Wednesday, February 20, 2008

CAIR's Blog Bashing Get Picked Up By Uncurious Media

How is it that media outlets (and here) in St. Louis can run stories about comments left on those websites without actually interviewing any of the principles involved? Is this the face of the media in 2008? Charles Johnson is rightfully pissed off about this. I can't blame him one bit.

His website is being smeared by CAIR. CAIR is hoping to get the FBI investigating the site for four comments made yesterday (and subsequently deleted by Charles after he was made aware of them). CAIR never once tried to contact Charles directly. That's bad enough.

Even worse, none of the media outlets attempted to contact Charles, despite the fact that Charles has been interviewed by media outlets in the past (for his exposure of the Rathergate fraud), has a handy-dandy contact form on every page, and openly reminds all posters that comments are subject to deletion and posters banned for threatening violence. All four of the posts have been subsequently deleted.

None of that matters for CAIR. All that matters is that CAIR silence the opposition. Forums such as LGF are a threat because it exposes CAIR for what it is. And the media is a willing accomplice in all this by their curious inability to go to the sources.

Gateway Pundit and Christi Li have much more on this.

My earlier coverage is here and provides more background on CAIR and its odious connections.

UPDATE:
Charles has posted a series of emails between him and the reporter who wrote the story for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Needless to say, reading comprehension and the ability to follow links are not one of Tim Townsend's shining attributes. Sanctimonious attitude, however, is.

The fact is that Townsend did not contact Charles before running with his story. He did not view the blog, or the comments sections, and made a clear factual error in claiming that it was a blog post that got CAIR in an uproar - it was one of the comments by someone posting to the site.

Since when is it appropriate to write an article for a newspaper and get only one side of the story? Apparently in Townsend's world, that's wholly appropriate, but it is highly offensive and violates Journalism 101.

UPDATE:
I went ahead and sent an email to the letters to the editor, a managing editor at the paper, as well as Mr. Townsend himself. Here it is for all to see, and if I get any responses, I'll be sure to post them here as well. I'm not holding my breath though:
I am writing because I am seriously concerned about the editorial process involved in a piece written by Tim Townsend, Mosque Threatened: Muslim Group Says (published 2/19/2008) which was about the construction of a minaret in St. Louis and that CAIR believes that it was threatened by Charles Johnson who operates the blog Little Green Footballs.

Needless to say, reading comprehension and the ability to follow links are not one of Tim Townsend's shining attributes. Sanctimonious attitude, however, is - as witnessed via the series of emails published by Mr. Johnson at his website here:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
(note that this is an invitation to actually read the information at the link provided, which is more than can be said for Mr. Townsend and his actual reporting on the story).

The fact is that Townsend did not contact Charles before running with his story. He did not view the blog, or the comments sections, and made a clear factual error in claiming that it was a blog post that got CAIR in an uproar - it was one of four comments noted by CAIR by someone posting to the site. Charles deleted all four of the comments once he became aware they were published in an unmoderated forum on his website.

Since when is it appropriate to write an article for a newspaper and get only one side of the story? Apparently in Mr. Townsend's world, that's wholly appropriate, but it is highly offensive and violates journalism 101. Back when we were learning about journalism, we were taught that reporters are supposed to ask who, what, when, where, why and how. Mr. Townsend didn't bother getting half the story - the part that would have revealed that Mr. Townsend did little more than rewrite a CAIR paid press release.

Further, where was the oversight to ask whether Mr. Townsend had bothered to check out the reporting and fact check the piece?

Are these things normal at your institution? Surely your readers deserve more than that.

Regards,
lawhawk

A Blog For All
[Link: lawhawk.blogspot.com...]
Meanwhile, more information has come out about Mr. Townsend and it appears that he's familiar to at least one member of CAIR, and the Post Dispatch has a problem with anti-Muslim postings in their own comments section on their website. Figures.

UPDATE 2/21/2008:
Thanks to all those stopping by from LGF. My current post on the Post-Dispatch mess is here.

No comments: