PDA

View Full Version : Bloggingheads who are also Jour-NO-LIST members


johnmarzan
07-24-2010, 05:54 AM
yglesias, ezra. who else? are there any rightwingers other than weigel?

is bob wright a member?

how did they coordinate their story on the acorn scandal? how did they strategize on the black panthers story?

bjkeefe
07-24-2010, 10:29 AM
[...]

Ah. We can always feel good about the direction in which our society is headed when certain of its members start (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0714-latino-utah-list-20100714,0,2130364.story) compiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon%27s_Enemies_List) lists (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/9/newsid_3703000/3703305.stm).

http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/swann/herblock/images/s03380u.jpg

Looks like you got while the getting was good, Dan (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/07/daniel-schorr-has-died.html).

==========

(pic. source (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/swann/herblock/fire.html))

==========

[Added] O-dub has a nice post (http://www.oliverwillis.com/2010/07/24/the-journolist-conspiracy-crosses-over-from-moronic-to-crazy/) along these same lines: "The Journolist Conspiracy Crosses Over From Moronic To Crazy."

He notes among many other things that a website which is a favorite of some of our most unhinged commenters is not only running names, they're also posting pictures. Can you say target list? In their defense, American "Thinker" is adding a sheen of respectability by trying to make a YORE THE REEL RASISTS (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-voice-column-up-about-robert-byrd.html)!!!1! thing about this, and hasn't put crosshairs on the pictures. Yet.

johnmarzan
07-24-2010, 10:37 AM
kausmickey Dear Daily Caller: You get nothin' in Journolist archive by searching for "Rielle" or "Elizabeth"? "Jerome Armstrong"? "Dave Matthews"?

johnmarzan
07-24-2010, 10:39 AM
Ah. We can always feel good about the direction in which our society is headed when certain of its members start (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0714-latino-utah-list-20100714,0,2130364.story) compiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon%27s_Enemies_List) lists (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/9/newsid_3703000/3703305.stm).

http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/swann/herblock/images/s03380u.jpg

Looks like you got while the getting was good, Dan (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/07/daniel-schorr-has-died.html).

==========

(pic. source (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/swann/herblock/fire.html))

haha... an overreaction from the resident spokesperson of BHTV. don't you wanna know who's shaping the MSM news to fit the agenda?

johnmarzan
07-24-2010, 10:48 AM
seriously, it was a lost opportunity when BHTV paired bill scher w/ conor (of all people! what? weigel not around?) to discuss journolist and breitbart. it's almost like listening to two leftwingers make excuses for journolist.

bjkeefe
07-24-2010, 11:39 AM
haha... an overreaction from the resident spokesperson of BHTV.

Don't worry, John. I'm sure that you'll grasp the concept of intentional hyperbole for snarkilicious effect one of these decades.

don't you wanna know who's shaping the MSM news to fit the agenda?

I already do. And I'll tell you this much for free: it ain't liberal bloggers and academics. Not by a long shot.

Starwatcher162536
07-24-2010, 11:41 AM
Wait, what? Wow. You just opened my eyes. I really shouldn't care about the Journo-list story that much. It's so obvious now. I mean, if the uncoordinated right leaning media powers can cause so much stupidity by giving the ACORN scandal story such traction, that just proves the invisible hand does work! Damn them incompetent lefty journalists and their central planning! They've been handicapping the left for years!

bjkeefe
07-24-2010, 11:43 AM
kausmickey Dear Daily Caller: You get nothin' in Journolist archive by searching for "Rielle" or "Elizabeth"? "Jerome Armstrong"? "Dave Matthews"?

On a related note (http://twitter.com/UOJim/status/19335732690):

UOJim (http://twitter.com/UOJim) Lemme see if I get this: Righties demand #ezraklein (http://twitter.com/search?q=%23ezraklein) pub journolist archives but refuses to release jlist archives they ALREADY HAVE?

chiwhisoxx
07-24-2010, 01:28 PM
yglesias, ezra. who else? are there any rightwingers other than weigel?

is bob wright a member?

how did they coordinate their story on the acorn scandal? how did they strategize on the black panthers story?

Wiegel isn't a right winger, he isn't even close. There were no right wingers on the list.

Don Zeko
07-24-2010, 02:39 PM
how did they coordinate their story on the acorn scandal? how did they strategize on the black panthers story?

You do realize you've made a bit of an assumption in these sentences, yes?

rcocean
07-24-2010, 10:51 PM
yglesias, ezra. who else? are there any rightwingers other than weigel?

is bob wright a member?

how did they coordinate their story on the acorn scandal? how did they strategize on the black panthers story?

Here a list with Pictures (http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=29858)(not for the weak of stomach).

bjkeefe
07-24-2010, 10:54 PM
Here a list with Pictures (http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=29858)(not for the weak of stomach).

Evidently, wingnuts are now in favor of quotas based on skin color. Progress?

rcocean
07-24-2010, 11:14 PM
Evidently, wingnuts are now in favor of quotas based on skin color. Progress?

Seems that Ezra loves to call others racists, but didn't want too many people of color in his little group.

Kinda like the left in general.

johnmarzan
07-24-2010, 11:32 PM
Here a list with Pictures (http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=29858)(not for the weak of stomach).

thanks. based on that photo lineup, some of the participants in BHTV if i recall correctly include:

ezra klein
dave weigel
joe klein
jon chait
matt yglesias
spencer "call them racist" ackerman
michael tomasky
richard kim
chris hayes
ben smith
megan carpentier
matt duss
henry farrell
tim fernholz
eve fairbanks
daniel levy

a diverse collection of people.

rcocean
07-25-2010, 12:01 AM
You need to add:

Eric Alterman
Kevin Drum
Mark Schmitt
Alyzza Rosenberg
Brad Delong

Strangely, Andy Sullivan and Chris Hitchens couldn't make the cut. Guess Ezra had his no English need apply sign out.

These are just pictures of the more famous few. Whether Marcia Goldberg (fuzzy on her first name) or Bob Wright are on the list is unknown.

bjkeefe
07-25-2010, 12:16 AM
You need to add:

Eric Alterman
Kevin Drum
Mark Schmitt
Alyzza Rosenberg
Brad Delong

Looks like you and your fellow McCarthyite better start keeping track of how many JEWS were on The 'List, too. Seems way more than the population average to me, hmmmmm?

rcocean
07-25-2010, 12:26 AM
Looks like you and your fellow McCarthyite better start keeping track of how many JEWS were on The 'List, too. Seems way more than the population average to me, hmmmmm?

Really, why should I - per your quote "start keeping track of how many JEWS were on The 'List"? Sounds like you're a bit of a jew hater.

The fact that *you* are counting and think - per your quote - that it "Seems way more than the population average to me," - confirms BJK has a problem with Jews. Or as BJ Keefe refers to them "JEWS".

bjkeefe
07-25-2010, 12:36 AM
Really, why should I - per your quote "start keeping track of how many JEWS were on The 'List"? Sounds like you're a bit of a jew hater.

The fact that *you* are counting and think - per your quote - that it "Seems way more than the population average to me," - confirms BJK has a problem with Jews. Or as BJ Keefe refers to them "JEWS".

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/9709/roflba.gif

I'll give you a couple of points for not saying "as per," though.

johnmarzan
07-25-2010, 12:59 AM
Really, why should I - per your quote "start keeping track of how many JEWS were on The 'List"? Sounds like you're a bit of a jew hater.

bjkeefe is probably taking spencer ackerman's advice. LMAO!

johnmarzan
07-26-2010, 12:59 AM
the US gov't has their own version of Journolist leaked via WikiLeaks. But this one involves national security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/asia/26isi.html?_r=1&hp

AemJeff
07-26-2010, 01:05 AM
the US gov't has their own version of Journolist leaked via WikiLeaks. But this one involves national security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/asia/26isi.html?_r=1&hp

Would you like to run that analogy by on more time? An anonymous sink for leakers and whistleblowers is like a private listserv for journalists to engage in off-the-record conversations how, exactly?

Whatfur
07-26-2010, 08:10 AM
Would you like to run that analogy by on more time? An anonymous sink for leakers and whistleblowers is like a private listserv for journalists to engage in off-the-record conversations how, exactly?

That was not the analogy being made so you are correct to ask for help in alleviating your confusion.

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 11:00 AM
That was not the analogy being made so you are correct to ask for help in alleviating your confusion.

If you are so sure of yourself, why not explain what the analogy was, then?

Whatfur
07-26-2010, 11:35 AM
If you are so sure of yourself, why not explain what the analogy was, then?

If you are so sure of yourself, why not explain why I was wrong.

AemJeff
07-26-2010, 11:37 AM
If you are so sure of yourself, why not explain why I was wrong.

Why are you ducking? You made the assertion, prove you had a point.

graz
07-26-2010, 11:44 AM
If you are so sure of yourself, why not explain why I was wrong.
Because it will fall on deaf and dumb ears. Any reader applying third grade reading skills or higher would verify the validity of Jeff's question in relation to jonmarzan's post.

Your litter drops are easily dismissed and even deleted by you, more and more.
Shame may not deter you, but you'll continue to fail at convincing or inspiring sincere engagement.

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 02:25 PM
Why are you ducking? You made the assertion, prove you had a point.

Exactly right, 'fur. If we say, "I don't see the analogy," it is up to the one who made it, as well as the one who waddled in on his behalf to call us stupid for not seeing it, to explain it. Your responses so far indicate backpedaling; i.e., you don't really buy the analogy, either, and now you wish you hadn't let juvenile tribalism cause you to put up another dumb post.

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 02:44 PM
Ah. We can always feel good about the direction in which our society is headed when certain of its members start (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0714-latino-utah-list-20100714,0,2130364.story) compiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon%27s_Enemies_List) lists (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/9/newsid_3703000/3703305.stm). [...]

More on this from two people who say they were not on the list (but wish they had been), but who wingnuts insist MUST HAVE BEEN ON THE LIST: Foster Kamer (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/07/the_village_voi_4.php) and Cenk Uygar (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-list-of-journolist-pa_b_658852.html).

Two snippets from the latter:

The conservative critics claim this proves the media is all a liberal conspiracy. And as part of the proof, they show e-mails from Journolist trying to sway the media to cover things with a liberal slant. But if the media is already liberal why do the liberals have to convince them?

Finally, let me ask you one more question. If the liberal media is so strong how come all of the liberals in the country don't have as much influence as just Glenn Beck? That's really painful to write, but clearly true.

Here's my proof. Every progressive organization, leader, advocate, journalist, congressmen, etc. have said that Elizabeth Warren should be nominated as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Yet, they still can't get the job done. It is at best a 50-50 proposition right now. Yet, just the thought that Shirley Sherrod might be on Glenn Beck's show on one night is enough to get her fired.

The mere threat of Beck swings the Obama administration immediately. That's power. That's influence. All of the progressives and liberals in the country put together can barely move the president on Warren. And this is supposed to be a liberal president with a liberal media? What an unbelievable joke.



(h/t: Roy Edroso (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010_07_25_archive.html#4591596559273970650))

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 03:22 PM
More on this from two people who say they were not on the list (but wish they had been), but who wingnuts insist MUST HAVE BEEN ON THE LIST: Foster Kamer (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/07/the_village_voi_4.php) and Cenk Uygar (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-list-of-journolist-pa_b_658852.html).

Two snippets from the latter:

[...]

(h/t: Roy Edroso (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010_07_25_archive.html#4591596559273970650))

In case you miss the link in the latter's post, here is a 4-min Young Turks clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlAa8XIWGoE) giving a well-deserved shoutout to Shep Smith. Nothing unusual about what he said, except that he's a FoxNews employee and he said it on FoxNews, so kudos are in order for that.

Whatfur
07-26-2010, 03:37 PM
Exactly right, 'fur. If we say, "I don't see the analogy," it is up to the one who made it, as well as the one who waddled in on his behalf to call us stupid for not seeing it, to explain it. Your responses so far indicate backpedaling; i.e., you don't really buy the analogy, either, and now you wish you hadn't let juvenile tribalism cause you to put up another dumb post.

Sorry, I just thought my rationale was obvious. But, I can understand Jeff's feigning ignorance, your piling on, and the creepy Troll's stupidity.

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 03:45 PM
Sorry, I just thought my rationale was obvious. But, I can understand Jeff's feigning ignorance, your piling on, and the creepy Troll's stupidity.

Well, it wasn't, and it still isn't. And no amount of regurgitating insults, whimpering, and falsely attributing motive is going to change the reality that you have yet to answer a simple challenge: explain the correctness of the analogy you claim is "obvious."

AemJeff
07-26-2010, 03:46 PM
Sorry, I just thought my rationale was obvious. But, I can understand Jeff's feigning ignorance, your piling on, and the creepy Troll's stupidity.

You're mistaking your own point of view for objectivity. In your case that's probably a much larger error than it might be for someone else - but it's always a mistake. Assume that when somebody doesn't automatically make the same assumptions that it might be your fault - it probably is.

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 03:48 PM
Pretty sure that this B'head was not a member. But he's certain to be BANISHED from the ranks of RealConservatives™ for his new post, "What Liberal Bloggers Can Teach the Right (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-24/what-journolists-critics-get-wrong/full/)."

(And note difference between title and URL.)

Here's the teaser ...

JournoList was less a conspiracy than an attempt to build a progressive community. Reihan Salam on what its critics don't understand about the Web—and why there's no counterpart on the right.

... and the pull-quote:

As a wonky conservative, I often envied the intellectual firepower of JournoList's small army of economists and political scientists, which would hard if not impossible to replicate on the right.

(h/t: @drgrist (http://twitter.com/drgrist/status/19593108151), via @AdamSerwer (http://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/19593255095))

Whatfur
07-26-2010, 03:57 PM
You're mistaking your own point of view for objectivity. In your case that's probably a much larger error than it might be for someone else - but it's always a mistake. Assume that when somebody doesn't automatically make the same assumptions that it might be your fault - it probably is.

You're probably mistaking backup from Queef and the Troll as validation of correctness.

AemJeff
07-26-2010, 04:05 PM
You're probably mistaking backup from Queef and the Troll as validation of correctness.

I'm taking verbal fog and a refusal to address questions as at least a lack of seriousness (to be polite.)

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 04:25 PM
You're probably mistaking backup from Queef and the Troll as validation of correctness.

'fur slurs are just his way of admitting he's got nothing.

Hard to believe someone so old still acts so young.

Whatfur
07-26-2010, 04:25 PM
Would you like to run that analogy by on more time? An anonymous sink for leakers and whistleblowers is like a private listserv for journalists to engage in off-the-record conversations how, exactly?

.O
\|/
.|
/ \

Jeff, do you think it is possible that he was not really comparing the "anonymous sink" of whistleblowers to a listserv of jounalists but making lite of the similarities of their predicament? (unwanted release of confidential/embarrassing material)

Sorry friend, but you took an illogical assumption, tried to make it his as you stood by either feigning to be, or actually being, dumbfounded.

Anything else Mr. Wizard?

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 04:40 PM
Ah. We can always feel good about the direction in which our society is headed when certain of its members start (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0714-latino-utah-list-20100714,0,2130364.story) compiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon%27s_Enemies_List) lists (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/9/newsid_3703000/3703305.stm). [...]

Aaaaaand ... the stupid goes to 11: 'Socialist "JournoListas" (http://noisyroom.net/blog/2010/07/26/socialist-journolistas/).'

Cue the Jaws music, someone (and not just because of the scary screen shot of ZOMG IT'S ATTACKERMAN!!!1!) ...

This post looks at 106 reported “Journolistas” to look for connections or common threads.

Of the known “Jounolistas” and organizations listed below, many can be linked back to two interrelated groups Democratic Socialists of America, the U.S.’s largest Marxist-based organization and the D.S.A.’s “brain,” the Washington DC-based, far left “think tank,” the Institute for Policy Studies.

Prominently displayed in that site's sidebar: an ad for Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer's new book, The Post-American Presidency. Of course, that cover is blood-red, too.

You would not believe the amount of work on display, drawing "connections." Also: Soros. Also: Alterman is a Communist, because of Izzy Stone. &c.

(h/t: @daveweigel (http://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/19589655838))

chiwhisoxx
07-26-2010, 04:42 PM
Pretty sure that this B'head was not a member. But he's certain to be BANISHED from the ranks of RealConservatives™ for his new post, "What Liberal Bloggers Can Teach the Right (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-24/what-journolists-critics-get-wrong/full/)."

(And note difference between title and URL.)

Here's the teaser ...



... and the pull-quote:



(h/t: @drgrist (http://twitter.com/drgrist/status/19593108151), via @AdamSerwer (http://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/19593255095))

He's right of center, so he was de facto not allowed on the Ideologically Open and In No Way Displaying Hypocritical Epistemic Closure List.

AemJeff
07-26-2010, 04:55 PM
.O
\|/
.|
/ \

Jeff, do you think it is possible that he was not really comparing the "anonymous sink" of whistleblowers to a listserv of jounalists but making lite of the similarities of their predicament? (unwanted release of confidential/embarrassing material)

Sorry friend, but you took an illogical assumption, tried to make it his as you stood by either feigning to be, or actually being, dumbfounded.

Anything else Mr. Wizard?

I asked a question, based on what he said, that Marzan was free to answer. If he was being quite as vacuous as you suggest, then I'm not surprised he never answered.

Whatfur
07-26-2010, 05:05 PM
I asked a question, based on what he said, that Marzan was free to answer. If he was being quite as vacuous as you suggest, then I'm not surprised he never answered.

Cripes Wally, it was just a lead-in to a link. Could it then also be possible that his lack of an answer had to do with him considering your question vacuous? Which coincidently was the reason I did not bother...until now.

AemJeff
07-26-2010, 05:29 PM
Cripes Wally, it was just a lead-in to a link. Could it then also be possible that his lack of an answer had to do with him considering your question vacuous? Which coincidently was the reason I did not bother...until now.

If you'd read carefully, you'd have noticed that the charge of vacuity had a more direct target than Marzan.

Whatfur
07-26-2010, 05:49 PM
If you'd read carefully, you'd have noticed that the charge of vacuity had a more direct target than Marzan.

Spin away. Bottom line is your own incredulous, initial, response holds the clue to the only foolishness here. Yes! It would be silly of him to have made any kind of direct comparison between the makeup of the two entities...which is why he didn't.

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 06:17 PM
Ah. We can always feel good about the direction in which our society is headed when certain of its members start (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0714-latino-utah-list-20100714,0,2130364.story) compiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon%27s_Enemies_List) lists (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/9/newsid_3703000/3703305.stm).

Jason Linkins (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/26/journolist-flap-a-ton-of_n_659485.html):

JournoList Flap: A Ton Of Indictments In Search Of A Crime

Not having been a member of the now-defunct JournoList, I do not have any empirical evidence on hand to evaluate, so I am at a loss to be able to say something definitive about it. That said, having followed the various "disclosures" that have emerged about the list, it seems to me that the substance of the indictment against its membership is this:

1. JournoList members traded ideas with each other.

2. Some of those ideas were daft.

3. Daft ideas were greeted with criticism by JournoListers.

4. Subsequently, the daft ideas cited in the disclosures were never acted upon in the real world.

5. But because someone had a daft idea, we should be concerned, even though said daft ideas never showed up in anyone's work.

What seems clear to me is that JournoList, if it coordinated anything, coordinated good sense. It provided a place where people could have impulsive ideas and then police against the bad impulses -- where people could feel free to test whether an idea is a mistake and draw on a trove of wisdom so that you can learn from that mistake before you actually make it.

Along similar lines, we have today's disclosure from the Daily Caller, in the form of a story titled, "Journolist debates making its coordination with Obama explicit". [link, fixt (http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/26/journolist-debates-making-its-coordination-with-obama-explicit/) --bjk*] The headline is true! But what it leaves out is that the "debate" led to a rather "explicit" end result. Per Greg Sargent (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/journolist_flap_shows_conserva.html):

But way down in the 13th paragaraph, the story quotes a post from the very same thread in which J-List founder and Post blogger Ezra Klein excplicitly rules out any such coordination:

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, the founder of Journolist, quickly jumped in: "Nope, no message coordination. I'm not even sure that would be legal. This is a discussion list, though, and I want it to retain that character," he wrote.

In other words, the headline on this story could have been: "J-List founder ruled out conspiracy."

So, impulsive idea suggested, impulsive idea denied! It's one thing to criticize someone for the actions they take. But for the actions they DON'T TAKE? That doesn't seem sane.

Greg Sargent's post is worth reading in full: "Journolist flap shows conservative media conspiracy, not liberal one (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/journolist_flap_shows_conserva.html)." Read his argument before you dismiss the thesis statement out of hand.

==========

* Ed. note: Linkins's link was broken (!), so I fixed it, as indicated, and left underlined the part of the text that was his original hyperlink.

Whatfur
07-26-2010, 07:09 PM
For the record: I see the Comment Nanny has deleted my reply.

I have asked to have your my reply restored, or yours deleted as well, because I don't think my objection should have been deleted if what provoked it -- a conscious lie, in my judgment -- is allowed to remain.

==========




Is hypocrite on the do not call list?

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 07:10 PM
He's right of center, so he was de facto not allowed on the Ideologically Open and In No Way Displaying Hypocritical Epistemic Closure List.

For the record: I see the Comment Nanny has deleted my reply.

I have asked to have your my reply restored, or yours deleted as well, because I don't think my objection should have been deleted if what provoked it -- a conscious lie, in my judgment -- is allowed to remain.

==========

[Added] I have since been advised the my post was deleted for calling you a name that was felt to be outside the Guidelines. Following is a mildly modified version of that reply.

--- begin ---

I guess we should be happy that you are finally revealing your true self: an utterly thoughtless flag-waver, eager to repeat the same lies ad nauseam, no matter how many times you've been corrected about them.

This link -- "Ezra Klein: On Journolist, and Dave Weigel (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/on_journolist_and_dave_weigel.html)" -- has been posted numerous times on this site, and the relevant section has been directly quoted at least (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=166961#post166961) twice (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=171142#post171142).

--- end ---

==========

[Added2]

I'll add now what I was about to add earlier, before the Comment Nanny appeared on scene.

Agree or don't with Ezra's decision to limit membership based on ideological considerations, but you've got no ground whatsoever to stand on in denying that it was a reasoned and conscious decision he made early on. Nor do you have any basis to assert that he ever claimed it was "Ideologically Open."

I'll remind you that this decision of his was made public well more than a year ago, in March 2009, the first time a bunch of right-wingers tried to create hysteria about Journolist. I'll give you another link to that post, as well. This time, read it (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=03&year=2009&base_name=obligatory_journolist_post). Pay particular attention to this part:

It is true that the list is center to left. That's not about fostering ideology but preventing a collapse into flame war. The emphasis is on empiricism, not ideology.

In other words, stop yelling (at Ezra) YOU LIE!!!1! like some kind of Republican Congressman just because you can't handle the truth.

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 07:14 PM
Is hypocrite on the do not call list?

If you mean the do-not-call-names list, no, that's not the word that triggered the post's deletion. (I can understand why you'd think chi might have been subjected to that label, though I am surprised to see you say so out loud.)

Interestingly enough, the objected-to word was not any sort of homophobic slur, either. These are evidently acceptable to the Comment Nanny. So rest easy -- your available vocabulary isn't suddenly going to be cut in half.

uncle ebeneezer
07-26-2010, 07:49 PM
This (http://www.salon.com/news/media_criticism/index.html?story=/opinion/conason/2010/07/26/journolist) was pretty great too.

Some choice quotes:

As David Brock, who had attended those meetings, explained a few years ago in the Republican Noise Machine:


Every Wednesday morning in Norquist's Washington offices, the leaders of more than eighty conservative organizations -- including major right-wing media outlets and top Bush White House aides -- convene to set movement priorities, plan strategy, and adopt talking points. Norquist seems a cross between a Communist Party boss and a Mafia don as he presides over these strategy sessions ...

Conservative media turned out in full force for the weekly strategy meetings convened by right-wing activist Grover Norquist -- Peggy Noonan and John Fund of the Journal, representatives from National Review and the Washington Times, and a researcher for Bob Novak all checked in. The right-wing writers considered themselves part of the conservative movement "team," as Norquist put it ...

And another:

Perhaps it is appropriate to give the last word to the American Spectator's John Tabin, who has written a striking dissent from the right-wing hysterics over Journolist:


Since 1993, Grover Norquist has held an off-the-record meeting every Wednesday where conservative activists, policy wonks, and government officials exchange ideas about policy and politics. Sometimes journalists attend. Depending on a particular journalist's ideological and partisan disposition -- which can vary quite a lot given the state of our media landscape, which includes both 'straight news' reporters (i.e. people who attempt to hide the almost-always-left-of-center opinions that shape their journalistic choices) and opinion journalists with various worldviews and temperaments -- journalists may be there to get ideas that will influence how they think about issues, or they may just be there to get perspective on how conservatives are thinking about the issues of the day.

The Wednesday Meeting has periodically been the source of breathless fear-mongering on the left about the all-powerful conservative conspiracy to control media narratives. This is, of course, absurd. Much of the hyperventilating over Journolist is equally absurd ...

Everyone who has been shown to have their work influenced by conversations on Journolist is, likewise, a commentator. That Chris Hayes tries to get perspective from other liberals before he goes on TV to opine on a topic, or that Joe Klein incorporates ideas from off-the-record exchanges into his blog posts, is not exactly earthshaking news. Commentators on the right do exactly the same thing -- it's just our emails don't get leaked because we're smart enough not to conduct these exchanges on listservs where we let the audience expand to include 400 people. This practice is a double-edged sword -- you get the benefit of idea-sharing, but you have to be careful not to get sucked into groupthink. Liberals seem more prone to the latter failing, but that's more a problem for them than for anyone else, and it's not much of a scandal ...

This brings us to the conduct of the Daily Caller itself ... [Editor Tucker] Carlson is being flat-out disingenuous when he puts the burden on Journolist members to release the context of the threads that Jonathan Strong has reported on with a gloss that the people quoted all say is misleading. Everyone on Journolist was party to an off-the-record agreement. As explained above, having people trust you to keep conversations off the record is an important part of practicing journalism. (It shouldn't be a surprise that my source, who was willing to break the agreement to the extent that he treated an off-the-record discussion as an on-background discussion, is an academic, not a journalist.) The Caller is in possession of the complete threads (I gave them too much credit when I assumed they must not be), and was not party to that agreement. If the Caller is witholding information from readers to sensationalize the narrative, as the people they're quoting all claim that they are, they are practicing tabloid journalism ...

If Tucker Carlson wants to run his website like a tabloid, he's welcome to do so -- but he shouldn't be lecturing anyone about journalistic scruples.

chiwhisoxx
07-26-2010, 07:53 PM
For the record: I see the Comment Nanny has deleted my reply.

I have asked to have your my reply restored, or yours deleted as well, because I don't think my objection should have been deleted if what provoked it -- a conscious lie, in my judgment -- is allowed to remain.

==========

[Added] I have since been advised the my post was deleted for calling you a name that was felt to be outside the Guidelines. Following is a mildly modified version of that reply.

--- begin ---

I guess we should be happy that you are finally revealing your true self: an utterly thoughtless flag-waver, eager to repeat the same lies ad nauseam, no matter how many times you've been corrected about them.

This link -- "Ezra Klein: On Journolist, and Dave Weigel (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/on_journolist_and_dave_weigel.html)" -- has been posted numerous times on this site, and the relevant section has been directly quoted at least (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=166961#post166961) twice (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=171142#post171142).

--- end ---

==========

[Added2]

I'll add now what I was about to add earlier, before the Comment Nanny appeared on scene.

Agree or don't with Ezra's decision to limit membership based on ideological considerations, but you've got no ground whatsoever to stand on in denying that it was a reasoned and conscious decision he made early on. Nor do you have any basis to assert that he ever claimed it was "Ideologically Open."

I'll remind you that this decision of his was made public well more than a year ago, in March 2009, the first time a bunch of right-wingers tried to create hysteria about Journolist. I'll give you another link to that post, as well. This time, read it (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=03&year=2009&base_name=obligatory_journolist_post). Pay particular attention to this part:



In other words, stop yelling (at Ezra) YOU LIE!!!1! like some kind of Republican Congressman just because you can't handle the truth.

Once again, I think you over estimate my intentions to be hostile here. But I'll clarify, because I can see why you think it was dumb the way you interpreted it. You're right, it was a logical decision to limit the list the way Ezra did. I should have made it more clear my problem was with the list generally. But maybe that's for another discussion. The part about Ezra being dishonest still stands to an extent, in my book at least. For the most part, I think Ezra actually comes out pretty well from a lot of these Journolist threads. He appears to be the de facto voice of reason, although that isn't saying much in a sea of Ackerman's and Alterman's. But I digress. My problem is that Ezra portrayed the list as simply a wonkish group of people having boring policy discussions and occasionally some off topic stuff about sports, etc. But that clearly wasn't all it was. It may have been some of it, or perhaps even most of it (just release everything already DC) but it definitely wasn't all of it.

AemJeff
07-26-2010, 08:13 PM
... My problem is that Ezra portrayed the list as simply a wonkish group of people having boring policy discussions and occasionally some off topic stuff about sports, etc. But that clearly wasn't all it was. It may have been some of it, or perhaps even most of it (just release everything already DC) but it definitely wasn't all of it.

I'd be willing to bet that Ezra was right enough that implying dishonesty on his part will turn out to have been unwarranted. Out of tens of thousands of messages DC has released how many? If Tucker had that much useful material, you'd think we have seen quite a bit more by now. You can't possibly be suggesting that if there were a few dozen (let's say) hotter than really advisable messages among thousands that his characterization ("simply a wonkish group of people having boring policy discussions and occasionally some off topic stuff about sports, etc") wasn't sufficiently accurate.

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 08:42 PM
Once again, I think you over estimate my intentions to be hostile here. But I'll clarify, because I can see why you think it was dumb the way you interpreted it. You're right, it was a logical decision to limit the list the way Ezra did. I should have made it more clear my problem was with the list generally. But maybe that's for another discussion.

I don't think it needs one: some people will understand, and even applaud, a list intentionally limited for the reasons Ezra gave. Others will say that (despite all of the private conversations they have and consciously limited groups they participate in) Ezra should have thrown the list open to anyone otherwise qualified, independent of ideological slant. This second group of people is wrong, because they are assuming that this list was some sort of official organization or laboring under beliefs more paranoid, but very few in this second group are ever going to admit that.

As the reality of the whinging about this list that we've been hearing for more than a year makes indisputably clear.

However, I really take exception to this:

The part about Ezra being dishonest still stands to an extent, in my book at least. For the most part, I think Ezra actually comes out pretty well from a lot of these Journolist threads. He appears to be the de facto voice of reason, although that isn't saying much in a sea of Ackerman's and Alterman's. But I digress. My problem is that Ezra portrayed the list as simply a wonkish group of people having boring policy discussions and occasionally some off topic stuff about sports, etc.

Ezra is not being dishonest about what he intended the listserv to be, nor has he been dishonest that people talked about all sorts of stuff. That he has not described in excruciating detail every last off-tangent conversation that ever occurred does not make him "dishonest."

You might contrast Bob's description (http://bloggingheads.tv/about/) of the forum with the reality of the forum, to see what I'm getting at here:

We pride ourselves on having a diversity of views in our diavlogs and an accordingly diverse comments section, where thoughtful disagreement is expressed in civil terms. (OK, usually thoughtful, and usually civil.)

Leave aside the quibbling over whether "usually" means "well more than half the time," the point I want to make here is that there is all manner of bantering, gossiping, personal updates, goofing around, and links, vids, and pix shared purely for laughs, etc. Also, venting, on lots of things, many having little or nothing to do with this site or what the recent diavlogs have been about. The forum can hardly be said to be a place where we do nothing but stick to Serious Issues or whatever might be implied on that About page.

And that's a good thing. It keeps people coming around, it makes them feel welcome, like they're having fun, whatever. If the forum was nothing but endless wonking out and highfalutin debates, we'd probably have twenty participants out of who posts here now.

(As a side note, I'll observer that were someone to excerpt some of your friend Whatfur's posts and say that the whole forum is thus accurately represented, you'd be able to overlay that perfectly with what Tucker's clowns are doing with their ill-gotten message collection.)

Same thing for Journolist: you get a bunch of people emailing back and forth, and there is inevitably going to be straying from the original purpose of the listserv. But it has also been documented (see Greg Sargent's post linked to here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=171922&highlight=sargent#post171922), for example) -- and even the Tucker's Daily Crawler will admit it if you read down far enough -- that when things got too out of hand, Ezra stepped it and told people to knock it off.

As if even that should have been up to anybody but people on this private list.

But that clearly wasn't all it was. It may have been some of it, or perhaps even most of it (just release everything already DC) but it definitely wasn't all of it.

You have no evidence to support this, or at least you haven't presented any. You're just making empty assertions, despite the dozens of blog posts put up by various Journolisters describing all else that was talked about (and all of it as banal as any sane. mature person would imagine).

And sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, because I know you on the far right think you're the only RealAmericans, but you have no right to demand the release of other private citizens' private conversations. Even (*gasp*) if they might have been talking trash about your heroes. Just doesn't work that way. This isn't your own little police state.

And this is just plain stupid ...

He appears to be the de facto voice of reason, although that isn't saying much in a sea of Ackerman's and Alterman's.

... apart from the incorrect use of apostrophes in plural nouns. A couple or a few heated Ackerman sentences (I'm aware of nothing objectionable that's been said by Alterman) -- even if I were to agree, arguendo, that those are a problem -- do not constitute a "sea."

Nor is there any reason to expect that Ezra should have been playing nursemaid 24/7, lest your fee-fees get hurt when someone leaked some of the messages.

Jesus. Grow up. MYOGDB. And find something important to care about.

uncle ebeneezer
07-26-2010, 09:06 PM
The biggest irony of this whole non-story is that Ezra said he limited the membership due to concerns that some partisan opportunist would use their window into the private conversations to try to smear the Journolist members. With their current antics, Tucker and crew could not have more perfectly illustrated exactly why Ezra had such concerns.

AemJeff
07-26-2010, 09:17 PM
The biggest irony of this whole non-story is that Ezra said he limited the membership due to concerns that some partisan opportunist would use their window into the private conversations to try to smear the Journolist members. With their current antics, Tucker and crew could not have more perfectly illustrated exactly why Ezra had such concerns.

Tucker was among the people to whom Ezra directly expressed that concern. That seems to imply that one of two things is true. Either Tucker is a callous scheming liar who may well have been planning to do this even as he was cajoling his putative friend Ezra to let him in, or he's vindictive prick with anger issues. Am I leaving out anything plausible?

chiwhisoxx
07-26-2010, 09:37 PM
I don't think it needs one: some people will understand, and even applaud, a list intentionally limited for the reasons Ezra gave. Others will say that (despite all of the private conversations they have and consciously limited groups they participate in) Ezra should have thrown the list open to anyone otherwise qualified, independent of ideological slant. This second group of people is wrong, because they are assuming that this list was some sort of official organization or laboring under beliefs more paranoid, but very few in this second group are ever going to admit that.

As the reality of the whinging about this list that we've been hearing for more than a year makes indisputably clear.

However, I really take exception to this:



Ezra is not being dishonest about what he intended the listserv to be, nor has he been dishonest that people talked about all sorts of stuff. That he has not described in excruciating detail every last off-tangent conversation that ever occurred does not make him "dishonest."

You might contrast Bob's description (http://bloggingheads.tv/about/) of the forum with the reality of the forum, to see what I'm getting at here:



Leave aside the quibbling over whether "usually" means "well more than half the time," the point I want to make here is that there is all manner of bantering, gossiping, personal updates, goofing around, and links, vids, and pix shared purely for laughs, etc. Also, venting, on lots of things, many having little or nothing to do with this site or what the recent diavlogs have been about. The forum can hardly be said to be a place where we do nothing but stick to Serious Issues or whatever might be implied on that About page.

And that's a good thing. It keeps people coming around, it makes them feel welcome, like they're having fun, whatever. If the forum was nothing but endless wonking out and highfalutin debates, we'd probably have twenty participants out of who posts here now.

(As a side note, I'll observer that were someone to excerpt some of your friend Whatfur's posts and say that the whole forum is thus accurately represented, you'd be able to overlay that perfectly with what Tucker's clowns are doing with their ill-gotten message collection.)

Same thing for Journolist: you get a bunch of people emailing back and forth, and there is inevitably going to be straying from the original purpose of the listserv. But it has also been documented (see Greg Sargent's post linked to here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=171922&highlight=sargent#post171922), for example) -- and even the Tucker's Daily Crawler will admit it if you read down far enough -- that when things got too out of hand, Ezra stepped it and told people to knock it off.

As if even that should have been up to anybody but people on this private list.



You have no evidence to support this, or at least you haven't presented any. You're just making empty assertions, despite the dozens of blog posts put up by various Journolisters describing all else that was talked about (and all of it as banal as any sane. mature person would imagine).

And sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, because I know you on the far right think you're the only RealAmericans, but you have no right to demand the release of other private citizens' private conversations. Even (*gasp*) if they might have been talking trash about your heroes. Just doesn't work that way. This isn't your own little police state.

And this is just plain stupid ...



... apart from the incorrect use of apostrophes in plural nouns. A couple or a few heated Ackerman sentences (I'm aware of nothing objectionable that's been said by Alterman) -- even if I were to agree, arguendo, that those are a problem -- do not constitute a "sea."

Nor is there any reason to expect that Ezra should have been playing nursemaid 24/7, lest your fee-fees get hurt when someone leaked some of the messages.

Jesus. Grow up. MYOGDB. And find something important to care about.

I see your incorrect apostrophes (oops) and raise you a rogue "observer" that doesn't seem to make any sense in your one of your sentences in parentheses.

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 11:07 PM
I see your incorrect apostrophes (oops) and raise you a rogue "observer" that doesn't seem to make any sense in your one of your sentences in parentheses.

Correct. It should not have had the final r.

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 11:09 PM
Tucker was among the people to whom Ezra directly expressed that concern. That seems to imply that one of two things are true. Either Tucker is a callous scheming liar who may well have been planning to do this even as he was cajoling his putative friend Ezra to let him in, or he's vindictive prick with anger issues. Am I leaving out anything plausible?

Tucker is now trying to insinuate that his sole purpose in asking to join in the first place was because he wanted to play Investigative Journalist.*

The real question: when will information be released about Ezra Klein's countertops?

==========

* [Added] Example evidence here in his email sent to Foster Kamer (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/07/the_tucker_carl.php):

As for my (unsuccessful) request to get on Journolist, of course. I was interested in what goes on there. That's why we did the series in the first place.

[Added2] And of course there is this (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/when_tucker_carlson_asked_to_j.html), from Ezra, after the now-infamous email exchange between those two:

He asked again if he could join Journolist, maybe on a read-only basis. He never responded to the idea of creating a bipartisan list.

Asked if he could join on a read-only basis? And expressed no interest in starting up another listserv that would not have an ideological restriction?

SOME might say ...

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 11:28 PM
Spin away. Bottom line is your own incredulous, initial, response holds the clue to the only foolishness here. Yes! It would be silly of him to have made any kind of direct comparison between the makeup of the two entities...which is why he didn't.

If I understand you correctly, you've now reached the point of insisting that the reason you initially asserted johnmarzan's analogy was so good, and so obvious, is that it had nothing to do with what he was comparing it to.

chiwhisoxx
07-27-2010, 01:16 AM
Tucker is now trying to insinuate that his sole purpose in asking to join in the first place was because he wanted to play Investigative Journalist.*

The real question: when will information be released about Ezra Klein's countertops?

==========

* [Added] Example evidence here in his email sent to Foster Kamer (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/07/the_tucker_carl.php):



[Added2] And of course there is this (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/when_tucker_carlson_asked_to_j.html), from Ezra, after the now-infamous email exchange between those two:



Asked if he could join on a read-only basis? And expressed no interest in starting up another listserv that would not have an ideological restriction?

SOME might say ...

It seemed obvious to me on first reading that Tucker was pretty disingenuous when asking Ezra to join the list. I'm kind of surprised Ezra didn't read that play, to be honest. Or maybe he did, and was just humoring him. I dunno.

uncle ebeneezer
07-27-2010, 01:16 AM
Here's the Alterman thing (http://www.thenation.com/blog/37882/nattering-nabobs-nascar) that I believe Chi was referring to.

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg is among the best known and, for better or worse, most respected journalists who is wasting his time with the purposely deceptive and dishonestly edited purloined transcripts of old “Journolist” discussions being dribbled out daily on The Daily Caller. (For some background, see my column here.) On one of them, I am quoted, on the day of Obama’s election, saying that among the people we were not going to have to listen to anymore were “fucking Nascar retards.” I’ve been getting a steady stream of hate email since the quote was published, and one genuinely hurt note from a friendly reader with a retarded child. I offer that reader my sincere apologies for my poor choice of words in the excitement of the moment. HOWEVER….

uncle ebeneezer
07-27-2010, 01:19 AM
It seemed obvious to me on first reading that Tucker was pretty disingenuous when asking Ezra to join the list. I'm kind of surprised Ezra didn't read that play, to be honest. Or maybe he did, and was just humoring him. I dunno.

But he did. That's why TC wasn't allowed in. It was essentially: let me in, let me in. Not by the hair of my chinny, chin chin. TC only got the opportunity to play GOTCHA!!1! journalism through finding someone else willing to break the agreed upon code of privacy.

bjkeefe
07-27-2010, 01:31 AM
It seemed obvious to me on first reading that Tucker was pretty disingenuous when asking Ezra to join the list. I'm kind of surprised Ezra didn't read that play, to be honest. Or maybe he did, and was just humoring him. I dunno.

This is nothing but mind-reading at a distance, but if I had to guess, I would guess Ezra's instinctive reaction was to think Tucker was up to no good, and then his intellectual half took over and thought one of two things -- either he should treat the request at face value and let the group make the call, despite his initial misgivings, or he figured Tucker was looking to start something, and he wanted to give him nothing to work with, so he went through the motions of putting it to the group, knowing full well what the reaction would be.

Probably the same for the offer to start a bipartisan listserv -- play it with a straight face, knowing how it would play out.

bjkeefe
07-27-2010, 01:38 AM
Here's the Alterman thing (http://www.thenation.com/blog/37882/nattering-nabobs-nascar) that I believe Chi was referring to.

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg is among the best known and, for better or worse, most respected journalists who is wasting his time with the purposely deceptive and dishonestly edited purloined transcripts of old “Journolist” discussions being dribbled out daily on The Daily Caller. (For some background, see my column here.) On one of them, I am quoted, on the day of Obama’s election, saying that among the people we were not going to have to listen to anymore were “fucking Nascar retards.” I’ve been getting a steady stream of hate email since the quote was published, and one genuinely hurt note from a friendly reader with a retarded child. I offer that reader my sincere apologies for my poor choice of words in the excitement of the moment. HOWEVER….

Good thing I didn't add any comments here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=171692#post171692), I guess. ;)

Alterman is the man. Thanks for the link. I'd encourage everyone to read the whole thing. Unfortunately, those who would gain the most are the least likely to.

[Added] Typically gutless of Goldberg not to link to Alterman while bashing him. Why take a chance that his own readers might call bullshit on him, amirite?

johnmarzan
07-27-2010, 02:59 AM
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/07/any-delusions-that-journo-list-was-not.html

"Any delusions that Journo-List was not, in part, a collusory venture to shape the media narrative in ways to benefit Obama, above and beyond ferreting out the truth about any and all candidates, must now be abandoned. Ezra Klein has already been caught in a bald-faced lie about his discretion in picking members; and the notion that this was simply a water-cooler collection of journalistic thoughts is also belied by the emails now published by the Daily Caller."

Andrew Sullivan joins the pile-on.

bjkeefe
07-27-2010, 03:11 AM
Aaaaaand ... the stupid goes to 11: 'Socialist "JournoListas" (http://noisyroom.net/blog/2010/07/26/socialist-journolistas/).'

Cue the Jaws music, someone (and not just because of the scary screen shot of ZOMG IT'S ATTACKERMAN!!!1!) ...

This post looks at 106 reported “Journolistas” to look for connections or common threads.

Of the known “Jounolistas” and organizations listed below, many can be linked back to two interrelated groups Democratic Socialists of America, the U.S.’s largest Marxist-based organization and the D.S.A.’s “brain,” the Washington DC-based, far left “think tank,” the Institute for Policy Studies.

Prominently displayed in that site's sidebar: an ad for Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer's new book, The Post-American Presidency. Of course, that cover is blood-red, too.

You would not believe the amount of work on display, drawing "connections." Also: Soros. Also: Alterman is a Communist, because of Izzy Stone. &c.

(h/t: @daveweigel (http://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/19589655838))

Selected comments left on the 'Socialist "JournoListas"' post, because why not?

PeterM said, in July 26th, 2010 at 5:59 pm

Truly excellent post. I’ve been hoping somebody would get down to the nitty-gritty of connecting the dots.

Now, you should try to connect all these dots with ACORN, SEIU, STORM, HCANN, World Development Movement, Catholic Campaign for Human Development, MoveOn.org, Gamaliel Foundation, People Improving Communities Through Organizing (PICO), and Direct Action and Research Training Institute (DART) et al.

And what about Yosi Sargent, the punk who tried to coordinate through the NEA America’s artists to paint for ObamaCare?


testavia said, in July 26th, 2010 at 7:14 pm

Among other things these journolistas have in common is that they are all hod carriers for

Among other things these journolistas have in common is they are all hod carriers for George
Sore’s movements.

g

kowa4826 said, in July 26th, 2010 at 8:44 pm

Probably nothing more than “pure racism” , on my part , but , somehow , I can’t help but notice how FEW obvious “Catholic” & “Waspish” names seem to appear on this list ….. Frank Kowalski (N.Va.)

johnmarzan
07-27-2010, 03:24 AM
Oliver willis writes a dishonest post about Ann Althouse re Journolist

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/07/oliver-willis-at-media-matters-writes.html

bjkeefe
07-27-2010, 03:35 AM
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/07/any-delusions-that-journo-list-was-not.html

"Any delusions that Journo-List was not, in part, a collusory venture to shape the media narrative in ways to benefit Obama, above and beyond ferreting out the truth about any and all candidates, must now be abandoned. Ezra Klein has already been caught in a bald-faced lie about his discretion in picking members; and the notion that this was simply a water-cooler collection of journalistic thoughts is also belied by the emails now published by the Daily Caller."

Andrew Sullivan also joins the pile-on.

Oh. Em. Gee. This is too funny.

Where to begin? Well, first, it's not a "pile-on." It's Althouse copying and pasting Sullivan. And then copying and pasting more Sullivan -- from the same post -- but the second time, putting it in a blockquote. BLOGGER ETHICS PANEL, WHERE ARE YOU?

Anyway, if you follow Crazy Annie's link to Crazy Andy (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/07/the-partisan-tools-at-journolist-and-trig.html), you see that he is reading Daily Caller posts and one quick disclaimer aside, treating them like a fundie treats the Bible.

And you know what's really at the root of this? Speak to us, Mr. Sullivan.

Check these quotes out. First Ezra, setting down the line:

Seriously, folks? Best case scenario, what’s your outcome here: Her daughter, hounded by the tabloids, breaks down that it was her child, and her mother heroically took on the burden and welcomed the disabled boy as one of her own? Palin’s relationship with her children — however they may have come to her — strikes me as pretty far out of bounds. By all accounts she’s a wonderful mother, and devoted to her fifth son. Leave this be.

If you want to know why the allegedly liberal media didn't touch - and still won't touch - this story, look no further.

Yes. The real reason we can't trust Journolist is because ... THEY MADE THE ENTIRE MEDIA SQUELCH THE TRUTH ABOUT TRIG.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Cripes, johnmarzan, do you even read what you link to? Or did you just happen across OBAMA ... COLLUSION ... EZRA LIES!!!1! and figure, "Good eeeenuf 4 me!?"

==========

(P.S. @nikkibong: I plead nolo contendere.)

Whatfur
07-27-2010, 08:57 AM
If I understand you correctly, ...

Sorry, no you don't. "What were the odds".

bjkeefe
07-27-2010, 11:18 AM
Sorry, no you don't. "What were the odds".

Sorry my tone wasn't more clear. I should have realized you need pretty much everything spelled out for you even to have a hope of understanding it. So, for the record, the first five words of this (emph. added)...

If I understand you correctly, you've now reached the point of insisting that the reason you initially asserted johnmarzan's analogy was so good, and so obvious, is that it had nothing to do with what he was comparing it to.

... are there because the rest was too long to be a Shorter.

No, no. Don't thank me. I'm here to help.

I'm also here to watch how long you will keep this thread alive. Man, the hole you're digging must be halfway to China by now.

bjkeefe
07-27-2010, 11:34 AM
Oliver willis writes a dishonest post about Ann Althouse re Journolist

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/07/oliver-willis-at-media-matters-writes.html

Shorter glass of whine from Ann Althouse:

How dare Oliver Willis link (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007260011) to another post that links (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007010012) to me, instead of linking to my blog directly every time my name is mentioned!!!1! THEREFORE, HE IS DISHONEST. WAIT UNTIL I TELL ANDREW SULLIVAN (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=172029#post172029) ABOUT THIS.

Also, where is my personal copy of the entire Journolist archive??? I HAZ WRITED 20 (http://althouse.blogspot.com/search/label/JournoList) POSTS ON THIS ALREADY. I IZ IMPORDANT BLAGHER.

Oh, wait ... Hmm, what's this? ... I am mentioned in the same breath with my heroes Limbaugh and Beck, and my name appears first? (*preen* *eyelashes flutter* *simper*) (*refills glass*) (*fade to black*)

Lyle
07-28-2010, 11:55 AM
Yes, and you're a Joe McCarthy progressive. Fo sho.

johnmarzan
07-30-2010, 02:44 AM
Political operatives on Journolist worked to shape news coverage

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/29/political-operatives-on-journolist-worked-to-shape-news-coverage/

is this right? or corrupt?

TwinSwords
07-30-2010, 03:24 AM
Political operatives on Journolist worked to shape news coverage

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/29/political-operatives-on-journolist-worked-to-shape-news-coverage/

is this right? or corrupt?

Political operatives have been working to shape news coverage since the invention of written language.

Oh, no, scratch that. Political operatives have been working to shape news coverage (such as it was) since humans developed the ability to talk.

It's not corrupt; it's free speech. It's what human beings do: they express opinions and they try to persuade other people to agree with them. IT's what you are doing in all your posts, for example. Are you corrupt?

johnmarzan
08-02-2010, 01:22 AM
Political operatives have been working to shape news coverage since the invention of written language.

Oh, no, scratch that. Political operatives have been working to shape news coverage (such as it was) since humans developed the ability to talk.

It's not corrupt; it's free speech. It's what human beings do: they express opinions and they try to persuade other people to agree with them. IT's what you are doing in all your posts, for example. Are you corrupt?

So Obama admin political operatives working together with Liberal reporters and columnists of the MSM in private to fix the news is not corrupt?

here's Insty's latest:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/aug/01/controversy-proves-collusion-among-liberal/

bjkeefe
08-02-2010, 01:25 AM
here's Insty's latest:

#clickbaitfail

AemJeff
08-02-2010, 01:28 AM
So Obama admin political operatives working together with Liberal reporters and columnists of the MSM in private to fix the news is not corrupt?

here's Insty's latest:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/aug/01/controversy-proves-collusion-among-liberal/

Nope. And, seriously, could find a more dishonest source for a cite than Glen Reynolds? He's flogging this because he has a direct interest in Pajamas Media's success, and the stance embodied in that piece is red meat for all three PJMedia fans out there. By your standards he ought to be flogged.

Whatfur
08-11-2010, 10:15 AM
Posted on Monday, August 09, 2010 5:20:18 PM by BuckeyeTexan


1.Spencer Ackerman - Wired, FireDogLake, Washington Independent, Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect
2.Thomas Adcock - New York Law Journal
3.Ben Adler - Newsweek, POLITICO
4.Mike Allen - POLITICO
5.Eric Alterman - The Nation, Media Matters for America
6.Marc Ambinder - The Atlantic
7.Greg Anrig - The Century Foundation
8.Ryan Avent - Economist
9.Dean Baker - The American Prospect
10.Nick Baumann - Mother Jones
11.Josh Bearman - LA Weekly
12.Steven Benen - The Carpetbagger Report
13.Ari Berman - The Nation
14.Jared Bernstein - Economic Policy Institute
15.Michael Berube - Crooked Timer, Pennsylvania State University
16.Brian Beutler - The Media Consortium
17.Lindsay Beyerstein - Freelance journalist
18.Joel Bleifuss - In These Times
19.John Blevins - South Texas College of Law
20.Eric Boehlert - Media Matters
21.Sam Boyd - The American Prospect
22.Ben Brandzel - MoveOn.org, John Edwards Campaign
23.Shannon Brownlee - Author, New America Foundation
24.Rich Byrne - Playwright
25.Kevin Carey - Education Sector
26.Jonathan Chait - The New Republic
27.Lakshmi Chaudry - In These Times
28.Isaac Chotiner - The New Republic
29.Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic
30.Michael Cohen - New America Foundation
31.Jonathan Cohn - The New Republic
32.Joe Conason - The New York Observer
33.Lark Corbeil - Public News Service
34.David Corn - Mother Jones
35.Daniel Davies - The Guardian
36.David Dayen - FireDogLake
37.Brad DeLong - The Economists’ Voice, University of California at Berkeley
38.Ryan Donmoyer - Bloomberg News
39.Adam Doster - In These Times
40.Kevin Drum - Washington Monthly
41.Matt Duss - Center for American Progress
42.Gerald Dworkin - UC Davis
43.Eve Fairbanks - The New Republic
44.James Fallows - The Atlantic
45.Henry Farrell - George Washington University
46.Tim Fernholz - American Prospect
47.Dan Froomkin - Huffington Post, Washington Post
48.Jason Furman - Brookings Institution
49.James Galbraith - University of Texas at Austin
50.Kathleen Geier - Talking Points Memo
51.Todd Gitlin - Columbia University
52.Ilan Goldenberg - National Security Network
53.Arthur Goldhammer - Harvard University
54.Dana Goldstein - The Daily Beast
55.Andrew Golis - Talking Points Memo
56.Jaana Goodrich - Blogger
57.Merrill Goozner - Chicago Tribune
58.David Greenberg - Slate
59.Robert Greenwald - Brave New Films
60.Chris Hayes - The Nation
61.Don Hazen - Alternet
62.Jeet Heer - Canadian Journolist
63.Jeff Hauser - Political Action Committee, Dennis Shulman Campaign
64.Michael Hirsh - Newsweek
65.James Johnson - University of Rochester
66.John Judis - The New Republic, The American Prospect
67.Foster Kamer - The Village Voice
68.Michael Kazin - Georgetown University
69.Ed Kilgore - Democratic Strategist
70. Richard Kim- The Nation
71.Charlie Kireker - Air America Media
72.Mark Kleiman - UCLA The Reality Based Community
73.Ezra Klein - Washington Post, Newsweek, The American Prospect
74.Joe Klein - TIME
75.Robert Kuttner - American Prospect, Economic Policy Institute
76.Paul Krugman - The New York Times, Princeton University
77.Lisa Lerer - POLITICO
78.Daniel Levy - Century Foundation
79.Ralph Luker - Cliopatria
80.Annie Lowrey - Washington Independent
81.Robert Mackey - New York Times
82.Mike Madden - Salon
83.Maggie Mahar - The Century Foundation
84.Amanda Marcotte - Pandagon.net
85.Dylan Matthews - Harvard University
86.Alec McGillis - Washington Post
87.Scott McLemee - Inside Higher Ed
88.Sara Mead - New America Foundation
89.Ari Melber - The Nation
90.David Meyer - University of California at Irvine
91.Seth Michaels - MyDD.com
92.Luke Mitchell - Harper’s Magazine
93.Gautham Nagesh - The Hill, Daily Caller
94.Suzanne Nossel - Human Rights Watch
95.Michael O’Hare - University of California at Berkeley
96.Josh Orton - MyDD.com, Air America Media
97.Rodger Payne - University of Louisville
98.Rick Perlstein - Author, Campaign for America’s Future
99.Nico Pitney - Huffington Post
100.Harold Pollack - University of Chicago
101.Katha Pollitt - The Nation
102.Ari Rabin-Havt - Media Matters
103.Joy-Ann Reid - South Florida Times
104.David Roberts - Grist
105.Lamar Robertson - Partnership for Public Service
106.Sara Robinson - Campaign For America's Future
107.Alyssa Rosenberg - Washingtonian, The Atlantic, Government Executive
108.Alex Rossmiller - National Security Network
109.Michael Roston - Newsbroke
110.Laura Rozen - POLITICO, Mother Jones
111.Felix Salmon - Reuters
112.Greg Sargent - Washington Post
113.Thomas Schaller - Baltimore Sun
114.Noam Scheiber - The New Republic
115.Michael Scherer - TIME
116.Mark Schmitt - American Prospect, The New America Foundation
117.Rinku Sen - ColorLines Magazine
118.Julie Bergman Sender - Balcony Films
119.Adam Serwer - American Prospect
120.Walter Shapiro - PoliticsDaily.com
121.Kate Sheppard - Mother Jones
122.Matthew Shugart - UC San Diego
123.Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight.com
124.Jesse Singal - The Boston Globe, Washington Monthly
125.Ann-Marie Slaughter - Princeton University
126.Ben Smith - POLITICO
127.Sarah Spitz - KCRW
128.Adele Stan - The Media Consortium
129.Paul Starr - The Atlantic
130.Kate Steadman - Kaiser Health News
131.Jonathan Stein - Mother Jones
132.Sam Stein - Huffington Post
133.Matt Steinglass - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
134.James Surowiecki - The New Yorker
135.Jesse Taylor - Pandagon.net
136.Steven Teles - Yale University
137.Mark Thoma - The Economists' View
138.Michael Tomasky - The Guardian
139.Jeffrey Toobin - CNN, The New Yorker
140.Rebecca Traister - Salon
141.Karen Tumulty - Washington Post, TIME
142.Tracy Van Slyke - The Media Consortium
143.Paul Waldman - Author, American Prospect
144.Dave Weigel - Washington Post, MSNBC, The Washington Independent
145.Moira Whelan - National Security Network
146.Scott Winship - Pew Economic Mobility Project
147.J. Harry Wray - DePaul University
148.D. Brad Wright - University of NC at Chapel Hill
149.Kai Wright - The Root
150.Holly Yeager - Columbia Journalism Review
151.Rich Yeselson - Change to Win
152.Matthew Yglesias - Center for American Progress, The Atlantic Monthly
153.Jonathan Zasloff - UCLA
154.Julian Zelizer - Princeton University
155.Avi Zenilman - POLITICO

AemJeff
08-11-2010, 10:22 AM
I bet they all secretly work for the State Department. You should fax that list to Boehner and suggest he reactivate HUAC.

Whatfur
08-11-2010, 11:18 AM
I bet they all secretly work for the State Department. You should fax that list to Boehner and suggest he reactivate HUAC.

Who do you think "I" got the list from, Silly?

graz
08-11-2010, 11:32 AM
Who do you think "I" got the list from, Silly?

From the Tea-hadists, obviously.

Here's a list affected by the journolisters. (http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/gotta_have_a_strong_constitution/)

OK, now you’re all caught up on the latest developments in True Original Constitutional Intentionalism! Don’t forget, people– vote Tea Party™ in November, and take your country back!

_______

*Because the al-Obama X Administration was installed in the White House by the JournoListers of Bilderberg, the “election” of 2008 is null and void under natural law.

Whatfur
08-11-2010, 11:58 AM
From the Tea-hadists, obviously.

Here's a list affected by the journolisters. (http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/gotta_have_a_strong_constitution/)

Wrong again Furtroll.

bjkeefe
08-11-2010, 01:19 PM
Posted on Monday, August 09, 2010 5:20:18 PM by BuckeyeTexan [...]

Better watch out, 'fur. You missed at least a couple 'heads on that list. Next thing you know, your fellow hysterics will be accusing you of covering up for those ones you didn't bold, or at least of failing to insufficiently denounce them. And then you know what'll happen? YOUR name will go on a list, that's what.

Whatfur
08-11-2010, 02:41 PM
Better watch out, 'fur. You missed at least a couple 'heads on that list. Next thing you know, your fellow hysterics will be accusing you of covering up for those ones you didn't bold, or at least of failing to insufficiently denounce them. And then you know what'll happen? YOUR name will go on a list, that's what.

Updates welcome...I was on my way out the door. Who did I miss?

bjkeefe
08-11-2010, 02:53 PM
Updates welcome...I was on my way out the door. Who did I miss?

Sorry. I decline to help you with that request, Mr. Aide-to-Senator-McCarthy.

Whatfur
08-11-2010, 03:05 PM
1.Spencer Ackerman - Wired, FireDogLake, Washington Independent, Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect
2.Thomas Adcock - New York Law Journal
3.Ben Adler - Newsweek, POLITICO
4.Mike Allen - POLITICO
5.Eric Alterman - The Nation, Media Matters for America
6.Marc Ambinder - The Atlantic
7.Greg Anrig - The Century Foundation
8.Ryan Avent - Economist
9.Dean Baker - The American Prospect
10.Nick Baumann - Mother Jones
11.Josh Bearman - LA Weekly
12.Steven Benen - The Carpetbagger Report
13.Ari Berman - The Nation
14.Jared Bernstein - Economic Policy Institute
15.Michael Berube - Crooked Timer, Pennsylvania State University
16.Brian Beutler - The Media Consortium
17.Lindsay Beyerstein - Freelance journalist
18.Joel Bleifuss - In These Times
19.John Blevins - South Texas College of Law
20.Eric Boehlert - Media Matters
21.Sam Boyd - The American Prospect
22.Ben Brandzel - MoveOn.org, John Edwards Campaign
23.Shannon Brownlee - Author, New America Foundation
24.Rich Byrne - Playwright
25.Kevin Carey - Education Sector
26.Jonathan Chait - The New Republic
27.Lakshmi Chaudry - In These Times
28.Isaac Chotiner - The New Republic
29.Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic
30.Michael Cohen - New America Foundation
31.Jonathan Cohn - The New Republic
32.Joe Conason - The New York Observer
33.Lark Corbeil - Public News Service
34.David Corn - Mother Jones
35.Daniel Davies - The Guardian
36.David Dayen - FireDogLake
37.Brad DeLong - The Economists’ Voice, University of California at Berkeley
38.Ryan Donmoyer - Bloomberg News
39.Adam Doster - In These Times
40.Kevin Drum - Washington Monthly
41.Matt Duss - Center for American Progress
42.Gerald Dworkin - UC Davis
43.Eve Fairbanks - The New Republic
44.James Fallows - The Atlantic
45.Henry Farrell - George Washington University
46.Tim Fernholz - American Prospect
47.Dan Froomkin - Huffington Post, Washington Post
48.Jason Furman - Brookings Institution
49.James Galbraith - University of Texas at Austin
50.Kathleen Geier - Talking Points Memo
51.Todd Gitlin - Columbia University
52.Ilan Goldenberg - National Security Network
53.Arthur Goldhammer - Harvard University
54.Dana Goldstein - The Daily Beast
55.Andrew Golis - Talking Points Memo
56.Jaana Goodrich - Blogger
57.Merrill Goozner - Chicago Tribune
58.David Greenberg - Slate
59.Robert Greenwald - Brave New Films
60.Chris Hayes - The Nation
61.Don Hazen - Alternet
62.Jeet Heer - Canadian Journolist
63.Jeff Hauser - Political Action Committee, Dennis Shulman Campaign
64.Michael Hirsh - Newsweek
65.James Johnson - University of Rochester
66.John Judis - The New Republic, The American Prospect
67.Foster Kamer - The Village Voice
68.Michael Kazin - Georgetown University
69.Ed Kilgore - Democratic Strategist
70. Richard Kim- The Nation
71.Charlie Kireker - Air America Media
72.Mark Kleiman - UCLA The Reality Based Community
73.Ezra Klein - Washington Post, Newsweek, The American Prospect
74.Joe Klein - TIME
75.Robert Kuttner - American Prospect, Economic Policy Institute
76.Paul Krugman - The New York Times, Princeton University
77.Lisa Lerer - POLITICO
78.Daniel Levy - Century Foundation
79.Ralph Luker - Cliopatria
80.Annie Lowrey - Washington Independent
81.Robert Mackey - New York Times
82.Mike Madden - Salon
83.Maggie Mahar - The Century Foundation
84.Amanda Marcotte - Pandagon.net
85.Dylan Matthews - Harvard University
86.Alec McGillis - Washington Post
87.Scott McLemee - Inside Higher Ed
88.Sara Mead - New America Foundation
89.Ari Melber - The Nation
90.David Meyer - University of California at Irvine
91.Seth Michaels - MyDD.com
92.Luke Mitchell - Harper’s Magazine
93.Gautham Nagesh - The Hill, Daily Caller
94.Suzanne Nossel - Human Rights Watch
95.Michael O’Hare - University of California at Berkeley
96.Josh Orton - MyDD.com, Air America Media
97.Rodger Payne - University of Louisville
98.Rick Perlstein - Author, Campaign for America’s Future
99.Nico Pitney - Huffington Post
100.Harold Pollack - University of Chicago
101.Katha Pollitt - The Nation
102.Ari Rabin-Havt - Media Matters
103.Joy-Ann Reid - South Florida Times
104.David Roberts - Grist
105.Lamar Robertson - Partnership for Public Service
106.Sara Robinson - Campaign For America's Future
107.Alyssa Rosenberg - Washingtonian, The Atlantic, Government Executive
108.Alex Rossmiller - National Security Network
109.Michael Roston - Newsbroke
110.Laura Rozen - POLITICO, Mother Jones
111.Felix Salmon - Reuters
112.Greg Sargent - Washington Post
113.Thomas Schaller - Baltimore Sun
114.Noam Scheiber - The New Republic
115.Michael Scherer - TIME
116.Mark Schmitt - American Prospect, The New America Foundation
117.Rinku Sen - ColorLines Magazine
118.Julie Bergman Sender - Balcony Films
119.Adam Serwer - American Prospect
120.Walter Shapiro - PoliticsDaily.com
121.Kate Sheppard - Mother Jones
122.Matthew Shugart - UC San Diego
123.Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight.com
124.Jesse Singal - The Boston Globe, Washington Monthly
125.Ann-Marie Slaughter - Princeton University
126.Ben Smith - POLITICO
127.Sarah Spitz - KCRW
128.Adele Stan - The Media Consortium
129.Paul Starr - The Atlantic
130.Kate Steadman - Kaiser Health News
131.Jonathan Stein - Mother Jones
132.Sam Stein - Huffington Post
133.Matt Steinglass - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
134.James Surowiecki - The New Yorker
135.Jesse Taylor - Pandagon.net
136.Steven Teles - Yale University
137.Mark Thoma - The Economists' View
138.Michael Tomasky - The Guardian
139.Jeffrey Toobin - CNN, The New Yorker
140.Rebecca Traister - Salon
141.Karen Tumulty - Washington Post, TIME
142.Tracy Van Slyke - The Media Consortium
143.Paul Waldman - Author, American Prospect
144.Dave Weigel - Washington Post, MSNBC, The Washington Independent
145.Moira Whelan - National Security Network
146.Scott Winship - Pew Economic Mobility Project
147.J. Harry Wray - DePaul University
148.D. Brad Wright - University of NC at Chapel Hill
149.Kai Wright - The Root
150.Holly Yeager - Columbia Journalism Review
151.Rich Yeselson - Change to Win
152.Matthew Yglesias - Center for American Progress, The Atlantic Monthly
153.Jonathan Zasloff - UCLA
154.Julian Zelizer - Princeton University
155.Avi Zenilman - POLITICO
*********
156. Megan Carpentier -Jezebel

bjkeefe
08-11-2010, 03:08 PM
[...]

Still missing some. Better hurry up and fix Teh List before the GHEMRotRSTF finds out!

Whatfur
08-11-2010, 03:10 PM
Still missing some. Better hurry up and fix Teh List before the GHEMRotRSTF finds out!

This is kind of funny and much like the non-interest you and yours feigned at the Count of Monte Lefto. If you have an update, put it forward, otherwise STFUUFF

bjkeefe
08-11-2010, 03:35 PM
This is kind of funny ...

No. You know what's funny? Besides the comedy of you freaks making lists in the first place? And besides the obvious fretting ...

If you have an update, put it forward, otherwise STFUUFF

... I cause you by observing that you're still missing some entries, despite the hours of work you've put in? That for all of your supposed mad computer skillz that you're always bragging about, you still can't find matching entries on two short, simple lists.

Tell you what I will do, though: I'll make you a deal: for every entry I find on your Mighty List of Doom where you have failed to mark in bold a B'head, you have to stay away from the forum for a week.

Of course you will not take this deal, but will continue to struggle with your list in some boneheaded Internet Explorer-user type of way. Have fun! And the rest of us will have laughs!

look
08-11-2010, 03:59 PM
Updates welcome...I was on my way out the door. Who did I miss?Here's the mugshots of the scurrilous knavies, Fur:

http://chamblee54.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/bh0808-01.jpg

Whatfur
08-11-2010, 04:40 PM
No. You know what's funny? !

Yes I do. You thinking it took hours. You thinking it was a struggle and the fact that it bothers you so that one of the shoes may not be properly lined up in the closet.

bjkeefe
08-11-2010, 05:04 PM
You thinking it took hours.

Actually, the timestamps on your posts indicate you and your fellow wannabe-HUACers have been spending days ... no, weeks ... on it. Mighty funny! (But also pretty sad.)

But you were saying?

Yes I do. You thinking it took hours. You thinking it was a struggle and the fact that it bothers you so that one of the shoes may not be properly lined up in the closet.

It does not bother me that your manure-encrusted footwear is sloppily arranged. Nor does it bother me that once again, you are talking about the closet. We all want what's best for you!

But I do think a lot of the old saying: Anything worth doing is worth doing right. So as long as you and your chums are going to be in the business of making up lists and checking them twice, just to see who's been naughty or nice, it seems to me you'd have an interest in properly doing what it was you set out to do.

However, I would be completely happy if you recognized from my mockery the futility of your efforts. That's what I'm here for.

johnmarzan
08-13-2010, 01:41 AM
I wish there's a wikileaks version of Jornolist archives. make it searchable. if many of these leftwing monkeys were sympathetic to julian assange leaking national security info endangering afghan informers, then they should have no problem making jornolist available to public.

johnmarzan
08-13-2010, 01:43 AM
Here's the mugshots of the scurrilous knavies, Fur:

http://chamblee54.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/bh0808-01.jpg

that's racist!

johnmarzan
08-13-2010, 01:50 AM
it's too bad BHTV used limp-wristed conservatives like ross douthat and paired him with that pussy yglesias to discuss JOURNOLIST. or using 2 "conservatives" like Dave Weigel and anti-republican republican Dave Frum. and why use Will Wilkinson to defend journolist vs ann althouse. The guy wilkinson isnt a member so he doesn't know shit re the group so how can he defend journolist properly from questions by ann? obviously by making stuff up.

thank god bob wright is not a member.

bjkeefe
08-13-2010, 07:41 AM
I wish there's a wikileaks version of Jornolist archives. make it searchable. if many of these leftwing monkeys were sympathetic to julian assange leaking national security info endangering afghan informers, then they should have no problem making jornolist available to public.

Talk to your hero Tucker Carlson. He's apparently got the whole archives, or at least a big chunk of them.

But of course he won't, because it's easier to keep bedwetters like you all a-quiver by cherry-picking and removing context, from the few messages that say anything even remotely titillating.