| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News |
| 2010-07-21 |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #11 Buffet is a senile old fool. Charlie Munger has always been the brains behind that bunch from Omaha. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-07-21 15:24 |
| #10 The Dr. is scaring me. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2010-07-21 14:08 |
| #9 Very stupid of the Journolisters if their game plan involves moving journalism to a gov't-funded public trust model. Sure, they may still be able to get gazillions from Buffett (he already is a major WaPo shareholder, although that was, once upon a time, a purely financial bet of his), but it seems unlikely that an entire class of media organizations will get public funding or public trust status when their ideological bias is so naked. The journolisters need to choose: either keep up the cabal and continue suffering slow financial asphyxiation in the marketplace, or shed the bias and get public trust status. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-07-21 13:14 |
| #8 I hope you're right Steve. |
| Posted by: Jefferson 2010-07-21 12:23 |
| #7 Taylor Marsh, a harsh progressive, asks what the big deal is -- of course everyone knows that the JournoList members were progressive, so what's the problem if they start labeling random conservatives as racists, etc? This is how they're going to try and bury the story -- well, those journalists are just acting on their beliefs which they have a right to do, don't they. Nothing to see here, move along. In the meantime, they had a major role, perhaps not the deciding one, but a major role in getting Bambi elected. Name a single Republican who would have survived a revelation that his/her pastor was a race-baiting, bile-spewing dingbat. Wouldn't ever happen. Hillary wouldn't have survived it. No moderate Democrat would have survived. But Bambi? He got through it thanks in large part to the JournoList members. That's the story they don't want you to see. It isn't that they 'avowed and openly progressive reporters', as Mr. Marsh would like us to think about it, but that these avowed, openly progressive reporters used the power they had to hide and obfuscate the truth about a man who is now President. Did they do that for principle? Did they do it because they received fat checks from the Open Society Initiative? Did they do it because they were hoping for a payoff in the future, a government appointment, a new source of power? That's what people are going to be asking, regardless of what Mr. Marsh wants us to think. High time, too. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-07-21 11:27 |
| #6 Amazingly open and blatant about it aren't they? Tho it's not a surprise I'm shocked they'd so freely show how much disdain for the 1st amendment and for freedom of the press they have. |
| Posted by: Jefferson 2010-07-21 11:01 |
| #5 Well, so much for their beloved 1st amendment. |
| Posted by: bigjim-CA 2010-07-21 10:53 |
| #4 Hey. Better not do that. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2010-07-21 10:17 |
| #3 When the writer Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article about immigration for National Review, for example, blogger Ed Kilgore didn’t even bother to grapple with Hanson’s arguments. Instead Kilgore dismissed Hanson’s piece out of hand as “the kind of Old White Guy cultural reaction that is at the heart of the Tea Party Movement. It’s very close in spirit to the classic 1970s racist tome, The Camp of the Saints, where White Guys struggle to make up their minds whether to go out and murder brown people or just give up.” Absolutely Einsteinian. No wonder these guys want to tell us what to do. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2010-07-21 06:26 |
| #2 Tick-tock, tick-tock. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-07-21 05:17 |
| #1 I think Tucker Carlson would agree, Fox News has become our mine canary. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-07-21 02:47 |