« Must Read On Mobile Labs From Captain Ed | Main | Happy Independence Day »

Blogger Retractions - Let's Make It An "All Skate"

Yesterday Glenn Greenwald wrote:

The most minimal standards of integrity compel retractions along with apologies to the NYT and the reporter and photographer of this article from the following accusers.

He proceeds to list a long list of people who linked to a story by David Horowitz about the New York Times travel section piece on the Eastern Shore homes of Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Lorie Byrd linked to the piece, expressing confusion as to whether there intent was malicious or just cluelessness. She came down firmly on the side of cluelessness.

It turns out, due in no small measure to the work of Greenwald and Greg Sargent it turns out that the story was every bit the puff piece it was intended to be, and the pictures of the exterior of Rumsfeld's residence were taken in coordination with his staff. For what it's worth several comments to Lorie's post questioned the interpretation of the story, and I've since added a link to Glenn's main post.

Taken on it's own perhaps the reaction to New York Times piece might seem bizarre - though it's worth noting that as of this writing Technorati shows only 131 links to the article - but Greenwald fails to mention the context of the story; coming so shortly after the exposure of the SWIFT banking records story, whose context was so succinctly summarized here at Wizbang:

Dear Reader:


1) We have no reason to believe the program was illegal in any way.

2) We have every reason to believe it was effective at catching terrorists.

3) We ran the story anyway, screw you.

Bill Keller

With that context in mind, when someone points out a NYT piece that appears to give a roadmap to senior government officials residences and notes that maybe terrorists would be interested in that information, it's no surprise that some bloggers linked to it and wondered if there was an ulterior motive. Horowitz is sticking by his interpretation of the story, but one suspects he won't be getting another round of coverage.

While the newfound obsession among liberal bloggers with issuing retractions is noteworthy, it's also worth noting that there weren't any notable retractions in the liberal blogosphere for incessant reporting that Karl Rove was (or would be) indicted and in numerous other instances.

Since this retraction meme has now spread to the front page at Daily Kos one may assume that the liberal side of the blogosphere has now embraced the concept that they will be required to issue retractions for stories they link to which are later corrected by mainstream media outlets.

Guess what? I've got one for them...

Perhaps the liberal blogosphere would like to begin by going back and retracting their reporting on the USAToday story that said that AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth provided "phone call records of tens of millions of Americans" to the National Security Agency. USAToday has had to retract a major portion of its story. The folks at Think Progress, Daily Kos, and Glenn Greenwald (multiple occurrences).

Remind them that it's hypocritical to run around demanding corrections if you're not willing to play by the same rules.


Interestingly Greenwald demands that the long list of bloggers who linked to the FrontPage story and New York Time piece apologize to the photographer whose personal details were evidently published on some blog no one has ever head of. The apology demand don't appear to apply to the 16 liberal bloggers who linked to the The Flying Monkey-Right Blog, only to the laundry list of conservative bloggers who are guilty, presumably by partisan affiliation, since none of them actually link to, nor likely had ever heard of the site.

A quick gander at the very prominent Site Meter at The Flying Monkey-Right Blog should disabuse Greenwald of the notion that anyone aside from Google wielding Kos kiddies were actually visiting that site... but I digress.

This notion that, in addition to retracting a story, that bloggers must apologize for the actions of other bloggers that they have neither endorsed or commented on, is ridiculous. By that logic every liberal blogger active in 2004 owes readers an apology for Markos' "Screw Them" comment; even the prominent ones that condemned him for making it...

Screw that...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Blogger Retractions - Let's Make It An "All Skate":

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Cheney's Heart Condition Is Called Stable

Comments (29)

Thanks to Kevin for this po... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Thanks to Kevin for this post. I had not seen Greenwald's piece and was unaware of the update until reading of it here. I agree that too many jumped to the conclusion that the publication was malicious, but as Kevin said, considering the context of the decisions the NYT has made recently, it is understandable that some would think the NYT capable of poor judgment regarding security matters. Kevin's point about all the corrections/retractions the left owes is absolutely dead on. I won't be holding my breath for those though.

Two points on the Greg Greenwald post:

First, I feel a bit slighted since I was not named in the Greenwald piece. I can't even be included in his group designation of "followers of Malkin and Hinderaker" since my post preceded both of theirs by several hours. What does a girl have to do to get on the liberal blogger hit list anyway? Maybe because in my post I took the attitude that the posting of the information was clueless, rather than malicious, it didn't fit the script of his post.

Second, unless I read too quickly and missed it, I did not see where pointing out where the security camera was located was supplied or approved by the Rumsfeld people. It may have been, I just did not see any reference to it in the linked story. That is what caught my eye in the NYT story and what prompted my "clueless" comments. The secretary's security people have said the story did not constitute a "threat." I guess the camera could be a fake to divert attention from the location of a real camera, in which case it would be quite clever to point it out in the story. (Okay, I just saw MI3 recently so maybe I am getting a bit carried away.)

Anyway, thanks to Kevin for the needed clarification/correction.

Well, the "Flying MOnkey-RI... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Well, the "Flying MOnkey-RIght" probably just got a traffic bump coming to them for a short bit wi6th that link. . .

Must be a slow news day.</p... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Must be a slow news day.

I'm still waiting for the K... (Below threshold)
Proud kaffir:

I'm still waiting for the Kossacks to retract and apologize for their stroies saying US troops used chemical weapons in Fallujah.

I won't hold my breath though.

PIMFstories... (Below threshold)
Proud kaffir:

PIMF

stories

Kevin - Thanks for noting t... (Below threshold)

Kevin - Thanks for noting the correction and for attributing it to the work done by me and Greg Sargent. It actually wasn't very hard work - to the contrary, it was quite easy - and it's work that should have been undertaken beforehand by the bloggers who spewed their false but very serious accusations at the NYT.

It ought to go without saying that before publicly trumpeting accusations of that type, one is obligated to at least first undertake the most minimal investigation to determine whether the accusations are, in fact, valid. Had the accusers done so here, those false accusations never would have been made.

Beyond that, a few points in reply to your post:

(1) I love how Lorie Byrd thinks she knows more about the security concerns of Rumsfeld and Cheney than the Secret Service and Rumsfeld himself know. Both Rumsfeld and the Secret Service told Greg Sargent that the article presents no security risk of any kind, and yet she continues to insinuate that it does -- as though the Secret Service and Rumsfeld don't have the expertise in these areas that Byrd has.

Most critics of the administration claim frequently that it's futile to respond or link to pro-Bush bloggers because they are completely immune to facts and evidence which would compel them to accept that they were wrong. Although I have long disagreed -- and I therefore link to and respond to pro-Bush bloggers on an almost daily basis -- irrational intransigence like that displayed by Byrd here (along with Malkin and David Horowitz and Tom Maguire, who continue to insist that the NYT endangered their security) brings me closer everyday to the view that interaction with people of this sort is, indeed, futile.

If denials of a security risk by the Secret Service, express prior permission from Rumsfeld to take the photographs, and prior articles in the right-wing press which disclose the same information don't lead these bloggers to acknowledge that their accusations were baseless, what would ever compel them to do so?

(2) If you can identify a single statement I wrote about the data-collection program that is false, I will be happy to retract it. I linked to the original USA Today article which (correctly) described the parameters of the program, and then subsequently linked to the latest USA Today article, which provided further evidence of this program but specified that not every telecom company which the original article said was complying was, in fact, complying.

What else am I am supposedly obligated to do beyond that?

And do you really not recognize a distinction between (a) citing to a newspaper's erroneous claim and (b) spewing false accusations yourself? Clearly, one's responsibility is much greater in the latter case than in the former.

(3) Contrary to the claims in your post, I never said that Malkin et al. should apologize for the actions of the bloggers who posted and/or linked to the personal information of the NYT employees. Thus, while you may be absolutely right when you say: the "notion that, in addition to retracting a story, that bloggers must apologize for the actions of other bloggers that they have neither endorsed or commented on, is ridiculous," that has nothing to do with anything I write, since I advanced no such argument.

I said that the false accusations made by Malkin et al. were very serious ones, and the proof of their seriousness is the dangerous lynch mob which the accusations -- quite foreseeably -- spawned. My belief that both a retraction and apology are due was directed exclusively to the false accusations made by those bloggers against the NYT, not anything that other bloggers did as a result.

(4) You can justify all you want the false accusations which were made against the NYT by pointing to other supposed crimes engaged in by that newspaper, but in an intellectually honest world, there are no good excuses - ever - for spewing false accusations against someone - particularly ones as serious as the claim that they are trying to send Al Qaeda hit squads to assassinate government leaders -- unless there is a solid, pre-existing factual basis for the accusations.

These accusations were idiotic on their face from the beginning, and they are undeniably false now. Anyone who continues to cling to them reveals themselves, by definition, as someone utterly unburdened by the smallest amounts of integrity or honesty. I'm sorry to see that this ignonminous class apparently includes your new co-blogger.

Glenn Greenwald:My... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Glenn Greenwald:

My God it takes you a lot of words to tell someone to buzzoff.

Yet I've not seen an apolog... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Yet I've not seen an apology for:

1) The belief that Bush helped Enron
2) Bush ignored a "clear warning" in the PDB.
3) Bush "stole" an election in 2000.
4) He "stole" won in 2004, too.
5) Bush was behind Jeff Ganon being a reporter.
6) Bush was behind the "outing" of Plame.
7) Bush was warned that the levees in New Orleans had collapsed, not that they had been overtopped.
8) The NSA worked with Verizon, BellSouth, etc.

I doubt I'll see one, either.
-=Mike

This bitter article misses ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

This bitter article misses a gigantic point.

Greenwald and others relied on the USA Today reporting - which was true, excepting the Bellsouth/Verizon example.

"Perhaps the liberal blogosphere would like to begin by going back and retracting their reporting on the USAToday story that said that AT&T"

You see the difference - how can liberal bloggers retract the USA Today's story? They can't. Only the USA Today can. And they did. Besides, the story can't be retracted since it's still true - excepting two telecom companies. (Which still may have used a 3rd party source to provide information to the government)

On the other side of this - right-wing bloggers like Lorie didn't rely on any reporting - they just kind of made stuff up, and when it was pointed out how utterly false and misguided their points were, many just ran away - like Lorie. She didn't even correct her own story. Nor did she rely on any substantial reporting. She just went with what others said.

Regardless - you see the difference between these examples right? They aren't even close.

People questioned the wisdo... (Below threshold)
Proud Kaffir:

People questioned the wisdom of publishing photos of the homes of officials during a time of war against terrorists. The NY Times have been so treasonous that is understandable that people would suspect malice, especially since the NYT continously publishes classified info that the Bush adminsitration asks them not to publish.

I am grateful that more info has come to light, but since the NYT doesn't care what the administration thinks about the security details it publishes, it did not occur to many people that permission may have been granted.

The leftist blogosphere never corrects their misinformation. They will continue to state that Bush stole Ohio/ Florida without any evidence, that Bush lied about WMD without evidence, that US troops used chemical weapons without any evidence. The wackier among them will even state that Bush blew up the levies and orchestrated 9/11- all without any evidence.

I find it especially hilarious that the leftist bologsphere accuses the right of silence in criticizing errors, when we've recently learned that the Kos Kontrol Komittee secretly orders bloggers to stay silent about embarrassing issues.

There is another difference... (Below threshold)
Jim:

There is another difference, at least with respect to some of the right wingers who pushed the story that the NYT was doing work for the terrorists: they are actually given voices on TV. Michelle Malkin, for reasons that utterly escape me, is accorded wide visibility on the cable news shows, as is David Horowitz. Since Fox provides a ready made outlet for right wing pundits, their voices are heard far more in the general public than any left wing bloggers. Consequently one would certainly hope they would be a tad more responsible - well even a tinsy bit responsible since they have shown a complete lack of responsibility in this matter.

Jim, Malkin and Horowitz ar... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Jim, Malkin and Horowitz are and were media figures in their own rights, long before Malkin had a blog.

When the boys at Powerline or Glen Reynolds are on Fox to offer their opinions on a regular or even occasional basis, you may have a point. But for now, you don't.

If anything, CNN is the blogger network, for either side. That is to say, the network you will see bloggers invited to speak their minds because they are bloggers. Not that CNN and bloggers are aligned in outlook and opinion.

<a href="http://wi... (Below threshold)
wave_man:
jp2 at July 4, 2006 06:01 PM said:

You see the difference - how can liberal bloggers retract the USA Today's story? They can't. Only the USA Today can. And they did.

But that's exactly what has been demanded by some [I can't remember if you personally have done this, but I've seen it in past comments on posts] in comments on this blog. Every writer has cited stories that have later been retracted, and certain posters keep citing their use of these stories as a 'proof' that they lie. And they mention it over and over. Kim especially. Geez, all she has to do is make a comment on her posts that leftists disagree with, and the chorus usually starts up about her use of 'disproven' sources.

On the other side of this - right-wing bloggers like Lorie didn't rely on any reporting - they just kind of made stuff up, and when it was pointed out how utterly false and misguided their points were, many just ran away - like Lorie. She didn't even correct her own story. Nor did she rely on any substantial reporting. She just went with what others said.

Cite examples please. And don't just say that when leftists disagreed, which 'proves' that Lorie is wrong, she didn't respond. Some comments are so stupid, they don't deserve a response.

Lorie, you give away the st... (Below threshold)

Lorie, you give away the store with the expression "what does a girl..." (be careful; Coulter may sue you for plagiarism) only to get it wrong. Seems you ARE on Greenwald's hit list.

"I guess the camera could b... (Below threshold)
r4d20:

"I guess the camera could be a fake to divert attention from the location of a real camera, in which case it would be quite clever to point it out in the story."

Its almost certain that the camera is real but that there are many more hidden cameras than just that one, both backups and covering other approaches and views. This is common practice and basic common sense. Overt surveillance scares off most intruders and covert suverillance catches the ones that are not deterred. Why do you think they put those "Brinks Security" stickers on doors - to help theives?

Geez, Glenn Greenwald has t... (Below threshold)
natalie maines:

Geez, Glenn Greenwald has to be the biggest weenie I have ever read. He appears to me to be the kind of kid everyone beat up just because Greenwald needed it.

One almost needs a tissue to clear away Greenwald's tears as one reads his tantrum-laden pile.

Every wingnut blogger:... (Below threshold)

Every wingnut blogger:

"Where is the condemnation/outrage of these savage acts on the part of moderate Muslims?"

Regardless of all other thi... (Below threshold)
Radical Edward:

Regardless of all other things...what matters here is that the right wing blogs accussed the NYT of displaying this information to help Al Queda. This is not true. The best people in the security business say it isn't true. They also haven't done anything against it. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it is true. And when confronted with this, the answer from the right wing nuts is...to use other, unrelated points of attack against leftist points, because those attacks have yet to be discounted. They were wrong, and what they did was wrong. They need to admit that. I do, and I know many people who do, but not these.

Sorry for the double post..... (Below threshold)
Radical Edward:

Sorry for the double post...but had to mention this

This whole business with the NYT is based around the point that they are helping Al Queda by mentioning things that the president does that may have been classified. The problem is that they are outraged at things like the NYT's reporting of the illegal bugging and such by the Bush administration. If what Bush is doing is illegal, then it is violating the privacy rights of the american people. The whole point of the War on Terror is to oppose those who attack our security as a people. Well...part of that is our privacy. If Bush is attacking our privacy using illegal means, then we have a right to know. Thank the NYT for that. Attack them when something bad actually happens as a result of them.

It ought to go without ... (Below threshold)

It ought to go without saying that before publicly trumpeting accusations of that type, one is obligated to at least first undertake the most minimal investigation to determine whether the accusations are, in fact, valid. Had the accusers done so here, those false accusations never would have been made.

The investigation, such that it was, was conducted by Horowitz. Bloggers are not reporters - most don't have access to primary sources. I'll stipulate that people linking to the Horowitz story probably didn't contact the NYT authors. My read of his story was that it was a theory based on the facts of the NYT piece. The facts of that story aren't in question, just one writers interperation of them. In hindsight it looks like he put them together wrong, but now we're right back into the case of a bloggers responsibility for the accuracy of their source.

Those who took his hypothesis and expanded on it owe, at a minimum an update, based on the new facts. If they insist on sticking with the theory in light of the facts then that's a issue between them and their readers.

Now as to the apology bit, the quoted text shows a demand for an apology to the NYT photographer from "the accusers." What's ironic is that you list John Hinderaker in that list and note he just linked to the story (FrontPage and NYT), he didn't accuse her of anything. Why exactly does he owe her an apology?

As to the difference between a reported story and conjecture, I'll use two examples of how this doesn't really play out according to your prioritization:


1) When DHS official was arrested on charges of soliciting sex with a teenage girl I listed a laundry list of sites that blamed Bush and Republicans for his personal failings. This was clearly a classic example of blogosphere conjecture gone wild.

We'll guess what? I went out and did a little actual reporting and determined that he was not a political appointee and he was (and is) a Democrat. That information (linked in an update to the post) was widely disseminated on the right, but to my knowledge none of the bloggers who so wildly speculated about his ties to the Bush administration went back and corrected their story with facts that I had gathered. All it took was a trip to the Montgomery County Registrar of Voters and a little persistence. Of course the fact that all these sites were reveling in joyous squalour over the story made punching a giant hole in their balloon that much more enjoyable, but that's why we do this, no?

2) Go see our piece on the Murtha speech for some of new, organized retraction tactic being pushed by some on the left. They were demanding a retraction from us for linking to a story in a mainstream outlet that, at the time their demands were made, had not been corrected. I received a torrent of similar demands via e-mail merely for linking to a story in a press outlet.

By that logic how can anyone who published about the NSA program fail to mention the update? If you did, then I'd say you're decidedly in the minority - a search through Technorati or Memorandum would confirm that...

So that's a partial answer to some of your concerns.


BTW, The second of the links I provided to your USAToday coverage talks of telco legal exposures in the first update. That's in large part is rendered moot by the USAToday retraction. Your posts were perhaps not the best example I could come up with, but again I'd say that most of those covering the story didn't go back an revisit it - hell even USAToday didn't want to do it...

The investigation, such ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The investigation, such that it was, was conducted by Horowitz. Bloggers are not reporters - most don't have access to primary sources.

We also don't have access to phones. We cannot call people and check to see if allegations are true. We are like invalids, entirely dependent upon those who support us. We must believe what they say is true, or else our lives become meaningless.

My read of his story was that it was a theory based on the facts of the NYT piece.

I do not own a phone.

The facts of that story aren't in question, just one writers interperation of them.

I will ignore the fact that this was cleared thru security, safe in the comfort that this was "one writer's" interpretation.

In hindsight it looks like he put them together wrong, but now we're right back into the case of a bloggers responsibility for the accuracy of their source.

Yes, we're right back to credibility school, and (ID)Lord knows we cannot acknowledge that we support wild, false, and threatening allegations, but someone else said it and we agreed, therefore we don't really mean it, right? In short, all links are without any sort of commendation, you click at your own risk. Wizbang endorses nothing.

1) When DHS official was arrested on charges of soliciting sex with a teenage girl I listed a laundry list of sites that blamed Bush and Republicans for his personal failings. This was clearly a classic example of blogosphere conjecture gone wild.

No argument. Btw, what are you talking about?

2) Go see our piece on the Murtha speech for some of new, organized retraction tactic being pushed by some on the left. They were demanding a retraction from us for linking to a story in a mainstream outlet that, at the time their demands were made, had not been corrected. I received a torrent of similar demands via e-mail merely for linking to a story in a press outlet.

Gone done, done seen it. Wow, mak44 wants you to post something and you equate that to "the left" "demanding a retraction". Wow, pretty damning. Let's move on from your embarrassing bullshit, shall we?

By that logic how can anyone who published about the NSA program fail to mention the update? If you did, then I'd say you're decidedly in the minority - a search through Technorati or Memorandum would confirm that...

Of course, we must assume that all who disagree with us are compatriots with those who email us, therefore all who point out our ridiculous falsehoods are merely political opponents who can be safely ignored. I don't really care what evidence I'm basing this on, the important point is that I feel it is true.

BTW, The second of the links I provided to your USAToday coverage talks of telco legal exposures in the first update. That's in large part is rendered moot by the USAToday retraction. Your posts were perhaps not the best example I could come up with, but again I'd say that most of those covering the story didn't go back an revisit it - hell even USAToday didn't want to do it...

Btw, I was annoyed by your existence and your tenacity in approaching me, and therefore I submit to providing a couple of links to outside news sources the employees of which I assume to be liars. If you were right about your gay-boy rights bullshit, the press that I loath would have backed you up, but they didn't, so God hates you. Fuck off.

Have I got it right, or did I miss something?

I have to say, it's interes... (Below threshold)

I have to say, it's interesting logic in use here.

It's okay to speculate that the NYT is horribly, irredeemably evil, because, after all, the NYT is horribly, irredeemably evil.

And you know that they're horribly, irredeemably evil because they've made earlier reports that you didn't like, which you decided must have been the result of their being horribly, irredeemably evil, because what else could lead a person to do something that you don't like? Principled disagreement? Hah!

So, you see, with all these mountains of evidence that they are horribly, iredeemably evil, you have no choice but to accept that they are horibly, irredeemably evil.

Mantis - you didn't miss a ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Mantis - you didn't miss a thing. Nicely done.

Geez.I am so sick ... (Below threshold)

Geez.

I am so sick of this bullshit 'treason' and 'sedition' talk, like it's 1940 all over again, and the bad communist sympathizers are all hiding under our beds next to the scary boogie man.

Here's a hint: WE ARE NOT AT WAR.

You can call it a 'war on terror', but it is not actually a war until WAR has been declared by Congress.

It's funny - 5 years after being attacked by bin laden, we are now attacking our own press for not licking Bush's crack, and here Bush et al are cancelling the hunt for bin laden!

That's ONE HECKUVA JOB, BUSHIE!

So basically, people making... (Below threshold)
Radical Edward:

So basically, people making a point for the right make wild assumtions with no real basis, then outright refuse to acknowledge evidence that disagrees with them, and then finally, when they can't go on any longer saying that it is true, they admit it is false, but say that they were only copying everyone else. That is the problem with the right that is seen so often. Someone says something stupid, and nobody else has the brains to think about or check it before mindlessly repeating it and defending it.

Rush Limbaugh once said that styrofoam was biodegradable and paper was not. All his fans relentlessly agreed with him, even though it makes no sense. Even his own fact checker admitted it was flawed.

I am not a conservative, but I would like to help the party a little anyway. The best thing right wing media(tv, papers, blogs, whatever) can do to help the goals of the conservatives is to make logical and legitimate points on real, important issues that this country is actually facing. Then, nobody can make fun of you. This reminds me of a joke where you tell a little kid that there's a weiner thief out there, and if he takes his hand away from it, someone will snatch it away. The kid, of course, holds his hand on his crotch in fear. Maybe the right is run by little kids who believe everything they hear, because anyone worth paying any real attention to would check their facts.

And one more thing. Kevin said that they were "demanding a retraction from us for linking to a story in a mainstream outlet that, at the time their demands were made, had not been corrected". Guess what Kevin? You can come out and say that you now know that this information that you linked to or quoted is not true, and here's the big important part, EVEN IF THE SOURCE HAS NOT RETRACTED IT YET. If I believed those who said that the NYT was helping Al Queda, and repeated that, well, by now we know that that is not true. They have not retracted it, but it would still be wise for me to mention that I now know that it is not the case, regardless of the actions of my source. Saying anything otherwise is simply a way of trying to avoid being blamed for your own lack of fact checking.

You can come out and sa... (Below threshold)

You can come out and say that you now know that this information that you linked to or quoted is not true, and here's the big important part, EVEN IF THE SOURCE HAS NOT RETRACTED IT YET.

That's where you're wrong. The calls for retraction started long before there was evidence that there was that there may have been discrepancy in the printed story vs. the actual event. Once the Sun-Sentinal issued a correction we did as well.

On the vacation home piece, you'll notice it barely registered a blip here, probably because 4 different authors passed on it, and the one person who linked to it did so mostly in passing...

As for helping Al Queda, do you believe that there was no information to be gained by terrorists and terrorist supporters in the NYT expose of the Swift bank records program?

That program reviews someth... (Below threshold)

That program reviews something that is a must for Al Queda. Finances. Hitting them in the bills is much more effective than many other methods of attack. Naturally, then, that is what we are doing. Problem is, now, they can know that this is happening. They now have the ability to know that the government is trying to stop them from recieving funding. This seems like something I've heard about before. Long before the NYT reported on that. Also, even if they know that their funding is under attack, they still must transfer money in in order to operate. What are they going to do with that information that is of any helpful use at all to them? Stop using money? Not a chance.

"The calls for retraction s... (Below threshold)
r4d20:

"The calls for retraction started long before there was evidence that there was that there may have been discrepancy in the printed story vs. the actual event."


This is impossible considering that anyone who knew anything about security saw that these accusations were delusional from the beginning. It has been a carnival of criticism from people whose ideas come from James Bond movies and Tom Clancy novels.

Even this whole "the revealed a camera" thing is bullshit from the reasons I describe - letting would-be intruders see some PART of your surveillance setup is an efficient way of deterring the majority of would-be intruders who would rather go for easier pickings that don't have cameras at all. It is simple f***ing common sense - did you forget about the dozens of not-so-hidden cameras you pass everyday at every 7-11, Bank, ATM you visit?

The same goes with the "They should have just mentioned the town but they published the Street Address" argument. I live in MD and I can assure you that tracking down the homes of the VP and the SecDef in that small Eastern Shore town would present as much of a challenge as finding the Bush home at Kennibunkport, Maine - just ask any local. Smalltown people tend to notice when powerful government officials buy homes in their community.

This "defense" is just a knee-jerk attempt to avoid admitting that you are predisposed to think ill of the NYT and were willing to ignore your obvious lack of knowledge and experience and pass judgement based on prejudice alone.

r4d20, the quote of mine yo... (Below threshold)

r4d20, the quote of mine you used was not made in reference to the NYT story. That was made in regards to the Murtha story.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy