Rob Long · Jul 21, 2010 at 8:45am

Paging through the great Journolist exposé at the Daily Caller, I came across this:

Zasloff1-redact

And also this:

Zasloff3-redact

Sorry for the lousy visual. True or not true, that's not what grabbed me. What grabbed me was, "Hey! I know that guy." The author of this particular JournoList entry is an old college friend of mine, Jonathan Zasloff. He's a law professor now. Wonderful guy. Thoughtful. Smart. A delightful friend.

Over the years we've had huge, thundering debates on everything -- I think maybe even Fox News, where he said probably those exact words -- and yes, he really is that liberal. But maybe -- just maybe -- all of this Journolist stuff is overwrought. I mean, if that's the big smoking gun -- that a law professor wants to shut down Fox -- is it really that big a deal? Jonathan is an accomplished guy, but he's not a media person; he doesn't shape reporting. He's not, to use the marketing phrase, an influencer. He's just a liberal law professor. Talking to other liberals. About their liberal daydreams. If that's what Journolist was, well, in a way that's kind of sweet. And sad.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Zoon Politikon
Joined
Jul '10
Zoon Politikon

for me the big deal is not that a law professor would have a policy direction he advocates. The bit where all the reporters get together to talk about how to shape the news is a little disconcerting. I understand completely that a reporter will have a disposition, but I would hope that, even if they believe that Fox is partisan hackery, they would choose to lead by example to show how to make the news as objective as possible.

i don't expect angels by any stretch, but i'd hope for a good faith effort.

Trace Urdan
Joined
May '10
Trace Urdan

As another longtime FOZ (you can't really graduate from Yale without knowing a few law professors) I'm hoping that the adjective Zaslovian might now, finally, deservedly enter the broader lexicon!

Matthew Gilley
Joined
May '10
Matthew Gilley
Zoon Politikon: i don't expect angels by any stretch, but i'd hope for a good faith effort. · Jul 21 at 8:58am

Exactly. This site is a big deal - a very big deal - because it exposes a rather large group of people publicly representing their work as objective and done in good faith, while privately trying to steer coverage in a bad faith manner. Most of the comments I have seen from this site show these contributors to be profane, condescending, immature, vain and poorly acquainted with the English language. I hope they're embarrassed and I hope they're ashamed. They've been acting like a bunch of children. And I look forward to seeing more of it come to light.

Mel Foil
Joined
Jun '10
etoiledunord

At least Fox News has to stop going into American homes and forcing people to watch Glenn Beck at gunpoint. That's got to stop! :)

Duane Oyen
Joined
May '10
Duane Oyen

I'm still concerned over the idea that a law prof at UCLA- which means that he knows Steven Bainbridge, for pity's sake- makes such as suggestion unless it is obviously in jest.

Lefties can argue about whether Congress can regulate political speech in McCain-Feingold, but he doesn't even seem to know anything whatever about the legal basis of what he is proposing.

Fox News is a network- networks don't get "broadcasting permits"- that is only required for local stations that, you know, broadcast (that is, transmit signals into the air). Networks don't require FCC-assigned RF frequencies in order to operate because of the outdated canard over limited spectrum yada yada.

For a law prof not to exhibit an awareness of the legal and constitutional basis for FCC licensing in the first place scares me.

StickerShock
Joined
Jun '10
StickerShock

It's a really, really big deal! A law professor wanting to shut down a news network by revoking the FCC license is like a doctor refusing to prescribe pain meds because he believes pain is a normal part of life, or because he believes pain is good for building character, or any other personal reason that is in direct oppostion to accepted, scientifically accepted practice protocols. It's a violation of one's oath. As George Bush was reported to have said, "you're not the decider." Let's uphold that Constitution, guys. Think of all the newly minted lawyers who have been absorbing this professor's nonsense.

Zoon Politikon
Joined
Jul '10
Zoon Politikon
StickerShock: It's a really, really big deal! A law professor wanting to shut down a news network by revoking the FCC license is like a doctor refusing to prescribe pain meds because he believes pain is a normal part of life

this seems a little overwrought. A man, who happens to be a lawyer and a teacher, spouting off an opinion that is not being represented as a sort of official position is not the same a Doctor, in the course of work, prescribing a bad cure on purpose. He would have to be acting in some sort of official capacity before this analogy would start to work.

for the record I think he is wrong, but i think being an off-duty lawyer doesn't preclude him from having a stupid opinion.

Duane Oyen
Joined
May '10
Duane Oyen

Not an "off-duty lawyer", Zoon, a professor of law at an elite American university. There is a qualitative difference to this putative malpractice, even if you don't buy his analogy.

cdor
Joined
Jun '10
cdor

You might be interested, Mr. Long, in this analysis of your friend Prof Zasloff.

http://www.uclaprofs.com/profs/zasloff.html

A Murder of Cows
Joined
Jul '10
amurderofcows

This obviously isn't Andrew Breitbart's week, and it seems to me he deserves some of the smacking-around he's getting at the moment, but I really, really hope his $100,000 offer for a full archive of JournoList produces the goods.

It's remarkable that it never surfaced on its own, given that leaking information makes people feel important, and given that most of us never get around to deleting our e-mail, even if we've read David Allen's Getting Things Done and know why we should.

Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead, they say. But 400+?

show RB's comment (#11)

Joined
Jun '10
RB

Sorry, this JournoList thing is a big deal. These people were using their employers' reputation to promote an agenda in support of a Presidential CAMPAIGN.

Tim
Joined
Jun '10
Tim Smith

Perhaps a good indication of how big a deal this might be is revealed in the anxious handwringing now occurring in the Left Press, from Ben Smith over at Politico to David Corn over at Mother Jones, or to the abashed producer at NPR feeling the pressure to make a public mea culpa for wishing that Rush Limbaugh would die a horrible death (is NPR mainstream?).

It is as if all these out of control Journolists are desperately trying to explain to the traffic cop why they have alcohol on their breath. I suspect, at the very least, these folks do not thing this will be a good bullet on their resume further on up the line.

Scott Reusser
Joined
May '10
Scott Reusser

The distinction that has to be made is between people who have an agenda and people who have a hidden agenda. If this were simply agenda journalists--from the Nation and TNR, say--and other out-of-the-closet lefties, then Rob would be right that it's a little sad, but really no big deal. But, as Matt Gilley says, the list includes those who represent themselves as objective. That's the big deal: It exposes the hidden agenda of many who have forever pooh-poohed the notion that they have an agenda, hidden or otherwise.


Joined
Jul '10
Your Grace

The conspiracy continues.The old JournoList has been reconstituted as the Cabalist and has 173 members, down from the 400 or so its predecessor had. It was a secret until just a few hours ago. I predict by the time 2012 rolls around it will be back up to full strength.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In