Scandal Puts Focus On Role of Bloggers (WaPo on FR, NCPAC and MD4Bush)

Washington Post ^ | 02/11/05 | David Snyder and Matthew Mosk

[conservative in nyc]

The Web site began as a sort of Internet boutique for like-minded conservatives and libertarians, suspicious of federal power and angry at President Bill Clinton.

Started in 1997 by a reclusive California conservative, freerepublic.com saw its membership blossom with Clinton's impeachment and the election of George W. Bush. Attention to the site reached a zenith last fall, when a "freeper" -- the group's moniker for its bloggers -- first discussed flaws in documents CBS News used in a report critical of Bush's National Guard service.

---Snip---

One participant working under the handle MD4BUSH, whose identity is unknown, drew Steffen into a private conversation and appeared to coax him to share more details about his role in spreading the rumor. Copies of those chat room e-mails were later provided to The Washington Post.

The Oct. 18 conversation began with MD4BUSH complimenting Steffen and saying how obvious it was that the rumors about the mayor were true. Steffen, writing under the name NCPAC, replied:

"I don't look for the MO'M [O'Malley] story to hit for a little bit yet. . . . However, a lot of what everyone knows about MO'M is because of work that has occurred. It's been a wild ride."

MD4BUSH later probed further:

"Your saying that my dentist knows [about the rumors] because of work you did? Wow, I must say, I'm impressed. I mean really, everyone knows -- how did that happen?"

[Matchett-PI]

"Everybody ping your lists so they can see what is unfolding here." ~ bad company

((((((((((((((((((((((PING)))))))))))))))))))))))

[NonValueAdded]

MD4BUSH has been giving off troll signals for a long time.

[spodefly]

"One participant working under the handle MD4BUSH, whose identity is unknown ..."

I suspect that, among other things in the article, is a lie. WaPo knows exactly who MD4BUSH is.

A review of MD4BUSH posting history starts 3 weeks before the election, ends on 12/13 except where they came back on 2/8 to post what appear to be the private emails from NCPAC, all nicely aggregated, and posted in unrelated threads.

Slimy.

[cyborg]

jd ping.. in case you've not read

[arasina]

"liberal wife" was a ruse, methinks.

Yeah. That's what I was saying in my post. It's all so clear in hindsight; I need to brush up on my Troll-spotting skills. But this one and some others seem to be more than just your average Troll. What is this type called? Mole Troll?

[Lazamataz]

By David Snyder and Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writers

It would be very interesting to find out alllllll about these two.

• Are those their real names? If not, what are their real names?
• Are they "impartial reporters", or maybe do they have any history of political activism and campaign contributions?
• Do they have any interesting criminal backgrounds?
• What are their sexual practices? Is there anything out there that might cause them embarrassment?

What's good for Jeff Gannon is good for these two.

[pieces of time]

Just catching up, but I remember looking at a discussion off FR and believe it was the Sun forum. This is all BS and stinks from the word go. The rumor was around years before August and Sade's "accident". As I said at the time, I heard it from someone who works in Baltimore. It was around the watercoolers and was not limited to Sade - she was just the latest most serious because of the pregnancy. Even local radio was talking about the rumor. O'Malley outing this now, the WAPO and BS Stinks! O'Malley stinks!
Erlich is on 1090AM talking about this now.

[aculeus]

A 1 week old newbie used professional flattery to break NCPAC's back.

How about NCPAC being a WaPo reporter who used trickery?

Journo ethics 101: always identify yourself as a journo before you ask questions.

WaPo ethics 101: (fill in the blank)

[MEG33]

They want war?...Give them war!

[advance_copy]

Probably because they monitor this site...

The Washington Post went way beyond just monitoring, this is a despicable act. The messages were private ones between NCPAC and MD4BUSH. Yet the WaPo quoted those private messages in their story that was written back on 2/8 before MD4BUSH posted NCPAC's FReepMail on public threads. The Washington Post is outrageous! They entrapped a FReeper, violated his privacy, and then smeared him and this forum with repeated stories filled with obvious distortions. This is a contemptible example of yellow journalism. WaPo is a confounded bunch of left-wing hacks.

[Carry_Okie]

Welcome to the new media.

Oh what a tangled Web.

[MEG33]

This is the result of a mole..It's been a long night.

[Carry_Okie]

BTW the very first post on FR for MD4Bush, was to NCPAC.

Good find.

[Lazamataz]

They entrapped a FReeper, violated his privacy, and then smeared him and this forum with repeated stories filled with obvious distortions. This is a contemptible example of yellow journalism.

Also known as "just another day at the Washington Post".

[Alia]

Thanks for the ping, BTS! I'm beginning to get more of an overall picture on the whole magilla.

On one hand, the MSM is saying (in doing these "digs" within FR): Okay, you bloggers (et al, freepers) you consider yourselves: reporters. And if you are, instead of posting in cyber, instead -- standing in a room full of people and saying "Yes, x journalists have been targeted and shot by US military"; you are going to have to pay the same prices as, Eason Jordan: Be held to the same standard.

That's one part.

Part 2 (and I can't immediately locate the thread): Bruce Bartlett clarifying upon a theme begun by a Poynter person in re the Gannon nom de plume. In essence, using the Gannon case for theory, that anyone with an alias (but with ties to terrorist organizations) can get a day pass and slip into the WHpress room. This article, about pressies being here and posing as mere "peasants with pitchforks" makes that point, to me. That anyone could be anyone they say they are, and who'd know the difference.

Then there's the issue of what are the similarities and differences between a paid professional journalist/reporter/blogger and someone merely blogging, freeping or chatting? And is there a difference between Paid Ones versus Non-Paid ones. Scott McClelland, I read, is asking the press that question: How do you define "reporter"?

This is also exhibited in the NCPAC/O'Malley issue. The mere posting of a political person in a privately owned forum (freerepublic) is cause for Charges from the O'Malley camp. And then by proxy (association) it's attenuation charges against O'Malley's political opponent.

In this case, since FREEP is a privately owned entity and also with public aspects, the pressies infiltrating here are indeed trespassing upon a private domain, no? But here's where it gets murky. It's a private domain but with public access. And, as I see it, MSM is making the point that if FREEP can use even excerpts of MSM published articles, then tit for tat should be also good.

And so, if tit for tat, is the word of the day, then why not let FREEP have access to newsies' editorial rooms? How about access to your inner "chat boards" and "emails"? Fair play is fair play no? MSM is a private domain but with public aspects. However, the people are not allowed to see inside the newsrooms and quote the "banter" going on in newsrooms and post these as "SEE, LOOK AT WHAT HE/SHE SAID"! as evidence of anything. No, freepers go with the facts as published (evidenced) by the MSM. It doesn't appear to me, the MSM is playing very fair in this particular regard. (See my point #3). However, since James Taranto, WSJ, is now citing from the DU posting boards, I suppose one could consider this a more "leveling" affect.

However, there is also another matter: expertise in re the argument about "what is a reporter" in this new age.

Those who are paid "reporters"/columnists generally have years of experience behind them. I respect that. In the same light that I respect my car mechanic and dentist. Someone who builds boats, or runs nurseries to teach me about plants. It's like Rush's line "don't try this at home". Makes me laugh everytime he says that, and because there's a lot depth to his line.

The problem, IMHO, is that we also live in an age where academic fraud is a very serious issue. (This is also a problem for MSMers who use "academic" studies to issue the news.)

Point #3. This leads us to the Jeff Gannon issue. Here is somebody allowed into the "inner circle" and reports from a "not paid by MSM" venue. And the outrage here, is over how he has been treated. In essence, Jeff Gannon was a freeper who was allowed inside, not the MSM newsrooms, but inside the WH press briefings. And for this, he is being horribly and visciously targeted.

Point 4. FR is not a BLOG. However, there are similarities to a blog.

Point #5. Back to Jeff Gannon. Left-wing websites/blogs launched all this concerning Jeff Gannon. Obviously, the "facts" as the lefties saw it were very carefully laid out; but in a see here, see there: the implications are strong; but not necessarily direct. The facts, however, were not carefully checked pre-blog'ed.

What this boils down to is this argument, IMHO:

MSM is saying: anything you post may and can be used against you.
Bloggers are saying: Here's what I saw or heard or read.
Freepers are saying: Here's what's printed or portrayed, this is what I think about it, how does this fact "A" square with Fact "A" in that other article (and with banter thrown inbetween all the discourse. (This is where the similarity between FreeRepublic and Blogging/Websites exists: the banter alongside the facts on the issue being discussed..

Yes, I do think there is bias in the MSM reporting of the news. I see some improvements. But this issue of "what is a reporter" is a good one which needs discussion.

And Bruce Bartlett is correct in an aspect: Terrorists were able to get across our borders, obtain illegal ID, hijack planes, and murder 3,000 (est) people.

But I don't think it particularly applies to Jeff Gannon's case. Terrorists, liberals, democrats have made clear they "hate the president" "wish him dead", ad nauseum, so I'm pretty confident about the background criminal checks that the WH makes in issuing those daily or permanent press passes. And they knew his real name. And Jeff Gannon used a "Twain" and so what?

Is it possible this is all stemming from past resentments from those in the liberal coalitions against conservative bloggers/websites? The publicizing of "aggregious offenders" in MSM or MSM articles or non-MSM articles email addresses? or phone numbers? Could be. This could all be the MSM's way of payback, by quoting posters in here and then "doing digging" to find out their "Guckert" (Guckart?)

I do think there is a strong liberal bias in what gets reported. But if they are suggesting that places like blogs and freep have to have an inner-newsroom, then the MSM is indeed pushing a line which is anti-freedom of speech. Or does the MSM consider "banter" in a private cyber venue as running in parallel to "slander"? IF the MSM isn't even going to consider the lefty bloggers in the same light (Gannon issue); then why hold other political id groups to a different standard. MSM calls itself "objective" reporting. It clearly isn't. Even with a token conservative on board for the occasional print or portrayal..

This here is a big rub, IMHO. alongside the more fascinating "we must have a formal investigation into this specific "gannon" issue" vis a vis Slaughter and Lautenberg. And based on what? Dubious facts? And the politicians in this matter are by extension to be given full "seriousness" and "respect" in the news? How is this believable or credible?

[Antoninus]

I've had freepmail conversations with "unknown" freepers before who were trying to pull information out of me about various things (most of which I had no idea about). The main thing is, be sure of what you write and be very careful what you diclose to "strangers."

As always, caveat scriptor.

[norwaypinesavage]

I didn't know they were private messages. Does anyone know haw the WAPO got them?

[conservative in nyc]

I doubt NCPAC's a WaPo reporter. The WaPo and Baltimore Sun have been raking him over the coals and looking into his background for the past 3 days. They've painted quite an unflattering portrait of him, claiming he's a Republican dirty trickster.

I haven't ruled out any other theory. The simplest explanation would be MD4BUSH is a Democrat operative troll who gave his FReepmail to the Washington Post. A more sinister explanation would be that MD4BUSH is the Washington Post. And I'm sure there are other scenarios that would fit the known facts.

But (so far), we have no proof of anything, just guesses. And knowledge that the Baltimore Sun is extremely hostile to Governor Ehrlich. The governor refuses to allow the executive branch to speak with one Balt Sun reporter and one Balt Sun columnist because he thinks they've routinely misquoted him.

[cyncooper]

CBS later fired three executives and a producer over their work on the National Guard story

I don't believe this is correct. Isn't it a fact that CBS fired Mapes but only has asked for the resignations of the "three executives"? Isn't it further true that those three have not submitted these resignations?

Back to reading the rest of this "real journalism" article...

[Teacher317]

...and the slap-down of a biased mainstream press who no longer represent the beliefs and values of regular folks.

What's even more pathetic is that we don't even demand that. Just give us actual, accurate, substantiated facts, and let us find our own "spin", and we'd probably come flocking back.