Posted on 02/06/2008 5:07:59 AM PST by doug from upland
HIT PIECE ON "FACT" CHECK DOT ORG
For those who had not seen it, a former TIME MAG journalist (she got canned) named Viveca Novak did a hit piece on HILLARY! UNCENSORED: Banned by the Media.
As you can see by the incendiary headline and sub-headline, there was clearly an agenda. It wasn't a "fact" check; it was an editorial to dismiss the film, dismiss the importance of the lawsuit, and do some damage control. Perhaps Hillary is mildly concerned. After it appeared on "fact" check dot org, it was placed on Newsweek's website. While purporting to be non-partisan, it is clear that the piece was designed to do damage to the film whose unedited 13-minute segment on Google Videos and YouTube has been seen by four million people.
Pursuant to Novak's boss, Brooks Jackson, yesterday I submitted a 12-page response which he promised to place on his website if it was not a rant. It was a reasoned piece and definitely not a rant. I have made contact with someone at Newsweek and am awaiting their promise to allow me to answer.
Now, on to Dave Schippers. Here is what the "non-partisan" Novak told her readers in her hit piece:
Many of the individuals and groups helping Paul have long histories of Clinton-bashing or attacks on other Democrats. David Schippers, for example, who appears on the tape, is the former chief investigative counsel for the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee during the 1998 Clinton impeachment hearings.
That's fair and non-partisan, right? Here is my response to that journalistic equivalent of a drive-by shooting:
Of all the conclusions in the entire piece, perhaps more than any others, this is the most unfair. Dave Schippers is a great American. It is a shame that the above description is the only reference to him. Schippers worked in the Kennedy Justice Department and helped take down the Chicago Mob. He is a lifelong Democrat. And perhaps most importantly, Novak failed to mention that he twice voted for Bill Clinton. No one can dispute that such background information about Schippers is important.
While discussing on the phone what Novak did to him, I suggested to Schippers that it might be appropriate to demand an apology and retraction from Novak. He thought that such might be a good idea. Here is hoping he takes the time to do it.
What Novak did regarding Lucianne Goldberg shows more about her journalist integrity:
Another character from that era who is involved in this story is Lucianne Goldberg.
The response:
Yes, it was on Goldberg’s site that the link on Google Videos was leaked to her readers. But there was no conspiracy here. The rough-cut segment on Google Videos was unpublished and for our internal use and that of journalists. Someone who saw it apparently alerted Goldberg to the URL. She simply put the URL on her website so others could see it. That was her role, and it was done without any direction from those involved with our film, including Paul. It wasn’t sinister at all. I find it curious that some kind of conspiratorial link was created here. As an aside, and since the CLINTON CHRONICLES was mentioned in Novak‘s analysis, a comment is necessary. Many of you came to know that documentary as the “Falwell video.” Did you know that Jerry Falwell had absolutely nothing to do with the production or editing of that documentary? He simply became one of the distributors and generated revenue through distribution. His name was used in an attempt to discredit the film. I will raise the question here. Was an association made with the “Clinton basher“ Goldberg an attempt to taint or diminish the work we have done for HILLARY! UNCENSORED? The readers can make that determination.
On another interesting note, Novak, who admitted that she only reviewed the 13-minute unedited rough-cut segment, actually described Peter Paul as the narrator of the film. That is a mistake that someone supposedly doing a thoughtful piece would not make. It requires a suspension of disbelief.
When(or if) Jackson publishes the response, I will bring it here. If he doesn't, you'll see it anyway, and we will try to find a way to give him some grief on the net and on YouTube.
If Hillary is the dims nominee, between now and Election Day, a whole lot a $h!t is gonna be coming out about Her Thighness, that will turn some of the sheeple our way, let's just hope we don't have another 1992 Perot debacle with Ron Paul or worse!
Can only hope for the Kucinich/McKinney ticket!!
Keep up the good work!!
Doug, we’re pulling for you. Slow and steady wins the race.
The Republicans can put out all kinds of stuff. They can even finally leak what is redacted in the Barrett Report. But unless people hear it from Katie, Brian, Charlie, and Wolfie, they won’t believe it. The NY SLIMES and WASHPOST will call it mean-spirited negative campaigning.
Stranger things have happened!!
Additional background information may prove helpful here. Hillary not only initiated a call to Cher, she initiated one to Diana Ross. Tonken has stated such, and his sworn testimony is expected to confirm it. Tonken did indeed begin the solicitation of the performances. In the case of those two mega-stars, however, Tonken did not seal the deal. Unlike the others who performed, Cher and Ross had a requirement prior to their final agreement. Each of them required a personal phone call from Hillary herself to discuss it. Tonken set it up; Hillary sealed the deal or they would not have performed. As Tonken stated on tape, he had never been able to get Cher to do a political fundraiser like this before. Hillary did a great job as the closer.
Possible? As presented in our film, the readers deserve to know the rest of the story and what Judge Aurelio Munoz said in his courtroom on April 7, 2006. The words I watched him say in his courtroom we present in the documentary: “I will entertain no motion that prevents Senator Clinton from testifying in this case……………..did you hear that, Mr. Kendall?”
* Novak: According to the Associated Press, the HillCAP Web site is operated by two conservatives who were instrumental in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth site in 2004, Robert Hahn and Scott Swett.
Again, the only point I can see for the reference is to diminish the credibility of our work and associate them with the film. Neither Hahn nor Swett is responsible for writing, editing, directing, narrating, operating a camera, or producing HILLARY! UNCENSORED. They are webmasters who manage the documents and content on the website. They have done so competently and at a reasonable price.
You tryin’ to give us a heart attack. Egad! that’s scarey.
You must be exhausted. I get exhausted just thinking about everything you’ve been doing. You are one tough individual and I appreciate all of it.
Yes, I’m somewhat exhausted. I was up at 4:15 trying to get through to Bill Bennett’s show. No luck. I will have enough energy to take me to November. Count on it.
You're incredible doug. Your replies on this thread (especially the pics :) with comments) are fantastic. Thanks for all that you do.
Thanks very much for the ping, Lyman.
BUMP-TO-THE-TRUTH!
* Novak: (re: the Cuban Coffee Caper) Paul claims that he was part of a covert government operation when he was arrested for these crimes.
There is additional useful information regarding Paul’s “claim.”
Below the contemporaneous headline is the sub-headline from the Miami Herald: It was one of the world’s great cons. And the funny thing is our government knew all about it-but did nothing to stop it. Of course the government knew about it. A reading of the transcript of legal proceedings at the time will reveal that, prior to the plan going operational, Paul was in the apartment of Elaine Schoor discussing the plan in great detail and the money necessary to fund it. Every word was caught on a government wire. Yes, the government really did know and allowed it to go forward. Operatives wanted to damage the relationship between Castro and the Soviets by exposing that Castro was cheating his Soviet benefactors with cheap black market coffee.
I did. Will it post after you’ve read it?
I don’t doubt you one iota. :)
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.