A more pathetic thing I have not seen in quite some time

Before we get to the latest scandalously untrue thing that Powerline (Blog of the Year!) has said, I'd like to remind you of some of their other lies; there are so many, so let's confine ourselves to those that we here at Here's What's Left have documented.

Like this one in which Powerline accused the NYTimes of outing the children of gay conservatives.  When shown was shown that NYTimes hadn't, they refused to retract.  When one of the gay children in question said that the NYTimes was not outing them, they still refused to retract.

Like this one (also here), in which Powerline accuses Jimmy Carter of being a traitor, based on false quotations, misreading of source material, and a lack of consistency.  When the falsehood was pointed out them, they refused to retract.

Like this one, in which Powerline accuses, without any evidence, the Associated Press of being an accessory to murder.

Like this one, in which Powerline eithers lies about or doesn't understand what Justice Ginsburg said so that they can argue with the point she didn't make. 

Like this one, in which Powerline reveals their uninterest in science, and tells us that they don't trust "experts" or "studies," but only believe what their own eyes tell them.

Like this one, in which Powerline accuses the left of finding and posting nude photos of Jeff Gannon, even though there were already there. 

As you'd have to be living in a cave not to know by now, Powerline has been trying to claim that a republican talking points memo on the Schiavo case was fake, and a Democratic trick.  Turns out it wasn't fake, and the republican that wrote it is resigning, and much to no one's surprise, Powerline is still not admitting they're wrong.  (Here's Ezra, Atrios, Kevin Drum, August Pollack, all expressing their well-founded outrage.)

By not retracting their claims and admitting they're wrong, Powerline has officially made itself a laughingstock.  I want to show, in detail, just how egregious and disingenuous they have been. 

Let's make it as clear as possible.  Powerline really has a stake in this story, and they've been going at it for a while.  Indeed, in the first 7 days of April, they've written about it 5 different times.  In last days of March (the story broke on the 18th, I think), they wrote about it at least 16 separate times (I only searched for the words "talking points" so it might be more).  Their intention was very clear.  They wanted to say the memo was "fake," that is was a Democratic "dirty trick" to discredit republicans, and that the mainstream media should be discredited for reporting on a "fake memo" (particularly the Washington Post and ABC).  Here's a sampling:

March 23:

The third possibility is that the memo is a Democratic dirty trick.  At the moment, that looks most likely.[...] 

Are the Democrats moving to capitalize on their own hoax?

March 25:

The more fundamental point, of course, is that Kurtz purports to take up the issue of the apparently-fraudulent memo, but never addresses the many substantive arguments we have raised on the subject, beginning with the fact that the only people who have been reported as passing out the memo (by the New York Times) were Democratic aides.

By the way, in case anyone's interested, on that same day they wrote a post called (I'm not making this up) "Fact, Ideology, and Hatred" with an absolutely priceless quote: "I've long been fascinated by the way people apply ideology to decide simple issues of fact."

March 26:

In the meantime, there is not a bit of evidence connecting the memo to any Republican, and, for all of the reasons we have repeatedly spelled out on this site, there are excellent reasons to believe it is a hoax perpetrated by still-unidentified Democrats.

March 30:

Talking Points Story Goes Up In Smoke[...]

We, on the other hand, have questioned repeatedly whether the memo was authored by Republicans at all, and have raised the possibility that it is a Democratic dirty trick.

March 31:

We have written extensively about the fake "talking points memo" on the Schaivo case that ABC News and the Washington Post publicized, beginning on March 18. We have pointed out, most comprehensively in the Weekly Standard, that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the memo originated with the Republicans, and considerable reason to think it may be a Democratic dirty trick.

April 6 (yesterday):

Answer: Yes

Brian DeBoseand Stephen Dinan ask in today's Washington Times; "Was the Schiavo memo a fake?"[...]

The Washington Post isn't the perpetrator of the underlying offense here, but it is in the middle of its own Watergate-style cover-up.

OK, so let's address a few points:

1) Was the memo a Democratic "dirty trick"?  No, it was written by Sen. Mel Martinez's (R-FL) legal counsel.

2) Was the memo fake?  No, it was real.

3) Is the mainstream media trying to bludgeon republicans with this fake memo?  No, it wasn't actually that widely written on at the time, and the only reason the story is still going is that Powerline is pushing it. 

Powerline, instead of admitting these obvious facts, is now saying that the Post is still guilty of "only a slightly less egregious offense than if the memo had actually been written by the Democrats."  For example,

The whole point of the story, as initially reported, was that the document was an official "GOP memo[.]"

They're still lying.  Incredible.  Actually, no one ever said it was an "official 'GOP memo,'" in the sense that it came from the RNC.  They said it was a "GOP talking points memo," and that is an accurate description (it is a memo by a republican containing talking points).  Nothing about any official capacity.  The phrase "Republican officials" was used, and surely not even Powerline puts much stake in the word officials.  The word "officials" is always ambiguous in the news, and often means staffers (see this article for a parsing of the phrase "Senior Administration Official").

As Kevin Drum points out, all they've got on the Post now is that their reporter, Mike Allen, wasn't clear in his choice of words.  And Mike Allen corrected himself in a second draft of the story.  He changed

"A one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators by party leaders, said the debate over Schiavo would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters."

to

"An unsigned one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators, said the debate over Schiavo would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters."

Mike Allen at the WaPo corrected himself, but Powerline has not corrected itself, and that's the really astounding thing about this whole story.  They've written more than 20 pieces on their widely read blog, accusing Democrats of something false, making a false claim about a document's authenticity, and accusing the WaPo of shoddy reporting.  And even in the face of incontrovertable and overwhelming evidence, still cannot bring themselves to correct the obvious misrepresentations, even while the WaPo corrected its minor sloppiness in wording.  The irony is a real mind fuck. 

Ezra might be right.  This might be the end of Powerline.  I don't see how even they can weather having been so wrong for so long. 

By the way, if you want to write to Poweline (powerlinefeedback@gmail.com) and encourage them to be honest, I suggest you do it politely.  If they receive rude emails, they'll whine about it.  And that will be even more pathetic.

-- Michael

Comments

[Ryan]

Great rundown, Michael. This could easily be turned into a wikipedia page on the events surrounding the Schiavo memo.

I do have a prediction, though, which isn't really saying much. One would think that this would either be the end of Power Line, or they'd straighten up a bit to avoid this kind of attention. I don't either of these will come to pass.

They've received a harsh blow today, but I predict that they'll get even more radical with their positions as a means of rectifying the situation, i.e. regaining the trust of the more moderate portion of their audience. That said, get ready for a fun few months. If they thought they were targets of ridicule before, they're in for a rude awakening.

[Incertus]

You know Ryan, in a reasonable world, you'd be right that this would either be the end of Powerline or cause them to straighten up, but in a case of cognitive dissonance like this, I imagine that this little episode won't have any effect at all on their base of followers. Why should it? Their followers will simply assume that Assrocket et al were victims of the same liberal media establishment they've been trained to believe exists and will go on believing anything those clowns post--it's a textbook case. When the available facts challenge their belief system, they don't change their beliefs--they ignore the facts. That's the reason creationism is still so widely accepted, and why so large a percentage of Americans believe Saddam hussein had WMD, that we found them, and that Hussein was linked to the 9/11 attacks despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Cheryl]

Sad but true.

[DMEYERS]

YOU ARE SO FULL OF IT

Is the mainstream media trying to bludgeon republicans with this fake memo? No, it wasn't actually that widely written on at the time, and the only reason the story is still going is that Powerline is pushing it.

Powerline, instead of admitting these obvious facts, is now saying that the Post is still guilty of "only a slightly less egregious offense than if the memo had actually been written by the Democrats." For example,

The whole point of the story, as initially reported, was that the document was an official "GOP memo[.]"

They're still lying. Incredible. Actually, no one ever said it was an "official 'GOP memo,'" in the sense that it came from the RNC. They said it was a "GOP talking points memo," and that is an accurate description (it is a memo by a republican containing talking points). Nothing about any official capacity. The phrase "Republican officials" was used, and surely not even Powerline puts much stake in the word officials. The word "officials" is always ambiguous in the news, and often means staffers (see this article for a parsing of the phrase "Senior Administration Official").

The original wire story put out by the Post said it came from, or was distributed by "republican party leaders".

Don't believe me, believe the St. Louis Dispatch who printed this retraction

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/corrections/story/BB24E3D759E112B286256FD800440B7F?OpenDocument

"A Washington Post article about congressional intervention in the Terri Schiavo case published March 19 in the Post-Dispatch included a description of a memo asserting that the action could benefit Republicans politically. The article said the memo was "distributed to Republican senators by party leaders." A later version of the story did not specify the authorship. The authorship remains unknown."

The original WaPost news service article said it was distributed by party leaders. CLEARLY FALSE

[dmeyers]

How about the end of ABC and WashPost for running with a story that turned out to be so different than their initial report.

From what has come out the story's knowns are:

1. Memo written by legal counsel for Sen. Martinez
2. Martinez claims he never read it (as I previously posted, either way he is stupid. He either didn't read it and gave it to Harkin or he did read it and gave it to Harkin. Both possibilities shows he is stupid on this issue)
3. Martinez gave it to Harkin
4. Harkin tipped the media on it...actually we don't know this for sure but how was it that ABC knew of this memo?

Seems like these 4 items were no where in the original reporting by ABC and WashPost. Where is their accountability?

[here's what's left]

dmeyers,

if you're going to comment on my site, READ THE POST.

you say:

The original wire story put out by the Post said it came from, or was distributed by "republican party leaders".

I SAID THAT IN THE POST.

As Kevin Drum points out, all they've got on the Post now is that their reporter, Mike Allen, wasn't clear in his choice of words. And Mike Allen corrected himself in a second draft of the story. He changed

"A one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators by party leaders, said the debate over Schiavo would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters."

to

"An unsigned one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators, said the debate over Schiavo would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters."

Mike Allen at the WaPo corrected himself[.]

dmeyers, i know you're a partisanship blinds you and all, and that's fine. but don't let it blind you so much that it prevents you from reading what i've written.