Home · Maps · About
Home > OTChat
 

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]

 

view flat

Re: It's Started Already - ABC News Apologizes for trying to link COLO suspect to Tea Party

Posted by Dave on Sat Jul 21 23:07:03 2012, in response to Re: It's Started Already - ABC News Apologizes for trying to link COLO suspect to Tea Party, posted by bingbong on Sat Jul 21 19:29:25 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Not credible? LOL! I seem to recall you quoting from Wikipedia before. So that's your deflection now; attack the source.

Here's the actual retraction, sent to AOL and Drudge subscribers:

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/drudge/70812ret.htm

Then there's this, from the court filings in the Blumenthal v. Drudge case:

"On August 10, 1997, Drudge transmitted the report from Los Angeles, California by email to his direct subscribers and posted the information about Blumenthal on AOL, which was hosting the Drudge Report at the time. After receiving a letter from plaintiffs' counsel on August 11, 1997, Drudge retracted the story through a special edition of the Drudge Report posted on AOL and emailed to his subscribers."

MediaMatters reported it in Jan. 2009, but I'm sure you'll dismiss it as non-credible: http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/01/07/during-today-interview-coulter-falsely-claimed/146714

"In addition, on August 12, 1997, Drudge issued a retraction regarding a false allegation posted about Blumenthal's personal life. A Washington Post article (retrieved from Nexis) reported that Drudge "based his report Sunday on anonymous sources" and "claimed that Blumenthal, who began work yesterday as an assistant to President Clinton, 'has a spousal abuse past that has been effectively covered up.' " The article continued:

Drudge said last night that he is retracting the story."

And whaddyaknow! The retraction was discussed in a law textbook, "E-commerce Law and Business," edited by Mark E. Plotkin, Bert Wells, and Kurt A. Wimmer:

books.google.com/books?id=LhQbQJ9TF7gC&pg=SA13-PA39&lpg=SA13-PA39&dq=retractions+on+drudge&source=bl&ots=shCiVSipBT&sig=fMP0UHz33PjuLD7YB_yrO8TaxRc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=72sLUOLJIc-02AXPjYwp&ved=0CGcQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=retractions on drudge&f=false

See footnote 149 on page 13-39:

"Drudge posted a retraction in a special edition of the Drudge Report the day after the Blumenthal story first appeared. The retraction appeared on AOL's service two days after the story first appeared."

So...how will you deflect next? We have a law textbook, we have the actual retraction itself, we have Wikipedia, and we have MediaMatters all reporting the same thing: Drudge issued a retraction. But I guess you know better than all of them right?

Can't wait to see how you try to again not admit you were incorrect when you posted Drudge never retracted anything.

Responses

Post a New Response

Your Handle:

Your Password:

E-Mail Address:

Subject:

Message:



Before posting.. think twice!


[ Return to the Message Index ]