JournoList: A Look Inside the Secretive, Liberal Chatroom

Allegations of media bias-liberal, conservative, corporate, or otherwise-are as old as the idea of objective reporting. Media watchers scan headlines, bylines, and coverage for the hint of conspiracy, collusion, or partiality. In the new media world, sparked by the rise of the Internet, where some bloggers and reporters readily dismiss the burden of absolute objectivity while maintaining (or at least trying to maintain) their seriousness as journalists, the old fears of foul play crash against the inchoate mores of this new medium.

In mid-March, Politico's Michael Calderone wrote an article shedding light on "an off-the-record online meeting space called JournoList" where, "for the past two years, several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics have talked stories and compared notes." "Proof of a vast liberal media conspiracy?" Calderone asked provocatively. Slate's Mickey Kaus worried that potential problems from a private conversation could include "groupthink," "the fostering of an us-vs.-them mentality," and the creation an inward-looking class of writers who spend more time on "convincing or impressing or at least not angering their fellow club members" than on "convincing their fellow citizens."

All of these fears-justified or not-speak to the new journalistic ethics of the blogosphere. Preference and partiality are too commonplace to qualify for criticism. In his defense of JournoList, conservative Atlantic writer Reihan Salam said that JournoList operates on the "assumption that everyone is fundamentally on the same side, namely that of intelligence and decency." Prejudice and journalistic malpractice in the nonobjective blogosphere are now closely tied to intellectual dishonesty, and quality partial journalism must be judged differently (but not less stringently) than is impartial journalism.

JournoList does not appear to be the center of a diabolical liberal plot. The group's revelation ruffled the feathers of Washington insiders who were not invited. (The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder wrote in mock confessional tone, "I'm not one of the privileged reporters/commentators who were asked to join the semi-secret JournoList group. Had no idea it existed until today. Which either makes me clueless, sheltered, an outsider, or privileged, depending upon your point of view.") But the mere existence of a private discussion group is not evidence of a violation of any form of journalistic ethics. "The idea," explained Ezra Klein, the founder of JournoList and a blogger/reporter for The American Prospect, "was to foster a safe space where policy experts, academics, and journalists could freely talk through issues, bringing up the questions they considered urgent and the information they thought important, with the result being a more informed commentariat."

In this vein, the best way to judge the liberal "commentariat," is through an analysis of their work instead of speculation on the nature of their internal community. Such an analysis shows that while there is no conspiracy to hide truths nor a collusion to stifle disagreement, there is an insular quality to the liberal blogosphere. This insularity does not quite approach groupthink-and is certainly not centrally (or otherwise) coordinated. Rather it is the result of the circulation of ideas and stories among a small group of like-minded individuals who read each others' blogs, socialize in the same circles, develop similar interests, follow the same memes, and promote content that meshes with the general bent of the group.

This tendency is most evident in the reaction of the liberal blogosphere when it perceives something as unfair. On March 2, ABC News published an article online about Americans making more than $250,000 a year who were "brainstorming ways to decrease their pay in an attempt to avoid paying higher taxes on every dollar they earn over the quarter million dollar mark." The following day, Jonathan Chait of the New Republic wrote a blog post explaining how the reality of marginal tax rates meant that lowering your income would never save you money, and he proposed that Emily Friedman, the article's author, should have written a different type of article-one, he joked, with the headline, "Rich Morons Decreasing Own Income Due To Lack of Tax Code Knowledge."

This blog post was the type of outing that aligned with the group mentality of the liberal blogosphere; it suggested a conservative media bias and displayed fiscally conservative views that were fundamentally illogical and self-defeating. The unquestionably serious mistake of the reporter and naïveté of the people she interviewed comported with the liberal worldview that fiscal conservatism is illogical and self-defeating. So, the post spread rapidly, Chait's post received a legion of links, and his fans in the blogosphere took turns applying witty headlines to their echo posts: Kevin Drum, 9:14 a.m., "Moron of the Day"; Jamison Foser, 11:39 a.m., "Does ABC News understand how income tax works?"; Josh Marshall, 12:01 p.m., "Both Sad and Funny"; Steve Benen, 1:15 p.m., "Rich Morons Decreasing Own Income"; Ezra Klein, 3:04 p.m., "Bad Media, Good Media."

The point is not that this pack mentality is planned or even that it is pernicious; Jonathan Chait revealed a flaw in a news story and, by any measure, practiced good media criticism. The blogosphere disseminates information quickly and efficiently-this is a feature not a flaw. But in a nonobjective media, there is a tendency to emphasize certain types of stories over others.

This is the pack mentality Timothy Crouse outlined in "Boys on the Bus": the fact that "even the most independent journalist cannot completely escape the pressures of the pack." Journalists have a bias, as James Fallows noted, toward what is "easy to produce." In newspapers, journalists are judged as much on the space devoted to certain stories as on the content of individual articles. Online, there is no risk of running out of physical space, but the signaling effect of online real estate is still present. If bloggers want to be taken seriously as journalists, it is important that (even if they do not forgo their ideological bent) they pay attention to the amount of their time and blog posts they devote to different stories in their field of expertise. They should guard against merely reprinting the stories of their friends.