|
|
|
Jewish World Review July 26, 2010 / 15 Menachem-Av, 5770 JournoList: ‘Coordinated’ Ideological Bankruptcy By Arnold Ahlert
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
The next time you hear a liberal scoffing at the idea that the American left has a set of "talking points," or that they're "reading from the same script," tell him to google "JournoList." Frankly, it is completely unsurprising that 400, invitation-only, members of leftist media, academia, think tanks and political activist associations would be attempting to coordinate their political strategy. When your ideology is bankrupt, the only thing left is strength in numbers. And when you revere the collectivist aspirations of Marxist/socialist all-encompassing government, "group-think" becomes as natural as breathing.
What else do internal emails confirm? That overt hatred and character assassination were perfectly acceptable when it came to protecting Barack Obama from his poisonous associations with America-hating radicals like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Thomas Schaller, Baltimore Sun columnist, proposed a "coordinated effort" to demonize ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for daring to ask then-candidate Obama why it took him so long to disassociate himself from Wright. "It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort," wrote Schaller.
Take a good look at that last sentence and understand what a member of the media is advocating. It isn't, "let's win the ideological debate by presenting better ideas to the American public." It's "don't mess with our chosen presidential candidate, or there will be hell to pay."
In Friday's Washington Post, Ezra Klein, founder of the list, tried to discredit Tucker Carlson's breaking of the scandal. He claims much of the reporting in Carlson's "Daily Caller" is "inaccurate" and justifies such by claiming Tucker himself sought to be included as a member of the "club." Yet his response to Tucker's request is quite revealing:
Translation: if I allow a conservative to join, leftists couldn't "feel comfortable talking freely."
Why not? What is it about leftist philosophy that is so fragile it become necessary to insulate it from dissenting ideas? Ideological bankruptcy, that's what. And the proof is in the pudding: members of the group voted down Carlson's membership.
Klein noted that the main reason Carlson was vetoed was that JournoList members "worried about opening the archives to individuals who could help their careers by ripping e-mails out of context, misrepresenting the nature of the ongoing conversation…"
There's a simple solution to that problem, Mr. Klein: publish all of the emails--in the order in which they were written, along with the names and occupations of those who wrote them. Let the American people decide who's telling the truth here, and what, if anything, has been "taken out of context."
The emailers' occupations are critical. Let the American people make the distinction between emails written by typical leftist fire-breathers from academia, think tanks or activist groups--and those people in the media who have been entrusted with providing unbiased news coverage to the public.
Let the people decide if there's anything resembling a coordinated effort to merely solidify leftist talking points--or a determined effort to slant the news, via selective reporting, outright lying, and/or character assassination.
It is no secret Barack Obama is the least-vetted candidate to ever occupy the Oval Office. And it is now becoming painfully evident that that "lack of curiosity" may have had far less to do with journalistic ineptitude than a pre-meditated effort to squelch information about the mainstream media's "preferred candidate."
Here's the most pathetic part of all: what does it say about leftists that they feel compelled to coordinate information via membership in a fraternity? What does it say about people who have long considered themselves champions of tolerance that allowing one conservative to join that fraternity is a bridge too far? What does it say about those who consider their ideas so "superior" to those of ordinary Americans that anyone who disagrees with them is considered beneath contempt--and open to being labeled racist, sexist homophobic, xenophobic, etc. etc.?
I tell you what it says to me: these people are cowards--and lightweights. People may not like what I write, but I'd be damned before I'd "clear" my work with anyone other than my editor and my wife. I'd laugh out loud if anyone suggested I "coordinate" my writing with anyone else's. And I'd quit writing altogether before I sat on any information because it might not accrue to my "favorite" politicians.
These people are entitled to do as they please. But any journalist on this list--not opinion-maker, just to be clear--ought to be ashamed of himself. In case no one has spelled it out for you, "coordinating" news is an utter disgrace to the profession. In a better world anyone guilty of such a transgression would be fired. In this world, leftists will likely circle the wagons and protect each other.
Apparently a lot of them need the protection. If this story makes anything clear, most of these people are scared of standing on their own two feet--which is what happens when what you stand for is ideologically bankrupt.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment on JWR Contributor Arnold Ahlert's column, by clicking here.
© 2010, Arnold Ahlert |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||||
