Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Tucker Carlson: We will not publish full J-List emails

I just got done exchanging emails with Tucker Carlson, the editor in chief of the Daily Caller, and he confirms to me that the publication will not start publishing the full emails of Journolist members. This would have allowed readers to evaluate the full context and significance of these emails for themselves.

Liberal bloggers who have seen snippets of their emails published by the Daily Caller had challenged Carlson to publish full email chains rather than cherry-picked fragments out of context. But the Daily Caller isn't going to, and Carlson tells me he will explain why in an online posting tonight.

In case you haven't been following this flap, the Daily Caller has done a series of stories that purport to catch J-List members in all manner of consipracy. There's one alleging that J-List members coordinated the best line of attack on Sarah Palin; another alleging they plotted to close down Fox News; and so on.

But as Matthew Yglesias, Ezra Klein and others have been pointing out, these stories are highly misleading and based on very selective publication of J-List emails. And indeed, it's really hard to grasp the justification for not publishing fuller chains, particularly since the Daily Caller apparently views these emails as so newsworthy. Perhaps publishing them would make it tougher to paint J-Listers as a secretive and omnipotent political cabal, rather than just a bunch of geeks and eggheads venting and arguing about politics.

At risk of getting drawn into this debate, I was a member of J-List for some time, but never when I was writing for The Post. I'd originally signed up as a member when I was at TPM, and remained one after The Washington Post Company hired me to write for WhoRunsGov. But I almost never participated -- I was a lurker -- and I removed myself from the list well before my blog was moved over to The Post proper, mainly because I was sick of being overwhelmed by emails.

The only thing I have to say about the J-List debate is this: The descriptions of it by Ezra, Matt and Jonathan Chait are 100 percent accurate, and anyone who says otherwise is daft. Period.

I frequently hear Republicans privately complaining to me that the online reporting infrastructure on the right is woefully behind the one that's developed on the left. Republicans complain that conservative online media are too quick to chase crazy consipracy theories and often seem intent on marginalizing themselves.

The obsession with J-List is a case in point. And it's hard to see how the credibility of the developing conservative reporting infrastructure will be enhanced by the decision to continue publishing only cherry-picked snippets of emails, denying readers the opportunity to decide for themselves how important or significant they are.

By Greg Sargent  |  July 22, 2010; 3:28 PM ET
Categories:  Political media  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gibbs calls on media to do soul searching about Sherrod mess
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

Tucker Carlson won't post the full emails for the simple fact that no one would then have a reason to go to his site.

As Breitbart proved, snippets that change the context of something are how you attract the media's attention and increase the number of unique hits to your site.

Clearly if he (Tucker) was interested in having an ounce of journalist integrity, he would release them all, or at least reason the snippets in their proper context.

Posted by: Quick2822 | July 22, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Ugh, I meant to say "release the snippets in their proper context"

Posted by: Quick2822 | July 22, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

In response, Tucker Carslon is starting his own listserve for the Right Wing intelligentsia. And it will launch just as soon as the first viable candidate is located.

O&O.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 22, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"I frequently hear Republicans privately complaining to me that the reporting infrastructure on the right is woefully behind the one that's developed on the left."

Um. FOX News?

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | July 22, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

If the full thread of the story he is covering is released, then people can judge his interpretation by LOOKING AT THE SAME MATERIAL THAT STRONG IS USING. To keep driving traffic to the site, only the portions of the thread covering the issue of the article needs to be released. When the next story comes up then that part of the thread can be posted.

Without this, all whining about journolist from the right is just the braying of the breitbarts (beasts) in the fields and not intelligent commentary.

Posted by: srw3 | July 22, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

BBQ -- good point. they mean online.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 22, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Just wait until Jon Stewart gets back. Tucker is clearly an idiot. At the very moment that Breitbart has been exposed, he's releasing snippets of a journolist and actually admitting that he's NOT going to release the full context? I'm only sorry that none of the other journalists who participated kept this list so that they could release it THIS AFTERNOON and blunt his attempt to increase traffic on his site.

Posted by: roxsteady | July 22, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Carlson, Breitbart - what's the difference ? NOTHING..

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | July 22, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"mainly because I was sick of being overwhelmed by emails."

Damn, they don't have a digest option? Harsh.

Anyway, isn't Journolist a list of journalists? Can't someone on there leak the full email threads? And at the same time, point out that Carlson is doing the same thing Breitbart is--selectively editing his source and only then publishing it after it's nice and slanted, instead of presenting the whole story?

Posted by: dkp01 | July 22, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"I frequently hear Republicans privately complaining to me that the online reporting infrastructure on the right is woefully behind the one that's developed on the left. Republicans complain that conservative media are too quick to chase crazy consipracy theories and often seem intent on marginalizing itself."


I am reminded of an observation made by Stephen Colbert's super-conservative persona:

"Reality has a known liberal bias."

:)

Posted by: akaoddjob | July 22, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Am I remembering correctly?

Did this Tucker Carlson guy appear on one of those TV reality performance shows? I seem to recall some mention of it, in the press.

Does he still wear the bow-tie? He always struck me as just a living snippet of a personality.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 22, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Greg, ask Tucker how he is any different than Breitbart. (Answer: he's not.)

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 22, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Greg: "I frequently hear Republicans privately complaining to me that the online reporting infrastructure on the right is woefully behind the one that's developed on the left. Republicans complain that conservative online media are too quick to chase crazy consipracy theories and often seem intent on marginalizing themselves."

Too bad the right marches in lock step. They could check each other, but that would take having a modicum of independence. They are eons away from that.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 22, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Why don't yall (you, Yglesias, Klein, or whoever) start publishing the full emails of whatever he starts excerpting from? The fact that Carlson has no integrity is not a surprise, but it's not as if you guys don't have powerful platforms of your own.

Posted by: Everyman2 | July 22, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Shorter Tucker Carlson:

We Will Not Publish The Truth. That Is Too Much Hard Work.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 22, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Great point Everyman, so Greg, Ezra & co, why don't YOU publish the entire thing? You do have it don't you?

I can understand the "out of context" argument. It works often enough to keep trying it.

It won't work in this case. What additional contextual data is required to understand Spencer Ackerman? How about the nasty lady who wished to watch Limbaugh die? What additional verbiage would alter the impression left by these hideous comments?

If the "idea" presented by Ackerman wasn't exactly what the left does day in and day out, the context argument might have some validity.

Mr Sargent is just whining. the liberals are wounded and ain't that a pity. America now knows how the liberals in media manipulated them.

context? yeah. sure. you betcha.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 22, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

an Chait's "defense" couldn't be weaker.

Even Machievelli understood that people are judged by the company they keep.

so Mr Sargent, Mr Klein, Mr Chait, why don't you publish the emails wherein you banished this allegedly crazy person Spencer Ackerman?

If you can't or wont' produce those, then it is reasonable to conclude that they simply don't exist. And if they don't exist then it is safe to conclude that no one was really upset by the word choices Mr Ackerman repeatedly made.

Claiming now that Ackerman is crazy is laughable. he was part of the group. The group tolerated him. Therefore the group can rightfully be judged based on that tolerance.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 22, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Greg you're such a twit. If Ezra wants context, he can publish full archives of J-list any time he wants. You cockroaches got caught in the flashlight beam, and now you're all scurrying for cover.

Posted by: daveredhat | July 22, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

There is a reason why we do not letting young kids drive cars, or drink alcohol. They are not mature enough to handle it, and make sound decisions.

Why then do parents routinly allow very young children to post online?

Those kids are not mature enough to exercise due caution, and can be easily swept up with the craving for attention and fame.

Look up Dana Priest's three days of reporting on the current state of Intel gathering in the USA. Almost a million people have top secret clearance to look at everything.

Why is America so willingly going along with the establishment of a massive electronics Stassi, that can snoop into every aspect of their private lives.

Furthermore; why are Americans teaching their children to live their lives in a fully revealing fashion, for the entire world to see?

Parents; Wake Up.

You Have No Right To Toss Away Your Children's Right To Privacy.

Allowing your young children to post on the internet, is a form of child abuse, and terrible parenting.

Stop it now.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 22, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

Are you on the Cabalist? If not, were you asked to join? Are any Post employees on that list?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 22, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Because others publishing the Emails will not clean up the phony out of context snippets, for readers who visit that Mother Tucker's site.

Only that Bow-Tied Dancing Fop, can stop distorting the truth.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 22, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Waiting to see the context:

"Let's just throw Leeded against a wall. Or, pace Dr. Alterman, throw him through a plate glass window. I'll bet a little spot of violence would shut him right the f--- up, as with most bullies"

Or this context:

"f---ing NASCAR retards.

Posted by: twann9852 | July 22, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Yawn....

Seriously - who outside of the "right-wing club of the perpetually persecuted" really gives a rat's arse about any of this? So what? Some left-wing journalists think left-wing thoughts.....I'm shocked, I tell ya. Who knew that Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias support progressive ideas?

And excuse me if I'm wrong - didn't this whole thing start because Tucker Carlson decided to throw a tantrum after being refused membership to the list? How very high school of him.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 22, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Geraghty:

"Mother Jones’s Stein loved the idea. “That’s excellent! If enough people – people on this list? – write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days,”... he wrote.

"The members of the list can scream to high heaven that most of the comments represent no collusion at all. But clearly, from time to time, those on the list felt comfortable saying, “Okay, team, here’s what we do” and laying out strategies to ensure coverage helped the candidates their prefer. We now know that in at least one case, that’s what happened — and I doubt too many folks will be surprised by the culprit:

"Time’s Joe Klein then linked to his own piece, parts of which he acknowledged came from strategy sessions on Journolist. “Here’s my attempt to incorporate the accumulated wisdom of this august list-serve community.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/231292/todays-lesson-journolist-helping-joe-klein-write

Posted by: sbj3 | July 22, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Ezra has a very simple and very affective out. Just publish the whole list. Its obvious that tucker has access to the juiciest parts, so any secrets or extremist views (like using the FCC to censor a broadcast company with opposing views) is going to get out anyway. By publishing everything the context can be fully seen by everyone.

Posted by: Natstural | July 22, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

What schrodingerscat said, times two!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 22, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Compare and contrast. I still stand by my claim that President Obama has accomplished much more, int the way of getting Major Reform Legislation passed in his first 18 months, than FDR did and that make him our Greatest President since FDR.
Notice how the Republicans were able to reverse some of FDR's programs, and are using the very same tactics now.

"Historians distinguish a "First New Deal" (1933) and a "Second New Deal" (1934–36). Some programs were declared unconstitutional, and others were repealed during World War II. The "First New Deal" (1933) dealt with groups; from banking and railroads to industry and farming, all of which demanded help for economic recovery. A "Second New Deal" in 1934-36 included the Wagner Act to promote labor unions, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) relief program, the Social Security Act, and new programs to aid tenant farmers and migrant workers. The Supreme Court ruled several programs unconstitutional. The final major items of New Deal legislation were the creation of the United States Housing Authority and Farm Security Administration, both in 1937, then the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which set maximum hours and minimum wages for most categories of workers[1] and the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.

Despite Roosevelt campaigning heavily against anti-New Deal Republicans and anti-New Deal Democrats, Republicans gained many seats in Congress in the 1938 midterm elections and the Democrat opponents of the New Deal retained their seats[2], resulting in the WPA, CCC and other relief programs being shut down during World War II by the Conservative Coalition (i.e., the opponents of the New Deal in Congress); they argued the return of full employment made them superfluous. "

Posted by: Liam-still | July 22, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Quite frankly Greg, the less said about the J-List at this newspaper the better it will be.

"Were I an editor at one of these institutions I would instantly fire any employee who participated in this gross violation of his/her duty'. "For example, the J-List included WaPo reporters, and the idea that the paper has been turned into a propagando organ is a big reason it is bleeding readers and influence'. - James DeLong

Posted by: twann9852 | July 22, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat, I bet you were a big fan of Tass.

Posted by: twann9852 | July 22, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

It is hardly disappointing to see folks like schrodinger's cat blithely dismiss this.
Here's the gist of his comment:
Liberals acting like liberals, like that's new?

So apparently if one is a liberal then just about anything goes. Who knew?

so step aside tired boy (girl?) (thing?) this outrage will inject even more energy into your political opponents. The kitchen is about to get even hotter.

Oh and for the flacks at WaPo who are seeking cover on this, here's a mantra you should repeat. It will calm you: 88 times between now and the election repeat the word "macaca" It should do wonders for your tranquility and improve the credibility of your employer enormously.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 22, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Because 2-3 unrelated statements about various events = a conspiracy!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | July 22, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

twann9852: "For example, the J-List included WaPo reporters"

Another twit who doesn't know that reporters and opinion writers are not the same creature.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 22, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

John Cole: "The Caller tries to gin them up and give them sexy titles, but really, the title to each one could be “SHOCKING NEWS- Liberals Have Opinions, Talk Amongst Themselves.”

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 22, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Skipsailing,

From your lips to God's ears about the kitchen getting hotter:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38367462/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Uh oh.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 22, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like an attempted smear campaign by a McCarthyesque journalistic wannabe who is desperately craving some attention.

I have always felt that Tucker Carlson's bow tie is tied WAY too tight.

He has failed at every single public enterprise he has been engaged in, from Crossfire to Dancing with the Stars. He's really just a joke at this point, I'm afraid.

Now he wants to be the big bad bully of conservative cyberspace.

Don't feel like you have to explain your membership on this list, Greg. Tucker Carlson has no credibility, and no doubt he will also fail at this lame attempt for attention.

Posted by: elscott | July 22, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Chairman Rangle's troubles can be laid at the feet of TurboTax, ala Geithner, or, as per Geithner, at the feet of the American people?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 22, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Liam: FDR almost singlehandedly CREATED the Modern American Welfare State. It survived the most radical Supreme Court before today's. And it has so far survived the most radical Republican Party in American history. That's pretty good. And LBJ wasn't bad either right out of the box. In fact, the ONLY time for big bold action is at the very beginning of a presidential term. It has been that way for decades and is even moreso now where the next election begins 10 minutes after the last vote is counted in the previous one.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 22, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"schrodingerscat, I bet you were a big fan of Tass."

Please, spare me the hyperbole. Do you have any evidence that anyone from the government was on the list coordinating the news? No? Didn't think so.

In addition, I'm sure you all were just as outraged when you found out that Armstrong Williams was paid $241,000 by the Bush administration to promote NCLB on his radio show. And I'm sure you all were just as horrified when the NYT exposed that the Pentagon was coaching ex-military officials on how best to defend then Bush Administration and then sent them out to appear as "independent" experts on news shows. Explain to me how left-leaning journalists sharing thoughts is anywhere near as bad as the GOVERNMENT engaging in pure propoganda with NO disclosure.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 22, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

it's informative to watch the rightwing republican trolls here and the denizens of redstate get knicker twisted about this. they apparently think pointing out that liberals have liberal opinions will lead to some massive rightwing republican wave cresting with impeachment followed by the obamas getting frog marched out of the wh and deported to kenya.

they think their obsession with and hatred of liberal journalists is rampant across the country. they don't get why most people tune out their latest conspiracy theory.


Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 22, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

@catgirl: "Explain to me how left-leaning journalists sharing thoughts is anywhere near as bad as the GOVERNMENT engaging in pure propoganda with NO disclosure."

Am I to understand that you don't believe the Obama administration is engaging in propaganda with no disclosure right now?

Posted by: sbj3 | July 22, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

sbj, put up your evidence of "the Obama administration is engaging in propaganda with no disclosure right now."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 22, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

This whole JList story is so lame I can't express it to you. No one but Beltway insiders really care. And I hardly expect liberal and progressive opinion bloggers to be unbiased sources of news. There's no freaking conspiracy and people are fully capable of making up their own minds despite what liberal movers and shakers WANT readers to think.

Posted by: adammc123 | July 22, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

remember, sbj has stated that he believes that fox does not engage in racism and is *not* pursuing a partisan agenda.

he is being disingenuous and is not debating in good faith.

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 22, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

This whole JList story is so lame I can't express it to you. No one but Beltway insiders really care. And I hardly expect liberal and progressive opinion bloggers to be unbiased sources of news. There's no freaking conspiracy and people are fully capable of making up their own minds despite what liberal movers and shakers WANT readers to think.

Posted by: adammc123 | July 22, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

FDR was a great President but Obama ran.rings around him, when we compare their first 18 month stints in office.

Every one agrees that Obama inherited the worst Economic Crisis since the Hoover era Depression.

One big difference, that all the pundits and critics overlook. Obama was also handed two raging wars, and with massive deficits already squandered on them.

How would FDR have faired, if on top of inheriting Hoover's Economic Depression, he was also handed two ongoing wars, that Hoover had totally mishandled for the previous four years?

That would have made it much harder for FDR to launch his recovery efforts.

Obama had to deal with the two badly managed wars, and massive budget deficits, all of which were caused by the previous administration, and also had to immediately deal with the worst economic collapse since the Hoover era.

On top of all that, he passed a Health Care Reform Bill, that Presidents had failed to get done for the past century.

I saw a news report today, that said that a poll shows President Clinton to be more popular than President Obama. So what? The truth is that President Obama has passed more enduring major legislation, in his first eighteen months,than Bill Clinton did during his entire two terms.

President Obama has already established a strong legacy. Bill Clinton never did.
That makes Obama at least the greatest President since FDR.

The Lunatic Left will not accept that, because then they would not be able to cater to their self destructive whining addiction.

They are addicted to being miserable, and will go to any lengths to get their fix.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 22, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

"Am I to understand that you don't believe the Obama administration is engaging in propaganda with no disclosure right now?"

Every administration engages in PR and I don't have a problem with that. What Bush did was much closer to the Soviet-style propaganda that the nutters are accusing members of Journolist of engaging in.

All I'm suggesting is that I have seen NO evidence whatsoever that this vast left-wing conspiracy has been directed in any way by the government.....and I'm wondering where all the outrage on the right was when the it actually was occurring under W.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 22, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

@cat: "All I'm suggesting is that I have seen NO evidence whatsoever that this vast left-wing conspiracy has been directed in any way by the government."

I have not seen any "nutter" website claiming that the Journolist was a government plot. I don't understand why this has to be a govt conspiracy in order for you to admit that it reflects poorly on the participants. Ackerman suggested the baseless slander of Fred Barnes. He thought it would be a good strategy to call him racist - whether or not he was. I would think that any lefty blogger who links to Ackerman would at least take note and acknowledge a hit to that man's credibility.

"I'm wondering where all the outrage on the right was when the it actually was occurring under W."

We can agree that the outrage displayed by both sides is selective, can't we? Or do you want to also claim that the left is morally superior when it comes to criticizing their own?

Posted by: sbj3 | July 22, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

@ss28,tmwn,sbj3: The reason that Ezra and others who might have the archive don't publish it is that Ezra said that the conversations would be off the record and he is sticking to it. Carlson has no such constraints, and since he is excerpting snippets AND POSTING THEM, it is his responsibility to post the source material he is using, just like it was Breitbart's responsibility to actually go through the whole video before posting a 2 min excerpt. But, expecting Breitbart and carlson to act like adults, much less responsible commenters, is like expecting to get blood out of a stone.

And SBJ3: Still no response to fox execs saying that they regard themselves as the voice of the opposition rendering your "Fox is not partisan, just going for a conservative audience" somewhat inoperative? Not the voice of reason, not the voice of conservatism, not the voice of the right, THE VOICE OF THE OPPOSITION TO DEMOCRATS. It's hard to take any media criticism you make seriously unless you

1. square that particular circle
2. admit that you were mistaken in your analysis

@tmwn: I am still amazed that you feel it is OK to appoint people to regulatory agencies and departments that actively try to emasculate those agencies and limit the ability of those departments to enforce regulations, but as you say, we disagree on some things.

ss28: You are just a troll. At least tmwn and sbj3 sometimes post actual reasoned arguments (whether they are actually correctly reasoned or persuasive is another matter). The spewing of talking points flown in from farrightwingnutistan and dodging actual discussion of positions or events makes your presence a waste of 1 and 0s. Instead of "where are the jobs?" (which btw, was answered multiple times) it should be "ss28, where are the ideas or reasoned arguments?"

Posted by: srw3 | July 22, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/happy_hour_roundup_55.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 22, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

I hear that The Teabagger Republicans are planning to run a challenger against Lindsey Graham, in his next primary.

Since Democrats will have no chance winning that race in South Carolina, can they cross over, in the primary, to save the nomination for Senator Graham?

I would hate to see the Teabaggers get away with punishing the guy for being a stand up guy, and A Profile in Courage.


http://www.thestate.com/2010/07/22/1386645/grahams-courageous-stand-for-the.html

" THROUGHOUT the first two centuries or so of our nation’s history, what Sen. Lindsay Graham did on Wednesday when he voted to confirm President Obama’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court would have been thoroughly unremarkable. What would have been remarkable would have been for a senator to do otherwise — to vote against confirming a nominee who did not have serious ethical, legal, mental or intellectual problems.

But as Sen. Graham told the Judiciary Committee, things are changing. The voters no longer care about the fundamental values that made our country great. What matters today are individual agendas, and punishing anyone who doesn’t agree with their every opinion.

That’s a threat not just to the independence of the judiciary but to the republic itself. Our founding fathers understood that legislators need to be able to study the issues, debate those issues with similarly studied colleagues and come to the best position for the nation, rather than merely reflect the passions of the masses. That’s why they created a republic rather than a democracy. Of course, you’d hardly know we have a republic these days; every vote is driven by sophisticated polling that clearly defines the correct partisan position.

This is not just a Republican problem. Democrats are every bit as quick to pander to the extremists in their base. And any Democrat courageous enough to confirm a Republican president’s nominee to the high court would be pilloried by voters, just as Mr. Graham is being today.But any one who actually believes in the Constitution has to side with Sen. Graham, and be sickened by the fact that he is alone. As he reminded the committee, the Federalist Papers left no doubt as to the limited reasons the founding fathers had for requiring Senate confirmation of presidential appointments, and they had nothing to do with senators’ own political preferences: “It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, would tend generally to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from family connection, from personal attachment, and from a view to popularity.”

As when he voted to confirm Mr. Obama’s first Supreme Court appointment a year ago, Sen. Graham said Wednesday that Ms. Kagan was not someone he would have appointed, but Mr. Obama won the election; the job of the Senate is merely to stop a president from appointing people who are objectively unfit to be judges. "

Posted by: Liam-still | July 22, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

It's from Tucker Carlson, who showed his maturity and honor in registering KeithOlbermann.com. Who has done a hatchet job dumping emails from a former WaPo writer.

If he's not releasing the full chains, it's because he plans on trying to pull Breitharts on people who are honorable, not Tucker Carlsons.

If Tucker Carlson is involved, you know it has to be sleazy.

Posted by: lmb02 | July 22, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

@srw: "And SBJ3: Still no response to fox execs saying that they regard themselves as the voice of the opposition."

I'm sorry - I don't mean to be unresponsive. Which executive said what now? And please provide the complete context...

Off the top of my head - I'm thinking that opposition could mean opposition to his policies and not necessarily the party? (Be forewarned - I am under deadline.)

Posted by: sbj3 | July 22, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I think Tucker is withholding the strings to protect other, no opinion journalists that have commented, at lease politically, and who would definitly be at risk if exposed. I think he's probably friends with some of them.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 22, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

@srw: Also, did the exec imply that being the "voice of opposition" would help increase viewership/market share?

Posted by: sbj3 | July 22, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

sbj,

here are two posts with two quotes (from yesterday's thread on gibbs saying the media laps up breitbart's garbage too):

are you going to claim that these aren't evidence of a partisan agenda?

correction: Fox News vice president for programming Bill Shine saying of Fox News: "There were a couple of people who basically wrote about our demise come last November, December, and were, I guess, rooting for us to go away. ... With this particular group of people in power right now, and the honeymoon they've had from other members of the media, does it make it a little bit easier for us to be the voice of opposition on some issues?

I attributed this quote to Roger Ailes by mistake. my apologies.

Posted by: srw3 | July 21, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

You can substitute this quote from Roger Ailes, srw3:

=>1988 wasn't Ailes' first experience dividing Americans along racial lines. During a taping of the "Man in the Arena" series in 1968, the Nixon campaign stumbled on a problem when a panelist they thought was a physician turned out to be a psychiatrist. Ailes quickly figured out a solution. According to Rick Pearlstein's Nixonland, Ailes would substitute a "good, mean, Wallaceite cab-driver. Wouldn't that be great? Some guy to sit in there and say, 'Awright, Mac, what about these n!ggers?'" Pearlstein added that "Nixon then could abhor the uncivility of the words, while endorsing a 'moderate' version of the opinion."<=

http://tinyurl.com/2ehwax7
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | July 21, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 22, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

sbj,

and are you going to claim ailes' quote isn't racist?

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 22, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

"I have not seen any "nutter" website claiming that the Journolist was a government plot."

I haven't either. It was some of your comrades who was suggesting that this was some sort of Pravda-like conspiracy.

"I don't understand why this has to be a govt conspiracy in order for you to admit that it reflects poorly on the participants."

It doesn't have to be and I haven't denied anything. OMG! - someone on the internets is acting like a jacka**!!!!! Is that better?

I still don't get what the BFD is about this. And I repeat - no one outside of the right gives a flying you-know-what about this. But that's okay - you all on the right will do the internet equivalent of a 3 yr old holding their breath until they get their way and then the WaPo ombudsman will write a lengthy column talking about how the paper was wrong to have not written about this and apologize because the wingers got their fee-fees hurt. It's all good. You just hang in there.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 22, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

thanks blah.... I didn't want to dig up the old thread and republish it since sbj3 knows full well what the quotes mean.

I think that voice of the opposition is pretty explicit especially in light of this quote "With this particular group of people in power right now..." That would be Obama and the dems. If you are the voice of the opposition after specifically referencing the democrats in the whitehouse and congress, I think it is fair to say that you are a partisan...

Posted by: srw3 | July 22, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

@srw: "With this particular group of people in power right now, and the honeymoon they've had from other members of the media, does it make it a little bit easier for us to be the voice of opposition on some issues?"

This "executive" was clearly saying that FNC's editorial viewpoint would be well-situated to increase market share! Exactly my point all along.

Rather disingenuous of you to complain about the lack of context regarding Journolist quotes while claiming that in this case it is not necessary...

The Ailes thing - I suppose I'd have to read the book and see if Ailes denies any of it. Also, I'd note that was 1968 - he might be racist in the same respect that Robert Byrd (RIP) or Sherrod were racists.

Posted by: sbj3 | July 22, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

and sbj,

why haven't you answered my question from yesterday about your opinion regarding obama's citizenship status?

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 22, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

@blah: I believe that Barack Obama is a US citizen.

Now answer my question: When did you stop beating your wife?

Posted by: sbj3 | July 22, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

sbj,

classy.

i asked because you still propound the obvious falsities that fox does not engage in racism and does not have a partisan agenda.

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 22, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

I have not seen a legitimate defense of JournoList today. Maybe you guys should regroup and come up with some better stuff.

It's pretty damning when a group ADMITS that they are making up false racism accusations. There is no other way to interpret what Ackerman said.

There is nothing out of context about Eric Alterman calling White Americans "fn nascar re&ards.

There is nothing out of context about wishing death on someone and saying that you would laugh about it.

Just admit you got caught with your pants down and move on. It wasn't exactly a secret that journalists supported Obama over McCain and even stronger against Hillary Clinton. It's not a secret that they hold a disdain for those "nascar fans".

Posted by: PeteMoylan | July 22, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

One more point. You liberals sure are quick to point out the Whiteness of the Tea Party. How many African-Americans were amongst this JournoList?

Posted by: PeteMoylan | July 22, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

@SBJ - You are such a denialist. Go here, read to your heart's content. There are links to every item. www.mediamatters.org

Posted by: DinOH | July 22, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

@PeteMoylan - Why should liberals defend being liberals? I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a defense for Breitbart (the indecent liar) and Fox News (the non-journalistic propaganda channel).

Posted by: DinOH | July 22, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

@bbwordpress: Don't expect SBJ to answer you. He'll leave first. I've watched his answers for over a year now. He's intelligent, but very dishonest, even with himself. He might come back in a day or so and refer back to this post with some bs answer.

Posted by: DinOH | July 22, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Never mind the skin color of TeaBaggers. There are no Democrats among their ranks. They do not engage in any primary activities for Democratic Candidates.

They only held rallies for Republican Politicians. They only backed what the elected Republicans backed.

Recall how the Republicans came out to address them, while the health care vote was being debated in Congress.


The MSM are a bunch of useful idiots that keep calling them The Tea Party Movement, when in fact their entire political operations are confined solely within the the election activities of Republican Candidates.

The are the usual right wing Republican Activists, pretending to be something else, and the idiots in the MSM have been taken in by their Kabuki act.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 22, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Journolist did not seem to include many women. Hillary Clinton didn't benefit.

Posted by: Grace61 | July 22, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

@DinOH:

In a train where we are discussing credibility and partisanship you refer me to Media Matters?

I like your sense of humor...

Posted by: sbj3 | July 22, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

@sbj3:"With this particular group of people in power right now, and the honeymoon they've had from other members of the media, does it make it a little bit easier for us to be the voice of opposition on some issues?"

This "executive" was clearly saying that FNC's editorial viewpoint would be well-situated to increase market share! Exactly my point all along.

HUH? The executive was saying that he said exactly 0 about market share and said that he thought it would be easier to be the voice of the opposition.


Rather disingenuous of you to complain about the lack of context regarding Journolist quotes while claiming that in this case it is not necessary...

I only said that because I already posted the entire quote once in message to you that you didn't bother to read. Do I have to hold your hand?

Posted by: srw3 | July 23, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

@DinOH

Then what is all this hand-wringing for? Being liberal = admitting to smearing conservatives as racists and calling average Americans f'n ret*rds?

Posted by: PeteMoylan | July 23, 2010 2:25 AM | Report abuse

Hi Greg. You're busted.

Why don't the Journolist conspirators do what Tucker Carlson suggested? If they feel they've been edited out of context, just post the complete e-mails themselves.

That's what the NAACP did with Breitbart's video, and now Shirley Sherrod has been offered a new job at the USDA. (Whether she's willing to work for them at this point is another question.)

I've just published an article at The Daily Caller concerning my sighting of Barack Obama at Jeremiah Wright's church in July 2007, and the way it was briefly an issue in the 2008 primaries.

I say "briefly," because Journolisters were actively trying to bury any mention of the 23-year mentoring relationship between Wright and Obama.

Like I said: you're busted. And may the spotlight shine brightly on the collusion between Democratic party propagandists who dare to call themselves "journalists."

Posted by: JimDavisNewsmax | July 23, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

You said, "But as Matthew Yglesias, Ezra Klein and others have been pointing out, these stories are highly misleading and based on very selective publication of J-List emails. And indeed, it's really hard to grasp the justification for not publishing fuller chains"

so, I'm not grasping your point. Why haven't you or any of the other 400 members published the ENTIRE set of emails. Worried you don't have them all in your work email storage? Well then, set up a database through a simple content management system and have all the many members contribute.

It's so simple that it's odd that you haven't gotten around to it yet.

Posted by: missjeeves | July 23, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

It's quite comical to read most of the comments on this article. I bet Carlson is just going to slow bleed this and it's going to get better and better. Clearly you moron progressive propaganda spreaders conspire together to protect your interests but it is something anyone with a brain has known for years. Now, we just have the proof..lol. I anxiously await your drivel following the November elections. Good thing everything you write now is via a keyboard because there is no way you limp-wristed jerks could hold a pen.

Posted by: bulldogfan26 | July 24, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

@DinOH:

Media Matters??? ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha... oh, you weren't joking....

Speaking of which wasn't this the Soros-funded hate-site that, along w/ Moveon.org so cruelly tried to gin up stories about Sarah Palin's handicapped son w/ NO SHRED of evidence & KNEW IT WAS A LIE?????

I think what the journolist emails demonstrate is just how full of hate & vitriol the left is... in spite of their highly hypocritical attacks of the right opinion blogs...

How can you ever explain attacking a handicapped child to further your political agenda? I can't think of anything more disgusting.... but no politician on the left spoke out against it!

HYPOCRITES!

Posted by: 1hughjass | July 25, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

As with the Sherrod case, it is more than just the words. When Sherrod made the speech to the NAACP she clearly had body language that often was in contrast with her words, and often the sarcasm in her voice could be heard. I watched the entire tape btw. After the release of that tape, her many interviews show a woman that actually hasn't gotten past her racial prejudice nor is she open to any sort of political debate seeing the republicans as evil people like our president does. While she may have helped that one farmer, which btw is her job, she has a long way to go before she is fair minded.

These nasty e-mail exchanges between people that like to call themselves journalists is showing yet more of the evil side of humans that even jokingly would wish misery on another human being. We might all privately have those moments because somebody has wronged us, but any decent person would know this is crossing the line. Those e-mails showed "professionals" crossing the line which is injurious to the health of our nation. Throwing around the word "racist" will destroy our country in a minute because those built in prejudice that Sherrod still carries is getting closer every day to the surface with this high unemployment.

If you must give in to hatred, just face the mirror and let it rip and hopefully feel better, but keep that garbage out of the print.

Those printed words in those e-mails even if just snippets are shameful.

Posted by: jkachmar | July 25, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company