I don't see what Whizbang did as wrong. They discovered evidence of fraud - a paper claiming to show that you could reproduce the CBS memos using a typewriter, when the author of said paper was dumb enough to leave all the evidence of his photoshopping up in the directory for his webserver. Not a case of difference of opinion, a case of an author claiming to have "proved" something by faking his proof. Bellesilles anyone?

This paper was being forwarded by Mary Mapes to others as a defense for her use of the forged memos. Whizbang contacts the university, and posts on the incident. The author re-edits his paper to add commentary stating that he didn't actually type the memos up in a typewriter, that he cut and pasted characters within Photoshop in order to prove you can duplicate the memos with a typewriter. Which makes zero sense. Once the author had to 'fess up about how he constructed his 'typewriter' memos, the paper becomes non-sensical.

Better the author be exposed for a fraud now, before he has the chance to do any real damage, or embarrass any more gullible news organizations.

The only thing I'd question about what Wizbang did was in contacting the guy's department head. If my post wasn't clear on that, let me know - I'll do some editing.

Otherwise, good work on their part.

A.L.

I'd say that if a guy is faking his proof on a national controversy, with the university's name clearly on the work (it was), and this can be proved - then yeah, contacting his department head is appropriate.

Hailey's offense wasn't just personal, it was professional. Just as Rather's was professional.

Bloggers don't need to get a response for that - they put forward their proofs, and an argument ensues, and in this case the proof was pretty clear.

When you step into the public realm as a political player, be prepared to play. What Orcinus really wants is a standard that would have suppressed blogosphere discussion of the CBS memos - which his proposed standard would have done. Sorry, buddy, it doesn't work that way.

As for the University, if they're really dumb enough to sue Wizbang, they're going to get a lot more than they bargained for.

I would have questioned that too, except the paper is hosted on the University's webserver, and it wasn't clear if the University had requested the work, was aware of it, or was not at all. Turns out the University was aware of the work, but had not specifically requested it. Had the work been on his own weblog, or a non-edu server, I would agree that contacting his department head was out of line.

To me it's similar to how certain folks hold WoC collectively responsible for the comments or statements of other authors on the site. The university has an interest in the content that they serve, and so it is appropriate to contact them when you find really bad content.

I'm with Celeste on that one. Once you use a University URL and put your department logo on an online work, it isn't just personal any more.

A question... A.L., can you explain what you mean by that last line re: Gingrich? I don't recall him engaging in this sort of SLAPP behaviour himself, but then I don't pay that close attention to your political minutia down there. Was there something I missed?

Sounds like that famous legal manuever "write them a scary letter and hope they give up".

When I saw the Wizbang post and followed the link to the "usu.edu" url, and saw all these .gif files with different info in them, like dates and whatnot, I immediately assumed the university was somehow involved with the project; I think most reasonable people would conclude the same. You'd think they'd be embarrassed by it, instead of threatening to sue somebody who points out how ridiculous they all look.

It's wasn't specifically targeted at SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation); it was aimed at the 'take no prisoners' model that I do believe Gingrich brought into national prominence.

A.L.

"He's become a partisan warrior who believes that the challenge of the Newt Gingriches is best met with Democratic Newt Gingriches."

Niewert has become the very worst example of what he hates...a shrill ideologue. His Fascist meme has done as much or more than anything to pollute the public discourse in this election.

YetAnotherRick, let's keep some proportion here.

There are way more serious things polluting the public discourse in this election than Niewart's misplaced (and deluded, if he thinks this is going anywhere) Schadenfreude.

A.L., thanks for the clarifier.

"...it was aimed at the 'take no prisoners' model that I do believe Gingrich brought into national prominence."

Gleefully highlighted into national prominence by a media that was all to willing to ignore the 'crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!' model perfected by a former representative of mine, Jim Wright (D- TX).

Be that as it may, Jim Newart once again shows that in his world free speech is his right to say whatever he feels is necessary to shout-down (suppress) those he disagrees with.

What Newart is really trying to do is change the subject from Hailey's very real failure to breath life into the fake memo corpse toward Wizbang's theoretical "libel." An all too typical tactic of his.

Neiwert is one of my favorite bloggers, but he spends way too much time on relatively minor controversies and incidents like this when he should be concentrating on the big central ideas of "The Personal and the Political" and "Rush, Newspeak and Fascism."

A better topic for him occured to me today after reading some comments here: "Jacksonianism" and "nationalist populism" as embryos for fascism.

Celeste, the paper never actually said it was done on a typewriter. The original vaguely hinted (near the end of the paper) that some of the examples could have been done on a computer.
It wasn't clear at all, and the obvious assumption was that the examples were typewritten - since the purpose of testing a digital font that may or may not have been available on a typewriter at the time is ... rather unclear - but it wasn't a certain case of fraud. It could simply be terrible oversight, extremely bad writing or very fuzzy thinking. The professor later did add a clear statement, of course, and is still changing the document, including a note that it is a "draft" document to cover himself.

It does make the point though, that if bloggers start getting noticed, they have to think twice about the words they use.

Oh, and just to clarify that first sentence in my comment, the professor didn't actually say his examples were done on a typewriter. That was where the fraud claim came up. He DID claim that the CBS memos were done on a typewriter, though without an actual demonstration with an actual typewriter I don't see the point of an opinion, expert or otherwise.

VR -
And if you re-read my comment, you'll see that I didn't say he claimed to type them on a typewriter either. I said he claimed to show that they could be reproduced on a typewriter. Then he proceeded to create a sucky match to parts of the CBS documents using a lot of photoshopping in order to force it to fit.

I think it is too generous to say it could have just been oversight or fuzzy thinking. The paper was weasle-worded in a way to try to obscure the fact that it was proving nothing. Had the professor started out with a statement of "I can prove the CBS memos weren't computer generated by taking a mixed group of computer font characters and piecing them together in photoshop, which results in a sort-of match" from the start, everyone else in the room would have said "That's proof? Pass the bong, man. You've definitely had enough."

What would be the point of writing a paper proving that you can create the memoes in PhotoShop using a modern TrueType face? I don't think "terrible oversight, extremely bad writing or very fuzzy thinking" can account for it, honestly.

If he wasn't trying to claim they could have been created on a typewriter, then what might he have thought he was doing?

Wired reports the story.