JournoList of Liberal Propaganda

JournoList of Liberal Propaganda Image

It’s the “vast right-wing conspiracy” all over again.  The phase popularized by Hillary Clinton as she ignorantly defended her husband against the Lewinsky allegations has come to mean many things in politics today – including liberal bias in the media.  And like the Lewinsky scandal, the “vast right-wing conspiracy” has once again been proven to be true exposing liberals for who they really are.

To the aware America, the claim that the media has a liberal bias and is in bed with Democrats has been blatantly obvious.  This understanding helped fuel the growth of fair and balanced news reporting found on Fox News, as well as alternative media outlets.  Yet liberals in the media have boldly denied that claim while at the same time insanely stuck to one of the few principles they have –helping Democrats win elections.  Unfortunately for those dishonest members of the media, the truth has a way of eventually getting out.  Oftentimes it is not without a sense of irony.

The Daily Caller has provided the hard evidence many have been looking for that proves the common assertion that the liberal media is in bed with Democrats – specifically Barak Obama.  The conservative online publication has released e-mail conversations between members of a listserv called JournoList, which is made up of hundreds of liberal journalists and other like-minded professionals.  The Daily Caller has outed journalists working for Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, the Washington Independent, Salon and the New Republic by publishing their e-mail conversations discussing how to deal with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue, and how to attack the vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin.  The evidence is quite incrementing, yet do not expect an apology.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright

While Barak Obama was campaigning across the country in 2008 giving his awe-inspiring speeches, radical videos of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his friend and pastor of 20 years, surfaced showing racist and anti-American sermons.  With the election only a few months away, the videos could not have been publicized at a worse time.

This marked a perilous moment in Obama’s campaign.  The Rev. Wright issue was not going away and even Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos from ABC News were being led to question Obama on why it took him so long to comment about it and dissociate himself from Wright.  It was time for the liberal media to step in and do their part.

According to e-mails obtained by The Daily Caller, Spencer Ackerman and Michael Tomasky took the lead by urging his liberal colleagues to change the subject of the media by ignoring the Wright issue and singling out conservative critics by calling them racists.

Spencer Ackerman (Washington Independent):  “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?”

Michael Tomasky (Guardian):  “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.”

Chris Hayes (The Nation):  “All this hand wringing about just how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going…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.”

More excerpts here and here.

Sarah Palin

John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his vice-president running mate sent the liberal media scrambling.  Attack plans were likely already worked up for Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and other better known potential candidates believed to be on McCain’s short-list, but when McCain surprised everyone and selected the governor of Alaska, a woman with deep conservative values with faith, family, and country it was clear that the left was not ready for that.

Daniel Levy (Century Foundation):  “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 …… bang away at McCain’s age making this unusually significant …. I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama].”

Ed Kilgore (Democratic Strategist):  “The criticism of her really, really needs to be ideological, not just about experience.  If we concede she’s a ‘maverick,’ we will have done John McCain an enormous service.  And let’s don’t concede the claim that [Hillary Clinton] supporters are likely to be very attracted to her.”

Chris Hayes (The Nation): “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.”

Suzanne Nossel (Human Rights Watch): “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.”

Jonathon Stein (Mother Jones):  “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.”

More found here and here.

As we learned in the Shirley Sherrod case, context does matter so I encourage you to take a look at the evidence yourself and make up your own mind.  In my opinion, The Daily Caller has done a tremendous job getting this information out to Americans so they can see what many journalists are doing behind the scenes.  Think about this – it took two years for this information to reach the public.  The damage has already been done.  Can you trust them with anything they say now?

This is quite an embarrassment for those involved, but ultimately it will not change anything in regards to liberal journalists’ integrity (oxymoron?).  It has been and always will be up to the few journalists who actually value the truth and to the American activists who make the necessary sacrifices in their lives to drag the truth out into the light.