Roger Ailes, Tucker Carlson and why the right wing doesn't want journalists who care
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Roger Ailes, Tucker Carlson and why the right wing doesn't want journalists who care
Last week, two well-known figures in the conservative media world -- Roger Ailes, who made the Fox News Channel what it is today, and bow-tied jack-of-all-right-wing-reporting trades Tucker Carlson -- both gave speeches to young journalists on the state of the profession. Although they took place one day and a couple of hundred miles apart, the common message to young people thinking about becoming journalists was strikingly similar. Don't learn too much, and it might be best if you stay away altogether. Especially if you want to make the world a better place.
Carlson, who now runs the occasionally outrageous (not always intentionally) website The Daily Caller after he was bounced from various cable shows, went first, addressing aspiring journalists at the Cato Institute think tank in Washington, D.C. The graduate of Trinity College in Hartford told the future scribes that going to college is an expensive sinkhole (news, no doubt, to some of the top scholars who work at Cato) and advised them not to waste time in "some 'government-subsidized college course' or 'underwater basket-weaving for feminists or whatever'they talk about in class."
The nut, whoever, was this:
"You can’t be most things that you want to be. Why? Because you’re not capable of it,” Carlson told the audience. The theme of Carlson’s brutally honest speech could be summed up with this direct quote. “Most people’s voices are not worth being heard."
Ironically, it seems like Carlson's main message was heard (perhaps telepathically) by Ailes, the longtime president of FNC who built the network into America's most-watched cable news outlet, who spoke the next day at the University of North Carolina, in Chapel Hill.His first comment to journalism majors was that they should change their major. They may have been flippant -- it's hard to tell with Ailes -- but he was definitely serious about this:
“If you’re going into journalism if you care, then you’re going into the wrong profession,” Ailes said. “I usually ask (journalists) if they want to change the world in the way it wants to be changed.”
I should note here that at least Ailes -- who (and this is a very low bar) has a lot more gravitas than Carlson -- also made a number of good points, if you want to overlook the huge gulf between his words and his deeds during his long second career in TV journalism. He said correctly that good journalists are good watchdogs and he even gave a decent "conservative" example of an area that should be watchdogged -- waste and mismanagement at the UN -- although to my knowledge pundit-driven Fox News has never done a serious investigation of this. And I'm glad we live in a country with press freedom for both conservatives and liberals to launch a TV network.
But actually Carlson's words -- while at first blush more frivolous -- were in the end arguably more honest than what Ailes had to say. The truest words from the FNC honcho were his comment that he doesn't want journalists who "care." Because if Ailes or his reporters really cared, they would be upset that so many Fox News viewers get wrong-headed ideas like blaming Saddam Hussein for 9/11, or watchdog their own shameful record of false reporting on climate change.
And he doesn't want journalists crusading to change the world -- at least not a world in which the laws and the tax code have been so skewed toward the wealthy, where oil companies can destroy the earth with impunity and where illegal acts like waterboarding are cheered. Ailes' influential TV network practices what Tucker Carlson preached -- that it doesn't matter if you want to change the status quo, because you don't even deserve to be heard. In fact, the less educated you are, the better off things would be. For the political right, anyway.
They remind me of the legendary line from Dean Wormer in Animal House, but in reverse. Fat, drunk and stupid is exactly how they want you to go through life, son.
Still, although it was surely unintentional, I think Ailes and Carlson did us all a public service. Because they placed on the table a question that we -- and I don't just mean journalists, but all of us -- should have been debating out in the open for years. Should journalists care? Should they want to change the world as a result of their work. Or should they merely report "just the facts" and give equal weight to every side of contentous issues, and leave the world-changing -- if there indeed needs to be world-changing -- for some other guy.
I am part of a large bubble of professional journalists -- people who came of age during or not long after the Watergate scandal brought down Richard Nixon -- and my recollection is that once upon a time, changing the world was a big motivator for entering the field. It seemed in the early 1970s that aggressive activism had petered out for a number of reasons from the foolishness of the Weather Underground types to the deaths at Kent State, culminating in the defeat of the change-seeking George McGovern. The somewhat romantic version that it was journalists who took down a president and his reign of illegality taught my generation that steely professionalism -- as opposed to fuzzy-headed activism -- was the only way to bring about change that mattered.
What happened next is a long story, but I'll try and stick to the short version for now. The bad news is that many journalists -- especially in the face of a conservative pushback that was partly originated by (irony alert) Roger Ailes -- retreated into a serious misinterpretation of what journalism could be and should be. They didn't change the world but occasionally changed institutions on the margin, and then awarded each other big prizes for doing so. The "best and the brightest" of my journalistic generation could even make big money as part of a Beltway elite, as long as they didn't color outside the lines established by the powers that be. And so the nadir was the run-up to the Iraq war, when stenography of the government's bogus case for a war made careers in Washington -- and wasted countless lives 10 time zones away.
What's the good news? That even after this 30-year beatdown some journalists do care, and in 2012 their courage stands out more than ever. Although I think in past years some award-winning jounalism was written more for contest judges than to engage the American people, there are signs that the Pulitzer Prizes that will be dished out tomorrow afternoon will reward some stories that definitely exposed major wrongs and could even (gulp) make the world a better place.
These are stories that have already won other major journalism awards -- the Associated Press expose of the NYPD's questionable spying on the Muslim community, Bloomberg's "Wired for Repression" series about surveilance technology sold to repressive regimes, the Wall Street Journal on insider trading by government officials, the New Yorker's Jane Mayer (not eligible for a Pulitzer, but winner of a Polk award) on the crushing of a government whistle-blower.
I have a strong hunch that these are exactly the kind of voices that Tucker Carlson didn't want you to hear.
Because despite the best efforts of Carlson and Ailes, there are still journalists out there who give a damn.
TPS what was the size of the federal government at the time of the Louisiana Purchase? What were the effective tax rates? LOL.— RG- "the federal highway system (let alone other massive federal involvement in the economy) was unrelated to the ability of the US to win the war"The Federal Highway System wasn't authorized til 1956, yet somehow it helped us win a war a decade earlier? TPS shows the value of a public school education. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System (HTML deleted)— RG
- ===}}} and really, its quite sad that you're hanging you hat on the government roadzzzzzz argument. {{{===
Right, RG - the federal highway system (let alone other massive federal involvement in the economy) was unrelated to the ability of the US to win the war, and experience accelerated growth subsequent.
You're freakin' hilarious. You just never stop digging that deeper hole.
Oh, and the Louisiana Purchase, also, must be ignored to paint your masterpiece.
RG = Rembrandt Good
Anyway, have a nice day RG.
Don't ever change, RG. You're perfect exactly as you are.— Talking point sleuth - And really, its quite sad that you're hanging you hat on the government roadzzzzzz argument. So far, you and msl have come up with roads and fiat currency to try to convince me of the wonders of government.— RG
- "accelerated growth in the 50's and 60's," Accelerated growth in that timeframe was due to the fact that Europe was left in ruins after WW2.— RG
- This is why I have so much admiration for you, RG.
You're going to hang your hat on whether I said "achieved" or "sustained" in my original statement, to ignore the obvious fact that federal involvement in massive infrastructure development (antebellum canals, railroads, interstate highways) has been absolutely crucial to our economy, accelerated growth in the 50's and 60's, etc.
That is a masterpiece of laughable and willfully ignorant arguments, RG, and you, my friend are a Rembrandt.— Talking point sleuth - Except you did argue, at 6:32, that gov infrastructure led to our economic preeminence. I've pointed out historical fact that the aUS had already reached prominence long before massive infrastructure spending. So yes, now you're moving the goalposts.— RG
- Right. I'm "moving the goalposts." You start with the laughably trivial statement that we had roads before federal involvement (there were few, they were lousy, and certainly wouldn't have sustained our preeminance), and then move on to the trivial argument of questioning the absolutely crucial benefits of government involvement in our highway system - to debate what year we reached economic preeminence - as if that's actually relevant to the question of return on federal involvement in the highway system.
Yeah. But I'm "moving the goalposts." One of the days, RG, you're going to get a clue about making a coherent argument of substance. Until then, I'll just continue to laugh at your feeble efforts. And I do appreciate your efforts.
They're spectacular.— Talking point sleuth - "You know, like that private sector purchase of the Louisiana purchase. "
Which then fell under territory laws, institutionalizing slavery in that area.
— RG - Right - all that growth prior to the 1950s without federal involvement. You know, like that private sector purchase of the Louisiana purchase.
And just think of how much better off we'd be without the federal involvement in the private sector slavery industry.
Anyway, have a nice night RG.— Talking point sleuth - Moving the goalposts then running after your original claim was dissected. Typical TPS.— RG
- con't...
--snip--
The highway network's contribution to economic productivity growth was quite large during and immediately following the interstate construction era. Although the impact has declined considerably since the 1970's, highway investment remains an important contributor to economic productivity growth. During the period 1980 to 1989, highway capital investments contributed between 7 and 8 percent to annual productivity growth. The implication is that strategic highway investments, timely maintenance, and further progress in the deployment of advanced technology will continue to make a positive and significant contribution to national productivity growth and economic development.
--snip--
But yeah, RG - we'd be so much better off without federal support for building highways. You're hilarious.
Of course, the rate of return is decreasing, and combined with an assessment of negative externalities, that fact makes it clear that we'd benefit from a more diversified investment strategy for transportation needs. I'm sure you'd be on board with that, right RG? You know, some federal funding directed towards public transportation rather than automobile travel?
Too funny. Anyway, have a nice night, RG.— Talking point sleuth - --snip--
Over the period 1950 to 1989, U.S. industries realized production cost savings averaging 18 cents annually for each dollar invested in the road system. This is an average result for the U.S. highway system as a whole over the 40-year period, which highlights the positive role of highway investment in fostering economic growth. Investments in non-local roads, a subset of the entire network, yield even higher production cost savings, estimated at 24 cents for each dollar of investment. These results reflect the important contributions of an expanding highway network to the rapid growth of the U.S. economy during the late 1950's and 1960'x. Although the impact of highway investment on productivity has declined coincident with the decline in national productivity growth since the early 1970's, results suggest that highway infrastructure investments more than pay for themselves in terms of industry cost savings.
--snip--
— Talking point sleuth - TPS, if you had any grasp of history, instead of the nonsense propaganda that passes as education, you'd realize that America had passed most if not all of Europe by the late 1800's. Before the New Deal, entitlements, the highway system, etc.— RG
- According to third rate lawyer, I'm dependent on the government because of fiat currency. Which shows his brilliant legal mind at work. Or his desperation to celebrate everything government and convince us how we should be thankful of its benevolent, paternalistic hand.— RG
- Gross National product before glorious government roadzzzzzzz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-GNP-per-capita-1869-1918.png— RG - "Americans' enthusiasm for good roads led to the involvement of the federal government in building roads and the creation of numbered U.S. routes in the 1920s."
Except that the US had already jumped over Britain as the leading manufacturer.........in 1890. GOVERNMENT ROADZZZZZZ made us rich!!!!!!!— RG - ===}}} MSL, you can try and paint it however you want, but the world does not revolve around government. {{{===
Yeah, MSL, stop trying to paint it that the world "revolve[s] around government."
Oh wait, you never did that.
My bad.— Talking point sleuth - ===}}} Errr, the federal highway system wasn't started until the late 50's. {{{===
RG - try to keep up, would ya?
--snip--
Americans' enthusiasm for good roads led to the involvement of the federal government in building roads and the creation of numbered U.S. routes in the 1920s. The Federal Highway Administration and the Interstate Highway System are the culmination of these efforts.
--snip--
But typically, you try to laughably (and ignorantly) focus on a minor detail to avoid the larger reality. Federal involvement in our highway system was absolutely crucial to our economic development, and the government stepped in because the private sector wasn't getting the job done.— Talking point sleuth - "Gee. That's a tough one. I really have to give that a lot of thoug....
Oh wait.
I got.
Human beings."
But folks who work for a living providing goods or services and profit accordingly are "fat cats" right, TPS?— RG - MSL, you can try and paint it however you want, but the world does not revolve around government. Unless you're a third rate public servant who couldn't sell their labor on the market for anything but chickens.— RG
- "that supported us achieving global economic preeminence."
Errr, the federal highway system wasn't started until the late 50's. The US had already risen to prominence.— RG - Third rate lawyer, whats your point about fiat currency? Are you so thrilled by it? do you understand the Federal Reserve System and who fiat currency mainly benefits? Hint, hint, it rhymes with Mall Wheat.— RG
- ===}}} Apparently, there were no roads before government, either. {{{===
Actually, there were. Not very many, and those that were there were lousy. That's why government offered incentives to raise the money - because the private sector didn't come forth with the funding necessary to build the infrastructure that supported us achieving global economic preeminence.
You've had this explained many times, RG. Why do you still have such a hard time with that relatively simple concept?
— Talking point sleuth - ===}}} Just curious TPS, What do you call some of these families that are generational welfare recipients who do not actually seek out work? {{{===
Gee. That's a tough one. I really have to give that a lot of thoug....
Oh wait.
I got.
Human beings.— Talking point sleuth - "Are you regretting that you exposed yourself as a third rate lawyer?" . . . . . Again, nothing but another lame insult. RG, if you thought your occupation or job was perfectly insulated from dependence on government, you'd have disclosed it already. Afraid this third-rate lawyer will expose you?— montani semper liberi
- "Apparently, there were no roads before government, either." . . . . So, you hike to work through the wilderness, blazing new trails for yourself everyday? Nice that you admit you choose to be paid in government fiat currency though.— montani semper liberi
Comment removed.- "Don't learn too much, and it might be best if you stay away altogether. Especially if you want to make the world a better place".
WOW, ok now I know how Ms./Mr. Radical Mancow, Sgt. (I know nothing, NOTHING) Schultz, Larry O'Dumbbell, Tingler Madthews, Groucho Olbermann and the rest of the bozos on MSNBS were trained...makes total sense.
— sarah89 - "Heck, you haven't even told us what kind of work you do (and if you're smart you won't)."
Are you regretting that you exposed yourself as a third rate lawyer?— RG - "because God forbid you should be dependent on government roads for your commute."
Apparently, there were no roads before government, either. People just sat around waiting for government. LOL. MSL, in all your self proclaimed wisdom, let us know how government gets fundind for said roads?— RG - I'm paid in dollars, because thats how taxes are collected. And you can tell a public servant by their insistence that all things flow from the government. You've still made absolutely no point whatsoever. You haven't backed your claim at all. Because you can't.— RG
- I can always tell when you're beaten RG. You resort to silly insults. Please tell us then that you refuse to get paid in US currency, and why. It's not like you have no choice. You can demand chickens for payment. Even gold coins or other precious metals. I'll bet you even walk to work through other people's yards, because God forbid you should be dependent on government roads for your commute. Heck, you haven't even told us what kind of work you do (and if you're smart you won't).— montani semper liberi
- Oh, the old fiat currency argument. Another brilliant point by the counselor. Since government controls the money supply, and mandates the use of paper currency, that means I'm dependant on government. You're a failure across the board, MSL.— RG
- "I don't get paid by the government, MSL" . . . . . Thank god. Imagine someone as dense as you in public service. I imgaine you aren't paid in dollars, either, and work instead for chickens.— montani semper liberi
- Comment removed.
- I don't get paid by the government, MSL, so once again you make a nonsensical comment.— RG
- RG, if you think dignity is measured in dollars, then nobody's more dependent on government for their dignity than you.— montani semper liberi
- This comment has been deleted.— towelie
- Comment removed.
- "I believe neither of those things. I was sarcastically mocking YOU'RE ridiculous statement that they are dependent on government for their dignity."
By making contradictory statements? You can't even mock properly. Now run off and try to calculate your effective tax rate. Government tributes are due tomorrow!
— RG - ===}}} First you claim that w/o Medicare granny would have no dignity, then you turn around and say the opposite, that they lack dignity because they're dependant on government. {{{===
It really flew over your head, didn't it? I believe neither of those things. I was sarcastically mocking YOU'RE ridiculous statement that they are dependent on government for their dignity.
I know many dignified poor people, and their dignity has nothing, whatsoever, to do with whether or not they get public assistance. And I know rich people who act undignified even though they don't get public assistance.
I was laughing at your association of the two issues.
I hope that helps, although honestly I suspect that even with an explanation of the obvious, you still won't understand.
Anyway, I'll look forward to your objections to "moral preening" on the next thread where you call tens of millions of Americans "parasites."
Hilarious.— Talking point sleuth - TPS thinks he's hit on a truth, kids are dependant on their parents! Good job, Sherlock. However, I'm not dependant on government. Thats the difference. I waited til I could afford kids to have them, thats why my kids weren't born into poverty.— RG
- You're starting to ramble. First you claim that w/o Medicare granny would have no dignity, then you turn around and say the opposite, that they lack dignity because they're dependant on government.
Pick a line of argumentation and stick with it. Either way, nothing you say does anything to help the poor or elderly. But puff out that chest and engage in some moral preening. Because you "care".— RG - Anyway, have a nice day, RG. As usual, you deserve kudos for being positively spectacular. Say hi to your family of grazing ungulates for me (oh, and by the way, I guess your kids are "dependent on [you] for their dignity," eh? Poor kids).
— Talking point sleuth - ===}}} And now they're dependant on government for their dignity. {{{===
Right. Senior citizens on Medicare. Working poor. Children born into poverty. They're "dependent on government for their dignity." Without Medicare, granny has no dignity.
If only we could go back to the days when they couldn't afford medical care or food, but they could feel the "dignity" of not having a social safety net.
RG - do you even know any poor people? Do you even know any working poor, or seniors dependent on Medicare? You're going to sit at your keyboard and claim that tens of millions of Americans have no "dignity" because they rely on a social safety net?
Wow!— Talking point sleuth - Wingnuts don't care about journalism. They just want their propaganda fed to them like soft-serve ice cream, highly tasty and requiring little effort to swallow.
Funny how a rich preppie dingbat like Carlson would hold education in such disdain for all the peasants out there. Mommy and daddy's immense wealth certainly opened lots of doors for this squirrelly, mediocre fussbudget. I am sure he fancies himself a self-made man, right?— Mr_Cool - TPS, you can pat yourself on the back for all your "caring". Unfortunately, your "caring" comments don't feed or shelter the poor. That takes actual money.— RG
- "when poverty rates among senior citizens were well above 50%."
And now they're dependant on government for their dignity. What an improvement. Maybe they'll heed the lessons of Southern Europe. What government gives, government can take away.— RG - ===}}} Thanks for the moral preening. {{{===
Heh. No "moral preening" for RG. He won't tolerate it. Nosiree.
That's why he stands up when someone calls tens of millions of American working poor, tens of millions of American children born into poverty, and tens of millions of American seniors on Medicare, "parasites."
Because, you know, if there's one thing he hates, it's "moral preening."
Too funny.— Talking point sleuth - ===}}} Now let us know how effective your "caring" has been? {{{===
Yes, indeed. Why this "tyranny" we suffer under that provides a social safety net. If only we could go back to the good old days, before such "tyranny" as Medicare, when poverty rates among senior citizens were well above 50%. Oh, I pine for those days.— Talking point sleuth - ===}}} I care about you. I hope with all of my heart that you and your family can live a long happy life, free from the tyranny of people who "care". {{{===
Yes, indeed. Isn't it horrible how we all suffer under the yoke of "tyrrany," you know, being held captive in a country that provides a social safety net, and that taxes rich people and forces them to remain in this country.
What a brutal, brutal tyranny we all suffer under. Why I've even run out of tissues from weeping over jmc's pain. He's such a victim.— Talking point sleuth - That's how tyranny works. Distract the populace with shiny objects, then the next thing you know your forced to buy health insurance just because you exist.
— jmc - [Insert something idiotic and right wing] Will you post this????— Hamlet
- "Actually, no I don't care about anything about you- you're health, money family, safety, anything."
And Richard was just calling other people bitter. The left likes to project, don't they?— RG - Will, sorry, but I kind of lost the rest of your message when I read the phrase 'the foolishness of the Weather Underground types.' Foolishness? Really? At least two innocent people murdered (police officers and security guards.) Countless hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage in property? A failed (but intended) attack on our military and civilians at a dance? Foolishness doesn't cut it, evil does.— Christine
- Will, sorry, but I kind of lost the rest of your message when I read the phrase 'the foolishness of the Weather Underground types.' Foolishness? Really? At least two innocent people murdered (police officers and security guards.) Countless hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage in property? A failed (but intended) attack on our military and civilians at a dance? Foolishness doesn't cut it, evil does.— Christine
- "Unfortunately for the likes of you there are still some who care about people."
Thanks for the moral preening. Now let us know how effective your "caring" has been?
— RG - Journalistic integrity, Will Bunch? It's to integrity what military intelligence is to Einstein.— DonQ
- Comment removed.
- "You can’t be most things that you want to be. Why? Because you’re not capable of it” . . . . . Keep in mind Carlson was speaking to a Cato Institute audience, and I'm not sure he's saying anything different than what I've said here before - conservatives really aren't cut out for journalism. Not even a course in underwater basketweaving can help that, as Tucker apparently knows from his experience at Trinity College.— montani semper liberi
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Is there a full moon? The paranoid right wing whack jobs are out in force blaming the evil biased left wing media for everything but the sinking of the Titanic. You guys should get your sleep so that you are able to stay up all night to bay at the moon.— Ogey Oglethorpe
- And MSNBC is news?— joedog
- I care so give the government more of your money, I care so you should be forced to buy health insurance, I care so toss out your 2nd amendment rights, I care so unborn babies can be killed without guilt or remorse. I care so I'll undermine the American war effort, I care so I'll derail the entire world economy to "save the planet".
Maybe we don't need so much caring.— jmc - Comment removed.
- I think we both care about money. I care about MY money, and you care about MY money. There is no virtue or moral superiority in saying that you care and look to have someone else pay for it. — jmc
- Comment removed.
- So you care about people, just not conservatives. Thank you for that clarifying statement.
Just for the record, I care about you. I hope with all of my heart that you and your family can live a long happy life, free from the tyranny of people who "care".— jmc - Guys like Bunch (and Polman) are just jealous snce the only invites they get to speak are at Occupy (name of town here) events and Bring your Dad to School days.— jimmymack
- This is the kind of sentence you get when journalists "care":
"at least not a world in which the laws and the tax code have been so skewed toward the wealthy, where oil companies can destroy the earth with impunity and where illegal acts like waterboarding are cheered."
A whiny, emotion based jumble of hyperbole. Here's the painful part, Will. You're not smart enough to understand how and when the world should change. You can't control it, you don't know what direction to go, so let it happen and just report the facts.— RG - What liberal journalists really care about is influence peddling and power, not truth.— tr88
- When is Will going to comment on the doctoring of the news coverage in the Trayvon Martin example? More importantly, why does the liberal media develop these false narratives time and again? Move on kids, you'll get the information we decide you should have. They dont report, but they decide. Can you say sanctimonious?— tr88
- Bunch is the last one who should be measuring gravitas. In case Bunch missed it, the Trayvon Martin case is a perfect example of (leftwing) journalism gone wrong. NBC manipulated audio of Zimmerman's 911 call, ABC doctored video of Zimmerman while in custody to suggest that he had not been injured, and CNN falsely insisted, contrary to reality, that Zimmerman (a Hispanic-American Democrat)could be heard referring to Martin as a "[freaking] coon." And many organizations, like the Pinky and Daily News, insisted on showing photos of Martin, not as he was a 17 year old at death but, as a 12 year old.— Thoughtful&concernedvoter
- Objective journalism is a pompous contradiction in terms.— fredgwynne
- Liberals always portray mean conservatives as uncaring, or worse. If you think 100 dead kids so far this year and like every year is caring, then there is nothing else that can be said for that kind of self-absorbed, self-congratulatory delusion— tr88
- Brought to you by Daddy Norcross, a behind the scenes Democrat Party boss that cares.— Captain Terrific
- Journalists should report the truth first and let the readers decide. Journalists who"care" but cherry pick some facts and ignore other facts are political propagandists and operatives, not journalists. Today would be a good day to ask Will or the Editors of this newspaper whether or not they subscribe to SPJ code of ethics? ----http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp— tr88
- Kids: go get a journalism degree. I'll place my breakfast order with you, and I expect you to get all the details right.— Mr. Smith
- Bunch stopped being a "journalist" when he started this blog, complete with a huge advertisement along the right side of every page -- an ad that is intended to (horrors!) bring him personal financial gain. I would like to believe that at one time, journalists at least tried to be objective, but Bunch gave that up years ago...I've said it before, but for Bunch to lecture us on the purpose of journalism is like Vince McMahon lecturing on the purity of the Olympic ideal; meanwhile, how many Pulitzers will the Daily News win for their cover story on nude yoga?— J H
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
