There’s been a lot of rehashing of the previously linked Journolist stories throughout the blogosphere. A mainstream media summary of Journolist antics is in today’s Washington Post, written by Howard Kurtz. “…there is no getting around the fact that some of these messages, culled from the members-only discussion group Journolist, are embarrassing. They show liberal commentators appearing to cooperate in an effort to hammer out the shrewdest talking points against the Republicans — including, in one case, a suggestion for accusing random conservatives of being racist.”
I’ve linked The Volokh Conspiracy a couple of times this week for the stellar summaries that Jim Lindgren has been posting there. There’s a Note to All the Non J-List Reporters and a Response from Henry Farrell there by Kenneth Anderson that is also well worth reading.
From Anderson: “When I was reading Peter Finn’s reporting on the Washington Post website on the CIA for my previous post, and despite this being a widely reported, straight-facts story, and despite my long-time, continuing, unstinting admiration for Peter Finn as a reporter on national security and related issues at the WaPo, I do admit that one of the first thoughts in my head was … is he a JournoLister? And if he is, do I need to somehow discount his account as being part of a pre-conceived narrative? And if so, by how much?”
Another good review of the week in Journolistm is found on Reason.com by Michael C. Moynihan in his article Hollywood Babylon-For Ugly People. The writer’s take on Breitbart is offbase, but otherwise it’s a fine piece. “The whole tedious debate misses one interesting point. While commenters have noted blogger Spencer Ackerman’s sleazy suggestion that liberals start labeling random Republicans “racist”—pick a conservative, like “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists”—few noticed the obsession with accusing opponents not of being misguided or wrong, but motivated by racial animus and Nazi-like hatreds.”