Journolistas Even Clam Up In Unison
Am I the only one to see the multiple levels of irony in this?
- Ezra Klein, current employee of The Washington Post:
“I actually expect this to be my final public comment on the subject.”
- Nate Silver, future employee of The New York Times:
“p.s. This is pretty much my final ‘say’ on this topic, so please don’t anticipate any follow-up, or any response to media requests, etc.
Well, that clears that up.
Update 7-23-2010: Some of the readers were correct, Ezra took the bait:
I hoped to let my quick accounting of the constant inaccuracies in the Daily Caller’s selective quotations from Journolist stand as my last word on the matter. But Tucker Carlson’s sanctimonious and evasive statement on the way his site has been covering this story deserves a response. So allow me one more post.
Still Waiting For Apologies
Liberal Ugliness Revealed On The JournoList
Put Your Emails Where Your Mouth Is
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
They have received their marching orders!
heh, clears up any doubts we may have had that they stopped their nefarious behind-the-scenes collusion. Wonder what the new list is called? JournoClub . . . the first rule of JournoClub . . .
There is no way America could be lucky enough have them not say anything.
There is a very easy way to get them to blab in public, a way which I learned a long ago from a seasoned journalist:
1) quote them often
2) quote them incorrectly.
No one, especially a journo, can resist being cited in the news. Quoting people incorrectly — either slightly or in an exaggerated manner — forces them into a corrections mode. Indeed, if a large number of opponents quote these dudes incorrectly and often and in a coordinated manner I guarantee these dudes will go public.
Will the journolistas cover-up for each other or betray each other? The Prisoner's Dilemma predicts betrayal by all. Lucky us. It's just a matter of time and pressure.
In businesses I have been in, for competitors to have such a communication point to exchange ideas would have also required a couple of anti-trust lawyers to monitor the conversations. Y'know, just to be sure that the conversation did not get into competitive subjects, such as what stories we are working on and the like. It is rather stunning that this is not considered a violation of anti-trust laws.
> Indeed, if a large number of opponents quote these dudes incorrectly and often and in a coordinated manner I guarantee these dudes will go public.
They've already gone public, or at least have been exposed publicly. Whether they continue to comment on this situation is irrelevant.
Deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting people is just scummy, and something I would expect from Klein, Alterman et al. Particularly in this case, where all one has to do is quote them accurately to embarrass them.
The real question is, where — i.e., via what new "list" or other virtual place — are they now interacting to coordinate the response?
It's self-organized uncriticality.
The baaah-ing of sheep cut short.
@ Ron Coleman: It's called "Cabalist."
Just please REMIND them everytime they write something and you are allowed to comment by saying "hey Ezra (or whomever) did you clear this with the journolist?"
A wise colleague once told me that you can best understand someone by listening to what that individual says about others. It tells what kind of thoughts that individual has about himself.
Remember the oft repeated accusations of a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"
What that really meant, when properly understood, was that there really was a vast Left Wing conspiracy (which we now know to be true), the members of which assumed, from their own behavior, and their exalted egos, that their opponents must be more disgusting than themselves, and so must be involved in similar activities on the right.
Similarly, the accusations of racism by the left reflect the fact that they themselves are racists, and assume again that their enemies must be worse than they are. (are these conspirators racists? two examples: they celebrated the Kluxer Byrd; and bow to the greedy public school unions, at the expense of the black children whose futures are blighted by bogus education in the public schools.) Lets face it: leftists believe that blacks are intrinsically inferior and need government preferences to compete. This is an entirely false belief, but the proof lies in their constant use of false claims of racism to attack conservatives, who do not believe this nonsense at all!
In hanging together they shall, assuredly, hang separately.
Their silence is fine by me. Their Journolist posts speak volumes about their character and beliefs.
Daniel – I like your comment and agree with it. I wonder then what we would see if we look back upon ourselves as Conservatives.
It will only be the child's (Ezra Klein) last comment if the WaPo allows it to be the last comment. I am surprised the WaPo is choosing to stonewall what could be their own undoing.
Shouldn't there be some sort of class action lawsuit against the publications who employ these people for committing fraud against their subscribers?
Hard to believe they can restrain from cheering about Glenn Beck's eye problems.
You know it isn't paranoia when they're really really out to get you.
They're stonewalling because all storms can be ridden out in America. Only by keeping a story alive is anyone ever brought down. Stories are only kept alive by journalists, and rarely, blogs.
I'd say they have an excellent chance of riding this one out. I'd even go so far as to say that there are reporters in bars today falsely claiming Journolist membership to get laid.
As to Glenn Beck, they've probably read, as have I, that Macular Dystrophy rarely affects both eyes, and rarely results in complete blindness. Consequently, you are not hearing anything because they are just disappointed that he will be inconvenienced rather than crippled.
And, of course, they also figure that ObamaCare is going to give him a perfect set of cloned replacement eyes for a $0 copay in two years.
Simple question: Why do any of these people still have a job?
That may be the most telling pronouncement on the media industry.
In most other industries I know, these guys would have been sent packing on principle alone.
So Kleins response is to release a smattering of e-mails from Tucker, as some kinda of gotcha attempt? Please, not only does this not provide any of the supposed vindictive "context", but all it shows is that Tucker wanted to see what these guys were doing. Gee, I wonder why? And wasn't Journolist supposed to be open to all and not a left-wing radical enclave in the first place?