Spotlight on Media
How many time have you heard “Where did you hear that, Fox News?” or “Fox isn’t a real news source?” All the time right? Many leftists assert that if Fox News reported it, it must be a lie. When I’ve asked for proof of these lies, the only verifiable example was Hannity showing a video clip of a different Tea Party event than the one he was discussing. While that would give a false impression of that particular event, it isn’t exactly a major scandal.
Imagine for a moment that during every news day Fox News personalities got together with Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, Andrew Breitbart, Mark Levin, Matt Drudge, conservative lawyers, academics and newspaper editors to compare notes and come up with talking points they could use to reinforce a message to support a presidential candidate and strategies to suppress criticism of Republicans and their policies.
Now that would be a scandal! Suppose that proof – in the form of emails and other online documents – was leaked by a source from within the circle of conspirators. Could anyone, even the most ardent Republican supporter, ever trust Fox News again? Absolutely not.
Amazingly enough, emails and other documents have been leaked by a whistle-blower from within a media cabal created for just that purpose. Just one difference though… It isn’t Fox News. The conspirators are all from mainstream media outlets, liberal websites, and leftist organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic.
The Daily Caller, a news website created by CNN and MSNBC veteran Tucker Carlson, reports that they have obtained documents from Journolist, a web-based discussion board, that reveal coordination between mainstream media outlets to deceive the public. Here are some examples:
Chris Hayes, The Nation
“[The Controversy] has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country. […]I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor. I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable.”
Katha Pollitt, The Nation
“I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita.”
Spencer Ackerman, The Washington Independent
“What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”
Daniel Davies, The Guardian
“I am genuinely scared [of Fox News. It] shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.”
Michael Scherer, Time Magazine
“Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy? So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”
John Judis, the New Republic
“Pre-Fox, I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”
The Journolisters engaged in blatantly conspiratorial behavior. All of the organizations and news outlets that they are apart of have been tainted by their actions. The Journolist board had been shut down by its owner. But does anyone believe that the participants won’t just create a new message board with a new name and then get back to business as usual?
Journalism remains dead, but its rotting corpse keeps coming back.