Picking Up the Gauntlet (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

[Bloggingheads]

[PreppyMcPrepperson]

Man, when there's a Bob-Mickey DV, my mood improves about 200%.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson

Man, when there's a Bob-Mickey DV, my mood improves about 200%.

Heh. I have to agree. This is BhTV Classic.

[PreppyMcPrepperson]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Heh. I have to agree. This is BhTV Classic.

It is when there's a segment on Ann Coulter.

[Baltimoron]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Heh. I have to agree. This is BhTV Classic.

And, a perfect primer on how to argue respectfully but also intelligently and with spirit!

Inspirational!

[nikkibong]

mickey finds a new career

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/297...8:45&out=08:57

[nikkibong]

bob, you really should have been a trial attorney

(not that i don't love your journalism)

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

bob, you really should have been a trial attorney

(not that i don't love your journalism)

He has his moments, doesn't he? I felt that Bob easily got the better of Mickey on the Weekly Standard/Ground Zero Mosque question.

[stephanie]

I'm also delighted by a Bob & Mickey pairing.

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

He has his moments, doesn't he? I felt that Bob easily got the better of Mickey on the Weekly Standard/Ground Zero Mosque question.

It kind of seemed that Mickey wasn't even trying very hard, but just being contrarian re the Weekly Standard piece. His defense was basically that the facts/investigation reported could be defended as newsworthy if the news was "even after a search this is all we were able to come up with," which -- as Bob pointed out -- wasn't the article.

[nikkibong]

this is an extremely shrewd point by mickey

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/297...1:30&out=12:24

nicely put, mr. kaus.

[PreppyMcPrepperson]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

this is an extremely shrewd point by mickey

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/297...1:30&out=12:24

nicely put, mr. kaus.

Yeah, I agree with this. There's always been a degree of ideological backscratching in journalism but it is getting worse, and this list was part of that trend, and that's a shame.

[look]

I agree, too. Where's the competition for new angles and scoops?

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson

Yeah, I agree with this. There's always been a degree of ideological backscratching in journalism but it is getting worse, and this list was part of that trend, and that's a shame.

I'm curious: Can you or Nikkibong actually prove what Mickey says in that dingalink is true? Or does it just feel right to you guys? Mickey's assertion is interesting, and it's consistent with the anti-liberal critique he has been making for many, many years (i.e., his entire career). But is there any evidence for it?

He makes two claims in particular: (1) Journolist changed the ecology of journalism from rewarding contrarianism to rewarding conformity, and (2) if you conformed to some unspecified point of view, Ezra would get you a job at the WaPo.

Can you prove either assertion?

I'm curious who, exactly, Mickey thinks was rewarded with a job at the WaPo. Is he talking about Weigel? If so, I'd have to say that doesn't feel right to me. I think Weigel earned his position through hard work and compelling reporting. For 2 or 3 years prior to his WaPo gig, Weigel did a lot of extremely interesting and widely read reporting. Weigel's reporting drove a lot of discussion on both sides of the ideological spectrum. It's pretty insulting to write off his success as the result of conforming to Ezra's POV. But more important, it's a claim I don't think Mickey can prove. Can you or Nikkibong prove it?

Note: Mickey's 2nd claim, that Ezra was giving away WaPo jobs to reward conformity, was not included in Nikkibong's dingalink. The 2nd claim was made in the subsequent 10 seconds.

[PreppyMcPrepperson]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

I'm curious: Can you or Nikkibong actually prove what Mickey says in that dingalink is true? Or does it just feel right to you guys? Mickey's assertion is interesting, and it's consistent with the anti-liberal critique he has been making for many, many years (i.e., his entire career). But is there any evidence for it?

He makes two claims in particular: (1) Journolist changed the ecology of journalism from rewarding contrarianism to rewarding conformity, and (2) if you conformed to some unspecified point of view, Ezra would get you a job at the WaPo.

Can you prove either assertion?

I'm curious who, exactly, Mickey thinks was rewarded with a job at the WaPo. Is he talking about Weigel? If so, I'd have to say that doesn't feel right to me. I think Weigel earned his position through hard work and compelling reporting. For 2 or 3 years prior to his WaPo gig, Weigel did a lot of extremely interesting and widely read reporting. Weigel's reporting drove a lot of discussion on both sides of the ideological spectrum. It's pretty insulting to write off his success as the result of conforming to Ezra's POV. But more important, it's a claim I don't think Mickey can prove. Can you or Nikkibong prove it?

Note: Mickey's 2nd claim, that Ezra was giving away WaPo jobs to reward conformity, was not included in Nikkibong's dingalink. The 2nd claim was made in the subsequent 10 seconds.

I am not going to out people I've worked for. But there was one publication I intended to write for on my trip that I ended up not working with. And the reason was because, while the publication had a history of rewarding contrarianism, and a professed nonpartisan stance, I was encouraged--in pretty blatant ways--by the current editors to fit my stories into an ideological prototype. In one memorable incident, I was told to go in search of answers to a particular question, involving traveling from the city I was in at the time, for several weeks, and when I came back with answers that (I still believe) were significant, was told that "This is interesting news, but it doesn't really fit with the approach we've taken to this topic." It was not the first time that has happened to me, but it was the most egregious.

I have since recounted my experience with that publication to several other journos at various places and seen nods of agreement. So yes, you are correct that I can't prove Mickey is right, but I can say that his critique jives with my overall experience of the media, and those of others I know.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson

I am not going to out people I've worked for. But there was one publication I intended to write for on my trip that I ended up not working with. And the reason was because, while the publication had a history of rewarding contrarianism, and a professed nonpartisan stance, I was encouraged--in pretty blatant ways--by the current editors to fit my stories into an ideological prototype. In one memorable incident, I was told to go in search of answers to a particular question, involving traveling from the city I was in at the time, for several weeks, and when I came back with answers that (I still believe) were significant, was told that "This is interesting news, but it doesn't really fit with the approach we've taken to this topic." It was not the first time that has happened to me, but it was the most egregious.

I have since recounted my experience with that publication to several other journos at various places and seen nods of agreement. So yes, you are correct that I can't prove Mickey is right, but I can say that his critique jives with my overall experience of the media, and those of others I know.

Thank you for the response. I wish you could get into more detail, but I understand that you cannot.

[uncle ebeneezer]

But Preppy, I used to know someone who was in the news business (print) for 40 years or so and he told me many stories that lead me to believe that unfortunately that has always been one of the pitfalls of the industry. It's nothing new, and it wasn't spawned by journolist, the internet or any other recent development.

[PreppyMcPrepperson]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

But Preppy, I used to know someone who was in the news business (print) for 40 years or so and he told me many stories that lead me to believe that unfortunately that has always been one of the pitfalls of the industry. It's nothing new, and it wasn't spawned by journolist, the internet or any other recent development.

I hear this point. I do. But I also look at the output of news product 40 years ago vs. now and I think there was more diversity of views--or at least more reward, more admiration for diversity--in the MSM then than now. I'm not saying JList alone was responsible for that, but it was part of a trend.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson

I hear this point. I do. But I also look at the output of news product 40 years ago vs. now and I think there was more diversity of views--or at least more reward, more admiration for diversity--in the MSM then than now. I'm not saying JList alone was responsible for that, but it was part of a trend.

You're talking about the decay (in your opinion) of objective reporting, right? Other than Politico's Mike Allen (who clearly leans to the right), I don't know of anyone on journolist who was doing objective journalism. They were all purveyors of opinion -- a mix of bloggers, policy/think tank types, professors, activists, etc. Why should Lindsay Beyerstein or Matt Yglesias — explicit advocates of a liberal point of view — be expected to protect the sanctity of objective journalism? What about George Will? Is he destroying journalism too? William Kristol?

I'm really asking here. I understand why the wingnuts are attacking journolist; they'll attack anything that doesn't conform to ultraconservative extremism. But I don't understand why you're attacking journolist. Do you believe promoting a point of view by blogging or writing editorials is inherently wrong? Or is it just wrong when bloggers and editorial writers also talk to people they agree with over email?

In your opinion, what are the most egregious things that happened on journolist?

[PreppyMcPrepperson]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

You're talking about the decay (in your opinion) of objective reporting, right? Other than Politico's Mike Allen (who clearly leans to the right), I don't know of anyone on journolist who was doing objective journalism. They were all purveyors of opinion -- a mix of bloggers, policy/think tank types, professors, activists, etc. Why should Lindsay Beyerstein or Matt Yglesias — explicit advocates of a liberal point of view — be expected to protect the sanctity of objective journalism? What about George Will? Is he destroying journalism too? William Kristol?

I'm really asking here. I understand why the wingnuts are attacking journolist; they'll attack anything that doesn't conform to ultraconservative extremism. But I don't understand why you're attacking journolist. Do you believe promoting a point of view by blogging or writing editorials is inherently wrong? Or is it just wrong when bloggers and editorial writers also talk to people they agree with over email?

In your opinion, what are the most egregious things that happened on journolist?

I know of two news reporters (ie not opinion writers)--Alec MacGillis at the Washington Post, and Ryan Donmoyer at Bloomberg--who were on it, as well as one writer--Holly Yeager--at CJR, a major media trade magazine whose job is to review publications from all persuasions for bias. These are people who should not have formal ties to ideological groups, even if they count them as friends and vote liberal in practice.

It should be noted that two out of those three previously wrote for opinion publications, and that's life in these times when big media won't train young reporters, so TAP and the Standard and their ilk do it. But when they took jobs as news reporters, people like this should have withdrawn from J-List. That's my view.

That said, EVEN opinion journalism--as I was taught it--is supposed to be more rigorous and more free-of-formal-messaging than what we're getting now. The most egregious exchange to my mind is one that the DC posted of the day of the election in which Spencer Ackerman praised Adam Serwer for being so pitch-perfect in his post that the Obama team could have written it. It did not appear to me, from the exchange, that it was meant sarcastically. Even if it's one liberal blogger to another, the kinds of journalists I admire resist that kind of ideological work; they don't praise it.

[uncle ebeneezer]

But I also look at the output of news product 40 years ago vs. now and I think there was more diversity of views--or at least more reward, more admiration for diversity--in the MSM then than now.

Prep, do you have any evidence to back this up? (I don't mean that as accusation, I would honestly like to see numbers one way or another.)

This just strikes me as good-old-days nostalgia mixed with the unfortunate fact that the MSM as it is has shrunken violently as it struggles to hang on in a new media landscape. The trimming of foreign bureaus, local coverage, science etc. and the need to compete with sensationalist media juggernauts like FOX (that make no real attempt at anything more than party-line trumpeting) seems far more likely to be the cause of any loss in diversity of views (if it's really true.)

Either way it doesn't bother me too much because while diversity in MSM may have decreased, don't you think that it has been more than balanced off by the extreme increase in diversity of views via online reporting, commentary etc.? You know, the place where most people read their news nowadays.

[Baltimoron]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

This just strikes me as good-old-days nostalgia mixed with the unfortunate fact that the MSM as it is has shrunken violently as it struggles to hang on in a new media landscape. The trimming of foreign bureaus, local coverage, science etc. and the need to compete with sensationalist media juggernauts like FOX (that make no real attempt at anything more than party-line trumpeting) seems far more likely to be the cause of any loss in diversity of views (if it's really true.)

Are there any insider accounts or scholarly treatments of the MSM in book or peer-reviewed articles that you can recommend? The image I have of the "good 'ol days" moved uneasily between two movie images: Citizen Kane and Thirteen Days (where the President asks the WaPo owner to hold publication of stories about the Soviet build-up on Cuba, and he agrees).

[uncle ebeneezer]

Unfortunately I don't, Balt. Prep might know some good places to look.

[Baltimoron]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

Unfortunately I don't, Balt. Prep might know some good places to look.

No prob! Thanx!

[PreppyMcPrepperson]

Originally Posted by Baltimoron

No prob! Thanx!

The Pew State of the News Media reports are the best thing to start with if you're looking for data on the content of news. The Columbia Journalism Review is a good place to poke around if you're looking for data on the practice of journalism, what kind of content gets you promoted etc.

[chiwhisoxx]

I think Bob is exaggerating pretty heavily in calling the Weekly Standard piece McCarthyism. The opposition to WhateverPoliticallyCorrectTermWe'reCallingTheIslam istCenterThisWeek seems different than McCarthyism in a lot of ways. I haven't read the piece, but if it as Bob describes it, then it's a bad piece and bad journalism. And I'll take Bob's word for it. But calling it McCarthyism seems to simultaneously display at least a partial misunderstanding of McCarthyism (although this isn't uncommon) and hyperbole about how pernicious the piece really is.

[uncle ebeneezer]

I dunno, it seems to be a pretty apt analogy in that both cases have someone taking tenuous-to-non-existent ties to some feared organization and tries to spin it as substantive in order to politically injure the target. Bob said it best when he pointed out that the investigative reporting of the piece led to nothing and therefore should have either highlighted that there is NOT a credible connection to terrorist groups, or should have more appropriately been one of the millions of stories that remain on the cutting room floor. To take the non-evidence and spin it as evidence in the hope of scaring the public, is exactly the type of tactic that McCarthy was famous for.

[Bima]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

I dunno, it seems to be a pretty apt analogy in that both cases have someone taking tenuous-to-non-existent ties to some feared organization and tries to spin it as substantive in order to politically injure the target. Bob said it best when he pointed out that the investigative reporting of the piece led to nothing and therefore should have either highlighted that there is NOT a credible connection to terrorist groups, or should have more appropriately been one of the millions of stories that remain on the cutting room floor. To take the non-evidence and spin it as evidence in the hope of scaring the public, is exactly the type of tactic that McCarthy was famous for.

I just finished reading the TNR piece and considering Mr. Schwartz's previous writing it seems relatively mild. He is a Sufi Muslim who writes about the influence of Wahabi/Salafi money in the West. My guess is that he looked pretty hard for a link but was unable to find it. We may not have heard the last from him on this subject.

[harkin]

I posted a response earlier this morning and it has vanished. No PM telling me if I violated a forum rule or even a space where my post was explaining deletion for whatever reason. It did contain quotes from Journolist so maybe it was just the forces of good attempting to combat McCarthyism - curious.

Maybe if I re-post an attempt at facsimile and replace all J-List quotes with "blah blah blah" and all attribution to 'Liberal' it will pass the censors:

Originally Posted by harkin

Secondly, this comparison is used to introduce the straw man that opinion and advocacy are what people find objectionable to the whole Journolist secret media message club.

Originally Posted by AemJeff

......is there a message here? As far as I can tell, none, except: liberals bad, liberals speaking among themselves dishonest, by definition.

[cough] yes, the irony is obvious, to some.......but I'm sure you are still missing it.

Now that I've listened to the entire dialogue, Bob seems to push this false meme as much as anyone.

If MK does agree to debate EK, Bob should respond in kind and debate Ann Coulter, that has the potential for being the most entertaining discussion ever (except maybe Eric Alterman and Brad Daugherty).

But why should Mickey agree to debate EK when the most relevant item of discussion, Journolist itself has been deemed dead and all discussion verboten by EK himself? Why Mickey would choose to have an 'open and honest discussion' with Little Ezra, who feels that is only possible when guarded from the public, is beyond me. But if he does I hope he asks the president of the juicebox mafia to reconcile his quote:

"Is it an ornate temple where liberals get together to work out "talking points?" Of course not. Half the membership would instantly quit if anything like that emerged.”

with the numerous examples of talking point collusion (the following being but a few examples)

"blah blah blah" Liberal - asking for anti-Palin material.

"“blah blah blah?” - Liberal - trying to help get the anti-Palin message out

“Blah blah blah” - Liberal - [Website] [which btw has an awesome header: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

I'm sure others will miss the irony there too...lol. Maybe it should be, "Everyone is entitled to Journolist opinions!"]

"Blah blah blah."- Liberal - during the rather intense discussion on how to dent the coverage of the Tea Parties and if they could get away with calling them racist and/or fascist.

Hopefully Ezra has the numbers of members who immediately quit J-list after these and other attempts 'emerged'.

Originally Posted by rocean

I don't find their gyrations "fun" - I find it completely tedious and predictable. Its just the same left-wing old sophistry and dishonesty. The same old BS - when the right does X its "terrible, raaaccist, immoral" when the left does X its OK because blah blah.

You are right but I can enjoy the 'irony' and the effort involved trying to get this pig to fly can't I?

Originally Posted by rocean

Hearing a little kid with cookie crumbs all over his face and a half eaten cookie in his hand creatively deny he stole the cookies may be funny the first time - but the 2nd time it becomes tedious and annoying.

Great analogy

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by harkin

I posted a response earlier this morning and it has vanished. No PM telling me if I violated a forum rule or even a space where my post was explaining deletion for whatever reason. It did contain quotes from Journolist so maybe it was just the forces of good attempting to combat McCarthyism - curious.

Maybe if I re-post an attempt at facsimile and replace all J-List quotes with "blah blah blah" and all attribution to 'Liberal' it will pass the censors:





[cough] yes, the irony is obvious, to some.......but I'm sure you are still missing it.

Now that I've listened to the entire dialogue, Bob seems to push this false meme as much as anyone.

If MK does agree to debate EK, Bob should respond in kind and debate Ann Coulter, that has the potential for being the most entertaining discussion ever (except maybe Eric Alterman and Brad Daugherty).

But why should Mickey agree to debate EK when the most relevant item of discussion, Journolist itself has been deemed dead and all discussion verboten by EK himself? Why Mickey would choose to have an 'open and honest discussion' with Little Ezra, who feels that is only possible when guarded from the public, is beyond me. But if he does I hope he asks the president of the juicebox mafia to reconcile his quote:

"Is it an ornate temple where liberals get together to work out "talking points?" Of course not. Half the membership would instantly quit if anything like that emerged.”

with the numerous examples of talking point collusion (the following being but a few examples)

"blah blah blah" Liberal - asking for anti-Palin material.

"“blah blah blah?” - Liberal - trying to help get the anti-Palin message out

“Blah blah blah” - Liberal - [Website] [which btw has an awesome header: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

I'm sure others will miss the irony there too...lol. Maybe it should be, "Everyone is entitled to Journolist opinions!"]

"Blah blah blah."- Liberal - during the rather intense discussion on how to dent the coverage of the Tea Parties and if they could get away with calling them racist and/or fascist.

Hopefully Ezra has the numbers of members who immediately quit J-list after these and other attempts 'emerged'.



You are right but I can enjoy the 'irony' and the effort involved trying to get this pig to fly can't I?



Great analogy

I'm pretty sure your post disappeared into the same glitch that took several other posts in a few forums here (including my response to yours, which I've reproduced below.)

And I'll huff and I'll puff... Boy howdy that's a lot of words, and yet, despite repeating the word "irony," never seems to get near the idea that word was introduced into this conversation to represent: Complaints that a group of people misrepresented the case against another group of people by mischaracterizing what members of the second have said and done would be better taken if they weren't couched in the form of misrepresentations and mischaracterizations aimed by the complainer at that very group of people to whom he attributes such behavior.

And, reporters talking to each is "collusion!" Even the vocabulary here is overwrought.

[Brenda]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

I'm pretty sure your post disappeared into the same glitch that took several other posts in a few forums here.

I think Jeff is right. Our web-hosting company noticed that one of our hard drives was showing signs of distress this morning, and copied over our files to a new drive. We suspect that's what caused the disappearance of some forum posts. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I'm not a journalist, but being a voracious reader of online news and commentary, this strikes me as the truth. Careerism seems to drive too many of the groundlings in the business. Conor Friedersdorf I can't stand because of this. Dude is just trying to get a job, and will write whatever nonsense it takes to do so. "Look at me, I'm the niche conservative who thinks conservatives should just really all be liberal, not the hippie/welfare queen kind of liberal, but just like the liberals who work for a living... American Jewry basically". I simplify him, of course.

[Baltimoron]

Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson

I am not going to out people I've worked for. But there was one publication I intended to write for on my trip that I ended up not working with. And the reason was because, while the publication had a history of rewarding contrarianism, and a professed nonpartisan stance, I was encouraged--in pretty blatant ways--by the current editors to fit my stories into an ideological prototype. In one memorable incident, I was told to go in search of answers to a particular question, involving traveling from the city I was in at the time, for several weeks, and when I came back with answers that (I still believe) were significant, was told that "This is interesting news, but it doesn't really fit with the approach we've taken to this topic." It was not the first time that has happened to me, but it was the most egregious.

I have since recounted my experience with that publication to several other journos at various places and seen nods of agreement. So yes, you are correct that I can't prove Mickey is right, but I can say that his critique jives with my overall experience of the media, and those of others I know.

Thank you for your candor. I hope you have kept your notes for a future book. I would buy it.

[bjkeefe]

I thought we had settled this, but evidently not.

Emph. added:

Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson

But there was one publication I intended to write for on my trip that I ended up not working with.

PrepositionMcPrepperson.

And no, not that it's dangling.

[uncle ebeneezer]

Yeah, I found Mickey's point about as interesting as Bob did (if I had water I would have taken a sip and looked away from the camera in boredom.) Of the more well-known writers on journolist: Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Wiegel, Ackerman, Alterman, Schmitt etc. it seems to me that their ascents in their field to prominent newspapers and publications had all been achieved before journolist was even created. Wiegel may have gotten a recommendation from Ezra at the Post but DUH!! they are personal friends. So the idea that Ezra changed the game somehow and the culture of liberal journalism has morphed in his brief time at the Washington Post just doesn't seem to fit the timeline of my memory.

The whole thing seems rather silly when you consider the fact that Bob, Mickey, Kinsley, and many others have told the stories right here on bloggingheads about the old New Republic days and how they have socialized outside of work (and inevitably discussed work/politics etc in the course) for 20+ years. Yeah Mickey, everything has changed and it's all Ezra Klein and the young turks who did it. Go back to sleep.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

The whole thing seems rather silly when you consider the fact that Bob, Mickey, Kinsley, and many others have told the stories right here on bloggingheads about the old New Republic days and how they have socialized outside of work (and inevitably discussed work/politics etc in the course) for 20+ years. Yeah Mickey, everything has changed and it's all Ezra Klein and the young turks who did it. Go back to sleep.

Good point. And now that you mention it, many of TNR's alumni have also recounted how ideological conformity -- especially with respect to Israel, but also with respect to neoliberalism more broadly -- was a prerequisite for keeping Marty Peretz happy and keeping a job at that publication.

This is the world of opinion journalism. I don't know why people should expect it to be different. Does anyone really expect William Kristol to hire David Corn or Rose Brooks to write for his neoconservative magazine?

The right has been constantly and consistently misrepresenting the members of journolist as members of the mainstream press and pretending that they are somehow obliged to be objective -- even as they laud conservative activists who work in the conservative media and do the exact opposite.

There really are two sets of rules: conservatives can do whatever they want -- even take direct cash payments from conservative think tanks, corporations, interest groups, and the Republican Party, while the left is attacked as unethical for merely having private email conversations with other people who share the same general point of view.

If the media was really monolithically liberal, conservatives would not be the ones developing all the major narratives and pushing them to the center of the public discourse.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

There really are two sets of rules: conservatives can do whatever they want -- even take direct cash payments from conservative think tanks, corporations, interest groups, and the Republican Party, while the left is attacked as unethical for merely having private email conversations with other people who share the same general point of view.

I think that, with regard to the Right's effort to use the current story, this is true, and irritating. However, it seems to me that the problem, such as it is, stems from the fact that liberals (and mainstream journalists generally) typically do not see themselves as part of a movement (let alone part of a movement first and journalists second). They do not want to have their coverage and even opinion pieces dictated by political (let alone partisan political) objectives, and they don't want to say that's the right or best way for journalism to work. In other words, they don't want to say that Fox is great, and it's hypocritical for you to attack them and not Fox, they see a distinction between what they are doing and what Fox is doing and want to maintain that distinction and the values that lead to it.

Thus, to the extent that JournoList either lessens that a little (and again I agree that it probably does very little, given the other numerous ways that ideas get reinforced) or lessens the appearance of it, it seems fair to criticize it and consistent with the way that journalism has tended to work that journalists would be part of doing that. Doesn't make many of the conservatives involved in ginning up the stories any less hypocritical (and dishonest in the coverage), but does mean that what the conservatives do shouldn't necessarily have any effect on how others feel about it.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

I'm curious: Can you or Nikkibong actually prove what Mickey says in that dingalink is true? Or does it just feel right to you guys? Mickey's assertion is interesting, and it's consistent with the anti-liberal critique he has been making for many, many years (i.e., his entire career). But is there any evidence for it?

I'm not a journalist (although I was on a college newspaper, and my experience and observations based on that forms part of my reaction), but I thought both Salam's defense and Mickey's reaction to it (and admiration for the Kinsley model in which contrarianism was valued, according to him) were interesting. Mainly because Salam's careerist idea is how the conservative media/movement seems to have run in lots of ways.

"Conservatives" seeking career advantage have a well developed set of institutions which are dedicated to helping those who seek to further the movement. In journalist this includes explicitly movement publications, as well as networks. In law, this includes the Federalist Society and all of those various networks. There is a benefit from being part of the group, and that in many of the relevant places (elite colleges, the media, lots of law schools) the conservatives feel outside of the mainstream probably reinforces the strength of these networks, while it relates to the fact that people of liberal views tend on average not to think of themselves in that way.

That the majority of journalists are liberal hasn't made them the counterpart of the movement conservatives, and that's why there's something of a disconnect whenever the liberalism of the media gets discussed. If JournoList is in some way an effort to become more like the conservative model, I can see why that would bother people committed to a different set of values. Note: I mainly don't think it was, and don't think that was Ezra's intent in particular. However, I do think there's a risk with email lists that there's some reinforcing of opinion and rewarding agreement, at least on matters in which there's a clear majority of opinion. There was a good article, maybe in '04 or '05, that Jon Chait wrote in the New Republic that addressed related conflicts in connection with the rise of the Netroots (notable that Chait, who was a member of JournoList, seemed more sympathetic to the traditional model, which I think undercuts Mickey's argument). In any case, I'm not convinced that JournoList was much of a step in that direction, contrary to Salam's defense. However, I would agree with Mickey that if it were, it would be a bad thing.

In fact, I think I generally agree with Mickey's theoretical position on why JournoList is not something I'd recommend and would prefer not exist, due to the reinforcing effect mentioned above. However, I also think it's not very important and unlikely to have greater effects than the social relationships and personal discussions which already exist. (Remember, the power of DC cocktail parties alone has apparently tempted Douthat, Frum, and many others away from Real Conservatism.)

(2) if you conformed to some unspecified point of view, Ezra would get you a job at the WaPo.

I didn't think he was actually serious about this (or referring to any specific person), just taking the potential effect (and Salam's defense) to a conclusion for rhetorical purposes. That's related to how I tend to interpret Mickey, though, and could be wrong.

[messwithtexas]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

this is an extremely shrewd point by mickey

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/297...1:30&out=12:24

nicely put, mr. kaus.

I think it's worth pointing out that Matt Yglesias, a former member of journolist, said on bhtv just yesterday that contrarian threads got the most attention on Journolist.

[popcorn_karate]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

this is an extremely shrewd point by mickey

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/297...1:30&out=12:24

nicely put, mr. kaus.

yeah! what we really need is knee-jerk contrarian bullshit - like Mickey's defense of the weekly standard article, pure Kinsley-icious goodness, right? If only we could go back to the days when thats what got you ahead in journalism...

now we're stuck with the liberal side of the debate actually supporting Liberalism, not like the good old days when Mickey Kaus's hatred of unions and desire to eviscerate the social safety net was the voice of liberalism.

god i hated that bullshit.

So, you really believe that Ezra is some sort of kingmaker?

[ledocs]

I am very pleased that Stephen Schwartz has written this terrible article that Bob trashes. Stephen Schwartz has been publishing scurrilous and trashy politically motivated innuendo for a long time. People can see what I had to say about him on a previous occasion here bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=145162&postcount=259.

I'm already very tired of hearing about JournoList. It's much ado about nothing. It might have made a few people more smug and less likely to pursue sources on the right, but I very much doubt that even that happened. If it did happen, it would be because the journalist involved wasn't much good to begin with.