Yeah, that’s the problem with JournoList

Those on the Left and the RINO “right” (Frum, Parker, etc.)  are defending JournoList vigorously by saying that there’s nothing wrong with them having opinions and talking amongst friends.  That’s absolutely true.  But that wasn’t what the JournoList people were doing.  IBD sums it up beautifully (emphasis mine):

In essence, all these left-leaning journalists, an estimated 400 in all, used the JournoList site to refine their messages for maximum effect. It was an exercise in mass propaganda, getting everyone to sing from the same ideological hymnal — which explains the tedious sameness of the mainstream media’s 2008 election coverage.

In short, they were fraudulently selling you political opinion and propaganda disguised as fair-minded “news.”

Be Sociable, Share!
  • David Foster

    There are indeed situations in which “sharing opinions among friends” is not okay. If you are a corporate officer or employee with pricing authority, for example, and you share opinion about “what the price ought to be in this industry” with friends who hold similar positions at competitive companies, then you are almost certainly in violation of the antitrust laws.
    What the JournoList people did is probably not illegal, although I do think it raises questions about fiduciary responsibility to their employers shareholders, but is certainly unethical.
    There are certainly many people who voted for Obama who would have voted againsheyt him, or just not voted, had the true nature of his relationship with “Reverend” Wright been properly reported, for example. If the Republican Party organization was competent, which it is not, it would make much of “asking for your vote under false pretenses” in the next election.

  • Ymarsakar

    This is why you need Breitbart. He’s not a God, and you won’t find me saying or thinking he’s Michael Yon either. But he’s got the moral courage to pile drive the Left’s shat back on them. And I like that.
    It reminds me of someone.
    It smells like victory. I don’t like the smell of trembling Republicans cringing and hoping for leniency from the victorious conquerors.

  • Ymarsakar

    Book, you recently wrote a post about the morality of wishing for people to die.
    An NPR journo itch said she wanted to see Rush Limbaugh die in front of her, like a sort of torture-snuff film.
    What do you think of that, Book?
    Do you think, that if she knew H2H on par or similar to what I know, that it would be a sort of fantasy and letting off steam? Do you think she meant it? Do you think she thought it was letting off steam, precisely because she doesn’t know anything about violence and killing?
    Just wanted your input on this similar issue.

  • David Foster

    letting off steam, precisely because she doesn’t know anything about violence and killing?”
    Reminds me of Orwell’s review of Auden’s poem “Spain,” which included these lines:
    “To-day the deliberate increase in the chances of death
    The conscious acceptance of guilt in the necessary murder”
    Orwell, although he liked the poem as a whole, strongly objected to this passage:
    “But notice the phrase ‘necessary murder’. It could only be written by a person to whom murder is at most a word. Personally I would not speak so lightly of murder. It so happens that I have seen the bodies of numbers of murdered men — I don’t mean killed in battle, I mean murdered. Therefore I have some conception of what murder means — the terror, the hatred, the howling relatives, the post-mortems, the blood, the smells. To me, murder is something to be avoided. So it is to any ordinary person. The Hitlers and Stalins find murder necessary, but they don’t advertise their callousness, and they don’t speak of it as murder; it is ‘liquidation’, ‘elimination’, or some other soothing phrase. Mr Auden’s brand of amoralism is only possible, if you are the kind of person who is always somewhere else when the trigger is pulled. So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.”

  • Ymarsakar

    I wonder if Orwell was referring to so many the Left duped into volunteering to fight in the Spanish Civil War against so called ‘fascists”.
    I think it was mentioned a long time ago that Orwell did not like the view of the Left the Spanish Civil War presented to him, supposedly because it laid bare the truth behind socialist ideals.

  • David Foster

    What is interesting about Orwell is that he was himself a lifelong socialist (and he himself fought on the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War) but was still able to see a lot of the preposterous behavior of the left for what it was. What disgusted him about his Civil War experience was especially the infighting among all the factions on the same side, and especially the brutal behavior of the Communists.

  • Mike Devx

    Breitbart didn’t get his full download of the entire Journolist archive, but we are finally, at least, getting a good view into Journolist via this outfit (The Daily Caller?)
    The important thing is that this is the smoking gun.  It’s actual written proof of what we on the right have known for years.  The public’s been slowly gaining awareness of the extent of the bias, and now it is irrefutable.  The nail in the coffin!
    The ClimateGate expose was necessary to expose the fraudulent activities behind the global warming movement.  Over a period of months it became discredited.  The same momentum is going to occur now to the mainstream media, despite their best efforts to prevent it from reaching the general public.  (As their best efforts failed to prevent ClimateGate from reaching the general public.)
    It couldn’t happen to a more deserving group of execrable, loathesome, hypocritical, smarmy, lying deceptive group of people.  Good riddance!  I’m going to enjoy this.

  • Ymarsakar

    The word bias isn’t even an accurate description of the problem. Once again, the Republicans fail not so much due to a lack of communicating the truth so much as lacking the adequate and precise terminology for the truth.
    What this is is an organized propaganda network designed to obfuscate and deceive the American people into voting for their party of choice, the Democrats. Has nothing to do with the big corporations Time Warner. Except in so far as Time Warner is owned and operated by Democrat rich boys.

  • Gringo

    Has nothing to do with the big corporations Time Warner. Except in so far as Time Warner is owned and operated by Democrat rich boys.
    Coincidentally, a childhood friend became a Time Warner muckety-muck. He also donated to the Oilbama campaign. The Party of the People, or at least the Rich People.

  • JKB

    What we need is a list of the media organizations these journolisters were employed at so we can apply the proper skepticism to the content that emerges from these subverted channels.  Washington Post, we already knew it was lefty but now we know it was being used to shape the narrative and suppress stories.
    Interesting that what the Journolistas were doing in conforming the message, suppressing real journalism, etc. are the same traits that are viewed as why their employers are headed to the dustbin.  Of course, perhaps government subsidy was their goal, all the better to ensure the “right” people are rewarded and not Rush Limbaugh or Fox news.
    Also, no that we have on record the devout opposition to the exposure and use of private emails, I’d like to see the discussions on the list about the illegal hacking of Sarah Palin’s (actual) private email account.  I’m sure all comments related shock and commitment to not even read such tainted material.

  • David Foster

    My Chicago Boyz colleague Shannon wonders if readers/viewers could bring fraud charges against some of these media outlets:
    …I doubt if such charges would be successful, and if they were the damages would likely be trivial…OTOH, it seems to me that *shareholders* of these media companies might be able to bring actions for violations of fiduciary responsibility. The charters of these corporations, after all, probably say something like “the purpose of this company shall be pecuniary gain and profit,” not something like “the purpose of this company shall be the promulgation of the personal political beliefs of its executives and employees.”
    What think you, Book? Might such cases have merit?

  • Ymarsakar

    If such proof can be presented that personal judgments used in company decisions ended up costing the conglomeration money and advertisement. But that would usually lead to being fired, not being prosecuted. DC don’t tend to prosecute Madoff or Enron type schemes under a Democrat President.

  • Ymarsakar
    Time Warner is a diversified corporation, perhaps even a mega corporation by today’s standards.
    The thing is, even though they own CNN, it’s not likely they micromanage the production. Given the diverse portfolios, it is out to make money and not be reliant upon any one sector or body of law for revenue.
    The grassroots keeps trying to affect CNN from the bottom up. I think the better method is to turn the bosses at Time Warner against CNN.
    Most Leftists, even, are out fighting the creed mostly because of greed and hope of getting bennies. The Left are not all wise. They can be fooled. Even into turning on their own. That was so with Sherrod and it can be so for CNN as well. Or any other Leftist organization.
    After all, the Left got to where they are piggybacking on the reputations of more reputable institutes and individuals. Crying out for social justice and community standards, Communist ideals infiltrated every single facet of the local community in the diverse parts of America. They turned your own neighborhood to the cause of the Left.
    It is far past time to reverse the conflict. Especially in this economy, where Time Warner can be easily persuaded or coerced into “cutting back” on some things.