WaPo fact checker gives WH claim that Repubs doctored email to smear the President three Pinocchios

[ProSense]

The White House claim of ‘doctored e-mails... to smear the president’

Posted by Glenn Kessler

<...>

The Pinocchio Test

It has long been part of the Washington game for officials to discredit a news story by playing up errors in a relatively small part of it. Pfeiffer gives the impression that GOP operatives deliberately tried to “smear the president” with false, doctored e-mails.

But the reporters involved have indicated they were told by their sources that these were summaries, taken from notes of e-mails that could not be kept. The fact that slightly different versions of the e-mails were reported by different journalists suggests there were different note-takers as well.

Indeed, Republicans would have been foolish to seriously doctor e-mails that the White House at any moment could have released (and eventually did). Clearly, of course, Republicans would put their own spin on what the e-mails meant, as they did in the House report. Given that the e-mails were almost certain to leak once they were sent to Capitol Hill, it’s a wonder the White House did not proactively release them earlier.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Despite Pfeiffer’s claim of political skullduggery, we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-white-house-claim-of-doctored-e-mails-to-smear-the-president/2013/05/20/a23343b6-c19e-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_blog.html

Summary: So what if Republicans manufactured evidence. The WH has to prove it. It would have been "foolish" for Republicans to commit an illegal or unethical act. It's the WH's fault that Republicans committed an illegal or unethical act because the administation didn't release the email earlier. Besides, the purpose wasn't to "smear" the President. It was to...well, it wasn't to smear the President.

This disgusting piece, shilling for Republicans, is the only dedicated media coverage of this incident. The media are complicit.

The Lie Matters: What Did Sen Coburn Know about the Edited Benghazi Email and How Did He Know It
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022868542

WaPo: DOJ Spied On Fox News Reporter (a perfect example of media complicity - updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022871121

Please kick and recommend this important thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022857091

[spanone]

1. the media covers for republicans and themselves....no surprise.

[ProSense]

3. Where is the outrage? n/t

[spanone]

10. been wondering that myself.

[ProSense]

12. The GOP benefits from this being

the only headline/piece out there related to the story: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/wapo-fact-checker-3-pinocchios-for-claim-of

Kessler is being skewered in the comments.

[spanone]

13. thanks for that article.....he needs to be skewered....

[JoePhilly]

2. If Obama was more like LBJ or FDR the GOP would have never done something like this.

Clearly, Obama showed a lack of leadership by not making sure that the GOP didn't intentionally manufactured the false the content of those emails behind his back.

[winter is coming]

4. "Imprecise wordsmithing" That phrase alone is worth a dozen Pinocchios. n/t

[uponit7771]

5. "...slightly different versions of the e-mails were reported ..."

[ucrdem]

6. Holy cow.

The GOP adds completely new clauses to a one-sentence e-mail message and WaPo comes ups with this?

The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Despite Pfeiffer’s claim of political skullduggery, we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists.

What burden of proof? It's already been proven. And how is falsifying a quotation an "editing error"? If this is their actual editorial policy it discredits WaPo as an accurate source of anything.

[CJCRANE]

7. What a mealy-mouthed bunch of BS!

There are absolutely no facts in that article, it's just a whole load of conjecture.

"Would have been...could have..."

[patrice]

8. = Plausible Deniability, i.e. what they're getting the big bucks for & why their jobs are protected

no matter whom they work for.

[siligut]

9. Kessler takes GOP talking points and turns them into "facts"

What a hack. He says he is nonpartisan, but then twists himself into a pretzel to come up with this load of malarkey.

[ProSense]

16. "Hack" is being too kind. n/t

[bemildred]

11. Ah, the "no proof" dodge.

One could wish this skepticism was present when WaPo's own editorial ass was not on the line, but then we would get the usual unquestioning stenography.

[librechik]

14. "KESSSLER!!!! (shakes fist)

what a paid off hack and whore.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. You ain't kidding.

That article is basically a lesson on how to properly forge emails.

[Bandit]

15. Once you place quotation marks around the words it is no longer "word smithing"......

You are saying someone said those words and if they did not say those words then you are a LIAR.....

[BklnDem75]

18. Kessler's twisting himself into knots.

The GOP and Karl are the accusers and he wants the White House to disprove the accusations? Looks like the Washington Post is covering for their partners at ABC, who do polls all the time.