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…

Transparency needed in investigations of police

I have not sat on a grand jury any time in my life. I am disinclined, having not pored through records, nor listened to dozens of witnesses, to second-guess the difficult decisions these jurors have had to make.

HOWEVER. There is a clear problem of trust going on, and it stems from a couple different sources.

1) Grand Juries are usually secret. There are good reasons for this. Simply investigating whether a crime might have occurred, which is what Grand Juries do, collects a lot of evidence which could put people's lives at risk, or could be embarrassing. You want folks to feel free to talk. And you don't want the person being investigated to get unduly smeared.

However, the flip side of secrecy is that the lack of transparency can lead to a loss of trust. Clearly, in the two incidents discussed recently, many people who have no idea what went on in the GJ's or what evidence was presented, know, they just KNOW, an injustice was committed! And, because they have no opportun…