What Would A Weasel Do?

Over the weekend Glenn Greenwald had an interesting 'Kosola' post in which he rode a good point to a laughable conclusion, downplaying key evidence along the way.  His good point?  There was some problem with one of four emails quoted by TNR writer Jason Zengerle; three emails, attributed to Kos, Mike Stark, and Glenn Greenwald himself, were not in dispute, but a fourth email, ostensibly from Steve Gilliard, had no clear provenance.  Steve Gilliard apparently did not write it, so who, we all wonder, did?

The absurd conclusion to which Greenwald effortlessly leaped, in a post titled "Does The New Republic have a new Stephen Glass in Jason Zengerle?", was that the bum email was "fabricated".  Let's let him tell it:

Zengerle caused The New Republic to print a completely fabricated e-mail and then falsely attribute it as one Gilliard sent to the Townhouse list.

Completely fabricated?  Surely other explanations are in play?  Evidently not - Greenwald is wedded to the "fabricated" charge:

It is difficult to see how Zengerle's claim about his sources could be true, to put it generously. It is highly unlikely (to put it mildly) that three different sources would send Zengerle the same fabricated e-mail and falsely tell him that it was sent by Gilliard to the Townhouse list.

Well, I called him on it, pointing out that his original post gave very short shrift to the fact that Zengerle cited three other emails that were not in dispute.  My not-so-bold point:

Mr. Greenwald's more complete hypothesis seems to be that Mr. Zengerle had two genuine emails and fabricated a third.  Somehow that seems to change the balance of probabilities a bit, especially since the "fake" email makes the same point as the two authentic ones - why, one might wonder, would Mr. Zengerle bother to gild the lily with a fake email supporting two real ones?

Now, I erred in declining to offer some alternative hypotheses of my own; evidently, some readers on the left have failures of the imagination with anything other than a Rovian-led conspiracy involving Cheney, Halliburton, and oil.  However, it struck me as perfectly obvious that much less nefarious scenarios would be more plausible, and I described one in my own comment section.  Just to jolly the discussion along I'll repeat it, typos and all, right here:

What I have been saying is that the presence of two legitimate emails changes the likelihood pf various scenarios that include a bum email.

For example - suppose Zengerle simply confused a header and a footer on a forwarded list of thirty emails. In that case, all three emails are "authentic", but one was not by Gilliard, but instead by another Clownhouser. That would hardly change the thrust of the Zengerle article.

Of course, someone who did not realize that two authentic emails were part of the story might not hit upon that hypothesis. And someone reading greenwald's post might not realize that two emails were legit.

I am not, Greenwald's distortions notwithstanding, saying that a fake email is irrelevant; I am saying two or three real emails make the fake story a bit harder to understand.

A shorter version would be, never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.  Now, I did not think I was blazing a trail of insight here - Occam's Razor is well known and encourages simple explanations, folks can get glitched up in their email, and so on - but little did I know...

Which brings us more or less up to speed.  Jason Zengerle has admitted that the "Gilliard" email can not be attributed to Mr. Gilliard, but he has not been able to get ahold of his source to resolve the confusion.  Mr. Zengerle does explain that, yes, he had three sources, and yes, the first source did send him the email.  At this point, I suppose the adherents to the "fabrication" theory will want to explain either that Mr. Zengerle is lying (backed, presumably, by his editor); or that for reasons unknown the mysterious primary source provided three genuine emails and one short, deliberate fabrication.  (For completeness, I should note that Greenwald is pretending (point 4) that the "Gilliard" email is substantially different from the Stark and Greenwald emails; link-clickers can judge the absurdity of that claim for themselves).

Well.  The opening question was, "What Would A Weasel Do"?  Glenn Greenwald has chosen to double down by pretending that I was making a different point and minimizing his own "fabrication" charge.  Note the disappearance of the Stephen Glass insinuation from the lead of his follow-up post:

On Friday, I wrote a post stating -- based on abundant evidence I had compiled that was indisputable and conclusive to all but the most fact-free eyes -- that an e-mail published by Jason Zengerle on the website of The New Republic was fraudulent. The e-mail was one purportedly written to the Townhouse list by Steve Gilliard, and it was clear that Zengerle's claim was false because no such e-mail was ever sent. Zengerle's silence over the weekend led a variety of right-wing bloggers and their commenters to spend the last two days calling me a liar, mocking my claims, giddily exchanging juvenile jokes with one another over my paranoia, and generally insisting that my accusation was false and baseless.

Jason Zengerle finally responded last night and, in doing so, confirmed that every single thing I said was, in fact, true:

Every single thing he said was true except for the bits that weren't.  Bits such as "It is difficult to see how Zengerle's claim about his sources could be true, to put it generously."  Bits such as "The e-mail was simply fabricated by either Zengerle or his sources."  Never mind.  Matt Stoller has corrected his lead, but Greenwald opted to bury his.

Greenwald is firing at a number of targets in his latest, so let me pick out his charge against me:

Tom Maguire - in a post entitled "Glenn Greenwald's career in comedy," he wrote:

Somehow that seems to change the balance of probabilities a bit, especially since the "fake" email makes the same point as the two authentic ones - why, one might wonder, would Mr. Zengerle bother to gild the lily with a fake email supporting two real ones? And does it seem "highly unlikely (to put it mildly)" that Zengerle would have three sources confirming two genuine and one fake email? . . .

What a tangled web we weave.

Maguire's characteristically glib, evasive and substance-free attack on my integrity then, as intended, led some of his commenters to say -- without contradiction -- things such as this: [blah, blah, blah...]

"Characteristically glib" - I like that.  As to "substance-free", hmm, perhaps we are seeing a small symptom of substance abuse here.

Well.  His complaint against me seems to be that some commenters piled on.  Welcome to the blogosphere. 

But if he would be diligent enough to tell me just what it is I got wrong, that would be lovely - how can I be both "substance-free" and wrong?  A time for choosing!  And since he has decided that the key evidence of my Evil Heart can be found in my comments section, I exhort him to weigh my comment cited above.  Seemed clear to me.

Oh, well - what else would a weasel do?  He would willfully mischaracterize the attacks upon him:

And there are plenty of others who, needless to say, followed along, applying a whole range of derogatory attributes to my credibility and judgment this weekend for having pointed out that the Gilliard e-mail is fake and, beyond that, that TNR's journalistic behavior in printing it was questionable at best.

No, I did not question whether the "Gilliard" email was accurate, a point which seems to have confounded him.  I questioned his judgment in insisting on his alien abduction fabrication theory.  And how is that theory working out?  At this point, we have a strong denial from Zengerle and not even a whisper of a plausible scenario from Greenwald as to why the mysterious source might want to have forwarded three longish emails and then fabricated a fourth.

Let's see - a weasel would build a nest of straw:

All weekend, people who had no evidence or proof whatsoever that the Gilliard e-mail was authentic were insisting -- in the face of waves of evidence to the contrary -- that the e-mail was authentic and that I was a liar, a moron, a hysteric, etc. Their desire for the e-mail to be authentic, and for me to be wrong, swamped any assessment of the evidence.

I am sure that in this wonderful wide world, someone can be found to match that description.  But I don't think there were many, not at my site anyway.

I find this interesting, from Greenwald:

Personally, if I told my readers that another blogger was lying or was drowning in paranoia when making certain claims, only for those claims to turn out to have been true all along, I'd be quite eager to retract my accusations and apologize for them as clearly and prominently as I could.

I look forward to his acknowledgment that the Stephen Glass insinuation was over the top.

And I'll stop here:

Maguire pathetically continues to insist that I really was wrong, and Maguire right, and that Zengerle's confession that the Gilliard e-mail was fake somehow does not really support my claim.

Hmm, I'll glumly accede to a certain pathos in trying to talk sense to these people, but - I stand proudly by my Not-So-Bold position that Zengerle's denial that he fabricated the "Gilliard" email does, in fact, undermine Greenwald's insinuation that Zengerle did fabricate it.

As a bonus, I stand by my view that Zengerle's claim to have three sources, one of whom sent him the emails and two of whom verified them (however sloppily) does, in fact, undermine Greenwald's insinuation that Zengerle is lying about his sources.

MORE:  Folks who enjoy watching a lawyer double as a psychiatrist will enjoy the balance of Greenwald's post, in which he diagnosis the Delusional Right on the basis of this incident.  I am not a shrink myself, but I think he is projecting here:

They swarmed together to make assertions which were plainly false and for which they had no proof, and then used their groupthink to confirm the rightness of their claims (they wallowed in an orgy of incestuous links to one another, all of which were evidence-free and reasoning-free -- not to mention wrong -- as though the endless references to one another constituted "evidence" which justified their accusations).

Let's put that alongside this UPDATE IV from Greenwald:

UPDATE IV: In light of the difficulty (most of it intentional) which some are having in understanding the relevance and implications of Zengarle's publishing a fake e-mail, I highly recommend this post from Lindsay Beyerstein, who spells it all out as clearly as can be.

The no-doubt-charming Ms. Beyerstein then breaks down the possibilities for us:

So, how did Zengerle get ahold of three copies of the same fake email? The most charitable explanation is that he got egregiously burned by the same forger who sent him three copies of the fake, purporting to be different people. If so, Zengerle should burn that source, or if he doesn't know the source, admit that he'll publish anything from anyone. The second-most charitable explanation is that he got one fake email and lied about how many sources he had. The most disturbing possibility is that Zengerle fabricated the letter himself. It's time for Zengerle to burn his source, or resign.

Well, Greenwald and friends can group-think this all they want, but I think they ought to at least identify the fourth-most charitable explanation - someone got tangled up in his email tree.

UPDATE:  Jeff Goldstein delivers a handsome apology to the sad and aggrieved Glenn Greenwald.  (Well, I liked looking at it...).

Comments

[Carol Herman]

Do cannibals use seasonings when they eat their own? Or do they shout out "BAM" ... and stick napkins on their shirt fronts?

Did TNR hurt itself, trying to run away from the moonbats? You wonder if their circulation doesn't drop off now. Or if it picks up?

Ya know, back in the innocent days of the 1970's, ya needed Nixon's dirty tricksters to cook up stuff like this.

Now, ya just gotta marvel at how outlets become the story. And, to think, once, there used to be dreams about making it to the front page. At the thrill of being in the headlines. It all seems so far, away, now.

Meanwhile, ya got Emeril's recommendation to "take it up a notch."

What surprises me most, is that I don't even care about the emails. Have you noticed that, too?

[keatssycamore]

That third email is as 'real' as the those TANG documents still are to Dan Rather. They were just misattributed to a guy with a word processor.

Bad journalism, by Jason Leopold or Jason Zengerle, is bad journalism. Your thinking up of 'charitable explanations' for such is funny given what I normally read on this blog regarding 'journalism' (or maybe those media critiques were just schtick to you, so much of the criticism seeming to depend on whose ox is being gored).

[Rick]

Boy, Kos sent out a really long directive on this (non) issue, didn't he? Glenn certainly springs way up there when Dear Leader says "jump."

What (Else) Would A Cultist Do?

Cordially...

[crosspatch]

His source mis-attributed the questionable email to Gilliard. I suspect the other sources initially vouched for it because they had seen the email too. They probably have a copy of it in their mail application. It probably just didn't originate from Gilliard.

The only story in this sub-plot might be in who actually sent it. Only the sources know for sure, and it appears that the only one that voluteers information has gone silent. It appears the other two will confirm things, but wont volunteer things. Drama.

[Barney Frank]

One thing that is not at all clear to me is, had Zengerle initially gone to Gilliard, would the story have been any different?
Gilliard's original reaction was that Zengerle was indeed using Gilliard's words. If JZ merely asked him for confirmation that he had said this without mentioning that it was in a Townhouse distribution he may very well have had the statement confirmed by Gilliard. And if he had there would be no diversion for the left to even be squawking about. Kinda funny when you think about it.
Whether journalistic ethics were violated is a legitimate question. Whether it would have changed Zengerle's story if they weren't is another.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

So, how did Zengerle get ahold of three copies of the same fake email?

Is Beyerstein smoking crack here or have I missed something in this discussion?

Just when did JZ get *three copies of the same fake email*? I thought there was only one copy of one fake email, or one copy of one misattributed email.

But *three*?

Would someone mind cluing me in as to WTF this person is talking about?

[keatssycamore]

ed,

From everything I've read, you have described it accurately. I don't know what Beyerstein could be talking about.

[Rick Ballard]

"Whether journalistic ethics were violated"

Journalistic ethics are too malleable to ever be violated. Can a chimera be violated?

Let's pose a hypothetical based upon the existence of the chimera - Zengerle has proferred both explanation and apology along with a promise for further explanation based upon the response of his source. He fabricated nothing and has done what is possible to do.

Have his actions to this point violated any of the chimerical journalistic ethical standards regarding discovery of error?

[boris]

It's not as if JZ could expect to get away with publishing an email from X he knows is not from X when he knows X knows he knows X's nose would get out of joint and go public and blow up in his face. 'Snot rational is it?

It's just making a stink about a nearly irrelevant detail that got muffed. So it wasn't from X and now everybody knows it. Big Deal. Kos is still busted.

[crosspatch]

Is Beyerstein smoking crack here or have I missed something in this discussion?

Just when did JZ get *three copies of the same fake email*?

The point being that if the reporter got a copy from one source, and two other sources confirmed it, then there must be THREE copies, no? One for the original and one for each of the two other confirming sources.

[Pisistratus]

Why don't you just accuse Greenwald of stealing the strawberries and be done with it?

[Molon Labe]

ed,

Zengerle said he had three sources for the emails...which the nutroots automatically took to mean that all three sources had separately sent him the emails.

Instead, one source sent the emails and two others confirmed them. Typical and prudent journalistic practice, IMHO.

Clearly, they leapt on this assumption since it could easily be glossed over for maximum umbrage. Sort of like arguing with a child or passive-aggressive spouse who carries on based on an intentionally misheard remark.

[corvan]

I seem to recall that there are allegations that there are journalists on this super secret Kos list. I'm wondering why jounalists are a memeber of Kos's secret little club, and if they have been following Kos's instructions regarding the stories they cover. Will anyone from the Super Secret Order of the Al Shihah Temple of the Kos address that, please?

[Tom Maguire]

Bad journalism, by Jason Leopold or Jason Zengerle, is bad journalism.

Pretty muddle-headed - all mistakes are equal in impact, intnet, and so on?

I have no trouble believeing there is a non-malicious explnation for Zengerle; Leopold, a bit harder.

[Jimmy's Attack Rabbit]

I'm sure the significance of this will be apparent in 24-48 business hours.

[Semanticleo]

Maguire;

I am quite sure you have a good excuse for
your convenient absence when Greenwald spend
about 30 minutes commenting on;

"Glenn Greenwald's Career In Comedy"

No doubt you were out scaring up game for
your next 'weasel' sandwich.

Or is there a more 'malicious' interpretation?

[keatssycamore]

No, Tom, not the mistakes. They aren't equal. The bad journalistic practices are what are equal. If it weren't for bad journalism, we wouldn't have stand around discussing which mistake is worse in intent and impact. We'd get it right instead, or it wouldn't be reported. No?

[Semanticleo]

BTW;

When, and if, you snarkily reply, include
amongst the proofs that you are not a pusillanimous buffoon, that you have challenged Greenwald to a 'live' debate.

[BumperStickerist]

I have it on good authority that Tom Maguire had drawn himself a bath, added salts, and enjoying a nice soak and a glass of Corbett Canyon wine during the 30 minute period Greenwald was doing Kos's bidding.

.

and by 'good authority' I mean "BUSHAWOL" level 'good authority'

.

[Human]

Nope, no integrity here.

Peace.

[corvan]

Really, honestly, which journalists and bloggers are members of the Kos illuminati and how have they covered this dust-up? Can't anyone from Greenwald's site address that? How have these super-secret under-cover speakers of truth covered anything on which Kos has issued talking points?

[Semanticleo]

From Greenwald's post today. His comment about Maguire. "Little Instapundit' does
as "Big Instapundit" says.

"Maguire writes with the same cowardly method that his hero Instapundit uses -- he never actually affirmatively says anything, only implies it and traffics in innuendo so that he can deny it later --"

[boris]

There is a difference between a minor error in a true story ... Greenwald's email was authentic and Kos is busted ...

And whole cloth whoppers like the Rove indictment and the TANG memos.

Oh I see, they're not actually "equal" but they ARE morally "equivalent".

[boris]

same cowardly method

Yeah, posts facts as facts and speculation as speculation, and knows the difference.

[boris]

That requires more than semantics.

[corvan]

Really Cleo, I'm serious. Who's with the in crowd? You can tell us. We won't tell anyone else.

[Semanticleo]

corvan;

If truly srious; define your terms.

IOW....WTFAY

[topsecretk9]

Corvan

I seem to recall that there are allegations that there are journalists on this super secret Kos list. I'm wondering why jounalists are a memeber of Kos's secret little club, and if they have been following Kos's instructions regarding the stories they cover. Will anyone from the Super Secret Order of the Al Shihah Temple of the Kos address that, please?

I second this...since the subject has shifted to journalistic ethics...and all.

[topsecretk9]

--"Maguire writes with the same cowardly method that his hero Instapundit uses -- he never actually affirmatively says anything, only implies it and traffics in innuendo so that he can deny it later --

Via Greenwald...via? TOWNHOUSE LEADER KOS's original email:

... Note how Glenn Reynolds is fueling it with his typical passive aggressive, "I don't think it's a big deal, but let me provide links to everyone who thinks this is THE BIGGEST STORY EVER!"

This is hilarious. Seriously, is their an original thought from the left?

[Pisistratus]

Yes. And General Casey just stole it.

[corvan]

Top,

When you're right, you're right. Cleo, I want to know who the journalists on Kos's secret list are. That way I can compare their coverage of this matter to Kos's instructions and see of there is a correlation. I can do the same thing for their coverage of all other issues on which Kos has issued talking points. To me, journalists being members of secret organizations that traffic in political capital is very disturbing. Especially when they keep that membership hidden. I'm not saying that shouldn't join. Hell join what ever you want. But there is no reason to hide that membership is there?

[Semanticleo]

"Cleo, I want to know who the journalists on Kos's secret list are"

You're asking me?

HTFWIK? and I repeat....WTFAY?

[Joe]

Pissy, someone used a Queeg reference days ago wrt to Kos, please, try to keep up.

[corvan]

No, Cleo, I long ago learned not to ask people who know aboslutely nothing questions it is a waste of time. I was hoping, however that you would be helpful and refer the question to someone who has a brain and can use it.

[Carol Herman]

Is the questionable email a McGuffin?

Then who sent it, could be Lucy Ramirez.

Just like in the TANG fiasco for C-BS, I don't think people cared about the "provinence" of Dan RaTHer's "fake but accurate" story that pointed to Bush's misspent "yoot." The real truth is that it didn't matter. Throw out Lucy Ramirez, and it's as good as any story line you'll come up against. McGuffin's, according to Alfred Hitchkock were Red Herrings. Done on purpose to keep the story going, so that the conclusion would surprise ya.

And, ya know what? There are no surprises, here.

What Dan RaTHer missed is that he was unable to attract crowds of people to outrage. Unless, of course, you want to read outrage in what followed, when his story backfired.

We're watching former sites on the left disintegrate. With the first one being Kevin Drum's Cal Pundit; cat blogging and all. WHen it went belly up. And, all he did was try to point out a better candidate than Howie Dean. Instead, you had poor people (well identified as suckers), who through a total at $40-million dollars at Dean, because they thought he'd KILL Bush. Their motive? Oh, that wasn't nice. They were willing to use their credit cards (where fees ad up), in an attempt to derail the president's bid for re-election in 2004.

The only mystery being that they thought they were relevant. And, that they had a chance.

[Semanticleo]

Lots of lurkers or Johnny-come-latelys are being excreted spontaneously, and do doubt,
coincidentally.

[Semanticleo]

"No, Cleo, I long ago learned not to ask people who know aboslutely nothing questions it is a waste of time"

I'm somewhat flattered you think I have access. Now, do you mind telling me who's whispering in your ear? And thanks for the AdHom. It generally represents an admission of defeatism.

[Rick Ballard]

HTFWIK?

No one will be able to argue that point with you Miz Cleo.

BTW - It's "admission of defeat". Better get back to cracking the remedial ed books - Dean Wormer's watching.

[topsecretk9]

This
is tangentally related, and interesting look at Zuniga, Armstrong and politics...but I thought this ...

Shortly after that Brown, who's internet strategy was being directed by Armstrong bought a massive blog ad buy. The ads themselves were especially deceptive, picturing both Brown and Hackett's face on them and initially directing people to Browns fundraising site, until later changed to an actblue general election fund page - after many people complained about it. It was all a mistake was the claim....

...In an email exchange with kos, he played down the ad buy claiming that Hackett was going to be running ads in 2 weeks - there was no conspiracy. Hackett never did run any blogads. Did kos lie ? In the same email he also claimed that I had not neutralized Armstrong (I was pounding Brown in diaries i was writing at kos) and that Armstrong was "the best in the business", and was "now free to be even more aggressive"...

[Semanticleo]

It's "admission of defeat".

Mallard;

Thanks for the lesson. I am well aware of what I said. Try focusing on the Big Picture
occasionally. It might broaden your world-view. Just sayin'.

[corvan]

No one is whispering in my ear. All public record. Look over at the Commisar's place. Mona says that the Top Secret list is populated by journalists and political operatives (always a toxic combination) among others, and she seems to imply that she has been in contact with Mr. Greenwald (or someone in the know)about it. The comment is number 14. It is here, http://acepilots.com/mt/2006/06/25/the-plank/#comments.

[corvan]

The name of the thread is Gilliad-Gate.

[corvan]

Oops, that should be Gilliard-Gate.

[Tom Maguire]

No, Tom, not the mistakes. They aren't equal. The bad journalistic practices are what are equal.

Good point - didn't Dostoevsky write something about all happy news stories are the same, but all unhappy news stories are unhappy in their own way?

I'll take your point that a good editor can prevent all manner of mistakes, regardless of the actions of the reporters.

However - a reporter determined to spoof his editor probably (almost surely) can, for a while. Some good faith is required for the system to work. Which is why I put Zengerle and leopoled in different categories.

[Semanticleo]

Yeah. So what?

"she seems to imply that she has been in contact with Mr. Greenwald"

This is the meat in your 'burger?

Jeez. And I thought you might be with the
Rendon Group? Sheesh.

[topsecretk9]

Corvan

It is definitely a big aspect of this story that is being foreshadowed by one scrappy email...who are the journos, what payroll are they on and what do their employers think about their paid employees belonging to a secret email group with political operatives whose chief goal is to coordinate and strategize a

" a unified message... to discuss policy, issues, tactics and coordinate"

[corvan]

Top,

I agree. It doesn't seem to me that journalists should be coordinating unified messages or discussing tactics. I wish someone from the Star Chamber would explain. Someone with a clue...not Cleo.

[corvan]

Oops, that should be shouldn't be.

[Ken McCracken]

Well Tom, now you are spilling more ink on the provenance of this 'fabricated' email than on the deeply embarassing nature of the other authentic emails.

Seems like Greenwald's desperate ploy to salvage some dignity through misdirection and distraction might be working.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Who described the members of "Townhouse" as "journalists"?

It was Zengerle, right? I ask because if it was somebody that was a member of the list then you can narrow that list of "journalists" to people that agree with progressive policy. Journalists that don't agree with progressive policy are just "wingnuts" or any other malleable characterization.

Corvan's link at Ace is to a post from a Mona that says Greenwald characterized the members as "journalists".

I'll wager that by journalists they mean Paul Krugman, Garance Franke-Ruta, David Brock, and Syd Blumenthal, et al.