Jim (Con't): First up, Iraq. Still a political stalemate. If you're lost, they held Parliamentary elections in March. This has happened only one other time in Iraq since the start of the war and that was December 2005. As C.I. has pointed out, in 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. Today makes it four months and 25 days. It's really amazing that some people want to scream success.
Dona: And what's worse is that it's alleged Democrats doing the success screaming.
Trina: Well one of those is my state's governor, Governor Who is what he's known as statewide -- Deval Patrick. He's a nothing, a glossy from a magazine who can't actually do any real work and our state's been suffering. For those unaware, Team Deval is the same people who later brought you the Barack presidency. So it's another male model who poses for the cameras but never gets down to doing the actual job he was elected to do.
Mike: Like my mother just said, we don't take him seriously in the state. I hope he's not re-elected. He's done nothing and that's why he's known as Governor Who. Were it not for his posing, we wouldn't be aware he was even still around. He's been ineffective and his term can be seen as "Governor Who" in that it's as if the office has gone unfilled for years now.
Jim: Okay. We've got a number of e-mails. Let's go to Journolist first. Isaiah, why don't you explain what that was and then we'll deal with the e-mails.
Isaiah: Sure. Ezra Klein, now at The Washington Post, started a list-serv entitled Journolist which eventually included 400 journalists, reporters and government and political operatives -- though the latter classification was not supposed to be taking part. On the list, vile things were said -- and I'm with Elaine on this, the problem was that they were said privately while publicly they wanted to pretend they never harbored such a thought -- and coordination of talking points were laid out. It's a ridiculous slap in the face to the notion of independent journalism -- I'm referring to all journalism which is supposed to be independent, not the beggar press. They've been outed and now everyone rushes to insist it's no big deal.
Jim: Including the ridiculous Peter Hart whose nonsense enraged Rebecca. Last week's edition largely focused on Journolist. Ty, break down on the e-mails.
Ty: Setting aside the fan mail to Ava and C.I., 85% of those e-mailing enjoyed the coverage in some manner, 10% felt other stories should have been covered and 5% were strongly of the belief that there was no story in Journolist.
Jim: So first off, let's get a few things down. We have never participated in an online circle jerk. Haskell e-mails insisting that "night time bloggers in your group regularly coordinate messages." That would not include anyone from Third -- Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava, C.I. and myself. So we're tossing out for the others to comment if they'd like to.
Marcia: We don't coordinate messages. Can we leave Wally and Cedric out of this discussion? They can come at the end, but what they do is so different from what the others of us do, that it's really not fair to include them in this discussion.
Jim: That's fine.
Marcia: Okay. Ruth, Betty, Ann, Mike and I have all written at our sites about a 'scraps' e-mail. That goes out each day from C.I. It's things that might have made the snapshot if there was more room. It goes out to all of us who post at night during the week. We can grab anything from that if we want to. We don't have to grab a thing and most of the time, we probably don't. I think I grab about one thing a week on a good week. We generally do a round-robin of calls to see what's going on. Betty and my cousin Stan talk every night before they blog. Ruth and I talk every night before we blog. Mike generally talks to all of us -- including Elaine whom he lives with. Setting aside theme posts -- there are times when we'll come up with a theme like "favorite movie" and all blog on that at night -- we're not coordinating. We're trying to avoid stepping on each other. If Rebecca's blogging about, say, apples, okay, I'm not going to blog about apples, I'll blog about doughnuts, but I'll e-mail an article on apples to Rebecca since I know she's tackling the topic. Rebecca and I or Ruth and I may end up blogging on the same topic because one of us calls the other and says, "This is really important, it's not a topic that fits into Iraq so C.I. won't be able to cover it, how about we team up and both cover it?" When that happens we generally note that. There are times when we disagree on a topic. Ruth and I will grab the same topic and write about it from different opinions. That's not talking points, that's not messaging and there's nothing hidden about it.
Stan: And I'll pick up now. Betty and I are on the phone. We highlight Hillary Is 44 if there's a new post. We include the Iraq snapshot. Between the two of that, we grab different things. Sometimes we're just commenting on Hillary Is 44. If so, we've discussed it to make sure we're not hitting on the same thing. I really just talk to Betty and Mike each night before blogging. Mike will call specifically to ask if I need any help, which I appreciate, in tracking something down. He'll also give me a rundown on what others are planning to blog about. And Betty and I talk usually as we're blogging. We're on the phone with each other. I talk to my cousin -- Marcia's my cousin -- all the time. We're generally not talking about blogging.
Betty: Mike usually calls me when I'm on the way home from work. Like Stan said, he goes over what people are thinking about blogging about. I usually have no idea. If I have an idea, I've usually called Ann because it's something I think is more her beat and I'll make sure she's fine -- she always has been -- with me covering it either instead or as well. I love everyone in this roundtable but I'm really thrilled about Ann because we do have so many similar thoughts. I was standoffish to Ann at first. I didn't go to the wedding -- and had a solid excuse for that -- and I was very protective of Cedric. I had this attitude of: Who is she and who does she think she is? It was probably about three or four months after their wedding before I started warming up to Ann.
Jim: You know this story, Ann?
Ann: Oh, yeah, we've talked about it.
Betty: And she was finding herself online when she started, as we all have to stumble along to find our voices. But when she found her voice, it was so obvious that Ann was like someone who would be my best friend in high school. And that's why I say that if I worry, it's generally that Ann would be the one writing on it. Rebecca -- whom I love -- and I could write on the same topic from the same opinion and have completely different posts but Ann and I tend to think along the same lines. And that's why I always want to give her the chance to grab something on her beat and not just rush to do so.
Stan: And, as Marcia pointed out, none of this has ever been hidden. We mention this all the time at our sites, Betty and I. Forget that there's no strategizing going on, there's also nothing hidden.
Elaine: Well anyone who reads my site would never accuse me of being part of some grand conspiracy. More and more, I write less and less. I live with Mike so I hear from him. I usually speak to Rebecca and C.I. several times a day on the phone. That's noted at my site. If I speak to Kat or Ava, I generally note that. My site's a journal, not a news site, not an opinion site, just a journal. It doesn't read like any great thought or planning was behind it because none was.
Jim: Do you speak to anyone else on the phone?
Elaine: Wally. I'll get Wally or Kat or Ava sometimes when I'm calling C.I. Betty and I probably talk twice a week on the phone but we're not talking about blogging.
Betty: No, we are not. Elaine hates blogging.
Elaine: We're usually talking about what we're reading. It's the same when I'm speaking to Trina. What are you reading? Is it a good book, do you recommend it? Betty, Trina, Dona and I read the most fiction of anyone participating in this roundtable and we tend to have our own little book club. In addition, I usually e-mail or call Isaiah after one of his comics goes up.
Jim: Which is one of Haskell's points, the conspiracy with the comic.
Kat: Oh dear Lord. The comic is something Isaiah works hard on. Let me tell the story. In 2004, I started doing music writing for The Common Ills because I loved the website. And that was my way of adding something. Ruth would do the same with her "Ruth Reports" which were a look at NPR programs, a critique of them. Isaiah also wanted to do something. He looked at the site and saw nothing but text. He used to draw comics all through school and figured he could do that to help the site have a visual image. So in 2005, he became the site's cartoonist. It gave the site a visual. He was probably one of the first comics doing what he did for a site. As opposed to just doing their own site. We put up one of his comics on Monday if he's had one go up on Sunday because (a) we like what he does and (b) we get to use a visual at our site. There's no great conspiracy wherein we say to Isaiah, "Draw this and we'll post you." It's just an automatic thing we do.
Mike: Yeah and you have people providing links to Kat's album reviews for the same reason.
Trina: I'm with Elaine in that my blog has less and less work and becomes more and more of a chore. I'm in a difficult spot right now because more and more time is taken up by e-mails, people e-mailing my site. It's really cut into my writing time. Not that my writing is all that great. But if you're finding any great conspiracy at my site, let me know because I'm not seeing it. Monday night we all blogged on Journolist and that was because we were all shocked by the e-mails that were published. Actually, we didn't all blog on it. I know Mike didn't. I'm not even sure Betty did. But a lot of us did blog on it because we were offended. Just briefly, this was a set of Journolist e-mails on Sarah Palin's pregnancy and it was offensive to read. It was offensive on so many levels. That was a case of someone -- I think Rebecca -- finding them and passing them around in e-mails. Was it you, Rebecca?
Rebecca: Yeah. I was just so disgusted and Ann called me after I sent them out, called me right away and we both said we were blogging about it. And Elaine did as well, and Marcia and Ruth. Stan and Betty had their own thing going on and so did Mike.
Jim: Okay. Cedric and Wally?
Wally: Well, I have to confess, there is a conspiracy. Cedric and I get together and figure out talking points and then post them at our sites. Only we call them "joint-posts" because we write them together! Hello! That's so ridiculous that anyone would think that. Cedric and I are doing humor posts. We can't even drop to participate in the fun theme posts the rest of the gang does like "favorite eighties song." But we're somehow able to come up with a grand conspiracy? Get real.
Cedric: Yeah. It's crazy. There's no big conspiracy. I live with Ann, we're married and I can tell you that most nights she doesn't even want to blog. I can also tell you that if anyone suggests a topic to her that night, she'll grab it just to avoid Fresh Air. There's no conspiracy.
Jim: And far from conspiring to get things up at other sites, an argument can be made that I conspire to keep everything here. I'm forever asking C.I. not to write something or, if it's written, to bring it over here and not put it up at The Common Ills. But let's talk about what's offensive about Journolist. As a journalist, you're not supposed to be coming into a story with a set of talking points. What you're writing is supposed to have required thought and observation. The idea that I'm going to be on a list-serv and pick up talking points that I'll then use in my writing is offensive. But that is why Journolist existed and Ezra Klein or anyone can claim otherwise but they're lying. And we've never liked Ezra. We've been on to his game from the start. He participated in the CJR circle jerk, we know all about Ezra and how he whored to get an online name. It's what Journolist was about. It's what his Washington Post blog is about. He's just a whore. There's no reason to believe him because his tongue goes where the money leads, he's a whore. We are independent, we have always been independent. We've never attempted to toe a party line, obviously. We were offered circle jerks, we turned them down.
Jess: I don't want to get too far into Peter Hart's crap, but I do want to point out that these were reporters for MSM outlets. They were not all columnists. You had Bloomberg News reporters, Newseek reporters, Washington Post reporters -- Ezra Klein isn't a reporter -- and you had so much going on that was secretive. It was offensive. They should never have engaged in it and a reporter's job is not to put one over on the public but repeatedly you have a Luke Marshall or a Katha Pollitt insisting that's what must be done. It's taken for granted that whoring is the way to go. It's offensive. It's offensive to journalism as a profession. It never should have taken place.
Jim: And we're going to stop there because Dona's pointing to time. We actually had other topics to discuss but that'll wait until next time. Isaiah, by the way, has done at least four illustrations for this edition that we'll be using. This is a rush transcript.