So, we have Mother Jones, an admittedly biased but respected publication making a claim based largely on what they believe to be the integrity of the claimant but somewhat corroborated by police reports of Longdon enduring another similar incident. On the other, we have a couple of bloggers loudly shouting “PROVEN HOAX” based on bizarre non-logic.
There’s no proof of Longdon’s claim, and there have been similar hoaxes on both sides of the political spectrum, but there are other incidents that are better documented that at least give plausibility to her claims.
What’s the truth here?
No, that’s not what they’re saying. They’re claiming that CNN never aired any footage of the protest that happened earlier in the day. Said footage was supposedly aired at the airport, enabling the spitter to recognize Longdon. The blogger is saying that never happened.
Hmm…I have to say, this incident seems unlikely to me. I’d assign blame as follows:
-The activist sounds to me like she’s lying. I can’t know for sure, but without other eyewitnesses, police reports, etc., I’m not believing her.
-Mother Jones is almost certainly not lying, but this is very sloppy journalism. They act as though they confirmed her story, but all they confirmed is that she told the same story to other people. That does absolutely nothing to confirm that she’s not lying.
-The blogger needs to be clear that he’s not busted Mother Jones for lying; he lacks a smoking gun, which is just the way the activist likes it.
No, I had to read it several times to parse what they’re saying. Here’s their train of thought:
Argument 1) “Every Town for Gun Safety” website makes no mention of media coverage of their press conference (???)
Argument 2a) The media coverage was allegedly viewed at the Indianapolis Airport
Argument 2b) The Indianapolis Airport has their TVs tuned to CNN
Argument 2c) CNN has no coverage of the press conference on their website
Argument 1 makes no sense to me, since it’s not typical for organizations to announce media coverage of their own press releases. Argument 2 makes no sense to me because there’s no rule that says everything CNN airs has to make it to their website. The logic is just as silly as davidm makes it sound.
That said, I agree 100% with Left Hand of Dorkness.
You now understand that the logic is not bizarre, right?
As Labrador Deceiver points out, the blogger is saying, in effect, “I know Longdon is lying, based on this claim:”
A screen in the concourse did NOT ever show footage of the press conference. The screens in the concourse are continually tuned to CNN, and CNN never showed this footage. Longdon’s explanation for how the tall, thin man recognized her was seeing her on the screen, identified as an anti-gun activist, as well as in person. But, says the blogger, we know that never happened.
So – assuming the blogger is correct about CNN and the concourse screens, Longdon lied, and Mother Jones credulously accepted the lie. I think Mother Jones did nothing overtly wrong initially – they clearly identified the source of their story and accurately reported what that source said. Expecting a Mother Jones fact-checker to verify what the screens in the concourse were airing before going to print seems a bit over-the-top.
But their continued defense of the story now is shoddy journalism. Now they have notice of the specific evidence, they should either confirm or deny its truth, rather than continue to rely on the reputation of Longdon.
They’re basically saying they don’t think coverage was ever aired. They are basing it in the fact that they can’t find any evidence of the coverage. They may be wrong, but their argument isn’t particularly difficult to understand.
In this day and age, it seems like it would be pretty easy to verify 1) what station the airport monitors are tuned to and 2) everything that CNN Airport aired that day. Why hasn’t anyone done this?
Also, some rudimentary googling suggests that Indianapolis International Airport uses CNN Airport, which shows different content than regular CNN. I think the burden of proof is on the right-wing bloggers to show that the news conference wasn’t shown on CNN Airport.
OK. This should still be easy to verify. I do think that everything CNN airs (except commercials?) does make it to the website. But even if that’s wrong, CNN can certainly confirm or deny whether the clip aired. At that point, we’ll know.
So assuming CNN says, “Actually, even though it’s not on the website, we did air it, and during the time that Longdon would have been in the concourse,” then we can say the blogger is wrong.
And in the alternative, if CNN says, “No, not only is it not on website, but we never aired it,” then it would seem likely Longdon fabricated the event.
They can’t find any evidence of the coverage on a different medium some unknown time period after the coverage aired. “They may be wrong” is absolutely right, and it’s why they shouldn’t be going around saying “BUSTED!”
Sure, that would at least be evidence. I don’t think we’d know, but it’s certainly a better argument than they’ve got right now. It may still be that one TV was tuned to MSNBC.
Exactly, this is shoddy journalism all around. On the one hand, Mother Jones is taking this questionable story at face value, and acting like they’ve “verified” it because the blogger filed a police report about some other harassment that may or may not have happened either. And Dana Loesch is calling bunk based on conspiracy-theory logic.
They can’t find evidence of it anywhere. The CNN website is the logical place to start, but I’m guessing they also checked the internet (YouTube, etc). Has anyone actually come forward with any CNN footage?
A further claim from the story is that “no one else blinked” when a man spit into the face of a woman in a wheelchair. If the phrase used was “no one else noticed”, that would be one thing. But ISTM that the implication is that others saw it, but didn’t react.
I find it hard to believe that people spitting on the wheelchair-bound is so common as to escape comment in Indianapolis Airport. Or that anti-gun activists are so instantly recognized, and universally depised, that no one blinks an eye when people spit on them in public.
Again, if no one else blinked because no one else noticed, it would have been more accurate to say so instead of phrasing it as it was phrased.
But the reporter claims
The two statements, taken together, seem to be saying that those with whom the reporter allegedly spoke to confirm the incident either didn’t see it, or didn’t care that it happened.
So either the people he spoke with said the equivalent of ‘sure, someone spit in her face - so what?’ or else ‘she complained someone spit in her face, but we didn’t see it’.
This woman claims that she gets harassed a lot. I read the Mother Jones account of the previous incident in Phoenix, where someone allegedly squirted this woman with a water gun. The reporter claims
Which sounds like the same sort of “corroboration” as with the spitting incident - the police were never able to locate the person who allegedly threatened her. So perhaps the reporter spoke with the police officer who took her complaint. The fact that there were no witnesses to the squirting incident does not prove she is lying, of course, but it also does not constitute proof that it happened. So it is not very good colloboration, IMO.
Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, of course.
Corroboration. My only concern is the claim that the airport doesn’t have any security footage of the incident. Regardless of whether they did, why would they release it?
This reminds me of that time that girl told the press that some black guy carved a “B” on her face after seeing a John McCain bumper sticker on her car.
With that said, I suppose it could be true. Lots of crazy shit happens every day. You should try sitting in an arraignment court on a Monday and see what sorts of crazy shit had happened over the weekend.
Maybe the woman would need to file a police report and have the security footage subpoenaed. Spitting on someone is assault and battery AFAIK.
Maybe the woman doesn’t want to file such a report. This could be for a number of reasons -
[ul][li]She tried that in Phoenix and nothing came of it, so it isn’t worth the trouble.[/li][li]She wants to put the incident behind her. [/li][li]The incident either didn’t happen at all, or didn’t happen as she describes it, and she doesn’t care to have that known.[/li][li]It’s easier to leave things as they are. Those who want to believe her have enough corroboration from Mother Jones to satisfy them, and she really has nothing much to gain from more efforts.[/ul][/li]
Regards.
Shodan
Well, that’s kind of the point. She didn’t report the incident to police and isn’t suing anyone so there is nothing compelling the airport to release the recording.
Agreed. Privacy concerns might even be pushing the other way, which is why I mentioned a subpoena.
Absent any proof that CNN aired the footage of the press conference at the time she claimed, I am going to consider this as unproven.
A lot seems to happen to this woman, and they never seem to catch the perpetrators. She gets squirted with a water gun, and the squirter gets away. She is shot and put into a wheel chair, and the shooter never gets found. People spit on her and no one notices.
Given the legend that has grown up about uncorroborated accounts of Vietnam-era protesters routinely spitting on returning vets (who apparently never defended themselves or filed police reports), I am skeptical about this woman’s story until proof appears.
