In response to my first blog entry about UT's James K. Galbraith's being a part of the Journolist the professor himself responded that my characterization of the list as being that of a hate group was "entirely false" and that "Not every comment made on such a list bears repeating. But on the whole I found it useful and appropriate."
I guess definitions of "hate" can be seen in the eyes of the beholder so let's take a look at what I deem to be "hate."
Here's a few paragraphs from a story today on the American Thinker that describe but one apparently accepted tactic by members of Journolist:
Jonathan Strong of The Daily Caller broke the news about left-wing journalists conspiring on Journolist to kill the stories during the 2008 election about Barack Obama's relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Strong writes,
What strikes me is the entirely capricious nature of Ackerman's false accusations. To paraphrase, his prescription is to "just levy accusations of racism against anyone who stands in the way." What a hateful thing to do to other people, to attempt to destroy their reputations with accusations of racism simply for the sake of changing the subject and pursuing your political agenda. Which then leads to the question of the motivation for such an awful act, which in my view could only be hate. Ackerman has so little disregard for his fellow man he would just sling a very hateful accusation willy nilly.
"In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists.""
Ackerman skipped the intermediary suggestion of even asking loaded questions of Obama's conservative critics and proceeded directly to proposing false accusations against figures -- "who cares" -- on the right.
I don't know about the professor but engaging in knowingly false race-baiting is a particularly hateful act in my view and should be discouraged and reprimanded when it occurs.
Okay, so that's but one example. I don't guess it's fair to call everyone on the list a hate group member because of that. Or is it?
The American Thinker article makes the pertinent comment that:
The fact that such open malice of at least a few of the four hundred "professionals" on Journolist did not result in their expulsion from this professional Listserv, and indeed seemed tolerated at the time by its members and now by its defenders, would seem to indicate a more widespread problem. The dog doesn't bark when it's comfortable with the visitor.More will be coming out about this list in the days ahead.
I'll tackle the example of hatred toward Rush Limbaugh in a future note, when I have some free time. My non-tenured position requres that I work to pay the taxes that support the University of Texas and it's tenured professors.