Balko Acolyte: Patterico Maintains Curious Silence on Damning Blog Post for Almost a Whole Hour!
Late yesterday morning, while I was at work, a reader sent an e-mail titled “Wow! Drs. Hayne and West manufacture death row evidence.” The reader directed my attention to this Radley Balko article, which was posted online at Reason yesterday. Balko posted a blog post about it at 1:20 p.m., apparently Eastern time.
Fifty-four minutes later, at 2:14 Eastern time, Balko acolyte Steve Verdon took me to task for not having written anything about it. Verdon argued that my curious nearly hour-long silence was “not surprising,” as Balko had shown me to be wrong about something-or-other and I clearly didn’t want to admit it.
Balko readers agreed with Verdon. Balko’s comment system allows readers to rate comments up or down; each positive rating garners you +1. Verdon’s observation regarding my 54-minute silence is currently rated +9.
So I went Steve Verdon to know: I’m off today and have looked at the article, and I will likely write about it sometime this weekend.
I have done some preliminary research, which reveals some unanswered questions about Balko’s analysis. (This is not to say he’s wrong; I just have unanswered questions — all of which I will detail in my upcoming post.) Because of a busy concert-going schedule (Gin Blossoms last night, Blue Rodeo tonight) my Curious and Suspicious Silence will be lasting several more hours.
I try to stay on top of the local music scene buy I am just as busy as you are. This is the second time you have gone to a Gin Blossoms gig and not given us warning that they were in town. Shame on you. Please make sure and give us some warning next time.
tyree (158c98) — 2/20/2009 @ 4:06 pmWill do. Sorry!
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/20/2009 @ 4:19 pmWell, I can certainly see how they would find that silence suspicious. You don’t see those suspicious silences at Andrew Sullivan’s powerful blog or at HuffPo.
Mike K (f89cb3) — 2/20/2009 @ 4:26 pmReally, how DARE Patterico not notice and comment on something Balko wrote. I mean, it’s only a work-day…
Apparently they assume that, like most people who hang out as places like Balko’s, Patterico is unemployed.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/20/2009 @ 4:38 pmPatterico, stop trying to hide behind the old “I’m too busy to respond right now, I will get back to you later” trick. I will bet you $1000 that you will not have a post up tonight. You will not have a post up tomorrow morning. You will not have a post up tomorrow night. I bet you will not have a post up until SUNDAY MORNING!!!!
This clearly shows your intellectual cowardice and fear of crossing wits with the might Radley Balko.
David
David J Harr (c6fe09) — 2/20/2009 @ 4:40 pmUm … that’s 10.20 AM and 11.14 AM pacific time, right? In the middle of the work day?
Unlike us computer programmer types, I doubt very much that a person in your line of work can be expected to be online during those hours, let alone to post about something.
I mean, it’s not as if, during the days I’ve spent in the courtroom during the last couple of weeks (jury duty, followed by going and watching oral arguments at the 9th circuit), I saw anyone in the room, except for the court reporter, on a computer during that time.
Some people need to get a life.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/20/2009 @ 4:42 pmIt just conconfirms your lack of concern for justice in the World (of Balko, at least).
AD - RtR/OS (809bad) — 2/20/2009 @ 4:42 pmAnd you call yourself a humanitarian.
(giggles)
And people wonder why the world doesn’t take Libertarians seriously?
I love blogs, obviously, and one of the things I enjoy is watching commenters destroy themselves with stuff like the “suspicious silence” accusation.
They post something, then take that big, sloppy lunge of logic to:
Hey look, he didn’t respond. See. He refuses to respond. He CAN’T respond. He’s defeated and he knows it!! Nah na nah na nah..
Of course, then you just respond and that little mind turd floats away faster than canoe headed for Niagra falls.
Why don’t some commenters get the asynchronicity of the medium? It’s a defining characteristic…
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/20/2009 @ 4:53 pmAh, a diet rich in irony…..
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 2/20/2009 @ 4:55 pmThis post has been up for nearly an hour, and yet no comment by Steve Verdon.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 2/20/2009 @ 4:57 pmWhat he says is completely lost upon him.
AD - RtR/OS (809bad) — 2/20/2009 @ 4:57 pmWhatadork!
11 responding to 9
AD - RtR/OS (809bad) — 2/20/2009 @ 4:59 pmI blame Balko. If he needs this type of attention from you, he should be willing to give you a at least 2 days notice that he will be posting on a subject that REQUIRES your response. Certainly, that is more than enough time for you to clear your schedule and be at your computer, ready to go. This way, you will avoid being tagged a slacker by any of Balko’s helper boys.
PC14 (82e46c) — 2/20/2009 @ 5:02 pmSince when does any blogger have the right to an audience?
AD - RtR/OS (809bad) — 2/20/2009 @ 5:09 pmWe should all be just bloody damn lucky to have anyone read our screeds, and remember that.
In a lot of cases, what a blogger writes (and I’m sure we could include Radley in this list) deserves to be ignored due to its’ absurdity.
Large “L” Libertarians take themselves too seriously – especially since they don’t seem to have much of an effect on the world about them.
I question the timing.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/20/2009 @ 5:16 pmNo response to my post about Sake dribbling out of my mouth when my jaw is numbed with Novocaine, either. Patterico, you cannot just hide your head in the sand and ignore the important issues in the world around us.
nk (b70aca) — 2/20/2009 @ 5:35 pmResearch is for sissies. Only wusses deliberate. Give me your uninformed opinion now or your manliness will be forfeit.
The choice is yours.
SEK (072055) — 2/20/2009 @ 5:58 pmI considered commenting on that one, nk, but it likely would have been kinda rude. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/20/2009 @ 5:58 pmI’m continually fascinated by the obsessions some bloggers have for others’ notice of them. Narcissism flourishes online. Besides that, no one has a right to be heard or read. A lot of people don’t comprehend that.
Peg C. (48175e) — 2/20/2009 @ 5:59 pmVerdon hasn’t responded to my recent posts about credit default swaps or Porky Pig swearing, either. That must mean that in his heart of hearts, he knows I’m right about both but is too much of a chickenshit to admit it.
Xrlq (e0ec4f) — 2/20/2009 @ 6:12 pmHey, jealousy… Hey, jealousy.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/20/2009 @ 6:34 pmPatterico and Balko are two of my favorite bloggers. Can someone arrange a celebrity death match?
TomHynes (332f2c) — 2/20/2009 @ 6:55 pmSteve Verdon is not a “Balko acolyte.” He is his own person. He and I agree on some issues, and disagree on others. We do happen to agree that you were wrong in your initial ad hominem attack on my motivation for investigating Hayne.
Steve blogs under his own name at Outside the Beltway, a site that gets far more traffic than mine does. I don’t tell him what to do. Nor did I instruct anyone to vote his comment up or down.
Therefore, a more appropriate title for this post would have been, “Steve Verdon: Patterico Maintains Curious Silence on Damning Blog Post for Almost a Whole Hour!” It’s amusing and revealing that you decided to put my name in the headline.
For the record, I think Steve jumped the gun with this particular criticism of you. However, I would assume he was merely anticipating that you would react to this story the way you have to a full year’s worth of accumulating evidence that you were flat wrong in your series of attacks on my credibility in the fall of 2007. You have completely ignored it.
If you’ll remember, you claimed the “main” reason I was investigating Hayne was because if I could discredit him, it would help Cory Maye get a new trial, and that I should have disclosed this, because if Cory Maye got a new trial, it would help my career. My response was that this was nonsense, because the Hayne story is much bigger than the Cory Maye story, and that if Maye got a new trial because of Hayne, it would mean that dozens, perhaps hundreds of other people would too. The Maye story led me to Hayne. But it by no means “the reason” I wrote about him. Journalists learn about bigger stories via smaller ones all of the time. Your demand for disclosure was nonsense.
By the way, I’ve written about Hayne for Reason, Slate, the Wall Street Journal, the Federalist Society, and the Jackson Clarion-Ledger. Thus far, you’re the only one who seems to have this opinion. Well, you and your anonymous “media ethics expert” who felt so strongly about the matter that he didn’t want to say anything publicly (odd that you went ahead and mentioned him anyway, given that you regularly criticize the L.A. Times for relying on anonymous sources).
Since your criticism of me, two men who were convicted in large part due to the testimony of Hayne and Michael West have been exonerated by DNA testing. Tyler Edmonds, the case you raised holy hell about, was given a new trial because of Hayne’s preposterous “two hands on the gun” testimony. Minus that testimony, he was acquitted in his second trial, and is now free. I’ve written about a half dozen more cases where Hayne’s testimony has been strongly criticized by other, more reputable forensic pathologists. I’ve also written about how he has corrupted the civil justice system in Mississippi by giving bad testimony for trial lawyers. The Innocence Project is investigating hundreds of cases where Hayne has given questionable testimony. The state of Mississippi has barred Hayne from doing any more autopsies in the state. The immediate past president of the Mississippi State Medical Association has called for the revocation of Hayne’s medical license. And the new chief justice of the Mississippi State Supreme Court just yesterday acknowledged that Hayne is a problem, and that he will be carefully reviewing all cases in which Hayne has testified.
I would say that your argument that freeing Cory Maye was my main motivation for writing the Hayne story, and that I was somehow dishonest for not disclosing as much, has been pretty clearly devastated. But you haven’t said a word about any of these developments, which have taken place over the last 15 months.
Steve shouldn’t have criticized you for failing to respond within an hour of this most recent story going up. But his criticism that you haven’t responded to more than a year’s worth of evidence disproving your attack on my credibility is spot on.
It’s also amusing that while everyone else’s immediate reaction to the Haley Oliveaux story has been shock and horror, yours was to post a convoluted attack on my credibility by quoting someone else’s comment on my website.
Radley Balko (1f1495) — 2/20/2009 @ 6:58 pmThe Meta-Narrative is more important than the actual facts !!!!!!!!!!!!!
JD (e08aec) — 2/20/2009 @ 7:23 pm“Its also amusing that while everyone elses immediate reaction to the Haley Oliveaux story has been shock and horror, yours was to post a convoluted attack on my credibility by quoting someone elses comment on my website.”
This is my reaction to the story?
Patterico (d99f6f) — 2/20/2009 @ 7:30 pmI respect Patterico, and count Steve Verdon a friend and so I’m saddened that this couldn’t be discussed at a more sophisticated level.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/20/2009 @ 7:37 pmPatterico – Radley is only acting consistent with its character by distorting your response. It is what it does.
JD (e08aec) — 2/20/2009 @ 7:39 pmRadley still won’t admit his bias. Ain’t that grand.
Patrick (22efbb) — 2/20/2009 @ 7:47 pmI have questioned your credibility since this post of yours, Radley. But then I know the difference between criminal appeals and post-conviction petitions. And I believe you do, too but if you had not made post-conviction petitions by convicts with only time on their hands into “appeals” the outrage generator would have stalled. And I consider that your misstatements, in that post, that the State of Louisiana does not provide a free attorney and a free transcript to indingent defendants on appeal, to be deliberate lies.
nk (b70aca) — 2/20/2009 @ 7:48 pmRadley – You have only yourself to blame for your reputation. Blaming others is cowardly.
Based upon your rather lengthy and unnecessary summary in reaction to Patterico’s post, it sounds like his reaction to your efforts to discredit Hatnes in the matter of Hayes were correct at the time. Everything else you describe happened later.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/20/2009 @ 7:58 pmHaynes and Mayes. Sorry.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/20/2009 @ 7:59 pmI know Steve Verdon as a Balko acolyte because I don’t read his site. My only interaction with him is when he attacks me when I have criticisms of your work.
If, in your view, I have failed to adequately acknowledge your accomplishments, please realize that I do not read your site daily; mostly your items come to my attention through an Instapundit link or e-mails from readers.
In any event, you and your acolyte Verdon seem to think that any discrediting of Hayne also discredits me. That falsely implies that I have been some kind of champion of Hayne’s. That’s OK: I’m used to your mischaracterizing my arguments. It’s one of the reasons I don’t trust you.
While you still don’t understand the Maye/Hayne disclosure issue, it’s good to see that you made the disclosure in your article. You have a good editor; the presence of the disclosure in the recent article (despite your opposition to disclosure) suggests to me that he understands the issue better than you do.
Nice to hear from you as always.
Patterico (b18579) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:01 pmI agree with Radley on one point: attacking Steve Verdon by name in the heading would have made a lot more sense than attacking him under the convoluted assumed name of “Balko Acolyte.” It’s plain as day that Verdon was in the wrong here, but the jury is out as to whether Balko was (and if he was, it was for reasons unrelated to the subject of this post).
Xrlq (62cad4) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:03 pm“I respect Patterico, and count Steve Verdon a friend . . .”
Verdon has never given me the slightest reason to respect him. The “you didn’t respond in an hour” BS I mock in this post is 100 percent consistent with my experience with him.
Patterico (eda11a) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:05 pmXrlq,
It honestly didn’t occur to me that Balko would take personal offense at the title, or I would have titled it the way you suggest. Honestly, however, I know Verdon only as an annoying Balko acolyte.
Patterico (d23db1) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:10 pmWhen the world revolves around you, an hour is an awfully long time not to be noticed!
proof (93e713) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:17 pm(Maybe I should have added the /sarcasm tag?)
proof (93e713) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:18 pmI really just don’t quite get this feud – I even read all the way through the old posts to try to comprehend it.
Having been involved on the defense side of a police “excessive force” case which Mr. Balko took an interest in, I know that he oversimplifies, over-hypes, and over-sensationalizes at least some of the stories he reports. But I think he does this even-handedly with every incident that fits within his particular issues that he advocates for.
As such, Patterico, I think you were wrong to claim that Balko is biased regarding Cory Maye. He’s biased because he always takes the defense side when there’s (in his mind) questionable state tactics, and he then argues as an advocate.
BJC (aaa0f5) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:21 pmOT: It just struck me we are on the precipice of financial disaster and you guys are arguing tiddly winks. I realise lawyers aren’t always well versed in the world of finance but this is actually even scarier than you may imagine.
Have any of you looked up and seen what Obama has done (not) and the fact Citibank and Bank of America may go bye-bye? And if they are bye-bye, I can assure the entire system is done. Fact is the more Gov.t tries to bail out and reward bad borrowers, the closer to bankruptcy our financial system becomes. It is an interesting series of problems for the intellectually curious.
Patter-EE-koh, I ain’t much but you might want to integrate a more business and economics into the blog. It might make a difference. Seriously.
Thoughts?
Obama über alles!!!!! (da3d2f) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:22 pmThoughts?
You are free to start your own blog.
JD (e08aec) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:26 pmOuA – I’m sure he’ll think extra hard about advice from somebody who constantly mocks his name.
Rly.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:31 pmJeez. Get a room, you two.
ShelbyC (1f1ef6) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:36 pmJD,
Well, at least you did not descend into the normal name calling. I consider that progress all things given.
1) I am not trying to be something else so setting up my own blog seems a gigantic waste of time for me. For those seeking some version of fame, notoriety, accolades or intellectual outlet, I think it great use of time.
2) I am not that technically adept and frankly too lazy to learn given everything else I need to process on a daily basis. Employees can do that to one, particularly those with advanced degrees.
3) It is not a silly thought to begin with in spite of your flip remark. I realise you feel better taking it ad homimen with me but these issues at these moments are very important to discuss and I am not seeing it here. I am genuinely curious what folks think.
But hey, just a thought from a dumb ass like mememe. Good night JD.
Obama über alles!!!!! (da3d2f) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:37 pmDaley, read #43
Obama über alles!!!!! (da3d2f) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:38 pm“Narcissism flourishes online.”
I’ll cop to that. I’ve been Pegged!
But it’s a harmless, humble narcissism. 🙂
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:40 pmSo now it has conceded being a liar and a narcissist.
JD (40dc71) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:51 pmWho was that shitheel from a while back who claimed to be an international businessman with several golf courses and turned out to be a salesman of cheap Chinese sun glasses?
nk (b70aca) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:52 pmWhile you still don’t understand the Maye/Hayne disclosure issue, it’s good to see that you made the disclosure in your article. You have a good editor; the presence of the disclosure in the recent article (despite your opposition to disclosure) suggests to me that he understands the issue better than you do.
I, and the editors at all of the aforementioned publications apparently “don’t understand the disclosure issue” the way you do. But I suppose you’re more of an expert on journalistic ethics than all of them, too.
We mentioned the Cory Maye case in this article because we were referencing Reason’s history of investigating Hayne, not because of any sense of obligation to let people know that I stand to gain financially if Hayne is discredited, and Maye is given a new trial.
When you refer to “my editor,” I assume you’re referring to Matt Welch. But Matt also believes that you were off-base when you complained about disclosure in the original article. Ask him if you like.
Radley Balko (1f1495) — 2/20/2009 @ 8:59 pmOuA – There are blogs which cover the topics which you feel Patterico is remiss in covering.
Fly my pretty.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/20/2009 @ 9:05 pmBalko I found Patterico’s wonderful blog because I was reading yours.
I’m sure Patterico would admit that you do the world a service, and his beef with you is that you kinda take things a bit too far in a defensive and sensitive way. This ‘acolyte’ is clearly a huge fan of yours to go way off the cliff with his stupid attack on Patterico’s ‘curious silence’. It’s not just fair, but banal to point out that he’s a Balko fanboy who is being a jerk. I didn’t see this topic as a real attack on your credibility, integrity, etc.
I admire a lot of what you’ve done, and I think being nicer to folks you disagree with (even if you feel like they aren’t nice to you) would do your cause a hell of a lot more good than is being done right now. But to get there, I think you need to have thicker skin and realize that hard scrutiny of what you do is a GOOD thing for your credibility.
Thank God that monster with the fake teeth has been stopped, and thank you for bringing attention to it. Now, realize that Patterico has also worked very hard to bring people to justice, in various ways.
Whether you stand to gain financially from Maye is a red herring. You do stand to gain because of your championing of that case and how it’s obviously a huge part of who you are. You want Maye free, and it eats at you that he’s in the situation he’s in today. Not mentioning that stake you have would be unprofessional in this new, more serious, story, so I’m glad it was brought up. You have nothing to be ashamed of… you are an advocate.
And this is a fair criticism of your ‘credibility’ as an impartial journalist. That doesn’t mean it’s an attack on your honor. I think those comments are based on specific ways in which you tend to characterize things to the limit by which you can make an argument out of them. It’s transparent sometimes, and when you direct it at a nice professional person who is scrutinizing you, it makes you look like you are hiding something (which I sincerely believe you are not).
Don’t be so defensive. Admit that you have a bias, and that he has his, and that you were right in this case but you realize he’s in as sincere a pursuit of truth as you are.
I suspect that you don’t want to be at ‘war’ with a blogger as productive and intelligent and frankly, fair, as Patterico. And he probably just wants you to admit you’ve kinda gone astray a few times in how you characterize his actions. You have an opportunity to be a bigger man, and note that Patterico scrutinizing your work makes your work more credible because Patterico is diligent and honest. Acknowledge your personal conflict with him, and set it aside and try to be friends. The work you are doing is bigger than some internet drama party.
Joco (4cdfb7) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:30 pmWhen you refer to “my editor,” I assume you’re referring to Matt Welch. But Matt also believes that you were off-base when you complained about disclosure in the original article. Ask him if you like.
Matt knows how to work the intertubes. He can comment if he likes. If it’s important to you, you’re welcome to ask him to.
I agree with a lot of what Joco says and I have no particular interest in being “at war” with you. I think it’s good that you mentioned the Cory Maye thing in this piece, even if you didn’t do it for the reasons I thought you should have in your previous WSJ piece.
If I support disclosure, that doesn’t mean that I agree with the most adverse inferences that the disclosed facts could support. I just happen to be a big fan of disclosure and putting facts and biases on the table.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/20/2009 @ 10:53 pmLooks pretty bad for Dr. West by that video. The only possible explanation, other than evidence fabrication, would be if the first part of the video was mirror imaged to make a left side profile look like a right side profile.
We also don’t see a closeup of the cheek prior to the dental mold being pressed in or “compared” so it might be that the bites were faint and were made more pronounced by the procedure.
j curtis (20790f) — 2/21/2009 @ 12:07 amWho was that shitheel from a while back who claimed to be an international businessman with several golf courses and turned out to be a salesman of cheap Chinese sun glasses?
Z.Z. ‘Tiger’ Thaop?
allan-san (3b5f8f) — 2/21/2009 @ 9:10 amJournalistic ethics? Good Allah, I love the rich taste of unintentional irony.
JD (4a1b82) — 2/21/2009 @ 12:30 pmJournalistic ethics deservedly has the same connotation as Military Intelligence. But, while the military does indeed have some intelligence, mainstream journalists have zero ethics.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/21/2009 @ 12:51 pmCan we have a review of the Blue Rodeo show please?
Canuck Crusader (415d31) — 2/21/2009 @ 2:12 pmUm, it was awesome. It was an acoustic show at McCabe’s, and we were sitting second-row dead center. It was the show of a lifetime. (I’d do a post with more detail, but I’m pressed for time.)
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/21/2009 @ 2:20 pmI bought a second-row seat in early November. That row is not always the best. My seat was to a b-ball game and I paid close to 3 bills for it. Half the game was covered by the b-ball stanchion. I hope your seat was a little better.
I can say the Cavs had an 11-0 lead at the start of the game and the Hawks never had a chance, so that was a good thing anyway. (And I got on the big screen as “best beard” during the game.)
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/21/2009 @ 2:25 pmYou’ve clearly never been to McCabe’s. Sitting in the front row, you could stand up from your chair, take one or two steps forward, lean over and touch the performer’s feet. Second row is awesome.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/21/2009 @ 3:43 pmHey, if you’re going to see Blue Rodeo…tell Bob Egain, Virginia said, “hi.”
I know Tyler…better say nice things about him.
virginia (7262c2) — 2/21/2009 @ 3:48 pmI also got an e-mail from a guy I know about this story. I haven’t done any additional research beyond what I already knew; both Patterico and Balko are likely to be significantly more expert on the story than I am.
My take, FWIW: Dr. West is an old story, but light on it seems quite appropriate. There are a number of easy complaints on Balko’s coverage (I’d sure as hell travel if I needed to for a toddler’s autopsy; one of West’s quotes seems awfully unlikely; one of the guys Balko cites as reliable has had some pretty severe run-ins with the medical association) and one big impediment to knowledge (there’s a lot more video out there, in all likelihood, though I think putting the whole thing on the internet wouldn’t be appropriate).
But West’s history…. yikes. And his testimony…. yow. And the video…. oh, so very bad. Systemic errors like this, where critical forensic evidence used with some frequency turns out to be roughly as scientifically valid as reading tea leaves (and I’m talking specifically about West here), ought to be exposed. Agencies should be careful with the evidence they use.
And if you pull the crap Dr. West did, you should have your career run to ground. Deterrence is good.
–JRM
JRM (355c21) — 2/21/2009 @ 10:00 pmI’ve always opposed arguments from silence – drawing conclusions from what someone does not say. The problem is that your conclusion is inevitably one of hundreds of equally valid reasons for the silence. It is mere speculation, a false way to put words in another person’s mouth.
Amphipolis (e6b868) — 2/22/2009 @ 8:12 amI like both blogs, both present the public with important issues along with some light hearted stuff mixed in.
When I saw that comment by Verdon all I could think was, WTF! I’m actually surprised at the amount of fluff over it.
Others have said enough on the side issues.
TC (0b9ca4) — 2/22/2009 @ 1:38 pmWhile I doubt my word weighs any heavier than Radley’s here, I have to say, I’m a pretty serious journoprude about conflict disclosure, and I find the theory propounded re: Radley’s op-ed frankly bizarre. Journalists always stand to benefit professionally when a story that’s connected to their central concerns creates a stir. I’d be curious to know which media ethicist thought there was some kind of disclosure obligation in this case, because it strikes me as a really unusual claim. I can’t think of an analogous case where failure to reference one’s own prior related writing was regarded as any sort of lapse in professional ethics.
Julian Sanchez (ec0de8) — 2/23/2009 @ 10:11 amSo how’s that blog post refuting Balko’s article due to ‘unanswered questions’ coming? If you didn’t have anything to say (or find the topic interesting) why didn’t you just ignore the silly email?
Joe (c0e4f8) — 2/23/2009 @ 4:56 pmSo how’s that blog post refuting Balko’s article due to ‘unanswered questions’ coming? If you didn’t have anything to say (or find the topic interesting) why didn’t you just ignore the silly email?
It’s about 4320 words in draft form. I got an e-mail response today but have phone calls out to three different people and am awaiting a response.
May take another day or two.
And it’s not a blog post “refuting” his article. Where did I say that? Answer: nowhere. So please don’t misrepresent what I said.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/23/2009 @ 11:10 pmWhile I doubt my word weighs any heavier than Radley’s here . . .
Julian, as far as I’m aware, you haven’t serially misrepresented my position in countless blog posts and comments over the years. I’m happy to listen to what you have to say.
But have you actually read my argument as to why it’s relevant, or have you just heard Balko complain about it?
My argument is set forth here. Let’s start with this: do you at least think the Maye connection is relevant to the story about Hayne?
I think, looking back on it, that Balko mainly got mad about one word in the title of my original post on the topic. I just added an update to that post to indicate that I would word it differently if I were writing the post today. Specifically:
I maintain that the Maye case is relevant to any article Balko writes about Hayne. Balko made his reputation with the Maye case. Especially in the Wall Street Journal, where not everyone knows Balko, I think that in his article about Hayne, it should have been mentioned as relevant.
I don’t really enjoy endlessly discussing this and I didn’t bring it up, but that’s my position.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/23/2009 @ 11:28 pmSpeaking as a fan of Patterico, Balko and Sanchez, my lay opinion is that Balko should have disclosed, particularly as the article in question was an op-ed, or advocacy piece, and not straight reporting. The key quote from Patterico’s letter to the WSJ (at the first link in “67”, above) reads:
‘Dow Jones’s Code of Conduct for employees states in part: “There are no hidden agendas in any of our journalistic undertakings.”’
Balko had an agenda, freeing Cory Maye, that was served by bringing Hayne down. This agenda was in effect hidden from any reader not already familiar with his other writings. Balko states that he see’s no conflict. I take him at his word and therefore conclude he didn’t intentionally conceal this agenda. That doesn’t alter my belief that disclosure was called for.
As near as I can tell, Sanchez appears to think Patterico’s theory “frankly bizarre” primarily because he mistakes a minor point from the letter above for the main argument. This is surprising coming from a former college debater.
fat tony (83f355) — 2/24/2009 @ 1:18 amBalko states that he see’s no conflict. I take him at his word and therefore conclude he didn’t intentionally conceal this agenda.
I said the same thing at the time:
Dang, I’m good at predictions, huh? From Balko’s comment above:
Sigh. No matter how carefully I refrain from accusations, I’m read as making them.
fat tony, when I do publish my post on Balko’s latest piece (and I plan to, Joe, so stuff your false assumptions), pay attention to what I say — and how it’s interpreted by Balko’s fans. (I don’t say Balko because I’m really hoping that he’ll refrain from reflexive anger and really read what I’m saying.)
It’s already happening. I said I had unanswered questions and Joe claimed that was a threat to “refute” Balko’s article.
NO MATTER WHAT I SAY, this will be ugly. No matter what. I. say.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/24/2009 @ 2:04 amSorry if I inferred too much from your post and comments. The combination of the strident criticism of Balko’s credibility (you’ve said many many times that you don’t trust him)with the line “unanswered questions” lead me to the wrong conclusion about your ultimate point. I’m Glad that you are following up with the article, I look forward to reading it.
Joe (c0e4f8) — 2/24/2009 @ 3:14 amI read Balko’s post and watched that awful video, and my only conclusion is “I don’t know.” I just don’t know if it proves what he says it proves. I don’t know whether marks like that appear after death or not, and whether the bite guy was doing something wrong. On its face, he appears to have a point.
carlitos (ebd4ab) — 2/24/2009 @ 5:17 amI’ll vouch for that. Anyplace in the room is awesome, just as any seat in your living room would be awesome if the band were playing there. I recall seeing X at McCabe’s. That was a hell of a show.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/24/2009 @ 5:33 am[…] to a Radley Balko article that Verdon felt had showed me up somehow. The article had been posted for 54 minutes with no comment from me. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Balko Response Fallout: Verdon Still Suspiciously Silent; Jimmie Duncan’s Lawyer Not So Silent (e4ab32) — 7/22/2009 @ 12:11 am[…] Just wanted Steve Verdon to know that something’s coming, since the piece has already been online for more than 54 minutes. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Full Balko Story on “Manufactured Evidence” Now Online (e4ab32) — 7/22/2009 @ 12:16 am