The_Wizard's response

I got called out a few days ago by the folks at OlbermannWatch because I used the word "slander". It went a little like this:

"Anonymous said...

Slandering?

Only an OlbyLoon would think fact-checking a fact-challenger journalist is "slander".I suppose tossing around terms like "slander" is actually less taxing than responding to our valid criticism. We document every post. Care to point out any specific examples of our publishing false information?

Take your time.OlbermannWatch.com
20/4/07 12:01 PM "

I have been challenged with the task of looking at "valid criticism". An IE error took away the post I had been working on as an answer, and I've been grading drafts. I apologize for the delay, but here is the new one...

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "fact-challenger", nor am I sure why I am the one having to defend Keith Olbermann, but I find it interesting that you claim to provide "valid criticism" and that you "document every post" and you have been doing this for years. Let's have a look at yesterday's, for a start, posted by someone called Johnny Dollar.

The only "documentation" you provide are links to RedState, Fox News, OlbermannWatch (twice), which support your claims because they are right wing, and to Media Matters, which you are evidentally suspicious of, yet use as a form of validation. The other links in this post are to an Olbermann Transcript for April 4th, as well as a link to Amazon so that your readers can buy O'Reilly's book. Moreover, you seem awfully concerned with how Olbermann's book is doing, and the ratings, which have absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of his claims. Additionally, in the links, the only independent links you provide are to papers who have run stories on Olbermann or to other posts on this blog. Like Ann Coulter or Ben Shapiro in their books, you ostensibly provide "support" for your claims, but these supports either link partisan blogs, or are so poorly documented, that it becomes difficult to corraborate the information you cite.

Here's a suspiciously lacking piece of documentation: The document itself. You are criticizing Olbermann's show, with a night by night run down of what you thought you saw, yet, you do not link to a video which, if you are right, would support your claims. How am I supposed to comment on it if I cannot view and judge for myself? Or is this beside the point? It seems to me that you know your audience, and what we have is not an honest or a valid criticism, but the judgements of someone who has made their mind up beforehand.

On Olbermann Watch ">FAQit states that "Just read the site every day and you will come to see that he lies pretty much every time he opens his mouth. Sometimes we even make lists but with Keith it is hard to keep current on his latest lies and distortions...".yet there is no independent corraboration of these lies and distortions. I see nothing from Reuters, the AP, The New York Times, the Times of London, or anything like that. You link to other commentators. Why bother linking at all, then. It would by like asserting that the "world is flat" and finding ten other people to agree, and calling that proof.

Another thing which caught my eye was the prominent "Know something about Keith Olbermann?" red e mail link, which would indicate some desire for dirt on Mr. Olbermann. So is this about Olbermann the Commentator or Olbermann the person? This seems like an invitation to rumormongering to me.

One of the things I have learned over the years is an textual archeology, digging deep to uncover the who and why in the creation of a text. I've already uncovered the obvious bias in the Johnny Dollar post. Scrolling down, I find the name Robert Cox as the editor of the OlbermannWatch. There's also a nice picture of Bob with Tony Snow, in case there was any question of where this is leading.

He is the President of the something called Media Bloggers Association, whose mission statements reads

"Honesty, fairness and accuracy: State what you know and how you know it. Use links to supporting documents on the web wherever possible; credit sources and link to other bloggers. Distinguish fact from rumor and speculation. Be intellectually honest when expressing opinion. Don't plagiarize or pass off others' work as your own. Act responsibly and with personal integrity.

Transparency: Clearly disclose conflicts of interest including personal relationships, financial considerations or anything else that might influence or appear to influence your independence and integrity. If you accept payments from advertisers or sponsors, clearly demarcate advertorial from editorial content."

I wonder, how, as editor in chief of the OlbermannWatch, and the President of this organization, how could one could allow such shoddy documentation and obvious partisanship in one realm, and then promote such lofty, nay, noble, ideals about the citizen journalist on the other hand? Intellectually honest? The OlbermannWatch is anything but.

At the end of the day, by definition, nothing on the OlbermannWatch is libelous or slanderous, because this would necessitate that general audience would believe catalog of logical fallacy that is the modus operandi over at OlbermannWatch, with its "redstate" bias hanging out for all to see.

I suppose, as Wes asked, why would OlbermannWatch. come looking for me, running a small blog with no advertising, no site meter, some one who's only intent is to provide more testimony to the disasterous policies of this President. The great thing about blogging is that it allows everyone to provide testimony to history, democratizing it in the process, and, as such, allowing a true history of the people in the process. But maybe, because I do give testimony to history about this President, his right wing apologists and the cryptofascist propaganda they utilize to stonewall and subjegate the citizens of these United States, is exactly why OlbermannWatch took exception, because it is part of the problem.

Anyway, thanks for stopping by.