Minnesota Monitor: For Attribution?

Yesterday, I asked center-right bloggers to go over the Minnesota Monitor’s published body of work to find quotes seemingly sourced from interviews, and look for suspiciously-similar quotes from other sources.

An emailer who requested anonymity sent me this one, from Friday’s MinMon:

> [Fecke] today:
>
> Second District Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., did not
> respond to repeated requests for information about
> his stand on energy policy, and his House website
> does not list any policy positions on energy, oil,
> or the environment. However, Kline has voted in
> favor of opening more oil refineries and has
> repeatedly voted in favor of tax breaks for oil
> companies. He has been a strong supporter of
> drilling off-shore and in the Arctic National
> Wildlife Refuge, saying in a debate with Coleen
> Rowley, “This is a national security and economic
> issue. Will it solve all of our oil problems?
> Absolutely not. It’s not a long-term solution–we
> do need alternative energy solutions…but we ought
> to be taking advantage of those huge resources.”
> Kline has supported ethanol subsidies, saying, “I
> look forward to gathering bipartisan support to use
>
Minnesota agricultural commodities to fuel our
> nation.”
He also has supported easing environmental
> regulations on ethanol producing plants.
>
> Google returned one hit for that quote:
>
>
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22I+look+forward+to+gathering+bipartisan+support+to+use+Minnesota+agricultural+commodities+to+fuel+our+nation.%22&btnG=Search
>
> – an ethanol blog which likewise quotes Kline
> linking to a statement on Kline’s website:
>
>
>
http://medialab.blogs.com/our_ethanol_debate/2007/03/what_do_minneso.html
>
>
> Representative Kline authored the 10-by-10 Ethanol
> Bill. “The use of ethanol is important to reduce
> our dependence on foreign oil and lower the cost of
> fossil fuels,” Congressman Kline said. “I look
> forward to gathering bipartisan support to use
>
Minnesota agricultural commodities to fuel our
> nation.”

Quoting a statement without attribution?

On the one hand, it’s taken from something intended for free public distribution. On the other hand, a “journalist” is still supposed to give proper attribution when quoting people.

> Do I win a prize?

That deep-down satisfaction one gets when one does a good thing.

50 thoughts on “Minnesota Monitor: For Attribution?

  1. Mitch said,

    “On the one hand, it’s taken from something intended for free public distribution. On the other hand, a ”journalist” is still supposed to give proper attribution when quoting people.”

    Good God. Get a life.

  2. Wow, this site is so informative and erudite about the rules of Journalism, I should stop going to all those classes and just ponder this wisdom. The points are so compelling.

  3. Hey Coldeye-
    One reason you need attribution is context. “X said Y in a press release” is very different from “X said Y in a conversation a friend overheard and then he told me”.
    Good luck with those J classes, Coldeye! Try taking notes!

  4. Mitch is clearly suffering from some form of Fecke related OCD condition. On the one hand MM is so marginal as to be irrelevant yet on the other hand it merits nearly continual attention from this blogs author…

    And I find the picayune droning on about Feckes use of quotation marks more than ironic. I can’t even begin to count the number of times people on this blog have taken something I’ve said, interpreted it through their own biased filter and then spit it back out with quotation marks – as if quoting me.

    Fecke fails to source material. Berg paraphrases, spins and attempts to set up strawman arguments using his myopic interpretation of other peoples words. Which is worse?

    Of course, since Mitch isn’t claiming to be a journalist he gets a free pass on this type of dishonest sleight of hand.

  5. Hey, Doug? Aren’t you supposed to be somewhere, you know, getting a life? Perhaps you and coldeye can hang out and grab a Slurpee at the local Kwikee Mart.

  6. Cold:

    Wow, this site is so informative and erudite about the rules of Journalism, I should stop going to all those classes and just ponder this wisdom. The points are so compelling.

    And your point is so cogent, and makes such a strong case in the negative!

    Doug,

    Mitch is clearly suffering from some form of Fecke related OCD condition.

    You are no better a psychologist than you are, apparently, an election judge.

    And I find the picayune droning on about Feckes use of quotation marks more than ironic. I can’t even begin to count the number of times people on this blog have taken something I’ve said, interpreted it through their own biased filter and then spit it back out with quotation marks – as if quoting me.

    So?

    Fecke fails to source material. Berg paraphrases, spins and attempts to set up strawman arguments using his myopic interpretation of other peoples words. Which is worse?

    Really?

    How is that?

    I don’t think you have the foggiest idea what you’re talking about.

    Of course, since Mitch isn’t claiming to be a journalist he gets a free pass on this type of dishonest sleight of hand.

    OK, Doug. I let you get away with a lot of stuff in this comment section, on the basic principle that I welcome a lively interchange of ideas (or, in your case, snide condescending snark).

    But I am never, ever dishonest.

    So show me where anything I wrote about the MinMon’s attribution issues is dishonest, now – as in, before you post another comment on any issue for any reason.

    I can put up with a lot of crap, but I draw the line right there.

  7. Mitch said,

    “But I am never, ever dishonest.”

    Really?

    Let’s rewind…

    “You are no better a psychologist than you are, apparently, an election judge.

    Now Mitch, go back to the original thread and you’ll see that I said I was volunteering as an election observer.

    and I just said…

    Berg paraphrases, spins and attempts to set up strawman arguments using his myopic interpretation of other peoples words.

    Uh huh. You’re never EVER dishonest are you Mitch.

    Let’s see how you put up with the truth about your own dishonesty.

  8. Doug,

    Don’t be an idiot. You know what my question was.

    Where was I dishonest about the topic at hand – the Monitor?

    Nobody – myself included – gives a rat’s ass about what you did in the ’04 election. I prod you with it, because you left yourself open to being prodded. You have no problems dishing it out, but you seem to hate taking it.  Get a sense of humor, proportion, or both.

    But first, answer my question.

    Because while I take everything in this comment section with a grain, nay a block of salt, nobody uses my bandwidth to call me dishonest. It’s never true, and it’s never tolerated.

  9. Doug’s an even worse “blog observer” than he was an “election observer.” I’m pretty sure he’d have a hard time trying to observe a solar eclipse.

  10. Mitch said,

    Where was I dishonest about the topic at hand – the Monitor?

    Show me where I said you were dishonest about the Monitor?

    I said,

    “…I find the picayune droning on about Feckes use of quotation marks more than ironic. I can’t even begin to count the number of times people on this blog have taken something I’ve said, interpreted it through their own biased filter and then spit it back out with quotation marks – as if quoting me.”

    You respond with,

    “I am never, ever dishonest.

    So show me where anything I wrote about the MinMon’s attribution issues is dishonest, now”

    Further, you whined,

    “nobody uses my bandwidth to call me dishonest. It’s never true, and it’s never tolerated.”

    Trying to spin my comments about your historical lack of honesty into a strawman challenge about dishonesty regarding the Monitor is in itself deceptive and dishonest.

    But I forgot… You’re never, ever dishonest are ya?

  11. In other words, you got nothing, you know it, and you’re responding to being challenged on that fact with your usual condescending ad-homina. 

     You think you can call me “dishonest” – big talk for an anonymous commenter – but you can’t put any substance to it.  

    You are the lowest form of comment-section dirt.

    You NEED to believe I”m dishonest, because you, like most mediocre, ideology-addled minds, can only act by dehumanizing those you disagree with. But you can’t show any examples of dishonesty, other than “failing to come to agreement with Doug”, which, sorry to tell ya, sport, isn’t “dishonest”.

    You’re a fraud. You write intellectual checks you can’t cash.

  12. Mitch said,

    “In other words, you got nothing, you know it”

    I just proved you to be a cheap shill and a huckster. Your own words betrayed and exposed you.

    “but you can’t put any substance to it.”

    I just did.

    “you, like most mediocre, ideology-addled minds, can only act by dehumanizing those you disagree with.”

    Oh God the drama! Hath I offended thee? I beseech thee kind and gentle sir; go screweth yourself and lo and hence, cease the bemoaning and gnashing of your bones.

  13. What question?

    I said he had a history of distorting what I say and using his interpreted version in strawman arguments.

    He bitching about Fecke failing to source material – even going to the extent of calling out the pajama brigade to report incidents of infractions and I pointed out that he himself is responsible for fabricating and attributing quotes.

    Was he dishonest about this particular issue regarding the Monitor? I never claimed he was. Is he dishonest in his shell games and verbal sleight of hand? Yes. And I come here for the sport of pointing it out as much as possible.

  14. You’re the guy who told Mitch, “Good God, get a life.”?!?!?!

    You come here, not so much for thesport of pointing out so-called blog-shell games and verbal sleight of hand… you come here to snark. Plain and simple.

    There’s a shinebox out there with your name on it, Doug… better go get it.

  15. Evidence was not my best subject in law school (to wit: I didn’t take it), but answering “You were dishonest” and punctuating it with “Because I said so” fails to answer the question posed, which I believe was “So show me where anything I wrote about the MinMon’s attribution issues is dishonest”.

    My advice, Doug: just shut up. Shrill, ignorant and abusive on someone else’s bandwidth is no way to go through life, son.

  16. LF said,

    “Evidence was not my best subject in law school”

    Apparently, neither was comprehension since I never said Mitch was dishonest about the Monitor. I did however say he was dishonest in the way he has approached other issues including fabricating quotes and attributing them to me. Remember, it is Mitch that said, “I am never, ever dishonest”, which, as I understand the common use of the words, suggests that he would never – ever take something that someone has said and misrepresented it. Geepers, that would be dehumanizing someone you disagree with and we all know how sensitive Mitch is to that…

    badda said,

    “you come here to snark. Plain and simple.”

    You call it snark. I call it a hobby. I’d put a call out to all of my liberal blogging buddies to be on the lookout for more Bergian quotation fabrications but that would be just, well, bizarre…

  17. I’d put a call out to all of my liberal blogging buddies to be on the lookout for more Bergian quotation fabrications but that would be just, well, bizarre…

    And, while you’re at it, “Fruitless”, since – barring the odd bit of satire – I don’t do that.

     Seriously – find a “quotation fabrication” that isn’t clearly satire, or admit that you are a f*ckwit who can’t hold an argument that isn’t pure name-calling (or have me admit it for you on your behalf, if you’re unable to do so)

    Your argument is purely circular, based on an intellectually-vacant premise.

    And I strongly doubt you have any liberal blogging buddies.

  18. “Apparently, neither was comprehension since I never said Mitch was dishonest about the Monitor.”

    See, but that’s the question he asked. So apparently you have problems with comprehension too. But fair enough, Doug. Let’s say that the question as you would have it was “Show me where I was ever dishonest. Ever.”

    To answer that question you provide a summary phrase saying that he did so without pointing to any specific example (which I’ve seen in many variations many times from you, as if you keep it on a notepad doc ready for cutting and pasting on a moment’s notice.)

    So you really haven’t answered that question either, other than to say “Mitch was dishonest” and “STRAWMAN!” and to take your word for it.

    You need a new hobby. You suck at this one.

  19. I love comment threads where Doug thrashes around aimlessly, claiming debate victory, when everyone else can plainly see he’s, well, thrashing around aimlessly.

    “And I strongly doubt you have any liberal blogging buddies.”

    Or buddies in general, for that matter.

  20. And there is no “comprehension” course in law school. Well, actually, all of law school is a lesson in comprehension. And since I got my J.D…

  21. LF said,

    “To answer that question you provide a summary phrase saying that he did so without pointing to any specific example”

    Ah… But I did. And it makes the fact that Mitch commits an act of mis characterizing events while stomping his feet demanding that I not call him dishonest all the more humorous.

    Mitch said, (following me mocking his call to rally the peanut gallery to monitor the Monitor…)

    “barring the odd bit of satire – I don’t do that.

    Of course you do Mitch. Remember?

    Yesterday, I asked center-right bloggers to go over the Minnesota Monitor’s published body of work to find quotes seemingly sourced from interviews, and look for suspiciously-similar quotes from other sources.

    Unless, that was just “satire”…

  22. All right Doug, you’ve enjoyed yourself enough. Now go wipe off your monitor.

  23. Oh hey Paul…

    Speaking of guys that make shit up and put quotation marks around it…

    I see you’re still fantasizing about me. Sorry Dude. I’m married – to a woman.

    You really need a boyfriend.

  24. Of course, since Mitch isn’t claiming to be a journalist he gets a free pass on this type of dishonest sleight of hand.

    You would know, Doug, since you are the Ascended Dark Lord Master of dishonest sleight of hand.

    You write free of any ethical restraints, carefully selecting factual datapoints that run contrary to the ocean of evidence crashing the other direction, using them to frame huge lies by telling the truth, and using misdirection (read: subject changing) to cover your tracks, dished up with a huge helping of Machiavellianism.

    That is why I call you a dishonest, disingenous, condescending elitist that rides a crest of ecstasy every time you post one of your trademark arguments.

  25. Speaking of guys that make shit up and put quotation marks around it…

    No, Doug. We’re talking about your accusation of dishonesty.

    Which I’ll give you one more chance to substantiate, or retract.

    I see you’re still fantasizing about me. Sorry Dude. I’m married – to a woman.

    Or so you, as an anonymous commenter, claim.

    Like you claim to have all sorts of veteran friends DYING to counterprotest my ass, liberal blog buddies, and so on.

    Clock’s ticking, bigfella. Show me intentionally deceiving the audience.

    My patience is down to the last little grain of sand.

  26. Speaking of guys that make shit up and put quotation marks around it

    Thanks for proving my point, Doug.

  27. Doug,
    Mitch said he didn’t do that… not in calling upon the hordes of conservative MN bloggers to monitor the monitor… he CLEARLY (that means obviously) means fabricating quotes.

    Do you need me to get out the map?

    Doug:
    “I’d put a call out to all of my liberal blogging buddies to be on the lookout for more Bergian quotation fabrications but that would be just, well, bizarre…”

    Mitch:
    “And, while you’re at it, “Fruitless”, since – barring the odd bit of satire – I don’t do that.”

    The “I don’t do that” is a response to your, “more Bergian quotation fabrications”.

    All together, gang… Duh! (Or should we urge you to merely say “D’oh!”?)

    Now… shinebox… calling your name… fetch it.

    Was he merely too fast and too excited to read Mitch’s comment accurately… or did he do (that is, misinterpret and evade) it on purpose?

  28. Had to hit on this again:

    Speaking of guys that make shit up and put quotation marks around it

    Care to show me any ‘shit’ I’ve made up and put into quotation marks, after you show Mitch where he deceived his blog readership?

    Mocking you and angryclown doesn’t count. I don’t put quotation marks around my mocking.

  29. Mitch said,

    “Clock’s ticking, bigfella. Show me intentionally deceiving the audience.”

    http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/index.php/index.php/2007/03/10/counterprotest/#comment-6208

    What I said;

    “I know a group of vets who are going and I would love to see them bitchslap Mitch for calling them anti-American.”

    How Berg represented it;

    “Like you claim to have all sorts of veteran friends DYING to counterprotest my ass, liberal blog buddies, and so on.”

    You’re welcome.

  30. And here’s a classic from Yossarian…

    http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/index.php/index.php/2007/03/19/new-math/#comment-8164

    “See, I think you know, in your little heart of hearts, weaseling out of your absence at the anti-war march by saying “I didn’t say I was GOING to go, I said I was going to TRY,” is a hysterically pathetic attempt at backpedaling. Exactly how does somebody “try” and “fail” to attend a protest? Was the wind too strong, pushing you back into your house, despite your best efforts?”

  31. Mitch added,

    “Seriously – find a “quotation fabrication” that isn’t clearly satire, or admit that you are a f*ckwit who can’t hold an argument that isn’t pure name-calling (or have me admit it for you on your behalf, if you’re unable to do so)”

    Hmmmm… I don’t recall that being in the original post.

  32. It looks to me like Doug’s definition of deception is exceptionally flexible when convenient. I would not be surprised if other common English words held similarly convenient and flexible meanings for him. It would explain some of the “he doesn’t seem to understand English” thoughts I’ve had in the past. 😉

  33. It looks to me like Doug’s definition of deception is exceptionally flexible when convenient. I would not be surprised if other common English words held similarly convenient and flexible meanings for him. It would explain some of the “he doesn’t seem to understand English” thoughts I’ve had in the past.

    Of course not, Troy. All Doug cares about is winning by any means possible, not the truth.

    Here is Doug’s quote from what he posted on July 3rd, 2007 at 6:07 pm:

    “I know a group of vets who are going and I would love to see them bitchslap Mitch for calling them anti-American.”

    Let’s review where all that started, shall we?

    http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/index.php/index.php/2007/03/10/counterprotest

    Mitch writes:

    We talked with Janet from SCSU Scholars about the drive get conservatives, veterans and other pro-Americans to go out to Washington next week to counterprotest the big lefty demonstrations scheduled for that weekend – to shield the Vietnam Memorial from their depredations.

    The very first comment came from Doug, on March 10th, 2007 at 3:56 pm:

    Conservatives, veterans and OTHER pro-Americans?

    I can’t even begin to explain just how moronic that statement is.

    The next comment is from Master of None, on March 10th, 2007 at 4:37 pm:

    I can’t even begin to explain just how moronic that statement is.

    That’s obvious.

    Doug posts the third comment in this thread, on March 10th, 2007 at 4:57 pm:

    It’s statements like this that remove all credibility in the conservative movement.

    God how I wish Mitch would go.

    I know a group of vets who are going and I would love to see them bitchslap Mitch for calling them anti-American.

    And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the problem: Doug thinks that writing conservatives, veterans and other pro-Americans is calling veterans anti-American.

    Conservatives, veterans and OTHER pro-Americans?

    From Dictionary.com:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=other

    What Mitch meant by “other”: 1. additional or further: he and one other person.

    What Doug ‘understood’ by “other”: 2. different or distinct from the one mentioned or implied: in some other city; Some other design may be better.

    All this is because of Doug’s reading comprehension skills.

    So is this haste, malfeasance, or both?

    You make the call.

  34. Troy said,

    “It looks to me like Doug’s definition of deception is exceptionally flexible when convenient.”

    Bullshit. My definition of deception is completely consistent. When someone takes something I’ve said and embellishes, distorts and manipulates it, then tries to pass off the altered version as mine, that’s dishonest.

    Speaking of dishonesty Paul,

    I recall another thread regarding Jeff Fecke and Mitch’s obsessing about Fecke claiming to be a journalist. In the thread, I commented about the irony of whining about Fecke’s self-proclamations while turning a blind eye to the claims of your peers. Specifically, Andy G.I. Applikowski.

    If you recall, Little Opine Andy has published that he would have joined the service but his height to weight ratio was too high.

    I said,

    “he’s full of crap and his excuse that he would have joined if it weren’t for his unfortunate height to weight ratio problem is bullshit.

    He’s young enough and he can go on a fricken diet if he really wants to serve. And it the Marines weight restriction are a problem, he can call the Army.”

    You responded,

    ”Here is your reason for crticizing (sic) Andy: Anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting.”

    My reasons for criticizing Andy were clear. He’s a fraud. If he really wanted to serve as he claims, all he needs to do is lose a few pounds yet you redirect my clear comments into a charge that I call anyone who supports military action without themselves serving is a “chickenhawk”.

    Don’t lecture me about being dishonest Paul when you yourself pull the same crap you accuse me of doing.

  35. Good God, and this is the same Doug, I’m compelled to remind ya’ll, who told Mitch to get a life. Nothing like watching OCD play out in a blog comment thread.

  36. Mitch pleaded: “Doug, don’t be an idiot.”

    Someone answered: “Ducky..don’t swim!”

  37. Doug puked: ““I know a group of vets who are going and I would love to see them bitchslap Mitch for calling them anti-American.”

    Swiftee supplies: Send them my way slick.

  38. So your definition of deception is always “a reasonably accurate description of what was said but different words were used”, Doug? That is the way it appears to me. *shrug*

  39. Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Anonymous Sources: “Shut Up And Go Away”

  40. Paul said,

    And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the problem: Doug thinks that writing conservatives, veterans and other pro-Americans is calling veterans anti-American.

    No you brain dead twit. The crux of the problem is the implication that if you don’t support this war in Iraq or if you protest the war, you’re somehow not pro-American.

    Here it is again Paul;

    “We talked with Janet from SCSU Scholars about the drive get conservatives, veterans and other pro-Americans to go out to Washington next week to counterprotest the big lefty demonstrations”

    See Paul?

    Conservative… Pro-American…

    Ergo… Not conservative – Hmmmm… Must be Anti-American.

  41. Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Perfection For Thee, But Not For Me

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.