Glenn Greenwald Smears Allahpundit and Me . . . With Ellipses
Glenn Greenwald yesterday once again resorted to his habit of smearing conservative bloggers by selectively quoting them, and omitting the parts that destroy Greenwald’s thesis. The giveaway is . . . the ellipses:
Last night, right-wing blogger (and law professor) Glenn Reynolds promoted this media analysis from right-wing blogger (and Los Angeles Assistant District Attorney) Patterico regarding coverage of the Fort Hood shootings. Patterico wrote: “Whenever there is breaking news, it’s good to keep a few things in mind: . . . Always follow Allahpundit” — referring to one of the two bloggers at Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air site.
Greenwald then spends much of his post quoting items from Allahpundit’s coverage (taken from Big Media) that later proved to be false. Greenwald claims that Allahpundit was “appropriately skeptical” only “at times” and claims that Allahpundit “pass[ed] along [] much unverified gossip and chatter from Twitter, most of which turned out to be false.” (Actually, much of what Allahpundit reported from Twitter proved to be more accurate than official accounts — but never mind that for now.)
Greenwald’s implication is clear: right-wing blogger Patterico shouldn’t have recommended Allahpundit’s coverage — and right-wing blogger Glenn Reynolds shouldn’t have linked Patterico’s recommendation of Allahpundit.
If only those right-wing bloggers had warned their readers to be skeptical and avoid jumping to conclusions . . .
But wait! What’s that little ellipsis in Greenwald’s quotation of my post? Why, I do believe that’s an indication that he left something out of my quote! Let’s just look at that whole quote to see what Greenwald chose to omit, shall we? I’ll put the part Greenwald omitted in bold type:
Whenever there is breaking news, it’s good to keep a few things in mind:
- Don’t jump to conclusions.
- Don’t be afraid to discuss relevant topics even if they seem politically incorrect.
- Always follow Allahpundit.
Hmmm. So Greenwald omits the part of my quote where I explicitly warn readers, as the very first thing I say, that they should not jump to conclusions in breaking news situations. And then Greenwald implies that my recommendation of Allahpundit was a poor one because Allahpundit jumped to invalid conclusions.
But Greenwald’s treatment of me is nothing compared to his smear of Allahpundit’s coverage. Greenwald’s quotations from Allahpundit’s post are riddled with ellipses that omit all of Allahpundit’s repeated warnings to treat various reports with skepticism. Let’s look at some examples. Again, keep your eyes on the ellipses.
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. . . .
Allahpundit’s actual quote:
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.
Greenwald’s quotation of Allahpundit:
. . . Contra Brian Ross, the AP says it’s unclear what Hasan’s religion was or whether he was a convert.
Allahpundit’s actual quote:
Per the last update, here’s another reminder of why it’s always a bad idea to speculate too much: Contra Brian Ross, the AP says it’s unclear what Hasan’s religion was or whether he was a convert.
Greenwald’s quotation of 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? . . . . “Brenda Price of KUSJ reported to Greta at 10:33: ‘also, the latest I am hearing, this morning, apparently according to his neighbors, he was walking around kind of giving out his possessions, giving away his furniture, handing out the Koran…'” . . .
Allahpundit’s actual quote:
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.
Update: Ryan Lewis offers this transcript: “Brenda Price of KUSJ reported to Greta at 10:33: ‘also, the latest I am hearing, this morning, apparently according to his neighbors, he was walking around kind of giving out his possessions, giving away his furniture, handing out the Koran…’” Sounds like her information is secondhand. Grain of salt.
Almost every caveat offered by Allahpundit is surgically removed to make his coverage sound gullible when it was continually skeptical.
Despite Greenwald’s history of dishonest sock-puppeting, there are times when I want to like him, because he sometimes shows an inclination to act on principle. Specifically, Greenwald has criticized Obama on many occasions when Obama has failed to live up to the standards Greenwald expects from him. Whatever else I think about the man, I admire that aspect of Greenwald’s writing.
That’s why it’s especially unfortunate that Greenwald continues to engage in this sort of slippery dishonesty.
“Allahpundit’s repeated warnings to treat various reports with skepticism” are as nothing compared to Allahpundit’s obvious bias in favor of mass anti-Muslim hysteria.
Glenn wins.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 11/7/2009 @ 2:20 pmI want to save this post and send it in a link to every MSM reporter that treats Greenwald like a valid resource on anything.
How funny that so many in the media got things wrong, and this is the source of Greenwald’s ire. He is such a partisan, even if he isn’t always an Obama fan.
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 2:32 pmWell played. It’s this type of shady analysis to fit one’s meme that requires vigilance to shut down. Your final analysis of Greenwald is spot on – you want to respect the guy, but then he pulls this stunt (or others like it) and you remember that, yes, liberals have to cheat to win.
Chris (93728d) — 11/7/2009 @ 2:33 pmSweet Jesus! Glenn Greenwald, you sir are an idiot.
I believe this has a name… “contextomy”
Andre G. (cac30d) — 11/7/2009 @ 2:34 pmHe’s not smearing you. He’s selectively editing you to advance Teh Narrative.
It’s a simple matter of the ends justify the means. As long as he can make you and Allahpundit look bad, then there’s nothing wrong with what he’s doing.
I’d be surprised if this would pass muster in a law firm, of course, but for The Atlantic this is probably just fine. After all, they defend Beauchamp for quite a long time, and if they could circle the wagons on that lie, they can certainly keep employing Rick Ellers – i mean, Gleenwald.
steve miller (dae725) — 11/7/2009 @ 2:34 pmEven a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then; and, if nothing else, Gleenwald does exhibit a certain degree of blindness.
AD - RtR/OS! (89a0a7) — 11/7/2009 @ 2:38 pmThough, it seems that if there was a caloric value to “truth and accuracy”, he would starve to death.
The point of Greenwald, fairly taken, is that you are advocating a source of information as worth “following” above all others who just collects and disseminates whatever he sees on the internet.
In fact, Allahpundit’s information is just rumor-mongering. It may have its role a al John Stewart or Stephen Colbert, but it is not accurate or authoritative and it certainly is not reporting.
At this point, it is not clear if this is a case of an organized terrorist, workplace violence, or something else. The work sorting that out is being done by the MSM, not Allahpundit (or John Stewart or any other commentator for that matter).
Cyrus Sanai (3b1f29) — 11/7/2009 @ 2:46 pmJournalist?” Glen Greenwald? NOT!
Bad form son, bad form. Does he actually get paid to write??? ack!
J. Raymond Wright (e8d0ca) — 11/7/2009 @ 2:47 pmThe point of Greenwald, fairly taken, is that you are advocating a source of information as worth “following” above all others who just collects and disseminates whatever he sees on the internet.
Uh, except that Allahpundit doesn’t just collect and disseminate “whatever he sees on the internet” but instead is selective and skeptical.
Not that Greenwald’s readers would know that from his highly edited quotations of Allahpundit’s work.
Patterico (64318f) — 11/7/2009 @ 2:48 pmReel pimps be all up in this beyotch
Pimp D (b073b5) — 11/7/2009 @ 2:49 pmToo bad we got all, like, civilized and outlawed dueling.
When the threat of death looms large, you tend to choose your words carefully.
Dr. K (adb7ba) — 11/7/2009 @ 2:54 pmAlso see “Dowdification”
—
Don’t go bothering Cyrus with facts and context. He’s not interested.
carlitos (3261fe) — 11/7/2009 @ 2:54 pmDishonesty is Greenwald’s middle name. Yep, it’s right there on the birth certificate..Glenn Dishonesty Greenwald.
Sometimes I get frustrated with Allahpundit because he can be too cautious IMHO. But that’s my issue, not his.
What’s truly amazing to me is that how Greenwald could think he would not be called out on this nonsense
beedubya (46b990) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:00 pmLast night …right-wing Los Angeles Hood shootings… breaking a few things… mind Always Allahpundit. Michelle Malkin’s Hot.
Waldo Greenglen (23b09a) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:03 pmI boldly assert that Glenn Greenwald is in no way responsible for the actions of Glenn Greenwald.
Greenwaldo (5e5820) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:03 pmI also assert the above, good job spreading the truth Greenwaldo!
(please humor me Patterico >_>)
BKennedy (5e5820) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:04 pmPerhaps we should ask Thomas Ellers and Rick Ellenburg for a second opinion?
Oh, and here’s my second opinon: Gleeeeeen Greenwald is an idiotarian of long-standing.
Cinco Jotas (8aca80) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:05 pmGreenwald: He is a leftist, what did you expect?
It’s time to revamp the 1965 immigration bill. A moratorium on Arabs and Muslims would be in order. Incidentally aside from being a born Muslim, Hassan is a son of Jordanian immigrants from the west bank of the Jordan. For those who don’t know that is what is called Palestine today.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:07 pmThe good thing about being smeared with ellipses is that they come off with a little soap and water.
Evil Pundit (42e904) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:10 pm“I’m obviously ambivalent about the issues of media responsibility raised by all of this.”
How utterly ironic that an established liar like sock-puppeting Greenwald, has the unmitigated gall to ponder media responsibility, because one who has been proven to lie and now further publicly displays his core of dishonesty by telling essentially what are lies of omission regarding the ellipses, has very little regard for media responsibility.
He has further confirmed his own blatant dishonesty and therefore the question of media responsibility becomes even more of a joke and moot point as far as Greenwald is concerned.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:10 pmCripes. There’s no difference between Greenwald’s selectivity and what tabloid reporters do. He’s just not credible.
Eric (f1e526) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:15 pm[…] And now, news of a liberal showing a massive amount of . . . dishonor (note the elipsis). Glenn Greenwald, aka Gren Gleenwald, aka Green Waldglen, aka Wald Greenglen did a huge dishonorable article regarding blog coverage of Fort Hood (where my daughter is stationed). And Patterico flays him. […]
There Is No Honor In It « Truth Before Dishonor (8246d7) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:19 pmMaybe timmah will drop by and explain to us how this was not dishonest, since it got his panties all in a bunch when I noted that yesterday. ‘Tis safe to assume dishonesty from the Gleeeens, until proven otherwise, given his track record. This should get him another MadCow appearance though.
JD (360352) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:20 pmI heard there were bodies being stored in the freezer, people were resorting to cannibalism, they were using white phosphorus, and there were Korans being peed on.
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:24 pmAt this point, it is not clear if this is a case of an organized terrorist, workplace violence, or something else.
Sir, are you in the early stages of Alzheimer’s ? Workplace violence ? Yes it was certainly that.
God what an idiot ! Your previous posts have been a bit odd and OCD but this puts you into outlier status big time.
Mike K (addb13) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:26 pmApparently Greenwald is a fraud.
A reader (9890e7) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:31 pmGlenn Greenwald demand people focus on the true, important facts in this world, like John McCain’s infidelity and the John Wayne’s lack of military service in WWII. He will not have people wondering about the motives of a murderer soon after it happens.
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:33 pmPatterico,
Here’s an eye-opener… Greenwald is a perfect example of the Lefty heartbreaker.
What?!
A facile mind; can leap tall concepts with a singularly beautiful, twisting motion so as to receive and synthesize rapidly accumulating, and possibly relevant data. Well educated; GWU and NYU Law, if not first tier, certainly both noted in knowing circles as roiling cauldrons of competition producing first tier litigators. Experienced; well, no need to document it here, but what is salient is that he launched an altruistic trajectory and has seemingly retired prematurely, with honor intact.
So, what’s the tragedy?
Simple; he, apparently out of a lack of energy and discipline that affects the majority of mortals, rationalized the willingness to engage in bold, overt, and shameless deception in the pursuit of perceived-to-be altruistic goals.
And, as those who have preceded him in this rutted flight-out-of-fright trail of lesser game, he fails to realize how this forfeiture of intellectual dignity has made him all the more vulnerable to rapacious consumption; not only from his perceived adversary, but from his own, cannibalistic kind.
It’s a pity.
Doorgunner (6af55a) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:35 pmSanai is in the advanced stages of Islamofascist Denial Syndrome.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:35 pmThe work sorting that out is being done by the MSM.
Whew! That’s a relief. At least they’ll get it right, eh? No bias, no narrative, no p.c. influencing in any way, shape or form. Just unbiased, unhindered, accuracy.
You cannot be serious.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:35 pm#4 Steve Miller: Where does The Atlantic come in? Greenwald writes for Salon and Beauchamp wrote for The New Republic.
Stump (144c39) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:38 pmGlenn Greenwald is a ….. journalist.
Kaisersoze (4f1e88) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:38 pmRubbish! Glenn Greenwald is a great blogger. These are all lies. He’s got an amazing mind and is extremely learned. I read him daily and suggest everyone else do so, as well, to get keen insights into current events, law, history, science and philosophy. He’s very handsome, too.
Flenn Fleenwald (7d0550) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:46 pmSometimes easy to confuse GG with AS. I think they’re proof that human cloning has been attempted unsuccessfully, but that’s just opinion. Beauchamp was (and is) a whole different type of dishonesty. He has supposedly been rehabilitated (or proven justified, depending on which source you read) although I don’t recall where I saw it. I’m not interested in the dirtbag enough to research it.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:52 pmNo surprises re: Glenn Green(s)wald.
What never fails to impress me is the reported lack of traffic delivered by being linked from a a left-wing blog. IIRC, National Review pointed out that all of 13 people clicked on a link to their site from a popular leftish blog.
The right leaning blogs have the “Insta-lanche” – the left leaning blogs apparently have gullible, non-link following readers.
–
BumperStickerist (4ccc78) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:58 pmYou weave Gwen Gweenwawd awone, Pattewico!
Bawney Fwank (83f042) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:04 pm[…] Patterico does some reconstructive surgery on Glenn Greenwald’s less-than-totally-honest practice of partial quoting: […]
Watch for those dreaded ellipses « Quotulatiousness (d3934b) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:05 pmI do not admire Greenwald. And I will not begin to like me even if he criticizes Obama. Greenwald is not always wrong. But that cannot cure, or approximately outweigh, or mitigate his fundamental dishonesty on an already-unforgivable number of occasions.
Beldar (6cc913) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:09 pmYou’ve got to be kidding dude. First, you missed the whole point of that post:
Upon reading that, I went to Hot Air to read what he had written, and it’s actually quite revealing — not in terms of what it reveals about Hot Air (that topic wouldn’t warrant a post) but, rather, what it reveals about major media coverage of these sorts of events. 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.
Second of all, what is the point of liveblogging cable news! People can watch cable news themselves and distort and create rumors out of what they see there themselves. All a blogger can do is add unnecessary supposition and create a sense of urgency by taking every update at face value. For example, this is the first thing on Allahpundit’s website that you linked to yourself:
“No word yet on motive, but the fact that at least three gunmen are involvedalready has Shuster and Miklaszewski mentioning similarities to the Fort Dix Six plot on MSNBC. Seven dead, 12 wounded so far. Supposedly two of the gunmen are still at large and one has fired shots at the SWAT team on the scene.
Greenwald references this. This alone would be enough to destroy this idiot’s credibility forever but there’s more.
Update: New details from CNN: One gunman “neutralized,” one “cornered,” no word on the third. The shooting happened at the “sports dome,” a.k.a. the soldier readiness station.
Update: Whether there are two shooters or three seems to be in dispute at the moment, but there’s certainly more than one: The second shooting on the base evidently occurred at a theater.
Update: One of the shooters is alive and in custody. We should have a motive soon.
Update: MSNBC TV says two shooters are in custody now.
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.”
Update: Okay, wait, I misunderstood: According to MSNBC, there were three shooters. One is dead, two more are in custody. Has there ever been a case of “battle stress” that involved a conspiracy by multiple people?
What is the point of this except to replicate the very same asinine rush to judgement that characterizes cable news? Its absurd. One would be better off simply turning off the tv and internet and checking in the next morning. Just what is the urgency here?
magoo (453f8c) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:10 pmI’m surprised that the word “dowdify” has not been referenced thus far.
Pioneered by Maureen Dowd, it is “strategic use of ellipses to distort the meaning of a quote.” (See here, 2nd item.)
Brian (952f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:10 pmShould be “will not begin to like him even if he.”
Dr. Freud? Paging Dr. Freud … naw, just a typo.
Beldar (6cc913) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:11 pmWhy does anything like this from Thomas Ellensberg not surprise? BTW, where’s Timmah now? I explained to Timmah why Gleen’s sockpuppetry was not an isolated incident, but in fact was the precursor of a pattern of deceit regarding this individual.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:13 pmmagoo:
Perhaps you’re blind like the famous Mr. Magoo, but those of us who can see have noticed that I cautioned my readers not to jump to conclusions in breaking news situations. Greenwald omits this caveat of mine, even as he suggests that I promoted doing exactly that.
Honest?
Patterico (64318f) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:19 pmMr. Magoo,
Ever call yourself “Wilson” and/or praise a gentleman by the name of Retardo Montalban? Just curious.
Brian (952f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:19 pmFrom an out-and-out liberal of the Aphrael, Leviticus class and not the IMP, Huxter class:
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:23 pmCharacter always tells, and the Gleens have been exposed as (a) habitual liar(s). (Singular/plural ’cause you never know how many of his personalities are online at any given time. Machts nichts, really, because all his personalities are still liars).
Not only a liar, but a coward. When he got caught on the sock-puppet thing, caught completely red-handed, did he man up, take the hit, sheepish grin “you caught me?” Nope. It was someone else’s fault… his rent boy, wasn’t it? If the rent boy really exists, and isn’t just one more lying, trimming aspect of Man Who Would Be Sibyl.
Kevin R.C. O'Brien (82fba3) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:25 pm[…] As if any more proof was needed that the facts don’t get in the way of a Glenn Greenwald meme: Glenn Greenwald Smears Allahpundit and Me . . . With Ellipses. […]
Glenn Greenwald: Sloppy or Dishonest? « DBKP FLASH Headline News (74b34b) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:29 pmJust what is the urgency here?
You are right, I think. Life was better when people just sat and waited for the news to be delivered after the story had been all wrapped up.
It is preposterous to think adults can handle getting details with the disclaimer that all might not be correct. We need spoonfeeding, and we need it…later!
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:32 pmPatterico:
At this point, that is a mistake. Gleen Ellensberg’s disingenuous and wholly unethical editing to misconstrue your reportage/analysis cannot be ignored because of occasionally applied principles elsewhere. Clearly he is unprincipled (except when “principle” is a convenience for him to sell some other message, a competition of self-interests of sorts) and is to be wholly ignored. There is no baby in the bathwater to save. Toss him out.
His message manipulation exposes him as untrustworthy even on issues on which you might agree. If you find yourself on the same side, you’d better ask yourself exactly how he got to that point and what in his argument did he misrepresent to get there. If you don’t ask those questions yourself, then you’re probably being foolish.
AnonymousDrivel (8acbcf) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:32 pmI like MayBee.
JD (65ccb3) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:33 pmFrom an out-and-out liberal of the Aphrael, Leviticus class and not the IMP, Huxter class:
I think you mean of the “prosecutors are liars” variety. Because his next comment suggests that that’s what he thinks of prosecutors:
Pardon me if I don’t share your respect for this fellow.
Patterico (64318f) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:40 pm********************
MY MISTAKE
********************
I confused The Atlantic with The New Republic.
I confess that I can’t tell them apart.
steve miller (dae725) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:43 pmPersonally, I think that Gleen has a crush on you and Allah, Patterico. It would explain a lot.
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:45 pmGleeeeeen told us a long time ago that dishonesty in service of Teh Narrative is quite fine.
JD (65ccb3) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:47 pmThis is why I (a) didn’t include that next comment and (b) gave him cudos to start out. His exuberance on that leap is not necessarily his M.O. But I agree that statement you highlighted, taken out of context of his whole comment history, makes him an IMP class and not a Leviticus class.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:48 pmIt’s kind of interesting to see how the left follows characteristics of school fish. They have eyes on the sides of their head to they can react instantaneously when other members of the school change direction. It takes no thought; just reflex. Now that Washington Monthly no longer has commenters like me questioning assumptions, they have gotten much farther from reality. I don’t understand how the left functions with no input from non-believers and a sort of groupthink that leads them to things like the healthcare bill.
It’s painful to see people like Chris Matthews trying to find excuses for the Fort Hood shooter. If he admits that it was radical Islam it will somehow harm his self image, or something.
Mike K (addb13) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:55 pmBut remember, Dr. K., that if the shooter had been some kind of Christian fundamentalist, there would be no end to the coverage and calls to action.
Your “school of fish” idea is pretty accurate. As is your observation that it is much less about fact than it is about not admitting that they are wrong.
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/7/2009 @ 5:05 pmPatterico:
I guess it falls to me to set you straight about Glenn Greenwald… …but then I can’t . You have the schmuck nailed to the floor right through his insteps.
You would have thought that the egotistical little feeb would have learned the first time around.
I still link your legendary annotated takedown, (along with Wuzzadem’s sock-puppets), and it STILL gets the yuks over three years later.
Had I been pimp-sticked so thoroughly as that, I’d have changed my name and moved to another country…
(dang! There they are once more!)
…oh, wait!
Best Regards;
Bilge
Bilgeman (989643) — 11/7/2009 @ 5:20 pmIt is interesting, no? that any heinous acts by someone who claims to be Christian is soundly denounced by Christians while the supposed christianity of the culprit is spread far and wide. But those who claim to be Mohammedans can do heinous acts while their religion is not proclaimed and rarely does some high-ranking figure in the Islamic community rise up to condemn it.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/7/2009 @ 5:20 pmmagoo – you missed the point brought out by Patrick in Patrick’s post above. To wit:
Greenwald’s implication is clear: right-wing blogger Patterico shouldn’t have recommended Allahpundit’s coverage — and right-wing blogger Glenn Reynolds shouldn’t have linked Patterico’s recommendation of Allahpundit.
{emphasis added}
Maybe Patrick’s rate of inference outstrips Greenwald’s ability to imply, but I don’t think so in this case.
.
BumperStickerist (4ccc78) — 11/7/2009 @ 5:21 pmGlenn was the one who stuck up for the Neo Nazi
bishop (996c34) — 11/7/2009 @ 5:32 pmKlan preacher Matt Hale, trying to be approved to
pass the bar, later connected to the death of a judge, as I recall the tale. Just what we need.
Is Mona ill?
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 5:37 pmI looked at Greenwald’s wikipedia entry a few days ago to show my son about the sockpuppet incident. As might be expected, there is nothing there on the incident. It wasn’t for lack of trying though. If you look at the edit history for his wiki blurb, there was an edit war for quite awhile. I started at the July 2007 period around when wuzzadem posted his classic piece. So its not just partial quotes, he would clip everything if he could. Even if he disputes the sockpuppet claims, the story was a major one surrounding him, and should have at least had mention as a controversy surrounding him.
Jeff (7ef9ec) — 11/7/2009 @ 5:39 pm“Greenwald’s implication is clear: right-wing blogger Patterico shouldn’t have recommended Allahpundit’s coverage — and right-wing blogger Glenn Reynolds shouldn’t have linked Patterico’s recommendation of Allahpundit”
Patterico, I think your skin is a little thin here and I think you are misreading what Greenwald wrote. My reading of his post is not that he is attacking you or more importantly saying that you are not credible, but rather his larger point is taking the MSM to task for getting so much wrong regarding their coverage of the events at Ft. Hood. He sees G. Reynolds link to you, he follows the link and one of your points concerns Allahpundit as a good source for breaking news. So based on that he then goes to Allahpundit. Fair enough. Here is a quote from GG’s post (italics mine):
Upon reading that, I went to Hot Air to read what he (Allahpundit*) had written, and it’s actually quite revealing — not in terms of what it reveals about Hot Air (that topic wouldn’t warrant a post) but, rather, what it reveals about major media coverage of these sorts of events.
*Not in the original post. My insertion, BT.
Greenwald and then breaks down what he sees at Allahpundit . After mentioning you in the opening paragraph, he never once mentions you again and never mentions Allapundit’s or Hot Air’s conservative politics one way or the other in the entire post. Here is another quote (italics mine):
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 is actually praising Allapundit’s restraint and also pointing out that some of the stuff turned out to be false, which is true. He also goes on the mention a guy from the NYT’s that also live blogged the events and had the same take about him that he had for Allahpundit.
Greenwald used the link to you to get to Allahpundit and to then expound on how the MSM covered the events at Ft. Hood. I disagree with his take on things, which is a separate issue from your original point. I just don’t see the same thing you do.
BT (74cbec) — 11/7/2009 @ 5:46 pmBT
Please explain why there is an ellipsis each time Allahpundit and I cautioned restraint or urged skepticism.
Patterico (8eea6a) — 11/7/2009 @ 5:52 pmThis is Greenwald’s style. Distorting someone else’s position and weaseling about his own is the only way he argues. And why he felt a need to stick his nose into Patterico’s post …? Resentment of Patterico, Allah, or Instapundit?
nk (df76d4) — 11/7/2009 @ 6:05 pmBecause he is not going after you or Allahpundit; the ellipsis are beside the point. His actual point is that the MSM did not use proper restraint in their handling of the story, or the sort of restraint that he would like to see on a potentially incendiary story like this. The ellipsis is just a short cut to get to his main points, not to distort what you or Allapundit said.
BT (74cbec) — 11/7/2009 @ 6:07 pmGreenwald says:
Particularly in a case like this — which, for obvious reasons, has the potential to be quite inflammatory on a number of levels — having the major media “report” completely false assertions as fact can be quite harmful.
I agree completely. That is why Allah and Patterico were careful to note when reports were unverified.
The proper role for a reporter when the facts are not clear is to cit your sources and give the readers the information so they can determine the source’s trustworthiness, or the lack thereof. Greenwald should have left Allah and Patterico out of his article entirely — since they did provide caveats about accuracy — and focused on the MSM’s lack of same.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/7/2009 @ 6:12 pmIf that’s his point, why bring Patterico or Allahpundit into the story and ellipse them at all?
And shouldn’t he have included the ellipses and disclaimers to show that yes, this is how it should be done!
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 6:22 pmI really like to come to your site for insights on the current events. And believe me I don’t believe anything I read on just one or two sites, or newspapers, or especially TV, since I am overseas. But it’s a drag reading a very, very long article about how you bloggers are fighting about how you or them covered this or that. Just blow them off. We’re adults here, aren’t we? I can see it if they attack you personally, but ellipses/omissions. Just tell them to eff off. By now I know that the left has its biases.
FrankM (bbdff3) — 11/7/2009 @ 6:23 pmThe information, rather than the ellipses.
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 6:26 pmFrankM
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/7/2009 @ 6:31 pmThe biases, lies and distortions have to be countered, no matter how tedious a task it is, because otherwise people will think they’re true by default. A fair historical record demands that falsehoods be debunked.
Perhaps the most amazing feat – the greatest mystery of our time – is that somehow Cyrus has manage to not be kicked the fuck out of the bar.
Seriously, how the Holy Hell does this fucktard manage to avoid disbarment? Can anyone explain it to me?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 11/7/2009 @ 6:40 pmNot sure what “IMP class liberal” means, but I’m the guy that John referenced in an earlier comment. John figured that if I had a debate with you I should probably have it on your blog, so here I am 🙂
Anyway. I don’t know if there’s any history between you and Greenwald, but I’m not seeing any evidence for making the inference that you made regarding Greenwald’s referencing of you and Allahpundit. Maybe there’s something else there, but when I read Greenwald’s column I didn’t get the impression that he was trying to discredit either you or AP.
And my apologies for the prosecutor crack. I have no reason to believe that you’re anything but an honest, upstanding prosecutor. (I don’t hate prosecutors! Really! Some of my best friends are prosecutors!) Feel free to make a grad student crack if it makes you feel better.
"IMP class liberal" Jeff (2ac741) — 11/7/2009 @ 6:58 pmIMP isn’t a reference to you, Jeff. It’s a nickname some commenters have given to another commenter here. And I think it’s naive to suggest Greenwald meant no harm to Patterico and Allahpundit when he presented what they wrote in a false light.
DRJ (dff2ca) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:03 pmMaybee
Just what is the urgency here?
You are right, I think. Life was better when people just sat and waited for the news to be delivered after the story had been all wrapped up.
It is preposterous to think adults can handle getting details with the disclaimer that all might not be correct. We need spoonfeeding, and we need it…later!
Well, if you can link any of that to the sentence you excerpted from my post, you’re a better creative writer than I am. I only said that there’s no need to go to a liveblog, if you have a television, unless you want to add more rumor-mongering than the media is capable alone of producing. My suggestion that you just go to bed and read about it the next day is for people who don’t follow news like a sport and would actually like to have a cohesive report of something that really doesn;t have any bearing on their lives.
magoo (453f8c) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:05 pmThe is a long and easy to find history between Patterico and the Gleeeeeeeens, Jeff.
JD (42a8c3) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:05 pmJeff, Leviticus and Aphrael are honest liberals. They can be debated. IMP (international man of parody) is a name given to a different liberal who throws out nonsense and makes outrageous claims of self-aggrandizement. He cannot debate honestly. That’s where the classifications come in.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:07 pm“I looked at Greenwald’s wikipedia entry a few days ago to show my son about the sockpuppet incident. As might be expected, there is nothing there on the incident. It wasn’t for lack of trying though. If you look at the edit history for his wiki blurb, there was an edit war for quite awhile. I started at the July 2007 period around when wuzzadem posted his classic piece. So its not just partial quotes, he would clip everything if he could. Even if he disputes the sockpuppet claims, the story was a major one surrounding him, and should have at least had mention as a controversy surrounding him.”
This all leads me to believe that you’re a bad influence on your son. Let him hang out with some friends and do constructive things, rather than troll someone’s wikipedia page looking for an inconsequential way of digging at him when the intellect has failed. Tsk.
magoo (453f8c) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:07 pmWhy blog about something when you can watch MSNBC make sh*t up.
JD (42a8c3) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:09 pmMona could not be reached for comment.
JD (42a8c3) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:14 pmMaybee & Fikes:
BT (74cbec) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:14 pmHe includes Instapundit and Patterico because that is how he was able to find the Allahpundit posts of what was being reported by the MSM, which is the point, in my view, of his entire post–that being how the national media handled the Ft. Hood story. In his view and in mine and no doubt yours, bloggers now play an important role in how information is disseminated, hence, his referencing Patterico, Instapundit and Allahpundit. He is commenting on that process. And the title of his post is: A media orgy or rumors, speculations and falsehoods. He does not tar Patterico or Allahpundit as deliberately dispensing false info or of being nefarious in any way.
Now he does label Patterico and Instapundit as “right wing” which sets a tone that more gratuitous name calling is on the way but it never comes. I don’t know why he did that, you would have to ask him. All it does is distract from his greater point, which I don’t agree with anyway by the way.
Hey, as we used to say in the CB radio days back in the 70s, “It’s been great modulating with ya.” It is almost 9 o’clock here in Barackula’s adopted home town and there is a bottle of Jack Daniels waiting for me. Peace out.
Hey, magoo, what about me? Should I just go to bed and read about all the shootings at Ft Hood later like everyone else?
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:15 pmI almost forgot, JD is a racist and how did the Illini beat Minnesota today when they couldn’t beat Naperville Central?
BT (74cbec) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:18 pmAnd he goes on to delete warnings of skepticism from those he cites. He’s a leftist, citing rightists and deleting warnings of skepticism from the rightists he quotes (obviously out of context). What part of “duh” don’t you get?
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:20 pmI only said that there’s no need to go to a liveblog, if you have a television, unless you want to add more rumor-mongering than the media is capable alone of producing. My suggestion that you just go to bed and read about it the next day is for people who don’t follow news like a sport and would actually like to have a cohesive report of something that really doesn;t have any bearing on their lives.
Ok.
Well you didn’t actually say that, but perhaps that is what you meant.
But here is the thing…
why?
If adults are following a breaking news story, why can’t there be a discussion as the story unfolds about what might be happening…as long as everyone understands the facts are not yet clear?
How does that hurt anything?
Is it better to wait until morning, to see articles in the NYT that leave OUT information, or try to steer the attention in one direction (the whole phony PTSD by proxy storyline)?
I think it is fascinating to watch news unfold. I don’t want to be given misinformation, either during or after the events. Yet I think we all can handle being given raw data, and understanding that’s what it is. Especially when it is clearly labeled as such. Do you think people can’t handle that?
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:22 pmWhat’s the matter with you? This blog strikes me as a case of really looking for offense where none exists. And I disagree that GG’s ellipses were intended to do what you suggest.
Whatever the case, I read that blog last night and, thanks to GG’s link, I read AllahPundit’s blog. I got absolutely zero sense from GG’s blog that he was slamming AllahPundit’s blog, but rather that he was using it as a handy central source for all the MSM and Twitter reports flying around.
GG’s blog, at least to me, was critical of the MSM, period. Now, if you disagree with his criticisms, fair enough. But how you can take offense is, frankly, a bit beyond me. Especially on behalf of AllahPundit, whom was not treated disrespectively by GG – at least not to my innocent eyes.
Terry5135 (771ab5) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:24 pmBecause, Magoo, here is what I suspect: Glenn Greenwald doesn’t want you to trust cable news outlets, or right leaning blogs. He doesn’t want you to see raw data with the disclaimer it might not all be correct.
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:24 pmHe wants you to wait until someone of whom he approves has wrapped up the “facts” of a story in the way he wants you to see them.
Hitchock
“Hey, magoo, what about me? Should I just go to bed and read about all the shootings at Ft Hood later like everyone else?”.
If you read my post, you’ll find the answer to your question. If you don’t want to go to the trouble, I’ll just tell you now that you seem like exactly the kind of person who should stay up all night reading a blog about what’s on television at that very moment.
magoo (453f8c) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:24 pmI agree with magoo. Gleeen is a constitutional scholar and a best selling author whose work has been read into the Senate record.
Thomas Ellers (42a8c3) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:27 pmBingo!
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:30 pmThus the value of live blogging during a breaking news story, and a perhaps clue to why Patterico praised it.
Don’t read blogs! Wait until Rachel Maddow has me on so I can spoon-feed you the accepted storyline.
Wilson McEllers (42a8c3) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:31 pmMaybee. Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil. It may not be possible or convenient for him to watch the news, so yeah, if you’re an American living in Brazil who can’t watch CNN or MSNBC, liveblogging is great. Guy with a tv sitting in America, um, not so useful.
magoo (453f8c) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:32 pmWell. Maybe a guy sitting in Brazil who can’t watch the US news isn’t the best person to pontificate on it.
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:34 pmTerry 5135:
Did I fairly summarize your points, Terry 5135? After all, I only left a little bit out.
DRJ (dff2ca) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:36 pmHey, magoo, now that you pantsed yourself in response to me, go to my website and see how you just pantsed yourself. If you have any integrity whatsoever after visiting my website, you will come back here with your tail between your legs. If not, what I think of you cannot be voiced publicly.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:36 pmMaybee:
Perhaps, but he isn’t on record repeating every stupid up-on-a-stool-screaming rumor, either.
magoo (453f8c) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:36 pmDropping the class identification for now.
magoo @88: You realize John’s referring to the fact that his daughter’s at Ft. Hood, right? (‘Least I think that’s what he was referring to there…)
MayBee @87: be that as it may, it’s certainly not explicit in his column, and you really have to be in a certain frame of mind to read that into the column in the first place. I figure I’d be as familiar with liberal dog whistles as anyone, and I missed it.
liberal Jeff (2ac741) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:39 pmThe gleeeeeens were in studio with MadCow this week, so they idea that he cannot watch American cable TV is laughable. This magoo thingie really does not appear to have any desire to discuss this in good faith, MayBee.
JD (42a8c3) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:40 pmJeff – given the history with Patterico and all of the Gleeeeeeeens, you would have to be naïve to suspend disbelief to think that the gleeeeeens did not have bad intentions in its deceptive and selective editing.
JD (42a8c3) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:43 pmWell, what do you take from the arguments we are seeing here that we shouldn’t listen to breaking news that has caveats, and should wait for….something. Wait until the story is reported appropriately, I suppose.
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:44 pmWho do you think has gotten the story right?
Do you think we should wait before talking about breaking news? If so, wait for what? For whom?
Oh, and CNN and the internet is everywhere.
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:48 pmI’m just trying to follow the argument that a guy who (presumably) can’t see US news coverage is the worlds best critic of it, and why people would listen to him.
MayBee, obviously there are those who genuinely believe that we need to wait for the MSM because they alone are capable of real research and reporting, and of course, get it right. Only they will provide the full factual details without nuance, narrative or inference. There is simply no need for prior or ongoing discussion, debate, independent research because we will only screw it up and get it wrong. So just sit there and look pretty. The MSM will do the heavy lifting for you.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:50 pmJust accept Teh Narrative from the liberal media, MayBee. Resistance is futile.
JD (b9ca6b) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:51 pmHey, magoo, now that you pantsed yourself in response to me, go to my website and see how you just pantsed yourself. If you have any integrity whatsoever after visiting my website, you will come back here with your tail between your legs. If not, what I think of you cannot be voiced publicly.
If you’re actually using a family member’s danger to pwn people…well, that’s pretty disgusting. I don’t know you, nor do I care about your problems. You didn’t tell me that you had a family member there, not that its relevant to anything I wrote. I was pretty clear:
My suggestion that you just go to bed and read about it the next day is for people who don’t follow news like a sport and would actually like to have a cohesive report of something that really doesn;t have any bearing on their lives.
The reason I said that last part is that that’s the only time when it would make sense. As I said, I think you’re sick. I don’t know you or your daughter and I care about either of you as much as a care about anyone in the category of absolute stranger.
magoo (453f8c) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:52 pmmagoo, you’re in a class by yourself, beneath IMP and Huxter. Now, go away.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:54 pmThe asshats never take long to prove themselves to be just that.
JD (b9ca6b) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:58 pmHitchcock, you’re a little man trying to attach himself to something that happened to a relative. 30,000 people live or are stationed at that base, big whup.
magoo (453f8c) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:58 pmMayBee @100, Dana @102, JD @103:
Aren’t y’all making the same point that Greenwald was making? Namely, that the MSM still functions as a rumor mill despite all its pretentions to the contrary?
What’s funny here is that Allahpundit and Greenwald seem to be saying the same thing – that is, the news is worth following, but you have to watch out for the unsubstantiated stuff. And I think pretty much everyone on this comment thread, with the possible exception of magoo, would agree with that too.
magoo @104: dude, if I thought someone told me that I shouldn’t follow news that directly affects my family, I’d be pretty PO’ed. The last part of your statement snuck by me the first time I read it, too. I don’t think John was trying to score rhetorical points there. Drop the suspicion, dude.
liberal Jeff (2ac741) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:00 pmWe should all just watch MSNBC or read about it in the NY or LA Times, or ask magoo.
JD (b9ca6b) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:00 pmAnyone with half a brain in his asterisk would know my question meant something. And he would stop and think before making a total asterisk of himself. But magoo (apt name for the blind asterisk) didn’t even bother to engage his half brain in his asterisk before he opened his yap and inserted both feet.
If he were to say that to me in person, well, I’ve been militarily trained myself, so I would be able to control my anger enough.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:01 pmWell, too late liberal Jeff, he already revealed himself to be a completely integrity-free dweeb.
magoo (453f8c) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:02 pmAnd, Jeff, I’ve said it several times on my blog and on CSPT and a couple times here. My economic status means I have no TV connection to the outside world.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:06 pmAnyone with half a brain in his asterisk would know my question meant something.
That’s totally absurd.
I didn’t make an ass of myself, but you’re doing so by dragging your daughter’s tragedy into a flame war. I meant what I said, I don’t know you, nor do I have cause to feel sympathy for you. Nothing disgusts me more than this military hagiography; I’m supposed to respect you because you served in the military? I’m supposed to feel sympathy for your daughter, instead of the poor shmoes who were attacked by the other lunatic in Florida? Disgusting bs.
I have a son in the military, he just served in Iraq and is probably going to Afghanistan. Its not how introduce myself.
magoo (453f8c) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:07 pmmagoo forgot the first rule of holes, apparently, since Jeff knows about me and my politics and my mindset. magoo keeps digging.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:08 pmNo, I don’t think that was the point Greenwald was making, nor is it the only point Greenwald was trying to make.
There was no reason for him to edit Patterico or Allah to make the point you want him to be making. He did that so he could control the view of what they said…which means he wanted to be his own rumor mill. He wants you to trust *him*.
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:08 pmIs magoo calling someone integrity-free like the Dems claiming that their command and control “healthcare” deficit-neutral?
Jeff – He could have easily made that point without his dishonest and selective editing, which just coincidentally edited out the same parts, which did not really fit with his narrative.
JD (b9ca6b) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:09 pmCompared to magoo, Lovey’s a saint. magoo no longer exists. eol
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:11 pmYou’re on your own Hitchcock. I couldn’t do you more disservice than you already have done to yourself and family.
magoo (453f8c) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:12 pmGreenwald is a liar. I have never seen him comment on any matter without lying about it.
Magoo – Greenwald’s column was a slander against both Pattterico and Allah. As is always the case he could not make that case without lying and misrepresenting. Leaving out critical information in direct quotes of your source material is the most base form of lying in an intellectual argument.
The commenters on this blog are all (with the exception of the trolls) intelligent adults. We are able to discuss a subject, even breaking news, with the knowledge that not all of the information first available will be correct.
As it happens I was the first to mention this incident in a comment on the LAPD thread at 12:29. It was 2:30 before a thread was posted and a discussion really got going. There was not a rush to judgement. There was a lively and intelligent discussion of a breaking news event.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:24 pmComment by liberal Jeff — 11/7/2009 @ 8:00 pm
Because Greenwald has lied in the past, all things coming from him become suspect and I’m not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I felt he was being manipulative in misrepresenting their statements and not accurately, nor fully making them known. He attempted to paint a picture of them as less than reliable, unlike himself. And he indeed attempted to control the perception and read on what they said. It was a bit of disingenuous nuanced self-promotion: Trust me.
Which is ironic.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:30 pmThe defenders of Gleen are hilarious. Absolutely hilarious.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:32 pmWho was the visitor in Islamic garb that was at Hasan’s apartment less than 48 hours before the shooting? And why aren’t American newspapers investigating and reporting this?
This is from another blog post, but I’m already here. I’m fascinated by the importance of this. Here’s the quote from the Telegraph:
Other residents at the Casa del Norte apartment complex were surprised to see the mild-mannered army officer accompanied by another man in Islamic dress…Alice Thompson, 53, who manages the two storey block of simple dwellings with her husband John, told The Sunday Telegraph: “It was very unusual because he had never had anyone round before. His visitor had long black hair and a moustache and a dark complexion. He stayed about five minutes and then left. We’d never seen him before.”
Its quite possible that a 50ish landlord has no freakin idea what Islamic dress looks like. Indeed, its not common for muslims to grow their hair long and is generally frowned upon in just about every Islamic culture that I know of.
This is exactly how rumors get started. But please go ahead, your liveblogging has certainly brought us closer to the truth at Fort Hood already. I have to be honest with you, this post made me glad I don’t live in Los Angeles.
magoo (453f8c) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:39 pmI wrote that, magoo, and I’m not in Los Angeles.
DRJ (dff2ca) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:43 pmmagoo, if that’s your attempt at attacking Patterico, it only showed that you’ve learned gleen’s dishonesty lessons well.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:48 pmFair enough, I’m new here. Well, do you care to explain your asinine post? Or are you just simply going to think that you can get away with it because I thought it was written by the guy running this thing?
magoo (453f8c) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:48 pmWhen are you going to explain your asinine comment, magoo?
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:50 pmWhat am I getting away with? It’s a public blog post and comments are generally unmoderated, so you have every opportunity to respond there.
DRJ (dff2ca) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:50 pmThere are actually people who are defending Gleenwald’s sock-puppetry?
Amazing.
steve miller (dae725) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:53 pmI mean, really. I know he’s a world-famous expert on the Constitution, and has had his work read in Congress, but he still a thorough liar.
steve miller (dae725) — 11/7/2009 @ 9:03 pmIts quite possible that a 50ish landlord has no freakin idea what Islamic dress looks like. Indeed, its not common for muslims to grow their hair long and is generally frowned upon in just about every Islamic culture that I know of.
Even US Islamic culture?
So what do you think? The landlord didn’t see anybody come over? Or the landlord doesn’t know Islamic dress? Or the landlord doesn’t describe hair styles well?
It is interesting that Hasan was taped in traditional garb that day.
MayBee (f18f3a) — 11/7/2009 @ 9:10 pmMagoo is smarterer and brighterer than all of you and you should not blog and discuss things and should just wait for MSNBC to tell magoo what to think and then he can let you know the approved narrative.
JD (769f99) — 11/7/2009 @ 9:14 pmThat pissant magoo really put me in my place, didn’t he? I mean he made me put the balls of my feet on him and twist.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/7/2009 @ 9:33 pmThe only difference I can tell between the
Atlantic and the New Republic is that TNR
is somewhat pro-Israel.
The only difference I can tell between Glen
YouMeanGleeeenIsntAndy (e5c034) — 11/7/2009 @ 9:38 pmGreenwald and Andi Sullivan is that Glen is
a far-left liberal and Andi pretends to be
a conservative. They are both stark raving
mad. Do they both share a disease?
[…] How Glenn Greenwald smeared Allahpundit and me Glenn Greenwald Smears Allahpundit and Me . . . With Ellipses […]
Allahpundit and Patterico in tights? – The Race Card (e01308) — 11/8/2009 @ 12:03 amI don’t want to hear anything about Greenwald and Sullivan ‘sharing a disease’!
Icy Texan (a7c0a0) — 11/8/2009 @ 12:14 amSo what? Is anything the dems are up to a surprise? Man up, ignore the idiots and keep reporting. WTH?
Robert (1f53cb) — 11/8/2009 @ 12:44 amYou really caught Greenwald with his pants down. Good thing this kind of thing is only done by liberals, huh?
mikeb302000 (34a381) — 11/8/2009 @ 12:59 amFree people just got smeared by the Death Panel of Marxist Lawyers so who cares about Lawyers.
syn (288e25) — 11/8/2009 @ 3:25 amIt never ceases to amaze me that the response of liberals to the charge that liberal personality X did Y is “well, you did it, too.”
I mean, let’s be honest: Gleenwald is a sock puppet masquerading as a writer. He’s dishonest in his online persona and he’s dishonest in his writing.
And the response of the liberals is not “well, sadly, you are right. He is a hack and a dishonest person.”
No, the response is “well, you conservatives are just as bad.” How is that a response? Is it an admission that yes, Gleenwald is a hack, or is it an admission that while Gleenwald is a hack, he is just as hacky as some conservative writers?
In either case, the admission is that Gleenwald is a hack, I guess.
steve miller (dae725) — 11/8/2009 @ 3:53 amI can think of no reality or alternate reality where A.S. is “conservative.”
He’s a one-note Johnny. And he’s obsessed with Sarah Palin’s son, Trig.
But conservative? I don’t think so.
steve miller (dae725) — 11/8/2009 @ 3:56 amYa know, to criticize ANYONE for posting updates as a story unfolds is STUPID. As long as the person says that the report isn’t conirmed and should be taken with a grain of salt, which was done. SO his criticism of Patterico is quite idiotic
JEA (e719af) — 11/8/2009 @ 5:16 amIf what Greenwald really wanted to do was make the point that initial MSM reporting was often inaccurate, and use Allahpundit’s and Patterico’s reporting on that reporting as a source, that would have been trivially easy — he could have written the same piece, quoting to the original sources, with the traditional h/t to Allah and Patterico, and summing it up with the observation that this is something that bloggers left and right can easily agree on.
But he, well, didn’t.
Joel Rosenberg (677e59) — 11/8/2009 @ 6:30 amGreenwald wrote this recently, I read it myself on his blog “I… hate… conservatives… and… I… want… to… kill… them… all.” Its definitely there. You check.
Andrew Lale (a92fb1) — 11/8/2009 @ 6:43 amMikeb,
Bill M (7ab9b8) — 11/8/2009 @ 7:02 amHe’s writing for Salon, you know, a supposed “real” magazine. He has a history of dishonest behavior like sock puppetry and parsing quotes. Did I say he writes for a supposed “real” magazine? Egregious is too kind a description for what he does.
Greenwald:
You should read more carefully.
bored again (d80b5a) — 11/8/2009 @ 8:35 amYou should ellipse yourself.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 11/8/2009 @ 8:39 ambored again has beclowned itself.
steve miller (dae725) — 11/8/2009 @ 8:59 amSo it’s okay because other people do it too?
Jim Treacher (796deb) — 11/8/2009 @ 9:05 amBy the way, Andrew @7:08, I know that’s true — I’ve read those very words in his postings.
I’m surprised The New Republic and Salon would continue to publish his vile slander.
steve miller (dae725) — 11/8/2009 @ 9:23 amBored again tells people to read more carefully when it abundantly clear he did not even read the subject post. Rich.
JD (957fb5) — 11/8/2009 @ 9:26 amGlenn Greenwald is a skunk. That’s not news.
Brian Macker (0774ce) — 11/8/2009 @ 10:13 amGG
“Allahpundit’s post consists of a very thorough, contemporaneous, and — at times — appropriately skeptical chronicling of what major media outlets were reporting”
Yes, I read it.
bored again (d80b5a) — 11/8/2009 @ 11:12 amReading and reading for comprehension are not the same thing.
JD (a4dcaa) — 11/8/2009 @ 11:16 amIs magoo the “all-seeing” sockpuppet for ba?
AD - RtR/OS! (d951df) — 11/8/2009 @ 11:19 amMichelle Malkin likes to quote “twitter” as a reliable source of news. I remember that during a Tea Party gathering, she relied on a Twitter person to inflate the number of participants in that gathering. The police estimate was extremely lower than the unconfirmed twitter one.
Dwight Laprairie (4fca9e) — 11/8/2009 @ 12:42 pmDwight, the police estimate was extremely lower than the truth, much like CBO estimates of the costs of government programs. What’s your point?
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/8/2009 @ 12:44 pmbored again,
You should read more carefully. What does Greenwald say about Allahpundit’s level of skepticism in your little quote there? He says that he was “appropriately skeptical” but only “at times.” And what do I say in the post?
Precisely accurate. And yet Greenwald implies that Allahpundit is less skeptical than he was, by surgically removing almost every caveat from Allahpundit’s quotes.
It does not surprise me that you would defend such dishonesty.
Patterico (64318f) — 11/8/2009 @ 12:47 pmIt’s very simple: Greenwald suggested that Allahpundit was not appropriately skeptical at all times, and then surgically removed almost every expression of skepticism from Allahpundit’s quotes.
Anyone who can defend that is putting partisanship or loyalty over common sense and honesty.
Patterico (64318f) — 11/8/2009 @ 1:18 pmPatterico, this is what I mean about “alphabetism.” A lot of folks on the Left will defend literally anything another Leftist will write or say. I could easily see Leftists saying, “I believe the way I do, and that has nothing to do with the innate demonstrated dishonesty of Glenn Greenwald.”
But they cannot say it, or so it seems. If Greenwald is a Leftist, why, he must be right all the time, too!
The ironic part is how these characters so often refer to the Right as being in lockstep. Yep. Like we all were with McCain, or GWB. Or Frum or Krauthammer.
Alphabetists with chronic toxic projectionism.
On the other hand, BA is just a have a tokin’ good time stirring the pot. Ahem. Seriously, that is why that character posts.
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/8/2009 @ 1:34 pmGreenwald did no such thing. Patterico, you’ve just been caught being a partisan dolt. Try again.
Dave (7ba85c) — 11/8/2009 @ 6:31 pmDave, I have every confidence that you toddled over here pursuant to a link from Andrew Sullivan to that flawed Sonic Frog post, and you didn’t even read my post.
Why don’t you read it now, since you didn’t before making your comment, and then justify the repeated use of ellipses to cut out all the cautionary language offered by myself and Allahpundit?
Patterico (64318f) — 11/8/2009 @ 7:24 pm“Greenwald did no such thing”
???
He obviously did, though. Patterico isn’t being vague. he’s pointing directly to the facts Greenwald said that allahpundit did not have the correct amount of skepticism, and Greenwald attempted to make it look that way by cutting out all the skepticism from his quotes of Allahpundit.
The reason this is so effective is that many people are afraid to click links. I’ve noticed, in particular, that partisans refuse to ‘give them pagecounts’, in a dumb attempt to make blogging less lucrative for people you disagree with. Another problem is that many have a self protection instinct to never read anything that challenges their assumptions.
For such people, Greenwald’s quotes are the end of the argument. It’s obvious to those people that Allahpundit did not have any skepticism, and that his coverage was not as good as competitors. Of course, anyone who actually checked Hot Air out, or read Patterico’s post, know damn well that Allahpundit got great news out, very quickly, and was very careful to help readers understand what they should take with a grain of salt (to use his own term, which Greenwald deleted).
Dave, you’re a liar.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/8/2009 @ 7:31 pmGood point!
(See how much fun it is when it’s you, Dave?)
Jim Treacher (796deb) — 11/8/2009 @ 7:31 pmJust flew in to remind you all that Greenwald’s post was not about you or Patterico, or Allapantload whoever they are. Teh stupid it burns.
theotherjimmyolson (421d38) — 11/8/2009 @ 9:33 pmSo it’s okay to lie about people as long as your post isn’t “about them”? You are an idiot.
Jim Treacher (796deb) — 11/8/2009 @ 11:18 pmLiberal thought processes are truly amazing. They think that by saying something, they make it true. We are supposed to just believe them. Is ‘megalomaniac’ the right word for that?
Simple terms: If I don’t trust most ‘news’ sources, upon what shall I base a decision that a news item does not affect me, and to sleep on it and get a summary?
Answer: my own research, for which I must identify news sources I do trust.
Which boils down to: I can never assume a news item does not affect me until I check. A post such as this influences which sources I consider trustworthy. So it isn’t trivial.
jodetoad (059c35) — 11/9/2009 @ 10:10 amAnd jodetoad, once someone takes the time to carefully sort through the kind of garbage Greewald writes (and I read his blog… it’s a lengthy amount of garbage), all his fans have to say is ‘shut up!’. they actually come on here to complain… not that Patterico got anything wrong… just that he’s so childish and partisan that he even attempted to defend anyone from Greenwald. The entire topic is unacceptable, as soon as anyone enters it with an attempt to be fair and honest.
I particularly love how Greenwald thinks that he’s vindicated because he didn’t just attack Allahpundit, but also had other topics in his post. Like Greenwald doesn’t always have 100 tedious segues about 1000 conservative mistakes. to Greenwald, the washington post, Anderson Cooper, and MSNBC are right wing nuts too. His anger and paranoia is endless, and he thinks that hate justifies lying about people less human than he is, such as Allahpundit… who manages to have a much better blog with far less blathering and attacking.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/9/2009 @ 10:17 amPatrick, Greenwald’s post is about the MSM, not you and not Allahpundit. No amount of hysteria makes it about you and Allahpundit.
I would have thought you’d be intrigued that he visits and reads the site.
Sort of cool how it made the Extreme left and Extreme right of the legal profession come together in a way not seen since Clarence Thomas gave a back rub to Ruth Bader Ginsburg*
Instead, there’s this freak-out.
*May not have happened, but word has it they are terrific friends.
timb (449046) — 11/9/2009 @ 1:31 pmtimb, that’s a brilliant observation. All you had to do, to convince yourself and others of this insight of yours, was to ignore what Gleen actually wrote.
But then, that’s typical of Gleen’s cult followers.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/9/2009 @ 1:40 pmWhy is timb saying there’s a ‘freakout’?
This was a very unpersuasive way for Greenwald to attempt to make a point and bash those who have good blogs he doesn’t like. Saying ‘Hey… that’s not the truth’ is not a freakout. Coming to the person making the correction and saying ‘you are a partisan dolt who missed the point and Greenwald wasn’t even criticizing anyone, and Greenwald’s criticisms were warranted and you are all a bunch of hissy fitting little girls!’… now that’s probably freaking out.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/9/2009 @ 1:55 pmDustin, I ain’t quoting Greenwald, I reporting what I read here
timb (449046) — 11/9/2009 @ 1:56 pmOr, I could have read it on the day Greenwald wrote it and commented about its inanity here
Strange that you didn’t read it….what with you following me all over these pages to engage me your particular brand of wit. I’d think you were a bigger ass than dj or dmac, but you lack a certain zest to the constant sniping to raise you to their level of stupid.
But, next time you’re wondering whether you should engage in logic or argument by assertion, could I suggest you choose logic? ‘Cause this “It’s true because me and Patrick said it’s true” just ain’t swaying me.
timb (449046) — 11/9/2009 @ 2:01 pm#174
timb (449046) — 11/9/2009 @ 2:02 pmDang, wrong thread
So, timb, do you think that Glen’s writing, selective editing, and subsequent updates have been honest?
JD (85cf0b) — 11/9/2009 @ 2:09 pmWell said, timb!
Jim Treacher (796deb) — 11/9/2009 @ 2:24 pmtimb, if you had read my comment, you would know that I was also commenting on what’s in these threads, which is a bunch of greenwald defenders freaking out, using insults, and making arguments like ‘shut up! you are a sissy!’ while the right seems to be going off the actual facts, making restrained conclusions that are based on the facts, and quite pointedly Not Freaking Out.
Who here is freaking out? Greenwald’s defenders, who think the non-left shouldn’t defend itself, as a fundamental fact of the universe. They think any effort to do so is completely horrible.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/9/2009 @ 2:27 pmOnly Treacher could edit timb into coherency.
ROFL
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/9/2009 @ 2:31 pmSee how easy it is?
steve miller (0fb51f) — 11/9/2009 @ 2:31 pmTranslation:
“I getted ejumakated in a pubic hi skool, so I knowin stuff you ain’t knowin, you tar d”
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/9/2009 @ 2:41 pmYou would if you could take pride in his accomplishments. But it’s obvious why you can’t.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 11/9/2009 @ 3:05 pmFirst time on your site, just read GG’s initial piece and the update prompted by your post…and now just read your post.
Are you really this dumb, or are you just trying to drum up site traffic with a fake controversy?
I’ll take the former.
John (bd1779) — 11/10/2009 @ 8:45 pmJohn is the smarterest person EVAH. Oops, I mean GiGi is. Then John. Then flanders. Intellectual firepower and well-constructed witty repartee the likes of which you could never understand.
Gawd yer dum
Wilson McEllerson (d0d3cb) — 11/10/2009 @ 8:52 pmJohn, Patterico.com is a major blog that doesn’t really need to drum up traffic.
Greenwald lies a lot. If you aren’t aware of the sockpuppetting controversy, which forever ruinned Greenwald’s reputation, you should google up some info on that. It’s fascinating.
You, like many of Greenwald’s, come here, announce (as though it is an honor), that they came from Greenwald’s, insult everybody, and then insist this post should never have been written. You folks haven’t bothered to actually make an argument… it’s just insults. Greenwald’s is a place for those who don’t like the challenge of a real debate, but this isn’t that sort of place. Read the post and tell us what’s wrong with it.
Is it OK for someone to misquote someone else, and then claim they did the opposite of that they really did? Is that behavior not a smear? Is it really horrible to defend someone who is attacked in that way? Or are all of us just stupid doo doo heads?
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/10/2009 @ 9:11 pmFirst time on your site, just read GG’s initial piece and the update prompted by your post…and now just read your post. Read Greenwald’s lie and ignored it because I preferred his ideology, and that’s how blog commenters roll.
— What John really meant
Patterico (64318f) — 11/10/2009 @ 9:22 pmYou know, I hate it when people use part of my name to make total asterisks of themselves.
Hey! Whoever you are, don’t be an asterisk!
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/10/2009 @ 9:36 pmHe’s so huge, Glenn Greenwald made the mistake of reading him, following his advice, and getting attacked for it. That’ll show him!
timb (449046) — 11/11/2009 @ 8:25 amAny idea if he could do the same to Steve Milloy? Or to any of the coal-stained retards at the Competitive Enterprise Institute?
timb (449046) — 11/11/2009 @ 8:27 amOT,
you guys remember when you whined about doctored photographs from Lebanon? That Reuters cameraman got what was coming to him.
Will Sean Hannity? Will you call on whoever lied to the audience with doctored footage be canned?
timb (449046) — 11/11/2009 @ 8:34 amtimb continues his streak of zero integrity.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/11/2009 @ 8:41 amI’m sorry that timb’s so concerned with what happened in the past that he fails to understand what’s happening now.
Do all liberals dream of Stalin?
steve miller (81db43) — 11/11/2009 @ 9:01 amAre all conservatives stupid, Steve?
See, how dumb questions work?
sp, just saying something
“zero integrity”
“sprq is not a halfwit”
“second hand smoke and global warming are hoaxes”
doesn’t make the statement true. If you EVER have a rebuttal to ANYTHING I write, I’d be fascinated to read it. As far as i can tell, there’s no difference between you and the other listless morons who attack relentlessly and say nothing.
I think I am done with you, debunker man
timb (449046) — 11/11/2009 @ 12:26 pmBye!
Jim Treacher (796deb) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:06 pmtimb, go with “alleged sockpuppetry”. It makes you look so sophisticated.
Jim, if only we were so lucky, eh?
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:10 pmHannity is probably not responsible for the wrong clip being shown of the protests… but I don’t understand the problem. It was a dumb error, and it should be corrected, but it’s not all that difference from other errors made in this field all the time. Is Fox News really that freaking accurate that this is considered a serious breach? Instead of a mass of people in the fall, they showed a clip from the summer… in between clips of the fall?
Fox News would be much better off without Hannity. And the conservative message would be much better off if Fox had more serious debaters in his place. I call for him to be fired because he sucks, not because his producer made a minor error.
Regardless, whoever let that slip probably should be seriously admonished. A correction should be made. But Mary Mapes and Rathergate this is not.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/11/2009 @ 11:45 pm