The conversation reveals that journalists are not only colluding to shape the news in favor of one political ideology, but more than willing to use their influence in an attempt to silence those they see as obstacles to their machinations.

Two things. One the article seems to conflate msm journalists and bloggers, they should be, I think you'd agree, held to different standards.

Two, do you honestly believe journalists at the Washington Times, Fox, NewsMax, and right wing bloggers don't try to shape the news or silence critics? Of course they do.

I should have added this, sorry for making this two posts.

When I read those quotes I see people upset about the guilt by association, not a cover up of Obama's words. Did you and FOX give extensive coverage to the video of Palin getting an anti-witchcraft or whatever blessing at her church, no, and why should you, it's dumb stuff that has nothing at all to do with the real issues. Like her support (at the time) of TARP and cap and trade -- two other stories I don't see the right pushing when it came to McCain or Palin. So what?

Jim -

I'm sorry to disagree with your answer on the second issue. Collusion to suppress and purposely provide misinformation is against any honorable journalist's ethics. I would love to find an instance of purposeful misinformation from Washington Times, Fox, NewsMax, WSJ, et.al.

Did those journalists purposely provide misinformation, or where they saying the (to them) non-story shouldn't get repeated?

I can give you plenty of examples of stories where Fox et. al report only one side vigorously and either do not mention the other side at all or do so in passing. Off the top of my head compare the way Fox handled the "Climategate" emails, and the two reports from PSU and the UK that came out this month saying no wrong doing had been done by the researchers. Which story did you see on Fox, and which one did you not see?

Here we actually have "private" email, have we ever gotten to see what Fox et. al. execs and jornos are saying behind the scenes? Nope.

Jim:

Look up the tu quoque fallacy, then get back to us.

Um, the story actually says that a handful of people from JournoList were frustrated at the amount and tone of coverage of Reverend Wright, to the exclusion of coverage of policy; about 10% of the list's members then coordinated to write an open letter to ABC about the questions in a Democratic primary debate. Not that "the roughly 400 JournoList members conspired behind a common cause."

And you can see how powerful these people are, since they successfully buried the story about Jeremiah Wright.

ECM,

Ah yes, the tu quoque fallacy. Like when the Tea Party is accused by the NAACP of having racist members, they right starts talking about racists in the NAACP. I'm familiar with the concept.

Evan, well said.

It's hilarious to see someone proudly waving a Confederate Flag throwing the word treason around because some bloggers thought the Wright story was inconsequential BS.

"I can give you plenty of examples of stories where Fox et. al report only one side vigorously and either do not mention the other side at all or do so in passing."

But mommy! Fox is doing it tooo!

As someone else pointed out, come back when you've got something better than tu quoques rattling around in that little head of yours. You'd even embarrass 0bama himself.

"Um, the story actually says that a handful of people from JournoList were frustrated at the amount and tone of coverage of Reverend Wright, to the exclusion of coverage of policy"

...and so they tried to suppress the story, as CY pointed out.

Keep repeating the misdirection about how the "tone" and "volume" of the coverage on Rev. Goddam America was cause for concern. It sounds SO much more convincing coming from you.

“Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

InstaPundit & PajamasMedia asks …

Is this quote from Spencer Ackerman evidence of actual malice? Could it be invoked in a future libel case against Ackerman or his employer to show a habit of recklessness?

Nine-of,

Who suppressed the story? People expressed the opinion that the story wasn't worth reporting. Who was stopped from reporting it? One name will suffice.

CY said here a number of times that he thinks the Birther issue is crap, that's not treason, that's not suppression, that's his opinion. Tu quoque that.

"Who was stopped from reporting it? One name will suffice."

Go find someone else to dance to your tune. I'm not giving you any names because you are trying to set up a classic false logical dilemma and prove a hypothetical you created. The claim is that there was a broad attempt to suppress the story - NOT that an individual reporter was stopped from reporting on the controversy.

This false dilemma is almost (but not quite) as stupid as Evan implying that the suppression is insignificant because the coverage of Rev. Wright was not completely suppressed.

Don't bring up the "birther" controversy to try and misdirect. You deal red herrings like Affirmative Action Jeebus runs a country, or like how Rev. Goddam America teaches scripture - in other words, not very well.

OK Nine, who did this broad group try and keep from reporting the story, and how did they go about trying to keep the story from getting out. Besides of course voicing their opinion of the story. How did this broad attempt manifest itself?

People personally not covering a story do not suppress others from covering it. To suppress someone you have to have the means to stop them from doing something. You made the claim, support it. Who had the means, what were those means, and how were they applied?

Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.

That's what counts as "upping the ante" in this made up scandal of suppression and treason. A smart statement expressing disgust. The horrors.

“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.”

They wanted to...point out factual inaccuracies. Gasp!

In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say “be sure to read” a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.

She wanted someone to read something printed in a newspaper. I can't believe this could happen in the USA.

And so on. Yawn.

"OK Nine, who did this broad group try and keep from reporting the story, and how did they go about trying to keep the story from getting out. Besides of course voicing their opinion of the story. How did this broad attempt manifest itself?"

Heh. Maybe you missed a crucial part of my post:

I. am. not. giving. any. names.

You dense tool.

All the information needed to know what kind of suppression went on is in CY's original post. You're not smart enough to construct a good logical fallacy - do try and brush up on your skills. Again: you construct fallacies like Jeebus-boy writes Law Review articles. And no, that's not a compliment. :)

A skirt-chasing piece of scum like Wright is at least intellectually honest, in a way - I'll give him that. Maybe you could learn something from his forthrightness.

Jim, this is the journalists creed:
"I believe in the profession of journalism.

I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.

I believe that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.

I believe that a journalist should write only what he holds in his heart to be true.

I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible.

I believe that no one should write as a journalist what he would not say as a gentleman; that bribery by one's own pocketbook is as much to be avoided as bribery by the pocketbook of another; that individual responsibility may not be escaped by pleading another's instructions or another's dividends.

I believe that advertising, news and editorial columns should alike serve the best interests of readers; that a single standard of helpful truth and cleanness should prevail for all; that the supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its public service.

I believe that the journalism which succeeds best -- and best deserves success -- fears God and honors Man; is stoutly independent, unmoved by pride of opinion or greed of power, constructive, tolerant but never careless, self-controlled, patient, always respectful of its readers but always unafraid, is quickly indignant at injustice; is unswayed by the appeal of privilege or the clamor of the mob; seeks to give every man a chance and, as far as law and honest wage and recognition of human brotherhood can make it so, an equal chance; is profoundly patriotic while sincerely promoting international good will and cementing world-comradeship; is a journalism of humanity, of and for today's world."

See any faults with the actions of the journalists?

BTW, don't bring up the Climategate reviews unless you are ready to defend a review of self, by your friends and family (family may be a slight stretch) while locking out/ignoring any external evidence or testimony. Muir/Russell is turning into a UK embarrassment.

Nine,

I quoted directly from the article to prove my point -- they talked about writing statements and fact checking articles that spoke out against the comments on ABC. One blogger, one, talked about playing the race card to confuse the issue. One. That's not broad, that's not suppression, that's one idiot blogger making a stupid comment. Not exactly news.

Instead of all your bluster and insults why don't you quote something from the article that supports the idea that a broad group (or anyone!) tried to suppress the story. Actually I know why you haven't, you can't, so insult away and pretend no one notices.

CoRev,

See above. They gave written and spoken critiques of comments made on ABC. That's not suppression or treason.

What's most funny in all this is that accusing journalists of treason -- a capital crime -- for speaking out against a story is more of an attempt at suppression as anything suggested in the original article.

the article seems to conflate msm journalists and bloggers, they should be, I think you'd agree, held to different standards.

You seem to have missed the fact that the lefty bloggers and lefty msm journalists and lefty college professors who teach journalism all talk in exactly the same way. They don't hold themselves to different standards!

Ah yes, the tu quoque fallacy. Like when the Tea Party is accused by the NAACP of having racist members, they right starts talking about racists in the NAACP. I'm familiar with the concept.

If you think that's a example of the tu quoque fallacy then you are not familiar with the concept.

A tu quoque fallacy is when, for instance, the left accuses the Tea Party of racism for objecting to the Democrats economic agenda on the grounds they dd not object to the GOP's economic policy.

When the Breibart notes that the NAACP is racist, that's not a fallacy of any sort. It's just a fact.

some bloggers thought the Wright story was inconsequential BS.

You're a pathological liar, like everyone on the left. if you bothered to read what you're supposedly commenting on you'd notice that we're not talking about "bloggers". We're talking about Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent, Michael Tomasky of the Guardian, Todd Gitlin - who is a journalism professor at Columbia, Sarah Spitz - a producer at NPR, Thomas Schaller - a professor of political science, and many other similar figures.

flenser,

The whole point of the article is that liberals are accused of trying to do something awful to the liberals at ABC. Your argument about them all thinking alike doesn't make much sense in this context -- unless you're claiming ABC is not part of the liberal msm.

As per the tu quoque let's go straight to wiki:

You-too version

This form of the argument is as follows:

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.

Example:

"He cannot accuse me of libel because he was just successfully sued for libel."

Substitute being racist for libel in the above and it's the TEA (and CYs) response to the NAACP.

I just quoted many of the journalists you named above, they were talking -- in private -- about writing responses to ABC's story. Quote one of them doing something worse than discussing how to respond to the story and we'll have something to talk about.

Quote one of them doing something worse than discussing how to respond to the story

They're not supposed to be "responding to the story", you ninny. That itself is the problem. There is no part of the journalists job-description which includes "responding to stories you don't like".

Substitute being racist for libel in the above

Ok

"He cannot accuse me of being racist because he was just successfully sued for being racist."

and it's the TEA (and CYs) response to the NAACP.

No, its not, for several reasons.

1) The NAACP cannot accuse the Tea Party of being racist because the Tea Party is not racist.

2) The Tea Party has not actually accused the NAACP of racism.

3) The NAACP really is racist.

Using your "logic", if the Nazi Party accused America of genocide, it would be a 'tu quoque fallacy' for Americans to point out that in fact the Nazi Party is genocidal.

You're making the logical error known as the "lefty fallacy", which goes:

"If we accuse those guys on the right of doing what we are guilty of ourselves, then they will be barred from accusing us of it".

That does not logically follow.

They're not supposed to be "responding to the story", you ninny. That itself is the problem. There is no part of the journalists job-description which includes "responding to stories you don't like".

You're confusing journalists with stenographers.

The whole point of the article is that liberals are accused of trying to do something awful to the liberals at ABC. Your argument about them all thinking alike doesn't make much sense in this context -- unless you're claiming ABC is not part of the liberal msm.

I've read those sentences several times, and they remain gibberish. I made no argument about "them" (who is "them"?) all "thinking alike".

You began here by insisting that this story was all about a few lefty bloggers, and now you're arguing that ABC itself is liberal. That's an impressive "advance to the rear" on your part.

You're confusing journalists with stenographers

What part of the job description of journalists involves running interference for Democratic political figures? What part of it involves accusing Republicans of racism in order to deflect attention from a Democrats troubles?

C'mon, jimmy, dazzle me with some of that lefty brilliance of yours.

Ah dude, you said:

You seem to have missed the fact that the lefty bloggers and lefty msm journalists and lefty college professors who teach journalism all talk in exactly the same way. They don't hold themselves to different standards!

In the middle of a story about some lefties attacking ABC. So which is it, do they all "talk exactly the same way", or do they in fact have vastly differing opinions regarding the Wright story? Is ABC liberal msm or not? You want it both ways.

You began here by insisting that this story was all about a few lefty bloggers, and now you're arguing that ABC itself is liberal. That's an impressive "advance to the rear" on your part.

???

ABC made the initial comments, they were the ones supposedly being suppressed by the evil lefties. The "attacks" (articles) were written against ABC. I'm not stating that ABC is liberal, I was assuming you and the rest of the folks here lump them in the liberal msm you mentioned. If you consider ABC to not be part of the liberal msm just say so and I'll be the first to apologize for putting words in your mouth.

In the middle of a story about some lefties attacking ABC. So which is it, do they all "talk exactly the same way", or do they in fact have vastly differing opinions regarding the Wright story? Is ABC liberal msm or not? You want it both ways.

Are you drunk or stoned? The people who "all talk exactly the same way" are the members of the Journolist. That is, the "lefties attacking ABC".

But then, you already knew that. You're just pretending to be an illiterate half-wit.

If you consider ABC to not be part of the liberal msm just say so

You'll forgive me if I don't play along with your pathetic attempt to change the subject.

What part of the job description of journalists involves running interference for Democratic political figures?

The part where journalists try to correct factual inaccuracies, and offer differing opinions as to the news worthiness of guilt by association. An ABC political opinion show offered an opinion about the Wright story. Other journalists responded with their own opinions. That's what they do.

What part of it involves accusing Republicans of racism in order to deflect attention from a Democrats troubles?

You mean the one guy I called an idiot blogger who (once) wrote for the Washington Independent Blog -- oops sorry, online newspaper. ha ha

I called that a bs response, as did others:

“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”

"Don't counter crap with other crap" is exactly what I want my journalist/blogger/writers saying.

So when you said "the lefty bloggers and lefty msm journalists and lefty college professors who teach journalism all talk in exactly the same way" you only meant the ones who are also on journolist. That was not at all clear to me. Or to you at the time you wrote it I suspect.

The only news is what one says is news. I have BEEN saying I would have shot some Senators and reporters for treason had I been President on 9/11. Pelosi would not have survived her bahavior. Traitorous wench.

So when you said "the lefty bloggers and lefty msm journalists and lefty college professors who teach journalism all talk in exactly the same way" you only meant the ones who are also on journolist. That was not at all clear to me.

Duh!

If context was not enough to clue you in (we are talking about the Journolist after all) right after the words you quoted, I told you who I was talking about!

"We're talking about Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent, Michael Tomasky of the Guardian, Todd Gitlin - who is a journalism professor at Columbia, Sarah Spitz - a producer at NPR, Thomas Schaller - a professor of political science, and many other similar figures."

All members of the JournoList. In other words, I SPELLED IT OUT FOR YOU! And you still failed to get it. Go away, you stupid stupid man.

flemser,

Yes, I misunderstood your initial (and vague) comment, get over it.

Now show off your vast intelligence by responding to the substance -- not me. You asked specific questions about the journalism in this case. You claimed journalists should not "respond to stories". I answered them in detail. Please get back to me with your responses. Wow me.

I misunderstood your initial (and vague) comment

Was that the "vague" comment where I specifically listed the people I was talking about?

You asked specific questions about the journalism in this case. You claimed journalists should not "respond to stories". I answered them in detail.

Then your comment answering in detail never got posted. Better send it again.

Was that the "vague" comment where I specifically listed the people I was talking about?

No, the vague comment was in your post from July 21, 2010 11:03 AM, it's two sentences, and it doesn't specifically mention anyone's names or journolist. You are able to read prior posts, right?

Then your comment answering in detail never got posted. Better send it again.

I guess not. It's right there on the screen, from 12:58PM.

Here, I'll post it again for you since it seems to be difficult for you to read some of the posts.

What part of the job description of journalists involves running interference for Democratic political figures?

The part where journalists try to correct factual inaccuracies, and offer differing opinions as to the news worthiness of guilt by association. An ABC political opinion show offered an opinion about the Wright story. Other journalists responded with their own opinions. That's what they do.

What part of it involves accusing Republicans of racism in order to deflect attention from a Democrats troubles?

You mean the one guy I called an idiot blogger who (once) wrote for the Washington Independent Blog -- oops sorry, online newspaper. ha ha

I called that a bs response, as did others:

“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”

"Don't counter crap with other crap" is exactly what I want my journalist/blogger/writers saying.

"I know why you haven't, you can't, so insult away and pretend no one notices. "

lol-I'm glad YOU notice, and that it's getting under your skin. That's all the reward I need. Knowing that this mendacity is all over y'all like stink on a pig, and that all the sobbing about how Breitbart/Confed. Yankee/the "right wing meedjuh" are to blame isn't going to work.

Jim's fallacy construction skills - (1)deny that suppression took place and then (2) try to draw you into satisfying his definition of suppression. Shorter argument: There was no voter suppression unless I say so (I won't), and even though it did occur, it was justified. Logic, much?

Isn't it depressing? To find out that you got rolled, and that your "Post Racial", "Post Partisan" figurehead is a train wreck, and not even a competent one at that? That you're reduced to defending racist incompetents like Holder/0bama/Wright/& so on?

Pathological, slimy liars, all. From the thug in chief to his internet minions. Ladies and gents - still wonder how Teleprompter-boy got elected?

I asked:

What part of the job description of journalists involves running interference for Democratic political figures?

And you respond with:

The part where journalists try to correct factual inaccuracies, and offer differing opinions as to the news worthiness of guilt by association. An ABC political opinion show offered an opinion about the Wright story. Other journalists responded with their own opinions. That's what they do.

I've noticed that even when you correctly quote what I've said, your response to it consists of giving a little speech on a different topic.

If in fact the members of the Journolist showed any interest in correcting factual inaccuracies in general, then you might have a point. But they don't show an interest in doing that in general. They are only interested in doing it if it helps their Democratic Party.

Let me fact check you - it was not an ABC political opinion show, it was a debate sponsored by ABC and conducted by hosts Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. In the course of the debate they asked Obama a couple of questions about Wright and Ayers.

The "journalists" on the JournoList were very upset that anybody dared ask Obama about his shady long term acquaintances, so they threw the hissy-fit under discussion here.

If you have some theory of journalism under which it is the duty of reporters to hide information about presidential candidates from the public, then by all means describe it in detail.

"If you have some theory of journalism under which it is the duty of reporters to hide information about presidential candidates from the public, then by all means describe it in detail."

Oh, don't take it too personally, flenser. Distortion and changing the subject is a crucial part of these cowards' M.O. From the Commander-in-Thief to the lowly scum posting on this site. You can't blame them for their illogic any more than you can blame a cockroach from fouling your house, or a dog from eating its own vomit. It's just what they do when they know they have no leg to stand on (Journolist, the NAACP scandal, etc). And when they face the consequences of their attempts to deceive the public - whether through active bias or lies of ommission, they promptly play the victim.

Speaking of victimhood, look at this AP article, where a left-leaning reuters "journalist" whines about how racial issues "beset" the 0bama administration. As though racial ugliness was not a part of his strategy against Hillary Clinton, McCain, and ultimately the American People themselves. The comments are a hoot.

http://www.reuters.com/article/comments/idUSTRE66K6JN20100721

Guys I quoted the emails in question (Posted by: Jim at July 21, 2010 01:01 AM), it's all there in the article. Three days and neither of you can quote a single comment from the article to support your wild claims of suppression and treason.

You're long on insults and short on evidence. You have the private emails from the "conspirators" and you come up with.... zip. Well played indeed.

"You're long on insults"

You betcha! I try - lol. Anything to get your lip quivering, my friend.

"neither of you can quote a single comment"

Translation: "No fair! You won't play into my pathetic fallacy (I get to define what suppression is, and by definition none of the journalists are guilty of it, because I happen to support their personal political biases)."

Yep - run of the mill pathological liar. Whine a little harder, Jimbo, and maybe I'll bite.

As the drama continues, might I recommend to the non-knuckle draggers out there that you go to Pajamas Media, especially Roger L Simon's page for important posts about this scandal? He has some good excerpts from the archives and even better commentary about what this means for perception of the "news"media.

I'm not upset, I'm embarrassed for you Nine.

The author of the original article had thousands of emails, and he picked out the most damning excerpts to try and make a case. In three pages of his article he has maybe half a page of direct quotes.

CY quotes one guy in his long post. You and flemser quote no one -- it's because the quotes do not match the narrative the author, CY, and you two have invented.

One last try. Quote material from the emails that points to suppression, treason, corruption, surrender of ethics, and all the other scary stuff you guys claim are in there.

Quote the emails.

"I'm embarrassed for you Nine."

Awww...I'm flattered that I'm that freakin' important, you slobbering tool!

"Quote the emails."

And relieve you of your ignorance? Nah - you're funnier the way you are.

Again, to all the non-knuckle draggers, Pajamas Media is the place to go, along with perhaps the Daily Caller itself and isteve.blogspot.com.

Jim:
The followers of the Confederacy were more patriotic than those of the Union. The South's most highly regarded American hero was George Washington. They held government to a higher standard of staying out of people's lives. Something we are going to have to teach our modern politicians.
Do not doubt we shall do it. The drums of war are beating. You have choosen a sorry side with even more sorry ambitions. Those of us in the South are nothing like your ilk. Your type has killed the Republic; the Great Experiment. It is failed.
We have no reson to continue doing things the same way. It is time for a new path. Join it or get out of the way. Marxism has no place here. Facism is the lie the progressives (spit) have bought. Hope to meet y'all soon on the field of honor (if you had any).