Lewis Carroll lurks

It’s Alice Through the Looking Glass here this morning. I spent a few more minutes over at The Corner and found this post. So you don’t have to actually dip your toe in, here’s the post in its entirety:

“The Daily Caller Should Release the Full JournoList Threads   [Daniel Foster]

I’m not sure how the Daily Caller obtained e-mail threads from “JournoList.” I don’t know whether they are in possession of the whole archive or merely snippets. And I don’t know if it is Jonathan Strong or Tucker Carlson who controls them. But if either are both have the threads in which the comments they’ve reported originally appear, it is incumbent on them to release those threads to the public.

The DC has crossed a kind of Rubicon in deciding to print e-mails from an off-the-record distribution list. There is probably a good journalistic (and undoubtedly a good financial) argument for doing so. But to avoid charges of sensationalism, the public should be able to see the context in which the most incendiary remarks were made. It won’t change the indiscriminate call to brand conservative critics of Obama as “racists” or the intemperate wish for Rush Limbaugh’s untimely demise. But it will reveal whether such comments were aberrations, and make clear how other members of the list responded to them at the time.

It is especially important for Carlson to back up the impression of the list conveyed by the stories he’s published, since HuffPo’s Sam Stein revealed today that a Daily Caller reporter, now with The Hill, was himself on JournoList while working for Carlson. That reporter, Gautham Nagesh, told Stein:

“I joined Journolist after [it was exposed in a Politico article] hoping to get an inside view of the left wing media conspiracy,” he told the Huffington Post. “And unfortunately all I found was a wonkish listserv of like-minded people discussing topics that interested them. I found it extremely useful for putting me in contact with sources and exposing me to a side of the blogosphere I wasn’t well connected with.”

So I say again to Tucker and Jonathan: release the threads.”

 

30 responses to “Lewis Carroll lurks

  1. But if either are both have the threads in which the comments they’ve reported originally appear, it is incumbent on them to release those threads to the public.

    This sounds like the NAACP thing going on….

    This is a JournList thread they obtained. If the JournoList has evidence that they DIDN’T say these things, it’s incumbent upon THEM to show the evidence.

    After all, it’s their list.

    Jeepers.

    Like

    • pino, I think Foster has it just right. It is NOT incumbent on Journolist to prove a negative. It’s incumbent on Tucker Carlson to prove his point.

      Go read Nate Silver on the subject. He details his own experience on journolist. If you’re not familiar with him, he’s pretty wonky and pretty fair.

      http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/07/my-life-on-j-list.html

      Like

      • It’s incumbent on Tucker Carlson to prove his point.

        He did.

        It seems that YOU now have a point that YOU wanna make.

        So. Make it.

        And if you can’t, perhaps you need to consider the alternative; that very far Left Wing journalists have a grudge against Republicans and conservatives.

        Like

        • Well I can take the bait as well as the next guy, but it’s my blog so let me slide the discussion sideways a little. We can come back to the journolist saga (after dinner!).

          Let us stipulate that this and many other silly spats arise out of an insistance that the mainstream media is liberal.

          You may have seen this here before, but I keep wanting to come back to it.

          If my cut and paste ends up looking messy, here’s a link to the original post:
          https://maureenholland.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/it-is-not-the-same/

          BEGIN OLD POST:
          I’ve always thought that we come at this conversation about media bias from the wrong direction entirely. There’s a perfectly normal way to determine, for instance, what the mainstream of Americans consider to be mainstream media. Let’s measure it the way we measure all other products.

          So here – in that most American of ways, I pose a few simple questions:

          Where do Americans put their money?
          What are they willing to pay for.
          Looking at print media:
          (That most frequent target of conservative media, The New York Times, reported a circulation (March 2009) of 1,039,031 copies on weekdays and 1,451,233 copies on Sundays. And the venerable Wall Street Journal has equivalent if not higher weekday numbers. But since the Times is perceived to be ‘liberal’ throughout and the Journal is perceived to be conservative only in its editorial pages, they’re not politically opposite. The Journal is a hybrid. So a comparison would not be useful.)

          NEWSPAPERS
          The Washington Post – A publicly traded company
          Daily audience 1,599,900

          The Washington Times – A privately held company owned by the Rev. Sun Young Moon
          Daily audience 83,511

          MAGAZINES
          The Weekly Standard – a privately held company
          Can’t find circulation numbers, even at their own website, so to keep it fair(ish)
          National Review – a privately held company
          Weekly circulation 183,000

          Time Magazine – A publicly traded company
          Weekly circulation 3,400,000

          I draw the reader’s attention to which of these publications thrive in the free market and which are rich men’s hobbies.

          And note also which of these publications Americans pay good money to read. Keep that in mind the next time politicians and pundits employ their equivalency trick and claim that these sources carry the same weight. Americans are choosing to buy and read what far too many people call liberally biased. So is mainstream America liberal?

          Like

          • Let us stipulate that this and many other silly spats arise out of an insistance that the mainstream media is liberal.

            A score higher than 50 indicates Liberal bias, score less than 50 indicates conservative bias:

            1. Newshour with Jim Lehrer 55.8
            2. CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown 56.0
            3. ABC Good Morning America 56.1
            4. Drudge Report 60.4
            5. Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume 39.7
            6. ABC World News Tonight 61.0
            7. NBC Nightly News 61.6
            8. USA Today 63.4
            9. NBC Today Show 64.0
            10. Washington Times 35.4
            11. Time Magazine 65.4
            12. U.S. News and World Report 65.8
            13. NPR Morning Edition 66.3
            14. Newsweek 66.3
            15. CBS Early Show 66.6
            16. Washington Post 66.6
            17. LA Times 70.0
            18. CBS Evening News 73.7
            19. New York Times 73.7
            20. Wall Street Journal 85.1

            There are two, TWO, conservative leaning outlets on the list. Fox being the 5th most centrist.

            You need another meme.

            Like

            • Sez who? Who drew up the score? Based on what criteria? And when fer gods’ sake – I see Aaron Brown there and he’s been off the air for years – .

              In any case, the entire list is apples and oranges. Drudge with a network morning show? Newspapers vs TV?

              My point in any case, which this odd list seems to reinforce, is that the outlets/products most described as ‘liberal’ are also the most popular with people.

              Like

            • Sez who? Who drew up the score?

              UCLA. That stronghold of conservative thought.

              My point in any case, which this odd list seems to reinforce, is that the outlets/products most described as ‘liberal’ are also the most popular with people.

              Less and less so.

              Like

  2. Seems like everyone is distracted with “racism” and he said, she said meanwhile we take our eye off the ball about how bad the corporations continue to screw us over. Mission Accomplished for the powers that be!

    Like

  3. Boy. JP Douglas hit the nail on the head. Anyway, the newspapers seems pretty right-wing biased to me, except the Times. How anyone can argue otherwise is beyond me. Hey Moe: There is an ellaborate theory out there claiming Lewis Carrol was Jack the Ripper. It is said that his books are filled with anagrams describing how he murdered the 5 women. You can read about it here: http://www.casebook.org/ Just go to suspects. Choose Lewis Carroll.

    Like

    • nyway, the newspapers seems pretty right-wing biased to me, except the Times.

      Could that be because you are a Left Wing loon?

      Check my list above.

      The Wall Street Journal for chriz’sakes is the, THE, most Liberal outlet listed.

      Like

  4. e-mail threads from “JournoList.”

    So, okay. Late to this story. If true, do you object to an organized group of journalists in REAL media privately getting together to “plan” the news surrounding elections?

    Again, if true.

    Like

    • Dont’ beleive that was happening even on journolist. If a few of the 400 showed activist partisan stripes, I’d expect that. But that is NOT hte way the list behaved.

      You’re joining the chorus of those calling it conspiracy, based on what a small minority of people do.

      Like

      • If a few of the 400 showed activist partisan stripes, I’d expect that. But that is NOT hte way the list behaved.

        So you are A-OK with Fox behaving in the manner THEY behave?

        It really kinda looks like at least some main stream media writers actually planned on what to say and who to say it about.

        Not concerning to you?

        Like

        • [So you are A-OK with Fox behaving in the manner THEY behave?]

          Nope, and I’m not okay with MSNBC behaving the way they behave.

          Journolist made no pretensions however of being a journalistic outlet – it was professionals talking to each other.

          A hundred years ago, FOX and MSNBC and the WSJ editorial page and The Nation and The Weekly Standard would have been considered pale cousins to the newspapers that were out there in those days.

          And I’ve no doubt that ‘some’ MSM writers have always talked to each other, even about how to approach stories. On both sides. They’ve always done it, but it’s always been background noise. This week it’s the story.

          You’re too smart for outrage. This thing will pass as soon as some blond has a fainting spell or breaks up with her boyfriend or gets murdered or something. That, my friend, is really what passes for news these days.

          Like

    • So, okay. Late to this story.

      Jeepers. The more I read on this the worse it’s getting.

      Moe, really? Do you have any evidence that would suggest these JournoList folks DIDN’T do what they have been accused of?

      Like

      • pino, I just went to journolist itself. DIdn’t try to sign up, just visited. While there, I saw a bunch of links to other journalist discussion groups. Most hosted as Google Groups (One of my volunteer proojects uses Google Groups and we chat there all the itme.

        Here’s a link to the Yahoo group.
        http://www.honk.co.uk/fleetstreet/forum.htm

        Since this keeps coming up I’m going to do some surfing and reading to see what I can see about the actual content – or at least the context for what we’ve seen so far.

        Like

      • I have read at Ezra Klein’s blog (he’s the founder) that it was set up explicity as a left leaning project. Which is fine if it served primarily as a dicussion site. He – and others – point out that the majority of the dialogue was people seeking information about areas that were not their speciality for stories they were writing or covering. They’d turn to those whose ‘beat’ it was and say ‘who should I talk to, what should I know before I go in there’ etc. Which is only good practices.

        I’ll get back to you.

        Like

      • I just read a column by Kathleen Parker whom I consider pretty much a middle of the road columnist – usually considered to lean right, but I’ve always found her pretty straight.

        Anyway, she has a good one up today on the subject and as a real journalilst with decades of experience, her opinions have credibility .

        Here’s her column.
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072304131.html

        She calls the whole kefluffle a ‘tempest in Barbie’s teacup.” But she addresses it becuase it’s gotten so much attention. And she give one example of what’s causing the outrage. From the column:

        “On the question of context, I have room only for one example, but more can be found on [Ezra] Klein’s blog on washingtonpost.com.

        “One of the most widely circulated is that these lefties were conspiring to get the government to shut down Fox News. Well, one member — a UCLA law professor no one ever heard of (Jonathan Zasloff, sorry) — did write something to that effect. But it was a query about whether the Federal Communications Commission could pull the network’s broadcasting permit once it expires for, in liberals’ view, espousing a political agenda.

        “Whereupon, Michael Scherer of Time responded:

        “You really want political parties/white houses picking and choosing which news organizations to favor?”

        “Even so, the headline was that liberals want to shut down Fox News, which is not precisely an accurate rendering of a non-conversation. And there was no further discussion on the subject at Journolist.

        “Scandalous? Sure, if you want it to be. If you pull a few remarks from tens of thousands posted by 400 people over a few years, you can frame a debate any way you wish.”

        HER column is link rich if you want to read it.

        Like

      • One of the most widely circulated is that these lefties were conspiring to get the government to shut down Fox News.

        Actually I think the bigger story is the reaction to Reverend Wright. JournoList contributors are actually planning on how to cover the story in order to protect Obama.

        They are not asking about details or checkin’ facts. They aren’t firming up a lost detail or asking for help in opening a door to an interview. They are planning on how best “non report” the story.

        In any event, Ms. Parker goes on to mention that the same strategy can work for Rush and for Foxnews. I’ll be happy to point this out to you in the future as Conservative voices are discussed 😉

        Like

        • Glad you read the column. How about a link for the Jeremiah Wright, protect Obama stuff?

          Like

        • How about a link for the Jeremiah Wright, protect Obama stuff?

          http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/

          Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

          “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

          “Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”

          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.

          “It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.

          Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.

          That’s just page one of The DC’s article.

          Like

          • Actually pino, your outtake above is one of my favorite and one I actually posted about.

            In that post, I said: “. . . . there’s a new twist which has inspired hours of radio time, the usual FOX treatment and an explosion of right wing outrage in the blogshpere. The indignity – the thing which has set them off – has to do with comments on the list serve following the 2008 Presidential debates, where George Stephanopolous grilled Obama about Rev. Wright and also why he [Obama] didnt’ wear a flag pin. At the time, a number of media critics and list serve participants took issue with that, charging the two moderators with a failure to address or ask about the pressing issues of the day.

            My post: https://maureenholland.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/4488/

            I also referenced a Greg Mitchell column at Editor & Publisher which addressed the matter directly:

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/the-debate-a-shameful-nig_b_97122.html

            “In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues, as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.”

            That’s what it was about. Not supporting Obama, but supporting more substantive journalism.

            Like

  5. Pino: Nothing amuses me more then being called a “left-wing loon” by a neo-con for merely pointing out a fair and balanced opinion. No, I suggest that YOU are guilty of looking at the various media outlets through your own right-wing bias. I don’t know you, but I can safely assume that you’re not a rich man. You, like many of your kind, are fighting on the wrong side. Fools! The Elites have Fox News singing their tunes, and you hapless idiots are humming it on the way to your own destruction. How amusing!

    Like

    • Tex, nice blog!

      I can safely assume that you’re not a rich man.

      You know what? It never occurred to me to judge a person’s opinions by the amount of money they do or don’t make.

      Typical Liberal.

      Like

  6. That wasn’t the point, genius. The point was that you are not a rich man, but yet you continue to argue in favor of advancing regressive politcal theory that only rich men can benefit from. You know, Pino, if the basic fundamentals of political reasoning and the economic tendencies among voter make-up go over your head to such a degree that you would misconstrue the meaning of such a basic point, I don’t think that there is anything to gain by conversing with you further. Typical Conservative Idiot.

    Like

    • That wasn’t the point, genius.

      Gotcha; I’m a genius. Thank you.

      you are not a rich man

      But I am poor; keep goin’….

      I don’t think that there is anything to gain by conversing with you further.

      Good; I have lot’s to get done today.

      Idiot.

      What happened to genius, Tex? You’re a hard one to understand. Maybe you are really TWO people taking turns writing sentences?

      Like

  7. Oh, I get it. Typical Conservative tactics. You understood perfectly well what I meant earlier. And since there was of course no means to refute my statement logically, you veered the discussion off track. Much like your attempting to do again. Good day, sir. Let me know how your rich white masters treat you…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s