Investigation Demanded Into Post's MD4Bush Report

The WBAL Channel ^ | 11/04/05 | WBAL-TV

[conservative in nyc]

The conservative Web site at the center of a rumor investigation is calling on The Washington Post to conduct an internal investigation into one of their reports.

--Snip--

WBAL-TV 11 News I-Team reporter David Collins reported that The Washington Post recently revealed that Post reporter Matt Mosk -- with a help of an "intermediary" -- logged on as MD4Bush at least three times to verify private e-mails that were then used to break the story.

The Washington, D.C., chapter of the conservative Web site, FreeRepublic.com, said on Friday that the newspaper has a lot of explaining to do in connection with its reporting on MD4Bush.

"What The Washington Post did was, basically, someone went to their reporter and said, 'Here's some keys, go into someone's house, go into someone's office, you'll find something newsworthy.' And then, The Post took the keys and did that," said Kristin Taylor, of the Free Republic's D.C. chapter.

--Snip--

In a written statement, The Washington Post said again that its reporter did not post entries online as MD4Bush. However, they did not address the 11 News I-Team's question of whether they have a policy regarding logging onto a Web site, pretending to be someone else, or whether The Post had verified it had authorization from MD4Bush to do it.

"They don't know who the account holder is. They were relying on a third party who said that's OK," Taylor said.

FreeRepublic's D.C. chapter contended that regardless of permission, sharing passwords is in violation of their Web site user policy, in which MD4Bush agreed to.

The chapter accused the post of disregarding its own policy concerning sources that dates back to Watergate. They also suggest that The Post violated the Electronic Communications Act, which would constitute as a criminal offense.

[Anti-Bubba182]

Thanks

[Gabz]

I don't know anything about Maryland having a shield law - but I can tell you that when I was a reporter in Maryland, I NEVER used an anonymous source (nor did I in Delaware). If I couldn't get an attributable source for a story - the story was DOA.

[skinkinthegrass]

I am currently logged on as myself.

Hmmm...Same here, I think. :D

[maggief]

LOL

I should have edited my post to read WaPost HQ is DC. :)

[conservative in nyc]

So Matt Mosk is admitting that he was MD4Bush - on at least 3 occasions. Who is to say he wasn't the original poster as well?

The Maryland editor of the Washington Post. The Washington Post also has a reputation to keep. If they're lying, it's big news.

Unfortunately, I heard that MD has a shield law which protects "journalists" from being forced to identify their sources. It must serves a a license to lie.

Some FReepers have opined that a lawsuit could be brought in Federal court. And there's no federal shield law.

Apparently, reporters can write their stories based on information from those they promise not to identify and there is nothing that can be done. What is there to keep reporters from fabricating, say, a 30 year-old military memo?

Us FReepers, other members of the New Media, and the WaPo's competitors in the Old Media. Remember what happened to Dan Rather?

[Gabz]

I don't have to prove anything - that is my personal opinion summation of what has occurred here.

As to the marital infidelity rumors about the Mayor - I was reminded about them from a friend in Delaware last week - we'd been talking about them in Dover long before this ever blew up.

[billhilly]

A few years ago the Washington Post twisted FreeRepublic around the legal axle over posting their articles on the site. They won that round. It should be interesting to see round two.

[conservative in nyc]

From today's MD Gazette:

Unlike the federal government, Maryland has a shield law that prohibits a judicial, legislative or administrative body from compelling a reporter to disclose sources or information obtained ‘‘in the course of pursuing professional activities,” such as news gathering.

Whether Maryland has a shield law is relevant to whether the MD special committee investigating the firing scandal could subpoena the Washington Post, as some MD Republican legislators have suggested. Some FReepers have said it would be irrelevant were a case filed in federal court.

[conservative in nyc]

I don't have to prove anything - that is my personal opinion summation of what has occurred here.

Fair enough. But if you were still working for a newspaper, could you run with that?

As to the marital infidelity rumors about the Mayor - I was reminded about them from a friend in Delaware last week - we'd been talking about them in Dover long before this ever blew up.

There is absolutely no doubt these O'Malley rumors have been circulating for years. The Washington Post reported that infidelity rumors were rampant a March 2000 article. Directly from the O'Malley's mouths.

[advance_copy]

Suspicion grows. There is mounting evidence that the Washington Post collaborated with a Maryland Democrat operative, possibly in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, to entrap an aide to Governor Robert Ehrlich. That was done using the FR id "MD4BUSH".

The newspaper's conduct has been a disgrace. A February 9, 2005 Washington Post story accusing Joe Steffen never mentioned that their reporter used MD4BUSH's password to log on to Free Republic. Only months later, when there emerged a threat of an investigation requested by the Governor's chief counsel, did they admit to using the MD4BUSH id.

Are we to believe the Washington Post now when they claim they only read the private posts as their reporter surreptitiously accessed the MD4BUSH account, a criminal act on its own if done without proper authorization? Can anyone believe their assertion they do not know the identity of MD4BUSH, and were only working through an "intermediary"?

The unsubstantiated assertions made by the Washington Post are piling up, while their credibility is collapsing.

[Paladin2]

"while their credibility is collapsing"

For me, their collapsed credibility is imploding. LOL.

[Gabz]

But if you were still working for a newspaper, could you run with that?

Absolutely not........as I said, I never used an anonymous source when I was a reporter. I saw the use of them blow up in the face of a few people - and in one case I was the cause of it blowing up. Nothing major, I just wouldn't agree to anonymity of the source, so the source went elsewhere and the reporter got it wrong. I was able to get all kinds of attributable quotes and the original source was outed and discredited. Small town markets are like that, but being in radio - I needed tape.

There is absolutely no doubt these O'Malley rumors have been circulating for years. The Washington Post reported that infidelity rumors were rampant a March 2000 article. Directly from the O'Malley's mouths.

We were talking about it in Delaware prior to 2000. A fair number of the lobbyists I worked with in dover also worked in Annapolis, so the gossip back and forth about the comings and goings of both states is rampant.

[muawiyah]

FreeRepublic has been criminally violated by the arch-traitors at the Washington Post ~ which seems to be a perfectly reasonable basis on which to make a complaint about the Post.

This is typical "Postie" stuff ~ they should be punished for it, and if that includes jailing Donald Graham (the owner) for an indefinite period, so be it.

Gadzooks, if they torture these Postee criminals, there will be a lot of volunteers for that duty.

[Cicero]

Congratulations to Kristinn for getting this story out.

The Washington Post has been desperately trying to sweep the whole thing under the rug.

When a newspaper is implicated in breaking the law to help one political party and slime another, they have descended pretty far.

They also lied in several "news" stories about who was spreading the sex rumors about the Mayor. It was not the Republican, as the Post pretended, who spread the rumors, it was the Democrat operator, MD4BUSH, who was acting as an agent provacateur.

It's bad enough for political operatives to slime their opponents and lie about them, but when a once respected newspaper joins in, that's really disgusting. The reporter should be fired at the very least, and so should the editors who authorized this whole scam.

[caryatid]

As a newbie, I would like to know if it is prohibited to post WaPo articles. Please clarify for me. [Not that I consider anything in the WaPo worth posting ... ]

[billhilly]

We can post a link to the article with a few word description. In order to read the article, one must register with the paper.

[caryatid]

Thanks.

[advance_copy]

Here's my FReepcast on the Washington Post and MD4BUSH (614kB MP3).

[nopardons]

bttt

[Paladin2]

Cool!