Fred Barnes says he wasn’t one to believe in “vast Liberal conspiracies” involving the media. He just thought the media’s Liberal slant was a function of the type of persons it attracted (I’ve never believed the two were mutually exclusive). But then the JournoList emails were exposed and he’s since amended his thinking because what they reveal is pretty disturbing. Everybody has a slant, both Liberal and conservative. But they aren’t equivalent, and Barnes tells us why. Conservative journalists are loners, while Liberal journalists work as a pack.
When I’m talking to people from outside Washington, one question inevitably comes up: Why is the media so liberal? The question often reflects a suspicion that members of the press get together and decide on a story line that favors liberals and Democrats and denigrates conservatives and Republicans.
My response has usually been to say, yes, there’s liberal bias in the media, but there’s no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal. If they came from West Point or engineering school, this wouldn’t be the case.
Now, after learning I’d been targeted for a smear attack by a member of an online clique of liberal journalists, I’m inclined to amend my response. Not to say there’s a media conspiracy, but at least to note that hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.
It’s thanks to Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller website that we know something about JournoList, though the emails among the liberal journalists were meant to be private. (Mr. Carlson hasn’t revealed how he obtained the emails.) In June, the Daily Caller disclosed a series of JournoList musings by David Weigel, then a Washington Post blogger assigned to cover conservatives. His emails showed he loathes conservatives, and he was subsequently fired.
This week, Mr. Carlson produced a series of JournoList emails from April 2008, when Barack Obama’s presidential bid was in serious jeopardy. Videos of the antiwhite, anti-American sermons of his Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had surfaced, first on ABC and then other networks.
JournoList contributors discussed strategies to aid Mr. Obama by deflecting the controversy. They went public with a letter criticizing an ABC interview of Mr. Obama that dwelled on his association with Mr. Wright. Then, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent proposed attacking Mr. Obama’s critics as racists. He wrote:
“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. . . . This makes them ‘sputter’ with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”
No one on JournoList endorsed the Ackerman plan. But rather than object on ethical grounds, they voiced concern that the strategy would fail or possibly backfire.
Read the rest.
How could someone be so blatantly evil in the relatively polite company of a list serve, you ask? Modern Libs and cons live in the same country, but we are cultural “other” to each other. They are something alien brought to these shores by the Frankfurt School. The Secular Progressive doesn’t play by the same rules we do, and that’s because they follow a different morality altogether. Secular Progressive morality has its origins in Marxism. Morality is measured in terms of strong vs weak, rich vs poor. Right and wrong is entirely subjective. Their morality focuses on the collective rather than the individual. Righteousness is doing good for humanity at large, not a personal code of conduct. Earthly utopia is the highest calling of the Secular Humanist. This is why they chafe under traditional judeo-christian codes of personal behavior– because it is heavily focused on individual righteousness– which they reject. When a conservative is caught high on meth in a whorehouse, what does the Lib focus on? The hypocrisy, not the whores and meth. The latter is just a wild weekend in Vegas as far as they’re concerned. The conservative has been caught violating his code of conduct, not theirs, and that is his crime– hypocrisy. On a personal level the Progs have license to play fast and loose when it comes to a personal code. They can lie and cheat– guilt-free– if it furthers their noble cause. They don’t sweat the small stuff. Thus, by their moral standards, a non-collectivist like Fred Barnes is genuinely an evil person, as are all conservatives and Republicans. He is literally evil because conservatives don’t care about “the poor”, little children in Haiti, or making the world a better place, etc. Darth Vader’s got nothing on the likes of Fred Barnes or a Karl Rove. And because Secular Progressive morality requires so little of them on an individual level, they can literally hash their evil plots amongst each other with little or no fear of repercussion or stigma because their cause is noble, their target completely dehumanized, and their code of personal conduct entirely permissive.