1,000 Member Left Wing Journalist Group Exposed!!!

Says you and the echo chamber. But yeah, to repeat, I guess this applies to leftist pet canards like dog whistle racism too? a leftist conspiracy claim with no evidence whatsoever compared to the thread topic? No? How bout all the foamy-mouthed Koch hysteria you yourself post right here on this forum? No? LOL.

What connections do you have to pay attention and look for? that the Heritage Foundation, Cato or AEI are ostensibly right/libertarian groups? It's right on their materials and web pages! You couldn't possibly be stupid enough to equate ostensibly ideological groups who ADVERTISE their policies and political bias with a hidden ideological "journolist" group among diverse organizations that represent themselves to the public as objective, could you? Even Corky the Pinhead could see the difference. So are you trying to make some bad joke here with this obviously bogus comparison?

OMG you are serious with this. LOL, I'm truly sorry for you, life must have really been harsh to you with that level of cognitive impairment. Everyone reading this thread knows there are partisan websites and groups of all stripes who publish their advocacy. Anyone who can't tell instantly that Breitbart or Huffington (or Cato or Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) are partisan should stick to coloring books (however it is a fact that the leftosphere is much more likely to try to cloak their partisanship in neutrality and hide the ball).

OTOH, here is a clandestine club of journalist members of an ideologically homogenous group working for a diverse variety of purportedly objectiveMSM entities. These are entities that hold themselves out to the public explicitly as having a certain level of unbiased integrity in their reporting standards. Any reasonable American should be incensed by such a group's existence, and should instantly boycott any information source that allows its employees to engage in it. It smacks of collusion and propagandeering, both repugnant to a free press and to the outsized freedoms we allocate to the press.

Now it comes back to me, I recall all your "expose'" posts of partisan advocacy groups no one really in fact cares about because no is hiding the ball with respect to those groups. These entities you are always "exposing" have web sites and advertise their advocacy, policy initiatives for all to see. Who the F really cares where their funding comes from as long as they are straightforward in doing what they say they are going to do? It would be another matter if they defrauded people by raising money for X policy and then lobbying for the opposite of X with the contributions they receive. Otherwise, who cares how they are funded? People/contributors are fully capable of making up their own minds about what policies and partisan groups they support or not.

So you tilt at these windmills from time to time here despite the fact that people really DON'T care about whether the Kochs fund Cato for example. As long as Cato has a stated position and sticks to that, people can decide what they believe or support on their own. But really, we see through your frequent anti Koch/TP group appeals for exactly what they really are, appeals to censorship. Like so many other leftists out there, it incenses you that other POVs seep through the cracks, that your singular statist propaganda only rules 80-90% of the roost any more instead of 95% of it. You'd love to censor and shut those groups up. You can't do that, so the next best thing is to insinuate that they are corrupt or fraudulent because of who gives them money as opposed to the consistency of their actual message and initiatives, which any inquiry into corruption should focus on. Sorry, I don't think this appeal is going to work for you with any reasonable people, maybe with the typical low info leftists though, I guess that's why you and others repeat it so much.

No, here in THIS thread, we have crystal clear evidence of corruption in media organizations that hold themselves out as objective purveyors of news with standards and integrity. How can a secret cabal of ideologically biased members comparing notes be OK in ANY kind of organization that holds itself out as objective? It stinks, and it doesn't take a genius to see it. There is no comparison possible between this kind of thing and standard advocacy groups who publish a position, raise money and then lobby for that position, NONE whatsoever. This kind of "secret cooperative list" thing is morally disgusting. There may even be legal antitrust ramifications accompanying this list. The messages and news information media provides are a product in certain respects like any other, and if providers are -colluding- to offer a "group approved" product, this is anticompetitive in the same way price fixing is.

O sweet irony.

and the shoddy level of reasoning on display in your comparison of The Heritage Foundation to a secret group of leftist journalists across many companies is why I don't take many of your posts seriously regardless of what leftlinks you provide with them.

 

I'll begin where I finished.

I would take your posts seriously if you backed them up with fact, but you don't.

Every word here is a non sequiter. There is plenty of evidence for the way right wing fake news websites, tea party front groups and fake charities like Move America Forward, milk their target audiences for money which gets laundered into the pockets of "political consultants" and lobbying firms, contrary to your rant.

The Koch's are only the most obvious examples of how secretive right wing billionarers funnel money into groups that con the little guy into buying the billionaire's agenda. Americans for Prosperity is a Koch front, and that is now well know, dispite the fact that Charles Koch has lied about it pubically.

These groups all claim to be think tanks. Once upon a time, think tanks were strictly non partisan and non ideological. Their job was academic research. Their scholars were actually scholars, not pundits between gigs or politicians.

That changed with the arrival of the Heritage Foundation in 1980. It's role was to promote ideology, and hire talking heads to sell them. It was financed by yet another secretive conservative billionare, Joseph Coors. Nearly, the Kochs were seeding the Cato Institute.

These organizations are public relations mills, not research institutions. They start with the conclusions their benefators dictate, and then go off and assemble the evidence.

A real think tank does not pay television networks to feature their talking heads, or pay talk radio jockeys to read their talking points over the air. Heritage does both.

Back in the day, when a record company bribed a disc jockey or a program director to play certain songs, it was called Payola, and people went to jail for it. Now Heritage pays Limbaugh to read their press releases and pass it off as his original commentary. There is no difference.

You won't see the Brookings Institute, the Rand Corporation, or the Carnagie Endowment doing this sort of the thing. That's not what think tanks to.

I have never said that. You are, once again, trying to substitute your own vitriol for other people's words. You're using the language of right wing talk radio, too, right down to the code words. Do you ever think for yourself, or do you just parrot Mark Levin?

I have never argued for censorship of any of these groups. I have consistantly argued that people should be aware of who they are and who is behind them. I believe that should be the case for left wing groups too. But then, the pattern of secrecy is largely a right wing phenomena. George Soros doesn't hide what he does. The Kochs do.

Anyone who argues that the idea is the only thing that counts and that it's OK for the person peddling that idea to hide themselves or their agenda is a fool. It's the intellectual equivalent of giving you bank routing number and account number to a Nigerian prince on the internet. (and in practice, not much different). Yet you, and many other far right wingers defend willful ignorance all the time.

The fact that much of the right wing blogoshere is little more than an elaborate money raising machine is becoming more obvious every day.

Just this week, a story ran on the fake charity Move America Forward, which is a front group for the lobbying firm Russo Marsh. Tea Party Express is also a Russo Marsh product.

They promote their efforts through right wing media, talk radio jockeys (Levin is one of them) and on Fox. They collect contact information from folks like you who take their message at face value, and pocket it, or launder it to a growing number of conservative consultants, poltical activists and well heeled lobbying firms.

In fact, the story was a textbook example of how the money laundering operation works.

Some outlets, like NewsMax, make most of their money this way.

It's a scam. And the rubes love it.

 

"Every word here is a non sequitur?" Someone needs to revisit their logic 101 notes (as if LOL).

No it's not, and no there's not. What you posted was (para) "as this thread evidences, no one cares about the man behind the curtain." To translate, "no one should care when my side does it via secret leftist cabals in the ostensibly objective MSM that people are influenced by every day, it's only the support of well-known, public partisan groups that hardly anyone of the general public reads or pays attention to that is the -real- problem." And of course you dodge on the dog-whistle, Koch points, or rather cite to some defined, secret list of "dog whistlers," you can't because it doesn't exist, because the whole premise of dog-whistle racism and such collusion among nonleftist interests is absurd and utterly unfounded. But I see, of course that kind of "man behind the curtain" thing is different. Sure.

... and if you are nostalgic for those good ole days, the reason they don't exist any more is squarely on YOUR SIDE of the fence for injecting ideology into academics for humpteen decades in this country until the nonleft finally caught on and started doing it too. Moreover, leftist think tanks do the exact same thing, the operative difference between such and the thread topic is that all the .2% of the population who have ever read any of "XYZ" left/right partisan foundation's white papers know -exactly- what they are getting into on the front end. The majority of the public who use MSM sources for information do not realize the extent of bias in media, and certainly don't realize that their ostensibly "objective" reporters and journalists are participating in secret squirrel leftist groups behind everyone's back for the purpose of presenting a unified front.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center 1971

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution 1916 (97% contributions to Democrats)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Policy_Institute 1986

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_on_Budget_and_Policy_Priorities 1981

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Institute 1968 (100% of contributions to Democrats)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Tax_Justice 1979

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_Foundation 1919

Let's just cut to the chase with a whole list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_think_tanks_in_the_United_States

How many of those have partisan aim? How many are nonleft? Tempt me to parse the whole list, what do you suppose will become instantly apparent about someone who focuses their ire ONLY on the activities of Cato, Heritage, AEI in a sea of such think-tanks? Hmm?

Oh, yeah, of course it "all began" with Heritage and Cato, what a deluded pile of partisan, I suspect purposeful, pure unadulterated poo that statement is. The only thing that "began" with Heritage and Cato was an end to monolithic leftism in public policy organizations. Now that there are Heritage, Cato, AEI, and a very few other optional, opposing POVs out there, you and yours can't stand it. You yourself tilt at this windmill over and over here. Your bias and true intent couldn't be more obvious to any reasonable reader.

Translates as "unlike all the other -good- leftist think tanks that always engage in stellar levels of research integrity and scholarship, these don't agree with my statist POV, so they simply must be merely 'public relations mills.'"

Well, other than it's complete apples and oranges, 1. IT'S PUBLIC, IN PLAIN VIEW, well-known, unlike payola. 2. It is not illegal, unlike payola, which was illegal as a matter of express statute prohibiting it. So comparing Heritage/Limbaugh to payola is in error.

But let's do continue with a different take on your payola analogy. 1. The clandestine list of leftist journalists is in secret, or intended to be, not public, hidden, just like payola. 2. Whereas such is not explicitly illegal under a specific statute I'm aware of, it is definitely suspect under basic antitrust analysis, which I will spare the thread the detail of unless pressed. So it turns out that your payola analogy might be legit after all... for describing the thread topic, but certainly not the relationship between Limbaugh and Heritage. Oh, I see, Limbaugh is on the radio and payola was on the radio, that's really where you or whatever leftblogger came up with that got such an inapt analogy. Sorry, I truly am, if that's how the false analogy came to be. Hopefully, here on PF, unlike in the leftosphere, everyone including you has an IQ above 85.

I have a hunch the above isn't true at all, and that think tanks of all stripes regularly buy media as part of their publicity and marketing budgets. But really who cares if they do or don't? I don't care because they are public, and if half the bogus weight loss and age reversing makeup ads on TV aren't illegal and fraudulent, I don't see how think tank ads would be. If they were taking corporate (or govt grant) money to compromise their research and enrich their members, now THAT would be a big problem, but curiously you and yours never approach it from that end. Could it be you'd rather not dig into the grant graft that goes on between leftist/statist think tanks and govt?

What I do care about is behind the scenes collusion and manipulation conducted under a cover of objectivity.

Correct, you never said "my true aim is to censor nonleft media sources/organizations by way of making spurious claims that they are somehow worse than leftist media sources." It's just that everything you post bears that out in spades. Of course you wouldn't say that. It's my unchanged opinion though that that's exactly what you and yours mean with all the singling out of Koch, Heritage and Cato in a sea of gun-for-hire media and university researchers and nonprofit drum banging and axe-grinding. The disingenuousness of your position and willingness to look past leftists doing the exact same thing is proof enough of your intent for me.

Moreover, your obviously erroneous attempt to downplay the thread topic, a very real problematic issue of ostensibly objective MSM journalists given special legal protection and standing, then crapping all over that by setting up secret partisan "yes man" lists, and return the spotlight to all the bad things nonleft media does... in plain view... in public... in entertainment the nonleft controls about, eh, 10% of... doubly affirms my estimation of you and yours' true message on this issue.

BTW, I barely know who Mark Levin is, couldn't identify him or any of his works by face or name.

 

LMFAO

This thread is comedy gold. The mouth-breathing conspiracy theorists are working themselves up into a lather over their latest non-scandal. I guess it was time to pull out the next phony scandal out of the right wing clown car since none of the other phony scandals have gained traction in the reality-based world.

Keep it up...

 

I see, another person who agrees that "dog whistle racism" and "Kochs are controlling politics" are inane and silly talking points. Cool.

 

Well it was lenghtly, but it wasn't substantive.

Most of the organizations that you listed are not think tanks, they are political organizations with agendas.

Your comparison between this Yahoo group and the payola that major right wing think tanks do is totally invalid.

This a Yahoo news group shared by a relatively small number of people. No one is getting paid to do anything.

This is false, the average Limbaugh listener has no idea that what Limbaugh is saying is something he is being paid to say, and that someone else wrote it. The message is seldom credited, and is often crafted to conceal its orgins.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56997.html

There is no way you can equate that with Heritage (or AEI, or Citizens for Prosperity) PAYING Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin to work their press releases and pretend it's their original thought. That IS payola, pure and simple, dispite your disingenuous attempt to create a false analogy.

You would have to prove that, which we know you can't do.

Wow, you acknowledge your attempt to put words in my mouth, and then you do it again!

Leftists doing the same thing? Produce evidence that real think tanks pay pundits to work talking points while trying to conceal that they are doing it from the audience.

What special legal protection and standing. Document it.

Funny, you use a lot of his code words.

 

Who's all in the group? Looks like a bunch of people who are pretty upfront about their political persuasions. Who cares?

 

It's not so amazing, they will just do it again if they even bother to close this group. The media has become so openly biased these days that they might not even shut this club down.

 

They got busted being left wing propagandists with "Journolist" and now again... each time the National News Media ignored this collusion and attack on the American people with propaganda.

 

The idiots will just say "what, a journalist isn't allowed to have an opinion?" Kind of like "the head of the IRS isn't allowed to have an opinion about the people she's neutrally reviewing?" The only realistic response is to separate ourselves as much as possible from leftist society, which includes rejecting all of their sources. This is a bad thing for the country in the long run but there's little reason to point out their lack of standards when liberalism is deliberately about not having standards.

 

Yea, we fought these people at Politix head on and won.

 

Right wing propaganda ''journalists" exposed a long time ago:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundswell_group



Groundswell is the name of a US coalition of conservative activists and journalists highlighted by the liberal publication Mother Jones in July 2013.[1] The group started out meeting in the offices of the conservative legal group Judicial Watch in early 2013 and includes Ginni Thomas (wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas), former Rep. Allen West, Executive Stephen Bannon of Breitbart, former US Ambassador John Bolton and Catherine Engelbrecht, True the Vote founder.[2][3]
According to leaked documents, the group is staging "a 30 front war seeking to fundamentally transform the nation"[1] by such goals as undermining the power of former GOP strategist and Fox News analyst Karl Rove[4] along with pushing scandals such as the Benghazi bombing and the Operation Fast and Furious gun-running issue,[5] repealing the Affordable Care Act, working behind the scenes to enact voter ID laws, and blocking Obama administration nominees.[1]
Groundswell has been described as a "conservative cabal". GOP strategists responded that the group is no different than progressive organizations such as labor unions, Think Progress or JournoList.[6][7][8][9]






Let's have the forum right wingers condemn this group as well. If they have any consistency in their principles they should be quite angered and express much disgust over it.

 

The nonleft does eventually learn to shovel the same low common denominator doodoo the left mastered decades ago... to all our detriment.

 

There was a rather amusing story that dovetails with this topic HERE where you have the press cheering when Obama made a 40-foot chip shot. They have literally become his cheering section. I'm thinking we'll see the return of the adversarial press once the next Republican president gets elected.

The really odd thing is that apparently "President Obama went golfing in Hawaii yesterday and called the press over when he reached the 18th hole." Good grief - why?

 

funny how I have yet to see any of that from the forum's right wingers - why the silence? why not condemn what the right wing has done with AM radio propaganda shows all this time or what television evangelists have been saying with all their lies for decades???

 

Are journalists precluded from organizing in groups?

 

Big deal.

The CIA has been co-opting and buying out mass media since the 60's. Operation Mockingbird.

Where's the outrage at that?

 

While this masquerades as some sort of "expose", it is, in fact, an effort to promote the standard right wing persecution complex.

Media Trackers is a rigth wing public relations operation financed by the Kochs and the Bradley Foundation.

They have been implicated in any number of misleading "exposes" like this.

Journolist has been "discovered" and "exposed" for the infotainment of the readers of right wing blogs periodically since 2009.

They keep recycling the story, because it suits their agenda.

 

This story is another one they won't cover, ever. They don't have to!
The media is a product of our time, where for years, nearly every elite school of journalism churns out "liberalised" graduates who's veiw of jounalistic responsiblity isn't neutrality, it's social activism. And, those who excell at it are rewraded, those who don't are sent packing. Every one of the big 3 newtworks have liberal news anchors. CNN ozzes liberals. The NYT, LA Times, Miami Herald, Orlando Centinal, etc,...nearly every major newspaper in the country is heavily weighted with liberal slant & it just didn't happen overnight.
I don't trust the media as far as I can spit and anyone who does is an fool, IMO.

 

CNN, WaPo, NY Slimes = all pro war who supported Bush's treasonous war in the ME


these media are "liberal" only to conservatives ~ they represent far right radical treason and imperialistic hate as well as Islamophobia

 

These are Liberal "journalists" conspiring to attack Conservatives, Support Specific Candidates, and control the national narrative pushing Left Wing Agenda.

Yeah... it's kind of wrong.

 

The MSM has very little credibility left and a shrinking audience.

 

Perhaps it might be ethically wrong, but then again conspiring is a strong word that needs to be proven, and it is not illegal. A journalist is not precluded from supporting candidates, or having a political opinion. Obviously the public will trust those journalists who are more neutral, but let the market decide that.

 

agreed, there are too many organized commie liberal journalists to compete against fox news right now, unfair.

 

Like the Fox network and its support for right wingers in past elections.


I'm STILL laughing at the predicted ROMNEY LANDSLIDE - most laughable thing I have ever seen in politics.