Red State’s Leon H. Wolf has an excellent post describing how easy it is to fabricate a quote, place it in Wikiquote, an adjunct to Wikipedia, and then use it as a source to smear your opponent:
Having failed to prevent Rush Limbaugh from becoming a successful and wealthy entertainer, the mainstream media has apparently decided that they will attempt the next best thing; attempt to keep Rush Limbaugh from spending his money in the way he desires. In this case, Rush apparently desires to spend his money on a portion of the controlling stock in the St. Louis Rams of the National Football League. In the initial stages of this story, the media attempted to thwart Limbaugh’s plans by trumpeting his comments from several years ago to the effect that the media was overrating Donovan McNabb as a quarterback because they were desirous of seeing a black quarterback succeed. Apparently, has at long last realized the self-evident truth that Limbaugh’s comments about McNabb could not be construed as racist by anyone not determined to find racism in any sentence containing the word “black.” Therefore, they have set about with phase two of this story, attacking Limbaugh as racist with completely fabricated and unsourced quotes… from Wiki.
I first became aware of this latest brouhaha when I opened FoxSports.com this morning as I typically do to check and see if anything interesting happened in the previous evening of sports. I was greeted with a huge front-page box featuring this insipid column from the execrable Jason Whitlock. By way of reminder, Jason Whitlock recently wrote this ridiculous column, which somehow passes for insightful commentary while Limbaugh’s comments about McNabb are evil, thoughtless, and racist. But I digress. The newest basis for the assertion that Limbaugh is an eeeeeevil racist is as follows, according to Whitlock:
Here are two quotes attributed to Limbaugh in a 2006 book, “101 People Who Are Really Screwing America,” by Jack Huberman.
- “You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray (Dr. King’s assassin). We miss you, James. Godspeed.”
- “Let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: Slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back. I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”
The first of these quotes has already been debunked most thoroughly, long before Rush’s bid to buy the Rams. It is self-evidently the complete fabrication of someone with a wiki account, which was then picked up by the unscrupulous Huberman and reported as fact (with no citations at all) in his book. The other, also attributed to Huberman, has never been sourced, and Huberman has never cited any original article, or even given any indication as to when this alleged statement was made. Of course, these facts make it utterly impossible to refute the claim; without any date or context, Rush cannot even call witnesses who were present during the alleged confirmation to confirm or deny that he ever made such a statement. It is literally impossible for Limbaugh (or anyone else) to offer convincing proof that they have never at any time made a given statement (other than their own denial, which Rush has already given). It is preposterous to ask anyone to prove that they did not make a statement if you cannot even so much as offer a time and place where the statement is alleged to have occurred.
And yet, this is the position in which Limbaugh finds himself. And worse, idiots like Whitlock seem to think that it’s entirely appropriate to believe this completely unsourced accusation:
Limbaugh claimed on his radio show Monday that his staff could not find any proof that he ever joked about slavery. I’m sorry. Limbaugh doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt on racial matters.
See? In Jason Whitlock’s world, anyone at any time can claim that some unidentified person told them that Rush Limbaugh said [X], at a time and place they can’t identify, and if it touches on anything racial, it is fair to assume that Rush really said it because he doesn’t get “the benefit of the doubt.” This isn’t about the “benefit of the doubt,” it’s about whether the accusation is serious enough to create any doubt at all in the first place.
Of course, this is far from the first political controversy to be ginned up by Wikipedia’s “anybody can post” philosophy.
In 2004, Robert McHenry dubbed the site, “The Faith-Based Encyclopedia” at Tech Central Station. A year later, there was a scandal at Wikipedia that actually made a blip on the MSM’s radar, as I wrote at the time. Coincidentally, it was built around two other American icons assassinated in the 1960s:
John Seigenthaler, Sr. was the assistant to Robert Kennedy when he was attorney general under JFK. His Wikipedia entry originally read as follows:
“John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960′s. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.”
Needless to say, Seigenthaler is — to say the least — not happy, and has harsh words for the Wiki concept in USA Today.
I always find it fascinating that Limbaugh, who helped expose black libertarian/conservative academicians Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams to a huge new audience through their repeated guest-host slots during Rush’s frequent Carson-esque days off, is smeared as a racist. And such attacks have come from the highest realm in the land — but then, that was an era before the word’s massive overuse has caused it to go from being the 21st century equivalent of “commie” in the 1950s, to becoming an increasingly worn-out cliche.
As Jeffrey Lord writes at the American Spectator:
Liberals masquerading as “sports reporters” and “journalists” have been out there repeating this kind of garbage in the last few days. The goal: to keep Rush from buying an ownership stake in the St. Louis Rams.
It doesn’t take a wizard to know the reason that this kind of thing (and a lot of other unprintable garbage) is routinely attributed not only to Rush but other conservative talk radio hosts. There is a point to it, as conservatives understand. Instead of engaging on the battlefield of ideas, liberals project a prejudice they picked up from the left’s own culture of racism, a “progressive” culture that, as often noted in this space, has ranged over the centuries from support for slavery to segregation to lynching to racial quotas and identity politics. This is frequently noted here in this space, two examples of which can be found here and here.
And make no mistake:
Rush today, some other conservative tomorrow.
In the mid-1990s, Wired magazine coined the phrase “Pierre Salinger Syndrome”, named after JFK and LBJ’s press secretary, to describe someone taken in by something he found on the still new and novel World Wide Web:
Veteran American newsman Pierre Salinger said today he has a government document saying that Navy gunners accidentally shot down TWA Flight 800 while conducting missile tests, killing all 230 people aboard. . . . Salinger said the document was dated Aug. 22 and was posted on the Internet at the beginning of September.
—Jocelyn Noveck, “Paper On “Test’ Offered To FBI,” The Associated Press, November 8, 1996
Shortly thereafter, print and television journalists would begin railing against Web-based journalists such as Matt Drudge, and a few years later, the Blogosphere in general. But it’s amazing how quickly they’ll acquire their own cases of Salinger syndrome when the target is one of their favorite bogeymen.
Related: “What Is and Isn’t Acceptable in the NFL.”
Related: The Sensitive Side Of The NFL.
Update: Welcome Insta-readers:
Given that Wikipedia once featured a picture of me in an “I had an abortion” t-shirt that was actually an old photoshop from Allahpundit, I wouldn’t place too much reliance in what Wikipedia and its cousins say about people, especially when they’re at the focus of ongoing controversy. . . .
Heh, indeed. And since you made it this far, thanks for reading the whole thing.™
Update: Mark Steyn notes the Epic Fail of the Media-Industrial Complex, which employs not just Media Matters as their de facto in-house stenographers of all things Rush, but also benefits from the “gotcha!” nature of the Blogosphere and YouTube. By 2006, given Rush’s 20 million listeners, not all of them supportive, somebody would have clipped off such a damning quote, from either a tape of the show as it aired live, or from the podcast versions that Rush’s team has been porting to the Web since mid-2005 and uploaded the audio to YouTube for all to hear. But, the legacy media Wants To Believe, Tim Blair sagely adds.
Be sure to send a comment straight to FoxSports about Jason Whitlock’s racism/slander.
If overuse of “commie” was due to “McCarthyism”, couldn’t you say that overuse of “racist” is due to “Obamism”?
I think you may have a point there, David.
Racism is pretty much finished.
About all that’s left now is phony-baloney Ray-Sizzum.
Unfortunately, we get treated to plenty of that.
So it goes.
Rush Limbaugh must spend the money and time to go after these scumbags in a court of law. Nothing short of a lawsuit will get their attention. Most of us simply do not possess the financial wherewithal to fight back in this effective manner. Limbaugh will probably spend a small fortune after this is all said and done. It is unfortunate that Limbaugh probably cannot also sue NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. This sleazebag worded his malicious comments in an ambiguous and cowardly way. He can only be compelled to pay a price in the court of public opinion. All NFL fans should indeed make sure that this does occur.
according to Whitlock’s byline, he writes his articles “from every angle”. Indeed. Seems he’s decided to start writing them from the obtuse angle.
So called liberals hate honest debate or discussion of ideas. So their method of operation is to attribute some bad thing to each formidable opponent and declare him therefore unworthy of participation in any discussion of issues. Making up quotations, quoting out of context, slandering, all are considered appropriate tools in this process.
There are real racists out there, Achmedinejad (or whatever his name is) and Abbas come to mind, but strangely enough they are never called on it, apparently because they might not like that and we are trying to woo them.
The way to handle such matters is to point out loudly that refusing to discuss issues with someone because you disapprove of his character is the behavior of scoundrels. If you cannot even defeat a person of low character on issues, you are more contemptible than he is.
The Mulder Media?
Somebody once told me that Jason Whitlock had all the tells of a pedophile…it’s never been disproved so I guess it must be true…
Were Limbaugh’s inane comments about McNabb really not racially motivated at all? Either that, or he is an idiot when it comes to football.
He has made a number of statements that could be construed as overtly racist, though.
If the media want to believe something spectacular, and with a better payoff, I suggest the Divinity of Christ. “IHS”
In response to comment #14:
“He has made a number of statements that could be construed as overtly racist, though.”
Prove it, pal. Cite dates and times. Give a link to a soundbite or video clip.
Sheesh, did you even BOTHER to read Ed’s post?
Well said, Nora.
“… a number of statements that COULD BE construed as overtly racist …”
Nice job, donka. I’m not sure it’s possible to prove Ed’s point in fewer words.
Me: exactly. The media has done its job well, or at least accomplished what it set out to do. Limbaugh’s a Bit Extreme doesn’t even know why he thinks Limbaugh is a racist.
Whenever someone asks you to prove a negative, they’re on thin ice.
“He has made a number of statements that could be construed as overtly racist, though.”
And then what?
So say you, silly leftist.
“Whenever someone asks you to prove a negative, they’re on thin ice.”
And isn’t it a pity that asking someone to prove a negative doesn’t put YOU on thin ice?
“He has made a number of statements that could be construed as overtly racist”
How about you produce 3 of these “statements” – real ones, not fake ones – for us, champ?
All I can say is that I don’t want to hear any liberals decrying the boogeyman of “witch trials” ever again. Because this makes plain that they’re perfectly OK with the concept as long as they get to use it.
Please don’t be too hasty about Jason Whitlock. I read his Kansas City Star column regularly and it’s usually well worth the look. He sometimes tackles political and racial issues but not in an overtly partisan way. He does seem to have a strong grudge against Rush Limbaugh but I think that’s more personal than political.
#25. JohnC: Please don’t be too hasty about Jason Whitlock. I read his Kansas City Star column regularly and it’s usually well worth the look. He sometimes tackles political and racial issues but not in an overtly partisan way. He does seem to have a strong grudge against Rush Limbaugh but I think that’s more personal than political.
I’m not familiar with Jason Whitlock, but this incident does seem to destroy his credibility. If he has a personal grudge against Limbaugh, his column (for which he gets paid, thereby making it part of his professional life) is not the place to air it. Particularly by putting forth false information.
Sorry, but if I ever hear or read the name ‘Jason Whitlock’ again, it will always be paired with this dishonest commentary. He did this to himself. Those who are disgusted by it are not to blame for what comes next in his career.
Whitlock who writes in the KC Star is a buffoon. he got a big head a while back and some oprah time for his commentary on the rutgers bb team and Imus. Another reason to drop my home delivery subscription to the ‘falling’ Star. His editor encouarges inflammatory and unsupported commentary.
He has made a number of statements that could be construed as overtly racist, though.
Such as?
You had a very, very, very long blog post claiming the same thing, with no more evidence to support that claim than you do here. Thankfully, this empty claim was much easier to read.
You can debunk those quotes from that book all you want. Fine.
Rush has hundreds of other quotes that are racially insensitive or infer a definite point of view.
Look how he constantly changes his voice inflection when he tries to talk live various “black people.”
His constant insinuations and pointing what he considers negative and then connects it to African-Americans or other minorities. You can find any of these quotes documented, “Black kids cheering on a bus”
“halfrican-American” “Obama disowning his white half” “Injuns” these comments are almost daily.
For anyone who does not want to recognize this you are not being objective. You think NFL owners want that kind of controversy?
Rush was rejected by his own, the NFL owners because they cannot take a chance of losing or not being able to expand their fan base with his political rhetoric and stances with race-baiting being a big one.
These owners are no doubt conservative and mostly republican yet they wanted to distance themselves from Rush and his race-baiting.
It wasn’t Obama or liberals it was the NFL owners and commissioner.