“The McClatchy reporter William Douglas refers to Huffington Post contributor Sam Snead as a source in his article. But… The Huffington Post did not post their article until 4:56 PM EST:”
Not to be a wet blanket, but most reporters talk to their sources directly, as opposed to lifting info from blogs. This timing in no way precludes Douglas from having interviewed Snead prior to his posting. The specific quote says:
“Frank said the crowd consisted of a couple of hundred of people and that they referred to him as ‘homo.’ A writer for The Huffington Post said the protesters called Frank a “faggot.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/20/90772/rep-john-lewis-charges-protesters.html#ixzz0k30rLexA
The reporter clearly interviewed Frank, since several more quotes of his are used. But he used the term “said” in the case of both Frank and Snead, who was identified only as a writer for Huffington Post. Had he lifted Snead’s remark from a blog, he could have and should have said “A writer for The Huffington Post posted blah, blah, blah.” This is much ado about nothing.
But I was intrigued by another claim in the story.
“Cleaver’s office said later in a statement that he’d also been spat upon and that Capitol Police had arrested his assailant. The statement praised the police, who Cleaver said escorted the members of Congress into the Capitol past the demonstrators.
“The man who spat on the congressman was arrested, but the congressman has chosen not to press charges,” the statement said.”
Isn’t that a flat-out lie? I’ve only seen the video, where it appeared Cleaver couldn’t even identify the person who had “spat.” And many FR posters doubted the legitimacy of his claim of spitting on grounds that the officer who observed the encounter did NOT arrest the alleged spitter. Anyone know a different story? That is, is there any source other than a truth-twisting black Congressman who can verify that an arrest was made?