I very, very rarely address things written in other media, as readers of this blog know. It's just not my role to evaluate what people outside The Star say. They're entitled to their own opinions, always, without reservation.
However, several readers have asked me about allegations in a piece written by Jack Cashill in the American Thinker, accusing The Star of "censoring" stories.
The specific news stories cited as examples are absolute nonsense -- unless you can count the paper running them, including on Page A-1, as censorship.
The Obama "truth squads" story "censored?" Except it was in the paper multiple times, including on Oct. 4. And the critics also forget that McCain had his own "truth squads" out there (though they didn't include prosecutors and sheriffs in Missouri, which was one of the main knocks against the Obama team).
The Internet video of students at Urban Community Leadership Academy charter middle school doing a pro-Obama routine that outraged a lot of people? Yep, again censored in The Star -- unless you count that Page A-1 story about the subject of political involvement in schoolrooms on Oct. 8.
Even the implication, also repeated by Rush Limbaugh, that Obama mistakenly referred to being in St. Louis while at a Kansas City apearance and it went unmentioned? It wasn't just quoted in The Star's A-1 story -- the reporter even pointed out that Obama got the city wrong. A "gaffe?" Um, OK, sure. Now, you try traveling to dozens of states a week for months at a time, and let's see if you ever make a mistake about where you are. And again, The Star's story noted that he misspoke. The intellectual dishonesty here is breathtaking.
I normally detest anyone defending an opinion by stating it is objective fact. But I truly don't know how people can insist things that are simply lies, like the reader last week who insisted Obama's margin of victory was 1% of the popular vote. How even to reason with that? It's impossible.
Anyone can argue from here to eternity that The Star is unfair on one side or the other. I have presented an overwhelmingly disproportionate slate of those opinions from the conservative side for years.
But I don't repeat the fake stuff here. It's a huge disservice to the intellectual conservatives who make good points.
You are right, Derek.
It is wrong for a writer to express an opinion as if it is an objective fact. In that light, consider this comment that Denise Tiller, one of the Midwest Voices panelists, posted on Sept. 6: “Sarah Palin's oldest son had behavior problems and they got him in the army where he will have the necessary structure and discipline that he needs.” To my knowledge no one (including Ms. Tiller) has ever produced a credible source for that assertion, yet I am not aware that either she or the Star has ever issued a retraction.
Derek, my question to you is: Can either Tiller or the Star produce a credible source for her claim? If they have no credible source (and she was simply repeating the rumors on the Internet), will a retraction be issued?
Ethics? At the Star?
There is a link on the homepage of this blog to “Society of Professional Journalists: Ethics.” This is from that code of ethics: “Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.” Apparently, Denise Tiller didn’t read that part.
Starting from Sept. 6, when I posted a comment on Tiller’s blog entry, I repeatedly pointed out in comments made on Midwest Voices (including one of Miriam Pepper’s blog entries) that her charge against Track Palin was based on rumor, not fact. How did Tiller and other Star personnel react to my comments? They ignored them. Two weeks ago, I posted the above comment p0inting out that Tiller seemed to be guilty of the same offense that Donovan was complaining about. As of this moment, I have yet to see a statement from Tiller, Donovan, Steve Winn, or anyone else explicitly acknowledging that Tiller acted unethically by making a claim for which she had no credible source.
The Star is quite happy to point out the ethical lapses of people who don’t work for the paper. It ought to apply the same standards to its columnists (including part-time ones).
If it was wrong, it will be
If it was wrong, it will be removed. I'll check it out - but it might be next week.
Okay, my turn to be frustrated.
I realize these are hectic times at the Star. But, even under these circumstances, it shouldn’t take two weeks to investigate the very simple question I raised. (Actually, I posted numerous comments about this on Midwest Voices over the last couple of months, but that’s another matter.) All it really takes is a quick phone call to Tiller to ask her what her source was. Really, is that so hard?
It is fairly obvious there is no credible source for Tiller’s claim; if there were one we would have heard it by now. She simply chose to repeat a rumor about a candidate’s child as if it were a fact. That was very unprofessional, and she and the Star should issue an apology.
Strongly agree.
This could have been easily either debunked or verified by ANYONE at the Star a long time ago.
My guess is someone has a great deal of egg on their face and are too wimpy to fess up--that person works for the Star, not Tiller. She's just some cheap hired help the Star has packaged as "citizen writer" in order to save money.
Its pretty clear that the standards on blogs owned by the Star are pretty low--not so much as fact checking matters.
Jenniferm, thanks for the
Jenniferm, thanks for the supportive words. Unfortunately, it looks like the Star personnel have retreated within their cone of silence, so I doubt we will hear anything more on this topic. I’m disappointed, but not terribly surprised.
So, Derek, any word on
So, Derek, any word on whether Tiller or the Star was able to come up with a credible source? If they did, who was the credible source?
Thanks.
Still working on it, VOR,
Still working on it, VOR, and sorry for how long it's taken. That post is from a long time ago, but Steve Winn in the Opinion department is going over it. If it can't be substantiated (and a bit of time on Nexis didn't show me any primary sources), it'll come down.
Thanks. I’ll hop back up
Thanks. I’ll hop back up on my soapbox after Steve Winn responds, but one quick question/comment for now: Has anyone contacted Denise Tiller directly and asked her who her credible source was? If she can’t produce a credible source that she used back on Sept. 6, that seems to me to be pretty convincing evidence that she acted unprofessionally.
Cashill was mostly right on point....The Star censored the story
Your defense of the star regarding the Obama Truth squad story is laughable in at least 2 ways:
First: You attempt to draw an equivalency between what you call McCain's truth squad, which was an ad hoc, reactive movement that took positions based on things that had already occurred and had no organizational foundation within McCain's campaign.....VS Obama's Truth Squad which was proactively involved in the elimination and restriction of free speech in multiple forms and forums....in advance of such activity....The Obama Truth Squad was an active campaign driven and directed agency whose purpose was to eliminate anything that was anti-Obama from taking place. Your attempt at passing them off as "the same" is, at the least, a deceitful distortion.
Second: I personally wrote you complaining of such activity 8 days prior to your buried story ever being published, with links to multiple reportings of said activities....which you and your cabal of libby editors chose to ignore. I had posted similar links regarding Milt Rosenbergs WGN radio shows in Chicago on the Midwest Voices blog 13 days prior to your publishing anything. I was appalled in my missive directed to you, that you guys were guilty of bias through failure to report on the Governor's press release of 8-27.
I never got any such e-mail
I never got any such e-mail from you, chazzykc. I reply to each and every message I get, with the exception of some clearly-orchestrated mass campaigns. Maybe the spam filter tagged you by accident. If you had a bunch of addresses in your Cc field, that might have been the case.
I reply to each and every individual message I receive. If you claim otherwise, the spam filter nabbed you by accident, or you are lying -- which is very easy to do when posting anonymously on the Internet. You ain't got nothing to lose, but it's easy to fling junk at me.
And I'm growing increasingly tired of the lies. And I'm gonna start calling people on it more often.
This is a lie
You do not answer every letter. Also, you're one of the biggest censors at The Star. The fact is you're a phony and everyone's beginning to see through the lies. Too bad I didn't see this the day it was published or you could have had a field day censoring the list of stories I know you've censored and continue to censor.
Your columns are becoming as ludicrous as Zieman's silly self-aggrandizing pack of baloney printed the other day.
It was not in e mail form derek
It was in the form of a post on your ad astrum blog....easy enough to check .....and I am sorry but, as you say, "stating lies forcefully does not make them true". Neither does accusing one of lying make it true. Kinda chesp, I believe.
Your response at the time was in the form of suggesting that the "national news desk" or something similar would be looking into the issue. I responded to that brief post with my opinion that it was a bit evasive when your own state's governor had already weighed in with a rather strongly worded press release.
All of that is from memory ....you should be able to easily check the veracity of my post. Both this and past ones ....I am sure you will recall that you ostracized my use of the term "Gestapo like" (appropriately), to which I responded with an apology and corrected the phrase to "fascist".
chazzykc, I don't take
chazzykc, I don't take kindly to accusations of fascism or other silly hyperbole, whether they come from the right or the left. If you want to take up an issue seriously with me, I'd be happy to look at anything. My track record is clear -- I take up about seven or eight concerns from the right for every one from the left. But when things get so exaggerated that they're difficult to discuss in an adult manner, I find it hard to expend much energy.
In this case, I have to admit I don't remember the issue. Point me to it and I'll take another look.
Oh My
Is this true Mr Donovan? If it is, I see why you went on vacation. I would have too. Right after confession.
WTF?
You are the readers' rep? Who appointed you with that title, the readers? Or, the writers? What an odd notion, that a paper would appoint a representative to speak for the readership. Sounds like some PR BS to me. We know what we have read and many or most have the same opinion as Cashill. The only problem we as readers of the Star have is the masochistic desire to read news in our local paper when we know good and well it is rarely fair and unbiased. Print media is dead! Now if I could get that through my head I would be all the better for it.
Well
I read that article and distinctly remember that his criticism was directed at the seemingly tardiness in ever addressing many of the things you say appeared on A-1.
I notice it all the time. The Star it has seemed to me for the past couple of years will either ignore valid news that doesn't fit the agenda, or wait until it is old to even give mention.
Maybe it is just the speed of communications today that makes it appear that way, but, it is not the impression that I get from the on line version of the Star. It appears intentional. Kind of like it appears intentional that the on line edition is seeded with editorials all through out every single section without acknowledgment.
I think his article and his impression is honest and valid. You must remember that the Star has sacrificed it's credibility. Once you did that, people will naturally assume the worst from you until such time that a major shift in direction is taken. That has not happened and no one expects it. They would rather see you go out of business or be sold off. It is a tough thing when you sacrifice neutrality. You lose that, "constitutional mandate" you all think is implied.