Skip to main content

The Real meaning of the JournoList Scandal

If you have been following the JournoList scandal, you know that emails leaked from the list show that leftist journalists such as Ezra Klein of the Washington Post among others, collaborated among other things on how to tackle certain issues in articles and best attack their Republican opponents.

The response of these leftist wonks to these revelations have been more revelatory, perhaps, than the actual emails.

They are saying "Well what's more natural than a bunch of us 'progressives' hanging out on an internet forum?"

And from my side, of COURSE these people are all hardcore leftists. That's what we've been saying for 30 years, that the press is almost completely leftist.

The point is that journalism schools, and these people, have been defending themselves for decades by claiming that they are following all these standards for objective reporting.

And now we learn that in fact, they are working together to damage real debate by throwing around unfounded claims of racism against people they don't like - among other more subtle approaches.

Come on guys, it can only be one or the other. Either a journalist's job is - as you have been claiming for many years - to present the objective truth to the best of your ability; or it is to push a partisan viewpoint, have a healthy marketplace of ideas, and let the news consumer (i.e., you and me) sort out the truth.

Jay Cost of Real Clear Politics says this is just another step back to a partisan press. I agree to an extent - but I think it needs to be made clear that the press has never actually been non-partisan. They have merely *pretended* to be "objective", hiding behind "journalistic integrity", all the while pushing their leftist viewpoints.

Now that the man behind the curtain has been revealed, we will finally stop seeing attacks on Fox News as "biased", since they have now admitted that they are committed leftists and have been biased too, all along.

Well, maybe not. But can't I dream for a slight lessening of leftist hypocrisy?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Murder in the US

In 2011, I calculate the overall US murder rate as 4.6 per 100,000 population.

But if you recalculate this, and assumed that black men murdered at the same rate as everyone else, the overall rate would drop to 1.9 out of 100,000 population. That would give the United States the 147th highest murder rate in the world - or, the 60th best.

The insane disproportionate murder rate among US blacks is why the overall US murder rate seems so high.

I don't understand why liberals refuse to talk about this. I don't understand why blacks refuse to talk about this. Blacks are just as often the victim as the offender - almost SIXTY PERCENT of murder victims in the US are black. Shouldn't they care about this? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to talk about this? Yet they are silent.

And it's not like this is any secret. This culture of violence, abuse of women, and plain thuggery is paraded around daily in pop music. It's glorified on TV shows like "The Wire…

The Root of Violent Extremism

We are too flippant about writing off violent extremists as "crazy", "psychopathic", etc.

Just because *we* have a hard time conceiving of doing violence to others, does not mean that those who do are insane.

Hitler was not insane. Hitler was evil. There is a distinction.

To be insane, to be "crazy", means you cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.

People like Hitler, like ISIS, these people are *evil*. They have, in what they believe to be a rational process, *chosen* to embrace a death-worshipping morality.

Such thinking is going to lead us down wrong alleys in dealing with violent political extremism.

Unless we understand the various reasons why such people embrace philosophies of death, we cannot combat the root causes and defeat violent extremism.

Obama's "they need jobs" is a juvenile approach at this. But you simply cannot ignore and dismiss the reality of life in the countries that are the flash-points of extremism…

Millennials don't understand free speech

A response to this article by a (presumably) Millennial telling "other generations" how we've got it all wrong. I guess, how we all need to be nice and considerate and stuff..


Well-done. You've managed to publicly pat yourself on the back for your great moral wisdom - stuff the rest of human race has been aware of and done for hundreds if not thousands of years.

This article exhibits typical Millennial fallacies:
a) complete ignorance of history and human nature
b) feeling superior for believing the right things - things you read on the internet - and which you believe you invented.
c) condescending arrogance

PC is NOT as you described. PC is in fact about restricting free speech. The whole point of free speech, the reason it is protected? If people only ever said unoffensive things, well, there would be no need to protect that, would there? Nobody would object to unoffensive speech.

It is precisely those words and ideas that cause discomfort - often to entrenc…