JournoList: Kathleen Parker, Phone Home!

July 24, 2010

h/t Allahpundit on Twitter. Former NRO protege and the extra-terrestrially conservative Kathleen Parker has a problem as regards the wealth of stories about JournoList across the conservative blogosphere. Let's see if I can succinctly break down her complaint.

Liberals can use a mass email list to frame the debate on politics in America. Kathleen Parker can use her position at the WaPo to frame the JournoList debate in a manner to marginalize the focus of the Right on line. But when said Right on line openly frames the debate in a manner she doesn't care for, it's time to consider drawing a line? That about it?

Got it. Check. If you want to talk to your friends, Kathleen, you might try calling them, as opposed to using an email list of 400 mostly strangers. Or, if you're in desperate straights, I suppose you could just phone home. BTW, how's all that hopey changey stuff working out for ya these days, Kathleen? Just thought I'd ask, as we ran into one another and everything! Heh!

The current Journolist controversy that has the blogosphere heaving sparks and Washington even more self-absorbed than usual is weak tea — a tempest in Barbie's teacup.

Were they naive to think so? In this world, yes. Was Carlson right to "out" the private comments of people who, for the most part, have no significant power? That, to me, is the more compelling issue.

Scandalous? Sure, if you want it to be. If you pull a few remarks from tens of thousands posted by 400 people over a few years, you can frame a debate any way you wish. If you pull a mean quote about Rush Limbaugh, you've got Limbaugh time. Throw in Karl Rove, Fox News and Sarah Palin, and you're golden — for a little while.

In the meantime, we have to ask ourselves: Are we better off never having the ability to speak offhandedly among friends, to say in private what we could never say in public, to think aloud and uncensored?

Or do we resign ourselves to the new reality — that no one is ever to be trusted — and keep our thoughts to ourselves? The answer implied by the events here described suggests a country in which few of us would want to live.

AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
  1. memomachine says:

    “Started by prodigal blogger Ezra Klein” – that’s never a good sign.
    “Today, Ezra Klein is a ripened 26-year-old Washington Post blogger” – ugh. I think I got some of that on me. I need to wash.
    “Klein is young, in other words” – so … he’s not “ripened”? Why do I feel like I’m peeping on something … obscene?
    “Were they naive to think so? In this world, yes. Was Carlson right to “out” the private comments of people who, for the most part, have no significant power? That, to me, is the more compelling issue. ”

    Completely and utterly without value. A female David Frum and deserving of monumental castigation. Outlawry. Expulsion and exile.

  2. Huey says:

    Hmmm….more to come, Kathleen?

  3. rrpjr says:

    Kathleen Parker is about as relevant to our times as toothpicks to hyenas, and she can’t stand the fact. Like every two-bit, pretentious, establishment pundit twit, she can’t stand not only the fact of her irrelevance but the fact she’s been humiliated by her groupie crush on Obama. Add to that her growing sense she’s in for another epic fail regarding Sarah Palin.

  4. Fred Beloit says:

    Rabbi ben Ezra is paid a salary by the Washington Post. As the Journolist leaks show, Ezra works for the Democraticic Party. Shouldn’t his Wapo salary be considered a Wapo contribution to the Dems and be reported by the Government as such? Same for the other Journolisters who work at other librul rags.

  5. Neo says:

    Greewort has “CNN anchors attack the scourge of anonymity” up.
    There is some sort of burning irony between the two.

  6. Ronan says:

    How does journalist differ from FOX/Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity framing the debate and talking points for RW bloggers?

  7. eaglewingz08 says:

    Parker is a glib idiot. The Journolist controversy isn’t that these were private emails/comments not meant for wider dissemination, but that they were strategy sessions meant to frame the public debate on issues of public import by the fourth estate which the journolistas denied was going on and in which they conspired.

  8. time to rise up says:

    Kathleen Parker. Useful idiot.

  9. anonymous says:

    I am not a fan of Kathleen Parker. I rather read Ann Coulter’s articles than Parker and Peggy Noonan. Parker and Noonan are liberal.

  10. memomachine says:

    “How does journalist differ from FOX/Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity framing the debate and talking points for RW bloggers?”
    1. You mean JournoList? The mailing list?
    2. They differ because:
    A. Nobody is gathering together to work out what the “line” is going to be. Nobody is saying “Ok now we all attack Harry Reid on this one subject and hammer it”.
    B. Conservatives are like cats, we all go in our own specific directions and we don’t particularly give a damn if anybody else does. Liberals on the other hand like to march together and anybody who doesn’t get into step generally gets put up against a wall with a blindfold and a cigarette.
    C. Limbaugh doesn’t agree with Beck. Beck doesn’t agree with Hannity. Hannity doesn’t agree with Limbaugh. I don’t agree with Limbaugh, Beck occasionally interests me and Hannity bores me beyond all endurance. See B, cats.

  11. You nailed the problem, as I did in my comment to the story at WaPo — this isn’t a couple of guys sitting around over drinks shooting the bull. it is a large mailing list of several hundred influential individuals with archived posts. Any member, not just “friends”, have access to it. And given that these reporters would have no ethical problem using emails from such a “private” forum to attack a politician or business leader in one of their articles or columns, I can’t see where there is even a question about the legitimacy of using the posts from JournoList.

  12. unseen says:

    Show me emails where fox news, rush and hannity got together to develop a narrative out of whole cloth with no foundation of truth. show me where rush and hannity formed a private group to push a narrative. show me evidence of coluusion between fox, Rush and hannity. you got no evidence for your vile slime. rush , hannity do their own research, have tons of paid staff to search the news, gather facts and put their own spin on the daily news. fox news reports the news from a conservative slant. They do not make narratives and push those narratives without basis of facts.

  13. Rick says:

    Kathleen Parker, however nice & charming she is, is a “safely” housebroken and neutered “conservative” in the mainstream media. Her Pulitizer was her reward for her “but on the other hand” schtick, and she still knows on which side (the Left) her bread is buttered.
    She’s not “authentic,” to borrow a term from racial grievance pimps.

  14. Fred Beloit says:

    Ronan asks the heartbreakingly poignant question: “How does journalist differ from FOX/Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity framing the debate and talking points for RW bloggers?”
    This group of four you offer is not a conspiracy to hide stories. Journalists shouldn’t hide stories. It is the antithisis of journalism to hide stories. Also Rush doesn’t work for a Newspaper, while it must be admitted I suppose that the other two do work for Fox, Beck on a part-time basis. But to charge a conspiracy, Ronan, you need to offer some proof. I don’t see any proof, do you?