Mods: I have permission to reproduce the entire article.http://www.atlargely.com/2008/03/journalism-inte.htmlJournalism interrupted, The Right Wing Attack Machine Churns...So you folks recall the active smear-campaign by Eddie Curran - a former reporter with the Mobile Press Register who has been actively vomiting up propaganda on behalf of the Siegelman prosecutors and the Alabama GOP, right? Just in case you have indeed forgotten the failed career of Curran and his hopes of selling a book on Siegelman's prosecution, see
HERE.
The latest attack effort launched by Curran is to recruit right-wing blogs via a letter he has been distributing and which is now prominently featured on the Alabama GOP website. My pal in Alabama,
Legal Schnauzer, has some words for Curran and describes the latest antics that show exactly why Curran has proved himself not remotely credible:
"Eddie Curran is in a fightin' mood. But is this war of aggression from the erstwhile Mobile Press-Register
Not content to throw rhetorical bolo punches at Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson and Harper's 60 Minutes. And we're not talking about a private missive to the folks responsible for the recent story on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
No, our guy Eddie apparently has disseminated his letter to a number of right-wing blogs. It can be found at several sites, including Granddaddy Long Legs
here. Curran's letter also appears at the Web site of the Alabama Republican Party.
Most mainstream reporters I've know in my almost 30 years in journalism would be horrified to see something they had written touted on a political party's Web site. But I've got to give Curran credit: He's given up all pretense of being an objective reporter.
I know Schnauzer will will forgive my snipping so much of his post, but it is just that good:
"Curran contends that reporter Scott Pelley and producers David Gelber and Joel Blach bungled the Siegelman story. The primary charge is that statements made by Siegelman attorney Doug Jones were false.
This has to do with Jones' statements about the testimony of former Siegelman aide Nick Bailey. According to the show's transcript, Bailey testified that Siegelman walked out of a meeting with former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy holding a check for $250,000.
But Jones says: "They got a copy of the check. And the check was cut days after that meeting. There was no way possible for Siegelman to have walked out of that meeting with a check in his hand."
Curran says Jones did not represent Siegelman during the 2006 trial and heaps criticism on 60 Minutes for using Jones as a source. Also, Curran says, Jones had it wrong:
"Jones was actually correct when telling your wide-eyed host Pelley that the check was dated after the meeting. However, it was given to Siegelman at a later meeting. Neither prosecutors not witnesses at trial, Bailey included, said the check was given by Scrushy to Siegelman at the first meeting."
Now Curran covered the trial, and I did not. But let's take a closer look at Curran's allegations.
Throughout his letter, Curran admonishes 60 Minutes for not presenting corroborating evidence to support statements made by Jill Simpson. But what kind of corroborating evidence does he present to support his claim that Doug Jones' statement was false? Zip."
You should read the whole thing. It is stellar. But what of the right-wing glue sniffing crowd? Are they interested in rule of law, fair trial, and all sorts of things that we generally associate with something called freedom and democracy?
Freedom is on the Farce, stillNope... these folks are so strung out on propaganda that they will easily sell their Constitution for a fix; a high that for a moment makes them feel courageous in taking on the "big-bad-left", the "left-wing media", and every other monster they fight in their ruptured minds in order to make their pitiful lives just a bit more interesting. How sad that such little minds have purchased so much of the public platform. Is it not?
Here are some examples, with my commentary of course. Grandaddy - something or other - blog:
"Is Don Siegelman in prison because he’s a criminal or because he belonged to the wrong political party in Alabama? Siegelman is the former governor of Alabama, and he was the most successful Democrat in that Republican state. But while he was governor, the U.S. Justice Department launched multiple investigations that went on year after year until, finally, a jury convicted Siegelman of bribery."
The question is not "is he guilty or innocent," rather, did he get a fair trial. The answer is no. Does this sudden- expert in social justice cite that 52 former state attorney generals of BOTH parties have demanded an investigation via a letter to Congress?
No. Why bother, right? This blogger has not a clue and yet there he is spreading the sick as though he was onto something. I think that for people like this, the high is just how noble it sounds to attack 60 Minutes for "ethics issues." He goes on:
"In the past few days, the AL GOP has denied knowing anything about the allegations, Karl Rove has denied having any involvement, and now the reporter that was assigned to Siegelman’s trial has contacted CBS to question their journalistic ethics, as well as their common sense."
Oh hell, Karl Rove had denied the allegations on Fox News, so he is vindicated. Now let's see if Mr. Rove will testify under oath? The whistleblower in the case, Dana Jill Simpson - made the allegations in front of Congress, in a public forum, and under oath. Perhaps if Karl Rove were subpoenaed he might tell his side of the story? Oh wait, he was subpoenaed and he did not show up. Yes, being held in contempt of Congress for skipping out on a subpoena is a definitive mark of credibility.
But this right-wing blogger is not the exception, he appears to be the rule and this is what I find most disturbing. People who do not know the case, do not know the facts, and do not understand what happened are screaming for blood because the GOP has decided that Karl Rove must be protected at all costs. These mindless drones (bloggers, pundits, and shills... oh my!) then stampede into the public sphere and make noise that confuses and distorts, anything so long as it deflects.
Here are some others - in the all un-American party (a party over country), not remotely Republican or Democratic or any shade of freedom - who have an opinion on 60 Minutes and Don Siegelman:
Blogs for Victory:
"In the MSM’s desperate desire to smear all things GOP, 60 Minutes recently ran a hit piece on Karl Rove, somehow trying to blame Mr. Rove for the downfall of Alabama’s corrupt, former Democratic governor Don Siegelman - the Alabama GOP has responded to the smear"
How does this group of paid pundits explain the appearance of Grant Woods in the 60 Minutes piece? Oh, did I mention that Mr. Woods is a former Republican state attorney general and the Arizona co-chair of the McCain campaign?
Better still, does this bunch mention this little fact? No. Apparently it is best to avoid mentioning Mr. Woods and the other 51 former state attorney generals - of BOTH parties - who have demanded that the Siegelman case be investigated. Uncomfortable facts should be ignored, right?
I can only assume that this mantra of "In the MSM's desperate desire to smear all things GOP," is a way of saying that Mr. Woods and others are no longer loyal to the party. Well, at least they are loyal to the Constitution and to the country.
Confederate Yankee:
The sad thing about this blog is that its owner - who has seemingly been interested in honest journalism in the past - has decided that actual facts no longer matter. While that type of thinking is the standard right-wing propaganda machine outlook, CY has tended toward being the exception among his cohorts. Not anymore, he jumps straight in:
Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft shares the news of another possible election year meltdown at CBS News.
60 Minutes recently aired the claim that former Alabama governor Don Siegelman went to jail not for corruption, but because he belong to the wrong political party, and that the investigations that landed him in jail for bribery were politically motivated.
One of the most explosive claims made was that Karl Rove was involved in an attempt to entrap Siegelman:
- snip -
CBS News seems to have a lot to prove in this case to avoid a retraction, including:
- Proof that Jill Simpson ever worked with the Alabama Republican Party beyond simply being a volunteer, seemingly the easiest fact to verify or disprove.
- Proof that Simpson ever did "opposition research" for the Alabama Republican Party and Karl Rove.
- Proof that Simpson had been in contact with Rove.
- Proof that Rove asked Simpson to take compromising photographs of Don Siegelman
If CBS News can substantiate these charges, then the long-held liberal dream of bring Karl Rove up on charges for something could possibly occur."
Um, so the documents showing ongoing communications with Bob Riley, Rob Riley, and others in the Alabama Republican party are not enough? Or is it that CY has not even bothered to read through the massive amount of information provided by Simpson to Congress?
Most interestingly, however, I have to ask - once again - why Ms. Simpson has to continue to "prove herself" while Karl Rove need only wave off the allegations? Let me say this again, and for good measure: Ms. Simpson testified under oath, in front of Congress. Mr. Rove was subpoenaed, and did not even show up. The burden is now on Mr. Rove to appear and testify under oath. Ms. Simpson has already done that.
I mean really, I have already
issued a letter to Powerline and others addressing each and every point in the hopes that they were simply ill-informed. Clearly, I was mistaken in thinking them ill-informed. What they appear to be rather clearly now is entirely un-American.
No real American would stand for what has gone on in the Siegelman trial. No real American would defend party over country, worse, a man over country at all costs. I have said this before, and I will continue to say this for as long as it takes to reach above the propaganda and be heard amid the din of nonsense and fabrications. All American are entitled to a fair trial. It is that simple.
How about something even more simple? Why does Mr. Rove not simply appear under oath and testify?
Be sure and check out Larisa's Comments section.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
