We nailed Media Mythbusters' Lorie Byrd on a false claim, forced her to issue a correction, and now fellow MMB blogger Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, in a July 29 post, is suggesting we're dishonest.
ConWebWatch who touts themselves as a media watchdog site seems to be very bothered by the fact that the current contributors to Media Mythbusters are all conservative. This is true… However, we launched only a week ago and have had a number of tips from contributors not listed who are liberal. The point to this venture is to expose misrepresentations in the media, falsehoods, mistakes and items that need correction. Frankly, being conservative or liberal has nothing to do with it. Facts are facts and truth is truth. But we would like to thank those detractors linking to us for the exposure and the competition. The more the web keeps the media honest, the better we like it - whether we do the exposing or someone else does. There’s enough work to go around for everyone.
The one item I did take an exception to was the dig at Lorie Byrd and her correction on the Sunni Burning Six story. Lorie candidly did a correction and did what she felt was right - she should be lauded for this, not criticized. When I see ConWebWatch do a correction or retraction, maybe I’ll take them a bit more seriously. Right now it sounds like serious sour grapes.
That's a weird statement: "When I see ConWebWatch do a correction or retraction, maybe I’ll take them a bit more seriously." Is Monroe-Hamilton suggesting we've made false statements? If so, she should back that up; we don't like being accused of something we didn't do. If I have made any significantly false claims, the websites I write about would have made a big stink about it by now in order to discredit me, and, well, they haven't. And by the way, we have issued corrections when we've gotten things wrong (here and here, for example).
And "serious sour grapes"? Please. ConWebWatch been in the misinformation-correction business a lot longer than Media Mythbusters has, so we know what we're doing; in addition, we work for a certain other media watchdog. We do, however, profess amazement that Byrd has such an "in" at a metropolitan daily newspaper that she can commandeer precious free space within to promote her nacent venture, while the rest of us have to write letters to that same paper to get our views across and then hope that the editor decides to print them. The "sour grapes" appear to be on the part of Media Mythbusters for our having caught Byrd in her error.
While we may have been gloating a bit about this, we somehow doubt that Byrd would not have corrected it on her own if we had not written the Examiner -- after all, it was not until that letter was published that Byrd issued her correction. Byrd's claim that the AP "retracted" the "Sunni Burning Six" story would otherwise have become another misleading conservative meme.
P.S.: Monroe-Hamilton asks in another July 29 post: "Why would the media blithely believe sources within our enemies’ ranks?" Good question. Go ask Aaron Klein.
New Article: A Nostalgia for Racism Topic: The ConWeb
Will those conservatives who support a return to restrictive 1920s-era immigration laws acknowledge the racist and eugenicist origins of those laws? Read more.
We Cross The Pond Topic: The ConWeb
ConWebWatch's Terry Krepel is featured in a June 17 article in the UK's Observer on right-wing attacks on the Clintons.
One hot topic on the ConWeb of late -- mainly to deflect attention from Scooter Libby's conviction and sentencing on perjury and obstruction charges -- is discussion of the idea (if not fervent hope) that Valerie Plame committed perjury when she testified to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform earlier this year that she did not "recommend" or "suggest" that her husband, Joseph Wilson, take a fact-finding trip to Niger in 2002 to see if Saddam Hussein's Iraq had been trying to buy uranium. The claim is based on a recently released memo by Republicans on the committee. The claim has been championed across the ConWeb:
A May 25 National Review article by Byron York claimed the memo "show[ed] Mrs. Wilson suggesting her husband for the trip."
A May 26 NewsBusters post by Noel Sheppard cited York's article to suggest that Plame "committed perjury."
A June 1 NewsBusters post by Ken Shepherd mentioned "the recent allegation that Plame perjured herself in congressional testimony," linking to Sheppard's post.
A June 1 NewsMax article by Ken Timmerman claimed that "The Valerie Plame e-mail shows without any doubt that she recommended her husband for the mission in Niger." Timmerman repeated his claim in a June 8 FrontPageMag article. Timmerman's personal website goes on to claim that Plame "was hoping" that the memo "would remain classified" and that it "shows beyond any doubt who sent Joe Wilson to Niger in Feburary 2002."
But does it? To coin a phrase, it depends on your definition of "recommend." The key passage from Plame's memo that Timmerman, Sheppard, et al., have touted as the smoking gun is this:
So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.
Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency’s sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.
Timmerman, et al's definition of "recommended," it seems, is based on proactiveness on Plame's part -- that Plame approached CIA officials with the idea of sending Wilson to Niger and intensely lobbied for him to go on the trip. In fact, as the memo states, it was the CIA that first "approached" Wilson.
While Plame goes on to state Wilson's qualifications for such a trip, the fact that she immediately states afterward that she was "hesitant to suggest anything again" shows that she was hardly lobbying for Wilson, as does her statement that she sought the "thoughts" of others on the issue.
Despite what Timmerman, et al, claim based on this memo, it's not clear at all that Plame did anything more than respond to queries from CIA higher-ups. Plame did not initiate the idea of sending Wilson, and her "recommendation" was tepid at best and came only after the CIA first approached her with the idea.
In other words, it's a differing view of events, not the clear-cut perjury Timmerman, et al, want you to believe.
Who Bought Into the False Leprosy Claim? Topic: The ConWeb
We've previously written about "medical lawyer" Madeleine Cosman's anti-immigrant screed in the form of an article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons where the incorrect assertion that "Suddenly, in the past three years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy" originated. Turns out there were only between 100 and 200 new cases of leprosy in "the past three years"; the 7,000 figure is the cumulative number of cases over the past 30 years.
Now that the claim of a massive increase in leprosy cases in the U.S. caused by illegal immigrants has been thoroughly debunked, we wondered: How much of the leprosy Kool-Aid did the ConWeb drink?
CNSNews.com came up empty. NewsBusters quoted an article citing a Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting report critical of Lou Dobbs' "consistently alarmist" tone on illegal immmigration, noting that leprosy is one way Dobbs has claimed that "the invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans."
NewsMax, meanwhile, took a big, long swig. At the front of the line was columnist George Putnam. A March 10, 2006, column praised Cosman as "a medical/legal genius," writing that " We can thank the late Dr. Madeleine Cosman for alerting us to what the illegal aliens bring to us as they cross our borders." Putnam then went on to doctor Cosman's statement to make it sound even more dire: "She cites leprosy: Suddenly, in the past three years, America has more than 7,000 cases. Illegal aliens brought leprosy from India, Brazil, the Caribbean and Mexico." Putnam deleted the part where Cosman somewhat qualifed her claim by adding "and other immigrants" after "illegal aliens."
And Putnam wasn't done. In an Aug. 26, 2005, column, he again claimed that "in three years, 7,000 new cases of leprosy have crossed over from Mexico, India and Brazil," and in a Nov. 10, 2006, column, he asserted that "Had Bush and Congress done their jobs," America "wouldn't have ... 7,000 cases of leprosy."
"Medicine Men" Michael Arnold Glueck and Robert J. Cihak -- as we've noted, associated with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, publisher of the journal that printed Cosman's article -- cited Cosman's work in a Dec. 27, 2005, NewsMax column, though not the specific claim about leprosy. In a Feb. 8, 2005, column, Diane Alden wrote that "in excess of 7,000 new cases of leprosy have been diagnosed in the USA in the past three years."
WorldNetDaily, meanwhile, promoted upon its 2005 publication the article by Cosman that contained that claim, repeating the false statement that "Suddenly, in the past three years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy." WND then reduced it to a one-paragraph summary, "As WorldNetDaily reported last month, even leprosy is suddenly on the radar of health officials," and linked to that article from it in otherWNDarticles. A May 22, 2005, article, with the alarmist headline "Are illegals making U.S. a leper colony?" unquestioningly repeated a claim by Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.), who said "in the past three years, more than 7,000 cases have been presented."
WND and NewsMax were definitely all in on the leprosy claim. Will they report the real truth about it now?
New Article: Oy, Moy Topic: The ConWeb
Catherine Moy touts her credentials as an "award-winning journalist," but her recent work -- biased and relying on questionable sources and unsupported claims -- likely won't win much of anything. Read more.
Biting-The-Hand-That-Feeds-Us Watch Topic: The ConWeb
Yes, conservative Angela McGlowan is advertising on this website. Why? She wanted to, and who are we to turn down advertising revenue? We generally don't reject ads; the only one we have rejected advertised something that looked a lot like a pyramid scheme. (You can buy a ad here too, BTW.)
In a effort to learn more about our advertiser, we read a May 14 Townhall.com interview of Angela McGlowan by Lisa De Pasquale. In it, McGlowan claims:
It was not until recently, and after the release of Bamboozled, that the most awful and disgusting campaigns have been lodged against me. From Media Matters to pornographic chat rooms, liberals have tried to use every means to discount and destroy my efforts to educate Americans on the lies of liberal agenda.
Aside from the clumsy attempt to link Media Matters (my employer) to porn, the fact is that the most recent mention of McGlowan at Media Matters occurred in July 2006, several months before "Bamboozled" came out; Media Matters has mentioned McGlowan a total of only three times since 2004.
New Article: The Depiction-Equals-Approval Fallacy Topic: The ConWeb
Does mere description of something -- like, say, homosexuality -- without condemning it constitute endorsement of it? The ConWeb seems to think so. Read more.
Non-MRC ConWeb Reaction Mixed on Coulter Topic: The ConWeb
We know that the Media Research Center is havingproblems being critical of Ann Coulter's "faggot" remark. How's the rest of the ConWeb doing?
WorldNetDaily is retreating to the same equivocation mode as NewsBusters. The first original WND article on Coulter's remark is a March 5 column by Tom Flannery whose criticism of Coulter is mostly sarcastic and portrays her as a victim of political correctness:
There are some things you just can't say, not even in jest. And at the top of that list right now is anything derogatory about the "gay" lifestyle or, worse yet, anything that is considered a slur against homosexuals, a protected class of people with special rights which entitle them to live free from all offense.
Flannery claimed that there was a "larger cultural context in which she made her remarks regarding Edwards" and that "the media once more ignored the salient argument she was making to focus instead on the sensational aspect of the language she used." He added that "the same liberal elites who are calling for the public condemnation of Ann Coulter have been largely silent about John Edwards' anti-Christian bloggers."
NewsMax, meanwhile, has posted wirearticles calling Coulter's remark a "slur," but its lead article right now is an article that regurgitates a NewsBusters item on Bill Maher's remarks about Dick Cheney. That item, by the way, falsely portrays Maher's 2001 remarks about the 9/11 hijackers: "Maher got in trouble once before with his televised comments. After the 9/11 attacks, Maher said on his ABC show "Politically Incorrect" that the hijackers were 'warriors' and not 'cowards.'"
In fact, as even the NewsBusters post got right, it was Dinesh D'Souza -- whose new blame-America book NewsMax hasflacked -- who said the hijackers were "warriors," to which Maher responded: "We (the United States) have been cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."
At Accuracy in Media, however, the tone is much different. In a March 5 column, Cliff Kincaid tore into Coulter, calling her remark "[t]he political equivalent of Britney Spears shaving the hair off her head," adding that "Coulter must be a liberal infiltrator whose purpose is to give conservatism a bad name." He also announced that AIM's online store was discontinuing sales of Coulter's books.
UPDATE: Kincaid has added a second column denouncing the equivocation of Coulter's slur with Maher's statement on Cheney, though not entirely for the best reasons: "Such a comparison brings conservatives down to the liberal level. It says that conservatives are incapable of maintaining higher standards." He goes on to question whether Fox News "is serving the interests of the conservatives it claims to represent" for running "trash" as the new show "Red Eye," hosted by "a blogger for the liberal Huffington Post" and "a former college sex columnist whose blog is peppered with obscenities."
The Republican Noise Machine: ConWeb in Lockstep on Gore Attack Topic: The ConWeb
As if they were following orders, WorldNetDaily, CNSNews.com, NewsMax (reprinting the CNS article) and NewsBusters all marched in lockstep and repeated a press release by the conservative Tennessee Center for Policy Research claiming that energy consumption at Al Gore's "mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."
None of these ConWeb outlets offered independent verification or documentation of the claim, nor did they question how the group was able to obtain presumably private and confidential information about purported energy use -- they just rewrote the press release. All of them failed to offer a balanced account by making any apparent effort to contact Gore or his representatives for a response.
New Article: Slanties 2007: Bringing SlantieBack Topic: The ConWeb
It's time once again to honor the year's most egregious violations of truth and sanity on the ConWeb. Read more.
Even More Conservative Media Blunders Topic: The ConWeb
Glenn Greenwald serves up a nice little list of dubious and outright false claims conservative bloggers have made of late. Let us bring the ConWeb into the mix and add a few more to that list:
-- Dan Riehl's false claim at NewsBusters that S.R. Sidarth made racial slurs.
-- WorldNetDaily's false claim -- taken from a April fool's post at Gawker and presented as fact -- that Michael Schiavo sold the TV movie rights to the Terri Schiavo story.
-- NewsMax's false claim that U2 was holding a fund-raiser for Rick Santorum, followed by its false denial that it never made the claim.
-- Aaron Klein's vitriolic, error-laden attack on an Islamic charity, which WorldNetDaily was forced to retract.
-- WND author Paul L. Williams' apparently false attacks on Canada's McMaaster University, which WND has only partially retracted thus far.
Greenwald writes of the bloggers: "They operate in a credibility-free zone where there are never any consequences for their mistakes because the partisans who read them will always dismiss every one of these unfair smears on the media as well-intentioned." Indeed, we've seen no evidence that anyone at NewsMax, WND or the MRC has suffered any consequences as a result of the above false claims.
We noted before the election that ConWeb writers had done enough work in support of specific candidates that they might as well have been on the campaign's payroll. Let's look at the fruit of their efforts:
Olbermann Watch Falsely Flails At Media Matters Topic: The ConWeb
An Oct. 30 post by Robert Cox at Olbermann Watch (a Keith Olbermann-bashing site referenced on occasion by NewsBusters) purports to respond to a Media Matters item:
Ultra-left, Soros-funded, Media Matters for America is attacking Olbermann Watch for pointing out Keith Olbermann's disturbing habit of referring to the President of the United States as "mister" and monitoring Olbermann's behavior with the nightly "mister meter". Citing a profile of Keith Olbermann by media writer Stephen Spruiell of National Review, MMFA contrasts Olbermann with a few lines taken out of context from a column by National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. In neither case does MMFA provide working links to support its claims.
Where to begin?
-- Media Matters did not "attack" Olbermann Watch; the focus of the item was on Spruiell, who cited Olbermann Watch.
-- If by "a few lines" you mean more than 150 instances, then, yeah.
-- If a lack of "working links" means that you have to be a subscriber to National Review in order to access them, then, yeah. We're surprised that Cox doesn't doesn't already subscribe.
-- Cox does not explain how a reference to "Mr. Bush" in a Buckley column could be "out of context."
-- Cox never actually refutes anything in the Media Matters article.
(Full disclosure: I work for Media Matters. Cox runs the Media Bloggers Association, of which I am a member and whose logo is on the left side of this page.)
