Is there really a "Journolist?"

While it appears there might be an email listserve of journalists sharing stories and information, and there are claims by people who claim to be privy to the emails that some people in the listserve badmouth the right, is there a 'so what' here?

No one is saying just because Fox newscasters and commentators chat with each other and agree on their political views that is the source of the problem. The problem is FABRICATING SMEAR STORIES AND KNOWINGLY ECHOING THEM.

Is there evidence this occurred when these liberal journalists exchanged information?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The problem is FABRICATING SMEAR STORIES AND KNOWINGLY ECHOING THEM.
Click to expand...

You would think FOX News would have learned from the old hands at this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665727.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/02/tailwind.johnson/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html

A Note to Readers: February 20, 2009

An article published on February 21, 2008, about Senator John McCain and his record as an ethics reformer who was at times blind to potential conflicts of interest included references to Vicki Iseman, a Washington lobbyist. The article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust.
 
leftysergeant said:
There is certainly nothing that I have seen to indicate that Journolist is anywhere near as harmful to the country as the rightwhacker blowholes likes Hannity and the Lardblob, all singing from the same Mammonite hymnal.
Click to expand...

You do realize any talk show host's job is just to keep people listening until the next commercial break, right?
 
Cicero said:
You would think FOX News would have learned from the old hands at this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665727.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/02/tailwind.johnson/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html

A Note to Readers: February 20, 2009

An article published on February 21, 2008, about Senator John McCain and his record as an ethics reformer who was at times blind to potential conflicts of interest included references to Vicki Iseman, a Washington lobbyist. The article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust.
Click to expand...

Well, at least they put that clarification out there before the electio......er...nevermind.
 
Cobalt said:
You do realize any talk show host's job is just to keep people listening until the next commercial break, right?
Click to expand...

That's an over-simplification. Like that's a surprise. Right-wing thinking is an over-simplification. I guess that's why it appeals so to simpletons.
 
leftysergeant said:
That's an over-simplification. Like that's a surprise. Right-wing thinking is an over-simplification. I guess that's why it appeals so to simpletons.
Click to expand...

Welp. Here we go.

leftysergeant said:
That's an over-simplification.
Click to expand...
No, not really. Despite however the world seems in your head, their job, much as you want to disagree, is just to keep people listening to their given stations until the next commercial break. Not to spread "propaganda" or coordinate crimes or whatever you think happens in that head of yours. If you believe they're out to get you or some other ********, I honestly feel sorry for you.

leftysergeant said:
Like that's a surprise. Right-wing thinking is an over-simplification.
Click to expand...
And your line of thinking is a broad generalization. Neither are correct or in line with how reality is. Don't start bitching that I'm the one out of touch with reality, your conspiracy theory regarding green shirts kind of put you on the "questionable" list.

leftysergeant said:
I guess that's why it appeals so to simpletons.
Click to expand...

Well, your line of thinking, if we can be so generous as to call it that, is the work of a fool who thinks damn near everyone should be rounded up and shot or jailed despite having done nothing worth being jailed or shot for.

Now, I suggest you think long and hard about your next reply to me. If it has no facts or just more lines consisting of you calling people scum, vermin, swine, I'll simply disregard it. You refuse to raise a level of debate because you feel the subjects are not worth it. Well, we can all play that game, and you're clearly not worth respect either.
 
People pay idiots like Hannity, Wiener, BillO, and Levin to stir up the shrieking monkeys to fight for the interests of the corporations that own the media and most of what used to be our industrial base. The lack of progressive radio stations is not a result of the comparative lack of a market, but of the fact that it is not in the interests of the corporate ownership of most of the media to allow a progressive voice on a radio station that can be heard ten miles away at night.
 
leftysergeant said:
People pay idiots like Hannity, Wiener, BillO, and Levin to stir up the shrieking monkeys to fight for the interests of the corporations that own the media and most of what used to be our industrial base. The lack of progressive radio stations is not a result of the comparative lack of a market, but of the fact that it is not in the interests of the corporate ownership of most of the media to allow a progressive voice on a radio station that can be heard ten miles away at night.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for MOM ( Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow) their boss pays them much less to stir up the shrieking monkeys to fight for the interests of the unions that control the public school system, and most of what used to be our industrial base.
 
leftysergeant said:
People pay idiots like Hannity, Wiener, BillO, and Levin to stir up the shrieking monkeys to fight for the interests of the corporations that own the media and most of what used to be our industrial base.
Click to expand...
Surely you can back this up with evidence. Go ahead! I eagerly await your response filled with fact and wonderment!
leftysergeant said:
The lack of progressive radio stations is not a result of the comparative lack of a market, but of the fact that it is not in the interests of the corporate ownership of most of the media to allow a progressive voice on a radio station that can be heard ten miles away at night.
Click to expand...

Or, "progressive voices" don't bring in the listeners "conservatives" do. Naw, has to be a conspiracy.

If it made money, it would be done. It doesn't, and therefore isn't.
 
Cobalt said:
If it made money, it would be done. It doesn't, and therefore isn't.
Click to expand...

Not supported by experience. The people who own the radio stations have an interest in not putting them on signals strong enough to be worth buying advertising on.
 
leftysergeant said:
Not supported by experience. The people who own the radio stations have an interest in not putting them on signals strong enough to be worth buying advertising on.
Click to expand...

Not supported by evidence.

See, I can play that game too.
 
Cicero said:
You would think FOX News would have learned from the old hands at this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665727.shtml
Click to expand...
This has been discussed in the thread already, including why it differs from Republican tactics. The actual story is not that far removed from the facts. While the memo might be faked, Bush did avoid the draft and didn't finish his National Guard term. But regardless, once the error was discovered Rather's long career was ruined and CBS corrected the story. Compare that to Fox continuing to maintain the ACORN lie, and passing the buck on the Sherrod story.

Cicero said:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/02/tailwind.johnson/
Click to expand...
I don't see how this is related to a news company knowingly echoing faked news for political motives.

Cicero said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html

A Note to Readers: February 20, 2009

An article published on February 21, 2008, about Senator John McCain and his record as an ethics reformer who was at times blind to potential conflicts of interest included references to Vicki Iseman, a Washington lobbyist. The article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust.
Click to expand...
Still does not compare to the 8 years of Clinton bashing and Fox news along with the right wing manufacturing false stories to falsely smear various political figures on the left. Who made the story up? Was it even made up or was it just over zealous reporters looking for tabloid headlines?

What you need to even prove the McCain story is relevant is evidence of the left wing manufacturing the charges.
 
Stewart had a piece showing Fox news berating, on program after program, Obama's interview on The View. He noted that had Obama gone to the Boy Scout Anniversary event, Fox would have berated Obama for missing the interview on The View while attending the Hitler Youth movement.

Here's the link to the clip, July 29th. It's after the 45 seconds of commercials. It's the first comedy piece.

This is a classic example of Fox news BS and I can't believe it isn't looking blatantly obvious even to Fox's viewers.
 
Last edited:
Cicero said:
Unfortunately for MOM ( Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow) their boss pays them much less to stir up the shrieking monkeys to fight for the interests of the unions that control the public school system, and most of what used to be our industrial base.
Click to expand...
The difference is the commentators you cite do not manufacture news, nor do they echo fake stories from right wing blogs.

See the Stewart clip linked in my last post above.
 
Cobalt said:
Not supported by evidence.
Click to expand...

Because it has never been tried. The greed heads who think they own the broadcast frequencies do not allow anyone to put progressive talk on a strong signal.

time to break up the broadcast monopolies. Too few owners is BAD for American broadcasting. You wind up with sewage for an AM spectrum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom