Radio

Concealing Bias Causes More Journo/Protester Problems

|

Natasha Lennard sporting the red beret, pouty lips and big brown eyes that are the telltale signs of left-wing radicals.

New York Times stringer Natasha Lennard and public radio opera hostess Lisa Simeone are two new causes in the old, dull conflict over whether reporters can be permitted to have opinions. 

At Andrew Breitbart's formidable BigGovernment blog, Lee Stranahan digs up video of a group of bookstore Occupy activists doing what activists do best: engaging in a tedious bull session/Maoist self-criticism disguised as a group-strategy consensus-building conference. 

One of the speakers is Lennard, who recently reported in the Times of New York on her arrest at the Brooklyn bridge, and who proves she's no slouch when it comes to dribbling pomo catchphrases and academic flapdoodle. Sample sentence: 

So there is already a tendency in the park that means backing away from anti-authoritarian tendencies that don't fall into pre-existing permitted institutional structures, or that can't be coded by them.

Bonus irony: Lennard's caught-on-camera quotes are a lamentation about how these newfangled camerawebs make it impossible for anarchists to hold secret conversations while they're occupying a public park. 

The upshot: The Times has somebody covering Occupy Wall Street who is also an Occupier. Stranahan demands "an immediate response from the New York Times." 

Lisa Simeone ready to hit five high Cs in a row.

Meanwhile, Simeone has been fired from her job with the public radio show Soundprint, and National Public Radio has decided to stop distributing her show World of Opera. (The show will still be distributed by another station, and Simeone's trabajo travails have generated a mini-genre of corrections and self-corrections about who runs what in the public radio world that is even more boring and pointless than the argument over whether journalists can put bumper stickers on their hybrids.)  

Simeone's offense was participating in a protest called "Stop the Machine," during which Cornel West and a few other people were arrested. Simeone supporters say, among other things, that "What Simeone does on her own time has no bearing on her role as host of an arts show." But NPR spokeswoman Dana Davis Rehm says otherwise, in a comment that I think inadvertently demonstrates the real problem: 

Our view is it's a potential conflict of interest for any journalist or any individual who plays a public role on behalf of NPR to take an active part in a political movement or advocacy campaign… Doing so has the potential to compromise our reputation as an organization that strives to be impartial and unbiased. 

Presuming Rehm's transmission was not garbled on its way to Planet Earth, something's weird here.

Minnie Hauk as Carmen.

NPR is both beloved and despised precisely because nobody believes it's impartial or unbiased. Fans ardently self-identify as NPR "junkies" because they believe it represents their version of the unvarnished truth. Opponents claim to want to defund NPR for the same reason. 

The New York Times is an even more famously opinionated news source, yet it will probably end up responding to the Lennard situation in a vain attempt to prove its own objectivity.

I can't say this enough: Journalistic objectivity is about concealing the truth, not revealing it. This kind of institutional self-censorship doesn't solve the "problem" of having biased reporters any more than aversion therapy cures homosexuality. In both cases, the best possible result is that everybody else will understand your nature better than you do yourself. The way to solve the problem of bias is to acknowledge your bias. 

NPR and the Times are free to employ, distribute or publish whomever they like. But I think this kind of foment is stupid, and not just because I'm a big pussy who gets squeamish when a public school district fires a person for something I think a private employer should also be able to fire a person for. Requiring journalists to conceal their opinions will not persuade anybody of the establishment media's objectivity, but it does result in an inferior news product. Reporters without opinions are bad reporters. 

NEXT: Guatemalan Drug Gangs & Me: The Human Cost of Prohibition

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So there is already a tendency in the park that means backing away from anti-authoritarian tendencies that don’t fall into pre-existing permitted institutional structures, or that can’t be coded by them.

    I think translating this into English is beyond the capabilities of even a Starfleet Communicator.

    1. Phew, I’m glad it’s not just me. I spent a minute or two trying to figure out what it meant and came up blank.

      1. She’s talking about a tendency that means retreating from tendencies that are anti-authoritarian but that neither fall into allowed, pre-existing institutional structures, nor can be coded by them.

        Any idiot can see that.

        1. You have to set your translators to “Cockney po-mo.”

        2. Hegemony! Hegemony!

          1. Sterilize?

            1. Error. Flaw. Imperfection. Must sterilize.

              1. You go, girl.

          2. Problematize! Subalternity! Reify Normative Agency! Buzzwords make you smart, ProL, every leftist knows that.

            1. The hermeneutics of obfuscation.

            2. But she is so sexy Dagny. Those lips, high cheek bones, beautiful eyes. If buzz words are wrong, I don’t want to be right.

              1. I’d buzz her word any time! I’d like to help her work out a few of her per-existing institutional structures! She can back away from the current anti-authoritarian structures into my anti-authoritarian structures any time!

                Penis. I am saying I want to stick my penis in her.

                1. Elder there is a larger hermeutic going on here. She is clearly in need of new anti-authoritarian structures since the existing ones have coded her into existing anti authoritarian tenancies very patriarchal and pre existing ways. She needs to internalize my anti-authoritarian structure as a replacement for those that have clearly let her down.

                  1. …So she’s up for anal?

                    1. According to her Politico bio, she is English, so maybe so.

                    2. Translation: get with the program

        3. Oh, much better. Thanks I think.

    2. I was on it until I got to the “coded by them” part. How exactly do institutions “code” something?

      1. In COBOL.

            1. Leave it to a Japanese company to combine a hideous, verbose and outmoded language with a runtime few machines have updated support for.

              Horrifying.

      2. In this case, “can’t be coded by them” means something along the lines of “does not have a pre-existing vocabulary for describing”.

      3. I was on it until I got to the “coded by them” part. How exactly do institutions “code” something?

        It’s a Saussure thing.

    3. Reminds me of that Calvin and Hobbes strip where Calvin writes his report on the “monological imperatives of Dick and Jane”:

      “I realized that the purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity.”

    4. I get her main point, in a fuzzy sort of way.

      She wants to do something meaningful but different. She’s tired of protesting with posters and chants. She would like to do a nude protest or set something on fire but those aren’t allowed

      1. Check. She’s upset by how mainstream anti-authoritarianism is. It was way better before it sold out.

        1. Who did they sell out to and how much did they get?

      2. There already have been topless protesters. Which is legal in NYC. So you can gambol with your tits out all you want.

        1. This information needs to be more widely disseminated.

          1. Here is a naked hippy chick explaining it:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..AHiq-Lxs30

            I hope that link works. Senseless how you can watch “adult content” if it’s embedded somewhere else, but not on their own site without an account.

          2. with pictures, depending on the display. The concept of hot anarchists may be an oxymoron.

      3. “She would like to do a nude protest”

        Perhaps an exception can be made in this case.

    5. I think translating this into English is beyond the capabilities of even a Starfleet Communicator.

      I think it has something to do with taking off her shirt.

    6. Universal translator? (You sicken me.)

    7. Aresen

      My translation is –“The Commies/Fascists have us outnumbered.”

  2. Flapdoodle indeed, but quite cute.

    1. THAT’S NOT FUNNY!

    2. God isn’t she. And the fact that she apparently can’t speak in plain English would make her leftism much less annoying. Sure she would prattle on about it. But since you wouldn’t understand any of it, it would be easy to ignore.

      1. This is the trick of academia.

        You see, anyone can go ahead and read a book and analyze it fairly well. What they’re missing is the vocabulary and syntactical obfuscation that is the hallmark of literary scholars and theorists. So long as they can remain unintelligible, they have a place in the ivory tower above us commoners (though I am fluent in academese being a for Ph D candidate in English Lit). The more obtuse they can be, the more important their work is regarded. Without it, they cannot remain relevant in the halls.

    3. It’s funny, she doesn’t look retarded.

      1. She is not. She was just trained to be retarded. She had 20 years of schooling where she was rewarded for spouting nonsense and punished for thinking clearly. Now she is fully conditioned to be retarded.

    4. Yes, she is the comely lass. Pity.

      She’ll look fabulous on the ramparts, manning the burning tire trebuchet.

      1. Will she wear the beret and give the order to fire in a cheap French accent?

      2. She would also look fabulous with her lips wrapped around my trebuchet.

      3. She can man my trebuchet……

      4. I want her to suck my penis.

        1. I don’t get what you mean.

          1. With her mouth.

            1. Thank you. All of you. I laughed uncontrollably.

    5. How do you say “I want to slather every inch of your body in peanut butter” in Marxist?

      1. “I wish to engage in heteronotmative food play utilizing a known allergen.”

        1. It’s like you understand them; as if you even thought like them.

        2. That is really scary. You have spent way too much time on Jezebelle. It is like a fungus eating your brain by now.

        3. Gentlemen… I believe we have found a weapon that can finally let us win this endless war. Someone who can infiltrate the collective, mimic the collective, but not become one of them.

          Of course, if our agent is compromised in there, we have a small charge of C4 implanted at the base of the skull to detonate if necessary.

        4. Don’t forget to get her to sign the consent form first. And to provide a suitable ID showing proof of age.

        5. Damn. That was impressive. I might ask you to translate some of my shit to flapdoodle some time so I sound smarter.

      2. “We shall form 6 committees for the purpose of slathering communally-grown peanut butter all over her body. The first committee shall consist of loyal workers from the Kulak region to determine the number of peanuts that must be grown next year in order to have sufficient peanut butter to cover Comrade Leonard. The 2nd committee will consist of loyal mothers and wives to determine if the use of crunchy peanut butter would be an affront to the Motherland’s sexual mores. The 3rd committee…”

      3. “Wanna take a ride on my structuralist post?”

  3. Just so I don’t sound petulant, I didn’t just demand a response — I wrote to the Public Editor at the NYT. My letter is posted on my own blog. They responded.

    1. Thanks, Lee. Where’s the response? I don’t see it on your blog.

        1. Typical Cavanaugh, always with the obscure cultural references…

  4. NPR and the Times are free to employ, distribute or publish whomever they like.

    The Times, absolutely. NPR however, cannot claim the mantle of journalistic impartiality that allows them to receive federal funds if they choose to employ people who are actively trying to bring down the government that signs the checks.

    I realize that NPR does not get that much federal funding, but if they are to receive said funding under said face of impartiality then the fudning should be pulled.

    1. it’s not a question of restricting who can be employed; it’s about employee activities that run counter to the organization’s mission. Like NPR, the Times cannot claim impartiality either if its staff attempts to shape the news or become the news rather than simply report it. Then again, journalism died sometime in ’08 so this sort of thing is not terribly surprising.

  5. “The way to solve the problem of bias is to acknowledge your bias….Requiring journalists to conceal their opinions will not persuade anybody of the establishment media’s objectivity, but it does result in an inferior news product. Reporters without opinions are bad reporters.” Absolutely!

    When I worked at a newspaper, I always said that I was libertarian and to let me know if my story or editing showed bias. I also suggested that when we put the new reporter’s bio in the biz-hiring column that we should include their political viewpoint so that readers could make up their own minds. (This didn’t happen.) Newspapers were in their prime years when they blasted their bias in the masthead. The Democrat would report on the stuff that The Republic didn’t, and vice versa, while the third and fourth newspapers would pick up on stories and angles the others missed. Look online at who’s growing, and it’s those outfits that have admitted their viewpoint. Even better if it’s a site like Reason, which has been known to skewer its allies if they are behaving poorly.

    1. Look at the newspapers in the UK. They don’t conceal their bias. And they are not going broke. Nothing is more boring than someone who is obviously biased smugly claiming not to be. Openly partisan journalism in contrast is interesting and sells.

      1. They also have tits on Page 3. Naked tits. So that helps too.

        1. No it doesn’t.

            1. I meant to agree with you. As in “no it doesn’t hurt”. Sorry for the confusion.

              1. I thought that was the case at first, but then second guessed myself. Hey, it let me post up a Yes, Minister scene, and that show has to be the best satire of politics of the last… 40 years? 50? I can’t believe that the U.S. has never managed to produce a rival or rip-off series.

                1. That show is amazing. If anyone hasn’t seen it, do so as soon as possible.

                  I’m pretty sure an American version was attempted at some point. I think that part of the problem with a show like that here is that Americans like to deny how fucked up things are, while the Brits seem to sort of accept it and even embrace it in a self deprecating sort of way. Also, the huge, permanent, parasitic civil servant class is relatively new in the US.

                  1. I’ve got the book (The Complete Yes Minister) which is very much worth reading.

                2. Americans would never rip-off a story idea from the English.

    2. “Reporters without opinions are bad reporters.”

      You miss the point that newspaper employees, like any other employee, need to grow up and control their own emotions already.

      Lawyers too always have opinions. But when we go into court to argue facts and law, everyone understands that our personal opinions mean nothing. Running our mouths about our irrelevant opinions and feelings would instantly reap the whirlwind.

      Are newspaper employyes too dim to understand the difference between personal opinion and professional conduct?

      And why (apart from the employee’s familt and friends) would anyone care what a newspaper employee thinks about anything?

      1. And why (apart from the employee’s familt and friends) would anyone care what a newspaper employee thinks about anything?
        ————————-
        because the one thing more annoying than the actual literati and elitist snobs is people clamoring for that status, and journalism is teeming with folks like that. No industry has a more inflated sense of self-importance. Look at cable programs; they are rotten with one writer/broadcaster after another dispensing opinion on anything, often overlooking the most obvious questions about the story. It’s one reason I got out; that and the decreased premium on actual news.

  6. I thought Cornel Wilde was dead!

  7. I could see myself enjoying doing various things with Ms. Lennard that don’t fall into pre-existing permitted institutional structures, or that can’t be coded by them.

    1. that don’t fall into pre-existing permitted institutional structures

      Oh, you mean stuff your wife won’t do!

  8. Our view is it’s a potential conflict of interest for any journalist or any individual who plays a public role on behalf of NPR to take an active part in a political movement or advocacy campaign? Doing so has the potential to compromise our reputation as an organization that strives to be impartial and unbiased.

    Shorter NPR: Everyone will know!

  9. I’m an NPR junkie AND I think it should be defunded. Being an NPR junkie is not as monolithic as you want to think–I can filter what is being said, but NPR’s news shows are more in depth than most other coverage anywhere, and show like The American Life are frequently riveting.

    Not sure how someone doing a show on opera has a conflict with participating in a protest–she should have not covered the protest, perhaps, but I don’t see that as a firing offense.

    1. I don’t see why she should be fired either. What does OWS have to do with opera?

      1. The only people who attend operas are bemonocled plutocrats. NPR was nervous about their listeners discovering that their opera correspondent even acknowledged the existence of non-servant commoners.

        1. Verily, this is correct. Just recently, at the local opera house, a fellow attempted to enter with a monocle but WITHOUT a cane, or, as we all properly should refer to them, an orphan beating stick. Needless to say, it caused quite a commotion among the women, a number of whom fainted, while others were gripped with Hysteria that I took it upon myself to address immediately. Thank God the usher escorted the ogre out. That usher had a fine supper of hard tack and water that night, I can tell you that!

          1. Was the man at least wearing spats?

          2. …Hysteria that I took it upon myself to address immediately.

            Are you referencing the historic medical practice I think you’re referencing?

            You are.

            Aren’t you?

        2. I have season tickets to the Opera. I am so happy to finally be in the club. I can finally wear my monocle and top hat in good conscience.

        3. The only people who attend operas are bemonocled plutocrats

          Aren’t those the same bemonocled plutocrats that are posting little signs on the Twitters and Facebooks asking to be taxed more?

          1. Ah, yes… the children. Well, young Oswald was just as naive at that same age, especially after summering in Europe. Luckily, a good thrashing with my orphan beating stick and a day or two working in the heavy machinery on the monocle factory floor cured him of his illusions.

            1. I didn’t get a “harrumph!” out of that guy.

    2. “The American Life are frequently riveting”

      I think you mean “This..Life” but anyway, it may have been riveting 15 years ago but it’s a pretty stale supergay snorefest these days.

      1. edit fail. But really, how “Back in the old days, sonny…” can you be?

  10. NPR isn’t biased, Tim. It’s just that Reality Has A Well-Known Liberal Bias?!

  11. I wonder what is going to happen to these protests when winter finally arrives. Living in a tent when the weather is generally nice is one thing, but living in a tent when the temperature drops below freezing and there is a foot of snow on the ground is something else.

    1. I think the creation of the Snow Clearing Committee and the mandatory participation in snow removal will be the last straw.

    2. Actual tents aren’t allowed. Regardless, from what I’ve gathered, the size of the occupation has already decreased significantly. Keep in mind that “Park” is a bit of a misnomer. It’s a concrete plaza with ornamental plants.

  12. I for one welcome our new red beret wearing, pouty lipped, big brown-eyed overlord.

  13. Doing so has the potential to compromise our reputation as an organization that strives to be impartial and unbiased.

    You will note that she doesn’t say that NPR is an impartial or unbiased organization, or even that it strives to be impartial or unbiased.

    Only that Ms. Simeone had to be underbussed to maintain the appearance that NPR would like to be impartial and unbiased.

    And yes, Ms. Lennard is a cutie. Although there’s a certain, tension?, anger?, to her affect that is a little offputting.

    1. Image is everything.

    2. Although there’s a certain, tension?, anger?,

      You sir, are no student of the lefty-journalist. It’s a certain overwhelming sadness over the inequities of society.

  14. So there is already a tendency in the park that means backing away from anti-authoritarian tendencies that don’t fall into pre-existing permitted institutional structures, or that can’t be coded by them.

    Ahem

    A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.

    1. The second statement is very true. And our thoughts are dictated by our language. If you don’t have the language skills to express complex ideas, you correspondingly don’t have the mental ability to think them.

      1. English was doomed the minute PhDs figured out that they could make up words without anyone challenging them. Yeah, I guess it started with the philosophers, but then it branched out into all areas and became a shit show.

        1. Are you saying that you don’t like the best neologism ever, bellirhea? I know you’re not.

          1. It’s a perfectly cromulent word.

          2. I googled that word. Turns out there’s a pair of drag queens named Belli and Rhea.

  15. Journalistic objectivity is about concealing the truth, not revealing it.

    Ars est celare artem.

    1. translation: bassackwards?

      1. “Art is the concealment of art.”

  16. Her name is Natasha? There’s a Bullwinkle joke in there somewhere, just dying to get out.

    1. She makes big trouble for word and language?

      1. Nice.

        Off-topic, when I was dating a Russian, I tried to get her to say “moose and squirrel”. She wouldn’t, I think b/c she thought it would sound like something filthy in her accented speech. One day we were riding our bicycles on a path in some park land. She joked about “bears and deers” coming to attack us. I said that we really had to worry about moose and squirrel. “Moose and sqvirrel?”

        1. I still get my wife to say this at parties. It never gets old…well, for me.

        2. I can see why she’s not dating you anymore.

        3. Andre Marrou confirmed to me that moose are as stupid as their reputation. I didn’t ask about sqvirrel.

  17. I think I recognize those pouty lips and big brown eyes from another picture. Was she the same woman who was handing out the Occupy Wall Street Journal?

  18. How the hell does this demonstrate bias when it comes to her reporting on opera for fuck’s sake?

    What’s disgusting is trotting out a Latino to ask a question at a presidential debate about immigration, meanwhile claiming to be concerned about bias in reporting.

    It’s just run of the mill political correctness. Black reporters are always dispatched to cover urban stories…are we not supposed to notice that?

    I don’t necessarily 100% agree with Tim Cavenaugh that bias is good. Personally, as a consumer/reader, I’d just prefer to have the choice of bias given to me in a concise and clear policy statement from each media outlet.

    For the most part, I’d vote for no bias, but there are times when I prefer bias, just like anyone else. Not Fox News bias, but pro-science bias when it comes to talking about textbook content or skepticism when it comes to reading official statements or pro-Bill of Rights bias when it comes to reporting on crime. Etc.

  19. Here’s a better example:
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/10…..ect-obama/

    Whether you agree or disagree, this is nothing like mixing Wall Street with Opera reviews.

    1. They spelled Mee-shell’s name incorrectly.

  20. Here’s her response to all the laughing at her Big Thoughts: “ugh. last time i offer a post-structuralist critique in public!”

    In other words, she’ll try and make actual sense in public. Sounds like a good idea.

    In her defense, she’s a freelancer and not required to try and force the NYT into make-believe objectivity. The real issue is with the NYT editorial staff.

    1. I should note that Lennard posted that response on Twitter. Not to me personally. Sorry, stewardess, I don’t speak either Jive or PoMo.

  21. Wow. I tried to watch the short video on the linked site and couldn’t make it through the girl asking a question that seemed to me to be risible (though i guess that’s just a difference in beliefs) while trying to sound smart and thoughtful and using language that couldn’t be considered offensive by any of the victim groups present. I did get a laugh at the people nodding to her nonsense. I hear people talking like this quite often and I just want to shake them and say “Just say what you want to say already and damn anyone who takes offense to proper use of the English language.” It becomes very tedious when they double the length of every statement by trying to be PC.

    1. It becomes very tedious when they double the length of every statement by trying to be PC.
      ————————–
      this is why even some in the faculty find the conversation in the faculty lounge mind-numbing.

      1. Amen, brother.

    2. But can you get them to say “moose and sqvirrel”?

  22. I don’t suppose Cornel West was repeatedly tased when he was arrested. They probably cut him loose just so they wouldn’t have to listen to him talk any more.

  23. So there is already a tendency in the park that means backing away from anti-authoritarian tendencies that don’t fall into pre-existing permitted institutional structures, or that can’t be coded by them.

    Sounds like the park is as unbiased and objective as the New York Times.

  24. I should’ve posted these lyrics about a month ago, but better late than never:

    King Missile – “It’s Saturday”

    I want to be different, like everybody else I want to be like
    I want to be just like all the different people
    I have no further interest in being the same,
    because I have seen difference all around,
    and now I know that that’s what I want
    I don’t want to blend in and be indistinguishable,
    I want to be a part of the different crowd,
    and assert my individuality along with the others
    who are different like me
    I don’t want to be identical to anyone or anything
    I don’t even want to be identical to myself
    I want to look in the mirror and wonder,
    “who is that person? I’ve never seen that person before;
    I’ve never seen anyone like that before.”
    I want to call into question thevery idea that
    identity can be attached
    I want a floating, shifting, ever changing persona:
    [ From : http://www.elyrics.net/read/k/…..yrics.html ]
    Invisibility and obscurity,
    detachment from the ego and all of it’s pursuits.
    Unity is useless
    Comformity is competitive and divisive and leads only to
    stagnation and death.
    If what I’m saying doesn’t make any sense,
    that’s because sense can not be made
    It’s something that must be sensed
    And I, for one, am incensed by all this complacency
    Why oppose war only when there’s a war?
    Why defend the clinics only when they’re attacked?
    Why are we always reactive?
    Let’s activate something
    Let’s fuck shit up
    Whatever happened to revolution for the hell of it?
    Whatever happened to protesting nothing in particular, just
    protesting cause it’s Saturday and there’s nothing else to do?

  25. A comedy sketch from the headlines: Imagining how it all went down:

    Van Jones: Okay, ideas anybody.

    Professor #1: I think I could get some of my hippie students and their friends to protest Wall St.

    Professor #2 Great idea, I’m going to text some of my students from my iPhone and tell them they should be protesting evil corporations whose products are made in China and sell stock on Wall St.

    Van Jones: Excellent!

    Andy Stern: I can get some of my people there.

    Trumpka: Me too.

    JournoList: Hold back boys we wouldn’t want it to look like astroturf.

    Debbie Dolberman: Once the MSM sets the narrative about how spontaneous and grassroots the OWS crowd has sprung up we could get Nancy and Barrack to comment on it.

    Nancy: Okay.

    Tumpka: That’s the cue for us to come in Andy.

    Van Jones: Excellent. A very productive meeting on this one. We wouldn’t want another CBS incident. Has anyone admonished CBS and that reporter yet?

    Nancy: My husband and I need a distraction

    Al Sharpton: When will we tell them it should be about redistributing the money?

    Bill Keller: I’ll start setting the narrative that the Tea Party is finished.

    Charlie Rose: I’ll coincide with that and and call OWS a growing phenomenon.

    JournoList: Once all that’s rolling we’ll keep pounding the talking points.

    Harry: I’ll prevent the Senate from voting on the Barrack’s jobs Bill while all this is going on. I’ll need help blaming Republicans since the bi-partisan support is against us.

    JournoList: No problem and no different than business as usual.

    Al Sharpton: Money…when will we tell them it should be about redistributing the money?

    David Axelrod: Al follow my cue and then organize. Barrack will say “Republicans Don’t Want A Place Where People “No Matter What They Look Like” Can Succeed”

    Nancy: I will stir up their passions with stuff like they’re voting to let women die on the floor.

    JournoList: Great idea Nancy. That one helps get out the feminist vote every time. Women like “shiny things”.

    Whoopi: I can tell women George Bush er….Republicans want to steal their uteruses.

    Sean Penn: Garofalo and the rest of us will set the meme the Tea Party is the “Get The N-Word Out Of The White House Party”.

    Bill Maher: Excellent Sean! Most excellent! I will call Cain and republicans racist and poke fun at them.

    Al Sharpton: I will add to the meme: “We Will Get The Jobs Bill Done In The Street”.

    David Axelrod: Excellent guys. The WH messaging will be OWS “Will Be An Issue In This Campaign”.

    Valerie Jarret: We need to crush the idea MLK would have supported Cain. Barrack will tell the people at the ceremony that MLK Jr. Would Have Supported Occupy Wall Street.

    Lawrence O’Donnell: I will imply a brilliant man like Cain should have been drafted, or perhaps volunteered to be considered a patriot – rather than work for the Navy in a private capacity on rocket science where the Navy wanted him solving problems on an important project. I can also push the meme that he’s an Uncle Tom for thinking for himself and unlike 90%+ of African Americans. I will do this from atop my white horse. Perhaps MSNBC should hire Al to provide me cover.

    Al Sharpton: That’s what I do, I know how to crack the whip on those who dare leave the Democrat plantation. How much are they going to pay me?

    Van Jones Shut up Al! One last thing. Can you JournoList within the press corpse please keep ignoring the Fast and Furious scandal.

    WH Press Corpse Indeed!

    JournoList We concur, and don’t worry Nancy. Tell your husband too.

    David Axelrod: Once all this is rolling Barack will hop on the bus and hit the road with the standard organizing talking points like “GOP Wants “Dirtier Air, Dirtier Water, Less People With Health Insurance”.

    Martin Bashir David, I’ll follow your lead with “Cain Doesn’t Want To Be “Associated With African-Americans.”

    Comrade Brzezinski I’d suggest a Bolshevik type appraoch like “Make Rich Known Publicly To Pressure Them To Give Back”

    Eugene Robinson: I call my meme “Defend Wall Street” and go with the theme is not likely to be a winning campaign slogan in 2012. For Republicans, this is an obvious problem.

    Van Jones: Very productive people. I mean that..

    Bernie Sanders: We Need To Address The Issue Of The Rich Getting Richer

    Lawrence O’Donnell: I’d like to add Republicans still don’t have a jobs plan, they’ve never had a jobs plan because Republicans are lying liars that lie even when lying about lying that’s the kind of liars the lying liars are.

    Rachel Maddow: I’ll push this one “Republicans vote against employing more teachers and first responders” and since we believe the American people are too stupid to figure out the locals already pay taxes to cover those type of things in their cities.

    Van Jones Very good Rachel.

    Al Franken: And also remember we are good enough, smart enough and gosh darn it, people like us. We are wonderful people…..just ask us.

    Rachel Maddow: I’ll also go with Republicans think poor people are scam artists.

    David Axelrod: Excellent Barack will use the standard Alinsky playbook on his bus tour which we can film for campaign ads. Barack will also tell the people not to believe their lying eyes and that all the choices he made were the right ones. I’ll try and keep a straight face and plant a seed that the election is going to be a close one.

    Debbie Dolberman: I will project all our demagoguery onto republicans.

    Michael Moore: Will Barrack be using the styrofoam columns again? I will make a documentary of all this with a similar name as my Fifth one but call it “Bowling for Columnlike

    1. That was tedious the first time

    2. Natasha: Moose and sqvirrel!

    3. Thanks for the effort?

  26. Professor do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

    Professor: Sure, I’ll play along.

    Did you support Obamacare?

    Professor: Yes.

    Then you do not accept freewill and you are a potential tyrant.

    Professor: You just flunked this course pal.

    Hey climate scientist, do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

    Climate scientist: I don’t believe a Creator exist let alone that one allows freewill.

    AGW Skeptic: Einstein was right: Science without the [Creator] is blind and religion without the [Creator] is lame.

    Climate scientist: Silence skeptic! We must sacrifice your rights and do what’s best for society as we see fit. Don’t you know science is a democracy fool!

    AGW Skeptic: Ben Franklin was right.

    CRU emails: Burn the Skeptic’s book!!

    Hey Hillary, Nancy, Harry, Obama, progressive intellectuals and Dems, do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

    Choir: We must sacrifice the rights of the individual and do what’s best for society.

    Who decides what’s best? Certainly not society -see Obamacare.

    Choir: From one, many -see Obamacare.

    Al Gore: e pluribus unum – from one, many. The science is settled! Everybody knows science is a democracy – the skeptics are trying to turn science upside down – leading to backwards conclusions.

    Saul Alinsky: Pick a target, freeze it, smear it, ridicule it.

    Professor: The founders were racist capitalist pig slave holders.

    Common Sense: I see a pattern: Professor with all due respect the Founding Fathers knew they couldn’t fight the Civil War before the American Revolution or shortly thereafter and remain United States. They were wise enough to put mechanisms in place though.

    Hey JournoList, do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

    JournoList: We must sacrifice the profession and do what is best for society.

    Hey Bill O’Really, Dr. K., FOX News, do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

    FOX Choir: Why do they even have all these debates? Don’t the people know Romney is inevitable….it’s inevitable that Romney is inevitable…Romney is the only inevitable candidate….Romney…Romney…..Romney….

    Hey King George III, do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

    King George III: I will squash you for even suggesting it is not my divine right to rule over you.

    Hey Islamic radicals. Do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

    Radical Islam _____________

    Hey Clarence Thomas do you believe Our Creator allows freewill which lead to the documents that protect the individual and the state from overbearing DOJ?

    Clarence Thomas: See my dissent in Raich.

    1. Do us next!

      1. More repeat tedium

  27. pointless than the argument over whether journalists can put bumper stickers on their hybrids.

    That’s redundant. Hybrids are a bumper sticker.

  28. So there is already a tendency in the park that means backing away from anti-authoritarian tendencies that don’t fall into pre-existing permitted institutional structures, or that can’t be coded by them.

    Ow.

    Stop that!

  29. Tedious bull session/Maoist self-criticism disguised as a group-strategy consensus-building conference

    Aka Hit & Run.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.