Cain: Politico Had No Documentation of Accusations - Pt 1 (Must See!)

FOX News ^ | November 11, 2011 | Neil Cavtuo

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I'm only asking someone to summarize the claim that there's 'no documentation.' It seems to me that legitimate stories are frequently broken without what I, as an attorney, would call 'documentation.'

See: "Journalistic Code of Ethics":

The first one sort of says everything about modern journalism that needs to be said, really.

Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:
— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

<p><i>Those instructions make me want to slit my wrists.</i>

<p>Yeah, that HTML stuff is <u>real</u> complicated.

<p>I mean, who can remember all these codes for making paragraphs and italicizing and underlining and stuff...

[CedarDave]

I’ve been using Firefox since about 2003 or so, but I’m terrible about checking out cool add-ons. I didn’t even know there was an HTML add-on for FF.
Try these:

• BBCodeXtra
• BBCode

or search for others:
Search Results for "bbcode"

I’ve wanted to see a rich text editor on FR for years, but I’m just one lone voice crying out in the wilderness, it seems .. LOL
Search Results for text editors (wysiwyg)

I’m using the latest version of FF, so I don’t know if that widget works with it. I might go see.
Some of the above may or may not work with the most recent versions of Firefox. To check you need these:

• Is It Compatible?
• Add-on Compatibility Reporter

Good luck!

[Windflier]

Thanks for the Mozilla links to editor add-ons. I just downloaded the BBCodeXtra. We’ll see how it works (if I can find it now).

Great post formatting, by the way.

[W. W. SMITH]

Having a law degree is good. It lets you protect your self from lawyers.

[johngrace]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=366985

[Windflier]

I’m a little confused by the BBCodeXtra add-on. I’ve apparently installed it on my FF program, but can’t find a button or controls for it anywhere.

I think my version of FF is 8.0 (came out in June 2011). I’m also using Windows 7.

Any clue as to what might be wrong?

[PhilDragoo]

Neil continues to present as at least a week behind, obtuse, the amiable dunce "they" said Reagan was--

He says Reagan dialed it back because of staff--excuse moi: did you miss that whole "Tear down this wall" thing, Neil.

Herman is so likeable, such a ready laugh--without losing a milisecond of timing.

Very quick, very sharp.

Eight point seven five becomes nine. Rich L-O-W-R-I-E is not the fellow with the publication.

And heh heh the lawyer was there to explain how the cow eats the cabbage in court every day, ladies.

And Michigan turns out big for Herman Cain.

This country is ready, getting on board, taking no guff from Axelrod's Chicago garbage truck.

Herman Cain just keeps opening up to greater complexity--

--and it blows de little minds of the carping harpies and shrieking fairies--

The princesses and the litigious extortionists buying make-up by the 55-gallon drum.

[CedarDave]

The only time it will appear is when you post a thread or enter a response. Type in a reply to this message and then right click on parts of it and you will see how it works.

(UNLESS it is disabled for your version of Firefox though my compatibility checker says it should work through upcoming version 11)

1. Make sure the addon is configured for HTML (you can also configure it for XHTML and BB forums)

2. Highlight a word and right click to underline, bold, etc.

[Scoutmaster]

I'm sorry, but the Journalistic Code of Ethics did not address my question. If I witness a robbery and a reporter interviews me, the reporter does not have 'documentation.'

One of the most famous/infamous investigative reporting dramas of all time was the Woodward/Bernstein "Watergate" reporting in which they relied on an informant named "Deep Throat."

Unfortunately, Deep Throat knew what he was talking about. However, Deep Throat didn't provide Woodward or Bernstein with "documentation."

Do you realize how many things you're told during a day that aren't 'documented,' yet you would testify under oath happened?

My only point in asking my original question addressed the headline of this article, which emphasized that Politico had . . . no documentation. No matter how outrageously unethical the report was, I wouldn't have expected documentation, so my response was "so what? That seems like a red herring. It sounds like Clinton parsing words. What does the rest of the tape say that keeps the headline meaningful?"

[Windflier]

Alrighty.

Hey, that was cool. By George, I think I've got it!

Thanks!

[Scoutmaster]

And I missed it. Which bullet point in the Journalistic Code of Ethics says "obtain written or video documentation of all oral statements made to reporters"?

I'm not saying what Politico did was right. I'm that "there was no documentation" is a red herring argument if a story is based upon what a reporter is told.

[UnwashedPeasant]

Thanks for the post.

In case anyone wants to know, here is the code to make a link:

<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com">click here</a>

In this example, the red text is the destination web address, and the blue text is what will be visible in the post.

Here is how it looks in a post:

click here

[101voodoo]

Hannity last night and he asked her if there was anything else and she said there could be.

************************************************************

Gimmee a break! If she said anything else the story would be stone cols dead and she knew it. saying “There could be” is about as ambiguous as it gets.

How about this? “Do you think a 5 mile wide asteroid will smash into the earth on the next 5 years?” Answer from scientist, “It could happen”

[Smokin' Joe]

How about this? “Do you think a 5 mile wide asteroid will smash into the earth on the next 5 years?” Answer from scientist, “It could happen”

Any scientist worth his salt would do a windup for a grant pitch like "That would require further study to determine the possibility more fully..."--unless they'd been studying it already.

[Aunt Polgara]

I'm not saying what Politico did was right. I'm that "there was no documentation" is a red herring argument if a story is based upon what a reporter is told.

Actually, it's not a red herring if the claim is that there was a written agreement. Where is the agreement?

For the woman who just said that "x" happened, it's just a he said-she said situation. Is it right to try to destroy someone if the only thing they had was her word? They need to have some sort of corroboration. If you may remember, the public didn't take the charges against Clinton seriously until the blue dress showed up... now that's corroboration! I feel the same way about this stuff with Cain. Until these women can produce SOMETHING that is evidentiary, they are just blowing smoke. Before you try to destroy someone, you should have stuff that you can make a court case out of.

[Scoutmaster]

Actually, it's not a red herring if the claim is that there was a written agreement. Where is the agreement?

I know that agreements exist. When I look at that objectively, the existence of agreements does not mean that the source of the original story, or that some other sources have those documents to provide to Politico. Remember, Cain's talking about these encounters, and Cain doesn't have agreements to give to anyone, so Cain can't provide 'documentation' himself.

But, I can think of several scenarios in which the source would not produce an agreement to Politico:

(1) If Anti-Cain Source had been an executive National Restaurant Associations but was no longer there and no longer had access to agreements, there would be no 'documentation' for Cain Source to provide.

(2) If Anti-Cain Source had been at the National Restaurant Associations and had knowledge of, but no access to, the agreements (and there are many legitimate scenarios; for example, I know partners of mine negotiated settlement agreements and I know who the parties were, but I don't have access to the agreements), there would be no 'documentation' for Cain Source to provide.

(3) If Anti-Cain Source is still at the National Restaurant Associations and hasd knowledge of, but no access to, the agreements (twelve year-old documents are often in off-site storage), there would be no 'documentation' for Cain Source to provide.

(4) If Anti-Cain source is, in fact, the one person who was actually identified by name, by Herman Cain, as the person who leaked the information - that person found out from Herman Cain in discussing possible issues that would be raised in Cain's Senate campaign, and because Cain didn't have documents to give that man, there would be no 'documentation' for Anti-Cain Source to provide.

(I could continue with more possibilities, but I'll stop with that one, because Herman Cain told us the name of the now-Perry supporter who leaked the story to Politico, the strategist on Cain's Senate campaign whom Cain told about one charge. That person had no documentation to provide to Politico because Cain had no documentation.

Do you understand that the women should have a written agreement, but that not everyone who knows about these settlements (or settlement agreements called termination or severance agreements) has access to them?

I know that there were contracts between NASA and vendors to build the Saturn V rocket. You can print that. I stand by that statement. But I don't have copies of those documents. I know that my dogs had parvo shots at a vet whose office was on Westheimer in Houston. You can print that today, because it's true. But I don't have documentation of that because the place burned down.

The deal is that there are actually dozens of legitimate reasons why the Anti-Cain source that first spoke with Politico didn't have 'documentation" (there are not, however, remotely that many legitimate reasons, if any exist, for Politico running the story when they did, with how little information they had).

So unless someone will explain more about the twenty-minute video, the "no documentation of allegations" still appears to be a red herring headline built on parsing words. Look over here! No documentation! in the NRA knew there were written agreements but didn't have access to them, then there wouldn't be 'documetnation.

[Scoutmaster]

Where that final "in the NRA knew there were written agreements but didn't have access to them, then there wouldn't be 'documetnation." in my comment came from, I have no idea.

But Politico will probably print it as a charge against Herman Cain.

[Aunt Polgara]

The deal is that there are actually dozens of legitimate reasons why the Anti-Cain source that first spoke with Politico didn't have 'documentation"

Agreed

(there are not, however, remotely that many legitimate reasons, if any exist, for Politico running the story when they did, with how little information they had).

Absolutely agreed! That was the point of my post. If the news media didn't have documentation, then they should STFU until they do. There's no excuse for them to ruin a good man's reputation like that. Here in our little town in So. Calif., we have exactly the same situation, with a good man's reputation in shreds over baseless accusations. He's been devastated, both economically and emotionally.

[Scoutmaster]

If the news media didn't have documentation, then they should STFU until they do.

I disagree. When they have a legitimate story, they should run it. Politico didn't have a legitimate story, in my opinion, when they first ran it (or a large number of their stories).

Did Herman Cain offer documentation for his statement that one claim was based on a hand gesture indicating that a woman was the same height as his wife?

No. He said that's what he did. He offered no documentation.

Did Cain offer documentation that a former advisor who worked on his Senate campaign leaked the story to Politico?

No. He just knew. He offered no documentation.

As I've been saying, the headline of this article is nonsense.

You can have a legitimate story without documentation. That's why I asked for a summary of the twenty-minute video. Because just saying "No documentation!" and expecting that to be d*mning is wrong on a rational level.

Do you believe the many things Herman Cain has said about this matter? I gather the answer is yes. Has he offered 'documentation' of most the things he's said? No. We're relying on his integrity.

Documentation is not the be-all and end-all. It's not on the list of Journalistic Ethics that was thrown in my face by another poster as the answer.

So I read a headline that said "Politico had no documentation of accusations" and my first thought was . . . well, yeah, but if I'm going to watch a twenty-minute video tell me something new that says the accusations aren't true.

Saying "no documentation" is either just attacking the messenger or hiding the ball.