Patterico's Pontifications

11/9/2009

More Greenwald Dishonesty: Claim That “Most” of Allahpundit Twitter Info “Turned Out to Be False” Turns Out to Be Yet Another Greenwald Lie

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:18 am



Glenn Greenwald, in his post about Allahpundit and me and Glenn Reynolds, made the following assertion:

Allahpundit’s post consists of a very thorough, contemporaneous, and — at times — appropriately skeptical chronicling of what major media outlets were reporting about the Fort Hood attack, combined with his passing along of much unverified gossip and chatter from Twitter, most of which turned out to be false.

Greenwald has now appended a whiny little introduction to his post, in which he falsely claims that “I didn’t write a critical word about Allahpundit.” To which I say: Glenn Greenwald, you are a very bad liar. In the bolded portion of the quote I just provided, you can see this is a lie — unless, of course, you don’t consider it to be criticism to claim that a blogger has “pass[ed] along . . . much unverified gossip and chatter from Twitter, most of which turned out to be false.”

But was “most of” the Twitter information passed along by Allahpundit false? An analysis by patterico.com reveals that Greenwald’s claim is a rank falsehood. As it turns out, “most of” the Twitter material passed along by Allahpundit turned out to be true. As for the small minority of items that proved to be false (there were only two), it turns out that Allahpundit warned against both of them — but Allahpundit’s warnings were misquoted by Greenwald in both instances.

Let’s take Allahpundit’s citations of Twitter one by one, rendering a verdict as to each:

Update: Hearing reports on Twitter that there have been shootings in the parking lot of some store in Killeen, the town adjacent in Fort Hood. Grain of salt, though: I haven’t seen anything like that on the wires.

Verdict: false . . . but Allahpundit warned it might be false. A fact which the dishonest Greenwald did not tell his readers. Here is how the dishonest Greenwald quoted Allahpundit here:

Update: Hearing reports on Twitter that there have been shootings in the parking lot of some store in Killeen, the town adjacent in Fort Hood. . . .

Whoops! Looks like Greenwald ignored the caveat! Let’s move on to the next citation of Twitter by Allahpundit:

Update: Am hearing via Twitter that Fort Hood’s public affairs office says the earlier reports of a third shooter were wrong and were based on a second eyewitness report of the second shooter. Which means everyone’s in custody now.

Verdict: mixed. Reports of a third shooter were indeed wrong. But reports of a second shooter were also wrong. So Twitter here contributed to the understanding of the truth, but also perpetuated an untruth that had been previously disseminated by Big Media.

I think that, here, the role of Twitter was a net positive for the truth. But, unlike Greenwald, we are scrupulously honest here. So we’ll classify this one as “mixed” — a verdict that gives maximum credibility to Greenwald. (By the way, if you automatically assume the truth of Twitter reports, you are a moron. But that’s neither here nor there. So we’ll let that point slide as well.)

Onto the next Allahpundit citation of Twitter:

Update: Heavy suspicions of a fragging grow heavier still. From Chuck Todd’s Twitter account: “More from NBC’s Pete Williams: US official says early reports are the man in custody is in the military, late 30s, with officer rank.”

Verdict: true. Hasan is 39 and is a major. Twitter wins here.

Update: Good lord — there’s a report from BNO News on Twitter that new shooting is being heard on the base. Nothing on the wires yet. Big grain of salt.

Verdict: false. But Allahpundit explicitly warned readers it might be false. And Greenwald lied about that by failing to pass on Allahpundit’s caveat. Again. Here is Greenwald’s quotation of Allahpundit:

Good lord — there’s a report from BNO News on Twitter that new shooting is being heard on the base. . . .

Once again, Greenwald deliberately omits Allahpundit’s caveat. Let’s move on to Allahpundit’s next allegedly irresponsible citation of Twitter:

Update: And yet another reminder: Hearing rumblings on Twitter right now that Perry was wrong and that the two other “suspects” have now been released.

Verdict: true. The other suspects were indeed released and Hasan was indeed a lone gunman. Governor Perry was wrong, and Twitter was right. So, not only was Allahpundit’s citation of Twitter dead on — but here, Twitter apparently beat out the Governor of Texas on accuracy in this case.

Onto the next one:

Update: Lots of buzz on Twitter about Shep Smith’s interview with a colleague of Hasan’s who claims he was known to say things about standing up to the American aggressors in the Middle East. I can’t find a clip or print account, though. If you see one, please e-mail it to our tips account; I don’t have time to follow the comments below.

Verdict: true. This Twitter buzz turned out to be precisely correct. Onto the next Twitter citation by Allahpundit:

I’m hearing on Twitter that Fox interviewed one of his neighbors within the last half-hour or so and that the neighbor claims Hasan was handing out Korans just this morning. Does anyone have video? Or is this a bad lead? Smells fishy to me but multiple people have mentioned it.

Verdict: true. Even though Allahpundit expressed reservations about it — and Greenwald quoted this passage in a way that suggested it was false — it turned out to be utterly true.

So, adding up the above, we find the following:

  • Allahpundit’s citation of Twitter rumors that proved true: 4.
  • Allahpundit’s citation of Twitter rumors that proved to be ambiguous: 1.
  • Allahpundit’s citation of Twitter rumors that proved to be false: 2.

    And in both cases, Allahpundit warned readers against accepting the Twitter assertions. And in both cases, Glenn Greenwald quoted Allahpundit as if he were promoting the falsehood, while surgically excising Allahpundit’s cautionary language.

So much for Glenn Greenwald’s claim, regarding Allahpundit’s citation of Twitter information, that “most of” it “turned out to be false.” In fact, “most of” it turned out to be true — and Allahpundit warned readers against every Twitter rumor that later proved to be completely false.

Not that the dishonest Greenwald communicated any of this to his gullible readers.

Greenwald could not be more dishonest.

Will his defenders note this dishonesty? Pardon me if I decline to hold my breath.

36 Responses to “More Greenwald Dishonesty: Claim That “Most” of Allahpundit Twitter Info “Turned Out to Be False” Turns Out to Be Yet Another Greenwald Lie”

  1. After the sockpuppetry fiasco, how does this douchebag have any defenders in the first place?

    Kensington (c73635)

  2. You mean this sockpuppetry fiasco?

    Patterico (64318f)

  3. Greenwald: the PTSD is making him lie.

    Dahlhalla (913f82)

  4. Post Traumatic Sock Disorder?

    Kensington (c73635)

  5. Every one of the lies being peddled about us must be exposed and rebutted. You’ve done a very good job. Thanks.

    Loxodonta (061bf8)

  6. After the sockpuppetry fiasco, how does this douchebag have any defenders in the first place?

    Because to them, ideology trumps principles.

    Jim Treacher (796deb)

  7. Because to them, ideology trumps principles.

    And self gratification trumps ideology.

    Besides, they’re better than us, because we’re so stupid we don’t even know what an ellipsis is…

    Loxodonta (061bf8)

  8. Every one of the lies being peddled about us must be exposed and rebutted.

    That’s full time work. I mean whose going to tell us what’s going on in the world? The LA Times?

    No thanks.

    papertiger (b40a74)

  9. Treacher – I just took a look over at LGF.

    A Muslim sleeper perpetrates mass murder on a Texas military base, and CJ thinks congressional Republicans are the crazy ones!
    It’s incredible. I’ve never seen Chuck use the word “alleged” to describe an Islamic terrorist so many times, as he has for Maj Hasan.

    That’s not the lizard king I use to know.

    papertiger (b40a74)

  10. Thank you for a most definitive and enlightening article, sir.

    Way to go, Allahpundit! When it gets down to nuts and bolts, I know exactly who I will trust.

    It is ever so much fun to actually see it in black and white.

    Well done!!! Twitter rocks!!

    Charlotte (dad663)

  11. Caveat: when I said fun, I meant no disrespect to the brave men and women who died at the hands of this awful murderer.

    Charlotte (dad663)

  12. I think Mr Treacher has a very accurate point.A little dishonesty is NBD for he left. To amplify, HRC misspeaking n,on more than on occasion on being under fire3 in Bosnia , claiming to have studied the WSJ articles (which appeared after her commodities score ) ,and occasions of selective amnesia . Obvious lies;backlash :nada.
    JF Kerry Caught lying re’ “seared” memory of being in Cambodia , caught lying about throwing away his medals , even caught lying about running a Boston Marathon . Oh,well.
    And Smilin Joe Biden…..;that’s just too easy .
    So why should Gee Gee be punished. His heart’s in the right place.

    corwin (a9efc6)

  13. Corwin – In the past the Gleeeeeens said, and I paraphrase, that these kinds of tactics are perfectly acceptable when fighting the extremism of the right.

    JD (88ca98)

  14. How do we know Greenwald wrote all that? After all, we know he posts things under another name, is it that hard to think he might allow others to post under his name?

    Maybe he’s like those college football coaches that let the assistant AD vote his top 25 ballot under his name.

    He’s a good liberal and like the liberals in Congress that can’t be bothered to actually read a bill, he can’t be expected to read everything he comments on.

    MU789 (897b57)

  15. Patterico, as one of GG’s “defenders” as you put it, let me just clarify a few things. First off, I’ll put my right wing bonafides up against just about anyone who comments on this site, including you. I know I don’t comment here often, but I read this site frequently and overall I think you do a terrific job of calling out the stupidity and hypocrisy of various media sources and most times your analysis is spot on. The highest compliment that I can give to any one is– you made me think. Many times I have had that response to one of your or your guests posts. Which is why I come back here.
    On the other hand do I spend time at GG’s site and comment there? No. I think Greenwald is a bright guy, his politics, and for the most part his take on events, are vastly different than mine and while I don’t frequent his site, he gets linked to enough by sites that I do frequent that I am aware of who he is ,etc,. Which brings me back to the original point concerning your latest back and forth with GG: I have read GG’s original post several times, I have read his update and I still think your take on his post is wrong. It is as simple as that. He was trying to point out the mess he saw with the national media over a developing story that had major ramifications.
    He wants that process to be orderly (he is wrong, but that is an argument for another day) and his citing Reynolds, you and Allahpundit was a way to point out how disorderly that process is. He did not attack you. He did not take you out of context. Now, your and most of your commenter’s take on this event is quite different. Fair enough. We have a difference of opinion. While I can’t speak for anyone else who has commented here, you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. I am not going to convince you that in this instance Greenwald wasn’t being unfair or duplicitous. Hey sometimes these things happen and this happens to be one of those times. Should you respond to my post and if I don’t respond today don’t take that as I am being rude, etc,. It is 8;30am here and I have to get to work.
    Give War A Chance,
    BT

    BT (74cbec)

  16. Did BT just spend 1500 words saying “Nuh uh!”? How Greenwald-ian…

    SaveFarris (bb671c)

  17. He wants that process to be orderly (he is wrong, but that is an argument for another day) and his citing Reynolds, you and Allahpundit was a way to point out how disorderly that process is.

    So when Greenwald said most of the info relayed by Patterico and Allah turned out not to be true, that wasn’t an attack on their accuracy. When Greenwald Dowdified their quotes, he wasn’t trying to distort their meaning.

    Congratulations, BT, for a defense of Greenwald worthy of the master himself.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  18. He did… attack you. He did… take you out of context… Greenwald was… being unfair… I am being rude…

    Comment by BT — 11/9/2009 @ 6:29 am

    See what I did there? That’s exactly what Greenwald did. How do you like it?

    Jim Treacher (796deb)

  19. BT has also turned to be one of those commenters who think they can get away with distortions by claiming conservative credentials. Sorry, here factuality trumps ideology.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  20. I noticed that Greewald refers to Patterico as a right-wing blogger. That is an old trick of the mainstream media: Conservatives are right-wingers and liberals are left-leaning.

    Also, he mistakenly identifies Patterico as an Assistant District Attorney. He is one of about 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys. There are only a few Assistant District Attorneys who make the big policy decisions in the office. But it should be noted that Patterico avoids commenting on his office. His focus is politics and the media.

    Alta Bob (e8af2b)

  21. Glenn Greenwald advocates for his ideology to rule the way news stories are presented. He wants people to wait until someone of whom he approves packages a news story and presents it to the people.

    MayBee (f18f3a)

  22. I love that anyone would think Greenwald has a reputation to salvage. He’s incredibly dishonest. He knows how to write with integrity… he does so upon occasion, but he often does not. You don’t get to rebuild your reputation as easily as you’ve destroyed it, though.

    What’s amazing to me is that some people on the left side of the blogosphere really don’t understand just how poor a person Greenwald is, because they refuse to actually read the right’s complaints about him. If anyone really read this post, or Patterico’s earlier one on Greenwald, and walked away thinking Greenwald did no wrong, they are completely irrational. Beyond insanity.

    But it’s a lot easier to just leave a bitter comment about how poor, poor Greenwald’s sterling character was besmirched by horrible conservatives!

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  23. I like BT, much. I just think he is wrong wrong wrong on this one.

    JD (5e5cad)

  24. […] the way, as I show in my post below, the bolded language is false, as most of the claims that Allahpundit passed along from Twitter […]

    Patterico's Pontifications » Astonishing Greenwald Dishonesty: Greenwald Lies About What He Says In a Post — In An Update to the Very Same Post (e4ab32)

  25. As I note in my other Greenwald post today, he gives away the game in his latest dishonest update, with the use of terms like dutiful, stenographic, and copying to describe Allahpundit’s coverage. His intent to slam Allahpundit is clearer than ever.

    Patterico (8ce5e0)

  26. I’m sure BT was a lifelong Republican until Sara Palin came along and …

    steve miller (0fb51f)

  27. The Love that is out there…..

    Steve Miller: I voted for McCain/Palin. Do I like Palin, Yeah. Do I think she is the perfect candidate, no.
    Fikes: Please list the distortions that I have supposedly made. I am all ears.
    JD: Thanks for the defense. I hope the Fikes’s and Miller’s of the world don’t label you a left wing wacko by saying anything positive about me.

    BT (74cbec)

  28. BT,
    JD’s “defense” of you was:
    I like BT, much. I just think he is wrong wrong wrong on this one.

    And I already listed your distortions:
    So when Greenwald said most of the info relayed by Patterico and Allah turned out not to be true, that wasn’t an attack on their accuracy. When Greenwald Dowdified their quotes, he wasn’t trying to distort their meaning.

    That is what we have to believe for your Greenwald argument to have any merit. It doesn’t pass the laugh test.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (b111ef)

  29. Yeah, I’m sure of your bona fides.

    steve miller (0fb51f)

  30. I really do not like friendly fire. As a smart one once said, keep your aim downrange. BT may be wrong wrong wrong, but he ain’t no Moby, Leftist, troll, etc …It is possible to disagree.

    JD (b9ca6b)

  31. JD,
    I’ll take your word for it.
    My apologies, BT*, for the unwarranted insult.

    *I still think you’re wrong wrong wrong!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (b111ef)

  32. I am not asking you to take my word for it, though I appreciate that. Go back and look at the comments he has left here. I have had the privilege of sitting next to BT and sharing a meal with him, so I have a little more to draw from than others. My point is simply that it is possible to disagree without being of the Left, and in fact, it is a good thing. I would think that the subsequent and ongoing dishonesty has disabused BT of his position, but he is a big boy, and a racist ;-), and has stated his position quite clearly.

    JD (0f9c01)

  33. JD: Thanks.

    Fikes: Thanks also, hey people are passionate about this stuff, as am I, as are you. No harm, no foul.

    Two things through do hurt: being called a racist by the biggest racist of them all (JD) and having my spelling corrected by Steve Miller.

    BT (74cbec)

  34. Back to my original position – it is safe to assume dishonesty and mendacity from the Gleeeeeeens.

    JD (0f9c01)

  35. I guess we can assume BT enjoyed having his words taken out of context until they said the opposite of his intent, then.

    Jim Treacher (796deb)

  36. I am in agreement with JD’s sentiments about BT, but when BT volunteered that he thought Janet Reno was HAWT, I have to confess I thought there might be something a little off with the boy, plus I think he’s a Sox fan.

    daleyrocks (718861)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2825 secs.