Posted on 11/05/2005 4:36:11 PM PST by kristinn
After yesterday's press conference in front of The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. that criticized The Post for violating their sourcing guidelines and for accessing a FreeRepublic.com account in possible violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, an editor for The Post is now claiming authorization to log-in to the account of MD4BUSH.
Earlier this week, Post Maryland editor R.B. Brenner made statements that reporter Matthew Mosk had logged in to MD4BUSH's account "two or three times" after being given the password by an "intermediary" in order to authenticate private messages sent between MD4BUSH and NCPAC on Free Republic.
Brenner has maintained that The Post does not know who MD4BUSH is.
Brenner is reported to have made the following statement to The Post for their story today about the press conference:
"As part of our reporting, we needed to verify that the chat room postings were authentic. We were authorized to view them, and it was appropriate to do so under the circumstances."
Link to Post article here.
"If, as they say, they didn't know who the "owner" of the MD4BUSH ID was, then how could they really be sure that they had the legitimate MD4BUSH's authorization?"
Bingo!!!!
Standing back, smiling and watching the Compost sink further into its own dung heap?
An illegal alien cleaning lady, maybe?
Oh I agree there are ways for them to hack on but I just have the feeling that the WAPO reporter, Mosk is either MD4BUSH or an associate/accomplice.
I hope you're kidding. Of course newspapers do stories about the problems at other newspapers. Just like CNN would do a story if FOX did something they thought they could dig them about.
That the WaPo doesn't think it has to hold itself to the same standards that it holds those whom it reports on.
-PJ
You could be right. Maybe the Times is just sitting back waiting to see how this pans out. I can't believe they wouldn't try and take advantage of it. We all know the Post would have it on their front page if it was the opposite.
But then they would have to admit that they lied to their readers, which then begs the question, What else have they lied about?
-PJ
That's ok. A jury will be made to know the difference...hopefully.
I'd love nothing more, but in reality it's going nowhere, and we all know it.
It's as if Jim Robinson had gone to Moveon and posted that he "hates Bush" and "Republicans are nazis". This, by the reporters and editors of the Washington Post.
Do you think they will print this in their own newspaper - "Media Caught Trolling On Conservative Website"?
John, Check out #7. Users don't have the authority to disclose account and password information to any 3rd party, under FR Terms of Use.
MD4BUSH couldn't have authorized the Post to use the account, because he didn't have that authority.
But then, I'm not an attorney, so I might be talking out of my hat.
disregard post 77. Not relevant.
DING DING DING, We have the winning answer here!
I'm sure this has already been said numerous times, but I'll say it again anyway.
The only reason the Post could have felt compelled to make up this ridiculous "intermediary" cover story is because one of their reporters is MD4BUSH. (In fact, there are probably more Post "plants" at FR than just him.)
Well, this guy masquerading as MD4BUSH screwed up. This reporter got lazy. He stupidly made the mistake of logging onto FR from work, which means that Jim now has a precise record of all his ISP logins. The Post lawyers realize that if they're sued, the discovery process will reveal all the MD4BUSH logins from their offices.
In fact, this MD4BUSH screen name probably just scratches the surface. They probably have a lot more to hide.
Whatever it is, it's enough to make them panic and come up with "The Intermediary" cover story. Essentially, it's enough to make them actually admit to the entire world that, not only did reporter Matthew Mosk log on to FR, but he logged onto FR using the MD4BUSH screen name.
This story equals the Dan Blather story in the pleasure factor. It's definitely a "10" if I ever saw one. Heh, heh. I'm lovin' it.
Thanks for your good work on this, Kristinn.
Not much to add, except that you have to wonder what they think their average reader's IQ is, when they claim to have been authorized by someone whose identity is unknown to them.
I noticed right at the start that they began to get worried about this business. In the first article they really came out swinging, but as soon as Freepers began to tear their story apart they really backed off and started being very careful.
They are still lying about NCPAC spreading rumors. Answering a private email isn't spreading a rumor, and on the public threads, NCPAC was very careful not to say anything out of line. Other Freepers with no inside connections mentioned the mayor's affair, which they said were widely rumored and had been reported in the press.
I wouldn't publish private Freepmails from others on a public thread unless you have the sender's permission. Even then, I'm not sure it's a good idea in a case like this, since there are serious legal issues at stake. Communicate privately with the site's proprietors if you think it is significant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.