Did the Candy Crowley 'incident' expose a rekindled "JournoList" ?

Did the Candy Crowley 'incident' expose a rekindled "JournoList" ?

Some people think so.

Some think JournoList is alive and well and still very active and has gone "underground".

With the way Candy snapped up the "opportunity" the other night, we need to wonder.

Was she "waiting in the weeds" so to speak ?

Her sudden "Locked In" reaction and "spontaneous" body motions may indicate something was up.

It's a stretch, but take a look.......

Shortly after Obamacare was passed and signed by the President, Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute noted a sudden plethora of articles that had begun to appear in a wide variety of MSM outlets about the probable ill-effects of "reform." This prompted him to ask, "Where were these reporters before the passage of the health care bill?" The answer to this question is now pretty obvious. They were colluding, via JournoList and other such forums that we don't know about, to make sure that no one screwed up and told the truth before that morass of taxes and regulations became the law of the land. To the nation's cost, their self-censorship succeeded.


Today, we face a similar but much more dangerous situation. The "reporters" of the establishment news media are engaged in a concerted campaign of misinformation to get Barack Obama re-elected. This has been evident for some time, but the breathtaking mendacity of this effort was writ large by Candy Crowley during last Tuesday's presidential debate. Everyone has by now seen the video clip: the President made the preposterous claim that he had identified the attack on our Benghazi consulate as an act of terrorism as early as September 12. Then, when Romney called him on this egregious whopper, Crowley repeated the lie..............

What If Crowley and Her Accomplices Succeed?

JournoList background

JournoList (sometimes referred to as the J-List)[1] was a private Google Groups forum for discussing politics and the news media with 400 "left-leaning"[2] journalists, academics and others. Ezra Klein created the online forum in February 2007 while blogging at The American Prospect and shut it down on June 25, 2010 amid public exposure and controversy. He controlled the forum's membership and limited it to "several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics".[2] Posts within JournoList were intended only be made and read by its members.[3] Klein defended the forum structure saying that it ensures "that folks feel safe giving off-the-cuff analysis and instant reactions".[2].....

JournoList (wikipedia)

JournoList member Jonathan Chait says that "the group as a whole did not jointly participate" in any particular discussion thread. "Almost every discussion was limited to a small percentage of the group that was interested in the topic. Most people ignored most of the topics."[4]

Klein justified excluding conservatives from participation as "not about fostering ideology but preventing a collapse into flame war. The emphasis is on empiricism, not ideology".[5]

JournoList member and Time magazine columnist Joe Klein said the off-the-record nature of the forum was necessary because "candor is essential and can only be guaranteed by keeping these conversations private."[2]

Descriptions of the group by its members

The existence of JournoList was first publicly revealed in a July 27, 2007 blog post by blogger Mickey Kaus.[6] However, the forum did not attract serious attention until March 17, 2009 when an article published on Politico detailed the nature of the forum and the extent of its membership.[2]

The Politico article set off debate within the Blogosphere over the ethics of participating in JournoList and raised questions about its overall purpose. The first public excerpt of a discussion within JournoList was posted by Mickey Kaus on his blog on March 26, 2009.[7]

On June 25, 2010, The Daily Caller published private e-mails from David Weigel denigrating conservatives, whom he covered for The Washington Post.[8] That same day, Weigel resigned from the Post,[9] and Klein announced in his Post blog that he would shortly terminate the JournoList group.[8][10]

On June 29, commentator and Web publisher Andrew Breitbart offered a $100,000 reward to anyone who could provide him with the "full 'JournoList' archive, source fully protected".[11] Breitbart wrote, "Ezra Klein’s 'JournoList 400' is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism".[11]

Initial controversies

Does "JournoList" still exist ?

Is their agenda still alive and well ?

Maybe --> The JournoList


search Google for many articles -- google "journolist"


Related Thread from July 2010 Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News

reply to post by xuenchen



Candy Crowley is suddenly the target off scrutiny just for holding Romney accountable for what he says.. What kind of message does this send to future reporters? Dont dare interrupt, or state the truth.. Or beware the wrath of being labeled everything imaginable to ruin your reputation.


*shrugs*

shes just a woman, doing her job

Some scary stuff, no doubt a version of J-List exists, but as for Crowley/Obama's magic trick the other night, a magic trick I would consider to be somewhat unique, and an utter failure in it's delivery, simultaneously revealing to the world live, a story, a lie, which was so preposterous it was almost astounding why the entire audience clapped upon hearing it, I do not believe the audience would have been in-on the lie, it being too sensitive and classified, I believe Obama, Crowley and those close to Obama would have known about it, I believe even Crowley's explanation the day after was pre-planned, claiming it was both a terrorist attack that was probably somewhat inspired by a youtube video, how many lies upon lies upon lies do these people need to tell? They are tripping over their words it is just pathetic, I find what Crowley/Obama did utterly shameful, America is watching, the world is watching, if any such tricks attempt to be pulled in the next debate they will be flushed out, perhaps the last debate will be the one solitary debate that is not rigged? doubtful, Obama has too much riding on the last debate to not attempt another desperate trick, we will see, it's like the most anticipated drama and the season finale is in 2 days.

Originally posted by SamLuv
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Candy Crowley is suddenly the target off scrutiny just for holding Romney accountable for what he says.. What kind of message does this send to future reporters? Dont dare interrupt, or state the truth.. Or beware the wrath of being labeled everything imaginable to ruin your reputation.


*shrugs*

shes just a woman, doing her job

Haha, umm, wrong, her job was to be a moderator, be an unbiased or at least attempt to appear professional and as such professionally moderate and attempt to appear unbiased, she picked sides, this is not what a moderator does, if it was any other moderator they would have likely been fired or their reputation destroyed, her reputation is destroyed as being by any way shape or form unbiased as a moderator should be, she is as Twitter is saying the #worstmoderatorever, if you disbelieve Twitter just ask Google, Google "Candy Crowley", Google's 2nd recommendation is "Candy Crowley Wrong".

reply to post by Razimus


I disagree with you.

Candy Crawley pointed out that both Obama and Romney were correct. They both had passing truths, if you will.
This happens very often in politics, where it seems they are talking about the exact same thing, but its two different passing points.

Romney is saying that Obama didnt label Benghazi a act of terror. Which is his down fall, if he would have used any other set of words he would have been correct. But just looking at it WORD FOR WORD, obama did say 'act of terror'.. The context, which is Romney complaint, was not revealed. Just the fact that it was indeed said.

They both are correct.

Originally posted by SamLuv
reply to post by Razimus

 

I disagree with you.

Candy Crawley pointed out that both Obama and Romney were correct.
They both are correct.

I disagree with you 100%

First off, not a single reporter in the country had the rose garden speech from 9/12 in their mind, memorized, knowing that Obama was vaguely generically talking about "acts of terror", the single reason Crowley had the rose garden speech from 9/12 memorized was because she and Obama got together before the debate, I believe you need to be schooled on the truth,

Starting at 1:26

www.youtube.com...

Begin transcript:

ROMNEY: You said in the rose garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror, it was not a spontaneous demonstration?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It, he did in fact sir, so let me, let me, call it an act of terror.

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder Candy?

******CLAPPING FROM AUDIENCE****** (against the rules, a signal showing the room is full of Liberal Obama supporters).

CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror.

End transcript.

This was a rigged event, rigged from the top to the bottom, Alex Jones and I don't always agree, but in this case he too believes it was rigged, and so do millions worldwide.

Originally posted by Razimus

Originally posted by SamLuv
reply to post by Razimus

 

I disagree with you.

Candy Crawley pointed out that both Obama and Romney were correct.
They both are correct.

I disagree with you 100%

First off, not a single reporter in the country had the rose garden speech from 9/12 in their mind, memorized, knowing that Obama was vaguely generically talking about "acts of terror", the single reason Crowley had the rose garden speech from 9/12 memorized was because she and Obama got together before the debate, I believe you need to be schooled on the truth,

Starting at 1:26

www.youtube.com...

Begin transcript:

ROMNEY: You said in the rose garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror, it was not a spontaneous demonstration?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It, he did in fact sir, so let me, let me, call it an act of terror.

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder Candy?

******CLAPPING FROM AUDIENCE****** (against the rules, a signal showing the room is full of Liberal Obama supporters).

CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror.

End transcript.

This was a rigged event, rigged from the top to the bottom, Alex Jones and I don't always agree, but in this case he too believes it was rigged, and so do millions worldwide.

You realize both sides arrive to the venue several hours early with their handlers etc.. And before they get there, 100's upon 1000's of reporters, and media people arrive set up. So you are saying that even with all those people there... Obama was able to meet with Crawley and discuss a plan on how to set Romney up for this? I really believe that the President would be in a secure location and not just hanging out 1 on 1 with Crawley. Not only that, but this would cause a major photo op as Im certain if it happened, a photo would have turned up by now.. Or a first eye witness of the two talking. I mean where are the facts? How can you come to such a major determination all based off intuition?

You seem to neglect Romney's fault in it getting this far. He pushed the issue several times. If he hadnt directly engaged the president and instead talked to the audience, he wouldnt have given them the opportunity to fact check.

Saying its staged means Romney was in on it too. Since he played a very large part in the direction the conversation went since it was his turn and he chose to spend it asking the Prez a question instead of answering the question the Mod gave him.

Of course it still exists.

I'd be shocked to think there isn't a similar alternative on the right as well.

Someone within the group was just stupid enough to talk about it, so once it became an issue they disclosed upon it, shut it down, and likely started a new one some place else with an added emphasis that it's like Fight Club.

Originally posted by SamLuv

You realize both sides arrive to the venue several hours early with their handlers etc.. And before they get there, 100's upon 1000's of reporters, and media people arrive set up. So you are saying that even with all those people there... Obama was able to meet with Crawley and discuss a plan on how to set Romney up for this?

Obama never met with Crawley, in fact I don't know who Crawley is, who's Crawley? But seriously...

Do you honestly think the most powerful man in the world can't complete the simplest task in the world of sending a text message to one of his favorite liberal media members possible? If this is your understanding of the limitations of the POTUS I don't believe there is much hope for you.

Crowley didn't say both were right, Crowley said Obama was right, 2 times, then in an attempt to appear fair, in process of cutting Romney off she vaguely mentioned how Romney was right too just to continue the debate, the mistake was Crowley's, and the mistake was Obama's when he asked her to repeat her mistake louder. It was not a mistake, it was intended, if Obama had a shred of honesty he would have admitted, Ok, you got me, it did take me 2 weeks, but he's a very suave liar, he knows when he has the audience in his hands and he capitalizes on it, I've seen speeches by Obama where he can convince everyone in the room that the price of gas is low! He's that good at lying.

Read the worldwide twitter trend.... This was the trend, worldwide, moments after the Crowley/Obama debacle

"Romney was actually right on Libya"

Seeing that there is virtually no connection, any sane person could draw between Crowley and JournoList, here's is a more probable theory:

It's a stretch,

but think about it.

Crowley is secretly working for the Romney campign.
The plan was simple, yet pure genius, all Romney had to do was to steer the debate in the 'right' direction, making Obama respond the way he did and pin him on the question, what he really said in his speech the day after the attacks.
Then Crowley chimes in, making it appear she would aid Obama, and by that causing the outrage we are seeing now.
The result couldn't be more perfect, the entire Nation is now taking sides with Romney because of the unfair treatment. Genius.

the Underdog

Are you guys that mad Obama won?

The moderator and questions were agreed upon by both parties. Romney knew what he was working with.

I don't even think Crowley was biased. Romney kept talking over time, he had to be reprimanded. It is good she didn't give in and be weak like the last moderator.

Originally posted by 3chainz
Are you guys that mad Obama won?

The moderator and questions were agreed upon by both parties. Romney knew what he was working with.

I don't even think Crowley was biased. Romney kept talking over time, he had to be reprimanded. It is good she didn't give in and be weak like the last moderator.

edit on 20-10-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)

I think it "seemed" and "felt like" Romney talked longer, but that's because he was making better points and made more sense and people are more comfortable listening to someone that talks logic.

here's the reality ......................

According to the CNN debate clock, President Obama spoke at greater length than Mitt Romney during both debates, as did Vice President Biden during his debate with Paul Ryan. In the first debate, Obama spoke for 3 minutes, 14 seconds more than Romney — which means he got 8 percent more talking time than Romney. [color=cyan] In last night’s debate, Obama spoke for 4 minutes and 18 seconds longer than Romney, giving him 11 percent more talking time. Obama talked for 52 percent of the time when either man had the floor, while Romney talked for 47 percent.

Bizarre Coincidence: Democrats Get More Time in All Three Debates

Are you guys that mad Obama won?

here's an "accurate" poll --> www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by talklikeapirat

Seeing that there is virtually no connection, any sane person could draw between Crowley and JournoList, here's is a more probable theory:

It's a stretch,

but think about it.

Crowley is secretly working for the Romney campign.

The plan was simple, yet pure genius, all Romney had to do was to steer the debate in the 'right' direction, making Obama respond the way he did and pin him on the question, what he really said in his speech the day after the attacks.
Then Crowley chimes in, making it appear she would aid Obama, and by that causing the outrage we are seeing now.
The result couldn't be more perfect, the entire Nation is now taking sides with Romney because of the unfair treatment. Genius.

the Underdog

Interesting perspective !!

Possible ....... very possible.

And brilliant if true.


OT
A lot of people think the same is true about many of the "anti-Obama" movements. Especially the "birth certificate" lawsuits.

They say Orly and Sheriff Joe are under the table Obama shills. They make wild theories sound so crazy that the general public won't ever believe any of it, thus Obama looks good by default.

Orly is a paid shill, Joe is being blackmailed.

Possible.

Simply stated - CC and BHO entered into a "Journo-Conspiracy" prior to the debate with respect to the Obama lies and subsequent cover-up about his part in the murder of the four men who fell victim to the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on the consulate in Benghazi. That's right - BHO and others in his administration were co-conspirators to the murder of the Ambassador and his cadre. Check the facts before you go screaming foul. Remember - calls from Ambassador Stevens for more security and protection were INTENTIONALLY withheld, and in fact were REDUCED. The record on that was made available to the Issa committee yesterday.

EDIT
Go Here for more on the BHO/CIA conspiracy Webster Tarpley: CIA Has Fingerprints All Over Benghazi Assault

First 2 paragraphs

The prime suspect in the death of Ambassador Stevens and his three colleagues is Sufyan Bin Qumu, an obvious US double agent who spent several years in Guatnanmo and who doubtless swore eternal obedience to the CIA to get released. Reports have now emerged of a 12-person CIA security team stationed near the US consulate in Benghazi which failed to intervene to defend US diplomats.
Another force that was supposed to be available to defend the Benghazi consulate was a unit of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, an armed militia which fought against the government of Col. Qaddafi. Last summer, there was a power struggle for control of the Libyan rebel forces between the faction of General Abdul Fath Younes and the faction of Khalifa Hifter. Khalifa Hifter defected from the Gaddafi regime and created his own militia with money from the CIA, according to his own 2001 book Manipulations africaines, published by Le Monde Diplomatique. Hifter came to the United States and lived for about 20 years in Vienna, Virginia, only 5 miles from CIA headquarters.