Link to Journolist members

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jficquette, Jul 24, 2010.

  1. Although the Daily Caller has spent the past few days calling out the members of now disbanded listserv “JournoList” for their emails, both Sam Stein of the Huffington Post and Ezra Klein of the Washington Post point out that there was a Daily Caller reporter who was a member of the list.

    Sam Stein:

    What the Daily Caller never mentioned is that they were part of it too. At least for a short period of time.

    Gautham Nagesh, a reporter now with The Hill, was an active participant in Journolist discussions while with his previous employer, the Daily Caller. I know because I was also a member of Journolist. Ezra Klein, the founder of the list, and Nagesh himself confirmed his participation.

    The off-the-record nature of the emails prohibits reporting on what Nagesh said. But for the sake of transparency, much of it was casual political banter, policy discussion and even sports talk; the type of wonkish content for which Journolist became best known among its members. He did not offer the type of quips that the Daily Caller has since held up as controversial and unbecoming of reporters. But his presence on Journolist during that time period (he joined in March 2009, according to a review of the archives, and left the Caller in April 2010) pushes against the theory that it was a liberal cabal. Even Nagesh admits as much.

    “I joined Journolist after [it was exposed in a Politico article] hoping to get an inside view of the left wing media conspiracy,” he told the Huffington Post. “And unfortunately all I found was a wonkish listserv of like-minded people discussing topics that interested them. I found it extremely useful for putting me in contact with sources and exposing me to a side of the blogosphere I wasn’t well connected with.”

    Why the Caller declined to mention Nagesh’s presence on Journolist in its subsequent stories is unclear. Their chief reporter on the Journolist beat, Jonathan Strong, did not return an email or phone request for comment. But the site certainly knew about it. Tucker Carlson, the Daily Caller’s founder, tried unsuccessfully to join the list himself.

    What even the Daily Caller’s cherrypicked articles have shown is that Journolist was a long-running argument between people who had different views and different interests. In another wrinkle they haven’t mentioned, Journolist included Gautham Nagesh, a Daily Caller reporter (he’s since moved to The Hill). He frequently disagreed with other members of the list. It also included almost 400-some other people, including grad students, low-level editors, midwestern academics, and many others I’d never met or known of before they joined. If I had thought there was some deep and dark conspiracy to protect, I can guarantee you I would’ve been a bit more selective.

    But there wasn’t. Though the Daily Caller’s headlines suggests the listserv of 400 spoke with one voice, their own reporting, and their own reporters, show that the reality was very different. It just doesn’t fit their agenda to say so.
  2. jem


    no one with a brain is surprised to see Krugman on a propaganda list.
  3. Arnie


    They're so proud, they took the page down. :D

    The webpage cannot be found
    HTTP 404
    Most likely causes:
    •There might be a typing error in the address.
    •If you clicked on a link, it may be out of date.

    What you can try:
    Retype the address.

    Go back to the previous page.

    Go to and look for the information you want.

    More information
  4. Posted as a public service to the internet-impaired:

    I swear, ET conservatives can remain stupid longer than, well, just about anyone.
    And, let's see if I've got this straight: it's not OK for liberal journalists to shoot the breeze with each other because that constitutes a conspiracy? So, they shouldn't talk to each other because, after all, conservative journalists don't?
    Dumber and dumber...
  5. Talk about missing the point.

    This scandal unfolded initially because a Washington Post online blogger who was hired to write a blog on the conservative movement was revealed through list postings to be a fervent hater of all things conservative. He posted that Matt Drudge should catch on fire and that he hoped Rush Limbaugh wouldn't survive heart surgery. While the Post was under no obligation to have an actual conservative write their conservative blog, the whole thing was sufficiently embarrassing to even the Post that he was canned.

    Next came the revelation that several liberal journalists traded suggestions on how best to protect Obama from the Wright drama. One suggestion was to target random conservative figures as "racist", a tactic they apparently adopted and still employ.

    Finally there was the revelation of the people belonging to the list. At a minimum, it gave ringing confirmation to the long-denied accusations of pervasive liberal bias at the major media. There was nothing unethical about belonging to it, but like Caeser's wife, if journalists want to amintain a facade of impartiality, they need to be careful of their associations and what they say"off the record."

    Anyone who finds this too confusing consider the reaction if a tape emerged of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hananity trading racist jokes.
  6. That's not the link we are discussing. The link has been taking down.

    Be one thing if liberals didn't care what people thought but they are too chicken shit to allow people to see them as they really are so they have to hide their conversations.
  7. Arnie


    Stupid me. You're right, it's back up........LOL

    Hey everyone. Sorry we had to bring the list down for a bit because of the vast right wing conspiracy. We're back up now and we can continue attacking those filthy right wing scum through the unbiased media.
  8. Lucrum



    You can't make this shit up. :D