« No "Nation Of Cowards" Here... | Main | Apologies Are Required »

Liberal Journolisters: Freedom of speech for me but not for Fox News or Rush Limbaugh

Yesterday The Daily Caller published a big story that detailed how liberal journalists on the Journolist listserve collaborated to kill the Rev. Wright story vis-a-vis Barack Obama.

Today Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller has delivered once again. If he keeps this up, Karl Malone will have to relinquish his nickname of The Mailman*.

It seems some of the journalists who participated in Ezra Klein's listserve Journolist were of the mindset that the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause that affords them their journalism careers in the United States should be denied to Fox News for committing the unforgivable sin of offering news reporting that doesn't meet the approval of these liberal journalists:

The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

"I am genuinely scared" of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because 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." Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

"I agree," said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger "Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can't hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity."

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. "I hate to open this can of worms," he wrote, "but is there any reason why the FCC couldn't simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?"

And so a debate ensued. Time's Scherer, who had seemed to express support for increased regulation of Fox, suddenly appeared to have qualms: "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?"

But Zasloff stuck to his position. "I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes," he wrote. "If this means that some White House reporters don't get a press pass for the press secretary's daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I'll take that risk."

I find it somewhat of funny in a pitiful kind of way that these folks are fully ignorant of the fact that after Scherer accused Roger Ailes of using Fox to promote a "tribal identity," they advocated the government's shutting down of Fox News because the network does not adhere to their collectively defined journalistic, uh, tribalism.

That's how it has always been with leftists, though. They consistently project the feelings, thoughts, and actions that they are feeling, thinking, and doing themselves, onto the people and organizations they dislike and distrust, i.e. people who don't share their same world view.

Interestingly enough, it was Michael Scherer who expressed some dismay at the idea of shutting out Fox News completely:

Scherer seemed alarmed. "So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?"

In response, John Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic replied with this:

Pre-Fox, I'd say Scherer's questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.

Now what did Judis mean by tactical? The link embedded in Judis' quote takes us to an image of the actual scanned email in which Judis went on to say this (Emphasis mine. And make sure you don't have anything in your mouth when you read the last sentence.):

Fox, like the business/GOP thinktanks that began in the 70's, are taking advantage of an older Progressive era concept of disinterestedness and objectivity to peddle partisan coverage. It may be that it's all counter-productive for the White House to out them, but it would not be unprincipled for the O adm to give precedence to the other networks and to newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post that try to adhere to, rather than exploit, the older standard.

I'll wait until you've stopped laughing...

I know, the idea that these folks actually believe that The New York Times and the Washington Post adhere to the journalistic standard of disinterestedness and objectivity in journalism is hilarious.

It reminds me of something I heard Bernie Goldberg say on Fox News *gasp!* the other night. He made these comments while talking about Bob Scheiffer's not knowing about the NBPP/DOJ scandal and Charlie Gibson's not knowing about the ACORN videos, but it applies equally well to the Journolisters. He said the inside the beltway journalists like Scheiffer, Couric, Gibson, Sawyer, and the like see themselves as cultured and worldly, when in reality they are the most provincial group of people he has ever known because they fear ideas that are different from their ideas or ideas that challenge their world view.

They are so provincial, in fact, that they didn't think about the long term consequences of what they were advocating. Zasloff is keen on the current government silencing Fox News because it's being run by a friendly administration that holds a similar world view as he and the Journolisters.

But how would he and other liberals feel about the government silencing or shutting out news outlets critical of the White House when a Republican is president? Would he feel as comfortable with a Republican press secretary's judgment call as to who will and will not get press credentials to the White House press briefings then?

Oh, and Judis' line about Fox News "taking advantage of an older Progressive era concept of disinterestedness and objectivity to peddle partisan coverage" actually applies to many of these Progressive publications, as I discussed in my post yesterday about the Journolisters who write for The Washington Independent, Mother Jones, and The Nation. Projection, once again.

All of this came later in the DC article. Johnathan Strong begins with emails from Sarah Spitz, a producer for an NPR affiliate KCRW, who said her hatred for Rush Limbaugh ran so deeply she said if Rush suffered a painful death, she would "Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out." She admitted that her ability to hate someone so much surprised her, but she nonetheless insisted that, "he deserves it."

And why would Ms. Spitz wish a death on Rush that she probably would never wish on an animal? Because he holds beliefs that are contrary to hers.

To see Rush's full response, read Byron York's piece in the Washington Examiner.

Update: As our first commenter noted, Sarah Spitz apologized for fantasizing about watching Rush Limbaugh suffer a painful death has publicly apologized:

I made poorly considered remarks about Rush Limbaugh to what I believed was a private email discussion group from my personal email account. As a publicist, I realize more than anyone that is no excuse for irresponsible behavior. I apologize to anyone I may have offended and I regret these comments greatly; they do not reflect the values by which I conduct my life.

What's with the "I apologize to anyone I may have offended" bunk? The only one who possibly could have been offended is Rush himself, but I see he is the only one to whom she didn't publicly apologize. For all I know she may have apologized to Rush privately, but as far as public apologies go, this is a fail.

*I have been reminded by a commenter that Karl Malone was known as The Mailman not the Postman and made the correction. Sorry about that. What a dumb mistake.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39660.

Comments (13)

the NPR lady has apologized... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

the NPR lady has apologized ... to everyone BUT Rush ... typical liberal ... "I'm sorry if I have offended anyone ..."

How about, "Rush, I'm sorry I wished for your death ..."

Liked the article Kim...sma... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Liked the article Kim...small correction: Karl Malone was known as "The Mailman," not "The Postman."

Certainly a small-minded th... (Below threshold)
James H:

Certainly a small-minded thing to wish on Rush Limbaugh.

My ... ahem ... rather ... shall we say ... negative ... opinion of his politics aside, I think that as a communicator, he's hit a sweet spot where he appeals to both liberals and conservatives, and thus maintains a rather large audience.

Sara Spitz:<blockquo... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Sara Spitz:

I made poorly considered remarks about Rush Limbaugh to what I believed was a private email discussion group from my personal email account.

Translation:
I thought I was among friends and that no one was watching. I should have known it'd get out anyway.
---
This is an "I'm sorry.. that I got caught" apology.

Ah, Faux News. As the sayin... (Below threshold)
W. A. Brown:

Ah, Faux News. As the saying goes, "you're welcome to you own opinion, but not your own facts."

w a brown - "Ah, Faux... (Below threshold)
Marc:

w a brown - "Ah, Faux News. As the saying goes, "you're welcome to you own opinion, but not your own facts."

A correction is mandatory for clarity and correctness:

Ah, MSNB/Media Matters. As the saying goes, "you're welcome to you own opinion, but not your own facts."

"This is an "I'm sorry..... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"This is an "I'm sorry.. that I got caught" apology."

That's exactly the impression I got.

"I'm sorry I got caught."</... (Below threshold)
jim2:

"I'm sorry I got caught."

Yes, a fair reading.

Those who are contrite, or that wish actually to appear so, say that they are sorry that they said it. Those who are playing the "I got caught" game "regret" their words that "may have offended" someone.

Ah, Faux News. As the sa... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Ah, Faux News. As the saying goes, "you're welcome to you own opinion, but not your own facts."

It's funny, though, how often that "faux" comment pops up right before someone tosses out an opinion, while trying frantically to pretend it's a fact.

Part of that whole left-wing "if you can't be correct, be sarcastic" habit.

"I apologized" BECAUSE I GO... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"I apologized" BECAUSE I GOT CAUGHT. Heard that for years from crooks. You know, people without ethics. And this group fits right in.

"...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."

At first I thought he was talking about the MFM, not Fox.

Wonder how this will play when they see their very own words plastered out in the open for all to view and see their hypocrisy. Not that it will bother them.

The outrage on the left, na... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

The outrage on the left, naturally, is over the "invasion of privacy" (as if emailing to a list of hundreds of people could be construed as carrying any expectation of "privacy" in the first place) - NOT, pointedly, the exposure that so many of the "mainstream" reporters, columnists, and academics explicitly or implicitly condone the distortion of the news for partisan gain.

Sara Spitz is paid with tax money. She should be fired immediately. Not to worry, she will be able to find a job at one of the other hack propaganda organs.

"Zasloff is keen on the cur... (Below threshold)
alanstorm:

"Zasloff is keen on the current government silencing Fox News because it's being run by a friendly administration that holds a similar world view as he and the Journolisters.

But how would he and other liberals feel about the government silencing or shutting out news outlets critical of the White House when a Republican is president?"

You can't reasonably expect him or his comrades to:

A) listen to the hive mind

B) think

at the same time! Have you no decency, sir?

I was taught that reporters... (Below threshold)
bigbugna:

I was taught that reporters were to report the news. Investigative reporters were to investigate and report the news. Editors confirmed what reporters reported and then made the decision to go to the publisher with the story. The bottom line being; will this story sell? i.e Newspapers, Advertising, Ratings, etc. Competition among reporters was fierce. Editors had their integrity. Competition among publishers was fierce. Editorials and Opinions were confined to the Editorial Page. Rumors were for Gossip Publications. Then, somewhere along the line, things became blurred and difficult to differentiate fact from fiction, rumor or opinion. Integrity disappeared and competition gave way to agenda promotion. The bottom line went out the window. Just look at the stock value of Main Street Media.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy