Disinfo Campain Follow-up (Was: Envoy's letter in Times is revealed as a forgery)

The Washington Times ^ | 7/16/03 | Nicholas Kralev

[jriemer]

A letter to the editor of The Washington Times, purported to be from a senior U.S. diplomat with scathing criticism of the Foreign Service for lack of loyalty to the Bush administration, was exposed yesterday as a forgery.

Wesley Pruden, the editor in chief of The Times, said the newspaper learned "from the highest level at the State Department" that the letter was a hoax and the newspaper fully accepts "as true that the ambassador was not the author of this letter."

[jriemer]

Here's a follow-up Letter from the Washington Times Editor:

To our readers,

The Washington Times yesterday published a letter to the editor, purportedly from Stephan M. Minikes, the U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe, which we now learn was a forgery. We have been so informed from the highest level at the State Department, and we accept as true that the ambassador was not the author of this letter. The letter was sent to us, via e-mail, on Sunday from what appears to be the ambassador's State Department e-mail address. On being informed by the State Department that the letter was a forgery, we immediately removed it from our Web site, and immediately notified the wire services, which had filed dispatches based on the letter, that the letter was a forgery. The standard procedure at The Times is to verify all letters to the editor; this procedure was not followed in this instance. We are reviewing our procedures and will make changes as necessary, and we are working with the State Department to track the letter to its origin. The Times regrets the embarrassment, which we fully share, to the ambassador and to the State Department.

====

Bases on a theory of PhiKapMom, someone's trying to show that all Presidents and media outlets lie and fabricate sources to justify their "actions". These recent events are someone's attempt to imply that previous bad behavior by others is excusible because "everybody does it".

Friends of Clinton scoured history to impune past Presidents of immorality when he was caught with his pants down. Now, the same set is working forward in time.

[Support Free Republic]

Hi Mom!

[jriemer]

Disinfo campaign follow-up *ping*

[mewzilla]

This could've been nipped in the bud if the paper had bothered to call the alleged author to verify he wrote the e-mail.

[breakem]

bttt

[Constitution Day]

BTTT.

[Dog]

The standard procedure at The Times is to verify all letters to the editor; this procedure was not followed in this instance

First question I have was this the only time this kind of event happened ....someone didn't vet this email and the paper got stung. Who didn't do their job....it will be interesting to find out.

[Constitution Day]

This could've been nipped in the bud if the paper had bothered to call the alleged author to verify he wrote the e-mail.

Indeed. This is what happens when people get complacent & lazy.

[jriemer]

This could've been nipped in the bud if the paper had bothered to call the alleged author to verify he wrote the e-mail.

The key point is that they Liberal media will always hold conservatives in any position - President, journalist, used car salesmen - to a much higher standard than they do their own kind. Yes, the Washington Times screwed up; however, now they have introduced a "sliver of doubt" into their sourcing for really important stories that they may break in the future. Remember, Washington Times reporters was raking Clinton et. al. over the coals on their dealings with the Chinese and underfunding the Department of Defense. What if they find more of the same in the future when Hillary! runs for the Senate or higher office?

Someone has manufactured a credibility issue for their newspaper. They just stepped into it.

[Dog]

Exactly right.....this was aimed at the newspapers credibility. They want the readers of the Washington Times to doubt what that paper puts out.

[Becki]

This could've been nipped in the bud if the paper had bothered to call the alleged author to verify he wrote the e-mail.

True, but it said what they wanted to hear.

Becki

[Constitution Day]

Good point... I smell setup.

[Peach]

When one of my letters to the editor for the Washington Times was accepted, they sent me an e-mail telling me they would be using the letter. I wonder if they did the same here?

[Int]

Bases on a theory of PhiKapMom, someone's trying to show that all Presidents and media outlets lie and fabricate sources to justify their "actions".

The theory is not much of an excuse, considering the paper made a serious mistake by skipping a crucial step that all newspapers should do once they starting recieving letters from their leaders. The lesson for us all: watch out!

[Int]

that should actually have been "readers" not "leaders"

[Chad Fairbanks]

I bet Terrance J. Wilkinson sent it - he's been acting kind of shady lately...

[SpinyNorman]

Hey, if it were the NYTimes, they would have forged the letter themselves!! I think the Washington Times did the right thing, getting it quashed ASAP, and going after the sender big time. It also give them a segue into reports of this kind of liberal shenaniganism. It would be a nice lead in for yesterday's post on the strong arm tactics of Daschle in SD and how he owns the only newspaper in town.

[OldFriend]

Trouble is, everything in the letter is TRUE!!!

[jriemer]

Trouble is, everything in the letter is TRUE!!!

I'm not disagreeing about the deadwood and backstabers in the Dept. of State. After watching Bush and his staff handle more petty issues than this we know better than think this staff would "air dirty laundry" like this in a public forum like the "Letters to the Editor" section of a newspaper. This so Gladys Kravits by comparison...

Bush plays chess-like revenge by altering the course of government to heap burning coals upon his enemies not with mere sniping from the back pages of a newspaper. That's his style.

[Khurkris]

I smell James Carvile in this.