Friday, February 20, 2009

More Up is Down:
Wingnuttia Halfheartedly Weighs In

It appears that Vicki Iseman dropping her lawsuit hasn't left Greater Wingnuttia with much to say, but there are a few feeble attempts.

Hindrocket says:

In discovery, however, facts embarrassing to the Times likely would have come to light. That's most likely what drove the "settlement."

Yeah. The Times paid no money, retracted nothing, and virtually danced about it in their paper today. Clearly, they were "driven." And what sounds like chortling and high-fiving to me is actually wails of reluctance, right, Hindy?

Jules Crittenden complains, and no one could have predicted this, about bias:

At arm’s length, nose held, NYT brings you, “Statement From Iseman’s Lawyers,” shoved back in “Media and Advertising.” [...]

Not fair! Bill Ayers got to call his NYT anti-media screed “The Real Bill Ayers.” Then again, he and NYT didn’t exactly have an adversarial relationship.*

The footnote reads:

* In fairness, Ayers was shoved back on the op-ed page, and didn’t make NYT’s “Terrorists and Mountebanks,” the special section that caters to the international terrorism and charlatan industry. Usually located on the front page.

And showing his utter obliviousness, in another post, he blames the outcome on:

... liberal U.S. libel law ...

Sergeant, Crittenden, you've got a lotta damn gall, is all I can say. Without this evil liberal system whose protections you enjoy, you'd have been sued into oblivion years ago. (cf., cf., cf.).

Courageous Don Surber takes a page from Instapundit's playbook, by dropping a hint and then rather than defending his assertion himself, hurriedly supplies a link to a dubious source who has less to lose than he does, before rushing on to the next topic:

Question: Speaking of apologies, has the New York Times apologized for implying that Vicky Iseman had an affair with Republican Sen. John McCain?

Answer: Sorta. Jules Crittenden has the details.

I invite anyone to show me where the Times came even remotely close to apologizing. And no, grabbing the last paragraph from a Crittenden post, which points to another blogger who claims that Iseman sent her an email claiming that the NYT apologized off the record will not cut it.

Dan Reihl follows suit by pointing to Crittenden, and adds his own baseless speculation:

Jules has a round up on the Times settlement. I wonder how much she made?

That post is timestamped "Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 10:51 PM." So far, no updates, although one commenter tried to be helpful.

[ADDED} Instapundit weighs in, saying (his caps, not mine):


and then linking to The Plum Line post I mentioned in my last, that makes Iseman's lawyer sound like an idiot. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, I ask. Safest bet: he only read the title of that post.

No comments: