WSJ: The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy

[Thiebear]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704684604575381083191313448.html



When I'm talking to people from outside Washington, one question inevitably comes up: Why is the media so liberal? The question often reflects a suspicion that members of the press get together and decide on a story line that favors liberals and Democrats and denigrates conservatives and Republicans.
My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal. If they came from West Point or engineering school, this wouldn't be the case.
Now, after learning I'd been targeted for a smear attack by a member of an online clique of liberal journalists, I'm inclined to amend my response. Not to say there's a media conspiracy, but at least to note that hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.





My guess is that this and other revelations about JournoList will deepen the distrust of the national press. True, participants in the online clubhouse appear to hail chiefly from the media's self-identified left wing. But its founder, Ezra Klein, is a prominent writer for the Washington Post. Mr. Klein shut down JournoList last month—a wise decision.
It's thanks to Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller website that we know something about JournoList, though the emails among the liberal journalists were meant to be private. (Mr. Carlson hasn't revealed how he obtained the emails.) In June, the Daily Caller disclosed a series of JournoList musings by David Weigel, then a Washington Post blogger assigned to cover conservatives. His emails showed he loathes conservatives, and he was subsequently fired.

more at link


I agree that certain jobs attract certain type personalities.
The 24x7 news cycle really attributes to this also: It's time that needs filled to keep the commericials and cash, so you see the same 4 hours repeating all day every day.

From What i've seen:
Liberal T.V. and Newspapers all spin the same stuff with quite a few journalist professors its seems.

Republican Radio and Breibart/newsmax/drudge/ online and Fox news all spin the same stuff with the Examiner in my area.

I used to agree that Most Republican offenders were commentators and most Democrat offenders seem to be reporters and anchors. But I can't tell the difference between the two in the last 5 years.



hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList,


Hundreds writing the same slant is not cool... Whats the point of "journalism" if they are acting in sync..
nobody could stand up to that...

We need to go back to the hour long news shows a couple times a day.
(and get off my lawn).


LOTS of Partial Quotes.


http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/22/when-mccain-picked-palin-liberal-journalists-coordinated-the-best-line-of-attack/2/
the link to another link that shows collaboration...



“Okay, let’s get deadly serious, folks. Grating voice or not, ‘inexperienced’ or not, Sarah Palin’s just been introduced to the country as a brave, above-party, oil-company-bashing, pork-hating maverick ‘outsider’,” Kilgore said, “What we can do is to expose her ideology.”


http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/
Another having people on the list attacking ABC and others on the Wright issue.



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.




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.”





http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/obama-wins-and-journolisters-rejoice/
NSFW - Language

[Bang]

While there has been a slant in the media before, the degree and venom that thye right claims it exists is staggering. The fact that so many on the right now only trust ONE source for their "news" is a bad thing, especially since that source manipulates them so much.

I simply cannot respect anyone who believes the best way to combat bias is with the same (if not worse) deceptions and propaganda.

The best way to combat it is with truth, and no one wants truth anymore. they just want truth according to their beliefs. People only want truth that conforms to what they already believe.

The media is dead as a source of information. It has been so successfully demonized that it has now been co-opted by the political movements in this country who pushed for their annexation, and got it. That has rendered 95% of it suspect at best, and straight out sinister at worst.

Demand truth people. Turn off the friggin' TV and stop, for cryin out loud STOP PRETENDING that one side or one network gives you unbiased news. They don't. Stop being such a ****ing sucker.

~Bang

[Kilmer17]

The Journolist scandal is at it's infancy.

[Buford]

People should read up on the Newspaper wars of Ben Franklin's time.

[polywog999]

I really think that the whole thing is a myth.

I was arguing with my friend (who is a Republican) about this and I told her, that I cannot believe the amount of Liberal bashing I see in the mainstream media. She replied, "well, they deserve it" I said fine, maybe they do, but that kind of solidifies my point, doesn't it? For every story about GW's "Bushisms" there is another about Al Gore inventing the internet.

I think there is a lot of progressive ideology in the media in general, but that does not fall squarely on the Libs; the Neo-cons are also to blame.

While the Conservatives sometimes do not see this, I am convinced, that as a people we are highly progressive and this is often construed as "Liberal."

[Larry]

When I'm talking to people from outside Washington, one question inevitably comes up: Why is the media so liberal?

Funny. I live outside Washington. Have done so for 30 years.

And the only time I've ever heard that question is (for the last 30 years) when I'm listening to intentional right-wing propagandists, or (in the last few years) from ES posters who think that intentional right-wing propaganda is Good.

[Kilmer17]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/541156/201007211852/The-Smoking-Gun-For-Media-Bias.aspx

The Smoking Gun For Media Bias

Posted 07/21/2010 06:52 PM ET


Journo-Gate: For decades, moderates and conservatives have been derided and ridiculed for complaining about the mainstream media's pervasive liberal bias. As it turns out, however, their worst fears were true.

If you don't know about Journolist, you should. It's a semi-secret listserv maintained by Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein. Don't bother to try to log on. If they want you, they'll ask you to take part. No outsiders need apply.

And who uses it? Almost exclusively liberal journalists and left-leaning movers and shakers. Sound innocuous? It isn't.

Journolist has become a forum for lefty journalists to talk about how to push their progressive agenda on America, protect President Obama and hurt his foes. It is a safe-space for the often-vile expression of hatred toward conservatives and their ideas.


more....

[Thiebear]

Like i said earlier: You can't stand up against a coordinated attack like this.

Getting Marching orders while being a journalist should be scary to all and thats why it was shut down..


Yes, this is where you can put in the Rush/Hannity/Savage/Coulter/Beck/OReilly/Newsmax... people should be required to actually OWN their stories and there should be Self imposed Media fines for the Breibart stupidity.

[Beans]

Any Reuter's article screams shill. It's pathetic.

News is propaganda. There is almost always spin, insinuations, power of suggestion, and subliminal messages encoded in every article we read.

[jpyaks3]

I remember when the Wall Street Journal used to be a respected publication. Now they print absolute trash in the opinion pages. This is not really any different. I don't think that Mr. Barnes understands what a listserv is or how it works. A lot of people post a lot of things on a listserv and those don't stand as marching orders or whatever Mr. Barnes is claiming. Its pretty damn easy to pick single post or single excerpt take it out of context and run with it as something its not (I am looking at you Breitbart) and I think this is nothing different. Its just a shame that the WSJ went from a respectable if right leaning publication to a rag in the span of a few short years.

[jpyaks3]

Here is a response

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/first_time_as_tragedy_second_t_1.html

The other piece of evidence in yesterday's story was a public letter signed by 41 members of Journolist protesting ABC News's conduct during one of the presidential primary debate. You may remember this one. Greg Mitchell, of Editor and Publisher (and not a member of Journolist), called it a "shameful night for US media." On Journolist, Tom Schaller, a professor of political science at the University of Maryland, wrote an angry letter and asked people if they'd like to sign it. Then the letter was posted in public. You can read it here. Some conspiracy.

....

Which brings us to the Daily Caller. There might be some interesting stories to write about a trove of 25,000+ e-mails -- though, in reality, most of them would say something like "lots of people have lots of different opinions" -- but their approach has been to cherrypick the few snippets that support the most sensational headlines, and then attribute them to "Journolist," or "journalists," as opposed to whichever specific person is being quoted.

[Burgold]

Getting Marching orders while being a journalist should be scary to all and thats why it was shut down..

.

Just to put it out there. I have never been given marching orders or never told to tell a story a certain way. In my experience it hasn't happened. No one has ever tried to rig a story. In fact, when I've worked on stories that were more controversial, usually they get an editional editor or two to proof it to make sure that we have been as fairly and covered the issue as completely as possible.

Now, when at the press club, I have heard from other reporters that they have been told that a story needs to read a certain way and were told to re-write a story to emphasize a certain ideologic perspective. I don't think I need to tell you which network those reporters were with. To their benefit, they were miserable about it. To their detriment, they were cowed and went along with it. And no, I won't name names.

[jpyaks3]

Also did Barnes forget about this

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200902110016

Caught red-handed using GOP talking points, Fox caves with apology ... for typo
February 11, 2009 2:24 pm ET
Yesterday, Media Matters noted:

In purporting to "take a look back" at how the economic recovery plan "grew, and grew, and grew," Fox News' Jon Scott referenced seven dates, as on-screen graphics cited various news sources from those time periods -- all of which came directly from a Senate Republican Communications Center press release. A Fox News on-screen graphic even reproduced a typo contained in the Republican press release.
My, how a day of criticism from media critics and progressive bloggers changes things – even at Fox News. Today, Scott offered... an apology of sorts (emphasis added):

Yesterday on Happening Now we showed you how the stimulus bill has grown over time. Our story prompted by a news release from the Senate Republican Communication Center. There point that a $56 billion proposal in September has grown to $838 billion in five months. In compiling the story, our producers and researchers did what we always do -- we verified the accuracy of the material. But in double checking the newspaper quotes referenced in that news release we made the same mistake they did. We labeled a Wall Street Journal article as having run in 2009 when in fact it was 2008. That was our error, and we apologize.
Of course, I’m kidding.

See what Scott does there? He apologizes, not for passing along a one-sided argument made in a Senate Republican Communications Center’s press release as Fox News’ original reporting, but for reporting the typo.

In his initial report, Scott didn’t tell his audience that the citations in his report were based entirely on a press release from the Senate Republicans – a fact he glosses over in his half-hearted apology for the typo.

I’d question Fox News’ journalistic integrity; that is of course if they had any to question in the first place.

[stanleys]

So the leftists covering for this disgusting act has boiled down to:

Journalists would never do this but right wing ones do it too?

[jpyaks3]

So the leftists covering for this disgusting act has boiled down to:

Journalists would never do this but right wing ones do it too?

No I am pointing out that apparently the author doesn't know what a listserv is and posting one or two posts from that doesn't indicate a "vast left wing conspiracy" no matter how much he wants it to.

Although he does entirely ignore Fox News directly copying Senate Republican talking points word for word.

[Wrong Direction]

Great...another ideological peeing match over who's worse.

I've got news for you...this type of stuff is pervasive. The all use each other's talking points and coordinate. Many do exactly what Breitbart did and take things out of context (some left wing website was just busted showing a tea party racist, only to omit that he was being heckled by actual tea partiers and told to leave...implying he was a plant in the first place).

Either way, the holier than thou stuff should stop. Call them all out because they're all conflicted.

[hkHog]

Just to put it out there. I have never been given marching orders or never told to tell a story a certain way. In my experience it hasn't happened. No one has ever tried to rig a story. In fact, when I've worked on stories that were more controversial, usually they get an editional editor or two to proof it to make sure that we have been as fairly and covered the issue as completely as possible.

Now, when at the press club, I have heard from other reporters that they have been told that a story needs to read a certain way and were told to re-write a story to emphasize a certain ideologic perspective. I don't think I need to tell you which network those reporters were with. To their benefit, they were miserable about it. To their detriment, they were cowed and went along with it. And no, I won't name names.

This is just the argument that you and your colleagues have come up with to deflect negative attention! Stop rigging ES!:ols:

[mardi gras skin]

Ezra Klein is slimy. He gives me the Rush Limbaugh vibe. If they're talking, they're lying.

[NoCalMike]

The entire "media is liberal" myth is merely put out there by the right-wing noise machine in order to make people stop watching actual news and just start listening to opinion shows featured on Fox and right-wing radio.

Just look at the handling of the media story from the lady that just lost her job. How did MSNBC or CNN handle it any different than FOX, initially? They didn't. They ran with the same sensationalistic BS that FOX did. The only difference is after the truth came out, those networks apologized, while FOX continued to spin the story and blame others as usual.

It's not liberal vs. conservative. It is News & Reporting vs. Opinion/Entertainment.

[Hubbs]

Any Reuter's article screams shill. It's pathetic.

News is propaganda. There is almost always spin, insinuations, power of suggestion, and subliminal messages encoded in every article we read.

Um... Reuters articles scream "shill"? Really? The only reason Reuters isn't the most boring, just-the-facts-ma'am news outlet in existence is because the AP is around to hold that title.

[Thiebear]

There are plenty of examples of collaboration in detail
How many do you need?

And it was invite only Burgold... you have to show shill to be invited.. you apparently didn't give off the vibe.. or have a friend with the ring.

[DCsportsfan53]

Bang, I agree 110% with your comments. Legitimate, unfiltered or unbiased news sources seem to be so far and few between these days it's unreal. I still think NPR does a solid job, they certainly try to make a point of presenting both sides and leaving the conclusion up to the listener. But that's about it. It really falls in line with my way of thinking regarding our country today, in general. Both parties serve the same general purpose (and hint, it ain't got anything to do with average Americans) and the media on both sides is complacent in that and takes their cut. It just amazes me constantly and how successful the two together are at driving the population towards narrow, specific issues, particularly emotional and difficult ones with black and white answers. It kills me how often people get elected on things that have NOTHING to do with our everyday lives or the business of running the country.

[Smoot Point Really]

If Palin were liberal (homely & androgynous), these journalists would be loving her no matter what she said.

[HokieSkinsFan]

Virtually all of the "news" (infotainment really) media in this country is corporate controlled, and thus tilts right. Most of it is center-right, and Fox News is far right.

[Larry]

Bang, I agree 110% with your comments. Legitimate, unfiltered or unbiased news sources seem to be so far and few between these days it's unreal.

The Daily Show.

[Rex Tomb]

Also did Barnes forget about this

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200902110016

Caught red-handed using GOP talking points, Fox caves with apology ... for typo
February 11, 2009 2:24 pm ET
Yesterday, Media Matters noted:

In purporting to "take a look back" at how the economic recovery plan "grew, and grew, and grew," Fox News' Jon Scott referenced seven dates, as on-screen graphics cited various news sources from those time periods -- all of which came directly from a Senate Republican Communications Center press release. A Fox News on-screen graphic even reproduced a typo contained in the Republican press release.
My, how a day of criticism from media critics and progressive bloggers changes things – even at Fox News. Today, Scott offered... an apology of sorts (emphasis added):

Yesterday on Happening Now we showed you how the stimulus bill has grown over time. Our story prompted by a news release from the Senate Republican Communication Center. There point that a $56 billion proposal in September has grown to $838 billion in five months. In compiling the story, our producers and researchers did what we always do -- we verified the accuracy of the material. But in double checking the newspaper quotes referenced in that news release we made the same mistake they did. We labeled a Wall Street Journal article as having run in 2009 when in fact it was 2008. That was our error, and we apologize.
Of course, I’m kidding.

See what Scott does there? He apologizes, not for passing along a one-sided argument made in a Senate Republican Communications Center’s press release as Fox News’ original reporting, but for reporting the typo.

In his initial report, Scott didn’t tell his audience that the citations in his report were based entirely on a press release from the Senate Republicans – a fact he glosses over in his half-hearted apology for the typo.

I’d question Fox News’ journalistic integrity; that is of course if they had any to question in the first place.

Using the extreme left website that is Media Matters doesn't help your case. Anything sponsored by George Sorros completely discredits your point, in my opinion.

[Rex Tomb]

The Daily Show.

If you really think the Daily Show is unbiased... wow.

Jon Daily is one of the most left-wing talking heads out there. True, most of his show is farce, but his interviews with liberals and conservatives are so dramatically different. Pander to the liberals, grill the conservatives. He couldn't pin Newt down though. :drooley: Gingrich 2012!

[Larry]

Using the extreme left website that is Media Matters doesn't help your case. Anything sponsored by George Sorros completely discredits your point, in my opinion.

Ignoring well documented facts doesn't help your case.

Fox News took a Republican Party press release, and ran it, word for word, as though it were a Fox story. Right down to the typos.

[Smoot Point Really]

Ignoring well documented facts doesn't help your case.

Fox News took a Republican Party press release, and ran it, word for word, as though it were a Fox story. Right down to the typos.

We're talking about 500 liberal journalists here... From many different media outlets. You aren't really on topic.

[Madison Redskin]

If Palin were liberal (homely & androgynous), these journalists would be loving her no matter what she said.

Liberals are homely and androgynous? WTF?

[mardi gras skin]

I still think NPR does a solid job, they certainly try to make a point of presenting both sides and leaving the conclusion up to the listener.

I like NPR because they do tend to present each side, but it has a left leaning bent. It feels centrist if you live in Maryland but its liberal programming in Tennessee. The way the stories are framed creates a bias to my ears at least.

[mardi gras skin]

I’d question Fox News’ journalistic integrity; that is of course if they had any to question in the first place.

That quote is from Media Matters. Fantastic :)

[jpyaks3]

Using the extreme left website that is Media Matters doesn't help your case. Anything sponsored by George Sorros completely discredits your point, in my opinion.

So you are disputing that they copied point for point even down to the typos the Republican Senates talking points? Or are you just blindly attacking Media Matters and for some reason George Soros?

[IHOPSkins]

......posting one or two posts from that doesn't indicate a "vast left wing conspiracy".......If William Ayers Babysat for Obama....do you think people would be concerned?

Well maybe the Left in the form of Ben Smith thought so

....The McCain campaign approached us with a story they had on Obama, which needed a second source to confirm. They had found a young woman in Hyde Park who had played with the older Obama girl on occasion, and knew about babysitting William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn did for the Obama girls.....

.....So, Ben Smith refused to do a write-up on the Ayers/Dorhn babysitting…despite getting two different people who didn’t know each other to verify that this happened on more than one occasion.....

http://hillbuzz.org/2010/07/22/our-experience-with-journolist-member-and-committed-obama-operative-ben-smith-during-the-2008-general-election/

[jpyaks3]

If William Ayers Babysat for Obama....do you think people would be concerned?

Well maybe the Left in the form of Ben Smith thought so

....The McCain campaign approached us with a story they had on Obama, which needed a second source to confirm. They had found a young woman in Hyde Park who had played with the older Obama girl on occasion, and knew about babysitting William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn did for the Obama girls.....

.....So, Ben Smith refused to do a write-up on the Ayers/Dorhn babysitting…despite getting two different people who didn’t know each other to verify that this happened on more than one occasion.....

http://hillbuzz.org/2010/07/22/our-experience-with-journolist-member-and-committed-obama-operative-ben-smith-during-the-2008-general-election/

Let me get this straight some random right wing blog came to someone with 2 whole sources about something and is shocked that someone didn't run with it? Why in the world should Ben Smith believe anything coming from Hillbuzz. If I was a journalist and some trash site like Hillbuzz came to me I would be very skeptical of anything coming out of it.

Why if this was such a huge story did one of the non-left wing conspiracy media places run with this, if it was so important you would think the McCain campaign would mention it or FoxNews would cover it or are they all part of the conspiracy too?

[Jeeb]

BOOGABOOGABOOOGA!!!!

Liberals are violent AND
Liberals are limp-wristed sissies

Liberals are lazy, welfare-sucking do-nothings AND
Liberals are the ruling elite, using their almost limitless power to destroy America

Liberals are a tiny minority with no voice AND
Liberals run the entire news media, in addition to Hollywood

Liberals are hateful, vicious people AND
Liberals all want to sing Kumbayah and hold hands around a campfire

[Tarpon75]

I like NPR because they do tend to present each side, but it has a left leaning bent. It feels centrist if you live in Maryland but its liberal programming in Tennessee. The way the stories are framed creates a bias to my ears at least.

I would have to agree with you.

[polywog999]

BOOGABOOGABOOOGA!!!!

Liberals are violent AND
Liberals are limp-wristed sissies

Liberals are lazy, welfare-sucking do-nothings AND
Liberals are the ruling elite, using their almost limitless power to destroy America

Liberals are a tiny minority with no voice AND
Liberals run the entire news media, in addition to Hollywood

Liberals are hateful, vicious people AND
Liberals all want to sing Kumbayah and hold hands around a campfire
Yeah, everybody knows this already...

[Thiebear]

You people suck at staying focused :). Straight to random bashing...

Bias'd is different than 400 people subscribing and sharing ideas...
Taking talking points from the RNC is different if its one Newschannel.
CNN taking Gibbs talking points is different.

Both are lazy and biased, but that is a one for one situation.

400 different journalists/Teachers brainstorming angles is a LOT of possible coordination.
Even if only 10% decide to publish, their coordination causes others to follow suite and the reporting news is lost.

[Burgold]

I agree with the TB. If true, this stinks. It certainly doesn't stink less than a network with an agenda (because that's 1,000s or 10,000's of newsman, techs, administrators, executives, and directors all in on a plot. Their reach and influence will be much greater and more insidious than 400 teachers, reporters, and others. Heck, one local channel has a team that's bigger than 400. However, those 400 coordinating their mischief is wrong on a very high level.

I do warn that 400 is a big and small number simultaneously and it also depends how many of those 400 are decision makers. For example, I can't just pick up and run a story. It has to be approved first, edited, and signed off on. That's not to say that I couldn't make trouble if I wanted to and if a group of my cohorts decided to we couldn't create a big mess. That's why something like this is terrible if it's acted on and if it's true. I tend to believe that this probably is true that this conpiracy did happen and I hope those guys never find work in the legit press again. If that's what they are then they ought to join a think tank, PR group, or lobbying firm.

[Burgold]

One network is one channel among 100's. It's also well known and accepted to be biased. You can tune in or not. Fox, Rush and other right leaning media outlets might feel coordinated, but they are in competition with each other.

They are? Really? How many talk stations coordinate their programming? How many times do these guys build off each other and use each other to trumpet each's causes? By the way, saying FOX is only one media outlet and then in the same 'graph saying FOX, Rush, and other Right leaning media outlets... seems to indicate more than one, doesn't it?

I'm not going to defend this conspiracy because if it is what it is then it is shameful, wrong, and dangerous. However, don't be blind or make excuses to the other esp. when the other generates and reaches as many as it does.

[Thiebear]

You see fox news you see "bias"
You see CNN news you see "bias"
40 (10%) different people from different papers/locations etc. = not so easy.

I was watching Wolf the other night on the USDA and the softball questions were amazing in their setup.. but i expect it. No different than Fox removing a sentence.

I guess it comes down to... it should be rooted out and ended. Thats how you keep the 4th branch going. This way we can look back in 80 years as others have pointed back to Jeffersons time. Seeing it is key.

[Larry]

BOOGABOOGABOOOGA!!!!

Liberals are violent AND
Liberals are limp-wristed sissies

Liberals are lazy, welfare-sucking do-nothings AND
Liberals are the ruling elite, using their almost limitless power to destroy America

Liberals are a tiny minority with no voice AND
Liberals run the entire news media, in addition to Hollywood

Liberals are hateful, vicious people AND
Liberals all want to sing Kumbayah and hold hands around a campfire

Actually, I thought the best example I've ever seen of political groups arguing things which contradict themselves, was when we were debating WMDs, and whether or not to invade Iraq.

The Republicans were yelling:


We have to invade Iraq, right now, whether he has WMDs or not, because we all know that the instant that he does get them, a terrorist will use one against New York.

and, simultaneously, yelling:

And he's had WMDs for a dozen years. (And no terrorist has used them.)

Meanwhile, the Democrats were all yelling:


Saddam doesn't have any WMDs.

and, simultaneously,

And if we invade, he'll kill thousands of our troops with his WMDs.

[Larry]

BTW, since I haven't stated an opinion, here.

Yeah, this could be something really big, and something evil.

OTOH, this could be "Climategate, Part II":


Hack 500,000 emails.
Pick 5 sentences out of the 500,000 emails which, taken out of context, can be easily spun.
Yell, loudly and often, that this proves that "everybody who holds political position X is a co-conspirator".
Wait a day, and then have somebody else loudly yell the same thing.
Wait a day, repeat.
Wait a day, then have somebody else announce that, since all these other people are yelling the same thing, then there must be something behind it.
Wait a day, and then the first yeller announces that since the third yeller quoted the second yeller, that makes what they're lelling more true.

And so on.

I've seen this theater, before. I'm waiting to see if they manage to come up with something other than a bunch of spinsters quoting each others spin, and claiming that because we're all on message, that makes the message true.

[SkinsHokieFan]

They are? Really? How many talk stations coordinate their programming? How many times do these guys build off each other and use each other to trumpet each's causes? By the way, saying FOX is only one media outlet and then in the same 'graph saying FOX, Rush, and other Right leaning media outlets... seems to indicate more than one, doesn't it?

I'm not going to defend this conspiracy because if it is what it is then it is shameful, wrong, and dangerous. However, don't be blind or make excuses to the other esp. when the other generates and reaches as many as it does.


It tends to happen. Not overtly of course.

However, you can see a story start to gain momentum in the left wing blogosphere. Then TPM and Daily Beast pick it up. Then Olbermann and Maddow. Then the traction is really there and the rest of the MSM is on it

[Larry]

It tends to happen. Not overtly of course.

However, you can see a story start to gain momentum in the left wing blogosphere. Then TPM and Daily Beast pick it up. Then Olbermann and Maddow. Then the traction is really there and the rest of the MSM is on it

Unless, of course, the subject is Fox News.

Then, it happens overtly and deliberately.

[Thiebear]

BTW, since I haven't stated an opinion, here.

Yeah, this could be something really big, and something evil.

OTOH, this could be "Climategate, Part II":

I've seen this theater, before. I'm waiting to see if they manage to come up with something other than a bunch of spinsters quoting each others spin, and claiming that because we're all on message, that makes the message true.

Larry,
Do you believe there should be an Invite only group of Journalists and Academics that toss around ideas for stories to run with or not run with.

[Larry]

Larry,
Do you believe there should be an Invite only group of Journalists and Academics that toss around ideas for stories to run with or not run with.

1) As you've described it, no, there's nothing wrong with that.

2) I haven't seen anything, yet, that says that this is what we're talking about.

For example, I, personally, belong to a restricted-membership internet forum in which people frequently discuss their opinions on current political events. Several of the members of this group are involved in "the media". Others hold highly-placed positions in the government, including classified national security positions, and Supreme Courts. (And many, many, others think that they are influential.)

Again: I've seen this script before. And it was completely manufactured. Easily, demonstrably, so.

(And despite the fact that it was easily, demonstrably, manufactured, many, many, people believed it, still believe it, and continue to claim that it's true.)

Which doesn't mean that there isn't anything to this story. Some times, there really is a wolf.

I'm just saying that if there's something there, then it will come out. And quickly.

But until that time, it's going to take more to convince me than a couple of partisans making grandiose claims of fast conspiracies, and citing, as proof, other partisans making identical grandiose claims.