Mr. Hogenson:

The original reference to CNSNews.com running Judicial Watch press releases appeared an earlier article I had written as an aside to another point I had been making, that CNSNews.com has inconsistently identified Judicial Watch as "conservative." The following two articles on the CNSNews.com web site (here and here) are Judicial Watch press releases:

I believe these links demonstrate the accuracy of my statement.

Additionally, you might be interested to know that the following CNSNews.com link is to a Free Republic press release.

If you have any further questions, let me know.

Terry Krepel

Dear Mr. Krepel:

Thank you very much for your response.I greatly appreciate you taking the time to provide the information you did. Regarding the first reference you provided, the Sept. 28, 1998 document was not a news release.It was the text of congressional correspondence to the then-chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and various Members of Congress.

The second provided reference was a list of names and organizations excerpted from a 1998 Judicial Watch news release and attributed as such in a daily ‘factoid’ feature.

The third referenced item was not a Judicial Watch document.

Considering these facts, assertions to the effect that “CNSNews.com ran a 1998 congressional letter by Judicial Watch as part of its coverage…” or “CNSNews.com ran as its daily 'factoid' in 1998 an excerpt of a list of people and organizations compiled by Judicial Watch…” would be accurate. Conversely, the assertion that “CNS and NewsMax used to run Judicial Watch press releases as part of their coverage…” is demonstrably false, at least insofar as it concerns CNSNews.com.

Similarly, the posting date of the document entitled ‘Exhibit 19: Brent Bozell, Hypocrisy Exhibit A,’ also remained uncorrected as of 9:40 a.m. EDT August 12, 2002.

Please accept my thanks for your attention to this matter.

Best wishes,

Scott Hogenson
CNSNews.com

cc: Todd Marvin, Esq.

Mr. Hogenson:

The first link -- "the text of congressional correspondence to the then-chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and various Members of Congress" -- while it is not a Judicial Watch press release per se, is a document that can be safely assumed was released by Judicial Watch for the purpose of public consumption. CNSNews.com would not have posted this letter on its Web site if Judicial Watch had not made it publicly available. That, I believe, makes the letter a de facto press release.

The second link -- "a list of names and organizations excerpted from a 1998 Judicial Watch news release and attributed as such in a daily ‘factoid’ feature" -- we both agree is a Judicial Watch press release. But to note that it is merely an "excerpt" of a press release is irrelevant. It's either a press release or it isn't; using only an "excerpt" of a press release doesn't make it any less of a press release. Noting that the use of the press release was "attributed as such in a daily ‘factoid’ feature" is also irrelevant to the issue. I made no claim beyond stating that CNSNews.com "used to run Judicial Watch press releases as part of (its) coverage…" I offered no analysis or criticism of how the press release was used. The nuances of how these documents were used by CNSNews.com is not the issue here; their existence is.

The indisputable fact that both of these Judicial Watch documents exist at CNSNews.com is evidence of the accuracy of my statement. You may argue that it is perhaps a general statement that lacks detail, but it is an accurate statement nonetheless.

Dear Mr. Krepel:

Thank you for the explanation of your editorial standards on accuracy.While exercise of such standards would place the practitioner in a distinct minority, I certainly understand the value of employing them.

Applying such editorial standards, one could defend the assertion that the 1986 flight of the Challenger was a successful mission; an excerpt of the flight went flawlessly and it was a de facto mission, by virtue of the fact that astronauts did leave the planet.

Provided the account of the Challenger flight offered no analysis or criticism, of course.

Best wishes,

Scott Hogenson
CNSNews.com

cc: Todd Marvin, Esq.

Mr. Hogenson:

If you're going to demand such precisely worded journalism as part of your "editorial standards," you may want to begin by demanding the same of your reporters. Let me specifically draw your attention to an Aug. 5, CNSNews.com story, in which your reporter Lawrence Morahan repeatedly refers to the organization Democrats.com as "the Democrats." This implies a formal affiliation with the Democratic party that doesn't exist. If Mr. Morahan had bothered to check the Democrats.com web site, he would have found a statement that the Democratic National Committee, among others, "are not involved in, or responsible for, the editorial content of this site."

While referring to Democrats.com (as "the Democrats") may indeed be technically accurate in that the people who run the site are in all likelihood Democrats, they are not Democratic Party officials and do not claim to be speaking for the party leadership, therefore referring to them only as "the Democrats" is not entirely truthful.

If you were willing to let this example of imprecise writing go through your system, why are you bothering with me?

But because I'm a nice guy and ultimately a fair journalist, here's what I'll do: I will add to the original statement in my article a note to the effect that "CNSNews.com disputes this statement," then provide a link from it to the collected correspondence between us on this issue, which will be posted in the "letters" section of ConWebWatch without any further editorial comment from me. This will present both sides of this issue as we have argued them and put the decision on who's right in the hands of the readers, who I think will find our correspondence enlightening and informative.

Think of it as my way of honoring the CNSNews.com mission statement of "endeavor(ing) to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story."

Terry Krepel

Addendum: Also note that the date of the ConWebWatch article about which you inquired has been changed to its correct date of posting.

Have something to say about ConWebWatch? Write to letters@conwebwatch.com

Posted 8/14/2002