JournoList: …Yes, But the Reporters at Pravda Weren’t Such Insufferable Assholes
by Andrew BreitbartJournalists love whistleblowers. Just not when the whistle is blown on them.
Journalists love transparency. As long as they’re not the ones being exposed.
No steadfast journalism rule is unbendable when it comes to justifying and protecting the racket that is modern journalism, specifically, political journalism in the United States today. The ends justify the means for the Democrat Media Complex. They lie when they claim to be objective. They lie when they claim to be unbiased, because these so called “truth seekers” are guilty of engaging in open political warfare. And when the whistle is blown, they simply double down. “Journolist” — like Media Matters, but more insidious, if that’s possible — is an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle, technology and “the masses” uncovered the conspiracy:
Talk radio and the Internet have allowed outsiders the ability to challenge a multiple generational shift from journalism being about the story, to journalism being crafted toward a partisan end. From Newsweek killing the Lewinsky story to the Swift Boat veterans (until the undermedia pressure got too big) to the Dan Rather implosion to the open attempt to keep the Al Gore masseuse story under wraps to the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter debacle to the Van Jones admission of missing the story to the networks ignoring the ACORN video footage to the media playing up trumped up charges of racism in the Tea Party — while ignoring exculpatory evidence — to the mother of all media-as-political weaponry: the non-vetting of candidate Obama, the mainstream media has shown that it is in an ideological death spiral. And the ground is right here.
American journalism died a long time ago; today Tucker Carlson got around to running the obituary. What The Daily Caller has unearthed proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that most media organizations are either complicit by participation in the treachery that is Journolist, or are guilty of sitting back and watching Alinsky warfare being waged against all that challenged the progressive orthodoxy. The scandal predictably involves journalists posing as professors posing as experts. But dressed down they are nothing but street thugs. They deserve the deepest levels of public consternation. We must demand that they do.
The only way that the media will recover from the horrifying discoveries found in the Journolist is to investigate and investigate until every guilty reporter, professor and institution is laid bare begging America for forgiveness. Will they do it?
If the powers that be don’t comply with this demand, we can always call Jonathan Alter and Eric Alterman racists.*
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
82 Comments
Has American "Journalism" always been this biased and partisan? What Andrew has stated over the last few months keeps me thinking – when Rush plays a montage of "news" people all reciting the same words and phrases it seems to me that there is a central water cooler where "they" all meet – but on the surface that sounds ludicrous.
And yet….
The same stories get spiked….they utter the same phrases….
A question I have had for some time – what is the effect of the Internet and news on what percentage of the voting age population? We're madder than hell but how do you explain someone who gets their news from Katie Couric exclusively?
If you are aware of what is available on the Net and talk radio why would one even watch the MSM?
The political left is an open air cult. They speak in mantras and go bonkers when contradicted. The liberal media are their thought police.
I really hate to say it, but it's worse than the "open air cult"
These are people who have invested in a completely bankrupt philosophy to the point that their personal experience and knowledge of people that they know does not enter into their thinking within political context. They have been taught how NOT to think, how to avoid rational thought.
Quite simply put: they are double-thinkers. They are capable of holding two contradictory thoughts within their minds at the same time and fervently believe both are true.
If there's any doubt, look at the Megan Kelly video that's been making the rounds. The idiot she's arguing with solidly believes that
A) there was no intimidation in the Black Panther case
AND
B) she never denied there was intimidation
Pathetic losers who can:
defend racists because the "they" are racist.
defend rapists because "they" hate women
and DESTROY freedom because "they" are intolerant.
This is why we fight, this is what we fight.
I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist; I'm one of those perhaps naive folks who believes, generally, that things are usually exactly as they seem. And as a broadcast media professional with more than 30 years experience, this is a sad eye-opener. I was laid off from an NPR station a year ago, and found it something of a relief because, although I was out of a job with great benefits, I no longer felt like I was selling my soul.
This, however, is the ugly new world in which we live. To the Journolist members, their ends justify their means, and their actions go way beyond anything Bernie Goldberg wrote about in "Bias." He exposed what I had always thought: that these "journalists" really did believe they were objective and impartial — it was just that their objectivity revolved solely around the secular theology in which they had been immersed since their college days.
Now, though, it has become obvious that that ideal has unabashedly given way to the political agenda, and that they really do believe that Republicans and conservatives are racist, warmongering knuckle-draggers who must be defeated at any cost.
We cannot let this go — we must get this damning story out. But again, how do we get it before those folks for whom Katie Couric and Anderson Cooper are the sole sources of news?
I gave up on the downstream media 10 years ago for this very reason. When cable began bringing us the 24/7 news cycle, I was stunned to find that as content went, there was actually less information of value than when I subsisted on one hour of news.
We're being bombarded with crap to dumb us down and distract us. The only solution is to turn it off and find the news worth knowing. Thanks to folks like Breitbart, Drudge, and Carlson that task is much easier now than it was a decade ago.
Unfortunately, a lot of older people who are a little more set in their ways do get their news directly from the MSM, and don't bother to look to outside sources. I know plenty of middle-aged+ people who still just aren't very comfortable with the internet, and don't realize exactly what an amazing resource it can be.
Bill:
I had the same thought. For the last few years I have tried to take a pragmatic approach to the obvious leftward bias in the media. I would try to explain to folks that there was no great "conspiracy" or deliberate collusion among the MSM and the leftists in the government.
Instead, I likened the behavior of these….(ahem!)…"journalists" to that of a flock of birds or a herd of antelope. The birds fly to the south in the winter and the herd goes where the food is. Simply point, when you have a tight group of the same animals (or in this case, like-minded registered democrats who were all "educated" in various liberal schools of journalism) with the same desires and needs, they are going to tend to act in a similar fashion.
I have always believed that the media today has merely given up its pretense of being unbiased and objective (an unforgivable sin, in and of it self, with regards to journalism) and the lions share of the media's fraternity, as individuals, have decided to color their coverage based on their own belief systems. The result of which makes it appear that there is a concerted effort by a large group of people when in fact it is a bunch of "individuals" who have similar desires.
Again, this is what I truly believed. Before JournoList.
I've never been big on conspiracy theories but when you have the evidence right in front of your face, how can you ignore it? Oh! I guess you could join JournoList!!
"…the mainstream media has shown that it is in an ideological death spiral. And the ground is right here."
As we watch the ratings of the once all-powerful news organizations fall and newspaper circulation dwindle, we see that indeed "the ground" is getting nearer. These once seemingly invincible giants are looking more mortal everyday. Every time another Rush, Drudge, Fox News, or Breitbart emerges they lose influence and become weaker. We are nearing the day that they will have to make a choice. The financial realities of it all will either destroy them or force them to be honest so that they can reconnect with the public and become successful again.
My guess is that they will choose to hit the ground.
We need to keep throwing the word "thug" back at them because this was thuggish behavior, what the NAACP and other have tried to do to the Tea Party movement is thuggish behavior, what was done at some of the of the town halls and to people like Ken Gladney was thuggish behavior, their attempts to silence talk radio is thuggish behavior, and so on. It's why left wing revolutionaries so quickly become murderous dictators when they get real power because they believe the ends that they support justify any means to make it happen.
Read Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" where he discusses the roots of these beliefs. When one really believes that they are capable of creating Heaven on Earth and bring about a Utopia for all, there is no limit to what means one will consider to reach those ends. It comes across loud and clear from people like the young Bill Ayers and the only difference now is that those 60s radicals have become better liars and no longer openly talk about murdering their enemies.
So true. All of it. I think the problem is that it's so imbedded in their culture like you said. They're immersed in it at a very young and impressionable age, and not only that- the culture has made it fashionable to be dumb and espouse nonsensical progressive rhetoric, and you have to play along or else. As for Couric and Cooper, they're part of the problem. We have to go around them. Their kind will never stop, they'll just double down, (the more radical ones anyway) Couric and Cooper are pawns. Even if they are stricken with an epiphany realizing the error of their ways, I don't see the courage in any of them to actually stand up for what is right. Progressives will always exploit peoples fears and use the virtues of their opposition against them.
The problem with trying to turn most lefties around is that they are fanatics. Their belief system is cemented and they will defend it to the end. When a sane person's belief system is challenged, they usually take a moment to reflect on what they believe to be true and if there is a question they usually rethink what they believe.
When a fanatic's belief system is challenged, they defend it more viciously than ever. You start shaking the foundations of what they hold to be true they won't consider that they're wrong. They will attack the messenger. It's a heavy thing when you're faced with the possibility that what you think is true just isn't. People of character will see the light. Others don't have the ability for critical thought.
So I have no hope that these "journalists" and professors and "experts" will ever see the light. They are too heavily invested in the lie.
Andrew Breitbart has found something here that is so disturbing, indefensible, and offensive that it could shake media's relationship to its consumers to the very foundations. Will it? I'm not so sure. As far as media is concerned, it can do no wrong. The story will likely be ignored, distorted, buried or pooh-poohed; blogs only penetrate so far into the public consciousness.
I'm sure that as I type this, Journolist members have moved to a new supah-sekrit list, where they are collaborating how to spin this thing. Then, as a phalanx, they'll move as one to protect their interests.
I can only hope Breitbart has evidence of several instances of journolist malfeasance, and he keeps them on the defensive, as he did with ACORN.
Either the MSM will bury this like all the other stories that make the left look bad, or the chief talking heads will trample each other to report it first, thereby distancing themselves from any potential backlash. Kind of like turning your neighbor's name in to the gestapo so you'll look like a good citizen. If they're busy investigating your neighbor, they won't be looking at you, right? If they're busy investigating JournoList, they won't be nitpicking Couric.
A new journalistic "truth" is emerging, and that is that the MSM is not to be trusted. Fortunately we have alternative media and the way things seem to be going the AM will replace the MSM eventually. The sooner the better. It already has for me.
Breitbart continues to do the nation considerable good by exposing Leftist collusion. While he is no doubt making a good deal of money through these sites, I'm sure the process of taking on the establishment press (and being vilified in the process) can take its toll. I hope he knows he has the majority of citizens out here who appreciate and admire his work.
Now I hope he (or someone else) lifts the rock of academia, shines the light under there, and sees what scurries out…..
Journalism, politics, the entertainment industry — all such fields get their greatest support from the Leftist dominance of the university system, where students are taught the "proper" way to frame debates and issues. Our humanities and social science departments are especially controlled by those on the left. It's time to restore some balance.
My profile page has some good sites to get started with, if you're interested in joining the cause — which you should be!
"….until every guilty reporter, professor and institution is laid bare begging America for forgiveness." Don't you mean begging 'you' for forgiveness. And by "you" I mean AB and and the rest of the folks who go around thinking of themsevles as America while everyone with a differing viewpoint is not America. I see this often in phrases such as "TRUE American" "REAL American" "TRUE Patriot" it is inherent to a sytem bent on continual division. The us vs them mentality that the two parties have worked diligently to create and foster. It is working quite well. As for media bias. I've discovered most people don't want to hear anything. They only want to hear what they already know to be true in thier minds. They only want reinforcement. I believe what most media outlets do is pander to their target audience. No one is looking for the truth except for their own. People want their news served with the bias they prefer. BTW Don't bother looking for any substance on TV between the comercials. There isn't any. It is only a vehicle designed to get you to watch untill the next advert.
If you ask me, yes, American Journalism has always been this biased and worse. The difference as I see it was in the past, they didn't try to hide their opinions or biases. Hell they celebrated them.
Journalism changed massively around the time of Watergate. They brought down a sitting president. And they had to be led by the nose by deep throat to even get that far.
Ever since then, in my opinion, journalists have all considered themselves above the fray, above the little people. As the Church puts it about priests, in the world, but not of the world.
As usual that arrogance is bringing them down.
Sounds like education is needed.
The liberal media are the left wing attack machine.
When I was on the left, that's exactly what we did. Discourage honest thinking. Don't even get anywhere near rational debate. Just keep reinforcing the dogma, the left is correct, the right is worse than a leperous whore, don't go anywhere near them. Use insults and hatred to enforce that.
Thanks to the internet!
The information age is going to transform civilization in ways we can't even begin to fathom. The changes will make the industrial revolution look like a burnt match compared to cold fusion.
And we're all here at the beginning. A very exciting time to be alive.
My grandfather was born before the Wright brothers at Kittyhawk, and he lived to see man walk on the moon. That's going to be nothing compared to the information age.
Thug is a very appropriate adjective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee
The MSM can try to bury it all they want. We have the new alternative media.
All they're doing is digging their own graves even faster.
Go get 'em Mr. Breitbart! Give them hell!
Absolutely great story and headline. These (sounds like "glass bowl") hacks need to be called out BY NAME and ridiculed for selling out the American public. This leftover Watergate garbage needs to be taken out, as their foul stench is getting unbearable.
"Al Gore masseuse story"
To be fair, that's looking like BS now. I know many want it to be true, but it still looks like BS.
You can't hold up hacky things like that and keep your rep. Stick to the facts.
I grew up thinking journalists were a type of protection for the people. They exposed unseemly truths and fought for what is right. Seems the things my parents told me are now utterly wrong. Have some honor and courage especially when you know you're doing the right thing even if it goes against the grain.
Good point, EdSki. I think I didn't say the internet in general because I feel that in some ways the far left seemed to dominate the tone of internet journalism for a while via HuffPo and the Kos. Now thanks to the Kingdom of Breitbart as well as the Daily Caller and other sites, there seems to be a balance coming back.
Karl Marx said the first thing people do when they get a scarce resource, they start building fences around it to keep every one else away.
That's exactly what the left has been doing with information. They kept the ability to reach the great unwashed masses to themselves, in order to control it, in order to control us.
We now have a way to get around the MSM's fence.
You have to know the secret handshake though
And if this exists wouldn't you think with such a potentially large membership that it couldn't be kept a secret? If there is collusion it is either coming from within (Journolist) or without (faxes/phone calls from the DNC).
I heard something funny – well, 2 examples, in the last week/2. On Tom Sullivan's Tom said on MS-NBC on "Morning Joe" the panel is discussing something Obama related. The perky blond, Mika something a ruther, is looking down and slow to respond to assertions. When asked about it she is saying that she is reading from her "talking points" – the White House sent these out. Or the DNC. Tom also had a caller that segment who was similarly hesitating for long moments before responding – Tom (and the audience) later figured out that he was trying to reference his "talking points". But he was simply a seminar caller.
Still if they are sending these communiques to all the liberal sources you'd think you'd hear more about it.
And yet my favorite example – when Bush picked Cheney for VP – a funny word kept popping up all over the MSN – Gravitas. That's not normally a word dozens of separated people would simultaneously pick up to use. I think there is more than a 'herd mentality" at work here.
Maybe belonging to JournoList is like belonging to the Masons
My wfe likes to watch Nightline. Last night they did a report on Goldline, and in doing so, took a shot at Glenn Beck and Fox News. THeir main source for the report? Media Matters. Nice to see the mainstream media partnering with a Democratic backed group who spends all it's time attacking consrvatives and Fox.
I agree. If they allow themselves to let the light of truth in, it will probably cause a psychological episode of some kind. A second or third personality might break off from the dominant one, or Tourette's could develop. (Not that you'd be able to tell that from the previous behavioral pattern.)
They have to defend the indefensible or go mad. No wonder they're angry and hateful all the time.
This is why I don't even let my remote tune to ABC accidentally. Nothing but crap is on the major networks and CNN, MSNBC. I advise blocking those channels altogether in protest.
Thankfully my wife doesn't take anything on those channels at face value. We tend to talk over a lot of the issues, and she's aware of just how bad it is on the MSM.
I think their response is predictable: They'll bury it, because if one goes down, they all go down.
You'd be surprised how many on the left only consider themselves lefties because they've never had a serious, polite, rational debate on issues.
When you do that, a large number will simply turn into attack mode. But you would also be surprised how many will scratch their heads and say "hmmmmm, never thought about it that way before."
My unscientific study says about 2/3 are willing to listen. That's excellent news for our side.
My parents STILL watch the nightly network news. I think it has to be out of habit. If I'm in the room, when it is on, it takes about .30 seconds of listening to one of their stories for me to point out the bias being broadcast. Then I walk out of the room, as I refuse to watch it. However, I've weened them off watching 60 (liberal) minutes. Old habits truly do die hard!!
I don't think Breitbart got this information, he's just helping to disseminate it.
But he does deserve credit for cracking the story wide open with his offer of $100,000 for the list.
The story on that issue is the fact the MSM sat on it for so long.
I saw that. Kristen Powers is the ditz that you are referring to. She is a good looking version of Alan Colmes, IMHO. Kelly exposed her for what she and many, if not most in the SRM complex think and how they think.
The fence, not the one that's supposed to be on our southern border, is being exposed, and taken apart day by day, but I don't think it will ever be totally taken down, like the Berlin Wall.
Nightline is still on?? Go figure!
For those of us over 45, ( or those that have knowledge of the events ) it kinda makes you wonder just how long this has been going on….. INCLUDING in the beginning days of anti-Vietnam and anti-Nixon administration days in the late sixties and early seventies. They took down a President and from there on, it was the empowerment of a thug-leftist-press.
Once the internet and sites like this make the information fenced in by the MSM worthless, there will be no more fence, because it will no longer be scarce.
I knew it was bad. I just never realized it was THIS bad. My God, just reading all of those emails is sickening. I don't know which is worse – the bigotry and hate in those emails or the fact of how MANY reporters are responsible for them. It isn't one, it isn't just ten, it's untold hundreds of reporters – and they're spread out all over the country. These bigots are in every newsroom in America, in every newspaper, in every magazine. They're everywhere – this isn't an isolated case of just one reporter's bigotry, this is a mass epidemic infecting them all. And they aren't even ashamed of it!
My God, it's worse than I'd thought.
Rush had a caller today that asked that very question. He didn't have a solid answer, I expect he'll be doing some research on it. But his opinion was it goes back at least to WWI.
The left, in attempting to rid the world of perceived hate, bigotry, greed, have become the monster they imagined their foes to be.
For all the people who are questioning how it is that Leftists such as these JournoList participants end up like this – i.e., impervious to fact, reason, truth, etc. – you really need to do more reading about the history of Leftist ideology. When you do so, you'll very quickly discover that none of this is in the least bit surprising.
As I've stated in many other forums, Leftist ideology is based on an aristocratic social model, one that came about during the time of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Ostensibly, it was a reaction to the oppressive nature of European monarchy, but at it's essence, it was really just plain-old jealousy…the enlightened "intellectual" class hated the prevailing aristocratic/religous order, feeling that if they themselves – being the "smart" ones, after all (sound familiar?) – could somehow gain control of the political system, they could bring about an earthly paradise.
Contrary to popular believe, however, the Left has never actually valued the so-called "masses", accept as in so far as those masses acquiesce to the will of their better-educated, well-heelded Leftist betters. Here are some ruminations on the masses from a few prominent French intellectuals who defined the political Left:
What this illustrates is the historical disdain the Left has always shown towards those whom they felt were less-educated or insufficiently "in the know".
But it's actually even worse than that. As a buffer against the uncomfortable intellectual challenges the Left faced, the ideology simply decided to brand anyone who didn't adhere to Leftist thought a mental defective. Thus, the creation of the Marxist notion of "false consciousness": the inability of the ignorant masses to understand their real need to be saved by the Left.
(cont'd)
These JournoList members are simply the logical, inescapable end result of nearly 300 years of Leftist poison running through the veins of Western Civilization. PUrging it from our systems is going to be a Herculean task, but it's one that we must undertake if we want to have any chance of rescuing this civilization for future generations. Because it isn't the JournoList types that we really need to fear…they're just naive, self-important know-nothings who think they've never heard anything quite so interesting as the sound of their own voices. Those we need to fear are those who will use these "useful idiots" to advance far more insidious agendas.
To illustrate what I mean, I'll leave you with a few quote from one of the most famous Leftist "protectors of the people". Then, you decide if any of it reminds you of anything you see happening in our nation today.
And finally, to all the "useful idiots" on the Left: a warning from that same "protector of the people" about how true radicals think:
You're right, of course. I should say he publicized it, instead of found it; Breitbart, however, has the means to spread this far and wide, in a way the original discoverer probably doesn't possess. That being said, thank you also to whoever sent this to him. You've done all of us a great service.
Good read, I can remember many years hence during the Reagan administration in a world studies high school class my well traveled teacher brought a copy of Pravda to class. I can remember her giggling over how the laughable the stories were. And how fabricated the views were to promote a slanted untruth. Being an unpopular ne’er do well with nothing to lose I stated “No difference between us and them. Look what they do to President Reagan”. Ah the verbal brawl that ensued with this former flower child and classmates went on for some time with references to the media’s beloved Tip O’Neill ,Ted Kennedy, and Jerry Brown flying from my tongue with mockery and contempt. Sadly this ended with me being shut up by brutal sycophants with mockery and a smattering threat or two of afterschool face breakings and I was offered an opportunity by my re-education instructor to attend 3:30 Gulag/detention if I continued to vocalize my line of thinking. Corruption by the ‘free press’ has been full frontal for some time and is glossed over by their own. Thanks for the grim reminder ‘Bart. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword but the observant eye nukes all.
The lame-stream media has become a tool of the left-wing! It's fundamental flaw is that it see's itself as a crusader for social justice. It has totally abandoned it's responsibility to accurately and objectively report the news!
"We're madder than hell but how do you explain someone who gets their news from Katie Couric exclusively?"
That is a great question, Bill! And I'm sure one that only a qualified psychiatrist could even begin to answer.
I'm not sure the media changed. Newspapers have always been arrogant when it comes to their role in government and society. They've always been "playas" – not just crusaders for whatever they considered good causes, but often for whatever political party or against whatever social evil their owners had an interest in. Like you said, they didn't try to hide any of this, nor did their readers mind. It was what it was.
I have a crackpot theory that something happened in the 40s – maybe during WWII, maybe later. Citizens in general became more passive and trusting of authority. It wasn't that the news was any less biased. It was that people didn't want to *believe* it was biased. They wanted us all to be on the same team, united against our common enemies the Nazis, the Japs, and the Commies. They needed a handle on a frightening, rapidly-changing world, so they CHOSE the news media as their anchor to reality. They ignored the bias because the bias made them uncomfortable. That's why Uncle Walter was Uncle Walter. It wasn't that he gave them straight news all the time – it was that he made them feel secure and so they trusted him.
Great questions! I agree with your concern. I only occasionally watch the MSM news – usually World News, because that's what my mom wants to watch in the evening after dinner. Since she watches my kids all day while I'm at work, it's the least I can do! ;-D
Seriously, though. She won't watch Fox or anything else; she thinks Fox is biased to the right and while she's not any political party at all and basically thinks they're all crooks, she still won't watch Fox. Or CNN – too much talking. She flicks a lot.
So yeah, I love all these stories coming out, but are they preaching to the choir? Are they going to get out on the MSM news. Am I going to see this Journolist story tonight on ABC, CBS or NBC? Or even CNN? I know a few stories got out – like Wright and even Acorn. But then they are buried, as is shown by the Daily Caller piece.
How do we get people to not just watch the MSM, but also see other things to get the other POV (and usually the truthful POV)? That is what will really win the rest of America over (except for the few Kool-Aid drinking zombies that are unsavable).
I think we need to ask *why* they sat on it for so long. Were they protecting Gore, or did they just decide it was a stupid, tabloid-type story not worth investigating?
Even journalists have standards. Not many, but they do have 'em.
"I've never been big on conspiracy theories but when you have the evidence right in front of your face, how can you ignore it?"
Exactly how I always felt as well. Now it seems like the so-called conspiracy "theories" are not actually theories – they are the truth!
Of course it doesn't make me feel any better.
You may have something there. I think The Great Depression and WWII really took its toll on people. Once the world was, for all intents and purposes, safe, they coddled their children and got coddled by the media and the government.
And I'm one of those that is not a fan of any conspiracy theories because the arguments usually turn more and more circular until you are wearing a tinfoil hat, in your underwear and living in the basement.
But apparently some conspiracy theorie are true . . . like this one.
The lesson here is: Journalists are people, too. There's nothing special about them. They expose unseemly truths, but often in a highly selective and partisan manner. They fight for what is right, but they often don't know what "right" actually is.
I keep thinking that one way to do it is to trick the press into showing up at a press conference and then exposing the story. Usually, if they think it's important, they'll show up. And once the jig is up, it'll be too late. Likely, it will be live, too.
But I'm no journalist and I don't know the inner workings of that profession.
And I, too, was a "non-conspiracy theorist". Technically, I still am, I'm just more open to things like this now because they keep getting proven as TRUE!
Once someone exposes the dead alien bodies from Roswell, or that the aliens helped build the pyramids, then I'll be a full blown one, but until then, I'll stick to reality! ;-D
So… you're solution to what you percieve as bias is to tune it out in favor of… well, MORE bias, but bias that you already agree with. Makes perfect sense
Here's the sad reality: Unless you are standing there seeing it with your own eyes, there is no such thing as knowing the 100% "objective truth"… and even THEN, you might be decieving YOURSELF.
Everybody lies. And even when they don't, the only thing any one person can "report" to another is filtered and changed through their perspective. If you wish to come at least SOMEWHAT close to truth in news, the solution is to listen to everything (or close to it) but accept nothing. Unless you were there, all you are getting is someone else's version of the facts – the only question is whether they're lying intentionally or deluded enough to think their perspective is The Truth; and that goes for Breitbart every bit as much as it goes for JournoList.
Because accepting a perspective is about belief, and belief is WORTHLESS when compared to KNOWLEDGE.
" They only want to hear what they already know to be true in thier minds. They only want reinforcement. I believe what most media outlets do is pander to their target audience. No one is looking for the truth except for their own. People want their news served with the bias they prefer."
Such is the fate of a "civilization" which claims to be evolved but still holds beliefs in equal standing to ideas.
"My unscientific study says about 2/3 are willing to listen. That's excellent news for our side."
If your estimates are correct it would mean that 2 of every 3 people have common sense or a curiosity about the truth.
Out here in LA I take the same approach, Ed. I have many liberal friends. In our discussions I apply the Socratic method. I ask questions that if they answer honestly they will be lead to the logical conclusion. I think it was you, on this very site, months ago who said that you should use reason and if you see the person on the other end is unreasonable you should just move on. Don't waste your time on the unreachable.
The other great thing about the Socratic method is that I don't have to out myself as a fiscal conservative and proponent of small government which would turn off many people. I let them think that I want to learn from THEM. Play dumb. Then ask for examples. "The Tea Partiers did what? Wow! I would love to see that. Could you send it to me?" They never can back it up.
"These bigots are in every newsroom in America, in every newspaper, in every magazine."
And in every public classroom…
Ah Bob.. Once again trying the old well everyone does it defense and try to keep talking and get people off the main subject which you don't want them to see. Are you sure your not a member of Journolist? The point which you don't want to address is that this isn't a case of the people letting their bais get in the way. This is an example of those in the media conspiring to divert attention from news items that may damage the canidate they want to be elected. Burying the story would improve his chances to be elected. You OK with that?
It probably was me.
Being from the left, I not only know every attack form they have, I also know how to defeat them. I know where the Achilles Heel is on every play in the book. Because in order for those emotional attacks to work, the left has to know where the weak link is, in order to protect it.
The left's main over all premise is to be in charge of the debate, make the rules, set the premise, so they can guide it to exactly the ends they need to sound logical.
Deny them that privilege and you've won 90% of the debate. But they are very devious, and that's a lot trickier than it sounds. They've been at it a long time.
But so have I.
" This is an example of those in the media conspiring to divert attention from news items that may damage the canidate they want to be elected. Burying the story would improve his chances to be elected. You OK with that?"
Morally? Of course not.
Practically? Eh, I regard it the same way I regard Carnival midway games: I KNOW they're rigged against me, it's sucky but it is what it is and since I'm aware of it and react accordingly it doesn't harsh my buzz either way. Humans are imperfect – most of them quite profoundly so – so the notion that "journalists" decision of what to cover and how to cover it might be colored by personal bias has always been sort of a "duh" for me. I listen to right-wing talk on the radio all day while driving, I watch MSNBC opinion shows at night while working, I'm reading this site and HuffPo etc. in between script pages right now. I know going in that every single one is likely engaged in selective reporting, opinion-as-news and other intentional and unintentional obfuscations.
Between them all, I work to discern a functional grasp of current events – but always in the knowledge that NOTHING is 100% "true" until experienced in-person.
And frankly, I don't have much sympathy for those who feel "taken advantage of" by NOT approaching "the news" that way. This is the Age of Information, there is NO EXCUSE in our allegedly civilized world for taking any secondhand info at face-value without even five-second "click" over to The Googles. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is oblivious or complacent enough to place their "trust" in ANY one source of news DESERVES to be taken advantage of.
Mr. Breitbart, thank you for what may be your most shocking revelation yet!
It seems to me though that these "journalists" are only effective as long as they are employed. Really, and no doubt you have considered this, the groups that own these media outlets are the real culprits.
When I was younger I remember learning that the laws were set up to keep one person from owning more than one media outlet. I may have learned it in 8th grade history when we studied the Constitution. The law was intended to keep a person or small group of people from owning the narrative. Was I dreaming or was that the law? If so, when did it change?
So it's the peoples fault for not knowing? Why am I not surprised. Now you go to the blame the victim arguement.
The Huffpo, which I don't go to but at least they make no bones about being for liberals, while I may disagree with almost everything on it hey it's a site for liberals just like this site is upfront on its conservative take on issues.
What you side step is that most of the media still tells us their unbaised. It's easy to say oh so you don't like it go to a website that does. But what about the last 40 years when they were feeding us this BS line and we had no where else to go? How much damage did they do?
Speaking of bias your defense comes off as a biased one in defense of liberals. It seems you talk about bias alot while trying to cover yours .
So it's the peoples fault for not knowing? Why am I not surprised. Now you go to the blame the victim arguement.
The Huffpo, which I don't go to but at least they make no bones about being for liberals, while I may disagree with almost everything on it hey it's a site for liberals just like this site is upfront on its conservative take on issues.
What you side step is that most of the media still tells us their unbaised. It's easy to say oh so you don't like it go to a website that does. But what about the last 40 years when they were feeding us this BS line and we had no where else to go? How much damage did they do?
Speaking of bias your defense comes off as a biased one in defense of liberals. It seems you talk about bias alot while trying to cover yours .
Mr. Breitbart-
Another excellent piece of investigative, truthful journalism.
I just want to thank you for the work you and everyone else at your websites are doing. You guys (and gals) are real patriots.
Thanks again.
No. If you read what I wrote, I'm looking for balance. Breitbart, and Drudge make it possible for me to look at different viewpoints from those that slip through my media filter. Now if I hear something that's become a talking point amongst friends and acquaintances, I can dig deeper and not just get the MSM version. I've then found the balance of multiple perspectives and can come to a conclusion based on that info all on my own.
Was honestly surprised to see it. Figured once Koppel left it would die. They really went after Goldline. One man whined that he didn't get the bullion he wanted. No counterpoint to ask why he went ahead and bought the coins they wanted to sell him. Definitely a hit job on Fox and Beck. In addition they showed others (Huckabee, Thompson) who are also spokesman for Goldline. Nice job ABC. Don't provide a disclaimer about Media Matters being an arm of the White House/DNC.
My parents do too. Fortunately, they also get news off the internet and radio as well, so it's not all one-sided. And the local news is a lot better, because we come from a very conservative state, so it's much more fair than the national news. It's unfortunate, though, that so many people don't realize how little actual news the nightly news shows us.
First, there was Climategate. An unknown and unsung seeker after the truth blew the fraud sky-high and saved this country at least from being put under the thumb of Al Gore and other enemies of carbon footprints.. And here is Andrew, known, and perhaps unsung, who's blowing the fraud of modern journalism sky-high. Do you know, I haven't bought a print newspaper in over three years. I've got all my news from the blogosphere that Obama and Company want to regulate and control. I don't even watch the morning and evening news on the Big Three anymore. What for?
My mother does wander on to the more conservative websites now that she has become more adept at surfing the net. My dad, God bless him, doesn't and is not computer or internet literate. But you make a good point in reference to the local news. That I'll watch, as it's a little more difficult to be political, especially the local weather and sports reports. But national network news is less informative that either Entertainment Tonight, or Access Hollywood etc…
Where do you live? I'm in Washington State.
I used to live in Bellevue, actually. But I've spent most of my life in Utah, which is where I am now. =)
Oh the eastside eh! I moved from NJ where I lived for the previous 24 years, now currently reside in Bremerton. Dad was in the Navy and the folks retired out here. Tucson AZ, is where I plan to move next, as soon as I find a job down there, or here for that matter.
Cheers!!
Nice MovieBob, I think I recognise that sentiment from "Dogma".
Kinda looks that way, don't it?
They probably thought it was a stupid, tabloid-type story. However, that wouldn't have stopped them from investigating if the alleged assaulter hadn't been a hero of the environmental movement. To put it another way, while the Duke rape case fit the story they wanted to tell, the Gore story did not.
Oh, surprise surprise – the resident asshole just HAD to get his little anti-Christian jabs in! As if religion had fuck all to do with the rampant media bias, but never mind that – a worthless piece of shit like you has an agenda to push.
And it will probably be no surprise to anyone that you fully agree with JournoList and probably posted some nasty crap on there yourself…under another asinine moniker, no doubt.
You must be logged in to post a comment.