A Note Of Caution
Dean
Hey guys, I love ya, but: Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop.
You guys (and some others) are openly speculating about the identity of the person who forged Dan Rather's fraudulent National Guard memos. But you're only guessing, and you're doing it in public, in front of potentially tens of thousands of people.
Guys: Open-Source Journalism is a very, very powerful thing when it investigates verifiable facts, like looking at technology. But you guys are now speculating about a private citizen, and you are seriously in danger of vindicating those who say the blogosphere is nothing but a gossip mill.
You are also running the danger of creating the next Richard Jewell.
I know people are going to be mad at me for saying this but this is not the kind of investigation you should be doing in public without one hell of a lot more private investigation and corroboration.
Not in public, guys. Not like this. You may be sure you're on to something but you are potentially doing something incredibly irresponsible. This isn't an actor, or a politician, it's a private individual, and until you've got a lot more to go on, you could be screwing up an innocent man's life.
If webloggers want to be serious journalists, they have to take the responsibilities and not just the accolades. What are you guys going to do if he's vindicated? Worse, what will you do if some cretins start threatening this guy? My own family has received death threats from cretins who hated something I or my wife wrote. Don't think the same couldn't happen to this man you're speculating about based on some clever deductions that may nevertheless be wrong.
You could be right but you've got no more than deductions and interesting plausibilities. Please be careful!
* Update * I want to be very clear that I respect all of these bloggers, I just think they are getting overexhuberant and may be blundering into a terrible error.
* Update 2 * I should also mention, this is the sort of thing that could put a blogger in court facing a libel suit. Do you want to be the test case? If newspapers can be sued, so can bloggers.
That presumes that all bloggers are Open Source Journalists. Though some certainly are, some are opinion columnists, some are tabloids, and some are "Soap Opera Digest". I'd certainly not consider any of the guys you linked to be journalists in the "news reporting" sense of the word. I'd say that their speculation fits pretty well with their site content. What they're doing is no different than most other very successful "opinion journalists" have done and will do until the end of time.
Relax a bit. Maybe if Power Line does it you can get a bit panicky but not with these guys.
And no man, I respect these guys but this is too much. If William Safire or Bill Kristol or Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd were doing this about a private individual, I'd be just as concerned, but I can pretty much guarantee that all of those individuals would have been warned by an editor and asked if they'd made at least a few phone calls, tried to get ahold of the guy, did some more digging, before publishing such idle speculation.
This guy's not a politician, he's a private citizen. We have to be careful.
What if some nutjob goes and tries to kill this guy? Or threatens him and his family? For that matter, what if Kevin, Tim, et. al. wind up in court for defamation of character?
Oh, and by the way: what if all the blogosphere's snearing critics jump on this as proof that blogs are nothing but irresponsible rumor mills and sleazy gossipers?
I know these guys mean well but they need to stop and think for a minute!!!
I agree with Jimmie's view on things. Open source journalism means you are always going to have the "National Enquirer" variety stuff which will filter it's way up to legitimate blogs (heck, my blog is the perfect example of the bottom feeders of the blogosphere). Will I ever get an Instalanche? Doubtful, but you never know what might happen when a tragic local story never makes it past the local news.
Here's a good question that need to be answered. Could trackbacking to a libelous story constitute itself as further libel?.
We're entering a new media phase where people who are at a event can report on what they saw, what they did, etc and relate it to the world through their eyes instantly as opposed to a sterilized/biased AP report. Welcome to the future kiddies...enjoy the ride.
The world's definitely changing in some exciting ways. Ways that will make things better, I am sure. But we have to be concerned, too.
Otherwise speculation is pretty useless and dangerous, as you well point out.
We don't expect Krugman and Dowd to have the same sort of exacting journalism the news pages of their respective publications. We hammer them all the time on their own opinions and speculations while understanding that they don't represent every newspaper or magazine writer (or, for that matter, every columnist). We also know, from other instances, that these two have published similar speculation before without being stopped by an editor. If these guys' speculation unfounded BS, then we hammer them for it and if it turns out to be true, then they get kudos, just like we do with any other opinion journalist. Why hold bloggers to a different standard?
Well, if we're holding a blogger responsible for upholding the growing reputation of the blogosphere, then I suppose we ought to. But I, for one, don't want to shoulder that sort of burden and I don't know that anyone else needs to either.
He who has the deepest pocket, wins.
Partly because he who has the deepest pockets won't sue if he doesn't have a case. One reason is that his expensive lawyers, out of justifiable concern for theie own professional reputation, will refuse to take it to court.
Sorry I wasn't more pithy. Wince's Law: Therefore: The bigger they are the harder they fall.
Yours,
Wince
Something for everyone on the net.
Which is a dangerously incomplete understanding. Even for a public figure, the reversed and heightened burden of proof required by the First Amendment as understood in New York Times v. Sullivan does not require the knowing publication of a falsehood. That is only one of two possible prongs of "actual malice," the other being publishing something with reckless disregard for its truth or falsehood.
Furthermore, it is far less clear from the case law whether and how the heightened Sullivan standard applies to private figures: it may be that the story itself is a "public matter" and so it does; then again, it may not, and the standard may instead be the old common-law rule that still applies in England, where truth is an affirmative defense that the defendant bears the burden of proving.
I'm with Dean on this: folks need to tread cautiously.
I don't think you're being a handwringing sissy about this at all, but you have managed to make me consider revising a link I threw out there yesterday. I do think your cautions are both necessary and well-advised.
And I'm glad you're willing to step up and be the sissy, because the last time I did it, it got me labeled a hypocrite by one of the bloggers you link above, and I've not been dying to encounter that kind of mudslinging again.
Clearly. I need to invest in a larger-sized can of 'Tard Retardant. Must check Sam's Club.
And Arnold Harris has set the standard for blog commenters.
Another consideration. I recall reading during the O J Simpson murder trial and the ensuing civil suit that in criminal cases the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, whereas in civil suits it is just the opposite.
And because this particular incident is one of the highest stakes game anyone ever pursues, I would not be surprises that anyone involved with "discovering" that purported Texas Air National Guard document will be spirited out of the country for a semi-permanent vacation, courtesy of some plumbers' unit loosely attached to the Democrat National Committee.
Who knows? Maybe a permanent vacation. To some
dark and deep special place. A very permanent vacation, you could say. Don't smirk. These things have happened througout human history.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
What would you have us do instead? Sit around and wring our hands waiting for CBS to own up to their *source*, if they ever do? They'll try and pull what they think is a "Swiftie", letting the issue of Bush's service percolate long enough to cause doubt in the voter's minds while avoiding accountability over its authenticity.
I understand your concern about the average citizen positing a "personal opinion", but Burkett's apparently had an axe to grind against Bush for quite some time and not been shy about doing it. If you choose to make yourself a public figure, you get what comes along with that sort of noteriety. Richard Jewell didn't have that choice - he did get screwed by the accusations that played out in the media. Are we talking about the same sort of due process comparing Jewell and Burkett's trial by media? Don't think so.
As for potential harassment or even bodily harm, take a look at what happened to the main funder of the Swifties - they quickly found out where he lived and picketed his house. Yum - just what I want for breakfast: coffee, croissants, and smelly protesters in my front yard. And what was the point? You think they wanted a "constructive dialogue"? How about fear and intimidation.
Talking of which, I read an article the other day on how conservatives were reluctant to put bumper stickers on their cars or signs in their front yards because of the reaction they might get. You might get a tire punctured, your car keyed, all in the name of righteous (or lefteous, for that matter) anger. Sorry - this election is going to be nasty regardless of which side you're on, and no amount of handwringing, however well intentioned, is going to keep people from venting their spleen all over you and making you feel bad about thinking/being different from them.
Let's be honest: liberals have the same deep, abiding hatred of Dubya that conservatives had (and still have for Hillary, et al) for Clinton when he was in office. And when you come right down to it, both sides view this election as a jihad against the other for control over the country.
When you come to think of it, its the same loathing the radical Muslims have for the US - - there's no rationality to it - they just plain old hate us. Sadly, there's no reasoning with people like that - you just have to do your thing and take care of business when you choose to (or have to) cross their path.
Legally speaking, no: "guilt" is a criminal concept, but a civil defendant is not presumed liable, as the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, though a lower burden (preponderance of evidence) than in criminal court (beyond a reasonable doubt).
Practically speaking, my torts professor in law school remarked that a plaintiff bears the burden of getting through the defendant's pretrial motions, but if the case actually ever reaches a jury, the only question is "how much?" Now, admittedly, that's probably exaggeration, and some jurisdictions are far more plaintiff-friendly than others (hence the practice of forum-shopping and indeed client-shopping by the plaintiffs' bar).
I think you make a good point, but you left out the strongest reason. It doesn't matter who forged the documents, assuming they were forged.
The issue is CBS running such a story about the President and then stonewalling the investigation. The fact that Rather is completely uninterested in determining the truth is a far greater story than the forgery. In my opinion this is true even if John Kerry himself forged them. Kerry can only win the election twice. Mainstream media has been pushing candidates for decades.
We've always known there is a substantial group of lefties who will say or do anything to win. Does the fact that we can identify one of them mean anything?
The colossal credibility hit network news will take from this event will have far greater effects even than winning the presidency.
Dean, every now and then you put your typing finger on something significant. This, I have always thought, is one of the key differences in the political styles and operative procedural mindsets of the main opposing parties. (Except that you wrote about it and I did not.)
When the Watergate scandal hit the United States in early 1973, Republicans joined Democrats in cleaning the clocks of the Nixon administration, right up to the oval office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. (I was overseas from February 1973 through November 1974, but I caught up with all the amazing details over the winter of 1973-1974.)
The only that was a counterpart to Watergate were the details (both sad and hilarious) of William Jefferson Clinton's personal actions while on the taxpayers' time in his second term of office. Where were the Democrats in their righteous anger when the facts came out. Oh, the anger was there are right. But it was reserved for the Republicans trying to do a Nixon on Clinton.
I have always thought the Democrats view themselves as a sort of permanent political leadership class; sure of their power; certain of their privileges; aware of their immunity from the threat of being pulled out — and kept out — of public office. This seems to hold true even more at a time when the presidency, the US Senate, The US House of Representatives, and most of the state legislatures are firmly in Republican hands. It is now obvious they will pull — or acquiesce in — just about any cheap trick to regain that power. Hardly a picture of the "democracy" they continually crow about.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
And heya, Dean - you *know* how much I dislike Kerry and modern Democrats in general. If I thought there was valid proof that the DNC might be involved, or the usual suspects being bandied about, I'd be all over it - but there isn't, and I won't.
Personally, I think that CBS and Dan Rather were victim of a media spoof - a hack - and Rather let his dislike of Bush blind him into lunging for it like a starving bass, as probably any good media hacker who's studied Rather could have predicted he would. Whoever did the hack was probably also surprised and amazed that CBS didn't override Rather's enthusiasm until it was checked into, but they also had a long history of 60 Minutes being sloppy in regards to research suggesting they could pull it off. Media hacks and spoofs are an old tradition on the 'Net.
A partisan hack, sure, more 'N likely... but "partisan" doesn't equate to "automatically connected to the Kerry or Bush campaigns". In the end, the fallout will probably be the same as if they were connected, but that doesn't constitute "proof" that they were.
Obigatory Disclaimer: I haven't hit all the sites and news sources yet, so someone may have already named the source somewhere and documented it, making this entire comment moot. ;)
*Pfui!* ROFLMAO! You were going good Steve, right up to the point where you gave me indigestion. ;]
The Deep Pockets is soooo right on!!!
This political games has been going on since our first President, Good Ole' George Washington. Well for goodness sakes...He never told a lie and who chopped down that cheery tree!?! Little in stature was George Washington and he was often put upon a horse therein when a picture, a painting was made well...Do you spose' way back then, I mean way back, right!?! Did people inflame themselves be it in their guts or did they inflame the Never Tell A Lie POTUS? Did PUBLIC RELATIONS EXIST?
Pray Tell, I believe they did. A short plump president? Better wisk him into a higher standing.
Arnold said sometimes Dean puts a finger on something and then I enjoy the reactions of everyone that comes to this funny, smart, provactive site. We have some great minds here and the women that have posted sure know what they are talking about as well.
Good Post from an ole' granny! I tell ya, I always leave this world happy, or pondering, or smackin' my forhead when some get sooo deep!
Simply Me...Giggle giggle
First I would like to say I like that title of Little Miss. Well I know you are a smart woman from reading you here and other blogs I frequent.
You are right of course about the "Never told A Lie President" He was tall and the referece to him was meant to present the politics has always had it's public relations and arguments. James Madison was shorter. We put labels on our canadates since the beginning. One is fat, one is short, one never lies.
Napoleon is a man I have really enjoyed reading at different times. I appreciate your wisdom and other's that come here. Sometimes my mind is fuzzy due to three strong medications to keep an illness at bay, so I won't cripple. I guess that is why Dean has never made me feel uncomfortable. Sometimes Little Miss Attila my spelling goes goofy or at times, I do not edit properly. And I must add, I love being a nut because it keeps me laughing at myself instead of downing myself as so many of us women or Mother's do. We seem to count our failures more than the good we have done.
Thank you Lil' Miss and keep commenting. You are very wise indeed.
Simply,
Janelle... of Inspirational Journey's.Org.
Well, last things first, I didn't see Newsweek's speculation so I don't know how it compares, but... I don't know.
I do know that I'm an independent journalist. Can you subject me to intense public speculation in front of thousands of readers that I might have committed a despicable crime based on a few deductions you've made from some printed accounts about me? Should you?
If I'm innocent, do you think I can sue everyone involved in such a think? Richard Jewell got a pretty penny in his lawsuits against both the FBI and several news organizations, and he's not the first one to win such a case.
DC: What would you have us do instead? Sit around and wring our hands waiting for CBS to own up to their *source*, if they ever do?
I'd have you continually demand that CBS own up to its source.
You might even be able to get away with saying things like, "Here are a few dozen people who it might possibly have been." Although even that to me is a gray area.
Otherwise: you either continually barrage CBS with demands that they divulge their sources, or, you do what every cop, prosecutor, and/or reporter who has a strong gut feeling on a story but no strong proof does: tread carefully, make some phone calls, do as much private investigating as you can. And if you don't have the resources, you try to find someone else who does, or you (alas) give up in frustration.
Having an intense dislike of Bush is not a crime, and is not in any way even remotely proof of anything except---having an intense dislike of Bush.
Sooner or later a blogger is going to get his ass sued off. I'd rather that be later than sooner.
"*Pfui!* ROFLMAO! You were going good Steve, right up to the point where you gave me indigestion. ;]"
You need to take some Tums then. har! har!
DC wrote:
"Talking of which, I read an article the other day on how conservatives were reluctant to put bumper stickers on their cars or signs in their front yards because of the reaction they might get. You might get a tire punctured, your car keyed, all in the name of righteous (or lefteous, for that matter) anger."
That's the compassion and tolerance for dissent for which the Left is so famous.
That's one main reason why I want Kerry to lose. I go by the maxim: Never trust your enemy when he's in a good mood. Ask yourself: Does Batman prefer to see the Joker laughing with maniacal glee or snarling in frustration? Were we better off when Hitler was dancing with joy or when he was chewing the carpet in rage? Remember the day when Muslims were dancing in the street and passing out candy. Was that a happy day?
Same with the radical Left in this country. If Bush wins, they'll be wailing and gnashing their teeth in the outer darkness, and it won't be pleasant to watch. But, if Kerry wins, then they'll be in control, and they'll be able to make things even more unpleasant for all of us.
No one here is wiser than you, my fine lady. You pour forth pearls that the meds cannot disguise. Good and happy thoughts from you in every post as well as kindness, forebearance and plain ole common sense. I eagerly wait for the next musings from Janelle and Arnold, our resident elder stateswoman and statesman - Arnold who has no match in wit and sense (and occasional over the top fascism which is dear to my heart when spoken from the hinterlands of Mt Horeb WI and not at the helms of power.);-D
Many treasures to be found here at Deans World, no?
Wretchard at Belmont Club has announced Washington Post's article today, which unequivocally pronounces its judgment on the memos as fakes. The Post cites as experts both Joseph Newcomer (a long-time computer industry expert on the development and implementaton of typography processing) and Adobe Systems' Seattle facility Program Manager for Fonts, Thomas Phinney.
Wretchard's title for his post is "The End" which may be taken by a lot of us to mean that now that the MSM is acknowledging that CBS done wrong, the rest of us can return to the dissection of the merits and demerits of the candidates, already in progress.
Yahoo!
You crack me up!
You mean to tell me trial lawyers actually know the difference between frivolous and serious lawsuits BEFORE they go to court?
I feel the earth moving under my feet!
Seriously, my friend, you can't have it both ways. If you think can, you're being naive. About trial lawyers, no less!
At least until you face someone new in court who has pockets as deep as yours.
Normally I'd agree with you - CBS should be more forthcoming about their source(s) for the alleged documents. If this were happening in an academic, scientific, or even a legal environment then Rather's peers would be checking his work to make sure it was kosher and crucifying him if it was not. It would be a thorough, sedate process.
You'd expect the news industry to work the same way, except that sources and methods are considered protected. Instead, we're asked to trust the facts presented by major news agencies because they are "professionals".
This is not just a "story" that, if CBS gets it slightly wrong, doesn't have an impact. Someone is attempting to sway public opinion against the President. Timing is everything in responding to these attacks - the response curve has grown tighter in every election since '88. Ten years ago, we'd still be sitting on our hands wondering if it was true and hoping that the MSM would ferret things out before it was too late. The right people in the right places in the right MSM organizations could help or hinder that process if they so chose.
I think we all know where the MSM is leaning these days - it's been that way for a long time but never this explicit. After the blogosphere aggressively questioned the documents veracity, the MSM realized they couldn't ignore the independent analysis and found themselves potentially tarred and feathered with CBS's credibility problem. They just had to have a push to act, not just because "Buckhead" cried foul but because of the tidal wave of bloggers calling "bullshit" on CBS and fact checking their asses into the boards.
Now that the bloggers have started to run down the probable sources, hopefully what will happen is they will eventually find the source, then step back like a bird dog and let the big bad MSM hunters come in for the (figurative) kill.
Will CBS sue everyone? Let 'em try. We're ALL saying the same thing - if nothing else there's safety in numbers and in overwhelming evidence. Besides, I haven't read anything online that overtly slanders or otherwise threatens Bill Burkett or Jim Moore. Anyone that did something stupid like that should get what's coming to them - I totally agree with you that "getting personal" takes things someplace where the majority of us don't want to be. Unfortunately, there are folks that don't have the same standards of decorum and respect for other people's rights.
Arnold Harris of Mt. Horeb, WI, my favorite over the top fascist (do I get to be an over the top anarchist?), brings back some more good memories of the good old days of President Nixon and the Watergate imbroglio:
"When the Watergate scandal hit the United States in early 1973, Republicans joined Democrats in cleaning the clocks of the Nixon administration, right up to the oval office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. (I was overseas from February 1973 through November 1974, but I caught up with all the amazing details over the winter of 1973-1974.)"
The _style_ of that era! My friend David Smith and I used to watch that on the TV at Smith's house. He and I created a spectrum which I continue to use and to develop. I'll have to blog about that spectrum soon.
I remember that Republicans as well as Democrats were interrogating and drawing up articles of impeachment. The chairman of that committee was Senator Sam Ervin, a Southern Democrat much like Zell Miller is today, I think, and a man who prided himself on being a strict Constitutionalist. One of the Republicans opposing Nixon was Senator Lowell Weiker, a Republican of the stamp of Barry Goldwater or William Weld in many ways. Another was Senator Howard Baker, deemed a promising young conservative luminary, and there was talk of him running for President. Haven't heard from him lately, I'll have to give him a Google. On the pro-Nixon side was Trent Lott and another Senator by the name of Sandman. Smith said that Sandman was "disgusting". har! har! Ayn Rand wrote an analysis of the players on both sides, and she was rather disgusted by all of them. Interesting about it all....
I'll be your favorite over the top fascist, if that's what pleases you. But I like to think of myself as a right on the top rationalist. That means right on the line, neither under nor over.
And the fascisti, as I recall, detested rationality and rationalism. Lovers of Plato and Kant, they probably were, while us rationalists prefer Aristotle and Rand.
——————————————————————-
Now, switching topics slightly. Can any of you tell me why, when I click on the "B" immediately above the comments box, my text boldfaces for the preview, but then, when I post the comment, all that shows up are some grubby looking HTML commands.
That, I say, is anti-rational.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Ah, just like the good old days of the Clinton impeachment.
Not.
II
Arnold when I click the Link, the B, the slant, the strike and block quote.
I get all the above. I hit each one and have tried to Bold or send a link and Block a Quote.
All that above happens to me. I hit one at a time so you can see it happens to me as well. I believe it is how we are set up individually because I do not have any restrictions any where I go.
This is a newer system and Dean and Rosemary are working on different things from their home or when they are not at home.
It probably happens with others as well.
That second quote did not even show up that has 5:54pm
will let us know.
I did just try to bold Dean's name...I'm serious Arnold. I think he is busy or sleeping, and either Rose or Dean will get us fixed up.
Wasn't denying Dean's worth reading in and of himself, Steve, if I thought he was, I wouldn't be reading him. And while he does do mostly linkfests, Glenn does on occassion do some pretty meaty analysis posts, so I woudn't write him off as being "merely a Portal site" either.
It's the entire "King of the Blogosphere" phrase/title that had me rolling out of my chair snickering. ;)
We don't have a king, nor do we need one.
If it's based on substance of posts and analysis, heya... while I like Dean and his writing, I can list well over two dozen webloggers including Porretto, Kim, and Wretchard who are both better writers and better analysts. So can everyone else, I'm pretty sure. [No offense, Dean]
If it's elective, then "King" is hardly the operative description. [And why yes, I am being pedantic, why do you ask? (00)]
'Sides... we already have an Emperor. Why do we need a King to boot? ;}p~~~
Yeah, sure Janelle - this IS a silly argument to be having in the middle of all this. That's why it's fun. ;)
...Bear that meanders throughout the dark dense forest looing for Lions.
King Lions to be sure, and then...BAAM!!!
... He brings them down with his big grizzly arm made of... Iron! Perhaps!?!
Why oh why do I come here only to smack meself in da forhead!?! Then when I try to get up from my easy chair where I have my laptop, on a side table made of plastic... B O I N G!!! There it goes...my laptop flyin' into the air cause of that dang spring I keep forgetting about dat needs fixin in my easy chair!!!
Crazy, I'm crazy, I am absolutely!
Do you guys have javascript turned off, or anything like that?
Dean did mention Firefox but I am really not computer savvy. I have microsoft.
I really do appreciate you taking the time to go over it like you did checking things out.
If you come back you could drop me a line to.
JReitsma@satx.rr.com or inspjourneys@satx.rr.com
Sincerely,
Janelle
You make good points, but Dean is the King because he's married to the Queen.
Arnold Harris wrote:
"Okay, SMA,
I'll be your favorite over the top fascist, if that's what pleases you. But I like to think of myself as a right on the top rationalist. That means right on the line, neither under nor over.
And the fascisti, as I recall, detested rationality and rationalism. Lovers of Plato and Kant, they probably were, while us rationalists prefer Aristotle and Rand."
Excellent analysis. Hitler and Mussolini had no liking for Ayn Rand, that is for certain. In fact, they were diametrically opposite. Ties in with the Pournelle Axes, a spectrum I refer to constantly, with its two dimensions of Statist vs. Anti-Statist and Rationalist vs. Irrationalist.
As for me, I prefer Empedocles and Nietzsche.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.