Update (2/9): More on Hannity from Debbie Schlussel.
———————————————————————-
I usually don’t get involved with other bloggers’ problems, but I’m making an exception today.
Debbie Schlussel is one of my favorite bloggers. A resident of Michigan, she does first-hand reporting on what’s going on with the large Muslim community in her area and publishes exclusives on her blog and in her column, which sometimes appears in the New York Post.
In her latest column, “An Ugly Invocation,†she wrote about Husham al-Husainy, a Muslim imam who delivered the invocation at the Democratic National Convention. Debbie has done extensive background research on this man and has even attended Islamic events undercover to expose al-Husainy’s terrorism-supporting views. More here.
For the past couple of days, Sean Hannity has been talking about this issue on “Hannity & Colmes.” Debbie has accused Hannity of citing her work without giving her credit. Since some of her information is exclusive, it’s obvious where he’s getting his information.
[click to continue…]
I used to work for an organization with “connections” to then-Council Member Adrian Fenty, currently the newly elected mayor of the District of Columbia. This high-profile op-ed almost got me in trouble at the day job, and this direct response from Fenty (who didn’t know me from Adam) made them even more nervous.
My libertarian pal Casey Lartigue responded to Fenty’s letter here.
While at that day job, I was itching to write about local politics but couldn’t. Since leaving, the itch went away. Now it’s back. I’ve decided to blog more city government and what I don’t like about it.
For instance, after reading this Washington Post story, “D.C. Schools Considering Unusual Deal With Nonprofit,” I was shocked to learn that neither the Post nor any other major newspaper seemed concerned that EdBuild, a non-profit formed and operated by elected officials, is on the verge of landing a fat, no-bid government contract ostensibly to improve academic performance in schools and modernize facilities, for which is has very little experience, although more qualified companies were rejected. There is a $2.3 billion pot at stake. EdBuild’s founders served in Mayor Williams’s administration, and Fenty just hired one to serve in his. The connections are deep, yet no one is raising ethical or conflict of interest objections.
So I did a bit of investigating of my own and wrote “The EdBuild-D.C. government connection.”
If you have information on insider dealings and political connections between the D.C. government and EdBuild or other organizations, e-mail me in confidence: barbersview [at] yahoo [dot] com.
More to come…
Update III (12/22 @ 12:45 p.m.): Looks like Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, and David Evans won’t face charges of rape. Ding-dong Mike Nifong dropped the rape charges. But kidnapping and sexual offense charges stand. (???) This post is closed to commenting, so please visit the latest post to discuss the good news: DUKE RAPE CHARGES DROPPED!
Every bit of exposure helps. Thanks.
Update: First-time or new readers may be interested in my Duke Rape Case archives (going back to April – sometimes the “Next Page” link at the bottom left of the middle column doesn’t show up in the IE browser unless you move the cursor near the small dash) and two columns I wrote for Townhall, The Most Absurd Rape Story of the Year (original title) and Scottsboro Revisted.
———————————————————————————————–
Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.
I’ve written an op-ed about the latest developments in the Duke “rape” case that I hope will be published at National Review Online this week or early next week. In the meantime, I wanted to highlight a few new items.
It’s becoming incredibly obvious to anyone with sense that Durham County district attorney Mike Nifong is a rogue prosecutor, at least when it comes to the so-called case against the indicted Duke lacrosse team players. At last Friday’s hearing, Brian Meehan (pictured), director of DNA Security, the private lab that analyzed DNA found in and on the stripper-accuser, admitted, under oath, that he and Nifong agreed to suppress evidence favorable to the defense.
[click to continue…]
Soon-to-be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is wielding her unwieldy power. She wants Congressman John Murtha to be House Majority Leader and Congressman Alcee Hastings to chair the House Intelligence Committee.
Remember when I told you I was going to enjoy watching and blogging Democrats’ missteps? Well, the circus has begun. (More peanuts, please!)
Murtha and Hastings are a couple of crooks. And liberals love crooks!
The more corrupt the politician, the more they want him. The more bribes he’s accused of accepting, especially bribes caught on tape, the more they must have him on their team.
Remember “Abscam”? Back in the late 1970s, FBI agents set up a sting operation posing as Arab sheiks from Saudi Arabia who sought U.S. asylum. A senator, six congressmen, and others were involved, including Murtha. He turned down the bribe and wasn’t indicted or convicted. Blogger Patterico watched the Abscam tape, and the evidence seems to show that although Murtha turned down the bribe at that time, he was very interested in continuing the process, but the scandal was exposed. Read Patterico’s post and you’ll see how involved Murtha was. “The guy is dirty,” indeed.
[click to continue…]
Update III (3:13 p.m.): Were Foleygate IM messages part of a prank??? Regardless, nobody forced Foley to write them…
Update II: Thanks for the bone, Mr. Speaker.
One of my “blog children” has this to say about the scandal: “I’ve been purposely maintaining silence on the Mark Foley debacle until it started to die down a little. To be blunt, I’m sick of hearing about it, and I’m sure everyone else is too. As a result, I’m not going to link to any outside material, and this post is the last I’ll have to say about it.”
Update: Welcome to the Internet, A Tutorial for Reporters
In other news: Oooooooh…
———————————————————-
The blogosphere can be a fun and heady place. It can also be backbiting and libelous terrain. However humble were blogging’s beginnings, the medium has morphed into a powerful display of citizen journalism, capturing the essence of free speech.
The blogosphere is like a massive organism, a global publication teeming with millions of “pajama” reporters breaking stories and connecting people. It’s no wonder legacy media organizations like ABC News added blogs to their online offerings. Under the old model, they couldn’t keep up.
[click to continue…]
Also see:
I’m not a big fan of the anonymous (or pseudonymous) blogger or commenter.
I blog under my name, spreading controversial ideas and unorthodox opinions that people like me usually don’t write about or utter in public.
Every now and then something I write generates a wave of dissent throughout the blogosphere. A couple of weeks ago, I endured the wrath of homosexual bloggers and commenters because I dared use the word homosexual in a less than favorable context. I used to think black liberal dissenters were the worst sort. I was wrong on so many levels. Tolerance is a word entirely devoid of meaning in this PC age, and those demanding it of others the loudest don’t practice it themselves. Hypocrisy and irony come to mind.
Last year I was called “anti-Catholic” because I made biblical assertions in reference to the recently departed Roman Catholic pope (at the request of Catholic readers, ironically), and several bloggers “de-linked” me. And the usual self-hater, race traitor rhetoric almost always sent by people using obviously phony names, appears in my inbox from time to time, though less frequently than it used to.
It takes nerve to write what I write and use my real name online, a virtual world inhabited by all sorts, including perverts, maniacs, and just plain old bored fools who get off cyber-harassing others. Don’t take it personally, anonymous bloggers and commenters, but my online experiences have biased me against anonymity, especially from commenters who do nothing but criticize my views.
For these and other reasons, I admire people who blog under their real names. But I understand why some don’t or can’t use their real names. Perhaps they’re whistleblowing employees trying to expose nefarious acts and avoid reprisal at the same time. Others may be concerned about their physical safety or worried that an idiot scoundrel will post their home addresses on the web. Some bloggers use their blogs as online journals, writing about their jobs, relationships, and other issues, and don’t want to be fired or hurt friends and family.
Although I believe people should stand behind what they say, write, and do with their real names, there are exceptions, of course. But one thing that’s unacceptable is taking on a different persona with the intent to deceive.
[click to continue…]
Wednesday, August 9: Big faker.
————————————————————————————————————–
This is the second part of a series of posts called “How to Avoid a Blogosphere Scandal.” See the first post, Disclose!
Plagiarism is stealing someone else’s work and passing it off as your own. Plagiarism is probably the most frustrating thing writers have to deal with, aside from having an editor reject an article idea. Writing is not as easy as it looks. All writers love to “have written,†but doing the actual writing is work. It requires a lot of butt-in-chair time. It requires focus and concentration. At least that’s how it is for me.
Most educated folks can string words together to form a coherent sentence, but good writers know now to string those words together artfully to make the prose sing. Diction (word choice) and how and when one uses literary devices like alliteration, irony, onomatopoeia, and tone are part of a writer’s unique style. The more unique that style, the easier it is to discover whether someone has plagiarized the work.
Writers who take the time to research and craft a well-written, informative, and entertaining story shouldn’t have to worry about others stealing and getting credit for their hard work.
[click to continue…]
Thursday, August 3: Read the second post in this series: Don’t Plagiarize!
——————————————————————
This is the first post in a series called “How to Avoid a Blogosphere Scandal.”
The advice can apply to anyone at anytime, but the primary audience is bloggers.
In my short blogging career, I’ve discovered that the more critical and on-point you are about what’s going on in the world, the more detractors will try to dig up dirt on you, “out” you, or hunt for shortcomings, secrets, contradictions, and hypocrisy. People who don’t like you or what you have to say will always look for ways to trip you up. Don’t give them the satisfaction.
Disclosure
Most professions have rules or guidelines about disclosing conflicts or potential conflicts of interest. For example, the preamble to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states:
The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.
While we may question mainstream media’s truth-seeking ability or whether they truly strive to provide a “fair” account of events, I believe that in general, most journalists recognize that with a free press comes responsibility. The press serves as a check on government. Part of its duty is to make sure we the people know what’s going on. While I trust the media in theory to tell me the truth, I know that no human is truly objective. As long as I know the source of information is left-leaning, for example, I can make judgments about the fairness (or unfairness) of the coverage, even though events may be factual.
According to SPJ, “Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.” That means reporters should disclose potential conflicts that interfere with the “right to know.” Whether or not bloggers consider themselves journalists, we should be under a similar obligation. Bloggers pride themselves on being transparent. That doesn’t mean we’re obligated to tell all our business. It means that we’re obligated to let readers know if we’re being paid to blog about a certain topic or person.
[click to continue…]
Hey peeps! Hube here again. Check this out:
Perpetual racial huckster Al Sharpton has a new gig: pitchman for car title loans.
In commercials airing locally, the ever-colorful Sharpton stands on a stage with an American flag and happily declares, “Finally, there’s someone in Virginia who will loan money to people the big guys won’t loan to.”
Car title lenders give cash to those who own their cars free and clear, with interest rates that can approach 300 percent annually. The lender can repossess and sell the car if the short-term loan is not repaid on time. The controversial practice is permitted in about half the states, and consumer groups are pushing hard for more regulation. “These are predatory small loans,” said Jean Ann Fox of the Consumer Federation of America.
Al doesn’t feel any problem with the ads:
“If I felt this is in any way abusive, I would stop doing the ads,” Sharpton said yesterday. He filmed three commercials for LoanMax, a Georgia-based company with 150 offices across the country, and said he considers these loans different from predatory ones because the borrowers have assets (the car) but not the credit rating to get bank loans.
To virtually no one’s surprise, Al’s like-minded political brethren have felt differently about “predatory” lending. “Predatory Lending is the civil rights issue for this century,†says Congressional Black Caucus member Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-OH) who refers to the matter as a “civil rights issue.”
But this is Al Sharpton, folks. With a list of questionable activities as long as a Fidel Castro speech, Al will nevertheless get a pass on this, too. Besides, according to LoanMax president Rod Aycox, “People just love Reverend Sharpton.”
Speak for yourself, Rod.
.jpg)
In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson wanted to generate support from the isolationist camp to intervene in the war in Europe. According to various sources, including PBS, he formed the Committee on Public Information, also known as the “Creel Commission,” to spread anti-German sentiment.
(Also see Wikipedia’s entries on the Creel Commission and propaganda. Good stuff.)
Wilson hired a “muckraking” journalist named George Creel to push official and pro-war information, and history shows he was successful, although many supported the war on principle, as well. (See Cartooning for Victory and Four Minute Men: Volunteer Speeches During World War I — Are the sources biased? Probably, but as long as they present facts…)
[click to continue…]
by La Shawn on January 10, 2005
in Ethics
Update: Glenn Reynolds links to the Williams post I wrote yesterday. Very nice to be linked from Tech Central Station. (See the “condemned by many” sentence in the second paragraph.)
Also, Rush Limbaugh is defending Williams. He’s talking about others who get paid. I agree, but that’s not the focus of my post.
—————————————————————————–
Armstrong Williams’s latest column is an apology for accepting a bribe from the Bush Administration to promote education law and influence other journalists to do the same. (Perhaps “bribe” is harsh. I just don’t want the “unethical” part to be missed.)
I’m not sure exactly who he’s apologizing to, but for purposes of this post, I’ll assume he’s talking to me. If you don’t know what I’m referring to, read this post to catch up. (To readers criticizing me for not taking Bush to task as well, that post is coming, so don’t lose any sleep over it. And link liberally. Please.)
Let me say this without further ado. We’d all be first class, grade-A suckers to believe this sort of thing doesn’t happen all the time. (To the people who think I’m some naive hayseed who just fell off the truck, this remark is especially for you.)
[click to continue…]
