"The List" of Journolist Participants is Fake

There is now a list going around in conservative websites purporting to be "The List" of media participants in Journolist. It's fake. How do I know? I'm on The List. And I was never on Journolist.

Don't get me wrong, I would have loved to have been on Journolist. It sounds fun. I'd like being on The List even more. That sounds bad ass. Someone I know was on Nixon's Enemies List - I've always thought that was the single coolest distinction anyone could have. This is as close as I got. As much as I would have loved it, I shouldn't be on The List.

Why do I make this painful admission? Is it because I don't want to be associated with those no good libs secretly controlling the media? Hell no. Would have loved that, too. It's because you should know that people that are on that so-called "confirmed" list were not necessarily on Journolist. As usual, the conservative media seems to have completely made this up. Seen this movie before?

I guess I should consider it a compliment that I was on the made up list. In other words, someone thought if there is going to be a liberal media conspiracy I was probably involved. That's pretty cool. But I have a more important question about this purported scandal.

The conservative critics claim this proves the media is all a liberal conspiracy. And as part of the proof, they show e-mails from Journolist trying to sway the media to cover things with a liberal slant. But if the media is already liberal why do the liberals have to convince them?

Some of the e-mails seem to show people strategizing over how to swing the narrative in the press. Well, if it's a conspiracy, why don't they just call up the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News, etc. and just get them to run their liberal buddies' ideas as facts? Why do they have to try so hard to figure out a way to influence them through their own articles?

Wouldn't this prove the opposite - that the mainstream media is not liberal? They hardly ever listen to these self-avowed liberal journalists. The people on this mailer seem to be on the outside looking in, trying to figure out how the influence the conversation (presumably the same exact thing conservative journalists and advocates are doing).

In fact, in one of the first stories that The Daily Caller ran, they share e-mails from the list about anger toward George Stephanopoulos for asking about Rev. Wright during the 2008 debates. Well, if they run the media, why didn't the liberals just get George not to ask that question? Why did the so-called liberal media ask such a conservative question in the first place? If it's a conspiracy why won't Stephanopoulos listen to them?

In other words, why won't the liberal media listen to the liberal media?

Now, for the extra irony - one of the other questions Stephanopoulos asked in that same debate was planted by ... Sean Hannity. Stephanopoulos was on Hannity's show when pressed about Obama's connection to Bill Ayers and decided that he would ask it in the debate. So, is there then a conservative media conspiracy?

Of course, the reality is that the media has many forms. There are straight news reporters and there are advocate journalists, like some people on Journolist and almost everyone at Fox News (I had to say "almost" because of Shep Smith, damn him for making things complicated).

Of course, many of the people on Journolist freely admit that they write for liberal publications like The Nation, whereas Fox News claims to do fair and balanced reporting. So, they're both advocates, just one side is lying about it (I'm always amused by this lie; how can anyone say with a straight face that Fox News doesn't have a conservative perspective?).

Finally, let me ask you one more question. If the liberal media is so strong how come all of the liberals in the country don't have as much influence as just Glenn Beck? That's really painful to write, but clearly true.

Here's my proof. Every progressive organization, leader, advocate, journalist, congressmen, etc. have said that Elizabeth Warren should be nominated as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Yet, they still can't get the job done. It is at best a 50-50 proposition right now. Yet, just the thought that Shirley Sherrod might be on Glenn Beck's show on one night is enough to get her fired.

The mere threat of Beck swings the Obama administration immediately. That's power. That's influence. All of the progressives and liberals in the country put together can barely move the president on Warren. And this is supposed to be a liberal president with a liberal media? What an unbelievable joke.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter:www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks 
Become a Fan of The Young Turks on Facebook: www.facebook.com/tytnation

 

 

"The List" of Journolist Participants is Fake

There is now a list going around in conservative websites purporting to be "The List" of media participants in Journolist. It's fake. How do I know? I'm on The List. And I was never on Journolist.

Don't get me wrong, I would have loved to have been on Journolist. It sounds fun. I'd like being on The List even more. That sounds bad ass. Someone I know was on Nixon's Enemies List - I've always thought that was the single coolest distinction anyone could have. This is as close as I got. As much as I would have loved it, I shouldn't be on The List.

Why do I make this painful admission? Is it because I don't want to be associated with those no good libs secretly controlling the media? Hell no. Would have loved that, too. It's because you should know that people that are on that so-called "confirmed" list were not necessarily on Journolist. As usual, the conservative media seems to have completely made this up. Seen this movie before?

I guess I should consider it a compliment that I was on the made up list. In other words, someone thought if there is going to be a liberal media conspiracy I was probably involved. That's pretty cool. But I have a more important question about this purported scandal.

The conservative critics claim this proves the media is all a liberal conspiracy. And as part of the proof, they show e-mails from Journolist trying to sway the media to cover things with a liberal slant. But if the media is already liberal why do the liberals have to convince them?

Some of the e-mails seem to show people strategizing over how to swing the narrative in the press. Well, if it's a conspiracy, why don't they just call up the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News, etc. and just get them to run their liberal buddies' ideas as facts? Why do they have to try so hard to figure out a way to influence them through their own articles?

Wouldn't this prove the opposite - that the mainstream media is not liberal? They hardly ever listen to these self-avowed liberal journalists. The people on this mailer seem to be on the outside looking in, trying to figure out how the influence the conversation (presumably the same exact thing conservative journalists and advocates are doing).

In fact, in one of the first stories that The Daily Caller ran, they share e-mails from the list about anger toward George Stephanopoulos for asking about Rev. Wright during the 2008 debates. Well, if they run the media, why didn't the liberals just get George not to ask that question? Why did the so-called liberal media ask such a conservative question in the first place? If it's a conspiracy why won't Stephanopoulos listen to them?

In other words, why won't the liberal media listen to the liberal media?

Now, for the extra irony - one of the other questions Stephanopoulos asked in that same debate was planted by ... Sean Hannity. Stephanopoulos was on Hannity's show when pressed about Obama's connection to Bill Ayers and decided that he would ask it in the debate. So, is there then a conservative media conspiracy?

Of course, the reality is that the media has many forms. There are straight news reporters and there are advocate journalists, like some people on Journolist and almost everyone at Fox News (I had to say "almost" because of Shep Smith, damn him for making things complicated).

Of course, many of the people on Journolist freely admit that they write for liberal publications like The Nation, whereas Fox News claims to do fair and balanced reporting. So, they're both advocates, just one side is lying about it (I'm always amused by this lie; how can anyone say with a straight face that Fox News doesn't have a conservative perspective?).

Finally, let me ask you one more question. If the liberal media is so strong how come all of the liberals in the country don't have as much influence as just Glenn Beck? That's really painful to write, but clearly true.

Here's my proof. Every progressive organization, leader, advocate, journalist, congressmen, etc. have said that Elizabeth Warren should be nominated as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Yet, they still can't get the job done. It is at best a 50-50 proposition right now. Yet, just the thought that Shirley Sherrod might be on Glenn Beck's show on one night is enough to get her fired.

The mere threat of Beck swings the Obama administration immediately. That's power. That's influence. All of the progressives and liberals in the country put together can barely move the president on Warren. And this is supposed to be a liberal president with a liberal media? What an unbelievable joke.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter:www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks 
Become a Fan of The Young Turks on Facebook: www.facebook.com/tytnation

 

 

Will They Respond?

Cross posted at DailKos

I wanted to update everyone on our new report -- "If It's Sunday, It's Still Conservative." If you haven't had a chance to view it, now is the time. The report documents how the right continues to dominate the Sunday talk shows.

Since the report's release we've seen a great response.  We've had many reputable blogs such as DailyKos, Huffington Post, and MyDD highlight our findings.  We've had Paul Waldman, our report's principal author, on radio shows like The Peter B. Collins Show, The Young Turks, and The Rachel Maddow Show to name a few.

There's more...

SPECIAL REPORT: "If It's Sunday, It's Still Conservative"

Bumped--Chris

On the Sunday after the midterm elections, in which Democrats took control of Congress for the first time in a dozen years, viewers tuned in to NBC's Meet the Press to hear what the Democratic win meant for the country -- only to discover that host Tim Russert did not have any Democrats on at all. Instead, Russert's guests were Republican Sen. John McCain (AZ) and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (CT), who ran in the general election as an Independent after losing the Democratic primary. And after an election in which the public's opposition to the Iraq war was a central issue, Meet the Press hosted two guests who support the war.

http://www.SundayShowReport.com

But that incident is hardly an aberration. In a new report by Media Matters for America -- If It's Sunday, It's Still Conservative: How the Right Continues to Dominate the Sunday Talk Shows, we show that the Sunday shows -- Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday -- have consistently given Republicans and conservatives an edge over their Democratic and progressive counterparts in the last two years, the period of the 109th Congress. And, as our analysis shows, the recent shift in power in Washington has yielded mixed results, at best.

OUR KEY FINDINGS:

Despite previous network claims that a conservative advantage existed on the Sunday shows simply because Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, only one show, ABC's This Week, has been roughly balanced between both sides overall since the congressional majority switched hands in the 2006 midterm elections.

Since the 2006 midterm elections, NBC's Meet the Press and CBS' Face the Nation have provided less balance between Republican and Democratic officials than Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox New Sunday despite the fact that Fox News Sunday remains the most unbalanced broadcast overall both before and after the election.

During the 109th Congress (2005 and 2006), Republicans and conservatives held the advantage on every show, in every category measured. All four shows interviewed more Republicans and conservatives than Democrats and progressives overall, interviewed more Republican elected and administration officials than Democratic officials, hosted more conservative journalists than progressive journalists, held more panels that tilted right than tilted left, and gave more solo interviews to Republicans and conservatives.

Now that Congress has switched hands, one would reasonably expect Democrats and progressives to be represented at least as often as Republicans and conservatives on the Sunday shows. Yet our findings for the months since the midterm elections show that the networks have barely changed their practices. Only one show - ABC's This Week - has shown significant improvement, having as many Democrats and progressives as Republicans and conservatives on since the election. On the other three programs, Republicans and conservatives continue to get more airtime and exposure.

In the months ahead, will the networks address the imbalance in their guest lineups? Or will they continue with business as usual?

We urge you to read the report and take action.  Tell the networks to address our findings and consider whether the Sunday shows serve the public interest by continuing to give conservatives the edge in setting the terms of the national debate.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads