Greenwald v. Gilliard

In the latest blogosphere kerfuffle about Kosola, Markos’ attempts to squelch the story, and TNR’s coverage of it, there have been questions about the Leftie bloggers’ response to Markos’ infamous “omerta” email.

TNR reported: Also on the same day [June 18], the blogger Steve Gilliard wrote to the “Townhouse” list:

I dont see how this can be ignored. We should all write in defense of this once we know the facts. Jerome?

Specifically Glenn Greenwald said this about Steve Gilliard’s email reply:

That e-mail is completely fictitious. Gilliard never sent any such thing to the Townhouse list, nor did anyone else do so. Nor, according to Gilliard, did he ever write any such e-mail at all, to Townhouse or anyone else. Zengerle caused The New Republic to print a completely fabricated e-mail and then falsely attribute it as one Gilliard sent to the Townhouse list. How and why did that happen?

It is beyond dispute that — contrary to Zengerle’s allegedly three-sourced assertion — no such e-mail was written by Gilliard to the Townhouse list. It is a fake.

Now read what Gilliard himself says:

I have no record of sending such an e-mail to the Townhouse list, Kos, Armstrong, who did not participate in any of the discussions, or anyone else. I didn’t send any e-mail with that phrase at all. There’s a similar phrase sent to Hubris Sonic a month before on an entirely different topic, and the Greenwald e-mail

To be fair, I told Glenn I disagreed with the characterization of it being false, because I may have express some kind of sentiment close to that. The issue to me is not that Zengerle created it out of whole cloth, but if he got it from a source that he was too lazy and sloppy to confirm it with me. Let me be clear, I didn’t deny writing the e-mail. I said that I had no record of writing such an e-mail with that phrase, to the list on that day.

Or this comment from Gilliard on an earlier post on his blog:

HaloScan.com - Comments
As for having my e-mail quoted in a subsequent piece in TNR, I will only say that someone violated my confidences, and that TNR’s ethics are for shit.
steve_gilliard | 06.23.06 - 9:46 am | #

I’d say that Greenwald’s much-vaunted credibility has just taken a hit. In the same post he wrote:

It is one thing for a journalist to make a mistake; like everyone, they all do that at some point. But to expressly lie about your sources in order to make your assertions seem more substantial is as serious a journalistic breach as can be committed. Is this what Zengerle did?

Did Greenwald expressly lie about his sources in order to make his assertions seem more substantial?

These points may be relevant to Tom Maguire’s post.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. protein wisdom on 24 Jun 2006 at 4:34 pm

    When it rain, it pours…

    Man.  Is Glenn Greenwald having a bad day or what…?

    Should have had his chart done, I guess.  As a Towhouse premium club member, I hear you get a 20% discount.  Though that's probably just another of Zengarle's vicious RI…

  2. alternative hippopotamus » Blog Archive » Blog Wars III: Revenge of the Popcorn Eaters on 24 Jun 2006 at 6:31 pm

    […] 3.) At the New Republic Jason Leopold, I mean, Zengerle, leaks a couple of the Townhousegate emails including this from Steve Gilliard: “I dont see how this can be ignored. We should all write in defense of this once we know the facts. Jerome?” 4.) Glenn Greenwald points out that this email was never sent out on the Townhousegate list. 5.) The Commissar points out that Gilliard says he may have sent an email like that, a month earlier, but not on Townhouse. Then again, he may not have. Commissar also coins the term “omerta email” for the original Kos message, which amuses me. 6.) The Kossiaks get their digs in against TNR. Choice excerpt: “Not right-wing, then, but neither can they be counted on as progressive, and more important, nor can they be counted on at all. A punditocracy that alternates between dismissive and aggressively hostile of the grassroots, of activists, and of voters (at least, when they use electrons in a fashion other than what God and the New Republic intended) is not one that the grassroots, activists, or voters particularly need to value the opinions of.” 7.) Meanwhile, TNR shoots back, just below the beltway: “It feels a bit demeaning to defend oneself against Kos. But I am one of the neo-con owners, and I am titular editor-in-chief. ” 8.) ??? 9.) Profit.   [link] […]

  3. Decision '08 on 24 Jun 2006 at 6:37 pm

    Greenwald Picks The Wrong Fight…

    Well, I’m working up my long-promised review of How Would A Patriot Act?, but Glenn Greenwald is not making it any easier. The book is good; alas, it is far better than his blogging has been of late.  Glenn makes quite a show in his book and on…

Comments

  1. AltHippo wrote:

    Greetings, Commissar.

    I saw your posts on Glenn Greenwald’s site, and thought I’d respond directly on yours.

    Like you, I’m bothered by the “omerta” email, as you put it. I don’t really believe that the financial aspect of Advertising Liberally is that important in terms of bloggers not writing about it. I do believe that folks, like Glenn, wouldn’t have written about Jerome’s SEC dealings in the first place. It’s just not his issue. I can also imagine that Glenn, FDL, etc., took seriously that this was a private conversation.

    That said, Kos shouldn’t be asking bloggers to deprive a story of oxygen.

    Now, as far as Gilliard’s statement that he might have said something kinda sorta like that in email to someone else a month ago, is irrelevant to the TNR piece. Recall that Glenn and others, as particpants in the Townhouse, could just look in their in-basket to see that Gilliard said no such thing, at least on the Townhouse forum.

    So, IMO, I don’t see this as any dent to Glenn’s credibility.

    Posted 24 Jun 2006 at 1:48 pm

  2. commissar wrote:

    AltHippo,

    Greenwald tries to crucify Zengerle for a minor discrepancy not supported by the sources. In so doing, he makes his own minor discrepancy not supported by the sources. Greenwald quoted Gilliard as “no email … to the list .. or anyone else.” Gilliard says that is not so.

    Greenwald must be subject to the same uncompromising standard he applied to Zengerle.

    Posted 24 Jun 2006 at 2:00 pm

  3. lowellfield wrote:

    Commissar -

    How does the fact that Gilliard used a similar phrase in a different email at a different time to different addressees make Zengerle’s reporting accurate, or undermine Greenwald’s credibility? It was false, whether or not Gilliard would characterize it that way.

    And is credibility really something that gets “vaunted”? Or is it just something one sort of accrues by telling the truth.

    Posted 24 Jun 2006 at 2:36 pm

  4. AltHippo wrote:

    “Greenwald tries to crucify Zengerle for a minor discrepancy not supported by the sources. In so doing, he makes his own minor discrepancy not supported by the sources.”

    I agree in part (the second sentence), dissent in part (the first sentence).

    Here’s where we agree: Glenn misspoke when he said with certainty that Gilliard never sent a mail like that to anyone. My interpretation of Gilliard’s post is that he’s trying to be as charitable as possible, especially on an issue that could get someone fired.

    Now, here’s where we may not agree: if Zengerle misremembered the source of an email, then he should correct that in “print,” but, yes, that’s a minor discrepancy. If he printed an ill-sourced email, without verifying it came from Gilliard, that’s more than a minor discrepancy.

    We don’t yet know what happened, as Zengerle hasn’t updated his post.

    Posted 24 Jun 2006 at 2:43 pm

  5. commissar wrote:

    Lowellfield, Althippo,

    Greenwald misrepresented what Gilliard told him.

    Greenwald: “Nor, according to Gilliard, did he ever write any such e-mail at all, to Townhouse or anyone else.”

    Gilliard: “I didn’t deny writing the e-mail.”

    Bluntly, Greenwald lied.

    By his own exacting standards, it is proper for us to question his credibility and impugn his motives.

    Posted 24 Jun 2006 at 2:49 pm

  6. Dan Collins wrote:

    Greenwald has been over at McGuire’s place working the angles. Makes for some interesting reading. Maybe the best thing would be to conference call Greenwald and Gilliard (what the heck, why not Zengerle, too)? That way, maybe they could get it worked out satisfactorily.

    Posted 24 Jun 2006 at 3:46 pm

  7. john(lesser) wrote:

    Hah. You stopped the thread over at Greenwald’s on a dime.

    Posted 24 Jun 2006 at 4:40 pm

  8. Glenn Greenwald wrote:

    The one who is having credibility problems is the Commissar - here is what Gilliard wrote in his post, as I just updated:

    Only problem: I have no record of sending such an e-mail to the Townhouse list, Kos, Armstrong, who did not participate in any of the discussions, or anyone else. I didn’t send any e-mail with that phrase at all.

    And, in an e-mail sent to me by Gilliard prior to my posting, he wrote:

    I can’t find anything for that on the 18th or 19th at all. I do not find any e-mail using that phrase referring to Jerome Armstrong in June 2006, until this e-mail [the one I wrote in which I re-printed Zengarle’s post].

    Only someone with severe reading comprehension problems could read this sentence from Gilliard — “I have no record of sending such an e-mail to the Townhouse list, Kos, Armstrong, who did not participate in any of the discussions, or anyone else. I didn’t send any e-mail with that phrase at all” — and claim that I “lied” when I said that Gilliard stated he sent no such e-mail to Townhouse OR ANYONE ELSE. That is, as a basic understanding of the English language makes clear, exactly what Gilliard said.

    The proof will be in the pudding as soon as we hear from Zengarle. I really can’t wait for that.

    Posted 24 Jun 2006 at 6:09 pm

  9. commissar wrote:

    Gilliard: “Let me be clear. I didn’t deny writing the email.”

    Gilliard: “TNR quoted my email … violated my confidences.”

    Greenwald: “Still fake.”

    Posted 24 Jun 2006 at 6:39 pm

  10. ed wrote:

    Hmmmm.

    Frankly Greenwald had lost any and all credibility a long time ago when he start to try and pass himself off as a conservative. A rather unattractive aspect of progressives is that they always try to position themselves in an unassailable point in order to squelch criticism. This is why there so many copies of Cindy Sheehan. With Greenwald it’s his rather pathetic assumption of the mantle of conservatism.

    What conservative would be in cahoots with Kos?

    What conservative would be on a private mailing list with Kos?

    What conservative would obey marching orders originating from Kos?

    Credibility? Greenwald has none because he simply doesn’t have the courage to portray himself accurately as a ultra-left progressive liberal.

    Posted 24 Jun 2006 at 6:42 pm

  11. Ric Locke wrote:

    ::chuckle: Glenn, if you’re going to try damage control you need to try another tack. As a lawyer you should know that selective quoting doesn’t get you much if the other side’s on the ball at all.

    Gilliard:

    I didn’t deny writing the e-mail. I said that I had no record of writing such an e-mail with that phrase, to the list on that day.

    Sad, isn’t it? There’s another list, and you aren’t on it. You’re not even as important as you think you are to the Kos Kidz. That’s gotta hurt.

    Regards,
    Ric

    Posted 24 Jun 2006 at 8:14 pm

  12. Toby Petzold wrote:

    This is just inside baseball.

    The real crime is that campaign ad Zuniga cut for Ned Lamont.

    It’s completely nauseating.

    Posted 24 Jun 2006 at 8:14 pm

  13. Purple Avenger wrote:

    When is the intermission on this show? I desperately need to get to the concession stand and reload on popcorn and Diet Coke.

    Posted 25 Jun 2006 at 8:03 am

  14. Mike wrote:

    Amen to that, PA. This is better than anything either Broadway or Hollywood has come up with in years.

    Posted 25 Jun 2006 at 9:55 am

  15. ffakr wrote:

    I’m sorry.

    It must chap everyone’s hides to find out that Zengerle has admitted that the email in question was fake. The source of the 3 emails won’t even return his calls and Zengerle is saying that the 2 sources who confirmed that email just made a mistake because they must have confirmed the two long ones and just assumed the 3rd one was also accurate. Man, it sucks when you’ve got such crappy and dishonest sources.

    We’ll get ‘um next time.

    Posted 26 Jun 2006 at 1:57 pm

  16. zen_less wrote:

    So where are the apologies to Greenwald, folks? Noooo, you will probably stick to your (feeble) guns, insisting “Gilliard didn’t deny sending the email.” Talk about Clintonian parsing. Talk about Rovian doublespeak.

    Posted 26 Jun 2006 at 3:01 pm

  17. Droog wrote:

    *gloat*

    Pure comedy gold from the Lie and Die crowd.

    Posted 26 Jun 2006 at 3:40 pm

  18. commissar wrote:

    zen_less,

    Can you even read? My post? Or Glenn’s? Even Greenwald noted my crow-eating post.

    Droog, ffakr,

    You’re entitled.

    Posted 26 Jun 2006 at 3:53 pm

« The Selling-out of Paul Hackett
Hilarious - Uncut from the Nutroots’ own astrologer »