For anyone who is not familiar with this story… Tucker Carlson at the Daily Caller broke the story he has been following about a group of (Journalists and Bloggers) calling themselves the ‘JournoList’ that purposely killed stories to help Barack Obama and to hurt Sarah Palin. (Below is a partial list) Add this to the fact that NBC and MSNBC, ABC, the Huffington Post and the New York Times are absolutely in the Bag for the president because of their management and the White creating its own in-house news group, as well as the President avoiding the White House Press corps… and you have big problems and collusion to steal the election(s), slant the news and now to get rid of and dissenting voices through the FCC regulating the Internet, TV and talk radio.
Every American needs to be concerned about this and this trend needs to be stopped and turned. The Founding Fathers meant for an unbiased “free press” to be the 4th balance and check on power. We are quickly rolling toward banana republic and socialist regime tactics and control.
Here are some excerpts from a great article: America’s Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution – Long But an Important Read!!
“Our ruling class (which includes much or our media) grew and set itself apart from the rest of us by its connection with ever bigger government, and above all by a certain attitude.”
Professional prominence or position will not secure a place in the class any more than mere money. In fact, it is possible to be an official of a major corporation or a member of the U.S. Supreme Court (just ask Justice Clarence Thomas), or even president (Ronald Reagan), and not be taken seriously by the ruling class. Like a fraternity, this class requires above all comity — being in with the right people, giving the required signs that one is on the right side, and joining in despising the Outs. Once an official or professional shows that he shares the manners, the tastes, the interests of the class, gives lip service to its ideals and shibboleths, and is willing to accommodate the interests of its senior members, he can move profitably among our establishment’s parts.
Reverend Wright Story Smothered, Evidence of Media Plotting Exposed: BREAKING NEWS
Glenn Beck is covering this story live on his talk radio show as I write this. While the vast majority of our members realized this was going on, it’s nice to finally have confirmation of what we weren’t willing to discount. I mean, it’s only logical that the radical leftist extremists in the media would protect their homeboy, despite their professions of impartiality, but now the evidence confirms our suspicions.
You’ve got to read this article, which would have stunned enough Americans, had they realized it was going on back during the 2008 election, to change the outcome of the Democratic primary. And while it wouldn’t have stunned many of us, it WOULD have outraged many Americans who were deceived into voting for Barack Hussein Obama…at least…I would hope so!
But finally we have evidence of an actual conspiracy against the truth, to smother a story which may have derailed the Obama victory had it been covered with the intensity the story deserved. If only all America could know about this story, it would awaken many Americans, and the numbers of those willing to stand up to the Obama Regime would swell. I’ll update this once the video is available to embed in this discussion thread. Until then…
…here’s the story:
By Jonathan Strong – The Daily Caller 1:15 AM 07/20/2010
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.”
Systematic Femisogyny In Action - Posted by Lori Ziganto
Thursday, July 22nd at 7:00PM EDT – (cross-posted from NewsReal)
The most insidious form of media bias is deciding what to cover and, more importantly, what not to cover. The revelations uncovered by The Daily Caller in regard to Journolist have been damning on that front. The latest involve Sarah Palin and while anyone with a speck of honesty already realized that the media has been out to marginalize her from the very beginning, Journolist members took it to an even more egregious level. I know. I didn’t think that was possible either, but apparently it is.
While it is obviously not unheard of for colleagues to discuss stories of the day, that wasn’t the case here. This was a group of reputed (or refudiated!) journalists colluding with openly leftist opinionators to not report the news, but to shape it. As evidenced in these postings to JournoList:
Chris Hayes of the Nation wrote in with words of encouragement, and to ask for more talking points. “Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get,” Hayes wrote.
Time’s Joe Klein then linked to his own piece, parts of which he acknowledged came from strategy sessions on Journolist. “Here’s my attempt to incorporate the accumulated wisdom of this august list-serve community,” he wrote. And indeed Klein’s article contained arguments developed by his fellow Journolisters
Worse, the goal of the framing of the narrative was to marginalize and diminish a woman by using her womanhood itself against her for political means. In fact, one member, Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation, referred to the list as Obama’s “non-official campaign” and admitted he believed it was their job to discredit Palin:
This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away ……
That wasn’t even the worst of it.
What followed was a clear attempt to, once again, Use the Women ™ under the guise of being For The Women ™ by playing up the perpetual victim-hood sexist trump card as a way to dehumanize and demean Sarah Palin and her accomplishments. How did they attempt to do this? An idea first proffered by Suzanne Nossell, ironically of Human Rights Watch. It was then enthusiastically agreed to by more on the list, showing a classic case of femisogyny from the Left:
“I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views.”
Mother Jones’s Stein loved the idea. “That’s excellent! If enough people – people on this list? – write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket,” he wrote.
Another writer from Mother Jones, Nick Baumann, had this idea: “Say it with me: ‘Classic GOP Tokenism’.”
The single thing she brings to the ticket — her fancy womb. Once again, liberal femisogynists reducing a woman to the sum of her girly parts only. All while hilariously claiming that they believe women should feel umbrage that their vote should be attracted merely by dint of a fellow woman on the ticket. Hello? That is their entire modus operandi! Even down to the Supreme Court. Aren’t we always supposed to be thrilled when, say, a woman is nominated for the Supreme Court merely because she’s a woman?
This is how they ultimately will end up failing; their hypocrisy knows no bounds and is now incredibly transparent. The depth of their insane hatred for Sarah Palin has done more to expose their femisogyny than anything in my lifetime.
Sarah Palin, with customary courage and straight-talk openness, spoke out about the media to the Daily Caller:
“With the shackles off, I relish my freedom to call it like I see it, while starving the media beast that was devouring the false reports about me, my staff and my loved ones,” she said….
“…The lamestream media is no longer a cornerstone of democracy in America. They need help. They need to regain their credibility and some respect. There are some pretty sick puppies in the industry today. They really need help,” Palin said.
Sick puppies, indeed, as further evidenced by an earlier revelation regarding the more than disturbing desire of a JournoList member to watch Rush Limbaugh die in agony, while she “laughed loudly like a maniac.” What’s more, the list, comprised of mainly white males near as I can tell, indulged in the systematic patriarchal oppression (that’s right, faux feminists, I’m using your own term against you. Because you lie) of a woman merely because she didn’t suit their political agenda. An agenda that they used their positions as alleged journalists to further.
While they may have succeeded in aiding Barack Obama to win the election, ultimately they will fail. In part, we can thank Sarah Palin for that. The woman they tried to destroy has actually hoisted them on their own petard, by exposing them for what they are – not journalists, but corrupt ideologues who will stop at nothing, not even personal destruction, to further an agenda.
I, for one, thank her immensely.
JournoList: 75 Names Confirmed (with news organizations)
Source List Included | 07/23/2010 | BuckeyeTexan
Posted on Fri Jul 23 2010 13:07:17 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) by
The following 75 names are confirmed members of the now-defunct JournoList listserv.
1. Ezra Klein – Washington Post, Newsweek, The American Prospect
2. Dave Weigel – Washington Post, MSNBC, The Washington Independent
3. Matthew Yglesias – Center for American Progress, The Atlantic Monthly
4. David Dayen – FireDogLake
5. Spencer Ackerman – Wired, FireDogLake, Washington Independent, Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect
6. Jeffrey Toobin – CNN, The New Yorker
7. Eric Alterman – The Nation, Media Matters for America
8. Paul Krugman – The New York Times, Princeton University
9. John Judis – The New Republic, The American Prospect
10. Eve Fairbanks – The New Republic
11. Mike Allen – POLITICO
12. Ben Smith – POLITICO
13. Lisa Lerer – POLITICO
14. Joe Klein – TIME
15. Brad DeLong – The Economists’ Voice, University of California at Berkley
16. Chris Hayes – The Nation
17. Matt Duss – Center for American Progress
18. Jonathan Chait – The New Republic
19. Jesse Singal – The Boston Globe, Washington Monthly
20. Michael Cohen – New America Foundation
21. Isaac Chotiner – The New Republic
22. Katha Pollitt – The Nation
23. Alyssa Rosenberg – Washingtonian, The Atlantic, Government Executive
24. Rick Perlstein – Author, Campaign for America’s Future
25. Alex Rossmiller – National Security Network
26. Ed Kilgore – Democratic Stategist
27. Walter Shapiro – PoliticsDaily.com
28. Noam Scheiber – The New Republic
29. Michael Tomasky – The Guardian
30. Rich Yeselson – Change to Win
31. Tim Fernholz – American Prospect
32. Dana Goldstein – The Daily Beast
33. Jonathan Cohn – The New Republic
34. Scott Winship – Pew Economic Mobility Project
35. David Roberts – Grist
36. Luke Mitchell – Harper’s Magazine
37. John Blevins – South Texas College of Law
38. Moira Whelan – National Security Network
39. Henry Farrell – George Washington University
40. Josh Bearman – LA Weekly
41. Alec McGillis – Washington Post
42. Greg Anrig – The Century Foundation
43. Adele Stan – The Media Consortium
44. Steven Teles – Yale University
45. Harold Pollack – University of Chicago
46. Adam Serwer – American Prospect
47. Ryan Donmoyer – Bloomberg
48. Seth Michaels – MyDD.com
49. Kate Steadman – Kaiser Health News
50. Michael Scherer – TIME
51. Laura Rozen – Politico, Mother Jones
52. Jesse Taylor – Pandagon.net
53. Michael Hirsh – Newsweek
54. Daniel Davies – The Guardian
55. Jonathan Zasloff – UCLA
56. Richard Kim – The Nation
57. Thomas Schaller – Baltimore Sun
58. Jared Bernstein – Economic Policy Institute
59. Holly Yeager – Columbia Journalism Review
60. Joe Conason – The New York Observer
61. David Greenberg – Slate
62. Todd Gitlin – Columbia University
63. Mark Schmitt – American Prospect
64. Kevin Drum – Washington Monthly
65. Sarah Spitz – NPR
66. Jonathan Stein – Mother Jones
67. Daniel Levy – Century Foundation
68. Ben Adler – Newsweek, POLITICO
69. Avi Zenilman – POLITICO
70. Suzanne Nossel – Human Rights Watch
71. Nick Baumann – Mother Jones
72. Ryan Avent – Economist
72. Greg Sargent – Washington Post
73. Gautham Nagesh – The Hill, Daily Caller
74. Foster Kamer – The Village Voice
75. David Corn – Mother Jones
They are listed in the order in which I was able to confirm their participation through the following sources.
The Death of JournoList: Does Privacy End at the Edge of Your Thoughts?
JournoList: Inside the echo chamber
The Secret Liberal Journalist Cabal [Hot Air]
JournoList Revealed! Inside the Secret Liberal Media Email Cabal
Who Doesn’t Love The JournoList?
On Journolist and Dave Weigel
The Inside Scoop on JournoList
Math Lesson For The JournOList: 60 More Than 50
Responding to John Hawkins
Obama wins! And Journolisters rejoice
A few excerpts from JournoList journalists
Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright
When McCain picked Palin, liberal journalists coordinated the best line of attack
Tucker Carlson: We will not publish full J-List emails
You shall know them by their work
The Tucker Carlson Journolist-Disclosure Email Exchange
Confessions of a Journolister
DC: Journalists Debated Whether Gov’t Could Shut Down Fox News
A group of liberal journalists used a now-defunct listserv to debate the merits of whether the federal government should forcibly shut down Fox News, according to a report in The Daily Caller.
The online publication earlier reported that the journalists in the private group discussed ways to shield Barack Obama from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright scandal when Obama was a presidential candidate. The latest article showed that several members of Journolist aired complaints about Fox News on the listserv in March of this year and debated how best to rein it in.
Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, who said he was "genuinely scared" of the network, reportedly said "peer pressure" and "self-regulation" were not working.
"In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework," he said.
According to the report, UCLA law professor Jonathan Zasloff urged the federal government to stop the network.
"I hate to open this can of worms, but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?" he wrote.
Time’s Michael Scherer said Fox News used criticism only to build "tribal identity," but questioned whether the White House should be distinguishing between media organizations like that.
But Zasloff went further, suggesting it was acceptable for the White House to pick and choose which reporters get press passes — a concept Scherer again questioned.
According to the report, the New Republic’s John Judis said Scherer’s skepticism would make sense "pre-fox."
"Now it is only tactical," he wrote.
Time magazine released a statement Wednesday evening disputing the report.
"Michael Scherer fully disputes The Daily Caller’s account, which selectively quotes his e-mails and takes his comments about the changing news landscape entirely out of context. In his emails he vocally opposes any suggestions to restrict Fox News," a Time spokesperson said.
Tucker Carlson, a Fox News contributor who started the online Daily Caller, said Wednesday that the listserv commentary as a whole proves the press took sides in the presidential election. Read more…
For anyone who really still thinks the government honors Freedom of Speech and isn’t censoring us!!
U.S. Authorities Shut Down WordPress Host With 73,000 Blogs
TorrentFreak ^ | July 16, 2010 | enigmax
After the U.S. Government took action against several sites connected to movie streaming recently, nerves are jangling over the possibility that this is just the beginning of a wider crackdown. Now it appears that a free blogging platform has been taken down by its hosting provider on orders from the U.S. authorities on grounds of “a history of abuse”. More than 73,000 blogs are out of action as a result.
Hot on the heels of recent threats from Vice President Joe Biden and Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel directed at sites offering unauthorized movies and music, last month U.S. authorities targeted several sites they claimed were connected to the streaming of infringing video material.
Fears remain, however, that this action is only the beginning, and that more sites will be targeted as the months roll on. Indeed, TorrentFreak has already received information that other sites, so far unnamed in the media, are being monitored by the authorities on copyright grounds.
Now, according to the owner of a free WordPress platform which hosts more than 73,000 blogs, his network of sites has been completely shut down on the orders of the authorities.
Kurt Nimmo | Globalist organization exploits cybersecurity hype to impose “norms of accepted behavior in cyberspace.”
It is time that Americans realized that they were had in the 2008 elections and that we must stop buying into the Barack Obama Messiah Stories and the Sarah Palin Smear stories; the race bating and everything else that just doesn’t feel or sound right. The Progressive Left is manipulating the media in the effort of remaking America into a country most of us don’t want and keeping fellow Progressives in their ‘shadow groups’ in power while bad-mouthing anyone and everyone who just might represent the American people or identify with our values. Do not let them villainize and change your thinking on candidates who would represent you and your beliefs while pointing you toward candidates who always do exactly the opposite of what they say and what you believe in.
Keep educating yourself… stand-up for the truth… share what you learn… and keep praying!!