The Spectacle Blog
“A journalist is a wild animal with an appetite for conservative meat and should be interacted with that way — always.”
— Melissa Clouthier, Liberty Pundits
Thus does one conservative blogger express a sentiment that bids fair to destroy the movement she desires to advance.
Having been told for so long that “the media” are the enemy, conservatives have become hostile to journalism as a profession.
One of the reasons why there are so few conservatives in America’s newsrooms is because the profession of journalism is relentlessly derided by those who claim to speak for the conservative cause. No kid who grew up listening to talk radio could possibly believe that becoming a reporter is a worthy ambition. (To be a talking-head pundit on cable TV, yes; to be a mere reporter, no.) And this blanket condemnation of journalism qua journalism is sufficiently broad enough to encompass … well, me.
How many times have I gone to political events and seen Republican Party operatives tighten up and mind their words, speaking only in scripted talking points, when they learn that I am a reporter? Even when I assure them that I’m a conservative and I’m not there to play “gotcha,” the instinctive Republican dread of journalists is such that all reporters are automatically viewed as dangerous.
Well, there are indeed such things as conservative journalists, but it is a corollary of the anti-journalism worldview of Republicans that conservative journalists are judged not by their skill — the accuracy of their reporting, the readability of their prose, etc. — but by how useful they are in the service of advancing GOP political objectives. Republicans treat conservative journalists with a special disdain, as mere errand boys or stenographers whose job it is to spread the GOP message.
Although most journalists are indeed liberal, all journalists prefer to think of themselves as independent-minded and fair, their primary allegiance being to report the truth. And this self-concept is in direct conflict with the stenographic role that Republicans consider appropriate to conservative journalists. So when a conservative journalist discerns an objective fact that doesn’t fit the GOP script, he finds himself in a conflict between his professional self-concept and his prescribed task as partisan publicist.
Consider the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s premature endorsement of Charlie Crist in the Senate primary in Florida. It is an objective fact that this move was a spectacular blunder, one which called into question the basic political competence of NRSC chairman John Cornyn and his advisors. And I should add that the NRSC’s campaign counterpart on the House side, the National Republican Congressional Committee, hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory of late.
Who will report these facts? If conservative journalists are expected to be publicity agents for Team GOP, and if Team GOP is being run into the ditch by the party bosses, where is there any chance for the kind of sunlight-as-disinfectant reporting that might prevent the imminent debacle?
But hey, don’t pay any attention to me. I’m just a “wild animal.”
View all comments (190) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by Robert Stacy McCain
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/26/conservatives-against-journali
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 3:55AM
Isn't is supercool how McCain here puts his "journalism" buddies ahead of his conservative buddies? You have a guy that calls himself a conservative playing the victim because he's getting some legit blowback for letting his personal friendships get in the way of legit criticism of his liberal pal.
Callie| 6.26.10 @ 1:04PM
I wonder what General McChrystal thinks of "journalists" now.
BD57| 6.27.10 @ 2:40PM
Matt:
You must not read Stacy much.
Callie:
I wonder what McChrystal was thinking when he agreed to the Rolling Stone proposal in the first place.
Stacy's arguing against the idea that because Dems have "their" lapdogs, Republicans should expect any conservative journalists to be "our" lapdogs.
Here's the problem with that - if Republican politicos deserve to be criticized / challenged "from the right", then I want that to happen.
Callie| 6.27.10 @ 4:40PM
McChrystal's a Liberal who trusted feckless Liberal reporters; he forgot that Liberals hate the military, too.
That was my point.
Jeff| 6.28.10 @ 6:47PM
FYI, I am a liberal. Everybody in my family is liberal. I live in Southern California, and most of my friends and people who I see in daily life are liberal. Some of them are moderate liberals, some are Dennis Kucinich liberals.
None of them, and by that I mean 100%, have anything but respect and admiration for the military. In fact, it would surprise the members of my family who served their country in the army and the air force that they hated the military.
My grandmother is so liberal she only voted for one Republican in her life: Eisenhower.
Thanks for letting me vent.
Callie| 6.28.10 @ 8:54PM
Guess you didn't live through the Vietnam war, Jeff--the experience left an ugly scar. My brother, just returning from the conflict, was spat on repeatedly and called a baby killer by "Liberals" waiting at Oakland airport.
Maybe I should have said, "Some" Liberals.
I didn't see many screaming Conservatives marching in those anti-war protests during GWB's tenure--did you?
John| 6.28.10 @ 11:53PM
It's kind of foolish to imply that wingnuts on the left are anything but that. Should we judge conservatives by the shrill cries of its own wingnuts?
Callie| 6.29.10 @ 1:00AM
Unfortunately for you, John, the nuts on your side comprise a majority.
Bill| 6.30.10 @ 9:36AM
Interesting -- esp. since returning soldiers from Vietnam didn't fly into the Oakland Airport.
Callie| 6.30.10 @ 2:23PM
Liar. I was there. You were probably one of the assholes spitting on my brother.
Crawl back under your slimy rock, creep.
Bill| 6.30.10 @ 2:46PM
I spent five years in the military -- how about you? And you honestly want us to believe you were there? Even though it never happened?
Callie| 6.30.10 @ 3:57PM
I didn't say I served in the military, moron; I said I was there when my brother was processed through Oakland Airport. Let's see you disprove my claim, loser.
Are you trying to deny that Liberals spat on and screamed vile rants at American soldiers and marines returning from Vietnam at that time? You're a filthy lying pig if you are, because EVERYONE knew such disgusting abuse of our young military guys was taking place by stinkin' liberal hippies and anti-war protesters.
You're scum, and you Leftists still make me sick. YOU ARE the reason we lost that damned war and you idiots will lose Afghanistan, too, if we let you.
At least you aholes treat our military better--we've made sure of that.
Bill| 6.30.10 @ 4:33PM
Well, we both know you weren't there and you saw no such thing.
I'm also trying to figure out how I lost Vietnam. I wasn't there.
By the way, start here -- Jerry Lembcke, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam
Callie| 6.30.10 @ 5:50PM
Well loser--I was there, so I know the bitter truth. I understand why you want to erase the ugly history you Leftists created during the Vietnam war; I'd be ashamed, too; but, I and millions like me watched and cried as our brothers were forced to go to war at the hands of Democrats and then were spat on and jeered by Democrats when they returned home.
You wonder why Leftists like you are loathed by the Right--well, your present lies and past Leftist vicious, abusive treatment of Vietnam vets are just two of the reasons.
Google the Left's ugly treatment of Vietnam vets returning home--the evidence is everywhere, regardless of more lies from Leftist clown authors. Do it, puke.
Bill| 6.30.10 @ 6:07PM
Ok, one more time -- it isn't actually everywhere.
I served my country.
You didn't.
There are no documented cases of what you describe.
Soldiers coming back from Vietnam didn't fly into civilian airports.
Callie| 6.30.10 @ 6:29PM
Leftists are funny, you're pathological liars--documentation of hateful Liberals screaming and spitting at our military during the Vietnam war are everywhere. Just think of Hanoi Jane.
Why do you think liberals only comprise 20% of our population and Conservatives comprise 40%? Because you're garbage and everyone knows it.
Yes, my parents and I, my brother and sisters picked my brother up at Oakland Airport when he returned from Vietnam. I saw the ugly, screaming, contorted faces of leftists like you, and I will never forget it.
I was just a young teenager then, but I became a staunch Conservative that day.
BTW--those fetid Leftist hippies smelled like holy sh!t that day. Damn, do you people ever take a shower?
Bill| 6.30.10 @ 8:10PM
So, describe the scene -- the airport -- how it looked. Where the people were. Where the soldiers came in, etc. Be specific. It's so implanted in your memory it should be easy to do.
(again -- not a hippie; again I was active duty military)
Callie| 6.30.10 @ 9:20PM
Liar. No self-respecting military man would defend fetid, stinking hippies.
Slimeball.
Callie| 6.30.10 @ 9:22PM
I walk on cleaner dirt than you, dirtbag. Go back to HuffPo with the other filthy smelling hippies.
You don't belong here; we respect honor.
Bill| 6.30.10 @ 11:07PM
Oh I see, I didn't realize I was being punked. I get it now.
Callie| 6.30.10 @ 11:23PM
No, silly--you ARE a punk. Now go home to mommy's basement, you're past your curfew.
Bill| 6.30.10 @ 11:38PM
Outstanding commitment
Callie| 7.1.10 @ 2:10AM
Damn straight, numbnuts--my beloved brother is worth it. So are his buddies who never made it back.
I'll NEVER forget.
Bill| 7.1.10 @ 8:21AM
I meant, of course, commitment to punk.
Callie| 7.1.10 @ 4:34PM
Whatever. Vice President BiteMe, punk.
Don't you have a slimy rock to crawl under?
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 3:56AM
McCain,
If you ceased to live, I doubt anybody would notice. Why don't you go set yourself on fire. LOL
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 3:58AM
McCain,
Dont' let us stop you from sending love notes to Weigel and Julian Sanchez. Because that's what being a political pundit is all about.
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 4:04AM
McCain,
I note the not so suble jab at Rush. There goes what little popularity you had with the conservative movement. Conservatives don't hate liberal hacks in the media because of Rush. We hate hacks because they are hacks. Rush just points them out, and I'm pretty sure he wont' be wasting time on this Weigel lightweight that you seem to think is the eptitome of journalism. Teh heh.
Mark| 6.29.10 @ 9:53AM
Rush? As a con myself, Rush is the hot air hack. I can't believe any educated person would pay attention to that uneducated blowhard. As for libs hating the military--it ain't so. I have lib family members who love and serve.served, beginning with my grandfather in WW I through my son, a lib marine who just returned from Iraq--for the third time. It is the super-cons that blacken the eye of true repubs. C'mpn, Plain? Beck? Limbaugh? What a bunch of idiots!! Our party is looking so foolish!
Nate| 6.29.10 @ 5:52PM
Go away, troll; we'll see you in November.
Worthless hack.
Don Carlson| 6.26.10 @ 4:14AM
Almost every newspaper and magazine in America promotes the leftist agenda, either explicitly or implicitly. All but one television network manage the same score. The only time a conservative politician is honestly represented in the press or on television is when he screws up. Fox News bends itself into pretzels to be fair and is pilloried for its trouble. If Mr. McCain wants to improve the situation, he needs to be a journalist, straight up, instead of a whiner. There are conservatives who cannot take criticism or negative press---screw them. There are those faithful to erstwhile American political ideals who expect the press to join their cause. They're fools. But the real idiots are journalists who expect conservatives to be pleased as punch to be interviewed by presumptious, liberally liberal jerks who have never given Americans'essential values a thought---except to despise, demean, and mock them.
Mark| 6.29.10 @ 9:58AM
Fox is balanced? Leftist agenda? I have observed that my fellow republicans are a bit skiddish of the truth. Like "family values". Republican women only do it missionary. Yea right. We as a party need to grow up before its too late.
Nate| 6.29.10 @ 10:32PM
Go away pervert. See you liberal freaks in November.
Go "missionary" yourself!
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 4:17AM
Don,
McCain would be saying the same thing as me and a lot of other conservatives if he didn't know this guy. That's what's so amusing about it.
I kind of laugh when he goes into self important journalist mode.....afterall, he was broadbrushing everybody in South Carolina as a racist and sexist based on a few kooks down there, and South Carolina proved him a fool by easily voting Haley in as governor.
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.26.10 @ 4:37AM
"he was broadbrushing everybody in South Carolina as a racist and sexist "
Me? You're nuts. I was behind Haley all the way and always expected her to win.
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.26.10 @ 4:38AM
And I don't much care for criticism from anonymous trolls, "Matt X."
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 4:40AM
You did make a lot of "this is South Carolina, afterall" comments. It's not a big deal, people from South Carolina are used to people with that kind of 1960's vision of SC firmly implanted in their mind by pop culture. :)
Seriously, guy, why did you have to go self important journalist on us? You are not even a journalist, you are a blogger pundit.
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 4:43AM
McCain, I have a good memory, and I see to remember you making the observation that it's never a good idea for a blogger to think he shares a foxhole with another blogger during the Dan Riehl - Erick Erickson - Allahpundit soap opera. You seem to be where Dan Riehl was,, and Dan seems to be about the only conservative blogger out there not kissing this guy's ass. It's funny how inconsistent people are. :)
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 4:50AM
McCain,
Do you think it may be possible that conservatives became hostile to journalism as a profession because so many journalists are like your Weigel buddy? Conservatives are not against journalist, we are against hacks.
The fact that you once took Weigel to the Outback Steakhouse and the movie theatre and the fire still burns is rather irrelevant to "the people". :)
McCain| 6.26.10 @ 4:56AM
McCain,
I'm just one of the "small people" speaking Truth To Power....it's not personal. I generally like your work, but the approach you are taking tonight is a bad one. I see no reason to take shots at Rush and talk radio to defend some 20 year old something blogger punk, especially one that wished death on Rush and Drudge. If that guy is your friend, you need to get some new friends.
Steven G. Poyzer| 6.26.10 @ 6:35AM
As a registered Conservative, a Tea Party member and a practicing journalist, I find many of these comments interesting and some simply uniformed. Journalism is not the enemy, bad journalism is. Instead of dumping on the profession as a whole, pick up a pen, typewriter or laptop and become a journalist. Base your work in research, facts, truth and objectivity.
SoCon| 6.26.10 @ 1:13PM
It's not Conservatives' fault that Progressive Democrats have destroyed journalism. It's ridiculous to blame us, McCain.
Of course we don't trust journalists; how many times do you have to be burned before you learn?
"Bad journalism" is the norm not the exception, gentlemen.
PCC| 6.26.10 @ 7:42AM
Dear Mr. McCain,
I enjoy reading your articles and posts and do not think of you as either a scoundrel or a fool.
However, I must confess that this somewhat self-pitying, somewhat self-important post elicited no sympathy at all from me.
I wish you well.
Pete2| 6.26.10 @ 7:53AM
Another diatribe by McCain. Why don't you go do something useful with your life? Man, there's a lot of us conservatives who are getting fed up with the phonies on our side and the kooks...
martin j smith| 6.26.10 @ 8:10AM
Journalism is no longer a prfoession I admire or believe in. If I were someone in the public realm, I would be very selective and extremely careful what to say when to any one who calls themselves a reporter or whatever is around. The mike is on at all times. Too many do not get it. "Journalists" are now propaganda functionaries ( I mean MSM types ) and not much more.
MoeLarryAndJesus| 6.26.10 @ 9:05AM
As a rational human being I am really enjoying watching you "movement conservatives" cannibalize yourselves. It couldn't happen to a more useless pack of shambling zombies.
WendyG| 6.26.10 @ 10:16AM
If anyone has been cannibalized it's "movement liberals." They were bitten by a snake in their own garden.
Tim*| 6.26.10 @ 11:59AM
Republican candidates now hold an eight-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, June 20.
" A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent."
REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 6.26.10 @ 1:15PM
Moe's useful--a useful idiot that is.
Tom| 6.28.10 @ 11:28PM
You'll always have Rasmussen. Hope he keeps you secure until November.
Callie| 6.29.10 @ 1:02AM
The likely prospect of a November political bloodbath for you liberals is all we need to feel secure, Tom.
See you then.
Bruce | 6.27.10 @ 1:29PM
Rather amusing to see a liberal - Godless freaks that they are - align themselves with Jesus. Kinda like Nancy Pelosi asserting her "allegiance" to God, then supporting abortion on demand. Almost as absurd as a liberal proclaiming themselves to being "rational."
frank| 6.28.10 @ 7:41PM
Wow dewd, project much?
Nate| 6.28.10 @ 8:57PM
No, frank, that's not projection because Bruce isn't a disgusting hypocrite like Nanzi.
Just trying to help you out a little in the "logic" department.
Frank| 6.28.10 @ 10:57PM
Sanctimonius Asshat,
Associating Jesus with two professional clowns like Moe Howard and Larry Fine isn't paying Him a compliment.
Nate| 6.28.10 @ 11:16PM
Duh! It's pretty obvious the libtard wasn't paying the Lord a compliment, moron.
We just consider the source an ignorant, stupid and arrogant libtard--a useless piece of crap.
WendyG| 6.26.10 @ 10:12AM
>>> If conservative journalists are expected to be publicity agents for Team GOP, and if Team GOP is being run into the ditch by the party bosses, where is there any chance for the kind of sunlight-as-disinfectant reporting that might prevent the imminent debacle.
I don't think anyone wants or expects conservative journalists/commentators/bloggers to be cheerleaders for the RNC. Rush isn't an RNC cheerleader. I think there are some terrific journalists on the right.
Part of the current problem is that there are journalists and there are bloggers. And perhaps some bloggers (mostly on the left) aren't schooled in the rules of journalism. It seems to me that the blogosphere has had less stringent standards in terms of vetting, so problems have arisen in that arena. Some of them are pretty young and green. Yet they are powerful - and frankly, full of themselves. Again I speak of those on the left primarily.
Then again, are they any different than Woodward & Bernstein (old school Washington Post)? Does anyone think those two were not liberal and didn't especially enjoy getting Nixon's scalp? Would they have been as vigorous going after the scalp of a liberal President? Back then they had a monopoly though - at least now there is talk radio, Fox News - and Conservative bloggers.
The Journolist scandal may be a good remedy for what we see in the liberal blogosphere (speaking of sunlight as disinfectant.) I am sure journalists have always gone to the corner bar to chew the fat, but 400 journalists participating in a members-only private liberal chat room can't lead to anything good. Clearly whoever outed Weigel had nefarious intentions, but he or she may have done the culture a huge favor.
Am Spec Blog is great. I come here to read diverse points of view. I don't paint all journalists with a broad brush - but I do think the liberal media marches in lockstep to a great degree. But as I said, whoever outed Weigel did us a favor, as odious as that person might be on a personal level. Maybe we'll some fairness in the liberal blogosphere now (Huff Po etc., included, i.e. the Sam Steins of the world.) Yeah I know - keep dreaming....
Brian O'Connor | 6.26.10 @ 10:22AM
This is where Conservatism always fails. Right now Obama and his troops are marching in unison, fighting against everything that we believe in.
What are Conservatives doing? Dividing into packs pitted against each other; one tearing the flesh from a dead carcass while another attempts to defend said corpse from the vultures and jackals.
I choose to join what I hope is the majority; those saying, who gives a shit, there are more important battles to be fought today.
Nobama| 6.26.10 @ 1:34PM
"Stupid Party" strikes again! And, of course, Weigel's ugly behavior and subsequent humiliation are all OUR fault.
Absurd.
Brian O'Connor | 6.26.10 @ 1:58PM
Read it again Snarkastic one.
Weigel's stupidity and humiliation are entirely his own fault. He's gone; good riddance.
Now is time for Conservatives to stop ratf*cking each other and move on the the business of November.
Nobama| 6.26.10 @ 2:18PM
That's exactly my point, bonehead--your post should be directed at McCain!
Reading comprehension is obviously NOT your strong point.
WendyG| 6.26.10 @ 10:39AM
One other point - no Conservative should be defending Dave Weigel, or Journolist. I am pretty shocked at how many are. Okay maybe he is your drinking buddy and/or you chatted him up at a party. But his emails were indefensible and idiotic. And so is the whole notion of Journolist, IMO.
martin j smith| 6.26.10 @ 10:59AM
Moelarry and Jesus--Why don't you get a take out order from Dominoes and slug down a leter of coke.That makes about as much sense as your post.--maybe more.
Joe| 6.26.10 @ 1:16PM
Moe's got to finish that joint first.
frank| 6.28.10 @ 7:45PM
Litre ( pronounced lee ter)
Mike| 6.26.10 @ 1:34PM
I work at a newspaper in a medium-sized town. We have an annual gun show here. When it first started many years ago, we asked for press passes to cover the thing. The organizer refused because "the media don't like guns or the people who own them."
No big deal to us. We'd just find another feature for this sl0t.
But the reporter that would have done the story was (and is) not only politically conservative but a competitive shooter. In fact, most of the reporters I've worked with have tended to be libertarian or moderate republicans, not libeals. And that's probably true of most newspapers outside the big-city dailies.
SoCon| 6.26.10 @ 2:12PM
The incident you've described is unfortunate, Mike, but you do understand the reason WHY Conservatives don't trust journalists, right?
Understanding, not blame, is needed to resolve this conflict and I'm surprised that a smart Conservative like McCain doesn't get it.
We're not the enemy either; and I will not apologize for my distrust of the media.
Mike| 6.26.10 @ 2:38PM
No, actually I don't understand.
As I said, things are probably different at the big city dailies, and I have never worked broadcast, so I can't comment on them. But most of the people I've worked with over the past 25 years have been to the right of the political spectrum. Most have been libertarian or moderate conservatives. Few have been religious or social conservatives. But even fewer have been truly liberal.
Take the people currently working with me in my newsroom, 19 people including myself. My editor voted for Ron Paul for president two years ago in the Republican primary and for Bob Barr in the general election. I also voted for Barr, and I think one of the photographers did as well. I didn't vote in the primary. One person I know voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and didn't vote in the general election. To my knowledge, everyone else voted for either McCain or Romney in the primary and McCain in the general election.
SoCon| 6.26.10 @ 3:16PM
It's not personal, it's a trust issue. Many on the Right are wary of journalists in general, and if you can't understand why, I don't know what to say. It's normal human behavior to back away from a perceived threat.
One thing I do know for sure--blame will only divide us further.
BillSoo| 6.28.10 @ 8:06PM
McCain's point explains it and your experience is evidence. A reporters *job* is essentially like that of a scientist. Discover and report the "truth" and do so as objectively as possible.
McCains theory is that this conflicts with the "stenographic" role that conservatives want. My own thought is that conservative policies tend to be faith based while liberal policies tend to be evidence based. Thus reporters, even republican ones, who ask questions are "liberal" in the sense that they are seeking evidence rather than simply accepting faithfully.
As Colbert said, "Reality has a liberal bias".
SoCon| 6.28.10 @ 9:06PM
Well, Bill, you said so, so I guess that makes it so!
And you have presented the idiot liberal mouthpiece, Colbert, as expert opinion on your behalf. How sadly predictable.
Unlike you feckless liberals, conservatives tell the truth and argue in good faith, and we expect others to abide by the same rules. It's been my experience that liberals lie, and because most journalists have a liberal bias, we have learned NOT to trust them.
It's really not rocket-science, Bill, but the concept seems to be above your intellectual pay-grade.
BillSoo| 6.29.10 @ 1:01PM
The Colbert line was a joke. I suppose I should have used a smiley face to make it more obvious....sorry about that....
Also, note my word choices: "theory", "thought", "in the sense of", "seeking evidence". These are not the terms of a law written in stone, rather they are words to describe a possible theory to advance the discussion in a thoughtful way.
Finally, the personal invective seems out of place, considering I wasn't even replying to you. Perhaps you had your reasons. I don't know. But in my own experience, resorting to insults is usually (not always...usually) the last tactic of a side which has run out of cogent arguments to make.
SoCon| 6.29.10 @ 6:08PM
Glad to hear the Colbert comment was in jest; personal invective aside, my comments stand.
BillSoo| 6.29.10 @ 7:22PM
So after removing the invective, your comment seems to be reduced to:
1) All liberals lie
2) Most reporters are liberal
Therefore, most reporters are not to be trusted.
Well, if you assume the first two postulates are correct, then the conclusion seems logical.
The problem is that the first postulate is easily refuted since only one counter example of a liberal telling the truth is sufficient to break it. I'm sure you would agree that Marko Moulitsas is a liberal. Here he is breaking a story *damaging to his own site* for the sake of truth:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....earch-2000
Now to be fair, I'm going to assume that you meant that *most* liberals lie, and I will still assume that *all* conservatives are truth tellers. I will further assume that "most" means 75%.
That means that for a reporter to lie, he must be
a) a liberal (75% chance)
b) one of the 75% of liberals who lie.
Therefore, the odds of a reporter lying are 56%.
This means that by disbelieving ALL reporters, you are wrong nearly half the time.
SoCon| 6.29.10 @ 10:41PM
You're wrong. The odds of a reporter being a liberal is closer to 92%--check political donation stats.
Since I was speaking of liberal reporters initially, I'd say the odds of those particular reporters lying are about 92%. Works for me.
I bet it works for General McChrystal, too, right now. He shouldn't have trusted the slimy, LIBERAL reporter. If you wrestle with skunks you end up smelling like them.
Sorry, but facts are inconvenient things, aren't they?
BillSoo| 7.5.10 @ 5:22PM
Fine, 92% then. I said it was an assumption....
Plugging in the new numbers gives roughly a 2/3 chance of being lied to. Still 1/3 chance of being wrong.
And that's assuming a relatively high percentage for lying. Unfortunately, I don't know of a source for calculating a percentage chance for lying. It tends to be somewhat subjective. Sites like Politifact can tally lies, but without knowing the number of true statements, you can't calculate a percentage. I suppose you could plug in your own value, like say 99% chance of lying, but that seems way too high....at that level, it would be too noticeable. Besides, most statements made on the news are demonstrable fact...eg. a protest was held at this location on this day, plus a list of leaders. You may quibble about the size of said protest, but the majority of the statements made are true (with the possible exception of weather forecasts).
So back to the main point. Should reporters be trusted? Maybe the best option would be what Reagan said in a different context "Trust, but verify".
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 1:46PM
I think the Republic will survive without Weigel's services. I never had heard much about the guy until he got fired.
I don't think dumping on Weigel in good fun means that conservatives / Republicans are going to lose focus on defeating Obama, as Brian O' Connor suggests above. We can multi-task!
Chris | 6.26.10 @ 1:51PM
As usual, Stacy is correct. The truth should surpass ideology at all costs - and its a discredit to the conservative movement if we act like liberals and allow ourselves to let our ideology blind ourselves to the facts. Does that mean that we lose some fights? Yup. Does that mean we give up the fight? Nope. In the end, conservatives will win on ideas backed up by facts. That's how you win elections and shape movements.
This piece was just linked by Jay Rosen on twitter (how I ended up here). Rosen is a media expert and huge liberal who slags off righties all the time, but he loved this piece. For good reason. America needs conservatives in all professions, including reporting rooms. It forces liberals to curtail their excesses at the very least. Keep up the good work, Stacy. I contribute to your reporting junkets (like KY and NY) all the time. Don't listen to the anonymous haters.
Joe| 6.26.10 @ 2:14PM
The only haters are the Liberals, moron--and arrogant clods like you!
Chris | 6.26.10 @ 2:15PM
Insightful. Please, go on.
Joe| 6.26.10 @ 2:21PM
How does calling us "anonymous haters" improve the situation? Is that insightful?
You're thin-skinned; don't dish it out if you can't take it.
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 2:05PM
I think McCain is incredibly tonedeaf when he decideds to write a column entitled Conservatives Against Journalism in defense of a blogger punk that was fired for being a hack. It's not like we are attacking some honest journalist here.
Chris is the worst kind of brown-noser...the one sucks up to a blogger most people have never heard of. :)
Chris | 6.26.10 @ 2:17PM
If I give Stacy money because he's doing things I agree with but don't have the time, expertise and wherewithal to do myself, who's sucking up to who? Please think before you type.
Joe| 6.26.10 @ 2:23PM
Chris, we're not your enemy and we're not McCain's enemy; you guys attacked us first. What do you expect us to say?
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 2:20PM
I dont' think sticking up for a blogger hack like Weigel is something most conservatives are going to be giving him any money for doing. It's not like it takes much effort to be a sellout. I suspect McCain may have lost many of his fans, and for what...to defend a guy that could not possibly be capable of covering conservatives fairly, given his insane comments about Rush and Drudge, wishing death on both.
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 2:27PM
Joe,
That's exactly right...the name of the column alone is insulting, and it doesn't make any sense in this case. I thought Palin and some other conservatives were a bit quick to blast the media for their coverage of Rand Paul's controversial statements about the Civil Rights Act, but this Weigel thing does not have anything to do with conservatives attacking fair and legit journalism. Even if we were to concede that Weigel kept his liberal bias out of his reporting, which I just don't think is the case, he shouldn't be a journalist period. His conduct was immature and unprofessional. Those like McCain that defend him and make him out as a victim are only ensuring that we get more Weigels.
Purple Lips| 6.26.10 @ 4:54PM
Our J-Schools churn out thousands of grads who are essientially illiterate, idealistic, homogenized, feminized, politically correct paprazzi. The field of "journalism" is dominated by female neo-fascists who believe thier main vocation is to propogandize. These androids of the newsroom are lazy, they cannot write, and they are predictable.
In this sense, conservatives are anti-journalsim.
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 5:05PM
The fact that McCain is tweet buddies with Conor F is all I need to know. If you are agreement with Conor F, a kid that thinks any criticism of the liberal media is treason, you are not my kind of conservative. Conor F is almost a parody of the type of "journalists" that colleges are pumping out of their indoctrination camps these days.
The blogger Ace of Spades refutes the McCain approach to the Weigel situation with this:
Okay, One More: There are two sayings. One about Hollywood: "It's show business, not show friends."
Another about politics: "Politics is show business for ugly people."
Putting them together, then: Politics is show business for ugly people, not show friends for ugly people.
FleshBomb| 6.26.10 @ 5:22PM
Stop with the whining already, McCain. #TeamWeigel is seriously starting to act like a pack of pre-teen girls.
A liberal outed your boy. Conservatives are just enjoying the 'rats eating rats' theater.
Those DC, under 30 blogger/journalist, circle jerks must be a whole lot of fun. Several "conservative" bloggers losing all credibility over a guy most people have never heard of. A shame really.
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 5:30PM
Team Weigel is generally a group of militant homosexuals that have a bug up their rear end about conservatives and gay marriage. All the rest of their nonsense is just window dressing. :)
FleshBomb| 6.26.10 @ 5:36PM
Is this true, McCain? Are you carrying Weigel's water because he called those who are against gay marriage, bigots?
Or is it because he wished death on conservative icons?
Or is it because he said the conservative movement is based on racism and protecting "white privilege"?
Or is it because he was actively "massaging" DNC talking points into "news" story's with 400 of his closet friends (make that 399)?
Or is it because you want to stay "in" with the kool kids in DC?
Nate| 6.26.10 @ 5:39PM
Wow. Excellent piece, Mr. McCain.
I'm often baffled by the bile leveled at journalists by conservative pundits. Where do they think the information that underwrites their protests against the media COMES from?
It's journalists!
Journalists compete with one another, and their desire to scoop one another is far more powerful than any political allegiance they have.
Consider the story this week about welfare recipients using funds to gamble in California. That story, much touted on right wing radio, was broken by a reporter at the LA Times. That reporter, I'd bet, is just the sort that conservatives on any other day would assume is trying to destroy America with communism (or whatever). But the truth is as a reporter he's just out for a good story, and he'll go with the facts as best he can. Depend upon it: it's not easy. The world's a complicated place, and it doesn't operate on a set of four or five "principles."
BobInFL| 6.27.10 @ 1:51PM
Poisonous snakes have their uses. They're really good at killing vermin -- but you don't want to let them roam around your kid's bedroom.
Journalists are no different.
SoCon| 6.27.10 @ 4:42PM
Even Conservative journalists? RSM is really gonna flip out now.
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 5:42PM
I live in Maryland on the outskirts of DC metro. I know some guys that know the Weigel hack, and he is exactly how he comes across in "off the record" comments. He's a leftwing jerk and a prick in general to people around him, and anybody that claims he has covered conservatives objectively is smoking something.
Nate| 6.26.10 @ 5:47PM
Nate,
Got to love your intellectual honesty. You really want to make the case that Weigel is the best "journalist" that the Washington Post could have hired? You don't think there's one single person that could do Weigel's job in a more professional and mature way? Hmmmmmm. I think that says more about you and liberals than conservatives. :)
Nate| 6.26.10 @ 6:04PM
I'm glad you love my intellectual honesty. That's a weight off my mind.
I don't know if the Post could have hired a better journalist. It seems an odd question to ask me.
But consider this:
For months Weigel was getting terrific stories out of the Tea Party movement BECAUSE it's leaders liked and trusted him. They gave him good scoops and he wrote stories that clearly appreciated. I heard him speak many times on the radio about the people he met, and he always gave them a fair shake.
The fact that he mocked Palin and Gingrich and the rest of them shouldn't necessarily color your surmise about what he thinks of rank and file tea partiers. It's just a thought.
I realize for you that good journalism consists soley in cheering and advertising tea party rallies, the way the morons on Fox do. To each his own I guess.
FleshBomb| 6.26.10 @ 6:13PM
Nate,
Your a little slow so try to pay attention.
1) He was outed by another liberal hack
2)He gave his resignation
3)The WaPo accepted the resignation
Tea Partys, Fox News, etc., had nothing to do with this. It's a simple case of rat cannibalization.
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 5:51PM
Why did Washington Post fire Weigel if he was one hell of a "beat" reporter, determined to report just the facts, nothing but the facts despite his obvious liberal bias? It's not like conservatives read Washington Post anyway? The word on the street is Weigel is pretty bitter at the Post for letting him go....he didn't expect it...newspapers are supposed to prop fools like him up.
Nate| 6.26.10 @ 6:00PM
They didn't FIRE him. He resigned. Big difference.
FleshBomb| 6.26.10 @ 6:03PM
His point was that they ACCEPTED is resignation, Nate. Try to follow along.
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 6:05PM
Nate,
If you believe that, you'll believe anything. Writing for the NY Times or Washington Post is the dream job for these liberal clones. The Post wrote up to make it sound like he resigned to help him save face. Looks like he's going to be writing for the Obama Approved Huffington Post, which is where he should have been all along. I don't think you can make a persausive case that a Huffington Post columnist is going to be objective about conservatives.
Matt X| 6.26.10 @ 6:39PM
I personally don't think about the tea parties at all. It's actually the leftwing media types like Weigel, Politico, and other lightweights that are obsessed with the Tea Parties. In fact, I would never hear about the Tea Parties at all if not for the leftwing press talking about them 24-7. It was kind of the same deal with Jerry Falwell....I never knew what he was saying, or cared.
I don't have a problem people that go to the Tea Parties. But most conservatives dont' go to the Tea Parties...we are not an activist breed by nature. I enjoy debating and giving liberals a beatdown in debates. And to suggest that all the people at Tea Parties respected or even knew of Weigel is laughable. A vast majority of Americans have no clue who this clown is.
SoCon| 6.26.10 @ 7:13PM
I must say, Matt X and FleshBomb (I'm afraid to ask you about the origin of your name) --you're both pretty darn good at the liberal "beatdown" thing. Your efforts are sincerely appreciated.
Thank you.
Nate| 6.26.10 @ 7:51PM
At least you recognize your betters. But I wouldn't use the phrase "beat down." It seems hardly accurate.
SoCon| 6.26.10 @ 8:07PM
Thin-skinned as usual, troll. Pity.
And in your case, I can certainly recognize my inferiors.
FleshBomb| 6.26.10 @ 8:17PM
FleshBomb, comes from Coach Brian Van Gorder (former d-coordinator for the UGA Bulldogs - now d-coordinator for the Atlanta Falcons).
While watching tapes of a previous game they would look for 'fleshbombs'. Basically a slobber knocking, de-cleater, of a hit.
SoCon| 6.26.10 @ 8:26PM
Thanks, I think.
frank| 6.28.10 @ 7:52PM
Isn't that what happens after you get tea bagged??
SoCon| 6.28.10 @ 9:09PM
I wouldn't know, frank, but you seem to be quite familiar with the deviant sexual practice.
Why don't you tell us?
Curly Smith| 6.26.10 @ 7:15PM
You say "Although most journalists are indeed liberal, all journalists prefer to think of themselves as independent-minded and fair, their primary allegiance being to report the truth."
The last 40 years say that they fail miserably on being independent-minded, fair and having any allegiance to the truth. If you want something other than superfluous sound-bites then you need to build a level of trust between your interview subjects. If, as you admit, most journalists are liberal and they've constantly stabbed the GOP in the back, then why would you expect anything other than wariness?
If you want to stand out from the herd then you need to build a reputation as a reporter of fact rather than a spinner of opinion. Building a reputation is a long, hard and lonely road. Do you think that Robert Novak simply showed up and said "Hey, I'm a conservative, talk to me!"? Or, did he spend years, decades even, in the trenches?
And, quite frankly, all one needs do is look at the Weigel flap to see why the right distrusts journalists. If you want that to change then *you* need to change it. Your reputation, and that of your profession, is in *your* hands, it's not in mine.
Nate| 6.26.10 @ 7:49PM
Curly --
I wouldn't argue with much that you say here, and reading conservative critics of journalists has actually sharpened my ear for some of the bias against them in the press. (Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I pay attention to the many good conservative voices out there.)
However, the issue is actually really complicated. Good reporters -- even if they're biased -- can deliver good, hard journalism. Just because you sense a bias in a reporter does not necessarily mean you should write him off as part of a conspiracy to destroy America.
I think journalists often do a much better job than they're given credit for doing. Journalists are generally not paid very well and put in long hours working at a craft and living up to standards way higher than -- say -- those of hedge-fund managers.
The best information we've had about the Iraq War and Afghan War has been brought back by journalists who go over there and report, at considerable risk to their own lives. Sometimes they get it wrong, but we only KNOW they sometimes get it wrong because OTHER REPORTERS get it right! That's how journalism works.
Trust me. A reporter at the New York Times wants to scoop a reporter at -- say -- the Post far more than he wants to carry out an agenda dictated by the White House. If there were a scandal that could bring down Obama, they'd work to break it just as hard as if there had been a scandal that could bring down Bush.
Then again, you're right. Conservatives sometimes don't get a fair shake in media. It's true. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but I doubt the conspiratorial explanations we get for it out of hysterics like Glenn Beck.
But conservatives -- who in my boyhood were admired for being tough, self-reliant types -- have in recent years become a bunch of whiners, perfecting the art of celebrating their own victimhood at the hands of a dark, cruel media conspiracy. Palin, of course, is an extreme example. The right wing disc jockeys are other examples. It's time for people on the right to toughen up a little AND start sending more articulate, thoughtful people into forum to engage in civil discourse and not accuse everyone who disagrees with them of being Joseph Stalin.
SoCon| 6.26.10 @ 8:10PM
Save your phony concern, troll--we know you don't give a flying fig about the unfairness of the Lame Stream Media.
Commie.
Curly Smith| 6.26.10 @ 8:50PM
Nate, I think it important that we draw a distinction between reporters and the editorial slant of papers (or newstations). A reporter may indeed desperately want to scoop a rival reporter but that scoop may be "spiked" if the revelations are inconvenient to the ideological views of the editorial staff. Monica's blue dress and Newsweek are the classic example. Or, you can play "guess the party" with the scandal story of the day.
But I'd differ as to Conservatives being "whiners" about the media. The sad fact is that most Conservatives simply don't believe what the major media presents. Declining newspaper sales and network news viewers demonstrate that we've taken positive action - we quit buying that product and started buying Fox News.
I do find it striking that the author, and most of the journalism world, believe that the disdain Conservatives have for the major media represents a flaw within Conservatism rather than a fundamental problem with the product. Major media is failing, not because Conservatives don't consume news, but because the major media outlets have destroyed their credibility with a large segment of the population.
Nate| 6.26.10 @ 10:50PM
Curly,
Everything you say in your first paragraphs seems right to me. We have no real quarrel there, in general. I do think you'd have a hard time convincing me the media in general covered up, if you'll excuse the pun, the Monica story. In 1998 we heard about little else.
Conservatives do whine an extraordinary amount. It may be something you can only see from the outside. The liberal "bleeding heart" whiner used to be a cultural type. Now conservatives are perpetually aggrieved, insulted, and abused by gigantic forces beyond their control. Again, Sarah Palin is the best but not the only example of this.
The irony is, of course, that conservatives have Fox News, which is an atrociously bad news service that does its viewers wrong by maniacally dumbing down the news in a way that is simply unprecedented. True, MSNBC is right behind them in the moron category, but it's nowhere near as disturbingly infantile, crazed, distorted, and utterly fantastic. The Fox Newsopia protects its conservative viewers from any information that might puncture the membrane of their ideology, but it's not good journalism. Good journalism -- by definition -- makes you question your ideological presuppositions.
Conservatives, of course, consume TONS of news. The problem is that much of it is chewed up and fed to them by one of three or four mega-explainers -- Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. These guys get THEIR news by watching cable t.v., not reporting it themselves, and they're almost always lousy sources of information.
Nate| 6.26.10 @ 10:52PM
As for the explainers -- Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. -- they're kind of lick MacDonald's.
There's nothing wrong with eating their just for the fun of it, for a treat, every now and then. But if you try to get all your nutrition (news) there, you'll get sick, fat, and slumped before too long.
Tim*| 6.26.10 @ 11:38PM
" A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy has found that the media coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign was more likely to be spun in a positive manner toward Democrats than Republicans. The study also found that the press coverage of candidates was in sharp contrast to what the public says it wants from campaign reporting by concentrating on the effects that events have on candidates rather than reporting on how candidates’ stances on issues will affect the electorate.
Taking all the presidential hopefuls together, the press overall has been more positive about Democratic candidates and more negative about Republicans. In the stories mainly about one of the Democratic candidates, the largest percentage was neutral (39%), but more than a
third of stories (35%) were positive, while slightly more than a quarter (26%) carried a clearly negative tone.
For Republicans, the numbers were basically reversed. Again the same number as for Democrats (39%) were neutral, but more than a third (35%) were negative vs. 26% positive.
In other words, not only did the Republicans receive less coverage overall, the attention they did get tended to be more negative than that of Democrats. And in some specific media genres, the difference is particularly striking. "
Nate| 6.26.10 @ 11:50PM
Tim
There may well have been some bias. I wouldn't doubt it.
But, you're overlooking two OTHER possibilities.
1. The Democratic candidate may simply have been a BETTER candidate. McCain looked feeble and confused during the campaign. (I say this as an admirer of him.) He chose a running mate who seemed hardly competent. They looked ridiculous on stage together. Their campaign was a mess from the beginning. Etc.
2. In 08 the Democrats WON. Press coverage often favors the winners. The press doesn't choose the winner, but it does anticipate the winner, giving better coverage to the more dynamic candidates.
These are two possibilities for the phenomenon that do NOT require there to be some liberal media conspiracy against conservatives. Reporters are human beings.
SoCon| 6.26.10 @ 11:45PM
"Sick, fat, and slumped." Sounds like the "talent" at MESSNBC.
Nate| 6.26.10 @ 11:52PM
I'm not sure a Beck fan or Limbaugh fan wants to cast weight aspersions on Maddow and Matthews. But whatever.
SoCon| 6.26.10 @ 11:56PM
As usual, you start with insults and whine when they're turned around on you. Weak.
Curly Smith| 6.27.10 @ 9:11AM
Nate, I have no doubt that we'll never agree on the "impartiality" of the major news outlets because they present the "news" that you want to see. In decades long past there were multiple news outlets in each major city with differing ideological views. The papers made not effort to hide their ideology, it was on full display. Now journalists tell us "I'm an impartial reporter of facts, my ideology doesn't matter". That's quite useful argument if your goal is to suppress any "news not fit to print". The dirty little secret is that the reporters, editors and publishers collectively decide what constitutes news. Consider:
John Kerry's sealed military record - not news
Fabricated stories about George Bush's military record - news
John Edwards and his mistress - not news
Any rumor about George Bush - news
Response to Hurricane Katrina demonstrated how evil George Bush is.
Response to the BP oil spill demonstrates the greatness of Barack Obama.
Deficits under George Bush - news.
Much larger deficits under Barack Obama - not news.
Homelessness under George Bush - news.
Much greater homelessness under Barack Obama - not news.
The list could go on for days...
But, consider your disdain for Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and the rest. What separates them from the "journalists" that you so favor? They are open about their ideology, they don't try to hide behind faux impartiality, and, most importantly, their views differ from yours. You see them as the scourge of journalism and anathema to a free society. Yet, somehow, those on the Conservative side are forbidden to consider the work product of the "journalists" and conclude that it is anything but impartial, fair, or accurate? So you fall back on the first tool of liberalism - censorship. Any views that differ from yours are illegitimate and must be expunged from the record.
Stalin| 6.26.10 @ 8:08PM
Nate must be Conor F. Talk about being a blowhard. Teh heh.
I don't think anybody thinks liberal bias in the media is a conspiracy. It's right there in the open.....see Dave Weigel.
It's amusing how leftwingers are trying to use Dan Weigel's personal conduct to lecture conservative about the virtue of journalists. It's Orwellian.
I, for one, support a purge of liberals in the media.
SoCon| 6.26.10 @ 8:14PM
Awesome post! Especially awesome since it's at the expense of Nate the Liberal Reader. Haha.
Stick that in your crack pipe and smoke it, Screeder!
BobInFL| 6.27.10 @ 1:57PM
Yep. If 200 people all want to go from New York to Los Angeles, you don't need a "conspiracy" to get them there. They'll all choose whatever method of travel they like: some will fly, some will drive (various routes), some will take a train.
But they all want to go to the same place, and they all WILL get there.
Stalin| 6.26.10 @ 8:21PM
SoCon
I get a little annoyed when liberals like Nate accuse winguts like you and Matt X of calling them Stalinists. I think wingnuts understand that Obama's not quite in my league. I would have plugged the damn hole by now, with the bodies of my political opponents. LOL
SoCon| 6.26.10 @ 8:36PM
Thanks for the kind words, General Secretary; I've always favored Marxists and Commies myself; a distinction without a difference, I guess.
If I really want to hack off the little troll, I call him Adolf, Fuhrer or I salute him Sieg heil! style. For some reason, being called a Nazi offends him more.
David Brooks| 6.26.10 @ 8:24PM
Stalin,
Let's do brunch at Starbucks. I like your idea on plugging the hole. This is exactly what we need, a leader who knows how to get things done. I bet you look prettey good in a new pair of Dockers from JC Penny too....you know my fondness of a sharp crease. Call me.
SoCon| 6.26.10 @ 8:46PM
No "Mom jeans" please.
Yosemeti Sam| 6.27.10 @ 1:27AM
" Conservatives Against Journalism ...."
A judgmental compass needle gone full circle -
ostensibly circumnavigating the Conservatives' world vis a vis Leftoid-dominated journalism for raw insights?
Essentially, Conservatives have eyes, ears and
MEMORIES - upon which they may draw templative judgments in future encounters with smiley faces from dubious minded journalists !
Instincts - are honed!
Especially when 'friends' in journalism - go rogue!
IMO, the broadest of brushes has been used to arbitrarily stereotype Conservatives - with redneck implications.
Oh - those Conservative meanies.
Daring to cultivate THEIR OWN shibboleths - in self-defense.
martin j smith| 6.27.10 @ 8:00AM
When one considers the term or word Jounalismlism --as a "profession" the first thought of course to me is being in Journalism School and of course getting a degree in Propaganda ( oh I mean Journalism ). Listen some of the comments by folks in the MSM who comment on bloggers-those racist,biggoted,ignorant,stupid,vile,unwhorthy of calling journalists. This is what I think when I hear the topic of journmalism being talked about. Only we, the brilliant, Communists ( forget I said that ) insiteful,honest ,truthfull and fair minded--we are the true Journalists.
Margie| 6.27.10 @ 12:51PM
The thing I always find so amazingly weird is the fact that these so called journalists have so much vitriol toward Matt Drudge in the first place. All Matt does is post the news. ALL of it. Without his own opinion.
ALL of it.. oops. I guess he isn't supposed to do that, eh?
My oh my, and they wish him dead for it. That says it all as to the state of Journalism, doesn't it?
Troll Watch| 6.27.10 @ 1:08PM
I was confused by the Drudge hatred as well. Can anyone explain the left's and Weigel's hatred. Drudge seems fairly tame with some amusing groupings of stories, BP boys yachting with Obama's golf for instance. This is all it takes to make their wish you were dead list.
SoCon| 6.27.10 @ 1:20PM
The Left fears and hates Drudge because he outs them and their lies every day.
The Left prefers to do their damage in the dark.
Margie| 6.27.10 @ 1:28PM
Yep. Just printing the news is in itself an outrage to them.
Troll Watch| 6.27.10 @ 1:03PM
Was the subtext of this blog really Weigel? R. S. McCain never mentioned him. RSM's points seemed like they were never very much in debate by conservatives? Any group can lack trust in an institution. With Conservatives the lack of trust in so-called journalism seems legitimate. That doesn't mean we don't like a good story on welfare bucks being gambled away or National Republican Senatorial Committee's premature endorsement of Charlie Crist in the Senate primary in Florida. I haven't heard a single conservative complain about either story. Brit Hume was respected when he was more of a reporter and I don't have a problem with Chris Wallace for that matter. Weigel is another matter if that is what RSM is attempting to defend. Once he was exposed he was not of any use to the liberal organ that hired him. He was like a spy that lost his cover. Don't complain to me about him. I believe conservatives have negative influence at liberal institutions like the Post. If we like something they will get rid of it. "A journalist is a wild animal with an appetite for conservative meat and should be interacted with that way -- always." This seems like a fair quote and an accurate stereotype. It is a lot nicer than "ratf*"kers". Like many conservative journalists before, Dave decided to let himself be used. There is no conservative liberals value more than one who will run down other conservatives. I hope he enjoys his new career. I always find it interesting that people who hardly have an ounce of loyalty so often expect it in return.
Margie| 6.27.10 @ 1:26PM
"There is no conservative liberals value more than one who will run down other conservatives."
Right on. And thus the term, "useful idiot." And they will throw you under the bus as quickly as they used you, much like the mafia or Communists do. No loyalty among thieves.
Conservatives stand out from the rest when they stick to their guns, and not play nice with the Left. Ronald Reagan is the perfect example of how we need to be in our dealings with the Left, and in order to win elections as well. You can't befriend the enemy!
palmari | 6.27.10 @ 2:56PM
JD makes me sick to my stomach - so as far as anything goes, I'm more than happy to let McCain re-claim his earned seat. JD won't listen to the needs of AZ OR the nation as a whole. if he knows what good for him, he'd just give up now before even more of his truth is exposed and he can't even order a meal out.
SoCon| 6.27.10 @ 4:46PM
That you, Meghan?
Matt X| 6.27.10 @ 3:48PM
Pal,
I think you have the wrong McCain. Teh heh.
The Other McCain presents a classic false choice...you either are on Team Weigel, or you are anti-journalist in general. This McCain guy shills for money over on his blog....are there enough tools in the conservative movement that would cough up their money to support this kind of nonsense? I understand that it's human nature to defend people who are your friends even when you know they are wrong, but are they really your friends if you cannot criticize them? McCain should have just recused himself from speaking about his buddy Weigel rather than attack conservatives who were rightfully enjoying Weigel getting sacked by the Post. By McCain's own silly logic, I hate Byron York, Brit Hume, and other journalists that cover conservatives. Afterall, you are either with Weigel, or you are against all journalists. Talk radio brainwashed us to think this. Teh heh.
Troll Watch| 6.27.10 @ 4:43PM
Matt X,
What tipped you to this being about Weigel? I get there by process of elimination since his original points didn't make much sense. A politician might like journalist lap dogs but I don't believe the off the street conservative wants Republican or conservative lap dog journalists. I like close scrutiny of all politicians especially the ones I like. When RSM responded to you in the beginning he had a great chance to say it wasn't about Weigel and didn't. You had a sense of this even before that. What was RSM's tell?
SoCon| 6.27.10 @ 5:02PM
A key quote from a post on Hot Air sums up Weigel's agenda nicely, "Weigel used JournoList for exactly the purpose its critics suspected it would be used, i.e., to attempt to shape media coverage for the benefit of the Left. And he did it more than once."
Publius804, "Weigel did what Conservatives accuse Liberal journalists of doing all the time."
Troll Watch| 6.27.10 @ 5:23PM
Really interesting excerpts of Weigel were at Hot Air. I get a sense of his character. He is advocating for the press shut off of a debate. That seems to be at odds with what RSM started this off with in the beginning of this blog. I have a hard time putting this all together without seeing Weigel as a totally dishonest person. At first I thought he might be foolishly trying to impress his liberal friends. I think far differently about him now. What is RSM thinking? This is pretty hard to defend especially when you don't even try.
Matt X| 6.27.10 @ 4:35PM
Dan Weigel and some of his apologists are defending him on Twitter and elsewhere with this notion that journalists should be allowed to have a personality. Apparently he thinks his callow attacks, which include hoping Rush dies, and the desire for Drudge to set himself on fire, constitutes having a personality and charisma. Somehow I doubt the left and most of the conservative pundits supporting Weigel would be defending Rush if Rush made such comments, even though Rush does not pretend to be unbiased journalist as does Weigel.
For those of you that think Weigel's statements are just examples of him "having personality", I submit to you this link as sufficient proof that this guy is about as dull and lifeless as Al Gore.
http://vimeo.com/12463842
It's worth it watching, if only to watch the hot young lady hosting the show. Her name is Kristen Soltis. Oh yeah. She's also got a lot of charisma...contrast and compare with our hero Weigel, who is Captain Personality if we go with what he says about himself.
Matt X| 6.27.10 @ 4:53PM
Troll Watch,
I read a lot of the conservative bloggers, like the guys at Hotair, Ace of Spades, Dan Riehl, Gateway Pundit. They like to McCain a good bit, and I ended up on his personal blog. He was defending Weigel over there, and I jsut criticized him for it, like most conservatives, and he took it personally. He attacked me for being an "anonymous troll", as though he would have liked my criticism anymore if I gave out my last name. He ended up banning me from his website for the same type of comments that I've made on American Spectator. Thankfully, American Spec seems a little more tolerant and don't ban people for disagreeing with one of their columnists.
This column is his defensive response for the "heat" he received from conservatives for defending Weigel. You can check out his blog at theothermccain. It's more clear over there why he's motivated to dump all over conservatives regarding journalists...he just took my and other conservative criticism a tad bit too personally.
SoCon| 6.27.10 @ 5:05PM
RSM banned you from his website for the same comments you posted above? Wow, I didn't know he was so thin-skinned.
I don't get it, he attacked us first.
Troll Watch| 6.27.10 @ 5:05PM
Matt X,
Thanks. It makes a lot of sense with what happened over at the his site. I hate it when people write cryptically. I would have preferred a direct defense of his friend. I guess that presents a problem for RSM since he will have to admit that sometimes your friends write stupid things or defend what he wrote. By the way what do you think makes Weigel dislike Drudge? I just don't get it.
SoCon| 6.27.10 @ 5:09PM
Weigel blasted Drudge and Rush because they're both powerful Conservatives.
Drudge got revenge, though. Haha.
Matt X| 6.27.10 @ 5:09PM
SoCon,
I may have actually been more "harsh" in my criticism of McCain over here after he banned me on his own blog. You are exactly right in your characterization of his column as being an attack on us. It was unneccessary for him to do this, but you'd be surprised at how so many people in the criticism business like McCain can't handle legit criticism themselves. :)
SoCon| 6.27.10 @ 5:12PM
I guess some "Conservative" journalists expect us to be their lapdogs! Ain't gonna happen no way, never.
Hopefully, we've disabused them of that notion.
Matt X| 6.27.10 @ 5:12PM
Troll Watch,
Apparently Drudge linked to a column by Dave Weigel in which Weigel characterized the NC senator manhandling of some college kids as nothing more than "hug". This is the guy that McCain appears to think is a good journalist. Heh. Personally, if I was going to dump on conservatives for being too reactionary in our criticism of the media, I would not use Weigel as my prop. Heh.
Matt X| 6.27.10 @ 5:17PM
To put it another way, Weigel wanted Drudge to set himself on fire because Drudge simply linked to something Weigel wrote. It's amusing that any intelligent writer would whine that Drudge linked to your article, giving it much more publicity than it would have received if only Washington Post readers saw it. :)
SoCon| 6.27.10 @ 5:24PM
Only Liberal journalists are allowed on JournoList, so it's obvious that a fellow Liberal outed Weigel; why RSM blamed us for merely being spectators to the ensuing hilarity, I'll never know.
Nevertheless, I've enjoyed the public discomfiture of Weigel and the WaPo. It's all good.
ggoblue| 6.27.10 @ 6:55PM
conservatives against another 50 years of bending over and taking it in the rear....
128 days till we do some shafting
apeaks| 6.27.10 @ 8:31PM
All of the above comments only serve to reinforce the comment that McCain was trying to make.
SoCon| 6.27.10 @ 10:46PM
What exactly was McCain's point; could you please share? I'm still not sure.
I await your wisdom.
Tom| 6.28.10 @ 11:41PM
His point was that honest criticism serves as a check on bad ideas, and that an ideology that can't accept dissent is likely to become weak.
Callie| 6.29.10 @ 1:07AM
Our point is Weigel's criticism was NOT honest.
Damn, you're dim.
Weigel's working for the Marxist freaks at MSNBC now--obviously, the libtard was not acting in good faith.
Matt X| 6.27.10 @ 10:12PM
Yeah, if you are a liberal or a self serving conservative pundit who thinks his job as pundit is to rally around other pundits. McCain basically admitted that he has a "foxhole" band of brothers relationship with fellow bloggers, to include liberal bloggers like Weigel. In other words, he can't be objective about Weigel.
I think it's safe to say that I'm more objective about Weigel than somebody who is his friend. Just the way it is. Make your peace with it.
Matt X| 6.27.10 @ 10:23PM
I doubt the people at Washington Post lost much sleep cutting Weigel from the team. All the newspapers are downsizing right now due to poor circulation, and Weigel just gave them a convenient excuse to drop him while at the same time allowing them to look like they care about what conservatives think and want to get it right. It seems to me this was probably the best thing to ever happen to Weigel as his name recognition is no doubt much greater now because he was fired than when he was writing for a magazine that few people read. He no longer has to pretend to care what conservatives think and sounds like he found a happy home at Huffington Post.
All these leftwings outfits that wanted to hire Weigel either admired his on record reporting of conservatives, his immature and unprofessional "off the record" comments about conservatives, or both. None of these options says much about Weigel as a journalist. Teh heh.
SoCon| 6.27.10 @ 10:53PM
I didn't know much about Weigel before this little kerfuffle, so I really had no opinion of him good or bad--but my opinion of RSM sure has taken a hit. What a strange development.
Matt X| 6.27.10 @ 11:06PM
The funny thing about Weigel is he has only written for the Post since April. It's kind of funny how Politico and some of the other Obama Approved Media people are acting like the Post firing Weigel is some earth shattering event. It seems to me the Weigel guy was basically a summer intern. It seems to me objective journalism is not his calling, and I doubt he will make a good pundit for liberal causes because he does seem to be kind of a dull guy. I dont' see any evidence in his writing that he approaches topics in a unique or interesting way.
I'm a mechanical engineer, and every company that I've work for has told us not to email anything that we would not want to see on the front of the Wall Street Journal or some other newspaper. So I have little sympathy for a guy in the NEWSPAPER business that did not understand this.
Matt X| 6.27.10 @ 11:13PM
Rush was talking last week about how a lot of younger conservatives and liberals get disillusioned with politics because politicians are so often sellouts for various reasons. I think the same is true with political pundits....I seriously doubt this Weigel guy cares at all about McCain but McCain willing to dump all over a conservative like me and put up this false choice that you are either on Team Weigel or you hate journalists. That's smarmy, defined.
SoCon| 6.27.10 @ 11:52PM
Perhaps Weigel's respect is more important to McCain than ours. We shall see how that works out for the "other" McCain.
Two McCain mavericks--aren't we lucky?
Matt X| 6.28.10 @ 1:01AM
Rally around the Weigel....I think this picture says all a conservative needs to know about the guy:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/27/no-seriously/
Troll Watch| 6.28.10 @ 9:38AM
He has some of that gay sense of humor that liberals like so much. What a pig.
SoCon| 6.28.10 @ 1:11AM
Yeah, I'd go to the mat for that guy. Ugh.
Bob K.| 6.28.10 @ 8:31AM
No Mr. McCain, all journalists DO NOT "prefer to think of themselves as independent-minded and fair, their primary allegiance being to report the truth." They prefer to think of themselves as members of the "Fourth Estate," an unelected elite sector of the government.
And that, sir, is why people don't trust you!
Do you remember President Reagan's comment that the scariest words in the world were "I'm from the government and I am here to help you!"
David R. Graham| 6.29.10 @ 1:11AM
Stacy, you are on the right track with this, please stay there. God Bless You, my friend, I know what you face. I support you, you are in the right on this, please carry on and forwardly. David
Johnno| 6.29.10 @ 2:28AM
What a brown-noser! Is that you, Weigel?
David R. Graham| 6.29.10 @ 1:13AM
... and also upwardly!
David R. Graham| 6.29.10 @ 1:18AM
"... willing to dump all over a conservative like me ..."
"Matt X," you're no conservative. You're a self-promoting liar.
Shut up and behave yourself.
Johnno| 6.29.10 @ 2:30AM
Take your own advice, clown. You whine like a weenie liberal.
Mark Tanquery| 6.29.10 @ 1:36AM
Journalists lack self esteem and build themselves up my tearing down others whom they disagree with. They lack moral character, tact, and intellect.
Mark Tanquery| 6.29.10 @ 1:37AM
In reality, they should be rounded up, gassed and buried in mass graves if they ever turn on President Obama....
Nate| 6.29.10 @ 2:27AM
Spoken like a true "tolerant" liberal.
alix| 6.29.10 @ 2:42PM
Nate, he's not a liberal. He's just pretending to be. No liberal actually pretends that about "turning on Obama." Don't you recognize the Nazi reference, the slavish "Obama" thing as being classic wingnut troll?
It is. You can always recognize the troll, because they go one step (or twenty) too far in their pretense, and they always, always bring in the Nazis.
Nate| 6.29.10 @ 4:29PM
I know the poster's a goof, Alix--I was just goofin' on him/her. Liberals are asses.
beejeez| 6.29.10 @ 8:20AM
Most reporters are not reporters because they are liberal. They are liberal because they are reporters.
Wally| 6.29.10 @ 4:31PM
That doesn't make sense to me. I believe some people are liberals who have an agenda and push it through their reporting. Liberals are all about ideology all of the time.
BGR | 6.29.10 @ 10:42AM
Halfway To Concord covers politics in California and has repeatedly reported on GOP bosses pathological self-dealing, interference in primaries, cronyism, misogyny, and serial failure to report actual financial data to state, FEC, and membership at state and county committee level.
The mainstream press ignores because GOP is meaningless in most counties while party sycophants circle wagons and pour calumny on any and all who raise any factual alarm.
Ibnabdulhalim| 6.29.10 @ 2:29PM
I'm not a conservative myself but must say that the defense of journalism as currently practiced leaves by somewhere between unconvinced and bewildered. Every week seems to bring another example of just how far from the center big journalism has drifted. Remember Iraq, that medium-sized country that was in the news constantly until the story no longer served its purpose? The utterly disgraceful election coverage? The fact-checking of Palin by dozens of reporters for big media, very little scrutiny of health care at the same time?
Should any journalist wonder why so much of the country disdains them, just look at the meagre and in most cases misleading coverage of the political quashing of a serious voter intimidation case. It was wall to wall coverage when Bush meddled in DOJ's affairs. A career prosecutor resigns under Bush and its national news for a week, calls for congressional hearings, and continuous coverage of same. This case raises much more troubling questions, as credible accusations of illegal behavior have been lodged. Perhaps even more important is the administration's quite radical reinterpretation of voting rights law and of civil rights cases more broadly. Bush, you'll recall, had an unchallenged right to fire political appointees (it was the abuse of authority that was the issue). The current administration on the other hand has been accused of criminal acts by career prosecutors in DOJ. That "hush now" attitude the press adopted on inauguration day appears to be in full force still, its first casualty the truth and the second the tattered remnants of its credibility the second.
Wally| 6.29.10 @ 4:32PM
Good and fair post, thank you.
Wil| 6.29.10 @ 5:46PM
These comments are hilarious. So many conservatives are quick to kick a fellow conservative out of that so-called big tent. It's so weird to me.
Sam| 6.29.10 @ 6:18PM
McCain attacked first, moron. Reading comprehension is a rare skill these days
JamesMadison| 7.6.10 @ 4:25PM
Another reason conservatives despise journalism is liberal publishers have tried to slavage their careers by firing conservatives - just to help the bottom line of bankrupt media companies. That happened to me and I WILL NOT return to a daily newspaper except my hometown paper. Conservative journalists shouldn't be lackeys for the GOP. Politicians who can't handle it better find another line of work. But being targeted by a flaming left-wing publisher made me realize this doesn't happen Inside the Beltway or at major metro dailies. It is rampant. These moronic media leaders don't have a clue that their lack of diversity of ideas is killing them.