Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Blogger David versus WSJ Goliath

This is day three since John Fund of the Wall Street Journal did a nationally-read hatchet job on me in which he made up quotes and falsely attributed them to me. He has still not retracted, and has not apologized. Neither has The Wall Street Journal. Hint: I wouldn't want my business news or investment advice from a newspaper that just makes things up. I have complained directly to the Opinion Journal. But still nothing. The lies are still out there, online, damaging my reputation.

Update 4/25/06: Thanks to all who wrote. You had an effect. The WSJ finally rather ungraciously admitted the error. I am told they almost never do so, so it is a big win.



Fund's lies and smears are typical of the far right, which controls so much of corporate media. Much of corporate-owned "news" is increasingly just bubbly entertainment, put on in a ceaseless search for at least 15% profits (on news!). As Tom Fenton has argued, corporate news dropped the ball in the 1990s on covering al-Qaeda (props to the hardy few like Peter Berger and John Miller, among a handful who did the hard work), and therefore bears significant responsibility for allowing America to be blindsided on September 11.

Now it has largely gone back to business as usual. They almost never report on Afghanistan or the regrouping of the Taliban. Do Americans even know that we have 18,000 troops in that country. Do citizens of the US even know that brave Canadian troops are risking their lives against the neo-Taliban and al-Qaeda in Qandahar, and that some were recently killed? No. Because it mostly isn't being covered in the mass media inside the US. It would not generate 15% profits. Nothing will, but sensationalism and lies.

The lies have even corrupted our political process. Indeed, Senator John Kerry could never have been swiftboated during his presidential bid unless corporate media jumped aboard and gave all the falsehoods enormous play. They threw the election, folks. Those editors and journalists knew that the swiftboaters had no case. The media caesars put them on anyway, to play lions to Kerry's Christian. Even Kerry was unable to get his message out. A humble college history teacher has as much chance of winning against the billionaire smear machine as a union organizer has of keeping her job in a Walmart.

(When I complain about Faux "news" often being mere propaganda, Fund accuses me of "intolerance"!) If it weren't for this little blog, I wouldn't even have had a way of challenging Fund's and the WSJ's falsehoods. (And, if the media corporations can take "net neutrality" away from us, they'll remove that avenue of reply, too.)

If it were just a matter of ruining my reputation with false quotes, the issue would not be world-shaking, though it is a sad day for America when giant corporations can just crush red-blooded Americans at will. But the paid-for lies of the John Funds of the world have profoundly endangered the security of the United States by plunging it into a quagmire in Iraq.


Iraqi Shiites protest against United States and against Terrorism, March, 2006.

And, the accelerating threat of global warming cannot be addressed because people like Fund shout the evidence down with their cable- and satellite-provided megaphones-- provided by Rupert Murdoch and General Electric.

Not only was Fund wrong about the "weapons of mass destruction" threat in Iraq, a mistake that has cost the US nearly 2400 lives and 14,000 severely wounded, but he is wrong about the threat of global warming. I found that on January 25, 2003, he managed to be wrong about both things all at once! Here he is on Hardball in late January, 2003, urging on the Bush administration Titanic toward twin glaciers!


' MSNBC
SHOW: HARDBALL 21:00
January 31, 2003 Friday

MATTHEWS: John Fund, do you know what turned him [Colin Powell] around from a man who is perceived by the public to be dovish to a man who is the hard line fellow, very much like his fellow Cabinet members, Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney?

JOHN FUND, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": Complete frustration Chris. He basically decided that Saddam Hussein was never going to come clean, that the process was completely flawed.

You know the same people who believe that global warming is absolutely proven and they're not going to listen to anything else are the same people who will accept absolutely no evidence that Saddam Hussein is hiding something and including weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell basically finally threw up his hands and said we have to act because the alternative is to let Saddam Hussein win the game, set and match, and the world cannot be blackmailed that way. '


Actually, Iraq let the UN inspectors in. They inspected 100 of 600 sites designated as suspicious by the CIA. They found nothing. As Fund was talking, Iraq had complied with Bush's demand. Fund wanted to go to war anyway.

He castigated those, like myself, who refused to believe that Iraq formed a danger to the US, as being like people who believe in global warming!!

Why be wrong once when you can be wrong twice? Or, if you throw his manufactured quotes attributed to me into the kitty, three times. Indeed, you begin to wonder if Fund ever gets anything right.



In fact the melting of the ice caps both at the arctic and the antarctic has accelerated beyond scientists' expectations.

Mr. Fund should explain to the people of New Orleans about how warming seas are a myth.

A humble college history teacher is like a canary in the mine. If he starts being strangled for air, it is a sign that we all are in grave danger. People like John Fund are taking our country, and our world, down into the deadly methane of propaganda and falsehood.

Here is my complaint on Day 1.

This is my complaint on Day 2.

------------

Dennis Perrin has more.

James Wolcott weighs in, too.

Also FAIR.

Justin Raimondo.

BTC News.

Corrente Wire makes the interesting point that my blogging may be part of the issue here.

Jane Hamsher.

Glenn Greenwald on the background to the controversy.


See the comments section for Fund's replies.

9 Comments:

At 12:04 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

In fairness, the WSJ's editorial page is completely seperate from the news page, which may be the best paper in the country. Remember, the WSJ's news page was at the forefront of pushing the Abu Ghraib story.

As for being damaged by libel in the editorial page, for the most part, those who are going to believe them weren't on your side in the first place. Not to say that you shouldn't demand a retraction, but keep in mind who it is.

I am not the only WSJ subscriber who thinks that it's a great paper, but that they ought to ditch the two page comedy section because the jokes have gone stale.

 
At 2:09 AM, Blogger Steve said...

I think they are banking on the fact that you won't take them to court. Personally, I think doing so would be a nightmare. These are some powerful people. But that is the only way they'll take you seriously.

 
At 11:44 AM, Blogger Michael Locker MD said...

Thanks for the perspective.

Michael Locker MD

 
At 11:44 AM, Blogger Michael Locker MD said...

Thanks for the perspective.

Michael Locker MD

 
At 12:15 PM, Blogger Juan Cole said...

Fund has replied by email

-------
"From: Fund, John
Sent: Wed 4/26/2006 10:17 AM
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: I appreciate your lette

"Professor Cole, and I apologize for not having responded earlier, since I was traveling. Your letter was forwarded to me by the OpinionJournal.com editors later on Monday and they also published it.

You cite the quote In which I said you had referred to Israel as "the most dangerous regime in the Middle East." In reality, as you pointed out in your letter you said "the most dangerous regime to United States interests in the Middle East." I relied on a quotation in a newspaper that was incomplete. I have checked with the paper and no correction of that quote was requested by you. However, clearly the quote was incomplete. I will post a clarification and correct the record with my next column. .

Some of your defenders say you were referring to "the regime of Ariel Sharon" with reference to your quote and that it was not a reference to Israel. I would submit that since the dictionary definition of regime clearly refers to the government in power of a country that my interpretation was a fair one.
re·gime also ré·gime (r-zhm, r-)
n.
1.
a. A form of government: a fascist regime.
b. A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime.
2. A prevailing social system or pattern.

If your refer to my letter to you, that you reprint it in full. We reprinted your letter to us in full. Thank you, John Fund"

Cole: Note that he still hasn't got to the original quote, and still insists on eliding things from the quote, such as "the Ariel Sharon regime" or the reference to targeted assassinations of Palestinian leaders at a time when US troops faced Sunni Arab opposition in Iraq.

Fund follows up:

From: Fund, John
Sent: Wed 4/26/2006 11:55 AM
To: Cole, Juan
Subject: RE: I appreciate your letter


Professor Cole, You need to take up your request for a retraction with the editor of OpinionJournal.com. He is James Taranto at james.taranto@wsj.com

In the meantime, I would like you to reprint in full my letter to you on your blog, just as we printed your full letter to you.

I would also respectfully suggest you correct the record on something you quoted me on. I would also like you to reprint the following response to your blog entry:

You said that I "was wrong about the threat of global warming." As evidence you cited a 2003 Hardball transcript in which I said the following: "You know the same people who believe that global warming is absolutely proven and they're not going to listen to anything else are the same people who will accept absolutely no evidence that Saddam Hussein is hiding something and including weapons of mass destruction."

You will note that in that quote I expressed no view of global warming. I was just saying that the type of people who take one point of view on it often took a certain view of the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Could you please point to anything I have written saying global warming doesn't exist or is not a problem? I did oppose U.S. implemnation of the Kyoto Treaty. You will note that in 1997 Congress passed the bipartisan Byrd-Hagel Act by a vote of 97 to zero to oppose accepting a Kyoto Treaty that did not ensure the "meaningful" involvement of developing economies such as that of China in emissions reduction. Not a single Democratic senator voted against that act.
I have never said global warming was not a problem.

I can point you to a June, 2001 CNN appearence in which I said in a debate with Christopher Hitchens that included the following exchange.

Hitchens: I'm old enough to remember Margaret Thatcher, who while not an MIT climatologist does have a degree in chemistry, changing her mind mid government and telling her civil servants: This looks as if it's really important, we ought...

FUND: But she never has endorsed Kyoto and never would.

HITCHENS: No, probably not. But with Bush, you don't get the impression that he knows what the policy was, is now or ought to be. And the last time I heard him express doubts about it was he said, well, if we took these measures, they might impact on the consumer. Well, that's not going to impact the consumer as much as if global warming is true. He didn't seem to be thinking about it.

FUND: New technology will reduce our emissions. We should do that. We should do other steps.


Does that sound like evidence that I "was wrong about the threat of gloibal warming'? What evidence do you have that I have been wrong on that issue? Please respond to my query about whether or not you have misquoted me as saying something I didn't say in that 2003 Hardball broadcast. "

Cole: Fund admits to opposing Kyoto and he also clearly implied that people who believe in global warming are wrong. The quote at Hardball is eloquent and speaks for itself. His tepid hope that vague "future technologies" might "reduce emissions" isn't proof to the contrary. He does not even say in the CNN interview that he thinks the emissions cause global warming. Does he? And, note the sleazeball tactic here of asking me to apologize for accurately quoting him in the Hardball interview. And note the he's trying to take the spotlight off being completely wrong on Iraq.

 
At 1:16 PM, Blogger James-Speaks said...

Dr. Cole,

I read Informed Comment daily to maintain a realistic perspective on Iraq and our governments mishandling. The snarkism is a side benefit.

It appears Mr. Fund believes he can parse meanings and leave his smear intact when he really needs instead to admit his error and apologize for his intent. I doubt that Yale University will be fooled, but the WSJ may become wiser and more discriminating. Or not.

Regards.

 
At 3:30 PM, Blogger quixote said...

[It's an interesting time when the Funds of the world have to back away from their fantasies about global warming as a liberal plot. Nice to know that a 99.999% consensus in the scientific community can achieve at least that.]

This is really to second the people who point out the kooky nature of the WSJ "comedy" section. I used to call them the "pro-slavery editorials."

It's fascinating from the standpoint of cognitive psychology how aware of reality the WSJ can be when money is involved, i.e. in the rest of the newspaper, and how divorced from it they can be in what, to them, is the feel-good section. Unfortunately, real people who vote and/or buy politicians have the same schizophrenia, and it's bought us the current Dreamer Team flailing around in the White House.

As you say, there'd be fewer problems with these fantasies if there weren't so many outlets propping them up.

 
At 4:09 AM, Blogger Don Durito said...

I also feel the need to give props to the Cal State University system. The education I received at CSU-Fullerton was terrific: I was well-prepared for graduate-level coursework and research when I graduated in the early 1990s.

State colleges and universities are certainly less glamorous than Ivy League and Big 10 schools, but they do serve a diverse clientele - including many who either couldn't afford to attend a more prestigious college or university, or who were the proverbial "diamonds in the rough" (actually that would be me on both counts).

Fund may be a poor representative of the CSU system, but let's be careful not to tar it and other systems like it with Fund's poor research skills.

Otherwise, you have a great blog, that I have enjoyed visiting.

 
At 9:28 PM, Blogger Michael Locker MD said...

Great outcome.

Michael Locker MD

 

Post a Comment

<< Home