Monday, July 23, 2007

Hang 'em first, ask questions later

The blogosphere merry-go-round spins today:

McBride's protege screws up in a confusing post about dropped charges against protestors at an Army recruiting center.

Charlie Sykes, Steve Egg, Owen Robinson, and probably other assorted wingnuts jump on the report -- checking no facts, of course -- and denounce Dist. Atty. John Chisholm, who had nothing to do with the municipal charges being discussed.

Illusory Tenant sets it straight.

And McBride walks gingerly, pointing out that the charges are municipal,not dissing the original post by her friend Rebecca Kontowitz Kontowicz, and reserving the right to criticize Chisholm later. What she fails to do is look at whether any charges were warranted and whether they could be made to stick. But the wingnut lynch mobs never let the facts get in the way.

UPDATE: Sykes offers a correction. So does Egg , after a little prodding.


  1. lol - thanks for the link.

    Frankly I'm amazed an illustrious and highly regarded political pundit like Charlie Sykes doesn't know a DA from a city attorney.

    Then again maybe I shouldn't be.

  2. It's Kontowicz, not Kontowitz.

    Also, feel free to explain how the post was confusing and how I screwed up.


  3. Well, if it wasn't confusing by quoting Chisholm when you were writing about municipal charges, I wonder how you managed to confuse at least 5 or 6 other right wing bloggers, who all used what you wrote to attack Chisholm.

  4. Typical right wing ploy. Shoot first, think later. Fortunately, our little posse is the gang that couldn't shoot (or think) straight.

  5. Thanks for the correction!

    For the record, I never attacked Chisholm. And clearly, I did not quote him regarding municipal charges.

    While those charges have been dropped, it does not necessarily mean that this is over for those involved. The quote and final few paragraphs were meant to highlight the next step in the process and indicate that there would be some sort of follow up in the near future.

    Here's the excerpt in question:

    Since the “peaceful” protest, a state and federal investigation has been under review.

    Asked for an update a little over a week ago, Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm stated, “It’s still an open investigation and no final charging decision has been made, while that matter is still being investigated. And as such I really just don’t have anything more to add. It’s still being looked at by the Milwaukee Police Department and by the U.S. Attorneys office.”

    We'll be eagerly awaiting those decisions as well.

  6. It's very disingenuous of Sykes to reproduce that e-mail, if you ask me.

    While Ms. K's account may have seemed a trifle convoluted to some (I don't think it was), it was clear from the outset she was addressing municipal and not state charges.

    It was gracious -- albeit unnecessary -- of Ms. K to assume responsibility for causing Sykes's "confusion."

    For him to now suggest that he was somehow misled by her original post is irresponsible.

    "This headline seems to have been inaccurate, unfair, and premature," he says! What a weasel.

  7. They all share the same reckless journalistic tendencies where they fix the facts to fit their position. It should come as no surprise that a correction-generating machine like McBride should have as a protege someone in her own likeness: A self-absorbed ideologue badly in need of editing and careless with key facts. (And how about the creepy 9-11 image on the girl's Web site: I'm sure that's her favorite takeaway from the city.)

  8. Now McBride is claiming her little protege was the "first to report" the dropped charges.

    Hello? It was at Indymedia Milwaukee on July 18.