Last time Andrew Breitbart put up a hundred grand for something, he had no takers, almost certainly because it didn’t exist. I’m referring, of course, to evidence that Tea Partiers used racial epithets at Queen Nancy and John Lewis’ giant-gavel trolling through the crowd on the mall when they passed health-care deform.
But this time, I suspect he’ll bag his quarry, because we know that the Journolist exists. Even if Ezra shut it down, every member of it (or at least many, if they kept them) has an archive. And a hundred Gs is a lot of money. Particularly to reporters in these parlous times for the reporting business:
The fact that 400 journalists did not recognize how wrong their collusion, however informal, was shows an enormous ethical blind spot toward the pretense of impartiality. As journalists actively participated in an online brainstorming session on how best to spin stories in favor of one party against another, they continued to cash their paychecks from their employers under the impression that they would report, not spin the agreed-upon “news” on behalf of their “JournoList” peers.
The American people, at least half of whom are the objects of scorn of this group of 400, deserve to know who was colluding against them so that in the future they can better understand how the once-objective media has come to be so corrupted and despised.
We want the list of journalists that comprised the 400 members of the “JournoList” and we want the contents of the listserv. Why should Weigel be the only person exposed and humiliated?
Why indeed? And when we see it, we’re also going to have a view inside the creation of the media echo chamber. It will be very interesting to correlate the discussions with the lock-step media narrative of the time.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Breitbart as The Joker:
This is like the Ferry Scene in The Dark Knight.
Heh. Except the criminals in the ferry were much more respectable.
Having seen The Dark Knight more than my fair share of times, I’m still not sure how this is a valid comparison.
Two ferries, one full of criminals and Dept. of Correction workers, and one full of everyday citizens and cops. Both have bombs on board which are allegedly (but not actually) attached to timers. Each boat has a trigger for the other boat, and they are told that the only way to save themselves is by blowing up the other ferry.
While I can appreciate that the ferry full of criminals is somewhat comparable to a ferry full of JournoList members, who exactly is on the ferry full of “respectable citizens” in this case? Besides, both ferries eventually “did the right thing” and “sacrificed” themselves.
And, Breitbart can’t really be the Joker, because the Joker actually had the trigger to blow both ferries sky-high, and fully intended to do it if the good people of Gotham couldn’t bring themselves to give in to their baser instincts for survival. Breitbart has no such mechanism for blowing the JournoList apart, given that it’s already somewhat self-destructed. Breitbart has also offered a lifeboat to any member who is willing to blow up their OWN ferry, which is presumably a more difficult choice to make than blowing up someone else’s ferry.
Besides, as I mentioned above, the ferry full of criminals included a number of people who had sworn an oath to protect society from those criminals, and therefore wasn’t 100% “bad”. While I imagine that may be a few un-tarnished souls on the JournoList, I highly doubt it’s a large enough percentage to make them worthy of saving. Especially not if there’s an anonymous $100k lifeboat awating the “turncoat”.
And, yes, Rand, I know you didn’t write it, but this is about the only place I comment on this kind of stuff (not that I saw any way to comment at The Corner as it is…), so this is where it ends up.
Besides, you seemed to agree with it, so in theory you could answer, too. Most of my questions are rhetorical, though, based on the fact that I usually answer them myself.
What’s that word for schadenfreude again? 🙂
How touching that Breitbart is promoting ethics in journalism by bribing journalists to reveal off-the-record conversations.
I’m pretty sure that his goal is not to promote ethics in journalism. It’s actually to demonstrate that they don’t exist.
What’s that word for schadenfreude again?
Jim
Those “off the record” conversations are reportedly about collusion to manipulate the news. They may even be evidence of actual malice that could be evidence in a lawsuit. This is kind of like those tip lines that offer rewards for information about a crime.
Besides, if anyone thinks that a bunch of emails are truly off the record, then they’re a fool. All it takes is one person to forward the email one time too many or to hold a grudge and the email will become public, as Harvard Law student Stephanie Grace learned earlier this year allegedly over a guy.
‘sure you don’t mean “hypocrite”?
It’s actually to demonstrate that they don’t exist.
If he succeeds in buying the archives he’ll have an example of one unethical journalist, but he promises to keep that identity secret.
Those “off the record” conversations are reportedly about collusion to manipulate the news.
An active imagination is not evidence.
This is kind of like those tip lines that offer rewards for information about a crime.
It would be like that if Breitbart offered, say, a reward for information about a crime. Instead, he’s offering money as an inducement to break a journalist’s promise of confidentiality, regardless of whether the information provided is about a crime or anything else of urgent public concern. The only thing he can be sure he’s buying is a compromise of the seller’s ethics.
Besides, if anyone thinks that a bunch of emails are truly off the record, then they’re a fool.
Agreed, in the general sense that promises can always be broken, but that hardly excuses the journalist who promises to keep a conversation (whether email, or any other means) off the record, and then turns around and leaks it or sells it to the highest bidder. Nor does it excuse the bidder.
If he succeeds in buying the archives he’ll have an example of one unethical journalist, but he promises to keep that identity secret.
Yes, just as journalists promise to protect their sources.
It would be like that if Breitbart offered, say, a reward for information about a crime.
He is. It’s a reward for information about the crime of journalistic fraud, when they pretend to be objective.
Yeah, I’m sure that “Jim’s” primary concern is the ethics of both Breitbart’s actions, and the actions of the Journolisters.
Personally, I don’t think he’s concerned about ethics at all. I think he’s horrified that the machinations of lefty journalists may well be exposed.
It’s a reward for information about the crime of journalistic fraud, when they pretend to be objective.
When the cops offer a reward, it’s for information that leads to a conviction. Breitbart is offering money regardless of what’s in the emails.
Would it be reasonable for someone (say, the Washington Post) to offer money for Breitbart’s emails with his off-the-record sources?
I think he’s horrified that the machinations of lefty journalists may well be exposed.
You clearly love imagining what’s in other people’s minds, and emails.
Unfortunately, there probably isn’t even one Journolister who hasn’t said something regretable that could torpedo his career at some point during those conversations. Since the source can’t be removed from the archive (because that would effectively reveal who it is) he’ll also be blowing himself up, not just his colleagues.
$100,000 isn’t much if career suicide is the price.
Yes, just keep humming that little diddy right along in your head Jim. Doodeedoodeedooooo……
It would be like that if Breitbart offered, say, a reward for information about a crime. Instead, he’s offering money as an inducement to break a journalist’s promise of confidentiality, regardless of whether the information provided is about a crime or anything else of urgent public concern. The only thing he can be sure he’s buying is a compromise of the seller’s ethics.
What promise of confidentiality? If someone is posting confidential matters on a journalism discussion forum (even a closed one), then they’ve already violated that oath. And in case you haven’t noticed, the point of journalism is to reveal information not to keep it secret. Sometimes they have to keep some information secret in order to reveal the rest. That’s the “promise of confidentiality”. I see no indication that it applies here.
Also we need to consider that there may be non-journalists who have access to this information. There would be no promise of confidentiality for them to violate (aside from a possible NDA).
No, they haven’t — they’ve only shared it with 399 of their closest friends! That’s it!
What promise of confidentiality?
Every member of Journolist promised to keep the contents off-the-record, as a condition of membership.
I doubt that Breitbart will ever pay the $100k. Journolist started very small, so only a handful of people have the complete list archives, and they are the ones least likely to burn the others.
I’d bet he’d pro-rate it for a less-than-complete set. 🙂
I’d bet he’d pro-rate it for a less-than-complete set.
If so why doesn’t he say as much? Unless he’s just trolling for publicity….
…for the same reason a haggler doesn’t tell you the lowest price he’ll take up-front.