Launched on January 11, 2010, The Daily Caller is a mash-up of Carlson’s nobler aspirations and the tabloid-style hit-bait common to websites from Politico to Gawker. There are clickable reams of original reporting, particularly from Capitol Hill. Since March 2010, the site has had a rotating spot in the White House press pool. But then there are the slideshows: “Creepiest Easter Bunnies” and galleries devoted to seemingly every young actress with a credit to her name. It all unspools in a spray of bold red headlines (“Barack Obama, ‘Killing Machine’?”) and striking headshots. While its founder may bridle at a comparison The Guardian once made—“the conservative answer to The Huffington Post”—it’s a superficially helpful one.
The Caller has had much to prove. Slapping down his gauntlet at CPAC, Carlson grazed the faces of conservatives under the impression they already were doing reporting. Blogger Michelle Malkin dismissed Carlson’s address as “uninformed sanctimony.” That Carlson had made his name as that guy in the bow tie sharing his opinions on CNN was particularly grating.
Early on, in March 2010, the Caller delivered a scoop that had promise and impact: sources said Michael Steele, then chair of the Republican National Committee, considered using party funds to buy a private plane. More sensationally, filings showed Steele authorized a $1,946.25 payment for an evening at a bondage-themed nightclub.
Yet the Caller’s first story on the filings incorrectly implied Steele himself had been behind the velvet rope, in the presence of topless performers simulating lesbian sex. That off note hinted at what was to come: a series of splashy stories that, when examined, produced more skepticism than pick-up, and caused new hecklers to raise their voices. A Caller report accusing National Review of prearranging a glowing editorial for the GOP ignited more headlines about the ensuing intramural scuffle than the supposed scoop itself. A planned exposé suggesting plagiarism in Jane Mayer’s detail-rich New Yorker investigation on the Koch brothers was killed for lack of evidence—a New York Post media column crowed “Smear Disappears.” Carlson drew clicks with an extended series on “Journolist”—the e-mail listserv of mostly liberal journalists and academics that the Caller claimed were scheming to protect candidate Obama—but the controversial reports left many prominent Washington press types, Left and Right, cold.
As face and founder, Carlson bore the brunt of his website’s criticisms. Was he out to create a legitimate news site, as he had said? Or was he just another right-wing attack dog? Was this really serious reporting? The verdict was especially harsh from some in the Washington press corps. A number I spoke to said the project appeared to be dissolving under the pressure to perform. “Nobody ever says, ‘Oh my God, did you see that thing in the Caller?’ ” one well-placed Washington journalist told me. “Nobody feels like they need to read it.”
That talk might unnerve some budding Washington web impresarios, but not the man comforted by dissent. Sitting before me, his pocket square still wrinkle-free and his TV-thickened skin unscarred, he seems quite comfy indeed. “I care very deeply about what a small group of people think and I try not to pay a huge amount of attention to the rest,” he says. “It works for me.”
We meet in early April at the Palm—“In Washington, everybody eats at the Palm,” Carlson once wrote in The New York Times. The forty-two-year-old is a bright spot in the restaurant’s beige and gray crowd. Plumper now than when he was TV’s conservative fresh face, he’s wearing what’s become his uniform since he ditched the once ubiquitous bow tie almost a decade ago: blue shirt, navy blazer, loose khakis, brown loafers, pocket square, and today, a salmon-colored bird-dog tie. He’s ravenous, he says, and his hunger gives this interviewer hope. In his 2003 book, Politicians, Partisans, and Parasites, Carlson wrote, “If there’s an iron law of journalism, it’s that cautious people don’t do interviews with their mouths full. Reckless people do.”

Wow .. really? You had an entire year to cobble together a defense of Journolist (BTW, just for the record how many Colombia staff were J-Listers?) and this is the best you could do?
The takeaway from the Journolist articles is that while we always knew that the mainstream media, from editors, all the way down to wire reporters were a decided liberal and a deeply left wing bunch we only suspected just how nakedly partisan they were. After reading some of the more juicy bits, can anyone ever trust people like Luke Mitchell, Michael Cohen, Laura Rozen, Ryan Donomer, or Michael Scherer in any of their reporting that has even a slightly partisan overtone?
Could you, for example, defend Lindsay Beyerstein’s when she claimed that not only were the Killian memos intentionally leaked to destroy Dan Rather’s career but that photographic evidence that Palin wasn’t Trigs mother was doctored by the McCain campaign? And on that note, what would have been the reaction from CJR had a large group of conservative academics, pundits and journalists (few though they may be) had serious discussions on the validity of the Birther argument?
This is pretty weak Mr Mears.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 11:30 AM
Yeah..
I believe that this is the very first time the word "Journolist" has appeared anywhere on the CJR website (outside of the comments), and apparently it's only to portray the "offended" Journolisters as victims. Seriously.
You guys are sure right on top of things, you self-proclaimed "watchdogs" of professional journalism!
A year late, and few million dollars short.
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 11:47 AM
You guys are funny. You are freaking out over some guys meeting for virtual beers to talk shop on a news group and yet the editorial control over the news at FOX
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/leaked-memos-cast-doubt-on-fox-news-claim-of-neutrality-2162660.html
or the think tank talk radio payola scandal:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/06/talk-radio-payola
and we hear crickets.
Journolist was not a serious scandal, conspiracy junkies. Sorry to break your heart.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 02:06 PM
You mean Fox has both an ideological and partisan bias just like the rest of the legacy media and Think Tanks advertise on shows that share their philosophy!
OMFG Thimbles, you’ve stumbled onto the greatest conspiracy since the Protocols of the Elder Zion!!!! Quick someone call the national guard!!!!
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 02:28 PM
@paidKiler said:
"I believe that this is the very first time the word "Journolist" has appeared anywhere on the CJR website (outside of the comments), and apparently it's only to portray the "offended" Journolisters as victims. Seriously.
You guys are sure right on top of things, you self-proclaimed "watchdogs" of professional journalism!
A year late, and few million dollars short."
Burn.
So tru dat.
CJR sucks. It is only a matter of time when Columbia School of J realizes their review is a piece of garbage whose stench sullies its reputation.
#5 Posted by Brother Matthias, CJR on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 04:24 PM
Considering CJR's role as the standard bearer of establishment mainstream press, it's hard to see how this long-winded assessment of Tucker and the Daily Caller wouldn't be accompanied by the distinct "tsk, tsking" of his self-appointed journalistic superiors.
In particular, the author's efforts to downplay The Caller's coup on the "Journolist" stories were particularly weak. This was the Caller's exclusive Wikileaks-sized scoop. A massive email archive of groupthink, latent liberal tendencies and contempt for Republicans and conservatives laid out what the general public has implicitly understood its media masters were thinking behind the scenes, but had never seen in such graphic detail.
Is The Daily Caller anywhere close to the NYT? How could it be based on a $3 million seed investment, the growing pains of a start-up editorial enterprise, and the relentless demands of bringing in a fickle audience? No doubt there is rawness galore -- but I would think the bias of a trade periodical would be to celebrate the continuation of the species rather than to fault Tucker for falling below impossibly high goals.
Unless, of course, ideology makes that impossible.
#6 Posted by @FakeHowardKurtz, CJR on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 04:56 PM
Wow. What a hit piece. This author needs to learn how to write a story. Of course, if you interview liberals, they're going to say bad things about the Caller. Where are those on the other side of the spectrum in the story? They aren't there. #Fail
#7 Posted by ClevelandBrowns, CJR on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 05:07 PM
It is increasingly clear that a majority of those who comment on CJR are just mad at the world and can’t resist striking out at others, often with very little cause, i.e., the Tucker Carlson piece.
I knew Carlson was gone from MSNBC, but wasn’t aware of the Caller connection. Actually, I wasn’t aware of Caller, period.
I don’t know young Carlson, but I do know his dad, Dick Carlson, a former San Diego TV anchor, a person for whom I have great affection and regard, and a person of unusual thoughtfulness toward others – among whom I am but one of many witnesses.
So, I was always disposed to liking Tucker, even though his politics and mine, as a Liberal Kennedy Democrat (yes, we are still around) are several light years apart.
Thus I enjoyed being brought up to date on Tucker, admire his concern for “facts”, especially given that so many of today’s pseudo conservatives are clueless; the kind of people who, if you quoted Senator Moynihan’s comment that “everyone is entitled to their own opinions but no one is entitled to their own facts”, would simply look at you as though you were daff.
Therefore, thank you, CJR. Keep up the good work.
George Mitrovich
San Diego
#8 Posted by George Mitrovich, CJR on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 05:46 PM
"OMFG Thimbles, you’ve stumbled onto the greatest conspiracy since the Protocols of the Elder Zion!!!! Quick someone call the national guard!!!!"
You see? Now you can relate to how I feel about the Journolist scandal.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/when_tucker_carlson_asked_to_j.html
http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2010/7/26/31448/4345/Diary/-quot-The-List-quot-of-Journolist-Participants-is-Fake
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 09:03 PM
I've written several op-eds for the Daily Caller, and can say with confidence that Tucker and his editors have always been very professional and unfailingly courteous to me. My political leanings are probably to the left of most people who regularly read the DC, but I've enjoyed writing for them and appreciate that they give a voice to some who may feel they don't have it in other on-line media outlets. Certainly the DC has posted wince-worthy content that is "tabloid" in both tone and substance (many liberal blogs do likewise); but by offering to post my commentary en masse, without prejudice or hesitation, they've earned my respect and appreciation. -Chris Hartman
#10 Posted by Christopher Hartman, CJR on Fri 15 Jul 2011 at 10:04 AM
"Coup" is a stretch. Journolist was a pretty open secret in DC; conservative journalists and wonks has long known it existed, but naturally enough saw nothing particularly newsworthy about a listserv where liberals spout off privately. The Caller's series was less the result of an investigative breakthrough than the insight that, with the help of selective quotation and a generous helping of insinuation, an audience eager to believe in media conspiracies could be duped into viewing even something so banal as sinister or scandalous. Which is to say: They didn't "uncover" the story so much as realize that a story could be manufactured from something that was already widely known in DC,
but understood not to be particularly newsworthy.
#11 Posted by Julian Sanchez, CJR on Fri 15 Jul 2011 at 02:10 PM
Remember me, Julian?
#12 Posted by Epistemic Closure, CJR on Sun 17 Jul 2011 at 06:47 PM
Mr. Meares,
Why have you written about Dick Carlson's Boy?
Why have your bosses at CJR published a piece about Dick Carlson's Boy?
You have devoted time and effort to a tale about an individual, Dick Carlson's Boy, that has failed at Policy Review, The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, The Weekly Standard, New York, Reader's Digest, Esquire, The New York Times, The New Republic, and The Daily Beast.
You have wasted space on an individual, Dick Carlson's Boy, who was fired as the host of shows on PBS, CNN, and MSNBC.
Son, Dick Carlson's Boy couldn't even last on Dancing With The Stars!
Why do you and the Czars of CJR reward such mediocrity? Why do you give free publicity to Dick Carlson's Boy?
#13 Posted by Mark, CJR on Mon 18 Jul 2011 at 02:34 PM
You are giving Tucker's GOP puke-funnel far more attention that it deserves.
#14 Posted by wetcasements, CJR on Tue 19 Jul 2011 at 02:51 AM
Post-script to Joel Meares' lame attempt at a takedown = today's Daily Caller breaks a story about rising-star Michelle Bachman's problems with migraines and extensive medications. Not a huge story, but it locates a good reason for why the right-leaning media is important - they are more trusted by, and therefore and have better sources within the right half of our politics than the liberal-leaning mainstream media. Trying to blow off these news sources has in the past led to bad journalism that underestimates (because tragically ignorant of, in their urban or campus fastness) the strength of the Republicans.
I remember Frank Rich writing years ago that he would like to read John Simon's theater criticism, but refused to soil his mind by reading the National Review. One thing seldom explored is that GOP types do not have this limitation, and therefore don't get taken by surprise as often, and also have thicker skins than stereotypical 'white liberals', examples furnished above. This accounts is some small way for the resilience of the Republicans at the polls over the past 30 years, as white liberalism has grown more self-absorbed and complacent.
If CJR ever got around to working up the nerve to hold the left-leaning media, online and elsewhere, to the same standards of importance and accuracy and predictive skill as it does to the pro-Republican side, the 'journalism review' would have plenty with which to work. As it is, some of us read CJR to familiarize ourselves with the party line, not for fresh and fearless analysis. I'd hoped in the past that CJR could be something between Media Matters and the Media Resource Center, but no such luck - and since we already have one Media Matters already, risks becoming disposable.
#15 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 19 Jul 2011 at 08:44 PM
"If CJR ever got around to working up the nerve to hold the left-leaning media, online and elsewhere, to the same standards of importance and accuracy and predictive skill as it does to the pro-Republican side"
Sorry but cataloging the way right leaning media fail basic journalism standards has become a full time job.
PS. Mark, remember how CJR gave right wing media credibilty on both the climate gate issue and Breitbart's holy wars against Acorn? You saw how that turned out, right? Mighty huge embarrassment, right? Which sort of describes the standards of journalism held by the right, right? These are the guys and groups who regularly shed any pretense of neutrality (the washington definition of objectivity) or adherence to the truth (the real world definition of objectivity) all for the sake of partisan advantage and you criticize a "Journalism Review" site for being critical?
The unfortunate thing is that a site like the Daily Caller has to appeal to the taste of its target audience, an audience that has its expectations set by the Drudge Report and the Big Whatnot family of websites under the Breitbart banner. If you are depending on pulling away McDonald's customers for your revenues, you'd better offer a burger with similar sizzle with marginally different ingredients.
That is the Daily Caller for you, another burger peddler that's more upscale than others, serving the right wing, red meat market.
Are there other successful models for conservative media to take?
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 20 Jul 2011 at 12:53 AM
"Mark, remember how CJR gave right wing media credibilty on both the climate gate issue and Breitbart's holy wars against Acorn? You saw how that turned out, right? Mighty huge embarrassment, right?"
Oh, dear. And to think he called you guys self-absorbed and complacent...
#17 Posted by Epistemic Closure, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 11:20 AM
Your response had nothing to do with Thimbles' comment, EpiClo.
When all you've got is a self-styled regent schtick, everything looks like a nail.
#18 Posted by Tommy Deelite, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 05:41 PM
My response had everything to do with Thimbles' comment, Tommy.
#19 Posted by Epistemic Closure., CJR on Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 09:00 AM
Final: Daily Caller 100, Columbia Journalism Review 0.
#20 Posted by Ken Puck, CJR on Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 02:47 PM
I still get a kick out of the way you people have created this faux profession... "journalism".
Hacks, doing an occupation, grasping for the sacred title of professional. Please.
Sorry, gang, but you're lawn maintenance with a bit of literate clerking thrown in.
The "journolist"... that's just perfect.
#21 Posted by hondr, CJR on Sat 23 Jul 2011 at 10:41 AM