Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”

(In an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.)

Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.

“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.

Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.

The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”

Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.

In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say “be sure to read” a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.

Columnist Joe Conason weighed in with suggestions. So did Slate contributor David Greenberg, and David Roberts of the website Grist. Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, helped too.

Journolist members signed the statement and released it April 18, calling the debate “a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.”

The letter caused a brief splash and won the attention of the New York Times. But only a week later, Obama – and the journalists who were helping him – were on the defensive once again.

Jeremiah Wright was back in the news after making a series of media appearances. At the National Press Club, Wright claimed Obama had only repudiated his beliefs for “political reasons.” Wright also reiterated his charge that the U.S. federal government had created AIDS as a means of committing genocide against African Americans.

It was another crisis, and members of Journolist again rose to help Obama.

Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.

The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”

Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just
how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”

“Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote.

Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.

(Reached by phone Monday, Hayes argued his words then fell on deaf ears. “I can say ‘hey I don’t think you guys should cover this,’ but no one listened to me.”)

Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.

“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”

Ackerman went on:

I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Ackerman did allow there were some Republicans who weren’t racists. “We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.” He also said he had begun to implement his plan. “I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?”

Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.

“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”

(In an interview Monday, Schmitt declined to say whether he thought Ackerman’s plan was wrong. “That is not a question I’m going to answer,” he said.)

Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”

But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”

AZGrizFan wrote:The silence is deafening.

DumbyDem wrote:"...'skuz this ain't no in telljence subjeck. Geez, sum times you're jes stoopid, AZ..."

Skjellyfetti wrote:This is bullshit. Not going to defend it. Every "journalist" named in the memos should be fired.

Where's Skjellyfetti?

What have you done with him?



His family has no money.

But Cap will gladly pay his ransom.

[T]he pictures from Abu Graeb [sic] prison are disturbing. They have rightly provoked outrage. Today we have a picture -- aired on Al Arabiya -- of an American hostage being held with a scarf over his eyes, clearly against his will. Who's outraged on his behalf? It is important that we keep the Abu Graeb [sic] situation in perspective

As is often the case, the real news is [sic] Iraq is being obscured by temporary tragedy. The creation of a defense ministry, which will be run by Iraqis, is a major step forward in the country's redevelopment. Let's look at that

Into Fallujah: It's called Operation Vigilant Resolve and it began Monday morning (NY time) with the US and Iraqi military surrounding Fallujah. We will cover this hour by hour today, explaining repeatedly why it is happening. It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of "excessive force". We won't be among that group

Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don't want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers

[Th]e president is doing something that few of his predecessors dared undertake: [pu]tting the US case for mideast peace to an Arab summit. It's a distinctly [sk]eptical crowd that Bush faces. His political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day

The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer [sic] and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate. Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that

Remember that while there are obvious political implications for Bush, the commission is looking at eight years of the Clinton Administration versus eight months (the time prior to 9/11 that Bush was in office) for the incumbent

For everyone's information, the hotel where our Baghdad bureau is housed was hit by some kind of explosive device overnight. ALL FOX PERSONNEL ARE OK. The incident is a reminder of the danger our colleagues in Baghdad face, day in and day out. Please offer a prayer of thanks for their safety to whatever God you revere (and let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine)

Skjellyfetti wrote:Also... well past time to bring back the Fairness Doctorine.

CitadelGrad wrote:Every memo you linked to is from one organization. The comments in journolist are from many journalists and academics from many media organizations and academic institutions.

The Fairness Doctrine is just a tool for quashing speech that you don't like. If left-wing talk radio was influential while right-wing talk radio was virtually non-existent, you would say that the Fairness Doctrine is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

CitadelGrad wrote:Every memo you linked to is from one organization. The comments in journolist are from many journalists and academics from many media organizations and academic institutions.

So liberals don't just lie, they lie to destroy people. No smear is too low or outrageous when it comes to conservatives. But what this story misses is it portrays the people involved in this Journolist as basically a bunch of obscure left-wing bloggers working for small-time websites and magazines like The Nation and the Washington Independent and so forth, when in fact this is pervasive throughout what is called the mainstream media.

death dealer wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:Every memo you linked to is from one organization. The comments in journolist are from many journalists and academics from many media organizations and academic institutions.

The Fairness Doctrine is just a tool for quashing speech that you don't like. If left-wing talk radio was influential while right-wing talk radio was virtually non-existent, you would say that the Fairness Doctrine is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

It doesn't matter, Jelly is right. Both sides of the barometer are as crooked as Abrahams dick. It has been and always will be a morally relative business. Nothing new under the sun here.

Skjellyfetti wrote:They can say whatever they want to. They just shouldn't be able to say it on PUBLIC airwaves.

It's not a clear violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the right of the FCC to do so.

GannonFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:They can say whatever they want to. They just shouldn't be able to say it on PUBLIC airwaves.

It's not a clear violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the right of the FCC to do so.

But even the Warren and Burger courts had plenty of language in their rulings that the Fairness Doctrine could very easily become unconstitutional and they deferred to the FCC that at some point technology would outpace the usefulness and the ability to have a Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC then said in 1987 was already technologically no longer of use. I'd have to say that a fair amount of technological advances have been made since even then.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
But even the Warren and Burger courts had plenty of language in their rulings that the Fairness Doctrine could very easily become unconstitutional and they deferred to the FCC that at some point technology would outpace the usefulness and the ability to have a Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC then said in 1987 was already technologically no longer of use. I'd have to say that a fair amount of technological advances have been made since even then.

Mainly the internet. Which isn't public and isn't regulated to any degree... and wouldn't be under the Fairness Doctorine.

And "language in their ruling" doesn't mean they'd overturn explicit precedent:
http://epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Skjellyfetti wrote:Satellite radio isn't regulated either. That's why Howard Stern went there. Rush could do the same.

It would be network television, cable television, and radio... nothing that would be nearly as "complex" to regulate as you believe.

GannonFan wrote:
But why not the internet as well then

GannonFan wrote:How do you separate their over the air material from their non over the air material?

GannonFan wrote:No one would be talking about the Fairness Doctrine if right wing radio hadn't been so successful.

GannonFan wrote:And surely that partisan approach would be just one further nail in the unconstitutionality of any effort to revive the doctrine. It's time to move on and realize that the Fairness Doctrine ain't ever coming back and yet we still have plenty of options to get whatever political slant we want, which is what the Fairness Doctrine was really all about in the first place.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
But why not the internet as well then

It's not PUBLIC... like PUBLIC airwaves.

GannonFan wrote:How do you separate their over the air material from their non over the air material?

Exactly the same as you just separated it in your sentence.

You regulate what comes over PUBLIC airwaves that you have jurisdiction over and ignore the stuff that comes across means that you have no jurisdiction to regulate. I'm not seeing where this is so confusing.

GannonFan wrote:No one would be talking about the Fairness Doctrine if right wing radio hadn't been so successful.

Bullshit. Was the reason it was initially instituted in the 1940's because of right wing radio?

Obviously people were talking about the Fairness Doctorine long before right wing radio was a concept.

GannonFan wrote:And surely that partisan approach would be just one further nail in the unconstitutionality of any effort to revive the doctrine. It's time to move on and realize that the Fairness Doctrine ain't ever coming back and yet we still have plenty of options to get whatever political slant we want, which is what the Fairness Doctrine was really all about in the first place.

No, the Fairness Doctorine was so all sides could be equally represented.... so the public would be well educated and informed.... something that's pretty **** necessary in a democracy.

GannonFan wrote:Can you honestly argue that there isn't sufficient information out there, on both sides, in the public sphere that is preventing the public from being informed enough to run a democracy? That's what's different today than in the 1940's when the Doctrine came into being. You had a handful of radio stations and TV stations and that was it. There are literally thousands more options today than there was then and we're not really concerned with the lack of information the public has access to.

GannonFan wrote:...Can you honestly argue that there isn't sufficient information out there, on both sides, in the public sphere that is preventing the public from being informed enough to run a democracy?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Can you honestly argue that there isn't sufficient information out there, on both sides, in the public sphere that is preventing the public from being informed enough to run a democracy? That's what's different today than in the 1940's when the Doctrine came into being. You had a handful of radio stations and TV stations and that was it. There are literally thousands more options today than there was then and we're not really concerned with the lack of information the public has access to.

It's not that their isn't sufficient information... it's that the media that covers national politics is either to the left or to the right. Journalism shouldn't be biased. That's what this thread is about, right? When journalism is polarized... people gravitate toward whichever organization agrees with their beliefs. Normally this is ok... but, their is a public necessity for a well informed society... and that can't happen the way things currently are. Maybe you are satisfied with it. Maybe you believe the public is quite capable of educating themselves enough to be good citizens and vote after rationally weighing all candidates and all issues. I'm not. I think the public is growing more and more incapable... and I think the media is largely to blame.