Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers?

It never ceases to amaze me that while bloggers are often criticized by many journalists for not fact-checking their stories, stories about bloggers are regularly littered with glaring factual errors. They might take a lesson from our book, and back up their assertions with a standard citation method, such as hyperlinks. Take, for example, the new piece in Time magazine about Amanda Marcotte. While, unlike every other establishment piece on this story today, this article does at least mention that John McCain's blogger, Patrick Hynes has been the center of controversy, check out how many things they got wrong:
In 2005, John Thune, the Democratic candidate for Senate in South Dakota, paid bloggers to attack supporters of his opponent, then Senate majority leader Tom Daschle.
What? Since when is Thune a Democrat? I also wasn't aware that the campaign took place in 2005, or that Daschle was majority leader at the time.
After right-wing bloggers began targeting her, Marcotte announced that she had deleted her most controversial Duke comments. The deletion garnered critics on both the left and right who said she was pandering to Edwards, a former Senator from North Carolina, where Duke is located and where he has based his campaign. The Edwards campaign and its supporters made matters worse by claiming that a technical glitch, not Marcotte, had brought the controversial posts down.
Actually, it was hate-speech purveyor Michelle Malkin who falsely claimed Marcotte had deleted the comments. She later issued a difficult-to-find retraction, when it was proven those claims were false:
Guess what? It's not the only completely off-the-wall, profanity-choked post she's trying to hide.* Updated/correction below(...)

***Updated/Correction. Looks like Marcotte's Katrina post is actually still available to the public here under a different URL. My bad.
I wonder if Time's correction, if it comes, will be similarly difficult to find.
Edwards almost always wins the nonscientific but closely watched daily straw poll organized by liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas.
Daily straw poll? The polls only take place once a month. Maybe the author was confused by the name "Dailykos."

****

Of course, as I said above, despite all of these errors, the article could have been a lot worse (it could have been, say, every other article from an established news outlet written about this story today). Then again, this is Time magazine, which through its hiring of Anna Marie Cox and Joe Klein (especially Joe Klein) has shown that it doesn't exactly have the same problem with us foul-mouthed bloggers as other establishment news outlets. Now, if only an establishment news organization could write an article on blogging that is both factually accurate and not filled with obvious loathing toward progressive bloggers, then maybe we will finally be getting somewhere.

Update: You can point out these errors to the story's author, Massimo Calabresi, by sending an email to massimo_calabresi@timemagazine.com.



Display:


Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

Chris,
If Time cared anything about accuracy, they would have never hired Klein or Bill Kristol.  I don't know why CNN, Time and ABC think it is a good idea to try and steal Faux Noise Channel viewers.  It makes me wonder if any of those asshats has ever heard of Dylan Thomas.
John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 02:17:00 AM EST

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

I thought the article was fairly sympathetic and set-up a credible perspective from which Edwards could support them and keep them on staff.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 02:22:46 AM EST

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (3.00 / 1)

Oh, I agree. But it still got loads of facts wrong. A story like this with accurate facts would be great.
by Chris Bowers on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 02:27:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (3.00 / 0)

Sure, but Rome wasn't torn-down in a day.  First step is to hang on to Amanda and Melissa.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 02:56:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

nope


by TeddySanFran on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 02:42:32 AM EST

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

Simple answers and all that...


by Matt Stoller on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 07:57:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

how can someone write a political (none / 0)

article and not realize Dashcle is a dem.  therefore his opponent must be an R?

It's disturbing people with no deductive reasoning cover politics.


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:24:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

Somehow, I am not surprised.


by Matt Ortega on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 02:53:39 AM EST

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

The most important error in this story is that John Thune hired bloggers to pressure newspaper coverage as biased and to shape coverage of the candidates and the campaigns.  Attacking other bloggers?  The Argus-Leader and its reporters were Thune's target the whole time.  

Initial newspaper coverage of the bloggergate story focused heavily on right wing outrage (specifically from Michelle Malkin and the "mild" Captain's Quarters.  The National Review Online also got covered.  Later coverage dropped some of that and added "liberal left" blogs.  "Liberal left" when the winger blogs had no characterization, certainly not conservative right.  Duh.

Meanwhile, the whole thing reminded me of the press coverage of Earl Butz's racist comments in a stupid "joke" told while Butz was Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture.  Within a week it was nearly impossible to tell what Butz had said.

Normal type questions of course never were asked.  Why would Edwards care about Malkin?  Or Captain's Quarters?  Or the National Review?  Why did the NY Times change reporters for every new story on the "scandal"?  Is John M. Broder, the initial trporter who appears to be covering the Edwards beat related to David Broder?  Can't hire him for the WaPo so he's handed the Times job?

Of course, if blogger stories are not fact-checked are any stories fact checked these days.  All the President's Men would seem to have as much in common with big time reporting as Young Abe Lincoln has in common with the practice of law.  Nothing.  


by David Kowalski on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 03:42:20 AM EST

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (3.00 / 1)

And, of course, it was months before the Thune bloggers payments (a) were acknowledged by them -- August 2006, and (b) showed up on FEC disclosure reports.

Another lie?

Joe Trippi, who as Dean's campaign manager in 2004 employed up to six bloggers, says that letting the bloggers operate freely while on the payroll is crucial: he remembers cringing as he read Moulitsas' criticisms of Dean even as the campaign kept writing $2,500 monthly retainer checks.

Markos was not paid to blog.


by Adam B on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 07:42:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

It seems we're making up the rules as we go along. This game is still so very new when you think about it.


by nolocontendere on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 03:44:20 AM EST

A new game? I disagree. (none / 0)

What's so new about publishing a story that has correct, accurate information in it?  Time Magazine isn't a new game.  This is a deplorable piece of writing, and the fact that it's mildly sympathetic is irrelevant.


by CTvoter on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 10:44:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Photo credit (none / 0)

Kinda ironic that one of those DFH feminist bloggers gets a photo credit.


by jayackroyd on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 05:02:24 AM EST

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

it's not just stories on bloggers....

frequently, when the topic of a  news story is something i know about (and so can judge the accuracy of the story), i find the story riddled with errors.

some reporters are really good. many are not.


by selise on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 06:02:07 AM EST

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

I've never read a story where I've had detailed knowledge about that didn't get a number of things wrong.

The funniest most recent such event was a long conversation I had with a Dutch reporter about the netroots at a Glenn Greenwald book signing in NYC.  She ended up using some quotes from our conversation, which she reported took place in Vegas, during Yearly Kos--an event I did not attend.


by jayackroyd on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 06:11:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

that's a good one.

once i was quoted - by a reporter who had interviewed me. one of the "quotes" he attributed to me was not only not mine, but it was about a topic i knew nothing about. the rest of my quotes were ok.

sometimes i wonder if it's not just really bad editors.


by selise on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:21:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

The related piece, left sidebar "Is Edwards the Howard Dean of 2008" is favorable overall and only makes brief mention of the blogger issue.

What caught my eye was the last paragraph


So Edwards will spend much of the month of February attending fundraisers all over the country, trying to persuade big-money donors that while he may have a Dean-like message, he is capable of doing something the ex-Vermont governor couldn't: win.

Somehow I doubt that big-money donors spend a whole lot of time fretting over the finer points in the press that Edwards staffers are generating. Bottom line is that they may just be sending a big thumbs-down signal to Edwards on this.

I have a difficult time begrudging a potential decision to sever the relationship w/ the bloggers, provided they are properly compensated for the transfer to NC & back; reasonable severance pay; and no 'shaming' in the national media. They did nothing wrong, but sometimes things just don't work out, and reasonable people understand this.  


by dblhelix on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 06:23:42 AM EST

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

I like to debate the far right on the Small Dead Animals a hard right Canadia blog. My presence was always tolerated there, they loved hurling insults at me more than anything else. Recently I started Googling the sources of their stories and posting the results in their comment section. Just after the second such instance I was banned from commenting. Some bloggers don't take kindly to being fact checked.


by Jose on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 07:58:49 AM EST

Hey?! (none / 0)

Where's the happy birthday Matt thread?! ;)


Take Back Cincinnati
by belili on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:06:19 AM EST

Discredit the competition (none / 0)

This seems to work in political campaigns.  Why would the right wing media owners NOT ask their staff to do take-out articles on the competition?

As expected, ALL Democratic contenteders will be under attacks from now until 2009,  The way they work is to start early and establish lines of attack against all candidates.  Those that seem to have legs will be amplified whenever a candidate starts to get traction.  The ONLY way to fight back against this is to make the campaigns about POLICY and not Personality.  

So far ALL the GOP contenders except Brownback are supporting Bush Iraq policy.  That fact should hit the news 24/7.  We need to initiate our own lines of attack.


by bakho on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:25:11 AM EST

Typical meda error (none / 0)

The media always gets tons of the simplest facts wrong, this isn't because of a partisan bias, just lameness in general.


by delmoi on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 09:27:04 AM EST

Here's my email to the writer: (3.00 / 1)

It's true that this isn't as much of a "hit piece" as it could have been, but we need to hold Time's feet to the fire of accuracy.  Toward that end, following is the email I've sent the writer:

Good Morning:

Your current piece in Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/ 0,8599,1587018-2,00.html) contains several fact errors, as I've noted below:

"In 2005, John Thune, the Democratic candidate for Senate in South Dakota, paid bloggers to attack supporters of his opponent, then Senate majority leader Tom Daschle."  First, Senator Thune is certainly not a Democrat, nor was he a candidate for anything in 2005.

"Edwards almost always wins the nonscientific but closely watched daily straw poll organized by liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas."  Their is no "daily straw poll" on the Daily Kos site - it's primarily a monthly occurrence.

Simple fact-checking would have corrected these errors.  I am not a practicing journalist, but my journalism professor in college made a policy of deducting 50 points for each fact error in an assignment turned in for credit.  By my count, you are sitting on, at best, a 150-point deficit for this assignment.

My concern is that if you made these errors, what other errors might appear in the piece that I did not catch?  Therefore, why would I or any other reader be able to trust you, and by extension, Time?  This is a serious concern for me - I and millions of other Americans need to depend on resources like your magazine to bring me honest news, and I've reached a point at which I cannot count your writing as truth.  Where am I to find real news?

I hope you will correct these errors at the first opportunity.

Thank you for your time and attention,


by Thirsty Gator on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 10:34:42 AM EST

Re: Here's my email to the writer: (3.00 / 1)

And here's the letter I sent:

I'm pleased that you're covering blogs and bloggers with more understanding
of the medium than has been typical of mainstream journalism, but what's
become of the fabled Time fact checkers? The John Thune who was paying
bloggers under the table to attack Senator Daschle and change newspaper
coverage of his campaign is, of course, a Republican, and he was running for
the Senate in 2004, not 2005, of course. Markos Moulitsas's blog is named
Daily Kos, but he doesn't conduct daily polls.
    When such errors leap off the page, I'm forced to worry about the truth
of the rest of Time. Was Moulitsas really on the Dean payroll? That's a
surprise to me because I hadn't heard that before. Is it true?


by joyful alternative on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 07:25:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Home run. (none / 0)

Great post Chris.

It's poetic justice, too.

At a time when blogs are being slammed unfairly, it's nice to reaffirm one of our main roles: public fact checker.

The trifecta error in that Thune sentence is mind boggling.

I've always felt that pointing out factual errors is a powerful way to level the playing field with the main stream media.

This post hit one out of the park.


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 11:00:55 AM EST

well (none / 0)

it doesn't matter because when clinton was mired in the 30's in the polls, bob dole sat behind him at the sotu.


"blogtopia - yes, i coined that phrase!"
by skippy on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 03:00:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bloggers (3.00 / 1)

Amazing.  A girl blogger uses some nasty words, and she gets pilloried.  Meanwhile, a whole network of wingnut radio hosts spew forth a steady stream of racism, homophobia, and anger at pretty much everything, and the mainstream media doesn't think that's a story worth reporting.


by global yokel on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 11:28:04 AM EST

My letter to the editor: (none / 0)

Just wrote in a letter to the editor of Time.  I somehow doubt it'll get published, but...  Perhaps it will induce a smidgen of editorial shame.

Please Hire Me
I don't have a journalism degree, or a political science degree, or, in fact, any relevant degree at all.  But I am inarguably highly qualified for a position on your political journalism staff.  The bar is aparently set quite low.  Massimo Calabresi's recent article, "Bloggers on the Bus", contained three glaring errors in a single sentence: "In 2005, John Thune, the Democratic candidate for Senate in South Dakota, paid bloggers to attack supporters of his opponent, then Senate majority leader Tom Daschle."
a) it was 2003,
b) Thune is a Republican,
c) Tom Daschle was minority leader at the time.
Anyone with political knowledge would be well aware of these facts.  Therefore, I can only conclude that political knowledge is not a requirement for employment.
Furthermore, the article repeats the fallacious claim that the Edwards Blogger, Marcotte, "had deleted her most controversial Duke comments".  This was even admitted to be false by Michelle Malkin, the right-wing blogger who began the rumor.  Anyone with journalism experience would have done enough research to discover that.  Therefore, I can conclude that journalistic experience is not a requirement for employment.
So, I'm sure you will agree that I am highly qualified for a position at your orginazation.  By default.  Thanks for your kind consideration.


by Kalil on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 12:23:26 PM EST

Here's something the media should investigate (none / 0)

Excellent comment over at Kos from Jeffrey Feldman concerning the likelihood that this attack of Donohue's may be illegal:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/8/9 5321/56338


DONOHUE MAY HAVE BROKEN LAW PROHIBITING INTERVENTION IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS

According to United States law governing the behavior of 501(c)(3) organizations, it seems highly likely that William Donohue--President of the Catholic League, a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization--may have broken the law by attempting to intervene in a political campaign.


Looks like a great thing for the news media to investigate!


by Phoenix Woman on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 01:33:40 PM EST

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

Chris,

An equally appropriate question would be: Does Anyone Fact Check Chris Bowers' Blog Posts?

In your post you quote The Times Massimo Calabresi:
"After right-wing bloggers began targeting her, Marcotte announced that she had deleted her most controversial Duke comments. The deletion garnered critics on both the left and right who said she was pandering to Edwards, a former Senator from North Carolina, where Duke is located and where he has based his campaign. The Edwards campaign and its supporters made matters worse by claiming that a technical glitch, not Marcotte, had brought the controversial posts down."

Then you say (and you follow with a quote from Malkin) "Actually, it was hate-speech purveyor Michelle Malkin who falsely claimed Marcotte had deleted the comments. She later issued a difficult-to-find retraction, when it was proven those claims were false:"
Guess what? It's not the only completely off-the-wall, profanity-choked post she's trying to hide.* Updated/correction below(...)
***Updated/Correction. Looks like Marcotte's Katrina post is actually still available to the public here under a different URL. My bad.

Chris and Chris' readers, here are the "facts" with regard to Marcotte's deleted Duke Lacrosse Case post on Pandagon.net.  These facts can be "fact checked" by anyone (including Chris) if they (or he) are inclined to do the necessary "fact checking."

Marcotte posted the following rant with regard to the Duke Lacrosse players on Pandagon dated Jan 21st (while the post is no longer available on Pandagon because Marcotte did, in fact, delete the post, and it can be retrieved via a Google cache search using: amanda marcotte deleted duke post):
____

Stuck at the airport again.....
111 Comments Published by Amanda Marcotte January 21st, 2007

Naturally, my flight out of Atlanta has been delayed. Let's hope it takes off when they say it will so I don't miss my connecting flight home.

In the meantime, I've been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good fucking god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will--not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.
____

On Feb 2nd Marcotte received a number of reasoned but critical comments about her libelous Jan 21st Duke players related post.  Marcotte responded by deleting the critical Feb 2nd comments and quickly closing the Feb 2nd thread here:

http://pandagon.net/2007/02/02/you-know- what-i-miss/#comments

Marcotte then deleted the initial Jan 21 post entirely and replaced it with the following post.
____

Stuck at the airport again.....
Published by Amanda Marcotte January 21st, 2007

UPDATE: Since people are determined to make hay over this quick shot of a post, I'm deleting it and here's my official stance. The prosecution in the Duke case fumbled the ball. The prosecutor was too eager to get a speedy case and make a name for himself. That is my final word.
____

It would seem that even a less than rigorous fact checker would understand the meaning of "I'm deleting it..."  Just to be clear, Malkin said Marcotte deleted the Duke Lacrosse post.  Marcotte did, in fact, delete the Duke Lacrosse post.  Further, Chris took Calabresi to task for saying that it was Marcotte rather than Malkin who said that Marcotte deleted the Duke Lacrosse post when he said "Actually...it was Michelle Malkin who falsely claimed Marcotte had deleted the comment."  I know readers, it might seem difficult to erroneously quote three people in just one short sentence, but Chris managed to do so.  Talk about "glaring factual errors."

With regard to the Katrina post, Malkin also said the Katrina post was a "missing post" and that it was a "post she's [Marcotte] trying to hide."  When Malkin became aware that the URL to the Katrina post had been changed, Malkin made the appropriate correction to her initial post.  It is most interesting that Malkin did not delete her initial incorrect post but instead made the correction and documented correction appropriately.  (For those that are a bit slow on the uptake here, I am drawing a direct comparison between Malkin's documented correction and Marcotte's complete deletion.)

Chris at this point takes a cheap shot at Malkin with this: "She [Malkin] later issued a difficult-to-find retraction..."  Any less than rigorous fact checker can see that Malkin noted the correction both immediately above and immediately below the URL changed Katrina post.  Rather than being "difficult-to-find," the correction is, in fact, impossible-to-miss.

Chris closes with: "Now, if only an establishment news organization could write an article on blogging that is both factually accurate and not filled with obvious loathing toward progressive bloggers, then maybe we will finally be getting somewhere."

I choose not to address Chris' "obvious loathing??" of "hate speech purveyor" Malkin.

It will be interesting to see if Chris has the blogging and intellectual integrity to correct his inaccurate post filled with glaring factual errors to make it factually accurate consistent with the requirements he places on the MSM.  What say you Chris?

Note to Chris Bowers and copy by email to Massimo Calabresi.


by azchrisreader on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 02:19:15 PM EST

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

That doesn't even come close to proof that she deleted any comments. that is just speculation on the part of Malkin.
by Chris Bowers on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 02:38:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

Go here:

http://pandagon.net/2007/01/21/stuck-at- the-airport-again/

It is Marcotte's blog. Read it:

"Since people are determined to make hay over this quick shot of a post, I'm deleting it...."


by Got any election results for us chrissy on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 05:54:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

Another point, Malkin's post is dated Feb 3, 10:13PM. Here.... http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_B oard/index.php?showtopic=1967&st=100

.....about halfway down the page, is a post dated Feb 2, 12:51PM which deals with the same deleted post. So Malkin certainly didn't start this claim.


by Got any election results for us chrissy on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 06:08:22 PM EST

Re: Does Anyone Fact Check Stories on Bloggers? (none / 0)

s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 s10 s11 s12 s13 s14 s15 s16 s17 s18 s19 s20 s21 s22 s23 s24 s25 s26 s27 s28 s29 s30 s31 s32 s33 s34 s35 s36 s37 s38 s39 s40 s41 s42 s43 s44 s45 s46 s47 s48 s49 s50 s51 s52 s53 s54 s55 s56 s57 s58 s59 s60 s61 s62 s63 s64 s65 s66 s67 s68 s69 s70 s71 s72 s73 s74 s75 s76 s77 s78 s79 s80 s81


by lucym on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:03:29 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.