Why is the media wasting so much time on this?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Fred Barnes: The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy - WSJ.com

Yes, when I'm looking for objective analysis and opinion, Fred Barnes is my usual pick

This piece is a freaking joke.

The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy

then...

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.

So he admits a grudge, contradicts his own teaser, then calls out those "hundreds" on some list who are biased. All the while he provides no evidence, no context and names few names.

Pathetic.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

All the while he provides no evidence, no context and names few names.

Pathetic.

-spence

it's all in the emails...just like East Anglia...the fraudsters sure get angry when you expose their fraud....more and more the mainstream media is exposed as abdicating it's duty in favor of coordinating a message and pushing a political agenda favoring particular candidates and playing attack dog for democrats, and you are fine with that as long as it's your agenda as well...Pathetic

Sherrod: Shutting down Breitbart site ‘would be a great thing’

By David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010 -- 1:43 pm

Sherrod says she might sue Breitbart, who's "one person I'd like to get back at, because he came at me"


""Would you consider a defamation suit against Andrew Breitbart?" CNN's Kiran Chetry asked.

"I really think I should, Sherrod replied.

"Would you like his site to be shut down?" Chetry continued.

"That would be a great thing," replied Sherrod. "I don't see how that [site] helps us at a time when we ... should be looking at how we can make space for all of us in this country so that we could all live and work together. He's doing more to divide us."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This piece is a freaking joke.

then...

So he admits a grudge, contradicts his own teaser, then calls out those "hundreds" on some list who are biased. All the while he provides no evidence, no context and names few names.

Pathetic.

-spence

just for starters....

1. Spencer Ackerman - Wired, FireDogLake, Washington
Independent, Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect
2. Ben Adler - Newsweek, POLITICO
3. Mike Allen - POLITICO
4. Eric Alterman - The Nation, Media Matters for America
5. Marc Ambinder - The Atlantic
6. Greg Anrig - The Century Foundation
7. Ryan Avent - Economist
8. Dean Baker - The American Prospect
9. Nick Baumann - Mother Jones
10. Josh Bearman - LA Weekly
11. Steven Benen - The Carpetbagger Report
12. Jared Bernstein - Economic Policy Institute
13. Michael Berube - Crooked Timber (blog), Pennsylvania State University
14. Lindsay Beyerstein - (blogger)
15. Joel Bleifuss - In These Times
16. John Blevins - South Texas College of Law
17. Sam Boyd - The American Prospect
18. Rich Byrne - Playwright and freelancer
19. Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic
20. Jonathan Chait - The New Republic
21. Lakshmi Chaudry - In These Times
22. Isaac Chotiner - The New Republic
23. Michael Cohen - New America Foundation
24. Jonathan Cohn - The New Republic
25. Joe Conason - The New York Observer
26. David Corn - Mother Jones
27. Daniel Davies - The Guardian
28. David Dayen - FireDogLake
29. Brad DeLong - The Economists' Voice, University of California at Berkley
30. Ryan Donmoyer - Bloomberg
31. Kevin Drum - Washington Monthly
32. Matt Duss - Center for American Progress
33. Eve Fairbanks - The New Republic
34. Henry Farrell - George Washington University
35. Tim Fernholz - American Prospect
36. James Galbraith - University of Texas at Austin (professor)
37. Todd Gitlin - Columbia University
38. Ilan Goldenberg - National Security Network
39. Dana Goldstein - The Daily Beast
40. Merrill Goozner - Chicago Tribune
41. David Greenberg - Slate
42. Robert Greenwald - Brave New Films
43. Chris Hayes - The Nation
44. Don Hazen - Alternet
45. Michael Hirsh - Newsweek
46. John Judis - The New Republic, The American Prospect
47. Michael Kazin - Georgetown University (law professor)
48. Ed Kilgore - Democratic Stategist
49. Richard Kim - The Nation
50. Mark Kleiman - The Reality Based Community
51. Ezra Klein - Washington Post, Newsweek, The American Prospect
52. Joe Klein - TIME
53. Paul Krugman - The New York Times, Princeton University
54. Lisa Lerer - POLITICO
55. Daniel Levy - Century Foundation
56. Alec McGillis - Washington Post
57. Scott McLemee - Inside Higher Ed
58. Ari Melber - The Nation
59. Seth Michaels - MyDD.com
60. Luke Mitchell - Harper's Magazine
61. Gautham Nagesh - The Hill, Daily Caller
62. Suzanne Nossel - Human Rights Watch
63. Michael O'Hare - University of California, Berkeley
64. Rick Perlstein - Author, Campaign for America's Future
65. Harold Pollack - University of Chicago
66. Foster Kamer - The Village Voice
67. Katha Pollitt - The Nation
68. Ari Rabin-Havt - Media Matters
69. David Roberts - Grist
70. Alyssa Rosenberg - Washingtonian, The Atlantic, Government Executive
71. Alex Rossmiller - National Security Network
72. Laura Rozen - Politico, Mother Jones
73. Greg Sargent - Washington Post
74. Thomas Schaller - Baltimore Sun
75. Noam Scheiber - The New Republic
76. Michael Scherer - TIME
77. Mark Schmitt - American Prospect
78. Adam Serwer - American Prospect
79. Thomas Schaller - Baltimore Sun (columnist), University of Maryland, Baltimore County (professor), FiveThirtyEight.com (contributing writer)
80. Julie Bergman Sender - Balcony Films
81. Walter Shapiro - PoliticsDaily.com
82. Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight.com
83. Jesse Singal - The Boston Globe, Washington Monthly
84. Ben Smith - POLITICO
85. Sarah Spitz - NPR
86. Adele Stan - The Media Consortium
87. Kate Steadman - Kaiser Health News
88. Jonathan Stein - Mother Jones
89. Sam Stein - The Huffington Post
90. Jesse Taylor - Pandagon.net
91. Steven Teles - Yale University
92. Thoma - The Economist's View (blog), University of Oregon (professor)
93. Michael Tomasky - The Guardian
94. Jeffrey Toobin - CNN, The New Yorker
95. Rebecca Traister - Salon (columnist)
96. Cenk Uygur - The Young Turks
97. Tracy Van Slyke - The Media Consortium
98. Dave Weigel - Washington Post, MSNBC, The Washington Independent
99. Moira Whelan - National Security Network
100. Scott Winship - Pew Economic Mobility Project
101. Kai Wright - The Root
102. Holly Yeager - Columbia Journalism Review
103. Rich Yeselson - Change to Win
104. Matthew Yglesias - Center for American Progress, The Atlantic Monthly
105. Jonathan Zasloff - UCLA
106. Julian Zelizer - Princeton professor and CNN contributor
107. Avi Zenilman - POLITICO

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

just for starters....

1) Many (if not most) of these people aren't even part of the mainstream media
2) Being on "a list" isn't guilt of anything
3) The idea that admittedly liberal writers would discuss how to attack conservative issues is...pretty obvious

I think I'll go back to my no evidence position. Lame...

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, when I'm looking for objective analysis and opinion, Fred Barnes is my usual pick

Barnes admits his bias, you don't admit yours. Objective analysis and opinion doesn't seem to flow from your supposed "centrist" position.

This piece is a freaking joke.

The vast left wing media conspiracy thing is a joke . . . an obvious one feeding off of Hillary Clinton's nonsensical "vast right wing conspiracy" which was supposedly serious objectivity.

Then . . . So he admits a grudge, contradicts his own teaser, then calls out those "hundreds" on some list who are biased. All the while he provides no evidence, no context and names few names.

His point was, not that juornolist had a vast conspiracy to smear conservatives by calling them racists (ONE of their members suggested it and that may have resulted in shutting the group down), but that they had gotten together as a "group" with the intention of aiding Obama, rather than being traditionally "independant" journalists.

Pathetic.
-spence

Nice try at misinterpreting Barnes' article.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Barnes admits his bias, you don't admit yours. Objective analysis and opinion doesn't seem to flow from your supposed "centrist" position.

I can't help it if you color my commentary.

The vast left wing media conspiracy thing is a joke . . . an obvious one feeding off of Hillary Clinton's nonsensical "vast right wing conspiracy" which was supposedly serious objectivity.

I don't understand this.

His point was, not that juornolist had a vast conspiracy to smear conservatives by calling them racists (ONE of their members suggested it and that may have resulted in shutting the group down), but that they had gotten together as a "group" with the intention of aiding Obama, rather than being traditionally "independant" journalists.

Nice try at misinterpreting Barnes' article.

It's Barnes that is misrepresenting the entire story. Actually, all he's doing reciting an existing non-story and slapping his name on it to stir the pot.

He's trying to push another scandal that doesn't exist. Unless you already hold the opinion that the media is corrupt, there's little in the way of facts to support the claims. Barnes adding that he's now been changed by this new information is just silly drama.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I can't help it if you color my commentary.

The "color" of your commentary exists without my help.

I don't understand this.

The article title referring to a "Vast Left Wing Media Conspiracy" is a tongue in cheek fueled by Hillary Cinton's accusation of a "vast right wing conspiracy."

It's Barnes that is misrepresenting the entire story. Actually, all he's doing reciting an existing non-story and slapping his name on it to stir the pot.

I am not familiar with the existing non-story so have no ground to dispute what you say. What, in Barnes misrepresentation, is untrue?

He's trying to push another scandal that doesn't exist. Unless you already hold the opinion that the media is corrupt, there's little in the way of facts to support the claims. Barnes adding that he's now been changed by this new information is just silly drama.
-spence

I didn't see the "color" or hear the "tone" of "scandal" in Barnes' piece. What he said is either true or it isn't. What do you mean by "little" in the way of facts? How "big" does the way require? The drama could be silly, or funny, or sarcastic, or true, or false. I don't claim to know if what he says is true. You, obviously, have some facts in a big way that what he says is untrue. What are they?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What are they?

All of the "experts" agree with Spence...facts are created and dismissed on a whim, like our President...it's pathalogical at this point...but funny