Thursday, July 22, 2010

Press Is No Longer Free. It Is A Slave To Immoral Journalists.

The press is no longer a free press. It has become a slave to journalists with no morals and no conscious. They no longer report the news, they manufacture it, manipulate it, spin it. Now that news is a commodity to be bought and sold, it is no longer true or accurate, only sensational, designed to titilate, and inflame the passions. It has become "crack" to the masses, and journalists are worse than "pushers".

New e-mail messages published by the Daily Caller Thursday, July 22, show a coordinated effort by the JournoList's members to destroy Sarah Palin the moment she was named John McCain's running mate on August 29, 2008.
Some even discussed how the former Alaska governor's decision to have a Down Syndrome baby rather than abort it could be used against her.
As the attacks ensued, the Nation's Chris Hayes wrote, "Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get."
Witness America's so-called journalists conspiring to destroy a woman most of the nation had not even heard of yet:
Ryan Donmoyer, a reporter for Bloomberg News who was covering the campaign, sent a quick thought that Palin's choice not to have an abortion when she unexpectedly became pregnant at age 44 would likely boost her image because it was a heartwarming story.
"Her decision to keep the Down's baby is going to be a hugely emotional story that appeals to a vast swath of America, I think," Donmoyer wrote.
Politico reporter Ben Adler, now an editor at Newsweek, replied, "but doesn't leaving sad baby without its mother while she campaigns weaken that family values argument? Or will everyone be too afraid to make that point?"
Will everyone be too afraid to make that point? This man is currently the National Editor of!
But there's more:
Ed Kilgore, managing editor of the Democratic Strategist blog, argued that journalists and others trying to help the Obama campaign should focus on Palin's beliefs. "The criticism of her really, really needs to be ideological, not just about experience. If we concede she's a ‘maverick,' we will have done John McCain an enormous service. And let's don't concede the claim that [Hillary Clinton] supporters are likely to be very attracted to her," Kilgore said. [...]
Suzanne Nossel, chief of operations for Human Rights Watch, added a novel take: "I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views."
Mother Jones's [Jonathan] 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. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket," he wrote.
Another writer from Mother Jones, Nick Baumann, had this idea: "Say it with me: ‘Classic GOP Tokenism'."
Wow! If enough people on this list write that the pick is sexist, you'll have the networks debating it for days.
Getting a sense of just how much control these folks had over the news cycle?
Now enter Time's Joe Klein:
"We're reporting that she actually supported the bridge to nowhere. First flub?" [...]
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," he wrote. And indeed Klein's article contained arguments developed by his fellow Journolisters.
It sure did:
--Does the McCain campaign actually think that Hillary supporters will be lured to the ticket by a militant pro-lifer who also believes in the teaching of intelligent design?
--Palin exploded her state's coffers by imposing a windfall profits tax on the oil companies...sort of--no, exactly--like the proposal Barack Obama has made and John McCain has attacked. Apparently, she also supported the Bridge to Nowhere, despite her disclaimer at today's event. So how does McCain explain putting a tax-raising porker on his ticket?
This kind of coordinated attack by journalists should really be offensive to folks on both sides of the aisle.
The need for an independent press is essential to our democracy. That so many members of the media took ideas from one another as to how to sabotage a politician is disgraceful.
As Rush Limbaugh wrote me yesterday:
These people and their tactics are not new, we've seen them before in other countries and other times. They want to destroy contrary and opposition voices and views. They will climb over the law and the people to achieve their aims...They are all the same. They are leftists, disguised as lawyers, judges, scholars, professors, teachers, reporters, anchors, senators, representatives, legislative aids, congressional staff, federal bureaucrats, etc. There is NO Media. We know that now. There is just an incestuous relationship among all these various groups and a revolving door connecting them all.
In the last few days thanks to the Daily Caller, we have learned that the folks on this list acted to bury the Jeremiah Wright story in the spring of 2008, plotted to destroy Palin that fall, and then celebrated when their candidate Barack Obama won the election.
Think there really is a free and independent press anymore?
(Noel Sheppard)
Well you had better think again, and think real hard.

The Obama Administration fired Shirley Sharrod based on a doctored video on Fox News.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama has conveyed "his regret" to former Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod over her ouster in the midst of a racially-tinged firestorm, the White House said Thursday July 21, 2010.
"The president told Ms. Sherrod that this misfortune can present an opportunity for her to continue her hard work on behalf of htose in need," the statement said, "and he hopes that she will do so."
Sherrod was forced to resign by her superiors earlier this week after a conservative blogger posted an edited video of her recalling her reluctance 24 years ago to help a white farmer seeking government assistance. She says the posting took her speech out of context.
The statement from press secretary Robert Gibbs' office came at midday Thursday and followed a host of nationally broadcast interviews that Sherrod had given earlier in the day. From network to network, she said she wanted to talk to Obama about her wretched week. But also said she felt there was no need for him to apologize to her, as Gibbs and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack had earlier.
The White House said that Obama called Sherrod at midday Thursday, July 22, hours after her television interviews.
For her part, the veteran government employee reiterated that she was uncertain whether she would accept Vilsack's invitation to be reinstated to his department, saying she had to think it over.
The White House statement said, "The president expressed to Ms. Sherrod his regret about events of the last several days. He emphasized that Secretary Vilsack was sincere in his apology yesterday, and in his work to rid USDA of discrimination."
A White House official said that Sherrod did not indicate to the president whether she would accept the job she has been offered at the Agriculture Department. The president tried to reach her twice on Wednesday night but was unable to leave a message, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss behind-the-scenes details.

1 comment:

ichbinalj said...

Can we talk about race?
No, it's too risky.
Just ask Shirley Sherrod, the federal agriculture official who was forced out as head of rural development in Georgia, after a right-wing blogger — devoid of ethics or conscience — circulated a snippet from her after-dinner speech to the NACCP in rural Coffee County, Ga., earlier this year.
What was portrayed on the blog twisted Sherrod's message into the exact opposite of what it was. Sherrod, who is black, was the victim of a "high-tech lynching," to borrow Justice Clarence Thomas' phrase.
But that's not the outrageous part. We've come to expect such slimy shenanigans from certain quarters.
The outrageous part is that the Obama administration and even the NAACP immediately knuckled under to the political con artists who are trying to stir up anger among white voters by portraying the administration as anti-white.
(Read the complete editorial, visit