It’s not strange at all for reporters to investigate. Reporters investigated “pizzagate” as well, and pretty much every other conspiracy theory that got any traction at all (including Birtherism). AFAICT, the Star-Trib reported facts, including the facts that some people were spreading rumor and innuendo. I might have worded the articles differently, and placed more emphasis on the facts that there’s nothing out there regarding Omar’s marriage but rumor and innuendo, but I don’t have any significant issue with what I read in that paper.
That’s totally different than the rumor/innuendo-mongering in this thread, and the assumptions that this rumor and innuendo must have something to it because of reasons, and the implication that Omar’s refusal to cooperate tells us anything about the plausibility of these rumors and innuendo, etc. That’s the idiocy that deserves to be mocked.
It was perfectly reasonable for the “Strib” to ask Omar about the rumors. It was also perfectly reasonable for Omar to tell them to get knotted.
As a “Pulitzer Prize winning” publication, however, I bet the Star Tribune didn’t treat a lack of corroboration as corroboration, as some others have done.
Which is exactly what you would expect given that the actual accusations are baseless conspiratorial rumors obviously made in bad faith by right-wing clowns with no interest in the truth. The fact that a local newspaper investigated and found nothing solid about the accusations does not somehow make it more credible.
Andy is still trying to have it both ways. The questions are “silly” and not worth even responding to, but there is nothing untoward about the Strib assigning multiple full-time employees to try to get the information the hard way.
ETA: And yes, it is stonewalling. People who stonewall the questions of others always try to dismiss them as baseless and silly. It’s what Trump’s defenders do constantly on cable news and in congressional hearings.
That’s not contradictory. As iiandyiiii noted, part of what the press is reporting on is the scandalmongering itself. There is nothing inconsistent in expecting that the press will report news about a popular conspiracy theory and investigate allegations about it even if it’s baseless, while also expecting that the subject of a baseless CT will refuse to talk about it.
Well then, how would you describe somebody dismissing as baseless and silly questions that actually are baseless and silly? When a flat-earther challenges a famous astronomer to prove that the earth is actually round, and the astronomer says that the question is silly and not worth even responding to, would you describe the astronomer as “stonewalling” the flat-earther?
You either did not read the article, or are willfully misrepresenting it.
ETA: That was in response to Kimstu, who initially expressed deep skepticism of my memory of the article I had read in print and is now moving the goalposts as usual. But it doesn’t not apply to Steve.
Yes to all this, Sage Rat, **SlackerInc ** and others are falling for what the conspiracy theorists want their marks to do, if not to fall for the conspiracy 100%, then to fall for the endless JAQ fallacy.
I never said I’d read any specific article on this “scandal”, nor have you managed to clearly indicate here what article you’re referring to.
In what way(s) are you claiming that my statements “part of what the press is reporting on is the scandalmongering itself” and “the press will report news about a popular conspiracy theory and investigate allegations about it even if it’s baseless” are “misrepresenting” or “moving the goalposts” on anything? Or are you just making vague accusations because you don’t like my pointing out that you were wrong?
So you think it’s perfectly unexceptional for a member of Congress to get divorced, marry someone else who then disappears (and the member of Congress claims not to know where they are or to even know anyone who might be able to find them), then refuse to answer any questions about that person, while remarrying their ex-spouse and refusing to let reporters contact anyone in their family, while social media accounts for the spouse who disappeared are deleted? Just regular, normal stuff in American politics.
What do you think the FBI would make of a background check on a Cabinet-level nominee with that kind of shenanigans going on? Or even a background check for some lower level worker for the CIA or NSA? Denied!
ETA: Srsly, Kimstu? I think it’s pretty obvious that I’m talking about the Star Tribune article that I had mentioned a couple weeks back having read in print but that I was out of free articles for the month. You gave me a hard time about that, and then I just posted the link and some excerpts a few hours ago. And I honestly don’t even have an inkling as to what specifically you think I won’t admit I was wrong about. (If you really even think that, as opposed to trying to pull the old “I know you are but what am I” bit.)
What you’re wrong about is whether there’s any reason to treat this as more than just rumors/innuendo/evidence-free conspiracy theory. There’s not. AFAICT, the Star Tribune has not treated it like anything more than rumors/innuendo/conspiracy theory about a prominent individual (i.e. they’ve investigated, as they would for any other widely-spread rumors and innuendo about a Minnesota public figure). But you’re acting like this is more reasonable to discuss than birtherism, or Pizzagate. It’s not. It’s just rumor and innuendo.
It’s perfectly unexceptional for the target of a hateful smear campaign to not willingly provide more fodder for said campaign. “Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired.”