»» Columnists

Is The Daily Caller Releasing Private Palin Tweets Different Than The JournoList Emails?

by Jon Bershad | 6:47 pm, May 24th, 2011

» 18 comments

Late last night, Jonathan Strong of the Daily Caller posted Twitter direct messages (private tweets sent from one Twitter account to another) written by Rebecca Mansour, a top aide to Sarah Palin, and they are…not that exciting. Did you know that Palin was angry about Joe McGinniss? That she and her team weren’t thrilled about Bristol Palin maybe marrying Levi Johnston? Shocking right! Add in some less-than-polite phrasing and you basically have an idea of what the scandalous material contains. Unsurprisingly, many on the right are attacking the Daily Caller for posting messages. However, does their righteous indignation lose a bit of its luster when you realize that some of these very same people lauded DC and Strong for posting the private Journolist emails just a few months ago?

Once again, I’m not defending the newsworthiness of the DC piece. There’s really no there there and the revelation by Politico’s Ben Smith that the leaker had been shopping the messages around for a while (accompanied by sleazy-sounding correspondence) makes the whole thing feel even lamer. However, it’s seeing commentators bend over backwards to be offended by the same kind of think they were defending that’s most obnoxious. Take for example this headline from the PJ Tattler blog on Pajamas Media:

“Note to the Daily Caller: Private tweets don’t make a public story”

They don’t? Oh, I suppose private emails are entirely different. That would explain why that same website would publish an interview with Strong (again, the guy who wrote both pieces!) entitled “Jonathan Strong Cracks Open the JournoList” and saying that he’s “done much to bring the JournoList to light in the past two weeks.”

Of course, those two pieces were written by different people and it’s possible that there can be differing opinions from those that work under the same roof, right? So, instead, how about Dan Riehl writing the charming column “Breaking: Tucker Carlson To Give Head On Pennsylvania Avenue” when, just last summer, he was eagerly joining in the fray to demonize those on the left-leaning email list.

In that most recent Riehl piece (the “giving head” one), Riehl links to Conservative blog Ace of Spades HQ where…well, you get it.

Ace of Spades today:

“I’m not going to link the traffic-whoring effort.

It’s cheap. Do people at the Daily Caller talk smack online? I don’t know any of them but of course they do. So does everyone.”

And Ace of Spades last year:

“More Leaked JournoList Emails

More good stuff. Not great, good. Tasty. Makes me want more.

Looks like we got our first “reporter”! Not just an opinion writer at a liberal magazine; a reporter at Bloomberg”

Oh, but don’t worry, Liberals! The sword of hypocrisy cuts both ways!

If you head over to the Huffington Post, Jason Linkins does admit that the Palin tweets are that interesting. He still repeats the most provocative ones anyway while musing that ” we’re probably hearing the inside dope.” He seemed much more against publishing uninteresting gossip when he wrote the full-throated defense “JournoList Flap: A Ton Of Indictments In Search Of A Crime” last July.

It’s just further proof that the most popular tactic in politics (either governing or reporting) these days is feigned outrage. Everyone’s values are interchangeable, flipping completely depending on whose name is in the headline. If it’s your team in the cross hairs, then something is no big deal and passed over. If it’s the other guy, well, then suddenly everyone has been replaced with a delicate southern belle, offended by everything and suffering from a bad case of the vapors. Just take a look at the rampant hypocrisy from a couple weeks ago when the right was aghast at Michelle Obama inviting over “gangsters” and “racists” when no one seemed to care about questionable conservative musicians.

There’s nothing wrong with being outrages. When someone you disagree with does something that offends you, say it. But I can’t be the only one who’s getting pretty outraged at people from both sides of the aisle constantly pretending to be outraged when the circumstances are in their favor.

Jonathan Strong, Rebecca Mansour, Sarah Palin, The Daily Caller

The Lantern of Truth

The Lantern decries this !!

The Lantern of Truth
24 May 2008
edisciple

One difference: JournoList = listserv of assumed impartial journalists being partial in their exchange (news worthy); Palin = private person (currently) & unemployed politician (declared conservative / no surprise) & private tweet messages! Hmm, it’s not that apples to apples or oranges to oranges, is it? Once again Mediate arguments are crappy at best!
http://www.swissarmyjew.com Keeva

More importantly, who cares?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Lars-Svensen/100001028197161 Lars Svensen

What’s really interesting are the e-mails sent each other by Tucker Carlson, PeeWee Herman & Perez Hilton. They share a tailor, a hairdresser & an astrologer…among other things.
Azarkhan

“Is The Daily Caller Releasing Private Palin Tweets Different Than The JournoList Emails?”

Journolist was a conspiracy by supposedly objective journalists to promote Obama’s candidacy and destroy Sarah Palin so, yeah, I’d say it’s different.
Pablo

Once again, I’m not defending the newsworthiness of the DC piece.

There is no newsworthiness in the DC piece. As Ace notes in the piece you link, the whole story is about how they got the private tweets. There really nothing else there. The messages, as you note, are utterly unsurprising. So why run it? Ah….because when you say “Sarah Palin” and infer scandal, you get hits.

JOURNALISM!!
Cecelia

When it comes to any sort of correspondence, snail or email, you are at the mercy of your correspondent.

That’s a fact of life, best learned quickly.

However, I expect Mansour to advocate for Palin. That’s her job.

I do not expect journalists to plot on behalf of the president. It’s not their job to plot against the Rev. Wright matter by suggesting that they take down Karl Rove or Fred Barnes by labeling them racist and other such incidents.

I know that the comparison you’re making is to a violation of an unspoken expectation of privacy. However, you’ve succeeded less in making a point about hypocrisy, than you have in making it crystal clear that campaign aides behaving as campaign aides is always less than shocking.

Journalists behaving as campaign aides is something altogether different, indeed.

That’s probably a situation that a great many in your profession would have left unremembered.
lazzzlo

Technically, they are just Mansour’s tweets.
ModerateMan

Supposedly impartial journalists conspiring on ways to slant the news is an important story to expose. Releasing personal tweets with nothing unethical exposed is just a sleazy hit job.
OxyCon

What a seriously stupid moral equivalency argument.

Hmmm, exposing a cabal of leftist media frauds conspiring to print leftist attacks as news stories throughout “mainstream” media outlets, versus a private conversation between campaign aides.

Yeah…they’re kinda of the same thing!

Before Jack Steuf quits Wonkette, he should give this latest leftist meme the retard treatment.
jakester

AS I remember, the big indictment against Jornolisto is that they tried to protect Reverend Wright and his church. For a bunch of people who wear their religion not just on their sleeve, but as a bullet proof vest, isn’t that a good thing.?
Azarkhan

jakester said:
AS I remember

Your memory isn’t as good as you think it is. Journolist was about much more then Wright. Read the e-mails.
RIChris

“Is The Daily Caller Releasing Private Palin Tweets Different Than The JournoList Emails?”

Seriously? Asking this question protrays the cluelessness necessary for JornoList to exist.
Rgentum

“There’s really no there there and the revelation by Politico’s Ben Smith that the leaker had been shopping the messages around for a while (accompanied by sleazy-sounding correspondence) makes the whole thing feel even lamer.”

Not surprising Tucker Carlson bought them. Tucker (not really a “man”) screams “panel van trolling the playground for unattended boys.” What a creepy freak.
lane

As long as you email, tweet, IM or facebook someone, it’s all fair game. The illusion of privacy doesn’t make it private. That said, it’s dishonorable and lacks decency. DM tweets are intended to be private, just as facebook direct messages are. We all have to accept that too many people care more about money and celebrity than about personal integrity. Seems to be growing as well.

All you can do is maintain your own personal integrity, character and honor. Yes, the daily caller should respect the intention of privacy, but who expects an media to do this? Having used listservers, I never expected privacy on these since it’s group email list. However, DM tweets and direct FB posts I do.

Still, if it’s electronic, you can’t assume privacy since it’s all backed-up data.
lane

BTW, the terms should make people realize their is a difference. A DM tweet literally stands for ‘direct mail’ tweet to a specific twitter user. Jounrnolist is LITERALLY a listerserver email list. One is direct mail, the other an email list.

Seems obvious there is a difference…. Kind of like talking with a group of people and talking directly to someone.
timcajun

Pablo says:
There is no newsworthiness in the DC piece. As Ace notes in the piece you link, the whole story is about how they got the private tweets. There really nothing else there. The messages, as you note, are utterly unsurprising. So why run it? Ah….because when you say “Sarah Palin” and infer scandal, you get hits.

JOURNALISM!!
…………………………..
In part, true who cares We should, however remember the next time this happens to a liberal and all the “teas’ run into the backroom with a box of tissues and some lotion! Let’s not care then either!
Scrapette Jones

Let’s see, your question was, is this that different from that? Well, if you ever were objective, you would KNOW that the two leaks are quite different. With journolist we got proof that journalists were indeed conspiring about how to defend Obama and enhance him to their readers. With these tweets, we got proof that a partisan operative tweets just like she is supposed to believe. Sorry, but there is absolutely no correlation here. And now I am wondering if this is your way of rationalizing and trying to trivialize journolist’s disclosures after all this time…hmm…..