mickey finds a new career http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/297...8:45&out=08:57

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Man, when there's a Bob-Mickey DV, my mood improves about 200%.

Heh. I have to agree. This is BhTV Classic.

Quoting TwinSwords: Heh. I have to agree. This is BhTV Classic.

It is when there's a segment on Ann Coulter.

bob, you really should have been a trial attorney (not that i don't love your journalism)

this is an extremely shrewd point by mickey http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/297...1:30&out=12:24 nicely put, mr. kaus.

Quoting nikkibong: this is an extremely shrewd point by mickey

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/297...1:30&out=12:24

nicely put, mr. kaus.

Yeah, I agree with this. There's always been a degree of ideological backscratching in journalism but it is getting worse, and this list was part of that trend, and that's a shame.

I agree, too. Where's the competition for new angles and scoops?

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Yeah, I agree with this. There's always been a degree of ideological backscratching in journalism but it is getting worse, and this list was part of that trend, and that's a shame.

I'm curious: Can you or Nikkibong actually prove what Mickey says in that dingalink is true? Or does it just feel right to you guys? Mickey's assertion is interesting, and it's consistent with the anti-liberal critique he has been making for many, many years (i.e., his entire career). But is there any evidence for it? He makes two claims in particular: (1) Journolist changed the ecology of journalism from rewarding contrarianism to rewarding conformity, and (2) if you conformed to some unspecified point of view, Ezra would get you a job at the WaPo. Can you prove either assertion? I'm curious who, exactly, Mickey thinks was rewarded with a job at the WaPo. Is he talking about Weigel? If so, I'd have to say that doesn't feel right to me. I think Weigel earned his position through hard work and compelling reporting. For 2 or 3 years prior to his WaPo gig, Weigel did a lot of extremely interesting and widely read reporting. Weigel's reporting drove a lot of discussion on

Quoting nikkibong: bob, you really should have been a trial attorney

(not that i don't love your journalism)

He has his moments, doesn't he? I felt that Bob easily got the better of Mickey on the Weekly Standard/Ground Zero Mosque question.

Re: the mosque. As a secular, non-practicing member of Muslim Manhattan, I can say that Feisal Rauf is a solid guy. Naive? I'm not sure. He's been very successful with his previous initiatives at reconciliation: both in terms of bringing secular folk like myself back into mosques by reminding them that there are interesting, progressive things to be heard there, and in bringing the mosque into the mainstream of city life. Those successes would lead him to believe that he could do more. That seems mostly a rational reaction to success. As for the project itself, the cultural centre part of it--if that happens--is a good idea. There really isn't any place like that in New York. I've been involved in the past with organizing a number of qawwali and ghazal concerts [Qawwali is religious music that appeals to a general audience; think of something like the role gospel singing has played in Western pop, or just listen to this. Ghazal is a classical form, that also has secular appeal, and should perhaps be compared to the role now played by classical oratorios; you can listen here.] It's sometimes hard to find a good venue for doing these things, because the audience isn't going to be large enough to merit a Lincoln Center booking, but it's too big a

Quoting TwinSwords: I'm curious: Can you or Nikkibong actually prove what Mickey says in that dingalink is true? Or does it just feel right to you guys? Mickey's assertion is interesting, and it's consistent with the anti-liberal critique he has been making for many, many years (i.e., his entire career). But is there any evidence for it?

He makes two claims in particular: (1) Journolist changed the ecology of journalism from rewarding contrarianism to rewarding conformity, and (2) if you conformed to some unspecified point of view, Ezra would get you a job at the WaPo.

Can you prove either assertion?

I'm curious who, exactly, Mickey thinks was rewarded with a job at the WaPo. Is he talking about Weigel? If so, I'd have to say that doesn't feel right to me. I think Weigel earned his position through hard work and compelling reporting. For 2 or 3 years prior to his WaPo gig, Weigel did a lot of extremely interesting and widely read reporting. Weigel's reporting drove a lot of discussion on both sides of the ideological spectrum. It's pretty insulting to write off his success as the result of conforming to Ezra's POV. But more important, it's a claim I don't

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: I am not going to out people I've worked for. But there was one publication I intended to write for on my trip that I ended up not working with. And the reason was because, while the publication had a history of rewarding contrarianism, and a professed nonpartisan stance, I was encouraged--in pretty blatant ways--by the current editors to fit my stories into an ideological prototype. In one memorable incident, I was told to go in search of answers to a particular question, involving traveling from the city I was in at the time, for several weeks, and when I came back with answers that (I still believe) were significant, was told that "This is interesting news, but it doesn't really fit with the approach we've taken to this topic." It was not the first time that has happened to me, but it was the most egregious.

I have since recounted my experience with that publication to several other journos at various places and seen nods of agreement. So yes, you are correct that I can't prove Mickey is right, but I can say that his critique jives with my overall experience of the media, and those of others I know.

Thank you

Yeah, I found Mickey's point about as interesting as Bob did (if I had water I would have taken a sip and looked away from the camera in boredom.) Of the more well-known writers on journolist: Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Wiegel, Ackerman, Alterman, Schmitt etc. it seems to me that their ascents in their field to prominent newspapers and publications had all been achieved before journolist was even created. Wiegel may have gotten a recommendation from Ezra at the Post but DUH!! they are personal friends. So the idea that Ezra changed the game somehow and the culture of liberal journalism has morphed in his brief time at the Washington Post just doesn't seem to fit the timeline of my memory. The whole thing seems rather silly when you consider the fact that Bob, Mickey, Kinsley, and many others have told the stories right here on bloggingheads about the old New Republic days and how they have socialized outside of work (and inevitably discussed work/politics etc in the course) for 20+ years. Yeah Mickey, everything has changed and it's all Ezra Klein and the young turks who did it. Go back to sleep.

But Preppy, I used to know someone who was in the news business (print) for 40 years or so and he told me many stories that lead me to believe that unfortunately that has always been one of the pitfalls of the industry. It's nothing new, and it wasn't spawned by journolist, the internet or any other recent development.

[quote=PreppyMcPrepperson;172494]Re: the mosque. As a secular, non-practicing member of Muslim Manhattan, I can say that Feisal Rauf is a solid guy. Naive? I'm not sure. He's been very successful with his previous initiatives at reconciliation: both in terms of bringing secular folk like myself back into mosques by reminding them that there are interesting, progressive things to be heard there, and in bringing the mosque into the mainstream of city life. Those successes would lead him to believe that he could do more. That seems mostly a rational reaction to success. As for the project itself, the cultural centre part of it--if that happens--is a good idea. There really isn't any place like that in New York. I've been involved in the past with organizing a number of qawwali and ghazal concerts [Qawwali is religious music that appeals to a general audience; think of something like the role gospel singing has played in Western pop, or just listen to this. Ghazal is a classical form, that also has secular appeal, and should perhaps be compared to the role now played by classical oratorios; you can listen here.] It's sometimes hard to find a good venue for doing these things, because the audience isn't going to be large enough to merit a Lincoln Center booking, but it's too big a

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: The whole thing seems rather silly when you consider the fact that Bob, Mickey, Kinsley, and many others have told the stories right here on bloggingheads about the old New Republic days and how they have socialized outside of work (and inevitably discussed work/politics etc in the course) for 20+ years. Yeah Mickey, everything has changed and it's all Ezra Klein and the young turks who did it. Go back to sleep.

Good point. And now that you mention it, many of TNR's alumni have also recounted how ideological conformity -- especially with respect to Israel, but also with respect to neoliberalism more broadly -- was a prerequisite for keeping Marty Peretz happy and keeping a job at that publication. This is the world of opinion journalism. I don't know why people should expect it to be different. Does anyone really expect William Kristol to hire David Corn or Rose Brooks to write for his neoconservative magazine? The right has been constantly and consistently misrepresenting the members of journolist as members of the mainstream press and pretending that they are somehow obliged to be objective -- even as they laud

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: But Preppy, I used to know someone who was in the news business (print) for 40 years or so and he told me many stories that lead me to believe that unfortunately that has always been one of the pitfalls of the industry. It's nothing new, and it wasn't spawned by journolist, the internet or any other recent development.

I hear this point. I do. But I also look at the output of news product 40 years ago vs. now and I think there was more diversity of views--or at least more reward, more admiration for diversity--in the MSM then than now. I'm not saying JList alone was responsible for that, but it was part of a trend.

Quoting listener: Thanks for the background from your perspective somewhat on the inside -- I really appreciate it. There are so many accusations flying around. I agree that a 92nd St. Y type place for Islamic arts could be a great thing for NYC.

Also thanks for the great music. Farida Khanum's voice is hauntingly gorgeous. The other two pieces were wonderful too.

Music is the best!

It is indeed. Story from the trip: FK's still singing and I got to hear her in Lahore in February. It was earth-shatteringly brilliant.

Sometimes I find it frustrating that there is so much excellent music in the world that one can't even become aware of all of it, much less appreciate it properly. Then I go back to listening to my existing Pandora station.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: I hear this point. I do. But I also look at the output of news product 40 years ago vs. now and I think there was more diversity of views--or at least more reward, more admiration for diversity--in the MSM then than now. I'm not saying JList alone was responsible for that, but it was part of a trend.

You're talking about the decay (in your opinion) of objective reporting, right? Other than Politico's Mike Allen (who clearly leans to the right), I don't know of anyone on journolist who was doing objective journalism. They were all purveyors of opinion -- a mix of bloggers, policy/think tank types, professors, activists, etc. Why should Lindsay Beyerstein or Matt Yglesias — explicit advocates of a liberal point of view — be expected to protect the sanctity of objective journalism? What about George Will? Is he destroying journalism too? William Kristol? I'm really asking here. I understand why the wingnuts are attacking journolist; they'll attack anything that doesn't conform to ultraconservative extremism. But I don't understand why you're attacking journolist. Do you believe promoting a point of view by blogging or writing editorials is inherently wrong? Or is it just wrong when bloggers and editorial writers also talk to people they

From Glenn Beck's Goldline Scam--Visualized, by Lindsay Beyerstein Beyerstein was a journolister. You can see why the wingnuts and lunatics want to discredit her.

Quoting TwinSwords: You're talking about the decay (in your opinion) of objective reporting, right? Other than Politico's Mike Allen (who clearly leans to the right), I don't know of anyone on journolist who was doing objective journalism. They were all purveyors of opinion -- a mix of bloggers, policy/think tank types, professors, activists, etc. Why should Lindsay Beyerstein or Matt Yglesias — explicit advocates of a liberal point of view — be expected to protect the sanctity of objective journalism? What about George Will? Is he destroying journalism too? William Kristol?

I'm really asking here. I understand why the wingnuts are attacking journolist; they'll attack anything that doesn't conform to ultraconservative extremism. But I don't understand why you're attacking journolist. Do you believe promoting a point of view by blogging or writing editorials is inherently wrong? Or is it just wrong when bloggers and editorial writers also talk to people they agree with over email?

In your opinion, what are the most egregious things that happened on journolist?

I know of two news reporters (ie not opinion writers)--Alec MacGillis at the Washington Post, and Ryan Donmoyer at Bloomberg--who were on it, as well as one writer--Holly Yeager--at CJR, a major media trade magazine whose

Part of it is that Bob is so clearly in such a good mood when he's talking to Mickey. The variation in Bob's comfort level (where 1=Andrew Sullivan, 3=Mike Kinsley, 9=Joel and 10=Mickey) is one of the great joys of Bloggingheads completionism.

Joint second-best duo on BHTV.

Mickey was right on Iraq vis-a-vis Afghanistan. The ISAF is losing not because they don't have enough troops or money (or because of sophisticated IEDs), but because of deep seated political, cultural and geostrategic issues. MOre billions in reconstruction money would have further fuelled the hypercorruption of Afghan society, and an extra few brigades would have just stirred up more local resentment. You can blame Iraq for a lot of bad stuff, but not how badly Afghanistan has gone.

That's a great chart (the one about Beck and French gold coins), but even greater would be a discussion of the value of bullion and things like kruggerrands, also necessarily greatly exaggerated by "the market," in my humble opinion. The simple reason is that, in a crisis, what can you really do with a kruggerrand? Is someone who has what you need, say oil or wheat or water, going to trade those things for kruggerrands? It's not impossible, but it doesn't seem that likely to me, the trader for gold has to believe that the crazy world we inhabit is going to return to "normal" soon, where "normal" means a world in which an important subset of rich people, whose property interests are protected by police forces, courts, and armies, also happen to believe in the inherent value of gold. All this return to normality would prove is that rich people are just as crazy as the rest of us, but I, at least, already knew that. The other possibility is that governments revert to gold in a crisis and pay you in commodities for the gold you are holding. But why would governments do

Beard +1

Beard -1

would be great.

I'm also delighted by a Bob & Mickey pairing.

Quoting Don Zeko: He has his moments, doesn't he? I felt that Bob easily got the better of Mickey on the Weekly Standard/Ground Zero Mosque question.

It kind of seemed that Mickey wasn't even trying very hard, but just being contrarian re the Weekly Standard piece. His defense was basically that the facts/investigation reported could be defended as newsworthy if the news was "even after a search this is all we were able to come up with," which -- as Bob pointed out -- wasn't the article.

Quoting MikeDrew: Beard +1

initially, I saw Frank Gaffney.

Quoting nikkibong: this is an extremely shrewd point by mickey

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/297...1:30&out=12:24

nicely put, mr. kaus.

I think it's worth pointing out that Matt Yglesias, a former member of journolist, said on bhtv just yesterday that contrarian threads got the most attention on Journolist.

Quoting TwinSwords: I'm curious: Can you or Nikkibong actually prove what Mickey says in that dingalink is true? Or does it just feel right to you guys? Mickey's assertion is interesting, and it's consistent with the anti-liberal critique he has been making for many, many years (i.e., his entire career). But is there any evidence for it?

I'm not a journalist (although I was on a college newspaper, and my experience and observations based on that forms part of my reaction), but I thought both Salam's defense and Mickey's reaction to it (and admiration for the Kinsley model in which contrarianism was valued, according to him) were interesting. Mainly because Salam's careerist idea is how the conservative media/movement seems to have run in lots of ways. "Conservatives" seeking career advantage have a well developed set of institutions which are dedicated to helping those who seek to further the movement. In journalist this includes explicitly movement publications, as well as networks. In law, this includes the Federalist Society and all of those various networks. There is a benefit from being part of the group, and that in many of the relevant places (elite colleges, the media, lots of

Sure, if Iran gets nukes it means half the world will be destroyed after all the other powers in the region also get nukes and then use them against each other. But that is the problem of the Asians, Arabs and Europeans. And the damage that will be done is on their side of the globe. The portion of the US that supported the Iraq war did its part for world peace by taking out Saddam and helping the Iraqis setup their democracy. Now that Saddam is gone, Iran has no need for nukes. The rest of the world can stand on the shoulders of the giants who served in the US military and take out those who remain to threaten world peace. Or they can die when the sidelines are blown up. I wish them well.

You're talking about the decay (in your opinion) of objective reporting, right? Other than Politico's Mike Allen (who clearly leans to the right), I don't know of anyone on journolist who was doing objective journalism. They were all purveyors of opinion -- a mix of bloggers, policy/think tank types, professors, activists, etc. Why should Lindsay Beyerstein or Matt Yglesias — explicit advocates of a liberal point of view — be expected to protect the sanctity of objective journalism? What about George Will? Is he destroying journalism too? William Kristol?
I'm really asking here. I understand why the wingnuts are attacking journolist; they'll attack anything that doesn't conform to ultraconservative extremism. But I don't understand why you're attacking journolist. Do you believe promoting a point of view by blogging or writing editorials is inherently wrong? Or is it just wrong when bloggers and editorial writers also talk to people they agree with over email?

This is a perfect three-part illustration of the dodge used by defenders of the groupthink and secret collective message advancement known as Journolist. First, TS mirrors the us-against them inbred mood fostered by this ever-more-narrow groupthink by declaring that the very same thing, when done by the

Quoting DenvilleSteve: initially, I saw Frank Gaffney.

Ha!

But I also look at the output of news product 40 years ago vs. now and I think there was more diversity of views--or at least more reward, more admiration for diversity--in the MSM then than now.

Prep, do you have any evidence to back this up? (I don't mean that as accusation, I would honestly like to see numbers one way or another.) This just strikes me as good-old-days nostalgia mixed with the unfortunate fact that the MSM as it is has shrunken violently as it struggles to hang on in a new media landscape. The trimming of foreign bureaus, local coverage, science etc. and the need to compete with sensationalist media juggernauts like FOX (that make no real attempt at anything more than party-line trumpeting) seems far more likely to be the cause of any loss in diversity of views (if it's really true.) Either way it doesn't bother me too much because while diversity in MSM may have decreased, don't you think that it has been more than balanced off by the extreme increase in diversity of views via online reporting, commentary etc.? You know, the place where most people read their news

Quoting TwinSwords: There really are two sets of rules: conservatives can do whatever they want -- even take direct cash payments from conservative think tanks, corporations, interest groups, and the Republican Party, while the left is attacked as unethical for merely having private email conversations with other people who share the same general point of view.

I think that, with regard to the Right's effort to use the current story, this is true, and irritating. However, it seems to me that the problem, such as it is, stems from the fact that liberals (and mainstream journalists generally) typically do not see themselves as part of a movement (let alone part of a movement first and journalists second). They do not want to have their coverage and even opinion pieces dictated by political (let alone partisan political) objectives, and they don't want to say that's the right or best way for journalism to work. In other words, they don't want to say that Fox is great, and it's hypocritical for you to attack them and not Fox, they see a distinction between what they are doing and what Fox is doing and want to maintain that

Quoting harkin: This is a perfect three-part illustration of the dodge used by defenders of the groupthink and secret collective message advancement known as Journolist.

First, TS mirrors the us-against them inbred mood fostered by this ever-more-narrow groupthink by declaring that the very same thing, when done by the left is being performed by 'explicit advocates', and yet when done by the right is practicing 'ultra conservative extremism' (TS could almost apply for a membership if Klein hadn't bailed upon exposure, the use of both 'ultra' and 'extreme' to describe one's ideological foes would fit right in to the junior-high style of attack common to Journolist').

Secondly, this comparison is used to introduce the straw man that opinion and advocacy are what people find objectionable to the whole Journolist secret media message club. The actual (and obvious) problem is that these junior Pulitzers were colluding on message and that they were exhibiting the hate, amateurism and bile that they so often try to project onto the people they disagree with. Where were the adults? When Ackerman advocated racist smears against conservatives or Sarah Spitz desired to watch Limbaugh's eyes

Quoting harkin: This is a perfect three-part illustration of the dodge used by defenders of the groupthink and secret collective message advancement known as Journolist.

First, TS mirrors the us-against them inbred mood fostered by this ever-more-narrow groupthink by declaring that the very same thing, when done by the left is being performed by 'explicit advocates', and yet when done by the right is practicing 'ultra conservative extremism' (TS could almost apply for a membership if Klein hadn't bailed upon exposure, the use of both 'ultra' and 'extreme' to describe one's ideological foes would fit right in to the junior-high style of attack common to Journolist').

Secondly, this comparison is used to introduce the straw man that opinion and advocacy are what people find objectionable to the whole Journolist secret media message club. The actual (and obvious) problem is that these junior Pulitzers were colluding on message and that they were exhibiting the hate, amateurism and bile that they so often try to project onto the people they disagree with. Where were the adults? When Ackerman advocated racist smears against conservatives or Sarah Spitz desired to watch Limbaugh's eyes

Quoting nikkibong: this is an extremely shrewd point by mickey

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/297...1:30&out=12:24

nicely put, mr. kaus.

yeah! what we really need is knee-jerk contrarian bullshit - like Mickey's defense of the weekly standard article, pure Kinsley-icious goodness, right? If only we could go back to the days when thats what got you ahead in journalism... now we're stuck with the liberal side of the debate actually supporting Liberalism, not like the good old days when Mickey Kaus's hatred of unions and desire to eviscerate the social safety net was the voice of liberalism. god i hated that bullshit. So, you really believe that Ezra is some sort of kingmaker?

I am very pleased that Stephen Schwartz has written this terrible article that Bob trashes. Stephen Schwartz has been publishing scurrilous and trashy politically motivated innuendo for a long time. People can see what I had to say about him on a previous occasion here bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=145162&postcount=259. I'm already very tired of hearing about JournoList. It's much ado about nothing. It might have made a few people more smug and less likely to pursue sources on the right, but I very much doubt that even that happened. If it did happen, it would be because the journalist involved wasn't much good to begin with.

Quoting popcorn_karate: yeah! what we really need is knee-jerk contrarian bullshit - like Mickey's defense of the weekly standard article, pure Kinsley-icious goodness, right? If only we could go back to the days when thats what got you ahead in journalism...

now we're stuck with the liberal side of the debate actually supporting Liberalism, not like the good old days when Mickey Kaus's hatred of unions and desire to eviscerate the social safety net was the voice of liberalism.

god i hated that bullshit.

So, you really believe that Ezra is some sort of kingmaker?

you're illustrating the point elegantly. anything that deviates from the party line is maligned (without cause) as "knee-jerk contrarian bullshit." sorry, but i don't think this is healthy attitude ... especially among journalists and academics.

I'm not a journalist, but being a voracious reader of online news and commentary, this strikes me as the truth. Careerism seems to drive too many of the groundlings in the business. Conor Friedersdorf I can't stand because of this. Dude is just trying to get a job, and will write whatever nonsense it takes to do so. "Look at me, I'm the niche conservative who thinks conservatives should just really all be liberal, not the hippie/welfare queen kind of liberal, but just like the liberals who work for a living... American Jewry basically". I simplify him, of course.

Hmm... how can you be Muslim, but non-practicing? I'm a non-practicing Catholic, I guess... and have describe myself as such at times (normally around believers or practicing Catholics/Christians -- perhaps as a defense of my character). However, I think it's fairer of me to say I'm agnostic or a non-believer. When at mosque do you talk about your agnosticism or non-belief? What do practicing Muslims say to you about this?

Great post Harkin, I only disagree with this part:

Quoting harkin: They got caught, they don't like it; it's rather fun to watch the mental gyrations and contortions used to defend them and in some incredible cases, even blame the messenger.

I don't find their gyrations "fun" - I find it completely tedious and predictable. Its just the same left-wing old sophistry and dishonesty. The same old BS - when the right does X its "terrible, raaaccist, immoral" when the left does X its OK because blah blah. Hearing a little kid with cookie crumbs all over his face and a half eaten cookie in his hand creatively deny he stole the cookies may be funny the first time - but the 2nd time it becomes tedious and annoying.

[quote=PreppyMcPrepperson;172494]Re: the mosque. As a secular, non-practicing member of Muslim Manhattan, I can say that Feisal Rauf is a solid guy. Naive? I'm not sure. He's been very successful with his previous initiatives at reconciliation: both in terms of bringing secular folk like myself back into mosques by reminding them that there are interesting, progressive things to be heard there, and in bringing the mosque into the mainstream of city life. Those successes would lead him to believe that he could do more. That seems mostly a rational reaction to success. As for the project itself, the cultural centre part of it--if that happens--is a good idea. There really isn't any place like that in New York. I've been involved in the past with organizing a number of qawwali and ghazal concerts [Qawwali is religious music that appeals to a general audience; think of something like the role gospel singing has played in Western pop, or just listen to this. Ghazal is a classical form, that also has secular appeal, and should perhaps be compared to the role now played by classical oratorios; you can listen here.] It's sometimes hard to find a good venue for doing these things, because the audience isn't going to be large enough to merit a Lincoln Center booking, but it's too big a

Quoting nikkibong: you're illustrating the point elegantly. anything that deviates from the party line is maligned (without cause) as "knee-jerk contrarian bullshit." sorry, but i don't think this is healthy attitude ... especially among journalists and academics.

mickey Kaus was explicitly citing Kinsley-style contrarianism. If you had the displeasure of reading Slate and many other mags back in say 98-03 you would remember the endless knee-jerk contrarianism they promoted. The only way to be considered "serious" was to undermine the liberal position, regardless of how much logic had to be waterboarded into submission to get there. It was knee-jerk contrarianism, i stand by that characterization of Kinsley and his associates. for this bit about me personally:

Quoting nikkibong: anything that deviates from the party line is maligned (without cause) as "knee-jerk contrarian bullshit.

how does my support of gun rights and immigration controls, for example, fit with your characterization? Or my enthusiasm for the power of markets and detestation of nanny-state regulations? my complete opposition to the HCR mandate? all pretty "party line" positions i suppose...

Quoting popcorn_karate: The only way to be considered "serious" was to undermine the liberal position, regardless of how much logic had to be waterboarded into submission to get there.

LOL! A wonderful turn of phrase.

Another word for someone who almost always takes positions contrarian to those of Democrats is: "Republican." Mickey just won't admit it.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Another word for someone who almost always takes positions contrarian to those of Democrats is: "Republican." Mickey just won't admit it.

That sounds too much like a "purity test" to me. I'd rather concede that he is indeed a Democratic contrarian. There are plenty of reasons for indulging non-partisan dislike anyway, like Mickey jumping on the John Edwards adultery story while it was still just sleazy tabloid bullshit. And plenty of similar reasons for sweet Schadenfreude, too - such as his high-handed dismissiveness of Ezra Klein when Ezra was still an up-and-comer.

I was partly kidding. However I rarely see Mickey argue against Republican policies, and when I map out his positions he seems center-right to me. And then there's the fact that he seems to enjoy attacking Democrats and liberal bloggers and defending Republicans.

Mickey!! And, chipper and looking rakish! (Oh yeah, Bob was good too?) Beware, Ezra, Mickey's back!

Quoting TwinSwords: Heh. I have to agree. This is BhTV Classic.

And, a perfect primer on how to argue respectfully but also intelligently and with spirit! Inspirational!

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: I am not going to out people I've worked for. But there was one publication I intended to write for on my trip that I ended up not working with. And the reason was because, while the publication had a history of rewarding contrarianism, and a professed nonpartisan stance, I was encouraged--in pretty blatant ways--by the current editors to fit my stories into an ideological prototype. In one memorable incident, I was told to go in search of answers to a particular question, involving traveling from the city I was in at the time, for several weeks, and when I came back with answers that (I still believe) were significant, was told that "This is interesting news, but it doesn't really fit with the approach we've taken to this topic." It was not the first time that has happened to me, but it was the most egregious.

I have since recounted my experience with that publication to several other journos at various places and seen nods of agreement. So yes, you are correct that I can't prove Mickey is right, but I can say that his critique jives with my overall experience of the media, and those of others I know.

Thank you

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: This just strikes me as good-old-days nostalgia mixed with the unfortunate fact that the MSM as it is has shrunken violently as it struggles to hang on in a new media landscape. The trimming of foreign bureaus, local coverage, science etc. and the need to compete with sensationalist media juggernauts like FOX (that make no real attempt at anything more than party-line trumpeting) seems far more likely to be the cause of any loss in diversity of views (if it's really true.)

Are there any insider accounts or scholarly treatments of the MSM in book or peer-reviewed articles that you can recommend? The image I have of the "good 'ol days" moved uneasily between two movie images: Citizen Kane and Thirteen Days (where the President asks the WaPo owner to hold publication of stories about the Soviet build-up on Cuba, and he agrees).

Unfortunately I don't, Balt. Prep might know some good places to look.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Unfortunately I don't, Balt. Prep might know some good places to look.

No prob! Thanx!

Just pull the string and it says... Unfortunately it's vocabulary is limited to only this one sentence. All proceeds to help pay for the Kaus 2010 debt relief!

I think Bob is exaggerating pretty heavily in calling the Weekly Standard piece McCarthyism. The opposition to WhateverPoliticallyCorrectTermWe'reCallingTheIslam istCenterThisWeek seems different than McCarthyism in a lot of ways. I haven't read the piece, but if it as Bob describes it, then it's a bad piece and bad journalism. And I'll take Bob's word for it. But calling it McCarthyism seems to simultaneously display at least a partial misunderstanding of McCarthyism (although this isn't uncommon) and hyperbole about how pernicious the piece really is.

Quoting Baltimoron: No prob! Thanx!

The Pew State of the News Media reports are the best thing to start with if you're looking for data on the content of news. The Columbia Journalism Review is a good place to poke around if you're looking for data on the practice of journalism, what kind of content gets you promoted etc.

I dunno, it seems to be a pretty apt analogy in that both cases have someone taking tenuous-to-non-existent ties to some feared organization and tries to spin it as substantive in order to politically injure the target. Bob said it best when he pointed out that the investigative reporting of the piece led to nothing and therefore should have either highlighted that there is NOT a credible connection to terrorist groups, or should have more appropriately been one of the millions of stories that remain on the cutting room floor. To take the non-evidence and spin it as evidence in the hope of scaring the public, is exactly the type of tactic that McCarthy was famous for.

I posted a response earlier this morning and it has vanished. No PM telling me if I violated a forum rule or even a space where my post was explaining deletion for whatever reason. It did contain quotes from Journolist so maybe it was just the forces of good attempting to combat McCarthyism - curious. Maybe if I re-post an attempt at facsimile and replace all J-List quotes with "blah blah blah" and all attribution to 'Liberal' it will pass the censors:

Quoting harkin: Secondly, this comparison is used to introduce the straw man that opinion and advocacy are what people find objectionable to the whole Journolist secret media message club.

Quoting AemJeff: ......is there a message here? As far as I can tell, none, except: liberals bad, liberals speaking among themselves dishonest, by definition.

[cough] yes, the irony is obvious, to some.......but I'm sure you are still missing it. Now that I've listened to the entire dialogue, Bob seems to push this false meme as much as anyone. If MK does agree to debate EK, Bob should respond in kind and debate Ann Coulter, that has the potential for being the most entertaining discussion ever (except maybe Eric Alterman and Brad Daugherty). But why

Quoting chiwhisoxx: I think Bob is exaggerating pretty heavily in calling the Weekly Standard piece McCarthyism. The opposition to WhateverPoliticallyCorrectTermWe'reCallingTheIslam istCenterThisWeek seems different than McCarthyism in a lot of ways. I haven't read the piece, but if it as Bob describes it, then it's a bad piece and bad journalism. And I'll take Bob's word for it. But calling it McCarthyism seems to simultaneously display at least a partial misunderstanding of McCarthyism (although this isn't uncommon) and hyperbole about how pernicious the piece really is.

Apply this logic at Journolist instead of TDC and the Ground Zero Indoctrination Center. One big difference is that it took decades for the Soviet Union to collapse, resulting in the release of the Venona Papers, which confirmed many suspicions and accusations of conservatives in the 50s as well as destroy the lies and distortions forwarded by the fellow-travelers and echoed by the msm for generations. In the case of Journolist, the evidence was revealed in a much shorter timeframe when the guilty could (hopefully) be held responsible.

Quoting nikkibong: you're illustrating the point elegantly. anything that deviates from the party line is maligned (without cause) as "knee-jerk contrarian bullshit." sorry, but i don't think this is healthy attitude ... especially among journalists and academics.

I'm wondering about the distinctions between journalists, opinion journalists, reporters, investigative reporters, etc. I wonder how badly mature people, like Mark Schmitt, have had their reputations damaged. It's interesting to compare the Journolist imbroglio to the relative yawn given Stephanopoulos' and Begala's morning calls to Rahm.

Quoting nikkibong: you're illustrating the point elegantly. anything that deviates from the party line is maligned (without cause) as "knee-jerk contrarian bullshit." sorry, but i don't think this is healthy attitude ... especially among journalists and academics.

I'm wondering about the distinctions between journalists, opinion journalists, reporters, investigative reporters, etc. I wonder how badly mature people, like Mark Schmitt, have had their reputations damaged. It's interesting to compare the Journolist imbroglio to the relative yawn given Stephanopoulos' and Begala's morning calls to Rahm.

Quoting harkin: I posted a response earlier this morning and it has vanished. No PM telling me if I violated a forum rule or even a space where my post was explaining deletion for whatever reason. It did contain quotes from Journolist so maybe it was just the forces of good attempting to combat McCarthyism - curious.

Maybe if I re-post an attempt at facsimile and replace all J-List quotes with "blah blah blah" and all attribution to 'Liberal' it will pass the censors:

[cough] yes, the irony is obvious, to some.......but I'm sure you are still missing it.

Now that I've listened to the entire dialogue, Bob seems to push this false meme as much as anyone.

If MK does agree to debate EK, Bob should respond in kind and debate Ann Coulter, that has the potential for being the most entertaining discussion ever (except maybe Eric Alterman and Brad Daugherty).

But why should Mickey agree to debate EK when the most relevant item of discussion, Journolist itself has been deemed dead and all discussion verboten by EK himself? Why Mickey would choose to have an 'open and honest discussion' with Little Ezra, who feels that is only

Quoting look: I'm wondering about the distinctions between journalists, opinion journalists, reporters, investigative reporters, etc. I wonder how badly mature people, like Mark Schmitt, have had their reputations damaged.

It's interesting to compare the Journolist imbroglio to the relative yawn given Stephanopoulos' and Begala's morning calls to Rahm.

It seems strictly a oppo meme that there was anything about this imbroglio or the existence of the list (does anybody really think it suis generis, or that it's opposite but equal doesn't exist?) that would serve to damage participants' professional reputations. I mean even the few people who actually had something they'd posted about which they could arguably feel some embarrassment (e.g. Weigel, Ackerman) are doing fine.

Quoting AemJeff: It seems strictly a oppo meme that there was anything about this imbroglio or the existence of the list (does anybody really think it suis generis, or that it's opposite but equal doesn't exist?) that would serve to damage participants' professional reputations. I mean even the few people whom actually had something there about which they could arguably feel some embarrassment (e.g. Weigel, Ackerman) are doing fine.

lol. Well, gee whiz, Jeff, isn't that the point? These people are being rewarded for their participation in an opinion-shaping organization. Ackerman had an actual reputation as an embedded reporter to consider. Anyway, it will be interesting if a conservative listserve makes headlines.

Quoting look: lol. Well, gee whiz, Jeff, isn't that the point? These people are being rewarded for their participation in an opinion-shaping organization. Ackerman had an actual reputation as an embedded reporter to consider. Anyway, it will be interesting if a conservative listserve makes headlines.

No it's not the point. Ackerman's behavior on-list was hardly out of character (read his blogposts, or look into the feud Spencer and his good friend Eli Lake had a couple of years ago, or read up about why he left The New Republic.) And "opinion shaping organization?" As opposed to what? An elephant? Writers write. They're allowed to hold private opinions, and they're allowed to express those private opinions in private. Or in public, if they choose. The only open questions are "Are they cheating/lying/withholding pertinent data, or otherwise breaching professional standards of ethics?" The answer to that is in their published output. Anybody gets to call Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore a poopyhead, or any other damn thing, whenever they want to. If they publish that assertion, or allow that feeling to lead them to lie, then the have a problem. Not before.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm pretty sure your post disappeared into the same glitch that took several other posts in a few forums here.

I think Jeff is right. Our web-hosting company noticed that one of our hard drives was showing signs of distress this morning, and copied over our files to a new drive. We suspect that's what caused the disappearance of some forum posts. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Quoting AemJeff: No it's not the point. Ackerman's behavior on-list was hardly out of character (read his blogposts, or look into the feud Spencer and his good friend Eli Lake had a couple of years ago, or read up about why he left The New Republic.)
...

Can you save us some time and link to the posts at Attackerman that rivals the idea of falsely labeling someone racist and fomenting the idea with others? ...and as it is "hardly out of character" then is this the character you wish us to label HIM with? Consider it done.

Quoting AemJeff: Anybody gets to call Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore a poopyhead, or any other damn thing, whenever they want to. If they publish that assertion, or allow that feeling to lead them to lie, then the have a problem. Not before.

Ahhh, so you now agree with Ann Althouse in spite of vehemently spoofing on it when I linked to her selling the same idea.

Quoting Whatfur: Can you save us some time and link to the posts at Attackerman that rivals the idea of falsely labeling someone racist and fomenting the idea with others? ...and as it is "hardly out of character" then is this the character you wish us to label HIM with? Consider it done.

Ahhh, so you now agree with Ann Althouse in spite of vehemently spoofing on it when I linked to her selling the same idea.

Nope.

Yep we for sure wouldn't have to worry about global warming for a decade or so. and while we may not be subject to the direct effects of the shock wave and heat after a couple years of decreased food production due to the global effects there would be a lot of hungry people even on this side of the world.

Quoting AemJeff: No it's not the point. Ackerman's behavior on-list was hardly out of character (read his blogposts, or look into the feud Spencer and his good friend Eli Lake had a couple of years ago, or read up about why he left The New Republic.)

And "opinion shaping organization?" As opposed to what? An elephant? Writers write. They're allowed to hold private opinions, and they're allowed to express those private opinions in private. Or in public, if they choose. The only open questions are "Are they cheating/lying/withholding pertinent data, or otherwise breaching professional standards of ethics?" The answer to that is in their published output. Anybody gets to call Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore a poopyhead, or any other damn thing, whenever they want to. If they publish that assertion, or allow that feeling to lead them to lie, then the have a problem. Not before.

Is privately suggesting libel within the standards of professional ethics?

Quoting look: Is privately suggesting libel within the standards of professional ethics?

Libel? You'll have quite a task substantiating that. And if you could somehow climb that mountain, how do you generalize that charge to include the whole enterprise?

Quoting AemJeff: Libel? You'll have quite a task substantiating that. And if you could somehow climb that mountain, how do you generalize that charge to include the whole enterprise?

whuh? how is calling someone racist - when you privately ADMIT you have no evidence - not libelous? ackerman didn't go that far, to be sure, but he certainly suggested it. and that's all look said.

Quoting nikkibong: whuh? how is calling someone racist - when you privately ADMIT you have no evidence - not libelous?

ackerman didn't go that far, to be sure, but he certainly suggested it. and that's all look said.

That's not what look said. And Ackerman didn't go that far. What are you talking about? Added - yeah, she said "suggested." My bad. There's no sense in which you can argue that the "racism" charge is libelous. You might argue that it's "specious," but then people l;ike me would argue the other side of that.

Quoting AemJeff: That's not what look said. And Ackerman didn't go that far. What are you talking about?

look said
"Is privately suggesting libel within the standards of professional ethics?" i suspect she was referring to this quote:

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.”

that is a private suggestion of libel, as look described it. were you simply unaware of this revelation?

Quoting nikkibong: look said
"Is privately suggesting libel within the standards of professional ethics?"

i suspect she was referring to this

quote:

that is a private suggestion of libel, as look described it. were you simply unaware of this revelation?

It's not libelous. I think you know that. They can argue that they're not racists. Ackerman can assert they are. I don't think it was Ackerman's best moment, ever - but calling it libel is indulging in fantasy.

Quoting AemJeff: It's not libelous. I think you know that. They can argue that they're not racists. Ackerman can assert they are. I don't think it was Ackerman's best moment, ever - but calling it libel is indulging in fantasy.

no, because inherent to ackerman's suggestion is his knowledge that it's a false claim - a distraction technique, a punishment for fixating on wright. that's why he doesn't care who the "racism" charge is pointed at. ("rove, barnes,'" whomever.) it's not a matter of "opinion." it's a lie -- it's libel. to ackerman's credit, the libelous claims were never made, but they were certainly suggested. i get, also, that ackerman was angry, and it was in the heat of a passionate campaign. i don't view him as a lesser reporter for this -- he didn't act on his suggestion. and we all say intemperate things about our opponents.

Quoting nikkibong: no, because inherent to ackerman's suggestion is his knowledge that it's a false claim - a distraction technique, a punishment for fixating on wright. that's why he doesn't care who the "racism" charge is pointed at. ("rove, barnes,'" whomever.) it's not a matter of "opinion." it's a lie -- it's libel.

to ackerman's credit, the libelous claims were never made, but they were certainly suggested.

i get, also, that ackerman was angry, and it was in the heat of a passionate campaign. i don't view him as a lesser reporter for this -- he didn't act on his suggestion. and we all say intemperate things about our opponents.

All that. It was "intemperate." It was ill-advised. (It was also in character, and not a surprise to anyone who knows something about him.) You can't "libel" somebody with an arguable claim. And it is an arguable claim.

Quoting AemJeff: All that. It was "intemperate." It was ill-advised. (It was also in character, and not a surprise to anyone who knows something about him.) You can't "libel" somebody with an arguable claim. And it is an arguable claim.

You wrote earlier that if the reporter breached professional standards of ethics, then that would be an issue. But that you didn't see that as the case. This is short of libel, but it's close enough to the line that it definitely breaches all standards of journo ethics that I've been exposed to. Namely, no, Ackerman is not saying something he knows to be false (that would be libel). But if you go back to that email thread, he is specifically encouraging other reporters to pick a prominent conservative--any prominent conservative--not minding who it is and level a charge that the reporter also can't prove is true. So yes, LIBEL is saying something that's false. But proper observance of journalistic ethics would require him to say--and encourage other journalists to say--only what they know to be true. The ethical principles most journos are taught in their early years in the field are, in this respect, stronger

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: You wrote earlier that if the reporter breached professional standards of ethics, then that would be an issue. But that you didn't see that as the case. This is short of libel, but it's close enough to the line that it definitely breaches all standards of journo ethics that I've been exposed to. Namely, no, Ackerman is not saying something he knows to be false (that would be libel). But if you go back to that email thread, he is specifically encouraging other reporters to pick a prominent conservative--any prominent conservative--not minding who it is and level a charge that the reporter also can't prove is true. So yes, LIBEL is saying something that's false. But proper observance of journalistic ethics would require him to say--and encourage other journalists to say--only what they know to be true. The ethical principles most journos are taught in their early years in the field are, in this respect, stronger than the law governing media. Except in the UK, where the law is much much stricter.

I'm willing to agree with you that Ackerman was well over the line. (I think I implied that in my

Quoting AemJeff: All that. It was "intemperate." It was ill-advised. (It was also in character, and not a surprise to anyone who knows something about him.) You can't "libel" somebody with an arguable claim. And it is an arguable claim.

Does no one else seem to think that Spencer's comment went beyond the normal standard of intemperate things we all say in the heat of moments, etc.? I think there's a pretty big difference between saying nasty things about people privately that they will likely never see, and advocating a false public campaign that would, if successful, be incredibly damaging to said person's career. This differentiates it from, for example, something with Alterman where he complains about "fucking Nascar retards". Intemperate, but not going to really harm anyone. And you can say, well, nobody actually did this, (that we know of) but that seemed to be because other people told Spencer it was a bad idea. And for the record, people told him it was a bad idea on tactical grounds, not because it was vile and disgusting. Not to mention, it reinforces a suspicion the right had for a long time that people on the left would use racism as

Quoting AemJeff: I'm willing to agree with you that Ackerman was well over the line. (I think I implied that in my last post.) I have two claims to defend here. First, that "libel" simply doesn't apply. Secondly, how do we go from Spencer Ackerman behaving on Journolist in the same way he does elsewhere, in public view (see the circumstances of him leaving The New Republic, like I mentioned earlier), to a general judgment about Journolist? There is no reasonable argument that will credibly support that inference.

There's no claim that nobody on that list never crossed an ethical boundary. There's no support for a claim that there is something inherent in belonging to such a list that would imply something (good or bad) about any particular member's ethics. look's claims:

have arguable and/or false premises (J-List is disreputable, "libel") and seem to carry just that sort of implication.

My general thoughts on J-List can be found here.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: Does no one else seem to think that Spencer's comment went beyond the normal standard of intemperate things we all say in the heat of moments, etc.? I think there's a pretty big difference between saying nasty things about people privately that they will likely never see, and advocating a false public campaign that would, if successful, be incredibly damaging to said person's career. This differentiates it from, for example, something with Alterman where he complains about "fucking Nascar retards". Intemperate, but not going to really harm anyone. And you can say, well, nobody actually did this, (that we know of) but that seemed to be because other people told Spencer it was a bad idea. And for the record, people told him it was a bad idea on tactical grounds, not because it was vile and disgusting.

Not to mention, it reinforces a suspicion the right had for a long time that people on the left would use racism as a political cudgel. Leaving that point aside, this comment still struck me as to some degree beyond the pale. I plead ignorance on the libel question, and have no interest in rehashing the larger journolist

Quoting AemJeff: Regardless of whether Ackerman "went beyond the normal standard of intemperate things" seems irelevant. He didn't do something extraordinary for Ackerman. It is "the way he is," and if he wasn't such a good reporter, I doubt he'd get away with it. But, he is, and he does. It's probably not fair, but it's also not the first time that somebody was judged on a suis generis standard based on the perception that what they bring to the table m akes them worth it.

Ok well, that's a more reasonable response than I thought someone could muster. I had more of the feeling that people were defending the remarks qua the remarks rather than saying he's a good reporter, so he'll get away with it. I agree that at least from what I've seen, Spencer is a good reporter. And I have a lot of respect for people willing to embed themselves during wars to do reporting like Spencer did.

Quoting Lyle: Hmm... how can you be Muslim, but non-practicing? I'm a non-practicing Catholic, I guess... and have describe myself as such at times (normally around believers or practicing Catholics/Christians -- perhaps as a defense of my character). However, I think it's fairer of me to say I'm agnostic or a non-believer. When at mosque do you talk about your agnosticism or non-belief? What do practicing Muslims say to you about this?

Well--and this was my point earlier--at Feisal's mosque, it's a nonissue for them. He's revived a tradition within Islam--stronger in the Sufi sect that Feisal represents, but present throughout--that's centered on your right to individual interpretation, to build your own spirituality. Its closest western equivalent is the version of the covenant articulated by Locke in an essay called "The Reasonableness of Christianity" that should be much more widely read than it is. To the extent that I'm there because I'm interested in morality and questions of metaphysics and spirituality, it's cool.

Quoting Florian: Lovely music, preppy. The ragas brought back memories of my travels around India a couple of years ago, mainly southern India. Hindus and Muslims (and even a few Christians) seem to have little trouble living side by side in India. I wonder if that is because polytheists are more tolerant than monotheists. That is what Hume thought anyway.

I'll post this on the 'flame war' thread too, since that seems to be the thread people are now reading, but I guess my view of intra-religious relationships inside India is much more negative. There's still a TON of violence, in particular in the Western half of the country, and quite a bit of informal discrimination in the form of preventing Muslims from renting apartments or getting jobs etc. It's better than it was 20 years ago--a LOT better--but it's not as utopian as you suggest. Both Hindus and Muslims in India get along better with Christians than they do with each other. As for the music, it's the best.

I thought we had settled this, but evidently not. Emph. added:

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: But there was one publication I intended to write for on my trip that I ended up not working with.

PrepositionMcPrepperson. And no, not that it's dangling.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: To the extent that I'm there because I'm interested in morality and questions of metaphysics and spirituality, it's cool.

Sounds very much like the reasons a lot of Jews I know are involved in synagogue/Jewish cultural life.

Quoting TwinSwords: From [url="http://bigthink.com/ideas/21589"]Glenn Beck's Goldline Scam--Visualized[/url], by Lindsay Beyerstein

Hmmm. BigThink.com. Is this another Breitbart site? I mean, if the guy has the chutzpah to start BigJournalism and BigPeace ... ;^)

Quoting harkin: ... the groupthink and secret collective message advancement known as Journolist.

... ideas and recommendations to get on-message to their brethren of liberalism/socialism.

Quoting harkin: Apply this logic at Journolist ... the Soviet Union ... the release of the Venona Papers, which confirmed many suspicions and accusations of conservatives in the 50s ... the lies and distortions forwarded by the fellow-travelers ...

But to say "McCarthyism" in the context of wingnut howling about a individuals exchanging private thoughts by email is considered ... shrill. ========== [Added]

Quoting Whatfur: To quote another commenter and some midshipman in the Royal Navy in the 1800's

Huzzah! Huzzah!

Quoting rcocean: Great post Harkin, ...

Groupthink? What groupthink? Clique? What clique?

Quoting listener: Sounds very much like the reasons a lot of Jews I know are involved in synagogue/Jewish cultural life.

Right. That tradition exists in Islam too; it's just not as coordinated, and needs all the support it can get.

Quoting AemJeff: ... He didn't do something extraordinary for Ackerman...

so this excuses his behavior in your eyes! An ass is an ass and yet many here find him so prescient and admirable.

In your experience how many people do yo have to share your private thoughts with until all you know and see, and probably many you don't, know all about your privately shared proclivities and foibles. The only amazement one should find in this whole adventure is that it took so long for the breach to occur and and thus provide so much clarity.

Mr. Wright: I share your concern with some of the assertions and implications made in The Weekly Standard article about the proposed Muslim community center in New York City. However, to contend, on the basis of that single article, that The Weekly Standard is not an "honest magazine," seems unwarranted. A case in point: I am now reading Matthew Continetti's assessment of Glenn Beck, recently published in The Weekly Standard: http://j.mp/b1KsH4 . Continetti's article seems, in my view, to offer an accurate and fair, if vigorously expressed, critique of Beck's political discourse. Mr. Kristol would seem to have approved of the publication of Continetti's article, and, I believe, of many others that are similarly well grounded. Do you still question the "honesty" of The Weekly Standard as a whole, in light of its publication of seemingly fact-based journalism such as Continetti's critique of Beck?

Ezra Klein said yesterday on Twitter http://j.mp/bwS4S1 that he would not debate Mickey Kaus on Bloggingheads because he has decided to quit Bloggingheads due to a lack of time. He had nice things to say about Bloggingheads, though: http://j.mp/bqgCCl . I think Klein's decision is unfortunate: I would have enjoyed seeing a Klein-Kaus debate about JournoList and about many other issues.

Quoting R. Richards: Ezra Klein said yesterday on Twitter http://j.mp/bwS4S1 that he would not debate Mickey Kaus on Bloggingheads because he has decided to quit Bloggingheads due to a lack of time. He had nice things to say about Bloggingheads, though: http://j.mp/bqgCCl . I think Klein's decision is unfortunate: I would have enjoyed seeing a Klein-Kaus debate about JournoList and about many other issues.

@bloggingheads Yep, and he does so...the day after I formally quit Bloggingheads. Curious...

Ezra formally quitting bhtv in the wake of the J-list debacle...curiouser and curiouser.

Quoting look: Ezra formally quitting bhtv in the wake of the J-list debacle...curiouser and curiouser.

Hey! He's a busy man.

Quoting R. Richards: Mr. Wright: I share your concern with some of the assertions and implications made in The Weekly Standard article about the proposed Muslim community center in New York City. However, to contend, on the basis of that single article, that The Weekly Standard is not an "honest magazine," seems unwarranted. A case in point: I am now reading Matthew Continetti's assessment of Glenn Beck, recently published in The Weekly Standard: http://j.mp/b1KsH4 . Continetti's article seems, in my view, to offer an accurate and fair, if vigorously expressed, critique of Beck's political discourse. Mr. Kristol would seem to have approved of the publication of Continetti's article, and, I believe, of many others that are similarly well grounded. Do you still question the "honesty" of The Weekly Standard as a whole, in light of its publication of seemingly fact-based journalism such as Continetti's critique of Beck?

I think the Standard is dishonest. I think Continetti is often dishonest, despite an instance during which he tried out something like intellectual honesty. The magazine that employed Michael Goldfarb (among others) and is run by Fred Barnes and William Kristol starts with a deficit in terms of the assumption of good faith. Episodes like their ridiculous flogging of the Beauchamp "scandal" a few

The Weekly Standard article listed the following three points at the beginning of the article: - Rauf’s refusal to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization; - Rauf’s leading role in the Perdana Global Peace Organization, “a principal partner,” in its own words, of the Turkish-launched flotilla that tried to break the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza; - and the project’s questionable sources of funding. Bob completely ignored the first two points, and pooh-poohed the third, which seems to me like a perfectly reasonable question that deserves an answer. Calling this McCarthyism is an hysterical smear.

Quoting Whatfur: Hey! He's a busy man.

Those eggs don't just lay themselves.

Quoting look: Those eggs don't just lay themselves.

To again quote Dryden:

Enter MOMUS Laughing
MOMUS
Ha! ha! ha!...

Quoting Whatfur: Attackerman ... falsely labeling someone racist ...

Quoting look: ... privately suggesting libel ...

Quoting nikkibong: how is calling someone racist - when you privately ADMIT you have no evidence - not libelous? [...] ackerman didn't go that far, to be sure, but he certainly suggested it.

Quoting nikkibong: no, because inherent to ackerman's suggestion is his knowledge that it's a false claim [...] that's why he doesn't care who the "racism" charge is pointed at. ("rove, barnes,'" whomever.) it's not a matter of "opinion." it's a lie -- it's libel.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: But if you go back to that email thread, [Ackerman] is specifically encouraging other reporters to pick a prominent conservative--any prominent conservative--not minding who it is and level a charge that the reporter also can't prove is true.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: ... advocating a false public campaign ...

People are assuming facts that are not in evidence. (1) There's no evidence that Ackerman was advocating making "a false" accusation of racism against anyone. (2) Ackerman certainly did not "privately admit" that "it's a false claim." Unless I have missed part of the relevant text, there's nothing in the archive that proves either position, and plenty that suggests this reading is inaccurate. Let's take Preppy's suggestion, which is now CW on the right, that Ackerman proposed "to pick a prominent

Quoting TwinSwords: People are assuming facts that are not in evidence.

(1) There's no evidence that Ackerman was advocating making "a false" accusation of racism against anyone.

(2) Ackerman certainly did not "privately admit" that "it's a false claim."

Unless I have missed part of the relevant text, there's nothing in the archive that proves either position, and plenty that suggests this reading is inaccurate.

Let's take Preppy's suggestion, which is now CW on the right, that Ackerman proposed "to pick a prominent conservative--any prominent conservative--not minding who it is."

Leaving aside the fact that The Caller has withheld the full record and has only published excerpts which we can assume were carefully selected to reflect as badly as possible on Ackerman and the other participants, Preppy's reading still contradicts The Caller's published account. Ackerman was not talking about "any conservative, not minding who it is." Rather, he was talking about a specific set of conservatives, those who were still, at the end of April, after more than two months of sustained cable news frenzy, still pushing the Jeremiah Wright story.

Ackerman's actual words:

The pronoun "them" clearly refers to those conservatives still pushing the Wright story and "forc[ing]

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: It's the moment in the quote where he says 'who cares' that I'm responding to. Even if he does think they are, as a group, racist, my understanding of journo ethics is that you pin that descriptor on to a specific person based on specific comments and never, ever, onto a group unless that group makes--as a body, an official statement of racial intent: say, the KKK. You may have a different view of reportorial procedure, but this is what I have learned, in multiple newsrooms and indeed in multiple countries. And that statement stuck me as decidedly non-journalistic.

I hear what you are saying, but I'm not really looking at this from the perspective of journalistic ethics. That's an interesting dimension to the story, for sure, and one I would like to talk about at some point, but here I am only addressing whether the charges richocheting through the rightwing echo chamber are actually true. And two of them are not, as I have documented using the record provided by The Daily Caller. As for his "who cares" comment, it has to be read and understood in the context in which it was stated. He was talking about a group

Quoting chiwhisoxx: Does no one else seem to think that Spencer's comment went beyond the normal standard of intemperate things we all say in the heat of moments, etc.? I think there's a pretty big difference between saying nasty things about people privately that they will likely never see, and advocating a false public campaign that would, if successful, be incredibly damaging to said person's career.

You way overestimate the power of the word racism if you think the accusation would make even a tiny dent in any conservative's career, especially if the only basis for the charge of racism was that the person was still pushing the Jeremiah Wright story after what by then had already been over two months of sustained wingnut frenzy. The Wright story started rumbling in the wingnutosphere in January, 2008, and broke big in the MSM in late February, 2008. The Wright story absolutely dominated the cable news networks for weeks through March and April. Ackerman's proposal to call one of the story's purveyors racist occurred at the end of April, in response to efforts by Gingrich, Barnes, and others to reignite the controversy and push it back into the center of public consciousness.

Quoting R. Richards: Mr. Wright: I share your concern with some of the assertions and implications made in The Weekly Standard article about the proposed Muslim community center in New York City. However, to contend, on the basis of that single article, that The Weekly Standard is not an "honest magazine," seems unwarranted. A case in point: I am now reading Matthew Continetti's assessment of Glenn Beck, recently published in The Weekly Standard: http://j.mp/b1KsH4 . Continetti's article seems, in my view, to offer an accurate and fair, if vigorously expressed, critique of Beck's political discourse. Mr. Kristol would seem to have approved of the publication of Continetti's article, and, I believe, of many others that are similarly well grounded. Do you still question the "honesty" of The Weekly Standard as a whole, in light of its publication of seemingly fact-based journalism such as Continetti's critique of Beck?

To contend on the basis of one other article that it is an honest magazine does not seem especially persuasive. To hold up as evidence of honesty the idea that someone says Glenn Beck spouts nonsense does not strike me as telling a particularly hard truth, particularly when the article itself is basically using Beck as contrast while

Quoting look: Ezra formally quitting bhtv in the wake of the J-list debacle...curiouser and curiouser.

Mickey offering to debate Ezra one day after Ezra told Bh.tv he wouldn't be doing any more diavlogs -- not at all curious. Sad, even.

Quoting TwinSwords: [...]

Excellent post.

Quoting bjkeefe: Mickey offering to debate Ezra one day after Ezra told Bh.tv he wouldn't be doing any more diavlogs -- not at all curious. Sad, even.

I'm under the impression that Mickey and Bob weren't aware of Ezra bailing.

The pronoun "them" clearly refers to those conservatives still pushing the Wright story and "forc[ing] us all to either defend Wright or tear him down."

Has Ackerman related this information since the release of the quotes? If not, it's speculation on your part. 'Them' appears to mean 'the right,' in my reading.

Quoting look: Has Ackerman related this information since the release of the quotes? If not, it's speculation on your part. 'Them' appears to mean 'the right,' in my reading.

Et tu, looki.

Quoting look: Has Ackerman related this information since the release of the quotes? If not, it's speculation on your part. 'Them' appears to mean 'the right,' in my reading.

Here's what Ackerman said:

"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."

"Them" is a clear reference to the people who are "forc[ing] us all to either defend Wright or tear him down," who he refers to as "the right." It could not be more clear.

Quoting AemJeff: Et tu, looki.

Well, Jeffus, I think my take is more straitforward and logical than TS's, but to each his own.

Quoting look: Well, Jeffus, I think my take is more straitforward and logical than TS's, but to each his own.

You won't be surprised to learn that I think TS is closer to the truth, here.

Quoting TwinSwords: "Them" is a clear reference to the people who are "forc[ing] us all to either defend Wright or tear him down," who he refers to as "the right." It could not be more clear.

I dunno. I think that both are reasonable readings of the sentence, although your interpretation seems more likely to be his meaning in this case.

Quoting TwinSwords: Here's what Ackerman said:

"Them" is a clear reference to the people who are "forc[ing] us all to either defend Wright or tear him down," who he refers to as "the right." It could not be more clear.

Just as it could not be more clear that Ackerman is saying that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't in addressing the actual issue so lets change the subject by calling someone, anyone on the right a racist.

Quoting TwinSwords: Here's what Ackerman said:

"Them" is a clear reference to the people who are "forc[ing] us all to either defend Wright or tear him down," who he refers to as "the right." It could not be more clear.

I don't think it's clear in light of the phrase, 'who cares.' Thanks for your thoughts

Quoting AemJeff: You won't be surprised to learn that I think TS is closer to the truth, here.

The devil, you say!

Quoting Don Zeko: I dunno. I think that both are reasonable readings of the sentence, although your interpretation seems more likely to be his meaning in this case.

Pronouns are used to refer to people who have already been defined. If I said, "they called me back this morning," you would have no way of knowing who "they" are without more information. If I said, "I called the car dealer to get a quote, and they called me back this morning," it would be obvious who I was referring to. Ackerman used the words "they" and "them" to describe the people he defined immediately prior:

"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."

As I said, it's simple English, and it could not be more clear.

Quoting look: I don't think it's clear in light of the phrase, 'who cares.' Thanks for your thoughts

Thank you for yours. By the way, the pronoun "you" is a reference to the poster look -- just in case anyone was wondering. When he said "who cares," he clearly meant "who cares which of these people we're talking about" we target. After all, that's exactly who he said he was talking about. He said "take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares..." "Them" as he used it can only be understood to mean one thing: those who are "forc[ing] us all to either defend Wright or tear him down..." There really isn't any room for ambiguity, any more than if I said "if those rabbits come back and continue eating the vegetables in my garden, I'm going to take one of them -- the big one, the small one, who cares -- and dump a bucket of ice water on him." Someone could attempt to argue that I was proposing we dump water on ANY rabbit, but people who are familiar with the English language will understand exactly which set of rabbits I was considering for that treatment.

Quoting TwinSwords: Thank you for yours.

By the way, the pronoun "you" is a reference to the poster look -- just in case anyone was wondering.

When he said "who cares," he clearly meant "who cares which of these people we're talking about" we target. After all, that's exactly who he said he was talking about. He said "take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares..."

"Them" as he used it can only be understood to mean one thing: those who are "forc[ing] us all to either defend Wright or tear him down..."

There really isn't any room for ambiguity, any more than if I said "if those rabbits come back and continue eating the vegetables in my garden, I'm going to take one of them -- the big one, the small one, who cares -- and dump a bucket of ice water on him."

Someone could attempt to argue that I was proposing we dump water on ANY rabbit, but people who are familiar with the English language will understand exactly which set of rabbits I was considering for that treatment.

Oh, me. You're going to need an Excedrine after all those mental gymnastics...but thanks again for your thoughts.

Quoting Whatfur: Just as it could not be more clear that Ackerman is saying that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't in addressing the actual issue so lets change the subject by calling someone, anyone on the right a racist.

I concur.

Quoting look: I concur.

There are some here whose game is to muddy waters even when the bottom feeders within it have their backfins above the surface.

Quoting look: Oh, me. You're going to need an Excedrine after all those mental gymnastics...but thanks again for your thoughts.

If Ackerman really had wanted to suggest attacking just any conservative with the charge of racism, wouldn't it have been a good idea for him to actually say that somewhere? Thank you for your thoughts.

Quoting Whatfur: There are some here whose game is to muddy waters even when the bottom feeders within it have their backfins above the surface.

@p_k: another helping.

Quoting look:

Quoting Whatfur: Just as it could not be more clear that Ackerman is saying that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't in addressing the actual issue so lets change the subject by calling someone, anyone on the right a racist.

I concur.

Whatfur almost had a valid point, there, but he blew it with the words in bold (emphasis mine). Except for the part in bold, Whatfur's post is almost a word-for-word restatement of what Ackerman said, here: "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." Whatfur's only mistake was claiming Ackerman proposed doing this to "anyone on the right." Unfortunately for you and him, the published record does not support that interpretation. What Ackerman said was that the charge of racism should be made against "one of them," i.e., those who are "forc[ing] us all to either defend Wright or tear him down."

Quoting TwinSwords: If Ackerman really had wanted to suggest attacking just any conservative with the charge of racism, wouldn't it have been a good idea for him to actually say that somewhere?

Thank you for your thoughts.

He did when he said 'who cares.'

Quoting look: He did when he said 'who cares.'

He said "one of them -- Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares." The word "them" still controls the scope of the group eligible for the treatment Ackerman proposed.

What makes it difficult is that the antecedent of the pronoun is "the right," which refers to a fairly amorphous group of people. Presumably 100% of "the right," wasn't actually harping on the Rev. Wright story, and Ackerman didn't explicitly say whether the people he was suggesting be accused of racism would be drawn from the whole group of people that are on the Right or the subgroup of people on the right that are harping on the Rev. Wright story. But again, I think that your preferred interpretation is more likely to be what Spencer had in mind.

Quoting TwinSwords: Whatfur almost had a valid point, there, but he blew it with the words in bold (emphasis mine).

Except for the part in bold, Whatfur's post is almost a word-for-word restatement of what Ackerman said, here: "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."

Whatfur's only mistake was claiming Ackerman proposed doing this to "anyone on the right." Unfortunately for you and him, the published record does not support that interpretation. What Ackerman said was that the charge of racism should be made against "one of them," i.e., those who are "forc[ing] us all to either defend Wright or tear him down."

Your attempt at making this distinction the issue is blather.

Quoting TwinSwords: Whatfur almost had a valid point, there, but he blew it with the words in bold (emphasis mine).

Except for the part in bold, Whatfur's post is almost a word-for-word restatement of what Ackerman said, here: "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."

Whatfur's only mistake was claiming Ackerman proposed doing this to "anyone on the right." Unfortunately for you and him, the published record does not support that interpretation. What Ackerman said was that the charge of racism should be made against "one of them [of 'the right']," i.e., those who [on 'the right'] are "forc[ing] us all to either defend Wright or tear him down [and that's a mighty tall order]."

Edited for your clarification.

Quoting Whatfur: Your attempt at making this distinction the issue is blather.

I just think that if people are going to claim that Ackerman said something, they should be able to identify the text where he said it. So far, all you have is a quote of Ackerman proposing that one of the people pushing the Wright story into its 3rd month should be attacked. No where does Ackerman suggest targeting anyone outside of that group.

Quoting Don Zeko: What makes it difficult is that the antecedent of the pronoun is "the right," which refers to a fairly amorphous group of people. Presumably 100% of "the right," wasn't actually harping on the Rev. Wright story, and Ackerman didn't explicitly say whether the people he was suggesting be accused of racism would be drawn from the whole group of people that are on the Right or the subgroup of people on the right that are harping on the Rev. Wright story. But again, I think that your preferred interpretation is more likely to be what Spencer had in mind.

Zeke seems to have it right. It's true that in an absolute sense there's some ambiguity in what Ackerman said. But you have to actively ignore the simplest, most natural interpretation of what he said to come to the conclusion that he meant "conservatives," or "Republicans" writ large. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Quoting TwinSwords: I just think that if people are going to claim that Ackerman said something, they should be able to identify the text where he said it. So far, all you have is a quote of Ackerman proposing that one of the people pushing the Wright story into its 3rd month should be attacked. No where does Ackerman suggest targeting anyone outside of that group.

Like I said...akin to.

Quoting Don Zeko: What makes it difficult is that the antecedent of the pronoun is "the right," which refers to a fairly amorphous group of people. Presumably 100% of "the right," wasn't actually harping on the Rev. Wright story, and Ackerman didn't explicitly say whether the people he was suggesting be accused of racism would be drawn from the whole group of people that are on the Right or the subgroup of people on the right that are harping on the Rev. Wright story. But again, I think that your preferred interpretation is more likely to be what Spencer had in mind.

"The right" is shorthand for some group of people. And which group of people is that? Ackerman tells us in the words that immediately follow: "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down..." So the antecedent of the pronoun is that group of people who are harping on the Wright story. "The right" as a group cannot be reasonably understood to include any other people except for those who are "forc[ing] us all to either defend Wright or tear him down..." That's who they

Quoting TwinSwords: "The right" is shorthand for some group of people. And which group of people is that? Ackerman tells us in the words that immediately follow:

"If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down..."

So the antecedent of the pronoun is that group of people who are harping on the Wright story. "The right" as a group cannot be reasonably understood to include any other people except for those who are "forc[ing] us all to either defend Wright or tear him down..." That's who they are talking about, after all; that's the subject of the thread: people on the right pushing the Wright story. If someone wants to contend that Ackerman wanted to start talking about a different group of people unrelated to the discussion at hand, they should be able to cite some relevant text where he is talking about that other group of people.

and on a related note, what do you make of ackerman's use of the term To'ebah?

Quoting Don Zeko: ..."the right," [...] refers to a fairly amorphous group of people. Presumably 100% of "the right," wasn't actually harping on the Rev. Wright story, and Ackerman didn't explicitly say whether the people he was suggesting be accused of racism would be drawn from the whole group of people that are on the Right or the subgroup of people on the right that are harping on the Rev. Wright story.

He did right here: "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." When he says "they" in the clause "the game they've put upon us," he could not possibly be talking about "the whole group of people that are on the right," and had to have been talking about "the subgroup of people on the right" who have "put upon us" "the game" of "either defend[ing] Wright or tear[ing] him down."

Quoting TwinSwords: I hear what you are saying, but I'm not really looking at this from the perspective of journalistic ethics. That's an interesting dimension to the story, for sure, and one I would like to talk about at some point, but here I am only addressing whether the charges richocheting through the rightwing echo chamber are actually true. And two of them are not, as I have documented using the record provided by The Daily Caller.

As for his "who cares" comment, it has to be read and understood in the context in which it was stated. He was talking about a group of people he had already said were racist: "one of them," i.e., "one of" the ones who were "forc[ing] us all to either defend Wright or tear him down." Ackerman's proposal was to pick one of them -- one of those racists -- and try to hit back by calling them out.

I will defer to you on the question of journlistic ethics, because my only interest here is to show that the conservative CW about Ackerman's remarks is false on two counts.

And I'm sure you know better than I what the conservative CW is. As I've

Quoting TwinSwords: He said "one of them -- Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares." The word "them" still controls the scope of the group eligible for the treatment Ackerman proposed.

Twin, look, others, What the sentence seems to me to say is yes, "one" [and 'who cares' which one] of those harping on Wright. BUT it ALSO says that the group of people harping on Wright IS 'the right' writ large. So it's not one or the other. It's a statement that the two groups are the same.

Quoting TwinSwords: I just think that if people are going to claim that Ackerman said something, they should be able to identify the text where he said it. So far, all you have is a quote of Ackerman proposing that one of the people pushing the Wright story into its 3rd month should be attacked. No where does Ackerman suggest targeting anyone outside of that group.

Besides the fact that this discussion seems to have entirely missed the forest for the trees, there seems to be another issue here. Implicit in a lot of the defense of Spencer is that something actually did need to be done about people pushing the Wright story. I know this is going to elicit many frenzied paragraphs about the racist conservative movement, but what exactly is wrong with people in opinion journalism pushing a story? Jeff invoked Occum's Razor a few posts up, so let's apply it here. Wouldn't the Occum's Razor solution to this situation be that people were pushing it because they thought it was beneficial to electing John McCain? Going beyond that would seem to impugn people of

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Twin, look, others,

What the sentence seems to me to say is yes, "one" [and 'who cares' which one] of those harping on Wright. BUT it ALSO says that the group of people harping on Wright IS 'the right' writ large. So it's not one or the other. It's a statement that the two groups are the same.

I think that's false. "'The right' writ large" was not harping on Wright. It was specific people (though not a few), and they were mostly the usual suspects. Not everybody on that side is a race-baiter, but the race-baiters were out in force over the Issue of Rev. Wright. And, it seems to me that accusing white race-baiters of racism is not particularly out of line.

Quoting AemJeff: I think that's false. "'The right' writ large" was not harping on Wright. It was specific people (though not a few), and they were mostly the usual suspects. Not everybody on that side is a race-baiter, but the race-baiters were out in force over the Issue of Rev. Wright. And, it seems to me that accusing white race-baiters of racism is not particularly out of line.

Nah, Jeff, I AGREE with you that the 'right writ large' was not harping on the Rev Wright affair. But I'm saying ACKERMAN is suggesting that they were.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Nah, Jeff, I AGREE with you that the 'right writ large' was not harping on the Rev Wright affair. But I'm saying ACKERMAN is suggesting that they were.

Sorry, I obviously didn't fully understand you. I think we'll have to disagree about that, however. Ackerman's rhetoric can tend toward the violet end of the spectrum, but I think he's also a guy with a pretty sophisticated understanding of the world, and also a sense honor and underlying honesty.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Nah, Jeff, I AGREE with you that the 'right writ large' was not harping on the Rev Wright affair. But I'm saying ACKERMAN is suggesting that they were.

I don't read it that way. I think "the right" was immediately and clearly qualified to include a subset of the larger group, and I don't think his words can be fairly read otherwise. He twice qualified "the right" to limit the scope of the group. His original statement: "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..." First qualifier is "force us all to defend Wright." So, the group he's calling "the right" is first limited to include those who are forcing him to make the choice about defending Wright. Second qualifier is "they've put upon us." He's proposing a response to the group who have "put upon us" the quandry about whether to defend Wright. By definition and by the simple rules of English grammar, that group -- "the right" -- could not possibly be meant or understood to include people who did not "put upon us" the need to defend Wright. If we were to

Quoting chiwhisoxx: ... there seems to be another issue here. Implicit in a lot of the defense of Spencer is that something actually did need to be done about people pushing the Wright story.

Why is that an issue? Responding to right wing critics was the job description of many of the people on the list, and an important part of the avocational life of many of the other people on the list. It's a given that they were going to respond to the Wright story. I don't see why that's an issue.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: I know this is going to elicit many frenzied paragraphs about the racist conservative movement, but what exactly is wrong with people in opinion journalism pushing a story?

Nothing. I'm not sure who you think has been suggesting that there is something wrong with it. It seems to me that if anyone has been complaining about opinion journalists expressing opinions, it has been ... The Daily Caller, Breitbart, and many others on your side. Have you been following the debate at all? Have you noticed the outrage expressed by your side over the fact that liberal writers have liberal

Quoting AemJeff: I think that's false. "'The right' writ large" was not harping on Wright. It was specific people (though not a few), and they were mostly the usual suspects. Not everybody on that side is a race-baiter, but the race-baiters were out in force over the Issue of Rev. Wright. And, it seems to me that accusing white race-baiters of racism is not particularly out of line.

I absolutely do not want to re-fight the election, but I don't think people like Barnes were race-baiting. People like them and me were flummoxed to find that mild-mannered, middle-of-the-road Bam had attended such a church (Black Liberation Theology) with such a pastor, who in addition was a proponent of an anti-semitic Farrakhan. You are confusing shock and dismay with race-baiting, IMO. (And I understand the pragmatism of his choices, and the forces of group selection at play, but I do not want to re-hash it.)

Quoting look: I absolutely do not want to re-fight the election, but I don't think people like Barnes were race-baiting. People like them and me were flummoxed to find that mild-mannered, middle-of-the-road Bam had attended such a church (Black Liberation Theology) with such a pastor, who in addition was a proponent of an anti-semitic Farrakhan. You are confusing shock and dismay with race-baiting, IMO.

(And I understand the pragmatism of his choices, and the forces of group selection at play, but I do not want to re-hash it.)

Let's not rehash it,then. BLT is about black people feeling victimized and finding an outlet for those feelings. I have very little sympathy for whites who claim reverse racism.

Quoting AemJeff: Let's not rehash it,then. BLT is about black people feeling victimized and finding an outlet for those feelings. I have very little sympathy for whites who claim reverse racism.

I wonder, too, how legitimate it is to say Wright preached "black liberation theology," or what that term even means in Wright's case. I understand that black liberation theology is a form of liberation theology particular to the African American community. And I understand that liberation theology is a merger of Marxism with Christianity. But is it really accurate to say that Wright is a Marxist (or communist)? Or to say, as look did, that Wright's whole church was given over to the preaching of BLT? I have my doubts. Without looking into it further (to get at the real truth of the matter), I would assume that at least to some extent the "black liberation theology" thing is just more right-wing smearing of Wright and Obama. I do recall, too, that Glenn Loury characterized Wright's sermons as BLT, but again, what exactly this is supposed to mean is unclear. Hey, now that I think about it, maybe look can tell us what BLT means when it comes to Wright and his church; her post suggests

Quoting TwinSwords: I don't read it that way. I think "the right" was immediately and clearly qualified to include a subset of the larger group, and I don't think his words can be fairly read otherwise. He twice qualified "the right" to limit the scope of the group.

His original statement: "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..."

First qualifier is "force us all to defend Wright." So, the group he's calling "the right" is first limited to include those who are forcing him to make the choice about defending Wright.

Second qualifier is "they've put upon us." He's proposing a response to the group who have "put upon us" the quandry about whether to defend Wright.

By definition and by the simple rules of English grammar, that group -- "the right" -- could not possibly be meant or understood to include people who did not "put upon us" the need to defend Wright.

If we were to go with your interpretation that "the right" includes conservatives who were not pushing the Wright story, then how do you make sense

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Again, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying he includes conservatives who weren't pushing the Wright meme. Rather, he suggests that ALL conservatives WERE pushing that meme.

But that would be impossible. And no one would think Ackerman was suggesting something that would be impossible. Therefore it has to be understood to mean what it clearly does mean: he's talking about people pushing the Wright story. It's just obvious -- and I'm sure you know it.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Just adding a comma and a subordinate clause doesn't 'limit' the group, it EQUATES the term before the comma ('the right') with the terms after (people pushing the meme and forcing liberals into the corner). Ackerman is not dumb. He knows that the whole of the right was not doing that, but the grammatical construction in that sentence does not differentiate between the two.

Ackerman said that some group of people is "forc[ing] us all to either defend Wright or tear him down," and that if we respond, "we lose the game [this group has] put upon us..." There is no way that "this group" can be understood to include anyone who was not promoting the Wright story. It's really quite

Do you know of any criticism of this mosque from within the 'greater' Muslim community in New York? Sounds cool though. Modern, progressive, secular Islam. Not enough of it, unfortunately... but its growing hopefully. I wander into a mass from time to time myself.

Twin. He prefaces his description of the group's behavior and his proposed response (which I have journalistic issues with) with the term 'the right.' That's pretty simple. It would have been more correct to say "If part of the right is going to..." or "If the hard right is going to..." or "If the right wing media is going to..." It's a simple thing, but as a writer the generality of the term 'the right' bothers me. That is separate from my issue with the proposed response which I outlined elsewhere on this thread. I am NOT saying Ackerman ACTUALLY thinks the whole right is involved in the Wright affair meme. I AM saying he WORDED that sentence in a way that is more general. And even I can infer from the general to the specific, I don't think the burden should be on me as a reader to do that. I expect professional writers to be specific, precise, exact, always factual in their writing, even in personal communication to other writers.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Twin. He prefaces his description of the group's behavior and his proposed response (which I have journalistic issues with) with the term 'the right.' That's pretty simple. It would have been more correct to say "If part of the right is going to..." or "If the hard right is going to..." or "If the right wing media is going to..." It's a simple thing, but as a writer the generality of the term 'the right' bothers me. That is separate from my issue with the proposed response which I outlined elsewhere on this thread.

I am NOT saying Ackerman ACTUALLY thinks the whole right is involved in the Wright affair meme. I AM saying he WORDED that sentence in a way that is more general. And even I can infer from the general to the specific, I don't think the burden should be on me as a reader to do that. I expect professional writers to be specific, precise, exact, always factual in their writing, even in personal communication to other writers.

preppy, it'll never work. honestly, i'm surprised that twin can even see his computer monitor through his ideological blinders.

Quoting TwinSwords: Why is that an issue? Responding to right wing critics was the job description of many of the people on the list, and an important part of the avocational life of many of the other people on the list. It's a given that they were going to respond to the Wright story. I don't see why that's an issue.

Nothing. I'm not sure who you think has been suggesting that there is something wrong with it. It seems to me that if anyone has been complaining about opinion journalists expressing opinions, it has been ... The Daily Caller, Breitbart, and many others on your side. Have you been following the debate at all? Have you noticed the outrage expressed by your side over the fact that liberal writers have liberal opinions and -- gasp! -- occasionally express them to other liberal writers? That's what this whole controversy has been about. It's "the forest" you were talking about.

Now you are moving past the broad question about whether liberal bloggers should be allowed to express their personal political views to others using email, and into the nitty gritty of the Wright story. One so

Quoting chiwhisoxx: I have been paying attention, thanks. Some people on the right have been complaining about the opinion journalists on Journolist. I don't think that's necessarily correct. I think a lot more people are upset with mainstream, non opinionated journalists not only being included on the list, but participating in it. As for the Wright thing, you're right that getting into a long rehash of his remarks wouldn't be a very productive use of time. But, just a few things: I don't really care that those were the only inflammatory things people could find him saying. And I don't really care that you say they were taken out of context, which isn't how I remember it (and how exactly does one put comments like that in context?) You still may think it didn't deserve 12 weeks (by the way, what kind of coverage are we talking about? Wall to wall network news coverage? Cause that wasn't 12 weeks, c'mon.) of coverage. Guess what? Neither do I! I wish we could actually talk about issues in Presidential campaigns. But we don't, and so people who want to win elections push things that they think will help their candidate. And it was ever thus. Can Spencer write something

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: I expect professional writers to be specific, precise, exact, always factual in their writing, even in personal communication to other writers.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: I have since recounted my experience with that publication to several other journos at various places and seen nods of agreement. So yes, you are correct that I can't prove Mickey is right, but I can say that his critique jives with my overall experience of the media, and those of others I know.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: This was great. Matthew mispronounces a few words and place names, but otherwise, most of what he said jives with my reporting.

I expect you, as a writer, to stop jive talking, when you mean to say jibe. Of course, this is only a forum. Ackerman was only on a listserv. Still, your standards must apply to your every utterance, no?

Quoting graz: I expect you, as a writer, to stop jive talking, when you mean to say jibe. Of course, this is only a forum. Ackerman was only on a listserv. Still, your standards must apply to your every utterance, no?

Indeed they should. I was wrong, twice. I don't think that's insignificant. In fact, I rebuke myself pretty heavily for that, and have just added it to a post it on the side of my laptop with words, phrases I've recently bungled. So thanks for pointing it out.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Twin. He prefaces his description of the group's behavior and his proposed response (which I have journalistic issues with) with the term 'the right.' That's pretty simple. It would have been more correct to say "If part of the right is going to..." or "If the hard right is going to..." or "If the right wing media is going to..."

First of all, you're absolutely right that if Ackerman were a lawyer drafting a contract, the more precise language would be preferable. But people don't talk that way in real life. In real life, people generalize. People speak like Ackerman did in that post all the time. I have no doubt that I could find examples when you have talked about groups of people without the extra layers of precision. And why would you have done this? Because you know that people have the ability to interpret language and understand clear meaning. In fact, you go on to say so later (two quotes below).

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: It's a simple thing, but as a writer the generality of the term 'the right' bothers me. That is separate from my issue with the proposed response which I outlined elsewhere on

Quoting TwinSwords: But that would be impossible. And no one would think Ackerman was suggesting something that would be impossible. Therefore it has to be understood to mean what it clearly does mean: he's talking about people pushing the Wright story. It's just obvious -- and I'm sure you know it.

Ackerman said that some group of people is "forc[ing] us all to either defend Wright or tear him down," and that if we respond, "we lose the game [this group has] put upon us..."

There is no way that "this group" can be understood to include anyone who was not promoting the Wright story. It's really quite simple, and quite obvious.

I think what's going on hear is that some credulous readers uncritically swallowed a narrative fed to them by The Caller and the larger wingnutosphere, and upon examination of the actual text, these readers now feel a strong need to defend ground they had previous staked out. Humans, especially very high achieving humans, find it very difficult to admit error.

Which you said was, after "more than two months of sustained cable news frenzy, still pushing the Jeremiah Wright story."

Rather, he was talking

Quoting TwinSwords: Saying that Ackerman's writing lacks precision or professionalism is a long way from saying that Ackerman wanted to accuse any conservative racism, regardless of their involvement in the Wright story.

I am making TWO points. 1. the point about specificity in writing, which is, admittedly, a standard that I myself fall short of, but that I still think is the goal, and one that professional writers--as opposed to others--should be chastised for failing to meet when it occurs. 2. the point about Ackerman's more specific point about how to handle the group he refers to as 'the right' (even if he means a more narrow group). His recommendation, to call one of them racists, EVEN IF we take him as meaning one of the more narrow group, I STILL find repugnant on journalistic grounds discussed elsewhere. However, putting these two points together, I am saying that IF a person takes Ackerman's words LITERALLY, as opposed to interpreting them more narrowly as you or I have done, then he DID imply a broader group for potential accusation.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: I have been paying attention, thanks. Some people on the right have been complaining about the opinion journalists on Journolist. I don't think that's necessarily correct. I think a lot more people are upset with mainstream, non opinionated journalists not only being included on the list, but participating in it.

Sure. Some have. But as far as I can tell, there really weren't very many of those. The main thrust of the conservative outrage over Journolist hasn't been those few isolated examples of 2 or 3 objective reporters who were members of the list. The main thrust of the story has been the right's dishonest campaign to portray Journolist as synonymous with "the media," and to suggest that it (a) included far more members of the MSM than it really did, and (b) had reach and power all out of proportion to what it really had. The average Joe sitting on his couch listening to Fox News very likely has a completely skewed perception of who was on journolist and the level of coordination that went on there.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: As for the Wright thing, you're right that getting into a long rehash of his remarks wouldn't be

Quoting look: Which you said was, after "more than two months of sustained cable news frenzy, still pushing the Jeremiah Wright story."

-pg. 3, post 109

I'm not sure I see your point, look. Can you clarify? BTW: I'm going to bed soon, so I may not respond until tomorrow or later in the week.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: I am making TWO points.

1. the point about specificity in writing, which is, admittedly, a standard that I myself fall short of, but that I still think is the goal, and one that professional writers--as opposed to others--should be chastised for failing to meet when it occurs.

2. the point about Ackerman's more specific point about how to handle the group he refers to as 'the right' (even if he means a more narrow group). His recommendation, to call one of them racists, EVEN IF we take him as meaning one of the more narrow group, I STILL find repugnant on journalistic grounds discussed elsewhere.

And on other, non-journalistic grounds, too. Even apart from the question of journalistic ethics, there's nothing admirable about what Ackerman was proposing. I have heretofore refrained from passing judgment on Ackerman's actual proposal because it hasn't been relevant to the points I've been arguing. But his suggestion that his side should play the race card doesn't impress me at all. So I'm happy he was shot down by several other journolisters. In his defense I will observe that he's very young and as such probably somewhat impulsive and emotional.

Quoting TwinSwords: And on other, non-journalistic grounds, too. Even apart from the question of journalistic ethics, there's nothing admirable about what Ackerman was proposing. I have heretofore refrained from passing judgment on Ackerman's actual proposal because it hasn't been relevant to the points I've been arguing. But his suggestion that his side should play the race card doesn't impress me at all. So I'm happy he was shot down by several other journolisters. In his defense I will observe that he's very young and as such probably somewhat impulsive and emotional.

It was a slimy idea. Agreed. Not sure his age is a defense though. I think after about age 20, anyone should know better.

Quoting TwinSwords: I'm not sure I see your point, look. Can you clarify?

BTW: I'm going to bed soon, so I may not respond until tomorrow or later in the week.

Same hear...'night.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: It was a slimy idea. Agreed. Not sure his age is a defense though. I think after about age 20, anyone should know better.

It would be more a function of temperament than age. I have a general impression that your exceedingly high expectations are rarely the standard met by journalists in general or people your age particularly.

Quoting graz: It would be more a function of temperament than age. I have a general impression that your exceedingly high expectations are rarely the standard met by journalists in general or people your age particularly.

Yeah, you guys are right that it's probably not correct to blame it on his age. I do think in general young people are more likely to give into impulsiveness and emotion, but there still has to be some underlying temperament that would lead him to behave that way, as you suggest. I also think that not many people on Journolist share PMP's commitment to her particular and rigid journalistic code of conduct. It strikes me that most of the journolisters are not objective reporters or even journalists. They are more like political activists. Many of the people on the list have devoted their lives -- or a significant part of their lives -- to advocating for a particular point of view. Their political activism is much more central to their concept of self than any notion of hewing to some idealized concept of objective journalism. These are people, for the most part, who explicitly

Quoting chiwhisoxx: Besides the fact that this discussion seems to have entirely missed the forest for the trees, ...

Quoting chiwhisoxx: ... but what exactly is wrong with people in opinion journalism pushing a story?

In light of the hysteria shown by you and your allies over ZOMG JOURNOLIST!!!1!, the above are the funniest things I have read in weeks.

Quoting nikkibong: preppy, it'll never work. honestly, i'm surprised that twin can even see his computer monitor through his ideological blinders.

A post beneath even you.

Quoting nikkibong: preppy, it'll never work. honestly, i'm surprised that twin can even see his computer monitor through his ideological blinders.

An excellent and truthful post. Thanks.

Quoting graz:

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: I expect professional writers to be specific, precise, exact, always factual in their writing, even in personal communication to other writers.

Good lord, have you got some growing up to do, Ms. Preposition.

Quoting graz: I expect you, as a writer, to stop jive talking, when you mean to say jibe. Of course, this is only a forum. Ackerman was only on a listserv. Still, your standards must apply to your every utterance, no?

FTW.

Quoting TwinSwords: Sure. Some have. But as far as I can tell, there really weren't very many of those. The main thrust of the conservative outrage over Journolist hasn't been those few isolated examples of 2 or 3 objective reporters who were members of the list. The main thrust of the story has been the right's dishonest campaign to portray Journolist as synonymous with "the media," and to suggest that it (a) included far more members of the MSM than it really did, and (b) had reach and power all out of proportion to what it really had. The average Joe sitting on his couch listening to Fox News very likely has a completely skewed perception of who was on journolist and the level of coordination that went on there.

I don't watch network news coverage, so I can't say how much they talked about it. But it certainly wasn't "wall to wall," simply because the format of network news does not allow for that. Network new broadcasts in the evening are 22 minutes and they have to cover an array to topic areas. The morning shows are much longer, but they, too, have formats which compel them

Quoting rcocean: An excellent and truthful post.

Thanks.

That's kind of quaint, coming as it does from you.

Quoting bjkeefe: A post beneath even you.

I rest my case.

Quoting TwinSwords: Yeah, you guys are right that it's probably not correct to blame it on his age. I do think in general young people are more likely to give into impulsiveness and emotion, but there still has to be some underlying temperament that would lead him to behave that way, as you suggest.

I also think that not many people on Journolist share PMP's commitment to her particular and rigid journalistic code of conduct. It strikes me that most of the journolisters are not objective reporters or even journalists. They are more like political activists. Many of the people on the list have devoted their lives -- or a significant part of their lives -- to advocating for a particular point of view. Their political activism is much more central to their concept of self than any notion of hewing to some idealized concept of objective journalism. These are people, for the most part, who explicitly want to advance a liberal agenda, something they could not do very well if they had to conduct themselves the way Preppy has decided that she must conduct herself.

I just googled for a

Quoting chiwhisoxx: Yes, you've caught me, I'm in my 20's. I'll hang my head in shame and silently slink away now. But seriously folks, I don't watch much cable news either. And we're not going to settle this with anecdotes about what the news coverage was when it appears that neither of us watch much of it anyways.

I never sit down in front of the television and watch cable news. But I do have cable news on in the background almost all the time when I'm home, and in that way, plus closely reading the political press and blogs, I always have a very good idea what is being discussed in the national political dialog. In other words, I have a very good idea of how the Wright story played in the first half of 2008, how the journolist story has played in Summer, 2010, and remember in vivid detail how Clinton's presidency was covered.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: You also seem to be describing press coverage *post* Lewinsky, which seems to make a good bit of difference. It seems like Bubba probably had a bit of bad press coming after proving himself unable to keep his snake in his

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: 41, 47, 59 are, for the WaPo, Bloomberg and CJR respectively.

Thanks! Next step is to cross reference those names against the published record and see what contributions they may have made to the discussions occurring on journolist. I realize you would not, but if I was a political reporter committed to objectivity, I would still be willing to join journolist -- not to privately express my liberal POV, but to pick up leads and to keep my finger on the pulse of a group of semi-influential liberal activists. I know you have said that an objective reporter should get no where near a list like that*, but I can well imagine that some objective reporter somewhere might have been happy for the chance to be on the list just so he or she could keep tabs on what was being discussed. By the way, I've been meaning to ask. You've had a lot of criticism of the members of journolist for their role in this affair. What about The Daily Caller? What do you think of their ethics and how they have covered this story? Do you see any issues there?
* Or, at least, that's what I recall you

Quoting TwinSwords: Thanks!

Next step is to cross reference those names against the published record and see what contributions they may have made to the discussions occurring on journolist.

I realize you would not, but if I was a political reporter committed to objectivity, I would still be willing to join journolist -- not to privately express my liberal POV, but to pick up leads and to keep my finger on the pulse of a group of semi-influential liberal activists. I know you have said that an objective reporter should get no where near a list like that*, but I can well imagine that some objective reporter somewhere might have been happy for the chance to be on the list just so he or she could keep tabs on what was being discussed.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask. You've had a lot of criticism of the members of journolist for their role in this affair. What about The Daily Caller? What do you think of their ethics and how they have covered this story? Do you see any issues there?

* Or, at least, that's what I recall you saying. My apologies if I've

Quoting TwinSwords: Yeah, you guys are right that it's probably not correct to blame it on his age. I do think in general young people are more likely to give into impulsiveness and emotion, but there still has to be some underlying temperament that would lead him to behave that way, as you suggest.

I also think that not many people on Journolist share PMP's commitment to her particular and rigid journalistic code of conduct. It strikes me that most of the journolisters are not objective reporters or even journalists. They are more like political activists....

I think part of it is temperment, specifically what seems to be Ackerman's general approach, which I would not agree is any more common than Preppy's (based on her persona in this forum). I think another part of it, though, and another reason I think the JournoList idea ended up being a bad one, is that there was some degree of confusion about what was going on on that list. Was it a bunch of activists or friends, as Ackerman may have thought in the moment? Or was it a professional discussion among journalists of a particular range of

Quoting johnatthebar: Part of it is that Bob is so clearly in such a good mood when he's talking to Mickey. The variation in Bob's comfort level (where 1=Andrew Sullivan, 3=Mike Kinsley, 9=Joel and 10=Mickey) is one of the great joys of Bloggingheads completionism.

What level on this scale will assign to Christopher Hitchens?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I dunno, it seems to be a pretty apt analogy in that both cases have someone taking tenuous-to-non-existent ties to some feared organization and tries to spin it as substantive in order to politically injure the target. Bob said it best when he pointed out that the investigative reporting of the piece led to nothing and therefore should have either highlighted that there is NOT a credible connection to terrorist groups, or should have more appropriately been one of the millions of stories that remain on the cutting room floor. To take the non-evidence and spin it as evidence in the hope of scaring the public, is exactly the type of tactic that McCarthy was famous for.

I just finished reading the TNR piece and considering Mr. Schwartz's previous writing it seems relatively mild. He is a Sufi Muslim who writes about the influence of Wahabi/Salafi money in the West. My guess is that he looked pretty hard for a link but was unable to find it. We may not have heard the last from him on this subject.

Quoting stephanie: I think part of it is temperment, specifically what seems to be Ackerman's general approach, which I would not agree is any more common than Preppy's (based on her persona in this forum).

I think another part of it, though, and another reason I think the JournoList idea ended up being a bad one, is that there was some degree of confusion about what was going on on that list. Was it a bunch of activists or friends, as Ackerman may have thought in the moment? Or was it a professional discussion among journalists of a particular range of political views? My understanding is the latter, but given the personal relationships between them, I can understand feeling at times that it was the former, especially in the heat of the moment. It's not an admirable thing in either context, but there's a big difference between venting or ranting to friends and making the statement on a professional listserv or one devoted to a journalistic discussion. That both were going on creates, at least, a potential appearance of impropriety for those concerned about journalistic ethics and professionalism.

And for that matter, I think it's not fair to

I disagree with your assesment of the most obvious reading of Ackerman's words. I think Twin nailed it as being a much more targeted group that he was talking about (Barnes, Rove etc.) and I think Twin's rabbit analogy illustrated that logic nicely. But another thing worth mentioning is the possibility that Ackerman is known as a blowhard who tends towards hyperbole amongst friends. And I'm not saying that as a negative. I'm very much the same way with alot of my more intimate conversations. I tend to say drastic things for comedic effect or just to be provocative. And taken out of context it can be very easy to get the wrong impression of what I actually meant, if someone parsed through my e-mails etc. The very fact that Ackerman's suggested tactic didn't get much enthusiasm from others on Journolist suggest that they may have treated it more as Spencer-being-Spencer or even that he was using a bit of sarcasm. Obviously this gets into crystal-ball territory on our part, but I just thought it worth mentioning because everyone seems to be going on a 100% literal reading of

Interesting policy, but I don't really think you should enforce it. For example. Get past the notion that it is inherrent to human beings who are angry to always be civil. I'd pay to see Ann Coulter on BH.TV. I don't know who she should debate, someone both sympathetic but also antagonistic to her views. A 'new-partier' like Ross Douthat or David Frum? Or a libertarian? BH.TV Premium?

Quoting Alexandrite:
I'd pay to see Ann Coulter on BH.TV. I don't know who she should debate, someone both sympathetic but also antagonistic to her views. A 'new-partier' like Ross Douthat or David Frum? Or a libertarian?

BH.TV Premium?

Christopher Hitchens. I doubt she'd let him get away with the 'smarter than thou' routine...and vice versa.

Quoting badhatharry: Christopher Hitchens. I doubt she'd let him get away with the 'smarter than thou' routine...and vice versa.

I remember her on Buckley's "Firing Line" once, in the mid-to-late nineties. Buckley's patience with her approach seemed to me to have lasted about fifteen minutes. He was characteristically gracious, but it was clear (to me at any rate) that he had very little he wanted to hear from her by show's end.

Bob doesn't seem to see much wrong with supporting Hamas, a virulently anti-semitic terrorist organization. By that same logic, it wouldn't be bad to support the Klan. Now, not everyone who has ever supported the Klan has been racist (though the vast majority have), but everyone who has supported the Klan has at least demonstrated a tolerance of, if not an outright acceptance of, racism and terrorism, because they would not otherwise support the organization. In the same way, not everyone who voices support of Hamas is an antisemite, but the vast majority are, and the rest tolerate if not accept bigotry and terrorism. Time for Bob and others on the left to take a more sane position on Hamas.

Quoting badhatharry: Christopher Hitchens. I doubt she'd let him get away with the 'smarter than thou' routine...and vice versa.

I think Hitch is a great selection, but unlikely. Mickey's my top choice. Bob is just using the apology thing as an excuse. He simply detests her. See if you can find the Hitchens review of Coulter's book 'Godless,' I think it was. Nicely done.

Exactly right, especially this part:

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I disagree with your assesment of the most obvious reading of Ackerman's words. I think Twin nailed it as being a much more targeted group that he was talking about (Barnes, Rove etc.) and I think Twin's rabbit analogy illustrated that logic nicely.

But another thing worth mentioning is the possibility that Ackerman is known as a blowhard who tends towards hyperbole amongst friends. And I'm not saying that as a negative. I'm very much the same way with alot of my more intimate conversations. I tend to say drastic things for comedic effect or just to be provocative. And taken out of context it can be very easy to get the wrong impression of what I actually meant, if someone parsed through my e-mails etc. The very fact that Ackerman's suggested tactic didn't get much enthusiasm from others on Journolist suggest that they may have treated it more as Spencer-being-Spencer or even that he was using a bit of sarcasm. Obviously this gets into crystal-ball territory on our part, but I just thought it worth mentioning because everyone seems to be going on a

Quoting look: See if you can find the Hitchens review of Coulter's book 'Godless,' I think it was. Nicely done.

Is this the one you had in mind?

Quoting bjkeefe: Is this the one you had in mind?

I'm sorry; as much as I may agree with some of Hitchens' views, I just cannot abide his bitter, dishonest nastiness. I went to this review with the hope that with respect to Ann Coulter, whom I generally view as despicable, Hitchens might make a solid argument. However, in my view he undermined whatever points he had to make by virtue of his unadulterated meanness, if nothing else. I'm sorry if he is unwell, as I have heard, and personally I wish him well; but what he writes here is just unreadable vitriol.

Quoting listener: I'm sorry; as much as I may agree with some of Hitchens' views, I just cannot abide his bitter, dishonest nastiness. I went to this review with the hope that with respect to Ann Coulter, whom I generally view as despicable, Hitchens might make a solid argument. However, in my view he undermined whatever points he had to make by virtue of his unadulterated meanness, if nothing else. I'm sorry if he is unwell, as I have heard, and personally I wish him well; but what he writes here is just unreadable vitriol.

Yeah, but context is king. Coulter is a gushing well of unreadable vitriol. Hitchens simply seemed to be attempting a much needed top-kill operation.

Quoting AemJeff: Yeah, but context is king. Coulter is a gushing well of unreadable vitriol. Hitchens simply seemed to be attempting a much needed top-kill operation.

If so, that is what is known as "sinking to her level," which as I wrote, only weakens his argument and undermines whatever points he had to make IMO.

Quoting bjkeefe: Is this the one you had in mind?

Yes, thanks. As good as I remember, and still gallant enough to throw her a bone.

Quoting piscivorous: In your experience how many people do yo have to share your private thoughts with until all you know and see, and probably many you don't, know all about your privately shared proclivities and foibles. The only amazement one should find in this whole adventure is that it took so long for the breach to occur and and thus provide so much clarity.

Curiously, the above was not moved to the Flame thread, although my response to it was. If you're interested, see here.