A LIST.”
Ben Smith and fellow Hopium Guzzler might defend themselves with the “no news” about race-baiting “call them racists”, “ignore Wright” defense. But other Big Media outlets realize Ben Smith and the Hopium Guzzling he represents is wrong and violates the spirit of the First Amendment. Race baiting is news and it is wrong:
“Excerpts published Tuesday by a conservative online news site suggest that a group of journalists from the mainstream media discussed ways to shield Barack Obama from criticism during the 2008 presidential election.
Among the strategies put forward: call conservative critics racists.”
SORRY – WRONG AGAIN. It was Hillary Clinton supporters targeted by the “call them racists” strategy. Yes, the names the JournoList participants invoked were Fred Barnes and other Republicans, – but this occurred in the context of the Pennsylvania DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. THE TARGET WAS THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN. The race-baiting which we began to discuss long, long ago (see HERE for “the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the “race-baiter card” launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada” article by Sean Wilentz) is ongoing:
“Now, conservative commentators are pointing to the JournoList excerpts as proof that the mainstream media collude to promote a liberal agenda, play the race card, and discredit conservative movements like the tea party.
“The [JournoList] is troubling,” says Jim Campbell, a political science professor at the State University of New York (SUNY) in Buffalo. “At one level it could be thought of as just colleagues throwing ideas out to one another, but from another standpoint it almost looks like collusion … where virtual talking points are shared and solidified in a group.”
“That can’t be healthy for the country – or for the media, for that matter,” he says.
JournoList: What is it?
The list was created by the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein and, and several hundred self-described liberals joined before it was shut down recently.[snip]
When conservatives were criticizing Mr. Obama for his connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in 2008, some JournoList members discussed a counterstrategy.
The Daily Caller writes that Spencer Ackerman, then 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, Mr. Ackerman wrote, ‘Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists.’ “
The JournoList story is a great scoop for the Daily Caller, but doesn’t necessarily indicate a broader media conspiracy, says Mike Hoyt, editor of the Columbia Journalism Review. [snip]
To conservatives, a smoking gun
To some conservatives, however, the Daily Caller excerpts are a smoking gun, showing that the media is not a neutral arbiter in refereeing racial spitball fights like the one that has broken out between the NAACP and the tea party.
“What the Daily Caller has unearthed proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that most media organizations are either complicit by participation in the treachery that is JournoList, or are guilty of sitting back and watching...,” writes conservative firebrand Andrew Breitbart.
Such criticisms are fair, says Professor Campbell at SUNY Buffalo.
“To some extent [some] media have been successful in [playing the race card],” he says. “You have people now talking about the tea party and others in terms of this race issue, and that in itself deflects from what the tea party people are really concerned about, which is out-of-control federal spending and excessive intrusion of government. To the extent that the press, even by suggesting that race is an issue, if it gets everybody talking about the tea party in those terms, they have been successful.”
At the same time, Campbell says, the race card may have been so overplayed that it no longer has much of an effect on how Americans think or act.
“I think a lot of people don’t take it very seriously anymore,” he says.”
Real racism is diluted and real racism victims are hurt by the race-baiting in defense of Chicago’s Barack Obama. The question which remains to be answered is whether indeed the race card has been so diluted that Obama cannot use it in 2012 or in a possible primary challenge.
That question remains to be answered (and we will attempt to answer it soon). What we do know now is that JournoList JournoGate helped kill the Jeremiah Wright story at a moment of great peril for Barack Obama. We do know that JournoList JournoGate had no qualms about government force against Fox News and that the alleged post racial America to be ushered in by Obama is now the all-racial-all-the-time cesspool many of us warned about (how long before Charlie Rangel, or his supporters, decides to race-bait?). We do know that the “Obamagasms” of election night 2008 by JournoGate JournoList turned many brains to “jelly” (Michael Tomasky – “I’m just jelly. Lord!).
We know that the latest JournoList JournoGate revelations about Sarah Palin involve Hillary Clinton:
“Ed Kilgore, managing editor of the Democratic Strategist blog, argued that journalists and others trying to help the Obama campaign should focus on Palin’s beliefs. “The criticism of her really, really needs to be ideological, not just about experience. If we concede she’s a ‘maverick,’ we will have done John McCain an enormous service. And let’s don’t concede the claim that [Hillary Clinton] supporters are likely to be very attracted to her,” Kilgore said.”
The very people who tried to kill the Wright story during the Pennsylvania Democratic primaries dared preach about what Hillary Supporters thought. The sexists and misogynists who race-baiting for Obama over Hillary then sought to claim that the McCain choice of Sarah Palin was “sexist. Sarah Palin knows these are “sick puppies” – Hillary needs to understand the same thing. Avi Zenilman, the Politico co-worker of Ben Smith, the one Ben Smith found no problem in participation in JournoList wrote:
“Zenilman of Politico, a purportedly nonpartisan journalist, weighed in with tactical advice: “The experience attack is a stupid one. It’s absolutely the wrong tack — the tack that McCain took when he was losing, and that Hillary and Biden took all primaries.” Zenilman said Wednesday he was offering “typical offhand political analysis.”
Some right-wing bloggers and left-wing idiots might delude themselves that this was all “political analysis” by opinion writers (of course you have to ignore the Chris Hayes quote from above). But this was news suppression and a cartel seeking to control the news Americans heard.
This left wing cartel was even more effective than the right wing imagines because these were the writers most Democrats voting in the Democratic primary read for their “news”. But it was not news. It was pro-Obama propaganda which hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign and smeared Hillary Supporters all.
The right wing probably does not care about the smears against Hillary Supporters. But if we all don’t learn from the race-baiting of 2008, we’ll never get the leaders we need.
We don’t intend to forget, nor shut up about JournoGate and the race-baiting of 2008.