Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Jonathan Strong
The Daily Caller
July 20, 2010

It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “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 an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.)

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.

“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.

The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “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.”

Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.

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.

Columnist Joe Conason weighed in with suggestions. So did Slate contributor David Greenberg, and David Roberts of the website Grist. Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, helped too.

Journolist members signed the statement and released it April 18, calling the debate “a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.”

The letter caused a brief splash and won the attention of the New York Times. But only a week later, Obama – and the journalists who were helping him – were on the defensive once again.

Jeremiah Wright was back in the news after making a series of media appearances. At the National Press Club, Wright claimed Obama had only repudiated his beliefs for “political reasons.” Wright also reiterated his charge that the U.S. federal government had created AIDS as a means of committing genocide against African Americans.

It was another crisis, and members of Journolist again rose to help Obama.

Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.

The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”

Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just
how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”

“Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote.

Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.

(Reached by phone Monday, Hayes argued his words then fell on deaf ears. “I can say ‘hey I don’t think you guys should cover this,’ but no one listened to me.”)

Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.

“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”

Ackerman went on:

I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

And I think this threads the needle. 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.

Ackerman did allow there were some Republicans who weren’t racists. “We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.” He also said he had begun to implement his plan. “I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?”

Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.

“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.”

(In an interview Monday, Schmitt declined to say whether he thought Ackerman’s plan was wrong. “That is not a question I’m going to answer,” he said.)

Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”

But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”

And it gets better.........

Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News

Jonathan Strong
The Daily Caller
July 21, 2010

If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.

But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio (update: Spitz was a producer for NPR affiliate KCRW for the show Left, Right & Center), that isn’t what you’d do at all.

In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.

In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”

Spitz’s hatred for Limbaugh seems intemperate, even imbalanced. On Journolist, where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies, it barely raised an eyebrow.

In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama’s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.

On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.

“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”

Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed. “They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,” Yeselson wrote. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).”

“I’m not saying these guys are capital F-fascists,” added blogger Lindsay Beyerstein, “but they don’t want limited government. Their desired end looks more like a corporate state than a rugged individualist paradise. The rank and file wants a state that will reach into the intimate of citizens when it comes to sex, reproductive freedom, censorship, and rampant incarceration in the name of law and order.”

On Journolist, there was rarely such thing as an honorable political disagreement between the left and right, though there were many disagreements on the left. In the view of many who’ve posted to the list-serv, conservatives aren’t simply wrong, they are evil. And while journalists are trained never to presume motive, Journolist members tend to assume that the other side is acting out of the darkest and most dishonorable motives.

When the writer Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article about immigration for National Review, for example, blogger Ed Kilgore didn’t even bother to grapple with Hanson’s arguments. Instead Kilgore dismissed Hanson’s piece out of hand as “the kind of Old White Guy cultural reaction that is at the heart of the Tea Party Movement. It’s very close in spirit to the classic 1970s racist tome, The Camp of the Saints, where White Guys struggle to make up their minds whether to go out and murder brown people or just give up.”

The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”

And so a debate ensued. Time’s Scherer, who had seemed to express support for increased regulation of Fox, suddenly appeared to have qualms: “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”

But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”

John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”

What a bunch of loons these leftists are! Even though in another thread we just talked about how every side had its extremists and idiots, you seem to have no problem only pointing out those kind of people from the left, Tex, and ignoring what you said when you were defending the TP. There's plenty of these kind of stories on both sides of the isle, yet it seems to give you some kind of satisfaction to just post the ones popping up on the left side of the isle.

I've already retracted my position on the USDA lady. I never see that from the left in these forums.

And yes, i go after the left. I'm a conservative Libertarian. *deleted* The Democrats are in control of the House, Senate and the presidency. It's my 1st Amendment right to speak out against what i disagree with. Not much has happened in the last 18 months that i agree with in regards to the Dems and Obama. Very little.

But when Bush was in power, you should've known me then. I criticized him for all i was worth. He was the reason i left the Republican Party. But he's gone now. I don't go back in time except to bring up a point (such as this). I don't go back and blame Clinton for this or that. He's gone. Not to mention, when Bush was president, he endured some of the most hateful bullshit from the left that i've ever seen. Even when it was something that was a centrist position, he got crucified. It's politics. And it's getting worse with each passing month.

You need to stop baiting him Tex.

TexasBlue wrote:I've already retracted my position on the USDA lady. I never see that from the left in these forums.

Because "the left" of this forum doesn't post articles like this...

TexasBlue wrote:

And yes, i go after the left. I'm a conservative Libertarian. *deleted* The Democrats are in control of the House, Senate and the presidency. It's my 1st Amendment right to speak out against what i disagree with. Not much has happened in the last 18 months that i agree with in regards to the Dems and Obama. Very little.

But when Bush was in power, you should've known me then. I criticized him for all i was worth. He was the reason i left the Republican Party. But he's gone now. I don't go back in time except to bring up a point (such as this). I don't go back and blame Clinton for this or that. He's gone. Not to mention, when Bush was president, he endured some of the most hateful bullshit from the left that i've ever seen. Even when it was something that was a centrist position, he got crucified. It's politics. And it's getting worse with each passing month.

You need to stop baiting him Tex

So 2 wrongs make a right? *deleted* especially when you then turn around and complain how the left is always bashing the right and how a leftist bias is everywhere.

Unnecessary bubblebliss. Try to stick to the argument please.

BubbleBliss wrote:Because "the left" of this forum doesn't post articles like this...

Because you don't. Maybe because you can't.I don't know. I post stories that i want to post. Ever occur to you that i'm the only conservative minded person posting in here? I spend my time defending my position in here with no help from anyone else.

BubbleBliss wrote:So 2 wrongs make a right? *deleted* especially when you then turn around and complain how the left is always bashing the right and how a leftist bias is everywhere.

Why the feck should i post anything about people who aren't making policy in this country? Your Democrats are making policy and pushing it forward. Since i DON'T AGREE with these policies, i get to criticize it!

The problem with YOU is that you just can't stand dissenting opinion. I've seen it time and time again. Now you're calling me a fool? You're treading water, pal. Keep it up.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Because "the left" of this forum doesn't post articles like this...

Because you don't. Maybe because you can't.I don't know. I post stories that i want to post. Ever occur to you that i'm the only conservative minded person posting in here? I spend my time defending my position in here with no help from anyone else.

Nobody else posts those kind of articles because they leave a wide open room for bias and one-sided arguments. So because you're the only conservative, you post one sided opinion articles instead of real news articles? I fail to see the sense in that argument.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:So 2 wrongs make a right? *deleted* especially when you then turn around and complain how the left is always bashing the right and how a leftist bias is everywhere.

Why the feck should i post anything about people who aren't making policy in this country? Your Democrats are making policy and pushing it forward. Since i DON'T AGREE with these policies, i get to criticize it!

The problem with YOU is that you just can't stand dissenting opinion. I've seen it time and time again. Now you're calling me a fool? You're treading water, pal. Keep it up.

What I'm saying is that constantly bashing one side while never bashing your own doesn't really help your image. Why do you think people at SP call you the things they call you? Because you post opinion articles that are often bias and ONLY criticize the left... then you turn around and get made when leftists only criticize the right.

I have no problem with dissenting opinion, but I do have a problem with one-sided arguments and bias articles like the ones you so often post.

BubbleBliss wrote:Nobody else posts those kind of articles because they leave a wide open room for bias and one-sided arguments. So because you're the only conservative, you post one sided opinion articles instead of real news articles? I fail to see the sense in that argument.

I've posted them all along and i'm not changing because you don't like it. News articles? Go to Google News and read the news. Most news is instantaneous. Opinion is just that; opinion... much like everything everyone in here has to say.

You may not like opinion articles and that's fine. But it does spur debate depending on the issue. That's the whole POINT of posting. Spurring and engaging in debate!

BubbleBliss wrote:What I'm saying is that constantly bashing one side while never bashing your own doesn't really help your image. Why do you think people at SP call you the things they call you? Because you post opinion articles that are often bias and ONLY criticize the left... then you turn around and get made when leftists only criticize the right.

I have no problem with dissenting opinion, but I do have a problem with one-sided arguments and bias articles like the ones you so often post.

My own? I've, again, repeatedly said how i criticized the Bush admin. You didn't know me then. I didn't post at SP then. But you know what? Bush isn't president. Republicans control nothing in DC. They make none of the calls in congress. What we are seeing in DC is Democrats pushing legislation and not allowing any amendments to be made to bills they created. The Republicans don't get to add the bits they want. So, they vote against the legislation. If i wasn't allowed to add things to bills, i'd vote no to it also. If that's what you call bringing an end to partisanship , then you might need to see a doctor. Both Pelosi and Obama pledged to be more bi-partisan. Neither has happened. So, what do i do? I criticize policies i'm against.

And SP? That section is nothing but left wingers. I'm talking regular posters. When i do poke in there, MDanel has posted a little here and there. Same with DBL (but he's not online as much). The rest are left leaning folks. Of course everyone there is going to have an opposing opinion of me since they're on the opposite ideological spectrum.

You don't like my positions. That's the crux of the matter. Most right wingers don't like thew positions of liberals either. The problem is you take things too personal. AllanD is a friend of mine. He's liberal. He's Canadian. He doesn't take things personal with me and will admit as such.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Nobody else posts those kind of articles because they leave a wide open room for bias and one-sided arguments. So because you're the only conservative, you post one sided opinion articles instead of real news articles? I fail to see the sense in that argument.

I've posted them all along and i'm not changing because you don't like it. News articles? Go to Google News and read the news. Most news is instantaneous. Opinion is just that; opinion... much like everything everyone in here has to say.

You may not like opinion articles and that's fine. But it does spur debate depending on the issue. That's the whole POINT of posting. Spurring and engaging in debate!

I'm not telling you to stop, I'm merely pointing out the effect it has on other people's feelings about you. Plenty of debates have been started with news articles like the ones I post.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:What I'm saying is that constantly bashing one side while never bashing your own doesn't really help your image. Why do you think people at SP call you the things they call you? Because you post opinion articles that are often bias and ONLY criticize the left... then you turn around and get made when leftists only criticize the right.

I have no problem with dissenting opinion, but I do have a problem with one-sided arguments and bias articles like the ones you so often post.

My own? I've, again, repeatedly said how i criticized the Bush admin. You didn't know me then. I didn't post at SP then. But you know what? Bush isn't president. Republicans control nothing in DC. They make none of the calls in congress. What we are seeing in DC is Democrats pushing legislation and not allowing any amendments to be made to bills they created. The Republicans don't get to add the bits they want. So, they vote against the legislation. If i wasn't allowed to add things to bills, i'd vote no to it also. If that's what you call bringing an end to partisanship , then you might need to see a doctor. Both Pelosi and Obama pledged to be more bi-partisan. Neither has happened. So, what do i do? I criticize policies i'm against.

You don't only criticize policies, Tex. And while you criticize Bush, I haven't heard you criticize other Libertarians.

TexasBlue wrote:

And SP? That section is nothing but left wingers. I'm talking regular posters. When i do poke in there, MDanel has posted a little here and there. Same with DBL (but he's not online as much). The rest are left leaning folks. Of course everyone there is going to have an opposing opinion of me since they're on the opposite ideological spectrum.

That's not what I'm talking about. When you post opinion articles, it makes people think like that's where you get your political views and arguments from. I don't think that way, but that's the way other people think. I'm merely pointing that out to you.

TexasBlue wrote:

You don't like my positions. That's the crux of the matter. Most right wingers don't like thew positions of liberals either. The problem is you take things too personal. AllanD is a friend of mine. He's liberal. He's Canadian. He doesn't take things personal with me and will admit as such.

There comes a time when the whole "the loony left" and "leftist bullshit" becomes nothing more but blind, obsessive bashing. It does nothing for your argument, it only makes one look desperate and bias.

I'm not telling you to stop, I'm merely pointing out the effect it has on other people's feelings about you. Plenty of debates have been started with news articles like the ones I post.

Other people's feelings? Haw! Everyone in here is liberal. I'm the only conservative. Nothing i say or do is going to change people's "feelings" about unless i become a liberal.

You don't only criticize policies, Tex. And while you criticize Bush, I haven't heard you criticize other Libertarians.

Show me where i don't criticize policies! And not criticizing Libertarians? Show me a Libertarian party member in congress and then i'll find something to criticize if i disagree with him. We have all GOP, Dems and two Independents in congress. That's it. Guess what? Dems control the House and Senate. The Dems set agenda because they're the majority. Not the Republicans.

That's not what I'm talking about. When you post opinion articles, it makes people think like that's where you get your political views and arguments from. I don't think that way, but that's the way other people think. I'm merely pointing that out to you.

Oh. So, you want me to post a liberal article that i vehemently disagree with? Ain't gonna happen. I leave that to you guys.

There comes a time when the whole "the loony left" and "leftist bullshit" becomes nothing more but blind, obsessive bashing. It does nothing for your argument, it only makes one look desperate and bias.

As does your "conservative bias" arguments.

It just comes down to you and me not seeing eye to eye on 99% of things.

TexasBlue wrote:

I'm not telling you to stop, I'm merely pointing out the effect it has on other people's feelings about you. Plenty of debates have been started with news articles like the ones I post.

Other people's feelings? Haw! Everyone in here is liberal. I'm the only conservative. Nothing i say or do is going to change people's "feelings" about unless i become a liberal.

Then what's the point of posting?

TexasBlue wrote:

You don't only criticize policies, Tex. And while you criticize Bush, I haven't heard you criticize other Libertarians.

Show me where i don't criticize policies! And not criticizing Libertarians? Show me a Libertarian party member in congress and then i'll find something to criticize if i disagree with him. We have all GOP, Dems and two Independents in congress. That's it. Guess what? Dems control the House and Senate. The Dems set agenda because they're the majority. Not the Republicans.

Got anything to say about Ron or Rand Paul?

TexasBlue wrote:

That's not what I'm talking about. When you post opinion articles, it makes people think like that's where you get your political views and arguments from. I don't think that way, but that's the way other people think. I'm merely pointing that out to you.

Oh. So, you want me to post a liberal article that i vehemently disagree with? Ain't gonna happen. I leave that to you guys.

Who here posts liberal articles?

TexasBlue wrote:

There comes a time when the whole "the loony left" and "leftist bullshit" becomes nothing more but blind, obsessive bashing. It does nothing for your argument, it only makes one look desperate and bias.

As does your "conservative bias" arguments.

It just comes down to you and me not seeing eye to eye on 99% of things.

What "conservative bias" arguments?

BubbleBliss wrote:Then what's the point of posting?

Got anything to say about Ron or Rand Paul?

Who here posts liberal articles?

As does your "conservative bias" arguments.

Yeah, what's the point.Might as well close this place, huh?

Both of them are Republican Party members.

Quit the bull! I post what i want and you post what you want. You're getting to where you're trying to dictate what gets posted here. Stop it.

I really think this whole Jurnolist thing amounts to a fart in a windstorm. Journalists are human, and have opinions and biases like everyone else. We just expect them to have a veneer of impartiality when doing their job though. But I learned long ago that ALL media outlets are biased and it's in my best interest to either just read those articles or listen to those broadcasts that appeal to my bias OR I could get my news from a variety of sources and make my own mind up on particular issues. It's much the same with police officers or people in the military. They have opinions on issues and laws just like the rest of us, but they have a job to do regardless. What they say to friends when they're off-duty and having a beer is separate from them performing their duty -- assuming they don't allow their beliefs and opinions to interfere with them doing what they're supposed to do.

I do think that Sarah Spitz's comments about Rush are cruel and harsh though, and talk of wanting the gov't to shut down Fox news is uncalled for and undemocratic, but they're extreme comments, not to be taken seriously by most people -- much like that editorial by Ted Nugent that I posted. I think it's rather desperate for others to jump on them and fuel the fire. Comments like that are best ignored because they add nothing to any sort of debate. They're either made by someone who's intractable, or gallows humour, or made with the intent to wind-up someone. In any case, it's verbal masturbation.