• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Corruption Of Journo-list

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,653
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just your everyday Lib collusion... nothing to see here.

The latest revelations from Journo-list are deeply depressing to me. What's depressing is the way in which liberal journalists are not responding to events in order to find out the truth, but playing strategic games to cover or not cover events and controversies in order to win a media/political war.

The far right is right on this: this collusion is corruption.

The Corruption Of Journo-list - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
Of course the author cites FOXNEWS... LOL... consider the following.

Here's one e-mail from a sad little finger-sniffer named Spencer Ackerman, which explains nearly 99 percent of all the crap you're seeing right now targeting the Tea Party. He writes:

"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."
...

But here's the real moral: The same libs who said Obama was going to lead us into a new post racial world, are pretty much the same creeps fanning a racial division. Ackerman, ...
Proof of the Liberal Media's Double Standard - Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld - FOXNews.com
"...the game they've put upon us..."

This is perverse for the simple reason (forget this is a member of the media and not a Obama campaign organizer) that this is who Obama is. Obama sought out and called Wright a mentor. He inhaled Wright's toxic vomit for 20-years.

It's not a "game", it is revealing who the man is, where he came from... you know... "connecting the dots" of his thin and very left wing background.

Are the American people not permitted to know the real Barack Obama before we go to cast our vote?

It is the problem of the press for taking sides and investing heavily in and propping up such a loser, anti-American candidate. Propagandists that could be a cog in some totalitarian regime, because they are not journalists, but advocates.

Obi sits and listens to Wright for 20-years,... but Quayle writes "potatoe" and all hell breaks loose. Tina Fey misrepresents what Palin says and it becomes the left's dagger... Or rumors of McCain having an affair make Page 1 of the NY Times... but Obama hang'in with a race baiting moron for 2 decades... and The Press is caught in a "game"!!? I guess we can assume they felt the same about Bill (The Terrorist) Ayers.

Very Strange Brew.
Perverted actually.


.
 
Last edited:

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
More whining about the media. What a shock. Poor little conservatives. ;)
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,653
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
More whining about the media. What a shock. Poor little conservatives. ;)
Yeah, we get a little irritated when the press acts as unabashed propagandists, or when they use forged documents in the dying days of a presidential election in an effort to swing it.

We get pissed when we learn CNN's "reporting" in Iraq was propaganda.

Yeah, we really think it's important to have a modicum of honesty when covering presidential candidates on BOTH sides of the aisle. You know, we prefer to have the electorate filled with facts rather than filled with propaganda.

That way we can perhaps avoid gross mistakes like the unprepared, and unqualified anti-American we currently have at the helm.

.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That the list of supposed "journalists" in this group were not just hack liberal writers, some supposedly were professors teaching journalism. Want to know why Fox is so damned popular? This listserv of liberal ****-knockers is why. They also bring down the few good journalists who are left. Soon the media is going to be just like the internet forums with no moderators. Political ideologues throwing their own **** at each other like pissed of monkeys in a cage. Their purpose is simple: To get us to act just like they do.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,615
Reaction score
17,020
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
More whining about the media. What a shock. Poor little conservatives. ;)
In all actuality, one of the favorite past times of the media is to whine about itself, to decry what is happening to itself, and act as though there is little to do to stop it. Liberal journalists are just as pathetic as conservatives with regard to whining about the media. There was a prominent documentary produced by liberal journalists whining about how the country wasn't paying attention to how negative they were about Reagan through audio commentary, and instead loved the visuals of balloons and Reagan walking proudly and happily. You know, "journalistic integrity" spoiled by the wonders of technology. The media constantly focused on how little it did to critically look at the invasion of Iraq, which it didn't, forgetting that they themselves were apart of that phenomenon, and that they loved to instead talk about "journalist access" (oddly, the media forgets that the lack of transparency from the administration was somehow not an issue during the invasion, when they were gloating about how much more access they had in comparison to the first Bush administration) and the wonderful technologies before them like streaming video conferencing from Iraq to their studios. Then there is the self-pitying regarding celebrity coverage...

The media is largely liberally biased, not because of any Top-Down mentality, but from inside. Just because a corporation likes money and corporations may like conservative causes does not mean that the men and women doing the daily work are somehow colluding with the "Business big whigs". Journalists and reporters talk amongst themselves, and since many of them are at least somewhat liberal in nature, it will be likely that one's reporting would be influenced by it. It's not a diabolical plot, it's just realism. If one surrounds themselves with people that hold relatively similar views, it is likely that you would also share similar views.
 
Last edited:

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Here's some interesting tidbits from 2008's V-O day:
LINK

JournoList said:
SPENCER ACKERMAN: [quoting Obama] “…we may not get there in one year or in one term, but America I promise you, we as a people will get there.”

HOLY. ****ING. ****.

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

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.

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

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 **** up, as with most bullies.

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

MICHAEL HIRSH, NEWSWEEK: so many of you still seem tied down to your old ideological moorings. on the early evidence obama is not similarly tied down on any level, whether diplomatically or economically (or politically: note his big-tent approach to joe lieberman). a post-ideological presidency — what a novelty, and what a relief! but this new obamian world view, i fear, also puts many of you who are part of this group in danger of imminent irrelevance. cheers, mike hirsh
Read more: Obama wins! And Journolisters rejoice | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

That last quote has some bolded words - those were my emphasis.... yeah... that didn't quite work out that way did it. Post racial? Nope. Post ideological? Hell no. Big tent? Only if your a hard core liberal/progressive. Blue Dogs were whipped and brought into line during the health care debacle.

Why was "JournoList" removed? Because THIS --- THIS is what our wonderful liberal media really thinks - really feels - really wants to say. Death of journalism? These ****tards are pissing and dancing on journalism and defending their actions as proper.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
New story now on Daily Caller about how they coodinated from day one to make Palin look bad. She worried them at first, but they took care of her, didn't they? I sure hope some of these "jounalists" get fired.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
New story now on Daily Caller about how they coodinated from day one to make Palin look bad. She worried them at first, but they took care of her, didn't they? I sure hope some of these "jounalists" get fired.
palin took care of herself. she didn't need any help. funny......it's a crime when journalist don't like republicans, but not so much the other way, huh?
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
palin took care of herself. she didn't need any help. funny......it's a crime when journalist don't like republicans, but not so much the other way, huh?
First of all, it's malpractice and unethical to agendize straight news reporting. I have a BLA degree in mass communications broadcasting and a main focus was journalism and ethics, there are six Ws that must be followed Who;What;When;Where;Why; and What's it mean to the news consumer.

My liberal professors in the curriculum were the ones to tell us your politics end at the door when reporting the news, it is not to be created......ONLY reported whether it flatters the agenda or not. Anything short of giving both sides an opportunity to speak to topic is bad reporting, anything not validated is propaganda, and if you want an opinion then go into op-ed journalism. Basically, when the yellow journalists(i.e. the National Enquirer) are the ones breaking unflattering(and correct) stories on one party's candidates before the old guard then we have a huge problem in this country.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,187
Reaction score
3,949
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Frankly, I don't find this to be all that shocking. Like FiddyTree said, it really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that journalist "brains storm" and talk amongst themselves all the time. And since the talking heads have consistently dubbed the "lame stream media" as "liberal", why should it shock them that a group of liberal journalist got together to discuss ways to counter the Right's narrative? I'm sure the reverse has happened as well when a Republican held office.

That said, I agree w/LMR in that journalist should be non-bias/non-partisian, but we all know that's not how it is nor how the media works. Some news agencies/reporters will lean one way, others will lean the opposite way. But there are some who try to stay in the middle of the road and just report the news. It's rare, but when I can find such objective journalistic reporting that's the source I find to be the most credible. It's the main reason I don't get my news from one source.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yeah, we get a little irritated when the press acts as unabashed propagandists, or when they use forged documents in the dying days of a presidential election in an effort to swing it.

We get pissed when we learn CNN's "reporting" in Iraq was propaganda.

Yeah, we really think it's important to have a modicum of honesty when covering presidential candidates on BOTH sides of the aisle. You know, we prefer to have the electorate filled with facts rather than filled with propaganda.

That way we can perhaps avoid gross mistakes like the unprepared, and unqualified anti-American we currently have at the helm.

.
Really, how upset were you with that conservative male model pressman who asked how do you handle democrats so divorced from reality? Or Hayes making stuff up to help the Bush WH? Or anything in the Weekly Standard or the NRO, or on Beck's show?

I'm sorry, but you can't take your whining seiously. Not only don't you use or care about proper rigor and support for your claims, but what your side really want is a clear bias towards your world view.

Stop the whining. Stand strong. And just man up and seek facts, not your own bias.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
In all actuality, one of the favorite past times of the media is to whine about itself, to decry what is happening to itself, and act as though there is little to do to stop it. Liberal journalists are just as pathetic as conservatives with regard to whining about the media. There was a prominent documentary produced by liberal journalists whining about how the country wasn't paying attention to how negative they were about Reagan through audio commentary, and instead loved the visuals of balloons and Reagan walking proudly and happily. You know, "journalistic integrity" spoiled by the wonders of technology. The media constantly focused on how little it did to critically look at the invasion of Iraq, which it didn't, forgetting that they themselves were apart of that phenomenon, and that they loved to instead talk about "journalist access" (oddly, the media forgets that the lack of transparency from the administration was somehow not an issue during the invasion, when they were gloating about how much more access they had in comparison to the first Bush administration) and the wonderful technologies before them like streaming video conferencing from Iraq to their studios. Then there is the self-pitying regarding celebrity coverage...

The media is largely liberally biased, not because of any Top-Down mentality, but from inside. Just because a corporation likes money and corporations may like conservative causes does not mean that the men and women doing the daily work are somehow colluding with the "Business big whigs". Journalists and reporters talk amongst themselves, and since many of them are at least somewhat liberal in nature, it will be likely that one's reporting would be influenced by it. It's not a diabolical plot, it's just realism. If one surrounds themselves with people that hold relatively similar views, it is likely that you would also share similar views.
Never made the claim the media was conservative. Nor would I argue bias even matters. What matters is accuracy. But there has been little to evidence to show the type of bias many conservatives claim. This is mostly because to do a study with the proper rigor requires a lot of work, and that those doing the study be unbiased in their approach and rigor. Most the efforts I've seen ask the wrok questions and use flawed support. So while I don't claim any single reporter is or isn't biased, I do contend that first it doesn't matter much and second that nextto no one has actually properly tackled the issue to date.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Never made the claim the media was conservative. Nor would I argue bias even matters. What matters is accuracy.
How can one be biased and accurate? Please feel free to explain that.
But there has been little to evidence to show the type of bias many conservatives claim.
There is plenty out there, all one has to do is actually look at the tag lines, headlines, etc. or watch the difference in wording for reporting. For instance there is a reported murder unless there was a gun used and then it becomes a gun death. If two ****-box econo cars hit head on it's a fatal auto accident but if a real vehicle is involved it's "SUV kills two in wreck" regardless of whether or not it's driver was at fault. There are PLENTY of examples all over the place of political bias.
This is mostly because to do a study with the proper rigor requires a lot of work, and that those doing the study be unbiased in their approach and rigor.
Or, you know people could dust off the old brain and actually do some critical thinking instead of deferring opinion to others.
Most the efforts I've seen ask the wrok questions and use flawed support. So while I don't claim any single reporter is or isn't biased, I do contend that first it doesn't matter much and second that nextto no one has actually properly tackled the issue to date.
Plenty of universities and independent media groups have done the appropriate work and found the proclaimed biases. Your opinion of their methodology is irrelevent as they have the numbers to back it up.

EDIT- If you care to read through. This UCLA study is among the best.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
 
Last edited:

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
palin took care of herself. she didn't need any help. funny......it's a crime when journalist don't like republicans, but not so much the other way, huh?
Who's claiming it's a crime?

However, colluding on how to manipulate news, talking strategy on how to bury news which ideologically is damaging to Democrats, and making sick, hateful and ignorant comments among themselves shows why they and their liberal/progressive base are losing ground to people like Palin every day. I think all liberal journalists should start their own listserv and bad mouth the hell out of everyone and everything they hate --- just let the venom seep from every pore. I'd love it.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
How can one be biased and accurate? Please feel free to explain that. There is plenty out there, all one has to do is actually look at the tag lines, headlines, etc. or watch the difference in wording for reporting. For instance there is a reported murder unless there was a gun used and then it becomes a gun death. If two ****-box econo cars hit head on it's a fatal auto accident but if a real vehicle is involved it's "SUV kills two in wreck" regardless of whether or not it's driver was at fault. There are PLENTY of examples all over the place of political bias. Or, you know people could dust off the old brain and actually do some critical thinking instead of deferring opinion to others. Plenty of universities and independent media groups have done the appropriate work and found the proclaimed biases. Your opinion of their methodology is irrelevent as they have the numbers to back it up.

EDIT- If you care to read through. This UCLA study is among the best.
A Measure of Media Bias
It is possible to hold a view and still be accurate about the facts. I can report that 20 people died today in Iraq, and say it was a positive step. And another can say 20 people died today in Iraq and say it was a negative step. The fact is twenty people died, and as long as how they died was accurate, and the number accurate, I can decide for myself if it was a positive or a negative no matter what view the reporter holds. But if I say no one died, and twenty people did die, then that is a larger problem.

And I have read through the UCLA study. If you look you will find writings on the flaws in it. If you put aside your bias, and accurately assess the the flaws, you will see the study really doesn't do what it claims to do. It uses the wrong standard and does not taken into account countless variables. The researches started with their own bias, and failed to do the proper rigor.

And doing one's own thinking is to be encouraged, but it actually has to be thinking and not lack of thinking. Just holding an opinion doesn't mean it was a well thought out opinion, or a supported opinion. A person who thinks actually seeks support for that opinion, to show exactly how and why it is true. So far, media whines have been lax in actually supporting their claims. ;)
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It is possible to hold a view and still be accurate about the facts. I can report that 20 people died today in Iraq, and say it was a positive step. And another can say 20 people died today in Iraq and say it was a negative step. The fact is twenty people died, and as long as how they died was accurate, and the number accurate, I can decide for myself if it was a positive or a negative no matter what view the reporter holds. But if I say no one died, and twenty people did die, then that is a larger problem.
Okay, you don't get it or won't get it. Bias is the absence of fair reporting of fact. It's slanted reporting and uses editing, coverage decisions and other factors.
And I have read through the UCLA study. If you look you will find writings on the flaws in it.
Boo Radley doesn't like the outcome doesn't equal flawed. The methodology was upheld.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Okay, you don't get it or won't get it. Bias is the absence of fair reporting of fact. It's slanted reporting and uses editing, coverage decisions and other factors.
Boo Radley doesn't like the outcome doesn't equal flawed. The methodology was upheld.
You're right, my not liking it isn't equal to flawed. Flawed is equal to flawed. The rational is explained well, if you look it up and actually read it. Methodology was upheld by who?
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You're right, my not liking it isn't equal to flawed. Flawed is equal to flawed. The rational is explained well, if you look it up and actually read it. Methodology was upheld by who?
The study was not only peer reviewed AND professionally reviewed by standard media groups it was also indpendently rewiewed as well and the methodology was found to be accurate. Again, Boo Radley says so is not a valid defense. The reason the UCLA study is cited so often is because they nailed it, so, whatever I just studied this stuff in college so what do I know? (Sarcasm Mode off)
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well - I don't think "Journo-list" actually matters taht much.

Because in all of my years this is the first time I've heard about it - or read anything remotely mentioning it. It can't be *that* important if it's been ignored for so long via EVERYONE who has a mouth and fingers.
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
30,122
Reaction score
14,236
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well - I don't think "Journo-list" actually matters taht much.

Because in all of my years this is the first time I've heard about it - or read anything remotely mentioning it. It can't be *that* important if it's been ignored for so long via EVERYONE who has a mouth and fingers.
You can't refute the bias, so you dismiss them all together.

I expected nothing less from you.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
You can't refute the bias, so you dismiss them all together.

I expected nothing less from you.
Just because all of a sudden something starts to make the 'news' I'm suppsoe to suddenly take notice and care what they say?

Fox is offended . . . *shocker* . . . newsworthy?
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well - I don't think "Journo-list" actually matters taht much.

Because in all of my years this is the first time I've heard about it - or read anything remotely mentioning it. It can't be *that* important if it's been ignored for so long via EVERYONE who has a mouth and fingers.
It was a "secret" list that has just recently been brought to light.
I guess you would think that Russian spies aren't that important because they were ignored for 10 yrs.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,444
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yeah, we get a little irritated when the press acts as unabashed propagandists
I think you mean, "Yeah, we get a little irritated when the press acts as unabashed propagandists when it isn't our propaganda.

Most everybody's like that.

It's the same with judicial decisions -- the judge is only activist when they make a decision we don't agree with.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The study was not only peer reviewed AND professionally reviewed by standard media groups it was also indpendently rewiewed as well and the methodology was found to be accurate. Again, Boo Radley says so is not a valid defense. The reason the UCLA study is cited so often is because they nailed it, so, whatever I just studied this stuff in college so what do I know? (Sarcasm Mode off)
Understand what that means. It means they followed a method, but not whether they asked the right question or not. What is flawed is what they present can't answer the question. Again, read the rebuttal, with an open mind, and pay attention. They ignore the many variables other than bias that would contribute to what they found. Over the years I have looked it up for many, but no point doing so if you won't put aside your own bias. And if you'll do that, you can look it up on your own. But let's not pretend there was no dispute over that study.
 
Top Bottom