John Cole: Quoting Original Documents is “Unfair and Unbalanced” (UPDATED)
John Cole, who has spent the past two days busting his buttons over how reasonable he is regarding the Terri Schiavo case, today accuses Michelle Malkin of being “unfair and unbalanced” for the sin of quoting directly from the Terri Schiavo autopsy report. Here is the portion of Malkin’s post that Cole quotes (the bold type is Cole’s emphasis):
In Michael Schiavo’s favor, the autopsy report also casts doubt on the Schindler family’s long-held view that a 1991 bone scan indicated traumatic injury. The report notes that Terri had severe osteoporosis and that the bone scan findings might have also reflected “the aftermath of remote intense CPR, infection, bone turnover, artifact or intense physical therapy. In summary, any rib fractures, leg fractures, skull fractures or spine fractures that occurred concurrent with Mrs. Schiavo’s original collapse would almost certainly ahve been diagnosed in February 1990 especially with the number of phsyical exams, radiographs, and other evaluations she received in the early evolution of her care…”
However, the report notes this caveat: “Without the orginal bone scan and radiographs from that period, no other conclusions can [be] reasonably made.”
Cole concludes: “Unfair and unbalanced.”
“Unfair and unbalanced.” Because she quoted from the actual original source! What unbelievable wingnuttery!
Cole’s commenters jump right in. One dubs Malkin “Ms. Wingnuttia.” Others agree that “the worst part about Malkin is that she actually believes herself.” And one fellow actually suggests starting a fund to help Michael Schiavo take people like Malkin to court for libel:
I’m sure Michael Schiavo could find plenty of us to drop $40 to fund his legal fees to take chumps like Hannity and Malkin to court.
This is Democratic Underground type stuff. I’m dying to see how Cole justifies this. Will he claim that he really meant to be quoting Malkin favorably, and that all his commenters just misread his post as criticism?
I doubt it. More likely, he will encourage us all to “read between the lines.” Sure, it looks like she’s just quoting a report — but why is she quoting those lines? What is she really trying to say???
I suspect that this is the latest installment in the “We know what you really meant” series from those oh-so-reasonable centrists. Here’s how the game is played: a centrist blogger accuses a conservative blogger of saying something that the blogger never actually said, such as “You equated the filibuster deal with lynching!” or “You’ve claimed that Michael Schiavo abused his wife and actually put her in her coma in the first place by beating her!”
When the blogger responds by pointing out that he or she never actually said any such thing, the centrist blogger never backs down, but instead responds by saying: “We know what you really meant.” The centrist blogger then mocks the conservative for lawyerly hair-splitting, and scurries around for evidence that the conservative blogger must have actually meant what the centrist accused him of.
An important feature of these accusations is that they are generally expressed in incredibly harsh language, such as (falsely) accusing the conservatives of dishonesty, a lack of patriotism and being beneath contempt, irrationality, and just general wingnuttery. They are also invariably accompanied by profuse self-congratulation on the part of the centrist blogger for so very reasonable and mainstream.
Today’s installment, in which a “centrist” conservative excoriates a “wingnut” for having the gall to quote from an original source document at the center of a controversy, is the logical and laughable conclusion of this odious trend.
UPDATE: Dammit. I did an update and it got lost somehow. I’ll try to recreate it as best as I can:
Cole responds in the comments that the “Unfair and unbalanced” language was not directed at Malkin, but rather Hannity. His post is composed of three quotes: a favorable quote from Neal Boortz; the quote from Malkin; and finally the quote from Hannity. The “Unfair and unbalanced” bit comes at the end of all three.
I started to do an update that said that I take John at his word. After all, I may fault John and the Commissar on some things, but I don’t think for a second that they’re dishonest.
But it turns out that you can tell John is telling the truth from looking at his post — though it takes some detective work to figure it out. You have to compare the time that he says he heard Hannity to the time of the post; when you do that, you can see that the Hannity bit came later, just like he says. (It’s even clearer now that he has done an update explaining this.)
It doesn’t change my point. John still meant to bag on Malkin for the simple offense of quoting from the autopsy report. And his justification (as shown in his comment below and the update to his post) is exactly what I predicted: What is she really trying to say???
The best part of Cole’s lunacy on this issue is your first link, where he complained yesterday morning of the “silence” of certain then-unnamed bloggers on a story that had barely broke. He later updated the entry to piss on Dean Esmay’s cornflakes and identify two of the bloggers he had had in mind: LaShawn Barber and Michelle Malkin. Yet he couldn’t be bothered to update the entry further to acknowledge that both of the “silent” bloggers have said plenty on the topic in the interim, even though one of them (LaShawn) had already done so hours before said update.
Between this guy, Joe Gandelman and the Commie, I’m beginning to think the word “moderate” is just an excuse for being intellectually lazy, as if to suggest reasonableness is not to be proven by facts or reason, but instead merely presumed by virtue of where one sits (or perceives oneself to sit) on the political spectrum.
Xrlq (717f9d) — 6/16/2005 @ 8:46 pmUmm.. Actually I accused Sean Hannity of being unfair and unbalanced. I put the post up at 1:55, and then three hours later I heard Sean Hannity babble on, and noted the “Unfair and Unbalanced. It is all right there, you can verify it for yourself. You can even check the comments and find out the first time someone remarked about Hannity.
The part about Michelle Malkin was just evidence of what Boortz said, because one of the few ‘caveats’ out of a 30 page autopsy report that she found important just so happens to be the line that gives license to keep the relentless accusations that Michael Schiavo abused Terri. Even though there is still no evidence- but, you never know. And it certainly wouldn’t be unreasonable to suggest he is an abuser, would it? As long as you just don;t come out and say it, right? Those are the rules we are playing by, aren’t they?
You got the high dudgeon down pat, though. Bravo- nice to see I am not the only one who speaks it.
John Cole (ffc0f8) — 6/16/2005 @ 8:46 pm“I. never. equated. sexual. relations. with. that. woman.”
The Commissar (bb628f) — 6/16/2005 @ 8:52 pmI have always been uncomfortable with unproven accusations of abuse by Michael Schiavo, and have said so repeatedly. Men in particular are often wrongly accused of this and it isn’t right (they’re also far more often victims of it than anyone wants to admit).
Continuing to persue allegations that abuse caused her brain injuries really does little good to anyone and distracts from all the most important questions here.
It appears those will go unaddressed. Perhaps because they are unaddressable in the current climate?
Dean Esmay (7fc94b) — 6/16/2005 @ 9:03 pmThanks for the update. Might right of you.
I might ask, though, what could she possibly have meant when she notes there was no abuse evident in the autopsy, and then goes on to add one caveat that notes that the report doesn’t rule out abuse by Michael?
What should I have interpreted that to mean? I am all ears. Well, two, anyway.
John Cole (ffc0f8) — 6/16/2005 @ 9:13 pmJohn,
I tweaked the update a little; read it again.
I don’t have all night to talk about this, as I have to go study for my test. But how’s about this: she was making clear what the report doesn’t say, as well as what it does. Just like I said in the post. Largely because the media has misrepresented what it says, and she was sharing her thoughts after actually reading the damn thing — something I’m guessing many of the chatterers have not done.
Patterico (756436) — 6/16/2005 @ 9:17 pmDean:
I have always been uncomfortable with unproven accusations of abuse by Michael Schiavo, and have said so repeatedly.
No, you haven’t. You directly accused Mike Schiavo of murdering Terri Schiavo, and you know it.
Whoa . . . sorry — I was channeling Lying Richard Bennett for a second there.
Anyway, I agree with you on that issue. Which is why it is so galling to have people maintain that I don’t.
Patterico (756436) — 6/16/2005 @ 9:18 pmLargely because the media has misrepresented what it says, and she was sharing her thoughts after actually reading the damn thing — something I’m guessing many of the chatterers have not done.
I am willing to give that interpretation the benefit of the doubt, and would have been more so had I not spent the last three months listening to people accuse Michael Schiavo of the worst things imaginable. I will amend my post so that it notes what you think it said.
I don’t get off on smearing people- I honestly read that the way I did.
John Cole (ffc0f8) — 6/16/2005 @ 9:21 pmC0le’s Law
Yesterday morning, before the ink was dry on Terri Schiavo’s autopsy report, John Cole ranted and raved about the “silence” of the pro-tubists in response to yesterday’s autopsy report, which apparently was supposed to prove Mi…
damnum absque injuria (38c04c) — 6/16/2005 @ 10:08 pm[…] wo referenced bloggers had broken her non-silence, and before personally lashing out (h/t: Patterico) at the other over her non-silence […]
damnum absque injuria » C0le’s Law (38c04c) — 6/16/2005 @ 10:09 pmLies! All lies!
(I’m not even sure who that’s directed to, but it seems fitting somehow.)
Dean Esmay (7fc94b) — 6/16/2005 @ 10:17 pmOh, uh — 😉
Dean Esmay (7fc94b) — 6/16/2005 @ 10:17 pmAAAAAArrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
Od’s bodkins, Patterico: you tell us guest bloogers to preface each of our posts with our names, thus:
Dafydd: Invadis Interruptus
…And then you create a post with the title:
John Cole: Quoting Original Documents is “Unfair and Unbalanced”
The natural assumption everyone will make is that the post is by John Cole, who has mysteriously transsubstantiated himself into a new guest blogger.
Yeesh!
Dafydd (df2f54) — 6/17/2005 @ 12:19 amA new and curiously self-flagellating guest blogger . . .
Patterico (756436) — 6/17/2005 @ 12:21 amDoes he have a brother named Juan?
Dafydd
Dafydd (df2f54) — 6/17/2005 @ 4:28 amI just visited Mr. Cole’s blog using the link you provided.
What is it that causes people like that to rant and rave for the right to put an invalid to death?
ttyler5 (77d0e0) — 6/17/2005 @ 5:17 am““Unfair and unbalanced.” Because she quoted from the actual original source! What unbelievable wingnuttery!”
I gotta say, its pretty clear that wasn’t in reference to malkin.
Its also pretty clear his beef is the standard ‘quote taken out of context’ beef. Which by itself, isn’t so outlandish.
actus (cd484e) — 6/17/2005 @ 6:40 am[…] 7;s the background. Now to the fun stuff: In the comment thread to that John Cole post I linked last night, a commenter relied on the […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » A MoDo Waiting in the Wings (0c6a63) — 6/17/2005 @ 6:56 amIt’s crystal clear that he was criticizing Malkin, and it’s quite clear that the criticism was for simply quoting the report. And there’s not a damn thing about the quote that was out of context.
Patterico (756436) — 6/17/2005 @ 7:23 am“Its crystal clear that he was criticizing Malkin”
Of course. But not that the ‘fair and balanced’ line referred to her.
“And theres not a damn thing about the quote that was out of context”
That’s different than “by itself.” The context, if any, would be the bit saying that had any foul play existed, it would have been found then.
[Right. The bit that she quoted. So it wasn’t even slightly out of context. — Patterico]
actus (cd484e) — 6/17/2005 @ 7:39 amHow about the fact that Malkin says that the claims of abuse have not been disproven, but that the claims of bulimia have been?
Her purpose was to suggest that there’s no reason to believe that Michael Schiavo wasn’t guilty of abuse.
Which is utter crap. There is no reason to believe he was guilty of abuse, and that is the end of discussion amongst principled folks.
Geek, Esq. (7fc41b) — 6/17/2005 @ 9:06 amActually, Geek, there is reason to believe that he is guilty of abuse; but there is no evidence to prove it in either direction since a proper investigation was never undertaken, or the record of such an investigation was never made public.
Charles D. Quarles (593219) — 6/17/2005 @ 10:08 amWhat reason is there to think there was abuse? And please, no statements from people who swore Terri could see the nice shiny balloons.
There’s more reason to suspect that Michelle Malkin supports the Ku Klux Klan than there is that Michael Schiavo physically abused his wife.
Geek, Esq. (7fc41b) — 6/17/2005 @ 10:19 amCharles, I’m also unaware of any evidence of abuse. Early on in the case, there was some discussion of Michael Baden having an opinion based on bone scans or some such thing. I never paid close attention to it because the evidence seemed thin. (I linked without comment to one article by Nat Hentoff discussing the issue and people like Richard Bennett equate that with my shouting accusations with a bullhorn, but whatever.) Now, from what I can tell, whatever evidence people had relied on seems to be explained in the autopsy report. Again, I have only had a chance to skim it, but that was my impression; as many have been saying, the fact that it didn’t “exonerate” Michael Schiavo on that issue seems to have relatively as much meaning as the fact that it didn’t exonerate you or Geek, Esq. either. If you’re going to say that there is indeed reason to believe this, you should say what that reason is.
Patterico (e6d88d) — 6/17/2005 @ 11:35 amWhat makes you think she couldn’t? The autopsy report says she was blind when she died; it doesn’t say how long she was before that. It’s not as though the video had been made on the eve of her death; it was several years old.
Xrlq (e2795d) — 6/17/2005 @ 1:47 pm“It’s not as though the video had been made on the eve of her death; it was several years old.”
I don’t think the line that the video was useless as to her state as she died is quite the line we got.
actus (cd484e) — 6/17/2005 @ 1:50 pmActually, Actus, I have a different question for you: did the autopsy reveal evidence that Terri Schiavo expressed the wish to die if she were ever in a persistent vegetative state?
Dafydd
Dafydd (df2f54) — 6/17/2005 @ 2:40 pm“Actually, Actus, I have a different question for you: did the autopsy reveal evidence that Terri Schiavo expressed the wish to die if she were ever in a persistent vegetative state?”
Do you really not know the answer to this? Because its obvious to me.
actus (cd484e) — 6/17/2005 @ 2:50 pm“What makes you think she couldn’t? The autopsy report says she was blind when she died; it doesn’t say how long she was before that.”
Oh, I don’t know, How about that giant freaking hole where her cognitive centers should have been?
Geek, Esq. (7fc41b) — 6/17/2005 @ 3:26 pmNrs. Schiavo collapsed fifteen years ago under mysterious circumstances and we still don’t know why. Mr. Schiavo’s lawyer, George Felos, attributed the collapse to a heart attack brought on by bulimia. The autopsy cites no evidence of either bulimia or a heart attack. The autopsy doesn’t seem to support anything Felos has been saying.
David L (b55a11) — 6/17/2005 @ 4:51 pm