If there was any question which side of the ideological blogosphere a lot of the inside-the-beltway media establishment go to regularly, Politico may have just cleared that up.
In an Oct. 11 Politico story headlined "Think Progress makes its mark," which was the top story on its Web site that evening, Daniel Libit paid reverence to the left-wing Center for American Progress' Think Progress blog.
"Can a liberal blog launched in the midst of the Bush era - a blog that once obsessed over Alberto Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove and the outing of Valerie Plame - still make its mark in the age of Obama?" Libit wrote. "In the case of Think Progress, the answer so far is yes."
According to Libit, Think Progress is a blog with a clearly defined partisan mission, to "educate and inform" the media and he says it is succeeding at that objective.
"[Think Progress Editor Faiz] Shakir describes Think Progress's mission as helping to ‘educate and inform our side and, I think, the media' about the tactics of the right. Judged by the standard of influencing the conversation, Think Progress is flourishing."
But Libit didn't explain to Politico readers how Think Progress' parent organization, the Center for American Progress, is an organization with close ties to the Obama administration. Following Obama's 2008 election win, Center for American Progress president John Podesta headed the President's transition team.
But more recently, Podesta has been involved in an investigation into the scandal-ridden ACORN. ACORN appointed Podesta to head an internal investigation, despite at the same time Podesta's organization's Web site attacked ACORN whistleblowers Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe.
Libit did however point out that one of Think Progress' targets has been Fox News. But since Fox News has the best ratings in cable news and isn't hurt by Think Progress - that somehow makes it OK.
"And conservatives note that while Think Progress rails daily against what it sees as the evils of Fox News, the network is hardly wounded, routinely thumping its rivals in the ratings wars," he wrote.
One of the criticisms leveled against Think Progress is its obsession with attacking conservative personalities, versus focusing on a policy, which FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon pointed out to Politico.
"FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon says that Think Progress would be much more effective if it dedicated its focus to arguing policy as opposed to attacking conservative personalities," Libit wrote. "(The blog does have a section called "Wonk Room," which does just that - albeit with far less attention.)"
But even the "Wonk Room" portion of Think Progress regularly engages in personal attacks against conservatives.
Think Progress has had made it its modus operandi to seek out conservative boogey men and the newest one is Fox News host Glenn Beck.
"Now, Think Progress' attention has shifted to another conservative media personality -- which is why every day at 5 p.m., in the bloggers' pod of CAP's H Street offices, the TVs tend to come off mute in unison just as Glenn Beck's Fox News show comes on the air," Libit wrote.
In fact, Shakir even admitted to Politico that going after Beck and O'Reilly are part of the recipe to gin up "enthusiasm and interest" for it liberal audience.
"We know what our audience wants to read," Shakir said to Politico. "And that helps guide what we put on our blog. So we have a little bit of Glenn Beck, a little bit of Bill O'Reilly, because we know that generates enthusiasm and interest from our readers."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I'd say
October 12, 2009 - 00:23 ET by legacyrepublicanI'd say Think Progress are now the foxes guarding the hen house, but they would consider that a complement.
How calling them Think Protect instead!
the left has every right to
October 12, 2009 - 06:37 ET by nadadhimmithe left has every right to attack conservatives and vice versa. the public will, and has, made a choice as to which they preferr. Look at Beck, Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly and Limbaugh's RATINGS. The choice has been made. And no o0ne knows who or what the hell " The Politico " is. The very name indicates it sucks though. And sucks big time.
Anyone that doesn't
October 12, 2009 - 06:54 ET by winston smithAnyone that doesn't completely fall in line with the views of the far-left will immediately be slated for demolition. Aren't the progressives supposed to be tolerant of all oppinons and points of view? Wow, get a little money, power and notoriety from your improperly used 501(c)3 and suddenly you're ready to rule the world huh?
My sister and brother-in-law like Glenn Beck and they are Clinton/Obama voting Democrats. There are lots of Democrats that like Beck. Not everyone who's a Democrat thinks like a far-left radical like Podesta or a Koz or a --- Libit, whoever that is. Beck often criticizes Republicans, the war, Bush, etc...far more often than say Stewart, Cafferty, or Huffington criticize people on their side of the political fence. How is it that Beck has built such a huge following and gained such influence in such a short amount of time? I think the far-left is scared of Beck because of all the "conservative " (meaning not left of center)talk-show hosts, he has the broadest non-partisan appeal. I take Beck to be a conservative but not of the same stripe as Rush. With Limbaugh, Levin, Ingraham, Malzberg, Hannity, you pretty much know who's listening in at any given hour, but this Beck character has listeners/viewers from all over the political spectrum.
I think that's what bothers them most -- that non-right, non-partisan, politically non-indoctrinated Americans are gravitating to someone the left see as yet another "rightwing ideologue". But Beck is hardly a party ideologue like Olbermann or Tingle. Beck is popular, but his popularity has more to do with the leftwing shift of the Democrat party and the media as viewers and listeners are growing tired of the same-ol' same-ol' pro-Obama clap-trap which is found in virtually every single media outlet today.
The public has had it with Obama's near-weekly verbal attacks on American sovereignty and American values and how the Obama cheerleading in the state-controlled media seem to sanction or shrug off every insult. In fact, Obama/Democrat cheerleading is so overwhelming by the media that the few heretics who do exist like Beck and FOX News who dare to challenge the appproved liberal orthodoxy, are immediately targeted for destruction by groups like "Think Progress" <snicker>.
MSNBC - The Place For Lunatics
Which party was more diverse?
October 12, 2009 - 07:20 ET by dmntd1I've said this for years, it was much more obvious during last years runup to the election, and it's still as true today.... The left is MUCH less tolerant than the right politically. Looking at the candidates for President last year, the Democrats only difference was the emphasis on the same policies. President Obama ran on the same platform, highlighting hope and change, that every other candidate for that party ran on. Clinton, Edwards, and that one guy from Ohio were pretty much identical on their stances.
The Republicans, however, were vastly different. McCain was a pro-amnesty RINO, Romney was vaguely pro-universal healthcare (based on his MA record), Huckabee wasn't afraid to raise taxes, Paul was.... well..... anyway, you get the picture....
When the Democrat candidates veered from the party line, they were ousted in grand fashion. When the Republicans veered, part of the party still accepted their stances. Which party was more diverse?
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
Like Ann always says:
October 12, 2009 - 08:56 ET by winston smithLike Ann always says: Liberals always accuse conservatives of the very things liberals are guilty of. Conservative politics and some Republicans are the real defenders and keepers of freedom, freedom of speech and liberty. The Democrat party, with Obama as it's leader, is increasingly anti-liberty and wishes to force state control over every aspect of American society. The veil has been removed and we can now see the Democrat party for what it truly is. An organization dedicated to removing and prohibiting certain freedoms, languages and financial decision-making so as to have everything "appearing" equal. State control of all major industry, confiscatory taxes on the rich, and not so rich, state-funded abortions, state controlled heatlth care, eventual oversight of all business and industry, complete state control of banking and the mortgage industry, control of all electronic and print media, including the internet, state control of all property sales, land acquistions and housing construction and development, state control of all natural resources and wildlife, state control of individual's choice of personal transportation, state control over how individuals protect themselves including the sales and purchases of firearms, and the eventual handing over of American sovereignty to the UN and the World Court. In other words, a weaker, poorer less free United States of America, entirely state controlled. This is the "fundemental change" that Hussein continually bellows on about -- but never gives any details. He never reveals the devil details because he knows that Americans would reject this version of America with colossal disdain. The Democrat party hasn't seen such strident totalitarianism since the Wilson administration and yet people are perfectly fine referring to them as "liberals" and "progressives". The Republican party has actually moved left over the last 10 years or so, but in approximately the same period the Democrat party has moved so much furthur to the left on the political spectrum, that to them the GOP appears hard right.
MSNBC - The Place For Lunatics
Liberal projection
October 12, 2009 - 08:57 ET by Sergeant ROCKLike Ann always says: Liberals always accuse conservatives of the very things liberals are guilty of.
True. You can see that in their posts on NB.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
First they ignore you
October 12, 2009 - 07:13 ET by dmntd1"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandi
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
POLITICO - Reporters Who Got To The Life Boats First
October 12, 2009 - 08:49 ET by SgthulkaAnyone who believes that Politico offers up some hip, new, internetty way of reporting inside the Beltway is delusional.
I give them credit for being the first in their business to realize that newspapery old MSM was dying, nothing more.
Send a comment
October 12, 2009 - 08:57 ET by zachlindI read this article on politico.com yesterday and made certain their Editor in Chief at got an ear full. When you’re on the site, go to the bottom of a page and click on About Us. On that page is a list of names of the people managing the organization. Under the Editorial section is the name of John F. Harris, Editor-in-Chief along with other management. Click on his name and it will take you to a Bio. At the bottom of that page is a text box that allows a comment directly to Mr. Harris. He was a Washington Post employee some years back so you know which side of the road he lives on. But more importantly, let him know what you think.
October 12, 2009 - 09:04 ET by jessieHLet them go after Beck. He will make them look as idiotic as they sound. The more they push, the more viewers Fox has.
The fact that 'think' progress even exists is reason
October 12, 2009 - 09:44 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnsonto rethink the concept of government indoctrination centersthat are joking referred to as 'pubic education centers'.
These centers do not 'teach' nut INDOCTRINATE the children of American Citizens in the concept of how wondeerful socialism is and why they need to grow up and change America to make the lives of politicians better.
Socialism has NEVER improved the lives of the poor, and under socialism, the is no 'middle class'.
(Note to hollywood) There are no 'entertainment industries in socialist countries and ZERO million or more per pic actors.
(note to the media) see above. ZERO highly paid talking heads on TV.
http://gjresult.com