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 "...

Self-loathing is the root of Marxism

  Marxists think having to work for a living is "slavery". Let that sink in. We are living beings. We require certain things for our survival. Those things don't magically appear before us. We have to work for them. Food, shelter, and all the things we have created in our industrial civilization, have to be CREATED through productive effort. For most people, there is nothing bad about this - it's a fact of life, and, many of us find satisfaction and joy from the effort. We work to sustain and improve our lives, which we love. Marxists rail against this fact, and call it an "injustice". They call it "slavery". Terms like "wage slavery" are what they call having a job. So, to be clear: Marxists hate work. Because they hate the idea of working to sustain their lives. Because they hate their lives. Because, at root, they don't believe they are competent to do the things the rest of us do - creative productive effort. So they hate themselv...

Obama lied to us about a "new era in race relations"

One should not be surprised, that President Obama has been shown to be a liar. This is because Democrats cannot be elected President in this country without lying. Polls and surveys show that the country is consistently conservative, right-of-center, what have you. The majority of Americans do not want government run health care or any other form of liberal nanny-state. Bill Clinton campaigned as a "New Democrat", and was elected overwhelmingly by voters who wanted to punish George Bush Sr for his own lie - raising taxes after promising not to. But the key part is, he campaigned as a centrist. Of course, that was a lie. The moment he got into office, thinking he was secure with a Democrat-controlled Congress, Clinton began pushing a big-government liberal agenda, starting with the nationalization of health care. There was an immediate and violent rejection of this plan, ending in the election of the first Republican-controlled Congress in 50 years. Bbeing the kind of politici...