home

Links . . . Lies?

(Guest Post from Big Tent Democrat) (The opinions expressed are my own solely. They in no way reflect the opinion of any other TalkLeft blogger. Professor Reynolds is a very cordial intellectual adversary and we all admire his civility.)

Earlier this week, Glenn Reynolds took exception to my characterizing his linking to Howard Kurtz as endorsing Kurtz's blaming the kids in the Foley page scandal:

# Posted by Glenn Reynolds
October 3, 2006 11:27 AM

I "endorse" blaming young people? How, by quoting Kurtz as you did? I also quote Brendan Miniter blaming the Republican leadership.

This "you must endorse whatever you link" theory, which seems to be gaining ground in the blogosphere, strikes me as very silly.

Fair enough. But it seems worth considering what Professor Reynolds is linking to and what that means:

One link is about this:

An obscure right-wing blogger, Wild Bill, has outed one of Mark Foley's victims, a former Congressional page. It is a despicable act. Wild Bill however, gets almost no traffic, so the damage done to the victim's life could have been minimal.

All that ended, however, when some of the most highly-trafficked right-wing bloggers decided to direct their readers to Wild Bill's site. First, Roger L. Simon, co-founder and CEO of Pajamas Media -- a portal and advertising broker for nearly every major right-wing blog -- posted a link to Wild Bill on his personal site. (The Pajamas Media portal also linked to Wild Bill.) Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit -- probably the most highly-trafficked right-wing blog -- followed suit by linking to Simon's post and the Pajamas Media post.

Hmmm. Another link is about this:

EMILY LITELLA ALERT: Drudge is reporting that Foley's accuser was actually 18 years old at the time the Instant Messages were sent. Stay tuned.

Okaaay. What is Professor Reynolds endorsing there? BTW, Professor Reynolds is wrong, as even Drudge is forced to admit that "A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday." No correction from Professor Reynolds to date.

UPDATE: Reynolds corrects this falsehood. His other linked falsehood remains uncorrected.

And finally, Professor Reynolds links to this:

. . . And a look at the GOP playbook: "Gerry Studds (D-MA) had sex with a 17-year-old male page. In 1983*, he was reprimanded. Republicans wanted to censure him. But 79 Dems voted against upgrading the condemnation. The GOP wants you to know that some in the Democratic Party, in 1983, apparently did not find Studds's conduct to be deserving of a full censure, which carries significant penalties."

Except, that is false. Billmon:

Studds was censured, not reprimanded -- even though the latter was the penalty recommended both for him and for GOP page bender Dan Crane by the House Ethics Committee.... The vote to upgrade [Democrat] Studds' reprimand to censure was 338 yeahs to 87 nays.... But the vote to upgrade [Republican] Crane's reprimand to a censure passed by only 289 yeahs to 136 nays.... In both cases, the final vote on censure was overwhelmingly lopsided -- 421 to 3 in Crane's case, and 420 to 3 in Studd's. (My source on all this is "House Censures Crane and Studds," Washington Post, July 21, 1983, page A1. I looked it up using Nexis, but haven't been able to find a copy on line.)

Now, we are told by Professor Reynolds that his linking does not mean endorsement. But the next question is begged, does Professor Reynolds care if his links are falsehoods? The answer must be no. He has no corrections at this time.

Lesson learned. Do not trust Professor Reynolds' links, they are not vetted for accuracy. Or as one wag wrote - EMILY LITELLA ALERT . . . for Instapundit.

< First Foley Fallout: Kirk Fordham | CA Prisons and Pretextual Reform >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 07:47:28 AM EST
    All this who shot john stuff is silly. Foley was wrong. Was Foley's act illegal? I don't know. Studs and Crane were wrong. Were their acts illegal? I don't know. Franks was wrong. Was his acts illegal? Well, they appear to be, but I really don't know. What is interesting in this is that Crane lost his next election, while Studds and Franks remained. Franks until this day. Like it or not, what this shows is that the expectations of the base voters in the two parties are vastly different. That aside I would like to see a timeline that shows what was known by who, when. The longer the Demos don't go to sepecifics, the less impact they are having because the issue is now becoming so confused people will just start fluffing it.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#2)
    by jerry on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:02:00 AM EST
    The Internet should come with the following warning: Glenn Reynolds is THE most dishonest lawyer professor blogger on the planet, and his actions should in fact be considered unethical by ANY professor, if not by ANY lawyer. and the explanation: Glenn Reynolds damn well understands how his links are endorsements with plausible deniability. On most links he offers little or no commentary. However the overall commentary on his site is rightwing (which is fine), but the clear, obvious, conclusion is that links that he offers with little to no commentary are in fact endorsed within the context of his views. As others have said, it is clear that his no comments policy on his site, is to ensure that readers cannot correct his errors. Glenn, your behavior is absolutely disgusting.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:02:00 AM EST
    No Jim. The issue is Professor Reynolds links without regard to wherher what he links to is true or not. Attempts to change the subject of THIS POST will be unsuccessful.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:07:17 AM EST
    So, lemme get this straight, you don't like: 1. The very method of information dissemination for which the blogosphere has received the most attention and which seems to have given the blogosphere an edge overtraditional forms of media at least in some non-trivial amount of situations. 2. Glenn Reynolds. Thanks for clarifying. Before now I just wasn't sure. You've never given a link to information that turned out not to be wholely accurate? Not even newspapers or television news has that good of a record. You should definitely think about selling your services; in this industry, perfection would be quite an asset. Also, don't you think it's a little disingenuous to note that "to date" Reynolds hasn't posted a correction considering that he posted the item less than an hour ago? You make it seem like it's been out there for ages, certainly long enough for even the busy professor to have fixed.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#5)
    by aw on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:07:17 AM EST
    That aside I would like to see a timeline that shows what was known by who, when. The longer the Demos don't go to sepecifics,
    So you don't see it as Repubs sitting on the specifics at all? Oh, I forgot, you feel more comfortable with your blinders on. I'll bet you even think Foley is a Democrat.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:07:17 AM EST
    Well, I see you've mooted my last point by changing the text of your post. I approve the change.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:49:48 AM EST
    What is actually interesting is that ppj was against outing people but but seems to have no problem with Glenn Reynolds et al outing the victim!
    What is the purpose for outing these people?
    The answer appears to be that those who disagree with their politics and that those who are doing it are doing so for political gain, hopeful that their sexual orientation will cause people to not support their employers.
    The longer the Demos don't go to sepecifics, the less impact they are having because the issue is now becoming so confused people will just start fluffing it.
    the dems had nothing to do with this, they can just sit back and watch rethugs throw each other under the buss. Besides, if they said more ppj would just accuse them of playing politics. And ppj and the other rethugs just can't seem to get the difference between consensual and non-consensual.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:53:15 AM EST
    Gabriel: I changed no text. Don't know what you are talkng about. Second you write "You've never given a link to information that turned out not to be wholely accurate? Not even newspapers or television news has that good of a record. You should definitely think about selling your services; in this industry, perfection would be quite an asset." Never purposefully and when I discovered an error, on few occasions were there errors, I corrected immediately. Notice the difference.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#8)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:53:15 AM EST
    Okay, Glenn. Just answer one question. If you wanted to link to reprehensible stuff and save face, wouldn't you probably do so by claiming that you merely find the material "interesting"? Like, for example, if my web page had links to Matt Hale's white supremacist organization, I would probably defend myself against charges of being a white supremacist by saying that I was interested in the phenomenon of nascent American fascism. David Neiwert is a good example of this. However, the difference is that Neiwert indicates frequently, and in no uncertain terms, that he despises these people and everything they stand for. Glenn's relation ("INTERESTING! STAY TUNED!") to some real crackpots is, shall we say, somewhat murkier.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#10)
    by roy on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 09:06:56 AM EST
    The answer must be no. He has no corrections at this time.
    He's corrected the 17- vs. 18-years-old problem. As for Studds's censure, did anybody bother to mail Reynolds and tell him the problem, or are we waiting for the idea to pop unbidden into his mind?

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 09:25:47 AM EST
    hey, be nice to ppj! at least (so far anyway, give him time to think about it.) he hasn't tried the "they are gay bashing foley." line yet. that said, when one provides a link, absent a direct comment to the contrary, it is reasonably assumed that one is in accord with whatever the link is to. reasonable people, similarly situated, would think so.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 09:25:47 AM EST
    Roy: You make my point - "Lesson learned. Do not trust Professor Reynolds' links, they are not vetted for accuracy. Or as one wag wrote - EMILY LITELLA ALERT . . . for Instapundit." He gets called on the inaccuaracies a and only then does he check.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#13)
    by jerry on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 09:52:05 AM EST
    Jon Stewart on Fox's use of question marks to say any f*cking thing they want I am not saying your mother is a whore, I am just asking, is your mother a whore? This is very much like Glenn Reynold's intentional non-discussion of urls that he links to. It is the same plausible deniability as putting the question mark after a disgusting statement. We didn't say that, we just asked it! I didn't endorse that, I just thought it linkworthy! Or as Jon Stewart put it about Fox in the link above, "The naked link: a prophylactic protecting Glenn Reynolds from anything he might contract during his extensive GOP c*ck sucking?" Also amusing is to look down Reynolds' recent posts where he links approvingly to people saying that privacy is dead, and then Reynolds links to the outing of a 17 year old victim of Foley. Contrast that to Reynolds pre-9/11 when he posed as a libertarian interested in defending privacy rights.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#14)
    by digaman on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 09:52:05 AM EST
    I'm not sure why anyone other than Rove Kool-Aid guzzlers respects Glenn Reynolds enough to continue linking to him, including on TalkLeft's blogroll. Is it a form of affirmative action for right-wingers who seem sane? Instapundit constantly links to bogus or party-line sources, and then takes cover by claiming that he wasn't endorsing, only linking. And this morning he says that this is a "good point": "I don't recall anything in the Foley story about sex. Just some naughty text messages." Hello? Foley's IMs make many references to seeing his page-pals again soon, and how he'd drive miles to rendezvous with a "hot stud," complete with invitations to his house for cocktails so they don't "get busted." If actual sex didn't ever happen, it's more because the pages were creeped out than because Foley didn't try.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#15)
    by digaman on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 09:52:05 AM EST
    I'm not sure why anyone other than Rove Kool-Aid guzzlers respects Glenn Reynolds enough to continue linking to him, including on TalkLeft's blogroll. Is it a form of affirmative action for right-wingers who seem sane? Instapundit constantly links to bogus or party-line sources, and then takes cover by claiming that he wasn't endorsing, only linking. And this morning he says that this is a "good point": "I don't recall anything in the Foley story about sex. Just some naughty text messages." Hello? Foley's IMs make many references to seeing his page-pals again soon, and how he'd drive miles to rendezvous with a "hot stud," complete with invitations to his house for cocktails so they don't "get busted." If actual sex didn't ever happen, it's more because the pages were creeped out than because Foley didn't try.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 09:52:05 AM EST
    Oh I see my error. The "to date" language was earlier in your post. I thought it was down at the bottom where the post reads "He has no corrections at this time." Hence, I thought you'd changed it.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 10:03:08 AM EST
    Big Tent - No, my point was that all of this back and forth stuff is silly and that what we need are some facts, not claims about who is, or is not, lying. Now, I understand you don't want to do that, but that doesn't change the real need. cpinva - Charity begins at home, and it appears that you are in need of help because I see lots of links that are provided to prove a point, but not to approve of the content. Of coure I understand that the basic philosophy of the Left is to defend your right to agree with them, so I can see why many here would assume that if someone links to something then the link must be agreeable to them. Sailor - The following was from Corn's article. Now he may not have named names, but he certainly identified the people:
    What's interesting about The List--which includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications--is that (if it's acucurate) it shows that some of the religious right's favorite representatives and senators have gay staffers helping them advance their political careers and agendas. These include Representative Katherine Harris and Henry Hyde and Senators Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell and Rick Santorum. Should we salute these legislators for being open-minded enough to have such tolerant hiring practices?
    Can you ever get it right?? BTW - I was going to provide a link to Corn's article, but I wouldn't want anyone to think I agreed with him. Of course Sailor linked to the post so......

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 10:07:10 AM EST
    Jim: "[W]hat we need are some facts, not claims about who is, or is not, lying. Now, I understand you don't want to do that, but that doesn't change the real need." Your first sentence makes no sense. Your second sentence is an insult. Well done.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 10:07:17 AM EST
    Big Tent - No, my point was that all of this back and forth stuff is silly and that what we need are some facts, not claims about who is, or is not, lying. Now, I understand you don't want to do that, but that doesn't change the real need. cpinva - Charity begins at home, and it appears that you are in need of help because I see lots of links that are provided to prove a point, but not to approve of the content. Of coure I understand that the basic philosophy of the Left is to defend your right to agree with them, so I can see why many here would assume that if someone links to something then the link must be agreeable to them. Sailor - The following was from Corn's article. Now he may not have named names, but he certainly identified the people:
    What's interesting about The List--which includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications--is that (if it's acucurate) it shows that some of the religious right's favorite representatives and senators have gay staffers helping them advance their political careers and agendas. These include Representative Katherine Harris and Henry Hyde and Senators Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell and Rick Santorum. Should we salute these legislators for being open-minded enough to have such tolerant hiring practices?
    Can you ever get it right?? BTW - I was going to provide a link to Corn's article, but I wouldn't want anyone to think I agreed with him. Of course Sailor linked to the post so......

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#20)
    by roy on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 01:22:01 PM EST
    Big Tent, Your point may well be true, it's just not impressive. Linking to something that seems plausible, exposing the claim to contemplation by those who have the time and inclination, and making a correction if a problem turns up is a pretty fundamental process among blogs. It's part of what makes blogs so useful. I hate to pick on TL when she's not online to defend herself, but oh well: Consider the link to the claim that the Patriot Act renewal created a new federal police force. Or the link to the claim that students were being indoctrinated. None of that should be taken as criticism of TL. It's just my take on how blogs work. It's a good thing. As one of my favorite bloggers said, "I don't write the news, I report it".

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 01:38:17 PM EST
    Roy: It was NOT plausible. It was obvious misinformation. In essence, what I am saying is Professor Reynolds dd not do the most basic of vetting. Yes, many Left blogs do the same thing. Shame on them.

    Re: Links . . . Lies? (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 09:59:48 AM EST
    Big Tent, well perhaps my senses have been dulled over the past years, but if you take my comment as an insult, yours have not. Of course telling me that my sentence "makes no sense" isn't insulting, but my pointing out that you don't want the facts laid out, is. Me thinks you protest too much.