RE-LYNCHING CYNTHIA MCKINNEY

RE-LYNCHING CYNTHIA MCKINNEY
by Greg Palast
Monday, July 21, 2003

Holy shit! Writing about Cynthia McKinney is like a blind date with Godzilla. You don't really know what you're in for until you've walked through the door.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=239&row=1

I took a liking to him. I think he's great. Glad he's on our side.

called the liberal voice. unbelieveable.

Thank you so much.

This character assassination shouldn't keep happening, don't know what can be done to stop it.

Glad they know Greg Palast is onto 'em, and that he's not afraid to tell the world.

It was so satisfying to see him name names, and discuss exactly where and how they sinned against this Congressperson, and ruined her career.

I saw there's a link to "The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney" at the bottom of the first article, which I'm going to read later, when I can really concentrate without interruption. Hope everyone else who hasn't read it will catch it, too.

"National Petrolium Radio." Way to go!

GOP does it a lot. They can not even stand a movie if the actor does not believe like them.I wonder what they do with great music and great books? Funny if you go into Saudie they take any book that is written by a Jew. Now it gets silly Some none Jews have names that sound like it to them so there books go also, funny because every Jew does not have a Jew sounding name.Pretty soon it will be John Wayne and cowboys and country music and that will be it for us to be good AM.We need a Dept of what is OK to be good Am in the eyes of the right wing.

but WTF does THIS mean?

Now it gets silly Some none Jews have names that sound like it to them so there books go also, funny because every Jew does not have a Jew sounding name.

Here's what I get out of it... I don't see a whiff of anti-Semitism in this. If anyting Izzie seems to be pointing out how ludicrous these witch-hunts are.


Knocking off the guy that brings the message is par for the course for this group.


The GOP does it a lot. They can not even stand a movie if the actor does not believe like them. I wonder what they do with great music and great books? Funny if you go into Saudi Arabia they take (eliminate/won't sell?) any book that is written by a Jew. Now it gets silly. Some non-Jews have names that sound like it Jewish to them so their books go also, funny because every Jew does not have a Jewish-sounding name. Pretty soon it will be John Wayne and cowboys and country music and that will be it for us to be good Americans. We need a Dept of what is OK to be good Americans in the eyes of the right wing.

:shrug: Methinks we have more than a few passive-aggressive folks here?

is a major improvement. The original version was phrased so tastelessly that it was hard to tell if the poster was anti-Semitic, or just plain ignorant. Perhaps izzie will look at your version to see what proper grammar looks like. The offense is the same offense we all take when the Republicans refer to the Democrat this or that, when they mean Democratic. It's just rude.
I think he meant that the Saudis confiscate books that they don't like rather than letting them in the country

Going through life imagining things like that everywhere can't be pleasant!

I had a friend come visit me in Berlin once, she saw Nazis around every single corner. She had a dreadful time until the day one of my Jewish friends brutally took her to task her paranoia.
After that, a pleasant time was had by all and to this day she laughs about it. Ironically, she's now happily married to a German she met on a subsequent trip and living in Koln. Go figure :shrug:

:eyes:

:hi:

They obviously did because last time I talked to her she told me she had no desire to ever live here again. I begged, I begged for a small room in the back...! :)


:hi:

and yes many jewish people like my brothers-in-law have names like Abbot and Decker

What on earth did you imagine in that post?

so you don't get any more rude and junvenile comments like the one in post 5.

I have had it with PBS and NPR.

It is time to cut off all tax funding of these GOP Propagandists!

what's there to say.
Cynthia was lied about then raked over the coals.
the reasons WHY are important,and they are numerous,i'm sure.

arrrgggghhhh! another election i won't get over!

from the article

"How do I know they treat white, right congressmen differently from a black, left congresswoman? Go back to McKinney's "cover-up" statement. (" doesn't want the American people to know …those involved in the lead-up to September 11.") I was just having a little fun: McKinney never said it. Senator Bob Graham did."

much of it was inaccurate, including apparently misquoting McKinney herself. Not a minor misquote, but a twisting of her words so that they said what Palast believes about Bush and Sept. 11, totally inconsistent with what McKinney said.

I emailed Palast for clarification, and to request a retraction, and he hasn't answered yet.

That's not so unusual, it's been about 50/50 for me in getting responses from "journalists." What was VERY unusual, however, is that I got put on his mailing list.

So, this reinforces an opinion I've developed about Palast, that he's about self-promotion more than actual journalism.

The sad thing is how he's trashing real journalists. Oh, well.

In just about every one of your posts, you seem to be on some sort of "let's not be too hard on the mainstream/conservatives" mission.

What is it with you?? If I wanted to hear more repug apologies, I'd get a television/satellite dish!

:kick:

show me where I've apologized for conservatives.

And what does that have to do with Palast's crappy reporting?

I find it works very well for people who always seem to misinterpret things. It sure makes the board easier to read :)


Click Here For Hard-Hitting Buttons — Visit The Cronus Connection

but I'd be lying.

or McKinney didn't actually say that, but Palast is trying to make it look like she did? or, the reverse? You've never really been clear about what Palast did that was so wrong.

So what has he said here that wasn't a lie or misstatement of fact? Given your passion for calling him out, I would suspect that Palast must be wrong in just about every story he does.

OnEdit: sounds familiar

The reason I find the brouhaha over my correcting the record on McKinney so astonishing is that the complaints came in the main, NOT from defenders of the Times or NPR, but from those who do, in fact, believe that Bush DID know of, or even plan, the attack of September 11. These objectors are beside themselves with misery over losing the comfort of a kind of endorsement of their views extracted from the misreading of McKinney. From this crowd came the most vitriolic attacks – citing Saint McKinney's words despite her repeated objections.

Palast incorrectly quoted McKinney as saying that Bush had no foreknowledge of the attacks.

I was never able to find confirmation of the quote he reported, and no one else could find it either, and Palast didn't answer me when I emailed him about it.

I don't consider McKinney a saint, but I agree with her statement that the possibility Bush knew should be an aspect of the investigation. In fact, I don't really know very much about McKinney other that this, not enough to idolize her or dislike her.

here's the quote I'm referring to:

“George Bush had no prior knowledge of the plan to attack the World Trade Center on September 11.”

Palast says it's "from the record," whatever that means. I and other DUers searched the congressional record at thomas.loc.gov, and couldn't find it, nor could it be found anywhere else, nor has Palast said where it came from.

The only quotes we could find have her saying exactly the opposite, have her repeating her calls for investigation. I'm not aware of McKinney ever saying that Bush didn't know.

It really wouldn't make sense for her to say that anyway. How would she know that Bush didn't know?

so what? Paraphrases are supposed to be in quote marks as well. You can do nasty things with paraphrases, but judging from the direct quote Palast most certainly didn't. Based on the evidence, Bush had no prior knowledge. Innocent until proven guilty or is this a foriegn concept to you.

It was in quotes, and it was supposedly from "the record."

Not only was it not her words, but the meaning was totally different than McKinney's meaning.

. He probably received alot of email along the same lines, since this appeared to be a talking point from a certain group here a DU. Cynthia denied that she was accusing the President of murder, and I agree with Palast's interpretation rather than yours. I think the vote purges which Palast uncovered is more provable and damning the GOP. Palast is a great friend to the left. I think it is strange someone would want to discredit Palast.

DID NOT HAVE A SOURCE for her 'interpretation' of what mckinney said. cocoa has repeatedly attributed a source FOR HER, the radio interview. cocoa still doesn't get that cocoa's attribution of the NYT reporter's source to the radio interview is not the same as the reporter actually gleaning her story about mckinney from listening to the radio interview herself. per palast's initial story, the NYT reporter said she heard what she claimed mckinney said "somewhere."
finally, cocoa concurs with the interpretation of what the NYT reporter wrote about what mckinney said, even though the reporter admitted she didn't know :wtf: she heard what she wrote :crazy:

well put :D

Nice play. :silly: You got somebody's number. :loveya: "B"? :evilgrin:

journalism. i think this entire episode (including the election) holds a lesson for all those who choose to learn it. it's about how the BIG LIE gets repeated and spread...and so much more. as palast's little trick in the article demonstrates. graham hasn't been called "looney" and so on...

Her source was accounts of the KPFA interview, which, like she said, were all over the place.

She didn't provide the source in her article, and she couldn't remember the soruce when Palast called her. That doesn't mean she didn't have a source. It meant that McKinney's comments weren't even the central part of the story, they were mentioned in passing.

And remember that her article was written in August, while McKinney's comments were made in March. And again, her article was about something else, the McKinney/Bush was part was incidental.

Edit: an important thing to note is that the NYT, WP, and NPR stories were true. The only person who misquoted McKinney was Palast.

When I called the Times reporter to ask for the source of this politically suicidal statement of McKinney's, she could not find it. When I pressed, she faked it, pathetically flailing about with false attempts to cover the sloppy reportage, citing for example the congressional record (where it did not appear). s

Why should we trust the reporting of someone who is so obviously sloppy as this times reporter? If she wanted to be credible she would produce the link. as for what she reported being incidental, so what? It only proves the rumor had become entrenched beltway wisdom even though it wasn't true. The Saddam/Al Qaeda link and the WMD were entrenched beltway wisdom too.

at the time Palast called.

One thing to remember is that Clemetson's article was not about McKinney's statements, it was about her primary campaign, and it was written in August, while the statements happened in March.

The mention of the "LIHOP" statements was incidental in that story.

The Washington Post and NPR stories, which were about the statements per se, did source the KPFA interview. The post printed direct quotes, which were acccurate, and NPR played audio.

.

nuff said.

you said that the NYT had no sources, I said her sources were published accounts, just like she told Palast.

sloppy reporting, as you have been since the first story. it's clear to all who care to see it that she had not a clue of her source, per her exchange with palast. whether she 'didn't remember' as you claim, or she never had a source matters not. the point is: you saying she had a source, but couldn't remember is not the same as being unable to provide a source. you are an internet poster...she is a reporter. she SHOULD be held to a higher standard.

what Clemetson wrote was correct, I don't think it's even debatable.

What's clear to everyone at DU is that there have been long and heated debates about McKinney's statement. But none of them are about whether she made the statements, they are about whether she should have made them.

This totally contradicts what Palast is claiming. If what he's saying is true, then what are all these raging debates about? Why do I even know who McKinney is? Why is she considered "brave" if she never said anything controversial?

I've seen people with sig lines saying "I believe Cynthia McKinney." If Palast is correct, then what can this possibly mean? Believe WHAT?

:wtf: is so difficult to understand about that?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!

you, apparently, have determined she *really* did have a source, but couldn't remember. i, like others, see this as the kind of sloppy "common knowledge" kind of reporting that is a HUGE problem with the american media.

i see examples of this every day on the news...the simple repeating of anything and everything bush, inc claims as "truth," for example.

and this is the kind of reporting that gets reflected in public opinion...the belief that iraq had something to do with 911, for example.

regardless of mckinney said or implied, the REAL story here is about how her words got misterpreted and taken out of context TO TELL A STORY ABOUT HER, one that IS NOT TRUTH.

you are stuck in your belief that what was reported was in fact truth.

as to what people believed, as in "i believe cynthia," perhaps they believed what she actually said: an investigation of 911 was warranted, given what was known at the time.

It was huge news, remember? It was all over the place. Someone asked Ari about it, and he said something about grassy knolls. Other republicans and even a few democrats denounced her. The whores were all over it. There were very loud discussions here at DU about it. People were saying it was going to hurt the dems, other people were saying all the dems should do what she did.

and as a REPORTER, she should be able to do so. "common knowledge" and "it's all over the place" DO NOT QUALIFY as credible sources for journalists with integrity.

AND ONE LAST TIME:

YOUR CLAIM THAT SHE HAD A SOURCE IS NOT THE SAME AS HER SPECIFYING A SOURCE FOR WHAT SHE CLAIMED MCKINNEY SAID OR IMPLIED, AS SHE DID IN HER ARTICLE.

and no matter how many times you say it...it still won't be TRUTH.

Using a totally different story as an example, this is just the first story in LBN.

Here's the last paragraph:

Kelly, a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq and a top government adviser, testified to a parliamentary committee days before his death that while he met privately with Gilligan he did not believe he was the journalist's main source.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030727/ap_on_re_eu/britain_weapons_adviser

This reporter did not "specify a source," so is she guilty of misleading us? Note that she is also interpreting Kelly's testimony. That could be argued too, if someone wanted to. If some reporter challenged whether that's what Kelly actually meant, does that mean that the reporter is "lynching" Kelly?

Now, if I were to call this reporter a year later, reading her that quote and asking her what her sources were, and she said 'I don't know, it was all over the place.' does that mean that she fabricated it?

No, because Kelly's testimony was in fact all over the place. If the Kelly testimony was the main point of this story, she should provide actual quotes, like NPR and the WP did with their McKinney stories. But in this article, the mention of Kelly's testimony was incidental/background information, like the McKinney "LIHOP" comments were in Clemetson's story.

like palast did with clemetson? if you did, and s/he couldn't specify a source...then it THAT would be the same thing...see?

*some* reporters actually CAN provide sources after a year...it's a part of their JOB. unlike with opinion pieces, reporters are supposed to base their stories on more than quotes they heard "somewhere" and "all over the place."

Most stories contain background information for which sources are not provided. This does not mean it's sloppy journalism, and it does not mean they are fabricating anything.

Speaking of fabricating, there's still no word on Palast's McKinney quote from "the record" which is not in the congressional record, or anywhere else that I could find, and which contradicts every statement I could find by McKinney, and which doesn't really make sense that she would say it.

Palast didn't answer me about it, and it's not mentioned in his new article...

and of course, as i mentioned, the analogous situation would be for you to call the writer of the article you posted and ask for a source, as palast did with the NYT reporter.

what you are calling "background information" palast is calling "spin"...i agree with him. so, what happened in this case is that "spin" got repeated as gospel. and i agree with palast as to WHY this happened...it was for the purpose of character assasination.

furthermore, as palast points out, it was personal and purposeful, since others have said exactly what mckinney said or implied, bob graham, for example.

this is the truth that resonates with me. as to what palast claims mckinney said...i would suggest you email him again.

just like the report of Dr. Kelly's testimony was background information.

Both are routine, and neither is malicious. Both reports of what the people said are correct, even though they didn't provide sources, and even though they were paraphrasing rather than quoting. McKinney did say what the NYT said she said, and Kelly did say what Reuters said he said.

There was never any controversy over whether she said this, until Palast came with the story that it was made up. I figure that Palast counted on us to have forgotten the KPFA radio interview. In fact, when I saw him say this on C-Span, I actually could not recall exactly the forum where she made the comments. I believed Palast, and I was shocked at the deception that "the media" had perpetrated on me.

But, this is where the Internet comes in handy. I was able to track down the story and realize that Palast was full of shit.

That was a shock as well, because I admired Palast for his excellent and important Choicepoint story.

I still believe in Palast's actual reporting. I consider this McKinney story to be a marketing gimmick to draw attention to his Barrick gold mine story. I'm not a purist about that kind of thing, but when it involves smearing other reporters it's gone over the line.

Then there's the element of fooling his loyal followers, and there's also the race card, and there's also the twisting of McKinney's statements, so all in all this totally stinks.

and this is where you and palast differ. "correct" information," even of the "background information" variety is "correct" because it is verifiable. for the zillionth time, the NYT reporter could not verify what she wrote, as in provide a source. as to whether her information was "correct" or not...it certainly would have helped her credibility in claiming so...if she was able to specify where she heard this "correct" information. since she couldn't do that, i agree with palast's conclusion: she was repeating spin.

so...we are back to square one. you deem the information from the NYT "correct"...therefore it is, in your view. it's fruitless to argue this further because you can't get beyond that. i think it was an example of repeating spin, and i think the NYT reporter unwittingly admited as much. end of story.

of all the many many very-high-post-count threads about McKinney at the time, I don't remember very many people taking the position that McKinney didn't suggest Bush might have known about the attacks.

That's why many people consider McKinney to be a brave woman, because she said something that was politically risky. It doesn't do anything for McKinney to scrub what she said. In fact, I think it serves to discredit what she said.

was that there was sufficient reason to investigate 911...and again, others who have requested the very same investigation...even for *similar* reasons, have not been vilified the way mckinney was. i hope THAT is the consensus on DU. and ultimately: this is the TRUTH, and the point, of both palast articles.

i might add, the replacement of mckinney with majette, and the reasons why that happened, is also and important part of this story, considering all the other 'spin' that became "common knowledge" about mckinney. one could say all of the spin worked in together to acheive a political objective (one that i hope will backfire, ultimately)...but that would be "looney." now...this is truly the end of the story.

Palast does not.

His language is unambibuous. He does not say "spin", he says "fabrication." "Spin" implies something is being spun. Palast denies there is anything at all. If someone says "a complete fabrication. A whopper, a fabulous fib, a fake a flim-flam" then they can't come back and say "I never said it was made up, I just said it was spin."

Plus, he suggests LIHOP is "loony". His position is that LIHOP is "loony" but that McKinney never suggested that. Thus, Palast gets to slam LIHOP and pretend to defend McKinney at the same time:

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=229&row=1

The New York Times’ Lynette Clemetson revealed her comments went even further over the edge: “Ms. McKinney suggest that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.” That’s loony, all right. As an editor of the highly respected Atlanta Journal Constitution told NPR, McKinney’s “practically accused the President of murder!” Problem is, McKinney never said it. That’s right. The “quote” from McKinney is a complete fabrication. A whopper, a fabulous fib, a fake, a flim-flam. Just freakin’ made up.

She didn't say it. You are blaming us for believing a media lie? Weird?

How would you paraphrase her comments about Bush and Sept. 11?

We all know the majority is always right! :eyes:

Maybe Bush really is a great president!

what I'm saying is that the idea that Cynthia McKinney did not say what she said is absurd.

What Palast is saying is extraordinary. He's saying the whole thing was made up. All those discussions were not based on our imaginations, they were based on actual statements that McKinney herself made.

Gilligan stated he was protecting his source. The NYTimes reporter simply didn't produce a source, there is a big difference.

this was just a random story, the first one in LBN.

Demonstrating that it was routine to report background information without sourcing all of it every time.

because I have to tell you,it sure seems like you haven't.

. Turns out she didn't say "Bush Knew!"

the Washington Post didn't say she said that, and NPR didn't say she said that.

If you are under the impression that any of these publications reported that McKinney asserted that Bush knew, then you are mistaken.

According to NPR, “McKinney implied that the Administration knew in advance about September 11 and deliberately held back the information.” The New York Times’ Lynette Clemetson revealed her comments went even further over the edge: “Ms. McKinney suggest that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.” That’s loony, all right. As an editor of the highly respected Atlanta Journal Constitution told NPR, McKinney’s “practically accused the President of murder!”

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=229&row=0

when the first palast article came out, i posted the clemetson article...palast quoted it accurately.

all of the above, at the very least, imply that mckinney did say BUSH KNEW.

and if what was reported was correct, as you have been arguing, why do you take issue with the implication?

That's a huge difference than asserting that Bush DID know.

That would be equally ridiculous as her asserting thad Bush did NOT know, which Palast's apparently made up quote has her saying. How could she know either way? Nothing I've read of McKinney suggests that she would be so stupid as to assert something she couldn't possibly know.

No, what she said was much more limited, appropriately. She said there were enough questions for an investigation of that aspect of the attacks.

i believe this is the point of the palast article...and i thought, your bone of contention. paradoxically, you are now arguing that what she actually said was limited, appropriately, which is another point of the palast articles. per you: "she said there were enough questions for an investigation"...so tell me, how is that implying (forget "saying," since we agree she never said it) bush knew, as was reported?

Extremely interesting. I hope this goes somewhere.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

damned for a double negative :crazy:

would you have a link to when/where she said that?

And what were the other "flamboyant" mistakes has she made?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I like you throw in a swipe at Kimmer and Boortz...as if it help you at all :crazy:

and you are full of :hurts: perhaps it was her cornrows that offended y'all. not to worry, majette is appropriately permed and assimilated.

And I suppose that Bush speaks flawless Queen's English?

Give me a break!

This is the same Bush that referred to Liberians as "Librarians"!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

what would rush do? who the fuck cares what they think.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There are several of my coworkers that listen to Rush on their radios and they just eat up everything that pompous ass says. They take it as Gospel truth!

You should see the incredulous look they get on their faces when I mention to them stories that I read in the British press that contradict their world view.

What's funny is that many of them are about to lose their jobs due to downsizing, but they never blame Bush for it!