Skip to comments.Their Rules, Not Ours: Time to Vet Private Lives of Journalists?
Posted on 05/21/2012 4:36:59 PM PDT by CitizenM
We now have three instances of three individual Politico writers digging up and publishing political oppo-research about the private lives of private citizens who don't support Obama, and the motive behind these attacks can only be for two reasons:
1. To change the narrative of effective criticism of Obama to the less flattering moments of the private lives of these individuals.
2. To intimidate and frighten others who might consider supporting a candidate not named Obama.
So desperate is the media to Palace Guard for their Precious One that everyday Americans who dare ask Obama a question he flubs, appear in a Romney campaign ad, or donate to a pro-Romney super PAC, are now considered fair game.
Right now Politico is telling us that the private lives of private citizens should be investigated and any dirt discovered is worth reporting. Since those who write for, edit, run, and own Politico are in true positions of power and responsibility, doesnt that make their private lives fair game along with the lives of all journalists?
What do we know about those who abuse the power entrusted to them by shilling for the left behind a phony and cowardly shield of objectivity? What should we know about their personal lives, their finances, their personal mistakes, their traffic violations, and any run-ins with the law?
According to the media itself, quite a lot.
After all, if the public has a "right to know" about an unemployed plumber, doesnt the public have a "right to know" about those with the power to expose that unemployed plumber?
But are they (journalists)willing to live under those rules?
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I dearly miss the WHO IS threads.
But the Faggot Commie Media inured themselves to the population, soothing our children that being a commie fag was fab!
First we have to de-fab them. Actually, I think that’s starting to happen on its own.
Then we have to show our math: why is 1% of the population dictating our media? Answer: fag commies. Actually, our nation is waking up to this, too.
Now we just have to drive it home with election ads. Do you really feel better now that you’re poor, gay AND communist, four years later?
WED 07/21/1999 Houston Chronicle, Section A, Page 2, 3 STAR Edition The New York Post reports that as soon as a vehicle exits the gravel driveway of the Martha's Vineyard estate of Diane Sawyer and Mike Nichols, a servant with a rake is dispatched to smooth the stones.
CRY HAVOC and Release the hounds of War
Someone needs to call Hannity since he is “Vetting Obama” this time around and ask him to also “Vet the Journalists”.
Just another thought, all you Hannity Twitter Followers, ask Hannity to Vet the Journalista’s
This IS how FR became famous starting with Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinski, Lucianne Goldberg, Matt Drudge, and Linda Tripp.
we could call it ‘justice for joe’
a play on the trayvon circus they are trying to whip up and how they attacked joe the plumber
The press has to be cleaned up-—as do our schools—both are indoctrination systems and they are both controlled by Marxists to promote disinformation—to destroy logic and morality.
This is from the Harvard Commencement Speech in 1978 by Solzhenitsyn. This is an important speech—you should read the whole thing—because he compares the “free” United States (in 78) to Stalin’s government. They are similar-—particularly because WE do not have a “free” press either although we were conditioned to think we did.
“The press too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. (I shall be using the word press to include all media). But what sort of use does it make of this freedom?
Here again, the main concern is not to infringe the letter of the law. There is no moral responsibility for deformation or disproportion. What sort of responsibility does a journalist have to his readers, or to history? If they have misled public opinion or the government by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any cases of public recognition and rectification of such mistakes by the same journalist or the same newspaper? No, it does not happen, because it would damage sales. A nation may be the victim of such a mistake, but the journalist always gets away with it. One may safely assume that he will start writing the opposite with renewed self-assurance.
Because instant and credible information has to be given, it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be rectified, they will stay on in the readers’ memory. How many hasty, immature, superficial and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, without any verification. The press can both simulate public opinion and miseducate it. Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters, pertaining to one’s nation’s defense, publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion on the privacy of well-known people under the slogan: “everyone is entitled to know everything.” But this is a false slogan, characteristic of a false era: people also have the right not to know, and it is a much more valuable one. The right not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life does not need this excessive burdening flow of information.
Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press. It stops at sensational formulas.
Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the communist East a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has granted Western journalists their power, for how long a time and with what prerogatives?
There is yet another surprise for someone coming from the East where the press is rigorously unified: one gradually discovers a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole. It is a fashion; there are generally accepted patterns of judgment and there may be common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification. Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership because newspapers mostly give enough stress and emphasis to those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and the general trend.”
Abby D. Phillip
POLITICO reporter covering money in politics, recovering White House reporter, native Marylander. RTs aren’t endorsements, of course. firstname.lastname@example.org
Reporter for Politico, RTs don’t necessarily mean agreement. Pls email me thoughts, tips, random advice at email@example.com
Usually the 703 or 202
I write for POLITICO. Email tips, ideas, observations to firstname.lastname@example.org. RT’s don’t = endorsements
Marxist Antonio Gramsci advocated a long march through the institutions. That long march is largely complete. However, it’s up to you to educate your children.
My latest was Earth Day. My son comes home from school blabbering some pap about Earth Day. I gave him the retort that my father gave me in 1970. We don’t celebrate the birthday of communists (Lenin’s 100th birthday). I went back to school with that little gem, and it practically killed the teacher who sent me to the principal. The principal called my mother, who then offered my father’s number at his office and suggested that if the principal had a problem he should talk to my father. Dad was at the school in minutes and proceeded to take the principal apart.
I have followed my father’s example with my own children. My reputation with the school staff as a communist hater is legendary.
Thank you for posting that!
“What do we know about those who abuse the power entrusted to them by shilling for the left behind a phony and cowardly shield of objectivity? What should we know about their personal lives, their finances, their personal mistakes, their traffic violations, and any run-ins with the law?”
I like the way he thinks. If the salacious details of “X” persons personal life are subject to public scrutiny, then why are not the salacious details of the lives of those who do the writing or the publishing not equally subject to scrutiny?
What’s good for the goose is indeed sauce for the gander.
This is known as a shot across the bow. Breitbart already has something on them.
The Daily Rap by the Wall Street Journal uses politico people as sources for their nightly show. I might just have to call my local radio station and complain about this and see if I can’t get them to switch to a new program. It has bothered me that this show which is using it’s position as a news source uses sources like this and other biased sources for their program. This gives these obviously bias sources legitimacy that they don’t deserve. This is a new program for our local station. I will start writing down the names and dates of the program they appear on to back up my argument to get this biased program stopped.
Today most only engage in what used to be called "yellow journalism," or...as in the Martin-Zimmerman case, try to incite the public, create stories, slant stories, even make up the news...rather than objectively reporting "just the facts." And they all seem to insert their own opinions and expect people to agree and believe them as though they are of superior intelligence. Actually most have a simple four-year degree in Journalism, yet they are assuming they have more brain power than today's well educated population, many of whom earned degrees in far more difficult subjects and work in more highly regarded and difficult professions. Yet journalists believe their insight and opinions are singularly important and correct.
I am also sure that the majority of people in the media have less than perfect backgrounds - not much different than most, yet they sit in judgment of others. A little scrutiny would cause them to feel as uneasy as the people they eagerly and gleefully decide to try and destroy.
Where would one start, who would one pick to investigate? Guess the targets will reveal themselves as the writers and commentators continue to play judge and jury to achieve their liberal agendas. Let's see who wants to play next and then, perhaps, we can set our sites.
No need to wait....There are plenty that have already demonstrated this, dont need to wait for them to do it again.
Daily Kos guy
Just any PMSNBC announcer