Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev.Wright

...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.”...

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/d...ng-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/

 

It appears Obama and the Left are trying to divide America and make it the most racist country in the developed world.

 

My best friend is a bleeding heart attorney out east. I told him when Barry got elected it would be detrimental to race relations in our country and bring as way further backwards than forwards.

Of course, he thought I was out of mind to suggest such a thing.

Sigh...

 

Daily Caller discovers Journolist plot to spike Wright story, smear conservatives as racists
POSTED AT 8:45 AM ON JULY 20, 2010 BY ED MORRISSEY

After someone torpedoed Dave Weigel’s Washington Post gig by breaking the code of silence on the Journolist listserv, the race has been on to see who would sell the entire contents of the e-mail messages between the liberal members of the group — and who would get to buy them. We may never know who sold it, but Tucker Carlson and the Daily Caller wound up with the data, and they found a big story to lead off their exposés. In the first of a series on Journolist, Daily Caller reporter Jonathan Strong lays out a strategy plotted by Journolist members to kill the Jeremiah Wright story during the 2008 primaries — and to smear Barack Obama’s critics as racists:

Gee, doesn’t that sound familiar?

One of their efforts was completely public. Journolist members collaborated on an open letter criticizing ABC’s Charlie Gibson for asking questions about Wright during ABC’s presidential debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton. The letter eventually appeared in the New York Times, and while it could be argued that a campaign by professional journalists to tell ABC not to ask tough questions about a candidate’s links to radicals is a rather strange idea, it isn’t any different than any other collaboration on an open letter. The Journolist listserv probably made the process a little more efficient, but the end result was public and obviously the result of a collaboration.

Ackerman’s attempt to rally his colleagues into another strategy entirely — the racist attack — was deliberately political:

Let’s put this in its proper perspective. Ackerman wasn’t talking about a strategy to expose real racists, in the media or anywhere else. The Washington Independent reporter wanted to conduct a campaign against any figure on the Right, including journalists like Fred Barnes, to smear him as a racist for the political purposes of electing a Democrat to the White House. Notice that Ackerman doesn’t even bother to ask people to look for actual evidence of racism, but just suggests to pick a conservative name out of a hat. Tellingly, the pushback from members of Journolist had less to do with the outrageous idea of smearing an innocent person of racism to frighten people away from the story than with whether it would work. Mark Schmitt, now at American Prospect, warned that it “wouldn’t further the argument” for Obama, and Kevin Drum objected because playing racial politics would “probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly.”

It certainly puts efforts by the Left to paint the Tea Party as racist in an entirely new light. It also calls into question the ethics and judgment of anyone who participated in that Ackerman thread. Finally, this first entry in the Journolist exposés — Tucker Carlson promises more to come — shows that far from being a benign place to have chats among colleagues, Journolist also served as a place for journalists to plot against their political opponents and strategize to twist the news and propose smear campaigns.

Update: But was the campaign effective? Ed Driscoll put together a video showing the correlation of this effort on Journolist and the declaration by CNN that it would be a “Wright-free zone.” Correlation isn’t causation, but this is a pretty interesting juxtaposition.

Update II: There is something to keep in mind in this particular story, which is that the people involved in the specific conversations regarding the smear are all opinion journalists, and not people filling roles in objective reporting. The Prospect, the (Washington) Independent, and the Nation are all publications with an explicit point of view, although the Independent offers a little more of a pretense of traditional reporting. That doesn’t relieve them of responsibility for proposing and/or considering an odious smear campaign, but it does make it difficult to tie this to other journalists filling a different role.

Of course, those journalists in different roles who participated in Journolist, assuming any did, didn’t exactly leap to expose this smear attempt, either. And we haven’t seen the last of the Daily Caller’s Journolist stories, either.

 

Another day, another right-wing media freak out. Today, the right is in a tizzy over a Daily Caller exclusive scoop that "documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright." Except, of course, their "documents" show no such thing.

The Daily Caller purports to have obtained copies of emails from the "Journolist" listserv, which they report is "comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists." Their big, breaking story exposes that some liberal journalists and a professor were outraged by an April 2008 Democratic Presidential primary debate -- a debate that was widely criticized as being "specious and gossipy." As you may recall, during that debate Obama was asked questions such as, "do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?"; "how do you convince Democrats" that not wearing an American flag lapel pin "would not be a vulnerability?"; and "Can you explain" your "relationship" with Bill Ayers, a question that was literally suggested to moderator George Stephanopoulos by right-wing radio hosts.

The debate was, in a word, ridiculous. And numerous media figures agreed. The Daily Caller highlights portions of the purported Journalist emails which showed several participants discussing how best to frame and word an open letter to ABC News condemning the debate. Each of the media figures mentioned in the Daily Caller report was an opinion columnist or a blogger. Hardly the stuff of a mainstream media conspiracy, though the Caller desperately tried to paint it as such. They specifically said that journalists from Time and Politico were involved in the discussion, but the article provides absolutely no evidence to back this up.

So, yes, it appears that the big scandal is that liberal journalists and professors talked to each other about how to frame a publically released letter to ABC News. Stop the presses!

Expanding on the stupidity of the Daily Caller report is the fact that many of these same journalists were very clear and very open about their displeasure with the ABC news debate at the time.

The Guardian's Michael Tomasky called the debate "awful" and chided the media for pushing "this kind of guilty-by-association" attacks, as ABC did by questioning Obama's relationship with Ayers. He also said of the debate: "The main point is how poorly the inanity and irresponsibility of this approach serves a country in which people are genuinely worried about genuinely important things." Salon's Joe Conason assailed "[t]he sorry performance of ABC anchors Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos" and predicted that it "should serve as a signal of the coverage to come. Playing gotcha with Democrats and patty-cake with Republicans will remain basic operating procedure for the mainstream media this year, no different from the past half-dozen presidential campaigns -- except that the additional bias in favor of John McCain may make a bad situation worse."

Yet, to the right, the Daily Caller's story is nothing short of a revelation. Andrew Breitbart cites it as "prov[ing] beyond a shadow of 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 againsta all that challenged the progressive orthodoxy." He calls the journalists on the listserv "nothing but street thugs" who "deserve the deepest levels of public consternation." He then adds:

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?

Off with their heads!

Erick Erickson claims "it was as we all expected," "members of the media plotted to shut down coverage of Jeremiah Wright." Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft declares "Journolist exposed: Documents prove leftist media hacks buried Rev. Wright story during election." He also describes the story as "the death of journalism," adding "Leftist media hacks on the national scene buried the Jeremiah Wright story to protect their favored candidate." And, of course, Hoft adds some video of Jeremiah Wright, just for fun. Proving once again that right-wing blogs drive their news coverage, Fox News has picked up the nonstory. Fox & Friends stooge Steve Doocy teased a report on the story by saying, that the media was "plotting top kill negative stories about" Rev. Wright "to protect the White House." From Fox & Friends:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007200006

 

Hermy, how come MM doesn't address the issue raised by Spencer Ackerman to label conservatives as racists?

Or is that one still in play?

 

Because its true?

"The study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did.”"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900642.html

 

So therefore, the MM article does nothing but support the claims it's trying to argue against.

You guys are so smart.

 

Media Matters is a dishonest organization.

 

Who cares. Don't fall into the leftist trap of race baiting. They are trying to make all this about race instead of about big government... They think they can win that way, and they may have a big suprise if they succeed. However, it's to the detriment of progress either way. This is not about race and never was.