I am appalled at the smearing of scientist Dr. Steven Hatfill by the FBI re. anthra

[december]

*Originally posted by spooje *But once they did, the media pretty much has to run with it. That is there job, after all. It’s what they are trained to do.

I agree that the FBI is primarily at fault, but the media has a choice whether or not to highlight a story.

And it can not be considered a smear unless they say something that isn’t true.

I disagree. A column may be spun in a number of ways, such as [ul][]leaving out or de-emphasizing exculpatory facts[]Use of tendentious language[]Leaping to unwarranted conclusions.[/ul]E.g., consider this column from the New York Times, which was cited earlier. [ul][]It says Hatfill flunked 3 lie-detector tests, but does not say which part. Other sources report that the polygraph indicated that he was lying about some of his past employment and telling the truth about anthrax.[]It mentons that he cancelled another polygraph test, as if that’s suspicious, but doesn’t say why the it was cancelled.[]It chastises the FBI for not having read an unpublished novel of Hatfill’s, which is just silly. []It implies that Hatfill must be unreliable because he “served in the armed forces” of Rhodesia and South Africa. That’s silly, too.[]The article doesn’t mention that Hatfill has been completely cooperative throughout the investigation. E.g., he had a legal right to refuse the polygraph, but he allowed himself to be tested three times. [/ul]I would characterize this article as a smear, even assuming there are no factual errors.

[hawthorne]

Good post december. I quite agree with your analysis.

How would it apply to your OP:

Then there’s the mysterious involvment of his chief accuser, Barbara Rosenberg, who a poster on another site called a leftist. On Fox News, a panelist called her a “crackpot.”

and your post on this page

This may help to explain why Hatfill is being defended by conservative media and smeared by some (not all) liberal media. If a former Communist were the suspect, maybe the conservatives would be smearing him and the liberals might be defending.

given that the concluding line of spooje’s post read

You have a case against the FBI here, not the ‘liberal’ media.

?
You didn’t just leave out the inconvenient bit did you?

[december]

hawthorne – I’m missing your point. Which “inconvenient bit” are you referring to?

[wring]

I’m sorry, but I’m calling “Bullshit” on this one, december - you are calling the liberal media to the carpet for printing possibly ‘slanted’ information, tho you acknowledge that the actual data is true (that the man is under investigation).

however, you also chastized the media for failing to print absolute shear ass speculation about Matthew Shepard in that infamous “PC = Polite” GD thread.

So, in this case, where the person being hounded by the press is a suspect in a criminal matter, you want the press to hold off on anything but absolute factual, no spin reporting, but in the MS case, you demanded that they print garbage (which turned out to be nothing but speculation by a commentator who was looking at pictures of the victim and perps), about the victim.

Absolute bullshit.

[hawthorne]

The “inconvenient bit” is how your post applies to your earlier posts in this thread with respect to how the supposed liberalism of the media related to the smear.

[december]

hawthorne, I’m still uncertain. My example tends to demonstrate that Hatfill was smeared “by some (not all) liberal media.”

Are you looking for an explanation of why Hatfill is a liberal target? Presumably the answer is two part:

– His nemesis, FAS, is a liberal group (I guess)
– Hatfill is a conservative, whose conservative friends are gun people.

I don’t think these two points matter much. The main thing is the FBI’s scurrilous actions.

[Mojo]

[sub]This was originally a much longer post, but the hamster wasn’t up to the task earlier this morning.[/sub]

December

Mojo, please re-read my post. I claimed that the Wall Street Journal said so, and they did.

And I assumed you were using that to bolster your argument, not just throwing it out there cus you thought it was a nifty article. So do you agree with their position or don’t you?

So, Mojo, before you started cursing, did you read WSJ article I cited and the Salon interview, which was the basis for it?

I read the Salon intervew excerpts on FAS, but not the WSJ article due to the fact that it required membership. Rosenberg states that the evidence points to a person who knew and possibly worked with Patrick at some point on the Anthrax via mail scenario. And she never claimed that the FBI is “in cahoots” with anyone, rather that it would be an embarrassment to the gov’t if it came out that we were working on weaponized anthrax in violation of the Geneva Convention.

My complaint was and still is with the WSJ’s statement (that you parroted but have since backed away from) that Rosenberg thinks that the Anthrax mailer is “in cahoots” with the government. I have seen no evidence presented that she believes that they’re “in cahoots”. You and the WSJ are presenting an inaccurate version of her statements and go so far as to label it the “tin foil hat theory” and her a “conspiracy nut”. At the same time you’re proposing that the entire FBI is intentionally misleading everyone about Hatfill’s innocence while the FAS is led by a liberal wacko who is framing him because of his thoughts on gun control, and I’m the conspiracy theorist?

Please tell me:
-where you get that FAS is a liberal group, or will you back off of that statement by pointing to your use of “presumably” and “I guess…”?
-What evidence shows that the FBI was “impressed” with the FAS? If anything the analysis and interviews at the end point out how badly the FBI is botching the job and not listening to the FAS.

[Ace_Face]

From a March 26 editorial in the WSJ (bolding mine):

The FBI, like the CIA and the other government intelligence-gathering agencies chasing terrorists, is a bureaucracy, and bureaucracies tend to operate under their own imperatives. In that context, it’s not reassuring that two senior law-enforcement officials involved in the anthrax investigation are quoted in yesterday’s Journal as saying that much of their work is aimed at ensuring that any evidence they bring forth will survive challenge in a courtroom. Well, we’d all like to arrest, convict and put away the individuals who dropped the anthrax letters in the mail, but the real national priority has to be forestalling more such attacks against the American people.

So by the WSJ’s standards, Hatfill surely is not being smeared – national security trumps his right to privacy. But the next paragraph makes it clear where the investigation “should” be heading:

That means that we must be prepared to pursue the anthrax trail wherever it leads, even if it takes us to places, such as Iraq, that complicate choices about foreign policy for U.S. leadership.

Remember the Maine!

[december]

*Originally posted by Mojo *-where you get that FAS is a liberal group, or will you back off of that statement by pointing to your use of “presumably” and “I guess…”?

As I said, I’m not sure. It’s just a feeling I had from the tone of their site.

-What evidence shows that the FBI was “impressed” with the FAS?

The fact that they followed FAS’s advice in going after Hatfill and appear to have bought FAS’s controversial theory that profiling that the perp was a lone nut.

If anything the analysis and interviews at the end point out how badly the FBI is botching the job and not listening to the FAS.

Interesating dichotomy. Maybe the FBI is botching the job and the are listening to FAS. In fact, maybe that’s the reason they’re botching it.

Seriously, what struck me was how quickly the FBI seemed to adopt the lone nut theory. Their decision may or may not be related to advice from FAS. In any event, the FBI was declaring that the anthrax had nothing to do with al Qaeda terrorists long before they should have really reached that conclusion, or reached any conclusion. In fact, as far as I can see, there’s still no basis to conclude that the anthrax was connected to 9/11 or that it wasn’t. As far as I can tell, the FBI still doesn’t know shit.