Power Line has responded to Camille J. Gage’s op-ed in the Star Tribune. They sent a response to the Star Tribune. An excerpt:
In her column, Gage claims she asked whether Power Line posts are fact-checked, and that I (Hinderaker) was “dismissive of the question.†This is nonsense. On Power Line, we apply exactly the same standard of fact checking that we use for the numerous columns we have published in the Star Tribune, the New York Times, the New York Post and other reputable newspapers over the past 13 years.
More important, Gage went on to claim, once again, that the news story we linked to last October was untrue. She wrote that she “made a few phone calls†and found that “there was no factual basis for the voter fraud allegations.†Remarkably, however, her column contains no information as to whom she called, or what facts she learned that showed that the news story was false.
Puzzled by this, we contacted Eric Ringham, commentary editor of the Star Tribune, and asked whether the newspaper had asked these obvious questions of Ms. Gage. To our amazement, Ringham stated that no one at the newspaper had asked Gage to explain the basis for her claims. In fact, the Star Tribune’s editors did no fact checking whatsoever before they ran Gage’s column accusing us of failing to check facts. None. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
Because the editors did no fact checking, they did not know that the FAIR report, far from having “no factual basis,†has been the subject of a criminal investigation.
Because the editors did no fact checking, they did not know that the FAIR representatives have submitted sworn affidavits saying they went to deputy registrars in Racine and Milwaukee who accepted their registrations to vote, even though they made it clear that they were not eligible Wisconsin voters.
Because the editors did no fact checking, they did not know that the FAIR representatives made tapes of their conversations with the deputy registrars which are consistent with their sworn accounts, and have been turned over to federal and state law enforcement authorities.
I wonder if it’s time to bring legal action against the Star Tribune for libel?
Update: A commenter brings up an interesting point: Bloggers like John Hinderaker are probably considered public figures, so if they wanted to sue the Star Tribune, they’d have to prove actual malice, a tough standard. As with many other subjects, I blogged briefly about whether bloggers are public figures in Random Thoughts On Christians, Public Figures And Bloggers.
My new liberal friend John says Hinderaker’s response is lacking.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 54 comments }
I am pretty sure Hinderaker would be considered either a limited or general purpose public figure. Therefore, you would have to show actual malice in addition to the normal common law elements of false and defamatory. (NYT; Dun and Bradstreet.)
But, it’s the thought that counts…
Baron
Intersting. So bloggers, especially high-profile ones, are probably considered public figures.
I would think so. NYT v. Sullivan (376 US 254 (1964)) only applies to public figures on public concerns. You could certainly argue that bloggers are not public figures since many people don’t know who they really are. (Most people still think they are just excitable people in their pj’s.
However, I think the Gertz (418 U.S. 323 (1974)) standard would certainly cover bloggers, essentially making the standard for proving libel just as high.
Gertz applies to private figures on topics of public concern. Powerline would certainly qualify as that. What Gertz does that the NYT standard doens’t do is reduce the culpability to negligence at a minimum. That seems good at first, because it is a lower hurdle for Powerline to prove libel against the Tribune.
However, if you only prove negligence, instead of actual malice, you only are entitled to actual damages. With actual malice, you get presumed damages.
So, if you can classify bloggers as limited purpose public figures, you can actual damages on libel. But, the old axiom would probably bar recovery – no press is bad press. The truth is, Powerline hasn’t lost any credibility. If anything, he has come out ahead in all of this. The Tribune is essentially giving him free press. Therefore, no actual damages, even though he could probably prove negligence.
I hope this cleared things up. You have a great blog, La Shawn. And please, lawyers – don’t comment on my lack of blue book citing. I was trying to make this as simple as possible.
Baron
I just read my comment again after posting. I apologize for the numerous typos. The substance is correct if you can follow it. If you would like, I can re-write this later for clarity.
Baron
La Shawn –
Do you practice as a lawyer? If so, how do you find so much time to blog during the day?
Just curious…
Baron
I think they should hop right on to it – Suing for libel.
In fact, I’m tired of the liberals lies that are perpetuated every day that I think that liberals have to get it through their thick heads that no more will lies be ok. They were able to convince an alarmingly enormous amount of people that Bush lied without stating truth themselves.
Lie = (definition given by http://www.dictionary.com)
1) A false statement deliberately presented as being true.
2) Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
It is either liberals do not know English very well or they are intentionally misleading others. Bush was saying the same things about WMD as Kerry, Clinton, Albright and Gore. The information was also the same thing that was being stated by the German, French, Russian, British and U.S. Intelligence Agencies.
The definitions above mean that Bush would’ve had to know that all of these Democrats and intelligence agencies were INCORRECT and then stated something different than everyone else in order to not have lied – according to Democrats..
So Democrats, We expect an apology now for your accusations.
Camille Gage let’s start with you.
LaShawn,
Hinderaker is, or isn’t, a public figure, depending on whether he is, or isn’t, wearing his pajamas at the time of the libel.
Funny how the facts that Gage was supposed to find are the FAIR complaints.
Isn’t that the fact that she originally reported, that PL was counting on the word of 1 person — FAIR?
Libel? How could be it untrue that the blogosphere doesn’t fact check? The guy said it himself.
At worst people are claiming hypocrisy. There’s no cause of action for that. And even that hypocrisy claim is weird. PL checked with 1 source. Gage checked several. Gage’s editors failed to check any. PL’s problems are with Gage’s editors, not Gage. It looks like Gage did more legwork than PL, but Gage’s boss didn’t do as much. Why is Gage to blame for that? Because we want to “blogswarm” like a frothing mob over something.
I disagree, actus. PL is essentially challenging the truthfulness of Gage’s claim that she called sources. If her claim is false, then PL has standing to bring libel. She recklessly disreguarded the truth of whether or not PL checked facts. Therefore, she acted with culpability of at least negligence for the truth.
As per my earlier comment, the issue is whether or not PL is considered a general purpose public figure (I do not believe he is), a limited purpose public figure (good arguments here), or a private figure (tough argument, but certainly PL’s desire).
Assuming arguendo PL is designated limited purpose public figure, if Gage did not check her sources as she said, proving negligence for the truth is a slam dunk for PL. If he could prove actual malice (that she knew she was lying), PL would be entitle d to presumed damages.
Of course, potential litigation would certainly hinge on whether or not she really checked sources. If she really did check sources that told her there was no fraud – case over. The rest is moot, because she would be able to say she relied on the sources and did not know she was propagating falsehoods.
If, however, she called sources that said something different, or if she called sources that said there was fraud, then she (at least) would be a cooked goose.
That is the real issue.
The Strib like the MSM in general has been seing its market share diminish the last few years. Since Rathergate this decline has turned into a fall. The MSM and the Strib are trying to slow down the fall bay attacking the latest group to take a chunk out of their market – bloggers. Viacom and Time/WB attack all blogs while the Strib attacks the home town big blog. They could start telling the truth but that would mean firing the America bashing liars that make up their management and top “reporters”; which would be very painful.
‘PL is essentially challenging the truthfulness of Gage’s claim that she called sources. ‘
Not really. He says she didn’t specify the sources and that the editor didn’t double check on these calls. Thats the part where he repeats “because the editor did no fact checking.”
She has responded to emails about who she called, and what the content of the calls were. There was a commenter on a previous thread with a link to a blog with the substance of that email.
I think PL wants you to think that, but really he’s trying to confuse the people who are supposed to be the ‘fact checkers’. One is PL, who ran a story from a single source, FAIR. The other is Gage, who called several sources. The other is Gage’s editor, who did not independently call to double check any of Gage’s sources.
Gage accuses PL of relying on a sole source and not ‘fact checking’ beyond that one — an accusation consistent with PL’s statements and the ’self-correction’ paradigm. PL accuses Gage’s editors of not ‘fact-checking’ by re-calling Gage’s sources.
PL doesn’t actually say what you think he says. Maybe he wants you to think that, and by throwing a fit over the editor’s failings to do a different sort of fact checking (double calling sources vs. using more than one source) to claim some sort of tu quoque moral ground.
Its pretty transparent once you think about it.
‘If her claim is false, then PL has standing to bring libel. She recklessly disreguarded the truth of whether or not PL checked facts. Therefore, she acted with culpability of at least negligence for the truth.’
Recklessness and Negligence are different things. Why do you go from one to the other?
Actus,
She made an allegation that she can’t back up and now neither can you.
It is the liberal’s pattern and you continue it.
She also made the INCORRECT charge that no voter registration irregularities existed.
There is a criminal investigation which she seemed to not UNCOVER during her “fact checking”
Now she’s in trouble due to HER negligence. You are struggling to save a sunk ship. Her credibility (due to her inaccurate accusations) is gone.
I struggle to figure out why it is within a liberal’s character to always seem to grasp upon an allegation or accusation without seeing that there is another side to the story that actually clears things up and sets things straight.
In the quest to smear our “intentions” or “well-meaningness” why do you have to make allegations and accusations that don’t add up.
Why not just debate about ideas and solutions and proposals instead of always trying to smear people?
Debate on the merits of the social security plan as opposed to trying to say that Bush “intends” to dismantle social security.
When you do the smearing game you lose the argument because you can’t possibly know Bush’s intentions or Powerline’s intentions or whomever we are ALL talking about.
One day the English language will work with liberals….
‘She made an allegation that she can’t back up and now neither can you.’
Of course I can’t. What am I superman?
‘There is a criminal investigation which she seemed to not UNCOVER during her “fact checking”’
But if its a different one than the one that PL was referring to, then she’s still correct: PL referred to one source, which he didn’t check, like he said he doesn’t, because he’s self-corrected and all about the speed. cuz he’s a blogger. not like those tired old MSM types with their editors and their ‘facts’. and now she’s getting ‘blogswarmed’.
“But if its a different one than the one that PL was referring to, then she’s still correct: PL referred to one source, which he didn’t check, like he said he doesn’t, because he’s self-corrected and all about the speed. cuz he’s a blogger. not like those tired old MSM types with their editors and their ‘facts’. and now she’s getting ‘blogswarmed’. ”
Allegations allegations.
You lost.
Was there or was there not voter registration irregularities?
There was.
Gage is surprised because her lack of effort and incredulity had her making allegations which now can’t be backed up.
And actus continues on as if there was no irregularities and no criminial investigation….. as if an investigation has one person investigating (one source).. WOW.
Let’s come up with a new game plan huh?
Or are we going to get more:
1) What did he know and when did he know it?
2) The August 6th PDB was enough to connect the dots and give the President enough info to attack Afghanistan
3) Bush lied about WMD’s in Iraq
4) Bush wants to dismantle Social Security and not honor obligations
5) Bush was AWOL
6) Bush is going to implement the draft
Yeah. We hear you Actus. And we are ALMOST convinced with your arguments. Almost. If you only used one or two different words we’d come around to your line of reasoning. Really. Keep trying. You’ll get us soon.
Actus,
I did use the words reckless and negligent in the same sentence, but both had a specific purpose. For a limited purpose public figure, you need at least negligence. If Gage acted recklessly, then she satisfied the negligence, since reckless encompasses negligence.
PL would have to show negligence, which he could satisfy by showing recklessness. However, as I stated, supra, I think this particular point is irrelevant, since a showing of negligence would only entitle him to actual damages. I don’t think he could show actual damages.
In order to get presumed damages, he would need to show actual malice, a much higher standard.
To your point of whether PL’s beef is with Gage or Tribune, I don’t know if it matters. Wouldn’t the paper be liable for the sins of the writer? Wasn’t that the problem in NYT v. Sullivan. I could be wrong, but didn’t the reporter there “libel” the Montgomery Police Department and their chief. The chief sued NYT, not the writer (actually, I don’t know if they sued the writer or not, but I know they sued NYT). He lost, but the disposition hung on the issue of public figure, not whether or not paper was liable for libel of the writer.
I could be wrong on that last point, as I am in a hurry and don’t have time to pull the case…
Baron
‘Was there or was there not voter registration irregularities?’
But they might be different than the one PL is talking about. I don’t know why this is so hard to get. PL was talking about the FAIR allegations. The question is whether there is a different investigation than that one.
Meanwhile, the mob continues with its mouth-foaming. I mean ’swarming’.
Yes. The liberal MOB continues to try to back up Gage’s allegations against PowerLine with no factual basis.
With respect to libel, I’m guessing that Hinderaker would not have a strong case if it were one isolated instance of libel.
But what if it were repeated instances of libel published by the newspaper within a six month period? Would it make his case for proving actual malice stronger? Or, would Hinderaker be able to sue on other grounds under Minnesota law?
I think that’s what he’s shooting for. Good luck to him. The STrib needs to be smacked around a bit.
‘To your point of whether PL’s beef is with Gage or Tribune, I don’t know if it matters. Wouldn’t the paper be liable for the sins of the writer?’
As far as libel is concerned, certainly. As far as the comparison of ‘fact checks’ there is a distinction. Because Gage’s accusation is that PL is a single-sourcer, while PL’s accusation is that no-one double checked Gage’s multi-sourced work. Different charges.
I think limited public figures need actual malice for libel related to their publicity. So that if Gage is accused of attacking the accuracy of PL, then he is a limited public figure for that. However if she attacked, say, his marital fidelity, then negligence would be the standard.
Actus wrote, “So that if Gage is accused of attacking the accuracy of PL…..”
Actus, PL was accurate (unless you too are charging that they weren’t)
Scott,
Where is your cite for “I think limited public figures need actual malice for libel related to their publicity.” I am not doubting you, but I would like to know where you are getting that.
My understanding is that Gertz controls limited purpose on public matters. That is the negligence=actual, actual malice=presumed.
‘Actus, PL was accurate (unless you too are charging that they weren’t)’
“if,” baklava. “if.” We’re discussing a hypothetical libel claim by PL against Gage and her newspaper, and what level of proof would be required.
Can you please try to string more than one sentence fragment into a coherent whole in your head? thanks.
Actus, sorry my last comment to you not scott
Alright. So now we are getting somewhere. You seem to be conceding that she did falsely accuse and now we are on to the topic COMPLETELY of whether a libel suit will hold up in court due to his public status.
Thanks for finally conceding.
Will enjoy seeing other concessions on your part about other accusations that you’ve had in the past. …
There’s a thought for ya.
‘You seem to be conceding that she did falsely accuse and now we are on to the topic COMPLETELY of whether a libel suit will hold up in court due to his public status.’
If that’s how you understand the words “if” and “hypothetical,” then there’s really not much else that we can do tonite.
Baron:
Thats from Gertz. Though the Plaintiff was a private figure there, the court discussed the possibility of a limited public figure, and likened that to a general public figure for a given context.
The conclusion is thus that limited figures are treated as public for some libel claims, but private for others, depending on the alleged libel’s relation to his publicity/notoriety.
I’m on the run, and have no email and can’t blog this until tomorrow, but did you see this La Shawn? (via Instapundit): http://www.aim.org/aim_column/2598_0_3_0_C/
NBC’s UN reporter on the payroll…
If only my PDA did better on the road with email.
I don’t think there is any question that bloggers that have the status of La Shawn are public figures. Putting up a blog site and actively seeking the public almost certainly puts you into that position.
In fact, I am of the opinion, that a frequent poster to the comments section of a widely viewed blog, might be sufficient to make the grade. (That would include me)
Given the topics that are discussed on blogs like this one is going to pull you further and further into that status.
In addition to the public figure issue, many states like Indiana have anti SLAP laws that provide additional protection to people exercising freedom of speach on matters of public interest.
A law suit for defamation, if viewed as an effort to silence an opponent here in Indiana would result in paying the other sides attorney fees even if there had been a defamation unless it was done knowingly.
(I am a attorney in active practice)
I don’t think there is any question that bloggers that have the status of La Shawn are public figures.
Nooooooooo!
‘Nooooooooo! ‘
certainly for their efforts to organize swarms and gain notoriety for certain topics.
“PL referred to one source, which he didn’t check, like he said he doesn’t, because he’s self-corrected and all about the speed.”
Actus, you’re blending milk and rotten eggs and calling it eggnog.
The issue of fact-checking in this instance is where someone comes across an article, highlights it and says “Hey, check this out. What do you think? Sounds like more troubles in Wisconsin on top of what we already have heard/noted/discussed about, etc”
THERE IS NO NEED, NOR STANDARD, FOR THE FORWARDER TO FACT-CHECK! If so, then everyone is guilty, left, right, moderate. Atrios does it all the time, Drudge and so on.
The simple fact of the matter is PL made NO assertions whatsoever. They merely pointed out what was reported online. IF anyone needed to fact-check, it would be Agapepress, NOT PL.
I believe I mentioned the other day that you obviously didn’t read all of the details, or if you did, the synapses weren’t firing on all cylinders. So for your edification, I’ll quote PL’s post in its entirety (my apologies to JH) :
“Voter Fraud in Wisconsin (Oct 04 Archives)
=========================
Susan Tully, midwestern field director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, became alarmed when she realized that the deputy registrar of voters in Racine, Wisconsin, was an illegal alien. To see whether her fears were justified, Tully [insert link]sent two individuals from other states to Racine[/end link] to register to vote. Here is what happened:
I wanted them to specifically tell this person they were illegal aliens, but that they wanted to register to vote — and she registered them both,” she says.
Tully sent the same individuals to the Milwaukee office of a Hispanic organization of which Racine’s deputy registrar is also the head:
The two activists received a similar response at the Milwaukee office of the Hispanic group. “This time one of the men in the office at least said it’s a felony to register someone who’s not a citizen to vote — but the office manager went ahead and registered them.”
Tully reports that the same Hispanic group has a stated goal of registering 20,000 new voters in Wisconsin. Al Gore carried Wisconsin in 2000 by 850 votes.
If Americans don’t get serious about voter fraud very soon, it will be too late. That is, if it’s not too late already.
CORRECTION: Reader Joe Kachelski points out that Gore’s margin of victory was 5,708.
All PL did was paraphrase Agapepress’ article, for which he provided a link to. End of story, on to another post. On postings like this, fact-checking kicks in as others write in to either/and
1) Supplement, ie relate personal knowledge, links etc
2) Refute/Fisk, or,
3) Provide a correction
Ultimately, if Gage was sincere, her issue should have been with Agapepress, since they wrote the article. Furthermore, this posting was but one in a series noting various allegations, investigations, indictments and verdicts regarding voter fraud.
I rather suspect that Gage made it personal against PL because she was blown off during the PL speech for the very reason stated up above. There was no need for personal fact-checking by PL simply because it was an article tossed out there for readers to make what they will of it. IOW, her question and vendetta was meritless.
I’ve always said there’s no such thing as a stupid question — provided one really doesn’t know the answer. In Gage’s case, it was merely a rhetorical sandbag, so that she could go back and slam blogging in general.
If and only if PL wanted to take that particular issue farther and develop a story, then YES, PL would have to do some fact checking.
Get it?
I am not saying Allan Yackey is wrong, but the Court in Gertz said:
“Petitioner has long been active in community and professional affairs. He has served as an officer of local civic groups and of various professional organizations, and he has published several books and articles on legal subjects. Although petitioner was consequently well known in some circles, he had achieved no general fame or notoriety in the community. None of the prospective jurors called at the trial had ever heard of petitioner prior to this litigation, and respondent offered no proof that this response was atypical of the local population. We would not lightly assume that a citizen’s participation in community and professional affairs rendered him a public figure for all purposes. Absent clear evidence of general fame or notoriety in the community, and pervasive involvement in the affairs of society, an individual should not be deemed a public personality for all aspects of his life. It is preferable to reduce the public-figure question to a more meaningful context by looking to the nature and extent of an individual’s participation in the particular controversy giving rise to the defamation.” Gertz 351, 352.
I imagine most bloggers, and certainly most people who leave comments could be described in similar terms. I like La Shawn. I read her a lot, and I would be happy if she would add me to her blogroll (hint hint). However, I do not think it would be fitting to say she would be recognized by a pool of jurors in a defamation case. I think the same can be said of most bloggers.
The truth is, the vast majority of Americans have never heard of Glenn Reynolds. That’s just the way it is…
Baron
Allan, I’ve also been thinking about what you just mentioned with the Anti-SLAP.
Whatever we know or think of libel and other laws that do, or do not, regulate blogs, is fixing to change soon. There are several cases on the docket that could literally change blogging as we know it.
Since PL is a lawyer, I’ll leave it to him to figure out whetehr or not he has a case against Sandbag Camille or the Strib.
Nonetheless, one of my concerns over the recent debates over disclosure goes back to the adage of be careful what you wish for. I am perfectly content to let print/media journalist claim the “legal” mantle of journalism if it means that the gubmint will butt it’s nose out of the blogosphere.
That also means no disclosures required/enforced from bloggers. IOW, read blogs at your own risk and if you’re too dumb to discern over time whether a blogger is serious or full of it, go sue your teachers for not teaching you critical thinking.
Unfortunately, I feel that they can’t but help get involved and with influence from MSM and other corporate lobbyists, will enact something as inane and onerous as Sarbanes-Oxley in order to protect us waifs from the bad-ole blogger.
If one thinks about it, the list of unintended consequences is limited only by the sky. Fer instance:
1) Wanna blog? Get a license.
2) Review by [cough]censors[cough] before posting.
3) Blogtax
4) Full disclosure of everything about you as a matter of public records
5) so on and so forth, etc, etc.
Of course the goivernment will sell us on the ideal that this will control porn, neo-nazi and other ‘distasteful’ sites etc. The downside is that it could also shutdown conspiracy sites (I admit, some are a trip to read, like the one that claims advaced intelligent life existed on Mars and NASA is conspiring to hide it from us), Godblogs etc.
How? Just look at Ill’s new law specifically including churches in its anti-discrimination law. Taken to its logical conclusion, we may not be able to discuss good and evil, sin etc because it will offend/discriminate against someone else. ACLU has been real busy getting God out of the public square, why not the virtual square?
Andy,
I like your free market attitude. However, I don’t know if it is practical. The MSM is trying to shut down bloggers right now. The PL problem is symptomatic of the current problem. I don’t know if they could get the laws you mentioned past strict scrutiny of free speech. However, if the MSM launches an all out campaign to discredit bloggers, it will probably be more effective than any law.
That is the problem – credibility. It is the currency of blogging, and it is hanging in the balance of situations like PL and STrib. If PL is discredited or loses, the MSM will hang PL on the wall like a taxidermied deer and move on to the next one.
As they bag more and more, good bloggers get thrown out with the bath water. It is important bloggers get behind PL and others like him.
If bloggers want influence, they need to remain credible. If PL and others are allowed to be trashed publicly in the pages of newspapers, credibility is going to remain out of reach.
Let’s face it. Bloggers are gaining influence, but still have a ways to go. Eason Jordan’s story is a perfect example. There is a real story there, and it has gone several days without a mention. There is an eleven year trail, documented by bloggers on LexisNexis and Google, tracking his statements. However, all he has to do is make a quick statement on CNN letterhead, and he is instantly given more credibility in the eye of the public than bloggers.
This is beginning to change. But we have to maintain credibility.
Baron
Baron, I think we’re in agreement. I’m saying it’d be nice to have a freemarket, but the way politics is done these days, it is inevitable that something will be tried. and of course the MSM is pulling out the stops to discredit the bloggers, because they already see it as 2 minutes to midnight.
Whodya thunk that the MSM/DNC would be in full panic at the same time? bwahahaha.
My caution is really aimed at those who may be thinking to themselves “why there oughtta be a law”. Of course I have my fingers crossed for 3 new good judges in SCOTUS to head my concerns off at the pass.
As for the crditabilty issue, what I’m saying is that respect must be earned, not legislated or ethic-ated (is that a word?).
After all we already know what sprouting off about creeds brings us — nada as activists work undercover.
IOW, I don’t care about those who think talkin’ the talk is sufficient, I’ll be watching and listening to those who walk it — and only time will reveal the walkers. There aren’t enough pretty little disclaimers in the world to cover a naked emperor.
That is Eason’s problem, as was CBS. Personally I hope this time it sticks, because I was disappointed that he didn’t get tarred and feathered when he first wrote his confessional in the opinionjournal way back then.
“THERE IS NO NEED, NOR STANDARD, FOR THE FORWARDER TO FACT-CHECK! If so, then everyone is guilty, left, right, moderate. Atrios does it all the time, Drudge and so on.”
And for pointing out the obvious fact that dude has no standards and doesn’t fact check because someone else will do it for him, Gage gets pillored.
Sometimes I don’t know whats the matter with people.
Baron:
‘The MSM is trying to shut down bloggers right now. ‘
Like when CNN had 2 bloggers doing live blogging of the SOTU?
zzzth [static in the attic]
So you don’t concede Actus?
OK. Now the debate is back on then is what you are saying. You actually believe that there was reason for Gage to be incensed at that there was no voter irregularity…
You either concede the point that there was or wasn’t voter registration irregularities. Look at Powerline’s LAST PARAGRAPH of the post on this topic. Do you dare look Actus?
So Gage made a good accusation is what you seem to be saying….
So you want to continue on with the accusation that Powerline’s story was bogus….
And every other allegation that you’ve perpetrated over the last few months.
‘OK. Now the debate is back on then is what you are saying. You actually believe that there was reason for Gage to be incensed at that there was no voter irregularity… ‘
Back? baklava, it left in your mind. I think there is reason for gage to think that the voter irregularity sourced to FAIR isn’t the one that is being acted on.
Actus.
In any argument I try to set a foundation of facts because you are all over the place.
The foundation I’m trying to set is whether or not you think there was something for Powerline to report on or whether or not Gage’s allegations had factual merit.
You are all over the place becuase HOW IN THE WORLD can you be talking about whether or not Powerline has a libel case or not if you can’t even agree that Gage did make FALSE ALLEGATIONS.
In my mind she did.
In your mind Gage was accurate.
That is the difference. While you want to dabble here and dabble there and then accuse others of not sticking to the debate at hand you basically lose the argument. I’m done.
‘You are all over the place becuase HOW IN THE WORLD can you be talking about whether or not Powerline has a libel case or not if you can’t even agree that Gage did make FALSE ALLEGATIONS.’
In discussing law, and for the sake of our understanding for the future, we often engage in hypotheticals. We weren’t discussing whether he had a case or not. We discussed “if” one was filed, what level of bad acts would he be required to prove: mere negligence, or actual malice. We can discuss what standard he needs to meet without getting into whether he actually meets that standard. This doesn’t seem so complicated to me, but I am at a loss as to why you don’t understand the words ‘hypothetical’ and ‘if.’ Maybe you just don’t understand it, but the question of what level of intent bloggers need to show is a generally important one.
In my mind: Gage reported what we all know, that bloggers like PL don’t fact check; and that he single sourced a story to FAIR which is different than the current investigation; and PL is trying to basically ‘tu quoque’ Gage but missing and hitting her newspaper editors for failing to double check Gage’s op-ed.
Actus wrote, “In my mind: Gage reported what we all know, that bloggers like PL don’t fact check; and that he single sourced a story to FAIR which is different than the current investigation; and PL is trying to basically ‘tu quoque’ Gage but missing and hitting her newspaper editors for failing to double check Gage’s op-ed.”
Accusation after accusation. Allegation after allegation. When will you lefties stop. One hit piece after another from you.
That’s ok. We’ll keep increasing our numbers because of your pattern..
Actus, did you fact check the NY article that your referenced and opined about in your blogpost of 17 Oct 04 “We Create Our Own Reality”? Or did you just circle it and pass it on with your two cents?
Afterall, we all know that Suskind’s creditbility is suspect, not to mention the NYT’s penchant for not fact-checking the articles they produce.
Maybe the unnamed aide could sue Ron for putting words in his mouth. Hmmm?
‘Actus, did you fact check the NY article that your referenced and opined about in your blogpost of 17 Oct 04 “We Create Our Own Reality”? Or did you just circle it and pass it on with your two cents?’
Of course not. Thats how blogs work. Don’t see me getting all haughty.
I have no idea why that aide would sue suskind. I can see how putting words into someone’s mouth might make for actionable libel, but we don’t know who it is, so how are we to say there has been an injury to his reputation?
Pot meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot.
The raison d’etre of Sandbag Camille’s screech in the Strib is that bloggers like you should fact check before posting.
‘The raison d’etre of Sandbag Camille’s screech in the Strib is that bloggers like you should fact check before posting. ‘
Or they shouldn’t pretend to be some knowledeable or trustworthy source. I don’t, and I don’t hide it either. I said before in another thread that I think a good ethical standard for blogs would be to hold them accountable to the extent that they are bringing things to the fore which wouldn’t otherwise be noticed.
So I or PL or Lashawn should be held accountable — ethically, not legally — to the extent that we are saying things that would otherwise not be known. PL is trying to bring to the fore a FAIR allegation that we don’t know about, that isn’t widely known. I’m talking about Suskind’s article which I assume just about everyone has heard about. Something which was in the NYT magazine as opposed to something that was in a lesser known place.
Yo Actus,
PL posted the perfect example of the blogosphere’s blazing speed in fact-checking and self-correcting at
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009443.php
Thats very nice. People can look at a filename in the blogosphere.
The first cases involving Blogs and defamation are going to be interesting. While the vast majority of people may not reconize the specific names of the larger Bloggers, they might well reconize them if they were identified as “The guys that “got” Dan Rather or the Viet Nam Veterans that “got” John Kerry.
One of the factors that is involved is whether or not the person sought the public spotlight. That could be a major factor in most Blogs. Most Bloggers are trying to make a large public splash.
Bloggers and commenters on this wonderful new medium, will live better if they have a tough hide.
Actus, you seem to not even know what “fact checking” is. It doesn’t mean proving that an allegation is true and correct beyond a reasonable doubt. It means checking the few objective facts that are checkable. Like whether or not a referenced source exists, not whether or not it is credible.
‘Actus, you seem to not even know what “fact checking” is.’
I’ve been careful so far to compare the two different ‘fact checks’ that are being alleged here: PL’s failure to follow more than a single source, and Gage’s editors failure to re-call Gage’s sources. I think i’m aware of whats going on.
Comments on this entry are closed.