WaPo Whomping

If you don't like a bit of WaPo bashing, you won't like this review of their Russert "coverage".

Comments

[RO]

Bloggers credentialed.

[clarice]

Good for you,TM. Chris is doing such good work and the WaPo deserves it's own Patterico-ing.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Let me add my own observations. In wars, as ammunitions goes flying, in "give and take," there comes a point where you can hear the crickets, again.

How so? The enemy's run away. Or they ran out of ammunition. And, you're still loaded.

Yesterday, on the DAVID SHUSTER "headlines" he spouted, AND. THEN. NOBOBY. ELSE. IN. MEDIA. PICKED. UP. It dawned on me that I was "hearing" silence.

DAVID SHUSTER took his headline from the GJ testimony, (I'd bet). Where Fitz kept asking Libby about his note-taking. And, it turns out that Libby does COPY the work un-done, from one note to the next. And, then he "throws out the old shopping list." YOU heard that! I read that! Because I've been reading the testimony, as it came out in court, myself.

Where are the crickets? Do you know how long it's been since the MEME stopped flying, that Cheney sent Wilson to Niger? As a matter of fact, it's IN the trial, now, but not as FACT. (As state of mind, you know.)

But the media is either dead. Or playing dead. They're not willing to take a "bomb(shell) from Shuster, and create it as news for the nutworks.

I call that close to winning the war. This won't be over until Grant gets Lee's sword, in total surrender. (That's MY Bush. And, my bet.)

[Christopher Fotos]

Dear Typepad, please keep an eye on your servers. Smokin' is good only as a metaphor.

Thanks Tom.

[TruthIsHere]

So, righties, if Fitz's case is so weak, why is the "Libby guilty" contract trading at between 65 and 70 at InTrade? Seems like you'd stand to make a bundle by going short on this contract.

Face it: Libby's goin' down. We might have to wait until President Rodham before we can get Rove, Cheney & the rest of the Bu$hCo cabal.

FREE MUMiA!!!!!

[Dan S]

Oooo, I SO missed this:

"W: Do you have a bad memory?

T: No."

And that's after a LONG series of "I don't recall." Not to mention the whole event involving the forgotten phone call(s) about the debate.

Hmm, that's coming close to lieing in my eyes. Okay, it's a matter of opinion, but how can a reasoning person hold that opinion in the face of the evidence provided both by the record and his own statements?

I know I freely tell people my memory of names sucks. No shame in that, that's just the way my memory is.

I bet we see this little bit of evidence in the defense's close.

[hit and run]

So, righties, if Fitz's case is so weak, why is the "Libby guilty" contract trading at between 65 and 70 at InTrade?

Because yesterday or the day before Sue changed from predicting guilty to acquittal.

After her record in the NFL playoffs, I'm sure word quickly spread of this turn of events.

FREE SYL!!!

FREE CHARLiE!!!

[Jane]

Nice job Chris!

[Christopher Fotos]

Nice job Chris!

Thanks. Will blog for food. No, seriously...

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

AJ Strata-Sphere is LINKING here, to your post, below, on the DROPPING OF ONE COUNT. Guessing "C." (Judith Miller.)

Does that mean Jill Abramson won't testify?

[boris]

OT (slightly). Just want to lay down a marker on defense.

Case Logic: Surprise versus Surprise

The simplified logic of the case;

Libby:

I'm certain I could not have discussed it with Ari & Judy early in the week because I was surprised to learn it from Russert later.

Russert:

I'm certain I could not have discussed it with Libby earlier in the week because I was surprised to learn it from Novak later.

Arguendo: If surprised is an unreliable subjective phenomenon, then their testimony of certainty is also unreliable. It becomes "possibly certain" or IOW "uncertain".

That makes their testimony neither TRUE nor FLASE, but rather UNRELIABLE. It's like saying "I'm very certain that's what really happened because my FORTUNE TELLER told me so". Or "I'm very certain that's what really happened because IT CAME TO ME IN A DREAM". It just doesn't work as reliable statement of reality.

Libby and Russert did NOT testify to what they knew, they actually testified to being surprised, an unreliable subjective phenomenon.

[Tom Maguire]

So, righties, if Fitz's case is so weak, why is the "Libby guilty" contract trading at between 65 and 70 at InTrade? Seems like you'd stand to make a bundle by going short on this contract.

I had a Libby moment which cost me a bit of beer money - I shorted some contracts a while back at 50 and covered at 35 for about a $15 dollar profit (we are big-timing it here!)

However - I remembered the (closing) buy but not the opening sell, so I have spent months thinking I was long the "Libby Guilty" contract. I was going to cash out a few days ago, figuring the close of the prosecution case would be a bit of a high-water mark, but I have nothing to close.

Anyway - the contract is at 65 at the close of the prosecution case. Maybe it will go up even more if the defense can't think of anything to say, but I bet not.

As to whether Fitzgerald's case is weak - I was honestly shocked at how bad Grenier, Grossman and Schmall were.

Fleischer was better than I expected, but he may yet blow up on his dispute with Dickerson and Gregory.

I expected Cooper and MIller to be awful, so Miller was actually better than I expected - she gave up a lot, but never wavered that Libby told her on July 8 and June 23, and never admitted that she may have asked Libby about Plame in June.

I think the Cooper charges won't last five seconds in the jury room. Miller, longer; Russert, maybe longest.

And so far the defense has not explained Ari Fleischer or Addington.

But the prosecution has been weak on motive, so who knows? The jury may conclude that Libby made good-faith errors that were comparable to all the other BS Fitzgerald did not indict.

That said - if the defense does not explain how Libby was talking to Ari on the 7th, or else make that story incredible, the jury will get Libby for something even if they think Russert is also lying.

And as a matter of public policy, I don't think Special Counsels should be bringing these "hey, maybe we can win this if we catch a break" cases - he should have had a slam dunk, or nothing.

Unless, of course, he simply wanted to make a political statement, as with the Clinton impeachment.

[Cromagnon]

"But the prosecution has been weak on motive, so who knows?"

Really?? Thats not how I see it but I guess we all see what we want to see eh?

[michaelt]

From the Washington Post:

A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general's report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith's office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general's report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith's office: Levin's report refers to an "alternative intelligence assessment process" developed in that office, while the inspector general's report states that the office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The inspector general's report further states that Feith's briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."

Link

[clarice]

Discussing it on another thread--Levin apparently held a conference call and pawned off his stuff as the IG report and these crack reporters who never saw the IG report printed it as if it were. (Hot Air has the details). Unbelievable!

[tina]

Just more proof that the WAPO is nothing but the propaganda arm of the DNC. I'm sure the "reporters" are stunned that the editors actually issued a correction. That is almost a first, isn't it? WAPO and DNC, sitting in a tree, KISSING! We need no more proof of that after this report.

[Pofarmer]

And as a matter of public policy, I don't think Special Counsels should be bringing these "hey, maybe we can win this if we catch a break" cases - he should have had a slam dunk, or nothing.

Once it was clear who leaked what first, and that there was not crime, anyway, the whole thing should have went away. The lack of supervision here is a travesty.

[lurker]

Americans did indeed vote for the Democratic majority....and are probably starting to feel buyer's remorse?

Now they do NOT want earmark reform (neither do some of the Republicans, such as McCain)!!

[JJ]

Anyway - the contract is at 65 at the close of the prosecution case. Maybe it will go up even more if the defense can't think of anything to say, but I bet not.

LOL! What the heck was that commment TM?

Is this finally the secret to the logical mind? Find wisdom at InTrade!

[JM Hanes]

Hey TM!

Anybody in the market for a case of "Me-Too" Journalism? Pincus on (Levin on) Feith set sail as conventional wisdom before the WaPo even had time to issue a retraction. Oh, wait, make that a correction. On the web. Needless to say, the ship itself had already left port, so to speak.

Maybe our expert WaPo Watcher, can tell us what's currently considered the decent interval between posting a humiliating disclaimer and airbrushing all defects away as though there were never anything amiss?

I do think the WaPo's correction could be a little shorter, and, well, less clumsy, don't you? An elegant, multi-tasking, Mea maxima culpa is always appropriate, but perhaps others might have more inspired suggestions.

[topsecretkk9]

jmh

i just love you.

[Kevin B]

Two things on the InTrade contract price.

First, Fitz has only to get one guilty out of four charges, but Libby has to get all four not guilty, so the price may reflect that.

Second, any investor following the prosecution case via the MSM knows that Fitz has shown that Libby is guilty of outing super secret agent, the lovely Ms Plame, to discredit truthy hero Joe Wilson and his proof that BUSHLIED in order to cover up for his Evil Neocon Boss Cheney and nefarious mastermind Rove.

They haven't heard the Judge telling the jury twice a day, every day; "This is NOT about whether Plame was covert! Stop asking about whether Plame was covert! "

If Team Libby can persuade the jury that it's not about "covert" Plame or Bushlied, (or perhaps get them to believe that Val wasn't covert and WilsonLied), and all it's really about is whose version of events you believe out of a load of contradictory obfuscations from a lot of prime examples of two of the least trusworthy groups of people on the planet - journalists and political operatives - and that our guys are more trustworthy at forgetting things than their guys, then they have a pretty good shot at "reasonable" doubt.

For those of you thinking of a bet, it is worth pointing out that journalists rank below pols in the trustworthiness stakes these days.

[topsecretk9]

Also JMH

When I read the correction? That juror question to Cathie Martin started ringing in my ears...paraphrasing - "What happens when the media doesn't believe you do they just print a lie? Or something like that.

She answered - Yes.

[lonetown]

With the great fact checked reporting at the WaPo we now get to hear the trolls yammer on about how Feith "cooked the intelligence".

Add that to the endless list of mis-reporting.

[kate]

I cancelled my subscription to the WAPO about 3 years ago and don't miss it at all.

Isn't Pincus the social acquaintance of the Wilsons who was allowed to continue to "report" on this story long after his role as a player was known.

Shoddy.

Why is Bush not taking on this media/DNC collaboration. It is costing us lives in the war.

[Pofarmer]

Why is Bush not taking on this media/DNC collaboration. It is costing us lives in the war.

How? You have defenselink, strategy page, centcom websites etc to get actual information from. What this trial clearly shows is that the WH can't get out actual information via the MSM.

[kate]

Pofarmer-the MSM is how 95% of Americans still get their news. I get war news from military bloggers and get much better context. It's not all good news either. When milblgs started reporting the deterioation of the situaion in Baghdad last summer, I knew it was bad news.

I think the administration could have - it may be too late now- planted seeds that the news media was untruthful or not credible.

They should have attempted to go over the heads of the MSM to get the story to the American people.

The Administration, instead, spent most of 2005 on lost cause projects like reforming social security and left the Iraq narrative to its enemies.

[Rick Ballard]

"They should have attempted to go over the heads of the MSM to get the story to the American people."

While it's true that Reagan did that a few times, it's also true that the subjects that he chose had the virtue of being able to be simply described. Bush did very well in the days following 9/11 but the WoT doesn't lend itself to simplification. Bush could not point at Mecca as Reagan did at Moscow and he has refrained from decribing islam in the simple terms which Reagan used to describe communism.

If a subject cannot be reduced to a simplicity comprehensible to a 13 year old, then it cannot be successfully transmitted to the "American people". That's why the MSM and its progressive counterpart on the internet deal in caricatures. Stick figures for simple minds. It works.

[MaidMarion]

Isn't Pincus the social acquaintance of the Wilsons who was allowed to continue to "report" on this story long after his role as a player was known.

The CIA is Pincus's beat. No doubt in my mind he had a working relationship with Valerie Plame.

[Pofarmer]

Right on Rick Ballard.

I read in an economics book the other day(the guy is an extreme right wing Buchanite) that in order for something to be understood by "the masses" it has to be simplified down till it is essentially a lie. Therefore, large groups never really have the truth.

[Pofarmer]

O.K.

This is kinda off topic.

But.

Who appointed Fitzgerald as federal prosecutor?

[lurker]

Rick Ballard, how about Dr. Sanity's post?

All The Left's Agenda in a Single Cartoon

[lurker]

Comey appointed Fitz as a special prosecurtor as an independent from DOJ.

Comey went on to work for Lockheed-Martin dealing with legal and ethical issues.

[lurker]

Comey appointed Fitz as a special prosecurtor as an independent from DOJ.

Comey went on to work for Lockheed-Martin dealing with legal and ethical issues.

[Pofarmer]

Thanks lurder, I was thinking further back. Went to Wiki, interesting reading. He's also brought 2 other fruad and conspiracy cases to indictment while having this case before a grand jury/trying it. Do you think Maybe Fitz isn't seeing the Forest for the trees here due to his other work? I mean, you do enough of these cases, everybody starts to look like a perp?

On November 17, 2005, Fitzgerald brought criminal fraud charges against former Canadian media mogul and British lord Conrad Black, as well as against three other Hollinger executives.

On 1 February 2006, it was first announced that Fitzgerald was indicting nineteen members of this software and movie piracy ring in U.S. Federal Court in Chicago.[15][16]

Soon after becoming U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois, Fitzgerald began an investigation of political appointees of Illinois Governor George Ryan (Republican), who were suspected of accepting bribes to give licenses to unqualified truck drivers. Fitzgerald soon expanded this investigation, uncovering a network of political bribery and gift-giving, and leading to more than 60 indictments. Ryan, who did not seek re-election in 2002, was indicted in December 2003. At the conclusion of the trial, in April 2006, Ryan was found guilty on all eighteen counts against him. Ryan's co-defendant, Chicago businessman Larry Warner, 67, was convicted of racketeering conspiracy, fraud, attempted extortion, and money laundering. The two were sentenced on 6 September 2006: Ryan received a sentence of six and one half years, and Warner received a sentence of three years, five months.[7]

On July 18, 2005, Fitzgerald's office indicted a number of top aides to Democrat Richard M. Daley, the mayor of Chicago, on charges of mail fraud, alleging numerous instances of corruption in hiring practices at City Hall. Fitzgerald is also investigating the administration of current Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. An investigation announced on December 30, 2005 will review contracts between the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority and vendors who signed leases to occupy the recently remodeled Illinois Tollway oases. Fitzgerald's office is investigating possible conflicts of interest between these vendors and one of Blagojevich's top fundraisers, Antoin Rezko.

[lurker]

Profarmer, I was wondering if that's what you meant.

And I'm also wondering if there is a connection between Antoin Rezko and Barak Obama?

[Pofarmer]

Antoin Rezko and Barak Obama?

How so?

[Pofarmer]

One thing I think I know about Illinios(especially Chicago) politics. To make it you are either in bed with the Dim's or the Mob. I worked for a guy in college who had worked as a superintendant for some really large rock quarries around Chicago. He could tell stories from an insiders perspective that would make your hair stand on end about the politics up there.

[Christopher Fotos]

Maybe our expert WaPo Watcher, can tell us what's currently considered the decent interval between posting a humiliating disclaimer and airbrushing all defects away as though there were never anything amiss?

JM--

WaPo Watcher here. I did finally write a bit about The Mother of All Corrections after some kind-hearted JOM denizens asked where the f*** are you but couldn't improve much on Ace, Hot Air, and Gateway. I do have a blast-from-the-past correction added as a bonus that illustrates how much the Post--or any newsroom--positively detests having to acknowledge error.

[Sue]

Because yesterday or the day before Sue changed from predicting guilty to acquittal.

After her record in the NFL playoffs, I'm sure word quickly spread of this turn of events.

LOL. I haven't gone to acquittal, you are misrepresenting what I said, thread, err, H&R. But the joke is still funny.

[hit and run]

Sue:
LOL. I haven't gone to acquittal, you are misrepresenting what I said, thread, err, H&R. But the joke is still funny.

Hopelessly behind here, but I *think* I was trying to relay what the market was perceiving your comments to be....not what they really were. ::wink, wink::

I was very close to accusing you of trying to manipulate the market on those contracts for personal gain. And would have too -- if not for the fact that you are Sue...pure as fresh fallen snow.