The image below is a screen shot of a search from Friday morning, key words "Concentration Camp," using the time range search feature from May 1 to June 28, where we see just from the front page that outlets like Washington Post, Snopes, Fortune, Gizmodo, Slate and others all used the term in their headlines on June 19 & June 20, 2018, amidst the ongoing immigration debate.
It continues on subsequent pages with Vice, Motherboard, Newsweek and others using the same terminology in their headlines on the same days.
POPULAR TERM OR MEDIA COLLUSION? 'JournoList 2' EXPOSED
It has now been revealed that another "listserv," hosted on Google Groups, exists, and has over 400 members, described as "left-of-center journalists, authors, academics, and wonks," which provides them what is dubbed as an "off-the-record discussion forum."
Via Jezebel, who has seen this list and messages from it: These members include New York Times best-selling authors, Ivy League academics, magazine editors, and other public intellectuals—in short, a lot of important people who influence public discourse through their written work."
While many writers get their names added to these types of groups constantly without our knowledge or permission until the emails start showing up, a "listserv" in an of itself is nothing scandalous, but if that group of journalists and media personalities actively collude to share a narrative, to push specific keywords in order to influence their audience collectively, that is indeed collusion.
While Jezebel only revealed one name on the list, New York Magazine journalist Jesse Singal, and only provided the specific messages relating to his work, we have no idea how many names from top liberal media outlets are part of the membership. Also according to Jezebel, they have seen messages from this list that date back to 2010.
What we do have is history....... the original "JournoList" scandal.
They eventually decided not to touch that one, but the nature of their collusion, once made public, resulted in the founder of the group, Vox's Ezra Klein, dismantling the group in June of 2010, the same year this new listserv was created.
While not all the names on that list were exposed, it was generally reported that there were also over 400 members that were part of that group, much like this new group that just happened to start the same year Klein's ended. We also know that the Jesse Singal was part of the previous JournoList group.
Now the diaper is coming off entirely. Perhaps stretching the diaper metaphor too far, what's inside JournoList may stink, but it's no surprise that it does. JournoList e-mails obtained by the Daily Caller reveal what anybody with two neurons to rub together already knew: Professional liberals don't like Republicans and do like Democrats. They can be awfully smug and condescending in their sense of intellectual and moral superiority. They tend to ascribe evil motives to their political opponents - sometimes even when they know it's unfair. One obscure blogger insisted that liberals should arbitrarily demonize a conservative journalist as a racist to scare conservatives away from covering stories that might hurt Obama.
Oh, and - surprise! - it turns out that the "O" in JournoList stands for "Obama."
In 2008, participants shared talking points about how to shape coverage to help Obama. They tried to paint any negative coverage of Obama's racist and hateful pastor, Jeremiah Wright, as out of bounds. Journalists at such "objective" news organizations as Newsweek, Bloomberg, Time, and The Economist joined conversations with open partisans about the best way to criticize Sarah Palin.
Like an Amish community raising a barn, members of the progressive community got together to hammer out talking points. Amidst a discussion of Palin, Chris Hayes, a writer for The Nation, wrote: "Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get." Time's Joe Klein admitted to his fellow JournoListers that he'd collected the listserv's bric-a-brac and fashioned it into a brickbat aimed at Palin.
That same Chris Hayes now works for MSNBC.
It is also noteworthy that among media members, there were also "a number of professional political operatives, including top White House economic advisors, key Obama political appointees, and Democratic campaign veterans," that were part of the original JournoList, to help "shape" the news.
Via Daily Caller, who exposed the original JournoList groups and their collusion, describing one of the messages to the group from Jeff Hauser, a professional political operative, who was preemptively plotting how members should spin an upcoming debate between John McCain and Barack Obama:
The single biggest thing JournoList can do is to lay the analytical framework within the media elite necessary for an actual Obama debate win to be viewed as such by a sufficient proportion of media elites that voters know it was a win.
Of course, this only works if Obama does as we expect (and McCain is a terrible debater, btw).
But even Gore’s uneven Debate 1 performance in 2000 was deemed a win initially by a viewership that was demographically to the right of the electorate (lower minority viewership in 2000 of debates, more male, more GOP, etc…)… but Bush was winning on several media narratives and thus got the benefit from the intense 72 hours of post-debate coverage.
JournoList’s greatest challenge is to make sure an actual win by Obama translates into winning the battle for political impact.
It wasn't until the existence of the JournoList listserv was exposed, then the Daily Caller started revealing the content of the messages, that any research could be done as how the narrative went from a "discussion," among the groups members straight to the headlines and content of the publications who had employees on the list.
In a key episode, JournoList members openly plotted to bury attention on then-candidate Barack Obama’s controversial pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman, for instance, suggested an effective tactic to distract from the issue would be to pick one of Obama’s critics, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
Sure enough, almost any conservative can tell you that any criticism of Obama was often met with cries of "racist!."
Another interesting part of their "discussions" has become a popular talking point by liberal media and Democratic politicians.
In some of the leaked original JournoList emails, (Page 83 of PDF) we see the reference to another specific set of terms used to describe the Republican party, phrases like "bunch of white guys," and "straight white males."
CNN in May of 2017, in a piece titled "What's wrong with too many white men in one place?," we see statements like ""These are not a bunch of bumbling old white guys who don't know better," says Coonfield. "They know exactly what they're doing. It's a certain staging of power. An image of a bunch of white guys seeking to undo health care coverage for millions of Americans sends a strong unambiguous message about whose interests are being represented and whose are not."
The event looked like the board meeting of an all-white-male golf club. Photos from the ceremony showed a phalanx of middle-aged white men heartily congratulating one another, with no woman or person of color in sight.
Some photos released later did show some women at the event. But the surplus of white testosterone in the images sparked widespread outrage. One critic tweeted: "Message from another white guy: Yes, this is way too many white men in one place." Another white guy complained about a pattern of "overwhelming white maleness" in Trump administration photos. Someone even started a hashtag: #governmentsowhite.
In that piece alone, it referenced "white" over 60 times.
Need I go on, or are we all starting to see a pattern here? Reporters and other media personalities secretively gather in groups to discuss narratives and attack strategies, then they all collectively go out and spread those at their individual publications, and it appears as if they are still doing it.
For those that never even heard about the huge JournoList scandal from 2009-2010, they can catch up with the extensive coverage the Daily Caller provided at the time: Page One, Page Two, Page Three and Page Four.
It is not coincidence when we see dozens upon dozens of headlines within a two day period all screech "concentration camps." These writers and editors are not determining on their own to use a specific phrase or term in their headlines and content, as we have proof from the recent past that the liberal media actively colludes and converges on a narrative to push all at once to their audience.
We have also noted that when they have run with a narrative they have determined will be beneficial to liberals and Democrats and damage conservatives and Republicans, they will hammer it home relentlessly for years.
The level of coordination and collusion between leftist media "journalists" that was exposed back in 2009 - 2010 was so egregious that the sheer magnitude of the outrage it generated after learning the lengths, and lies, the media was willing to "discus" telling their audiences, was enough to force Klein to end the group, but given the date of this new groups creation, it is clear they never stopped, they just "moved" to another Google group.
While Jezebel casually mentions "Private messages posted on a closed discussion forum," and later describing it as a listserv with over 400 members, its existence isn't highlighted because it is a continuation of a group that was heavily criticized in the past, but only because they are explaining where they got the messages they show in order to criticize a writer on certain subject matter.
As of now, only Breitbart seems to understand or even care about the importance of this group of liberal media personalities that have recreated, or continued, a practice that caused a major scandal in 2009 and 2010.
NOTE TO READERS: ANP Needs Your Help. With digital media revenue spiraling downward, especially hitting those in Independent Media, it has become apparent that traditional advertising simply isn't going to fully cover the costs and expenses for many smaller independent websites.
Any extra readers may be able to spare for donations will help keep ANP up and running and is greatly appreciated.
One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card: