Showing posts with label sham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sham. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Martin Eisenstadt-Palin Hoax: No Harm, No Foul



Your Ad Here


True Confessions:
Martin Eisenstadt Story a HOAX
The Hoax of Manmade Climate Change Still Not Reported









Sarah Palin Africa Story Leaker is a Hoax
--But, HOAX Quickly Discovered


Yesterday's story from an obscure blog, Martin Eisenstadt's Blog, claimed the author the source of the "Sarah Palin doesn't know Africa is a continent" news leak.

"Eisenstadt the source for Sarah Palin Africa leak...and Proud of it"

By now you’ve all heard the Fox News report last week that “unnamed” former McCain advisers
leaked that Sarah Palin was confused about whether Africa was a continent, and which countries were in NAFTA. I was perfectly happy staying under the radar as an anonymous source for Fox NewsCarl Cameron, but now that Palin has accused her accusers of being “unprofessional…jerks…cowards… taking things out of context, and then tried to spread something on national news” and begun to cast doubt on the Fox News report, maybe she’s right to a certain extent. For those of us on the McCain campaign who thought that she acted like a rogue diva and lost John the election, maybe we DO have a responsibility to come out in public. But Sarah… careful what you ask for: some of us may have more to reveal.

So yes, to be clear, last week I was the one who leaked those things to a producer at Fox News who works with Cameron. Carl and his producers are good guys, and I don’t want them to have to worry about protecting their sources (and going through the wringer ala Judith Miller or Matt Cooper) on something like this.




The story turns out to be as believable as the original leaks were.

That is, they were a hoax.

Some reported on the Eisenstadt revelation; some didn't.

The hoax was caught fairly quickly and alerts issued. MSNBC broadcast the hoax as fact before they caught it. Anyone who watched MSNBC's election coverage couldn't tell any difference in the network's accuracy--either before or after the hoax broadcast.

But we say, whether you wrote or broadcast it or not: it was discovered quickly, so no harm, no foul.





Allah Pundit summed it up pretty well, Video: MSNBC falls for Palin/Eisenstadt hoax

Specifically, this hoax. I’d love to throw stones at them and TNR, but people on our own side were taken in too.

Guys? The post at Shakespeare’s Sister revealing the hoax is linked on the first page of the Google results for “Martin Eisenstadt.” Remember these goofball viral “ads” for Giuliani? Anything look familiar?

The “Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy”? Named after one of America’s worst presidents, whose term in office lasted two years with zero foreign policy accomplishments?


We'd agree with all of that and add one observation. At least TNR didn't take months to report that they'd been had--unlike the Beauchamp diaries fiasco.

Some of the places commenting on the whole affair--both pre- and post-hoax--are listed below.





One Hoax Remains Unreported by the MSM




At least the Eisenstadt story was exposed early on. Most of the places who reported on it were good sports, such as ACE: HOAX: Martin Eisenstadt Admits He's One of Palin-Smear Leakers; Threatens to "Reveal" More

Now that I put a face to the made-up persona, I can see it seems a bit unlikely that a 28 year old NYC hipster-wannabe is a major McCain foreign policy adviser.

Well, he got me.

TNR Retracts... But refuses to credit Allah for alerting them to the hoax.

Note: A dinky site would notice the Hot Air traffic. Not only is Michael Crowley a dupe (as I was), but now he's a dishonest one, pretending that he discovered the hoax on his own.



The only thing we'd disagree with Ace about is the "dupe" label.

Once upon a time, the media reported news. If the news turned out to be false, they reported that also. Then, the name of the media game became, "We're going to hold stories until every last detail can be confirmed".

Fine.

But that policy then morphed into, "We're going to hold stories that we don't think readers have the finely-tuned understanding and reasoning skills about which to make a judgment".

Finally, that policy became--at many MSM outlets--"We're going to hold stories that we don't agree with or that we think are detrimental to our editorial policy".

That policy was responsible for ABC's refusal to air one minute of coverage on the John Edwards scandal--until Edwards turned up on ABC's Nightline on August 8 and started talking about mistresses and babies and hush money and getting caught in the Beverly Hilton.

Imagine ABC viewers' surprise when they learned that the story had been on-going for ten months and they were kept in the dark.

The New York Times, MSNBC, Washington Post, CBS, and the LA Times, among others, duped their readers/viewers for months during the primary and general elections on any number of unreported topics concerning Barack Obama.

They are duping them still on the issue of climate change, though that will be harder to pull off--especially when their news customers are digging out from underneath three feet of global warming.

So, the Eisenstadt 'confession' about the Sarah Palin leaks was a hoax.

Big deal.

It was quickly exposed in the blogosphere. Meanwhile, the other hoaxes which pass for 'news' in daily Mainstream Media reporting continue.

The Eisenstadt hoax was discovered and reported upon. It's a mistake to think that anyone reporting on the original story somehow had their credibility harmed when they quickly reported that it was a sham story.

The man-made climate change hoax has been discovered, but remains largely unreported in the Mainstream Media.

It's when long-running stories have two sides and readers/viewers only hear one of them from supposed "objective news sources" that credibility--and bottom lines--plunge.

Getting hoaxed? Big deal.

Continuing to report a hoax after there's doubt the story is true?

That's everyday policy at most MSM organizations.



by Mondo Frazier
image: kucheats




Monday, November 10, 2008

craigslist Crime: craigslist Prostitution Ads Crackdown a Sham?



Your Ad Here


Trench Reynolds: DBKP This Week in Crime
November 3-9, 2008
Volume 35



Trench Reynolds

I'm Trench Reynolds.

I blog about crime.



This is DBKP's This Week in Crime for November 3-9, 2008.





It was announced last week on the official craigslist blog that craigslist will be taking new steps to limiting the amount of ads that are placed in their 'erotic services' section.

For those who may not know craigslist is a wildly popular free classifieds website. One of the sections, known as erotic services, advertises escort services and erotic massages among other 'services'. A majority of the time these ads are nothing less than a front for prostitution, which sometimes often entails human trafficking and child prostitution.

Up until recently craigslist used the defense that their users are supposed to flag any ads that offer illegal services. As I have stated in the past, this is akin to letting the inmates run the asylum. People who use craigslist to sell a couch for example are not going to go into the erotic services section to flag illegal ads. Conversely people who use the erotic services section aren't going to flag any of the ads because that is what they're looking for.

A few months ago craigslist made it so that anyone wanting to post an ad in the erotic services section needed to have a working phone. They claim it cut down on the number of erotic service ads by 80%. Yet by my estimations it didn't cut down on the amount of craigslist prostitution arrests. It also gave birth to a new cottage industry. Websites sprung up for the sole purpose of helping denizens of the erotic services section circumvent the need for a working phone.

Now craigslist has started a new initiative in limiting the amount of erotic service ads. Craigslist made this announcement as a joint partnership with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Their new measurements are to start charging a small fee with a valid credit card to be able to place an erotic services ad. The money from the ads will go to a charity, which to my knowledge craigslist has not announced which charity it would be. Also craigslist is suing the websites that seek to circumvent its security measures.

On the surface this all seems great however if you dig a little deeper you'll see that this is nothing more than a PR move from craigslist. This will not discourage pimps and prostitutes from trying to make money on craigslist. They'll just go to using more illegal means. I predict that you'll see either pre-paid or stolen credit cards used to place the ads. And instead of eliminating the erotic services section altogether craigslist trots out the NCMEC as its partner in this crusade. I'm not knocking the NCMEC, they do some great work, but they've been duped in this matter. These measures were put in place due to an agreement craigslist reached with the attorneys general of 42 states. This was an obvious compromise mostly just to get the AGs of their back.

If craigslist was really concerned about human trafficking and child prostitution they would eliminate the erotic services section in its entirety. Their excuse is if they did then those people placing ads would just place them in other parts of the site. Isn't that where their user policing is supposed to come in? There are plenty of other websites out there where 'escort services' advertise their wares, it's not exclusive to just craigslist. However it's my belief that they won't eliminate the erotic services due to the traffic it drives to the site.

And by some miracle if these measures actually do eliminate prostitution from craigslist there will still be the regular assortment of scams, robberies, sexual assaults and stolen goods that occur regularly on craigslist.

by Trench Reynolds
image: Trench Network