It’s pretty amazing that Carlson got his hands on this stuff - it doesn’t come as much of a surprise to me, I suppose.
However, I love the fact that now I can show the incredulous that “yes, in fact, the liberal media are indeed coordinating a political message.” Yep, no denying it now. Unbelievable! LOL!
I’m so shocked.
" If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.
But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, that isnâ??t what youâ??d do at all.
In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would â??Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug outâ?? as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. â??I never knew I had this much hate in me,â?? she wrote. â??But he deserves it.â??
"
Disgusting.
Why do people even apologize after saying things like this? I’d respect you more if you stood by it, tbf
I gotta say this is overblown.
Journalism, at the top level, is a very small world. Do you expect them not to gossip? There are nasty comments, but that’s partisanship for you. It’s not like I’ve never seen rude right-wing chain emails.
What irritates me more is the presumption that semi-public figures ought to have their careers ruined when it’s revealed that they made mean-spirited political comments on a presumably private mailing list. Do we really want a world that censorious? I don’t really want to be afraid that talking politics will cost me my job. Do you know how many friends I have who have made gruesome comments like Sarah Spitz’s, in person and via e-mail, and are still pretty much good people? Have we forgotten that a member of our own PWI was worried for his career because he’d made political comments here? If that’s what you want, we’re headed for a pretty milquetoast world, and the only people who will have prominent careers will be people so careful at image management that no honest opinion ever slips out.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
I gotta say this is overblown.
Journalism, at the top level, is a very small world. Do you expect them not to gossip? There are nasty comments, but that’s partisanship for you. It’s not like I’ve never seen rude right-wing chain emails.
What irritates me more is the presumption that semi-public figures ought to have their careers ruined when it’s revealed that they made mean-spirited political comments on a presumably private mailing list. Do we really want a world that censorious? I don’t really want to be afraid that talking politics will cost me my job. Do you know how many friends I have who have made gruesome comments like Sarah Spitz’s, in person and via e-mail, and are still pretty much good people? Have we forgotten that a member of our own PWI was worried for his career because he’d made political comments here? If that’s what you want, we’re headed for a pretty milquetoast world, and the only people who will have prominent careers will be people so careful at image management that no honest opinion ever slips out.
[/quote]
AlisaV - may I venture a guess that you haven’t actually read the transcripts? This has very little to do with “mean-spirited political comments” - that Spitz thing is a complete side show and of relatively little importance.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
I gotta say this is overblown.
Journalism, at the top level, is a very small world. Do you expect them not to gossip? There are nasty comments, but that’s partisanship for you. It’s not like I’ve never seen rude right-wing chain emails.
What irritates me more is the presumption that semi-public figures ought to have their careers ruined when it’s revealed that they made mean-spirited political comments on a presumably private mailing list. Do we really want a world that censorious? I don’t really want to be afraid that talking politics will cost me my job. Do you know how many friends I have who have made gruesome comments like Sarah Spitz’s, in person and via e-mail, and are still pretty much good people? Have we forgotten that a member of our own PWI was worried for his career because he’d made political comments here? If that’s what you want, we’re headed for a pretty milquetoast world, and the only people who will have prominent careers will be people so careful at image management that no honest opinion ever slips out.
[/quote]
If someone is hoping and praying for a public figure to die an agonizing death because they disagree with their politics, do you believe said person can muster any measure of impartiality reporting on the subject?
However, the more important story is the fact that groups of liberal reporters were actually conspiring to try and make obama look better and to discredit his opponents. How can you over blow that? There was an actual conspiracy by members of the liberal media.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
I gotta say this is overblown.
Journalism, at the top level, is a very small world. Do you expect them not to gossip? There are nasty comments, but that’s partisanship for you. It’s not like I’ve never seen rude right-wing chain emails.
What irritates me more is the presumption that semi-public figures ought to have their careers ruined when it’s revealed that they made mean-spirited political comments on a presumably private mailing list. Do we really want a world that censorious? I don’t really want to be afraid that talking politics will cost me my job. Do you know how many friends I have who have made gruesome comments like Sarah Spitz’s, in person and via e-mail, and are still pretty much good people? Have we forgotten that a member of our own PWI was worried for his career because he’d made political comments here? If that’s what you want, we’re headed for a pretty milquetoast world, and the only people who will have prominent careers will be people so careful at image management that no honest opinion ever slips out.
[/quote]
If someone is hoping and praying for a public figure to die an agonizing death because they disagree with their politics, do you believe said person can muster any measure of impartiality reporting on the subject?
However, the more important story is the fact that groups of liberal reporters were actually conspiring to try and make obama look better and to discredit his opponents. How can you over blow that? There was an actual conspiracy by members of the liberal media.[/quote]
Yep - I’m dying to know where this story goes. I’m betting there’s more too.
I don’t think the “mean-spiritedness” is the primary issue, although terribly unflattering for people who are hoping the public takes their written words and opinions seriously.
I think the damning issue is collusion. Opinion journalists are expected to be opinionated and take positions for and against candidates. But, in the past, journalists had a certain “observational integrity” - they examined the issues, applied their analysis, and wrote about them. Here, they are actively disgregarding that observational integrity for a team-plan to work to a certain social (and political) outcome and are sharing strategies on how it needs to be done.
It’s collusive. It’s not illegal, and of course, it would be a lot worse if they were straight-journalists. But these guys are heavy hitters that work for reputable papers, and their audacity has opened questions such as “oh yeah? who else in the media was on this list-serv?”.
It’s a sad event. Oh, and of course, the irony is stultifying: the “enlightened” Left engaging in some of the worst groupthink imaginable.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
I gotta say this is overblown.
Journalism, at the top level, is a very small world. Do you expect them not to gossip? There are nasty comments, but that’s partisanship for you. It’s not like I’ve never seen rude right-wing chain emails.
What irritates me more is the presumption that semi-public figures ought to have their careers ruined when it’s revealed that they made mean-spirited political comments on a presumably private mailing list. Do we really want a world that censorious? I don’t really want to be afraid that talking politics will cost me my job. Do you know how many friends I have who have made gruesome comments like Sarah Spitz’s, in person and via e-mail, and are still pretty much good people? Have we forgotten that a member of our own PWI was worried for his career because he’d made political comments here? If that’s what you want, we’re headed for a pretty milquetoast world, and the only people who will have prominent careers will be people so careful at image management that no honest opinion ever slips out.
[/quote]
If someone is hoping and praying for a public figure to die an agonizing death because they disagree with their politics, do you believe said person can muster any measure of impartiality reporting on the subject?
However, the more important story is the fact that groups of liberal reporters were actually conspiring to try and make obama look better and to discredit his opponents. How can you over blow that? There was an actual conspiracy by members of the liberal media.[/quote]
Yep - I’m dying to know where this story goes. I’m betting there’s more too.
[/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I don’t think the “mean-spiritedness” is the primary issue, although terribly unflattering for people who are hoping the public takes their written words and opinions seriously.
I think the damning issue is collusion. Opinion journalists are expected to be opinionated and take positions for and against candidates. But, in the past, journalists had a certain “observational integrity” - they examined the issues, applied their analysis, and wrote about them. Here, they are actively disgregarding that observational integrity for a team-plan to work to a certain social (and political) outcome and are sharing strategies on how it needs to be done.
It’s collusive. It’s not illegal, and of course, it would be a lot worse if they were straight-journalists. But these guys are heavy hitters that work for reputable papers, and their audacity has opened questions such as “oh yeah? who else in the media was on this list-serv?”.
It’s a sad event. Oh, and of course, the irony is stultifying: the “enlightened” Left engaging in some of the worst groupthink imaginable.
[/quote]
Yes and yes - however, I’m not so sure it’s all that sad. I mean, yes, of course, it’s terrible that journalism is coming to this. But to me, it’s a cause for celebration that this sort of thing is finally out in the open. And undeniable.
That cabal needed a bit of sunlight. 'tis glorious to behold.