For the third time in 10 days, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has attacked Democrats.com by name.
I did not reply to the first attack, assuming (correctly) that fair-minded Post readers would share their objections without my help, and (also correctly) that fair-minded Post editors would respond appropriately.
I replied privately to the second attack, assuming (incorrectly) that Milbank and his editors would issue a correction and a clarification.
Today I must reply publicly to the third attack, which crossed the line of tolerable (albeit unfair) discourse and became libelous.
1) Milbank's first attack was on June 8:
Seldom-Discussed Elephant Moves Into Public's View
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, June 8, 2005; Page A14
Yesterday's East Room meeting of President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair was worth a cool $1,000 to Steve Holland, Reuters' chief White House correspondent, if he cares to collect it.
Earlier in the day, Democrats.com, a group of left-wing activists, sent out an e-mail offering a "reward" to anyone who could get an answer from Bush about whether a recently leaked British government memo from 2002 was correct in saying the Bush administration had "fixed" the intelligence about Iraq's weapons to justify war...
Holland, a consummate professional, wasn't trying to satisfy the wing nuts -- "good grief," he said when told later about the prize money -- and won't be collecting.
We are comprised of Democraticy Party activists, and we call ourselves the "aggressive progressives." Are we "left-wing activists?" Only if Republican Party activists are "right-wing activists." I doubt the Post has ever called them by that name. (A search for "right-wing activists" turns up 0 results. A search for "right-wing" AND Milbank and found 0 matches. But a search for "left-wing activists" - spelled exactly as it appears in the column above - turns up 0 results as well, so I think the Post's search engine just doesn't work.)
As for "wing nuts," that is an attack on our sanity. Are we insane and out of touch with the facts? As Bush would say, "nothing could be farther from the truth." Virtually everything we have ever published under our name since we launched in 2000 (which includes many thousands of items) has been based on documented facts - which we link to as a rule, unlike the Washington Post or other corporate news outlets. (As for the opinions expressed by our members and visitors, our volunteer moderators apply and enforce our simple rules.)
The "wing nut" charge is further discussed below.
2) Milbank's second attack was on June 17:
Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War
By Dana Milbank
Friday, June 17, 2005; Page A06
... At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.
The event organizer, Democrats.com, distributed stickers saying "Bush lied/100,000 people died."
Reading these two paragraphs together, a reader could easily conclude that Democrats.com endorsed the accusations about Israel. This is due to a) the uninterrupted sequence, and b) the assertion that Democrats.com was THE organizer of the event, and therefore directly (or indirectly) responsible for the views expressed by anyone (left, right, or center) who attended the event.
When I saw this attack, I replied immediately. Below is the full set of correspondence. I am taking the liberty of publishing Milbank's replies in order to set the record straight. I have also added relevant links, although our exchange was conducted without them, and dropped e-mail addresses as is customary in such blogs.
From: Bob Fertik
To: Dana Milbank
Subject: fact correction
Cc: Michael Getler, Ombudsman
Hey Dana,
Your sentence beginning
"The event organizer, Democrats.com"
is factually incorrect.
Both the hearings at the Capitol and the overflow at the DNC were
organized by the House Judiciary Committee Democrats.
Can you publish a correction?
In addition, the sequence of paragraphs implies that we are responsible
for the 9/11 activists who handed out flyers at the event. Many activists
from many groups attended to highlight their concerns, but the only
handout from Democrats.com was the sticker you cite.
Thanks.
To which Milbank replied:
That's funny. Your colleague Swanson is listed as the organizer in the AP
daybook.
2:30 p.m. DOWNING STREET MINUTES - Rep. John Conyers, others,
hold a hearing on the Downing Street Minutes and other elements of the
pre-Iraq war intelligence.
Location: Room HC-9, Capitol.
Contacts: David Swanson
Notes: Hearing followed by a rally at 5 p.m. in Lafayette Park.
To which I replied:
Hi Dana,
1. The AP entry does not mention Democrats.com
2. Swanson is a spokesman for AfterDowningStreet.org, which is a coalition
of 100+ groups including Democrats.com, Progressive Democrats of America,
and many others. (The site is overloaded so I can't point you to the long
coalition list, but David is listed on the front page.)
3. AfterDowningStreet.org assisted Rep. John Conyers in organizing the
hearing and DNC spillover, but it was not "THE organizer."
So this remains factually inaccurate:
"The event organizer, Democrats.com"
and our request for a correction stands.
As does our request for a clarification that Democrats.com was not
responsible for the messages distributed by any activists or groups other
than ourselves.
Bob
To which Milbank replied:
Sorry, Bob. You guys clearly held yourselves out as the organizer. See
below email.
And while I've got your attention, why is this kind of crap on your
website?
The jews have taken control of Washington and hollywood and madison avenue
along with the courts and the education systems.I can not believe that most
people can't see past their misrable little lives to get the big picture.We
would rather watch some Soap opera like desperate housewives and talk about
it the next day at the water cooler.I also believe the same people that
have the republiucans by the neck also have the democrats by the
balls.Until we shake all foriegn influence from our elected offices,We will
never be free.we will continue to answer for the Holacost Fairy tale which
gets played like a broken record.We back a country in the mideast that does
abosolutly nothing but cause trouble,Hell they stole the land they sit on
and have the balls to call the people they shit on dailey terroists.The
jews took down the world trade center with the help of inside Mossad agents
acting as americans.
From: "Democrats.com Press"
To: @washpost.com
Subject: THURS: Conyers Hearings Change to 2:30 pm Capitol HC-9
Date: 06/15/2005 10:50 AM
For Immediate Release: June 15, 2005
For More Info: David Swanson
Web link: http://afterdowningstreet.org
HEARINGS ON DOWNING STREET MINUTES MOVED TO U.S. CAPITOL
AND MOVED TO 2:30
Important Speakers Added to Line-Up at Rally
Citizens urged to lobby Congress Members and Senators, and to meet at DNC,
which is serving as overflow room.
On Thursday June 16, 2005, from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in Room HC-9 of the
U.S. Capitol, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary
Committee, and other Congress Members will hold a hearing on the Downing
Street Minutes and related evidence of efforts to cook the books on pre-war
intelligence.
The hearings had been planned for the Democratic National Committee offices
because the Republicans controlling the House Judiciary Committee had
refused to permit the ranking Democratic Member to use a large room on the
Hill.
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/UndertheDome/index.html
However, the Democrats did have access to a small room in the Capitol, and
Congressman Conyers has decided to move the hearings there. This does not
indicate any change in position from the Republicans.
Members of the media will be welcome, but citizens in town for the 5 p.m.
rally at the White House will have difficulty getting into the 2:30
hearings.
The DNC will serve as an overflow room, so people can still go there: the
Wasserman Room at 430 S Capitol St. SE.
AfterDowningStreet.org encourages people, instead, to spend the afternoon
lobbying their Congress Member and two Senators, and paying special visits
to the offices of Congressmen John Conyers and Maurice Hinchey,
Congresswomen Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, and Senators John Kerry and Ted
Kennedy to thank them for their leadership. Recommended talking points can
be found in a one-page document at the top of www.afterdowningstreet.org.
Later on the same day at 5:00 p.m. ET in Lafayette Square Park, in front of
the White House, a large rally will support Congressman Conyers who plans
to deliver to the White House a letter addressed to President Bush and
signed by over 500,000 Americans and at least 94 Congress Members. The
letter asks the President to respond to questions raised by the Downing
Street Minutes.
Among those speaking at the hearings will be:
Joe Wilson, Former Ambassador and WMD Expert; Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA
analyst who prepared regular Presidential briefings during the Reagan
administration; Cindy Sheehan, mother of fallen American soldier; John
Bonifaz, renowned constitutional lawyer and co-founder of
AfterDowningStreet.org.
Among those speaking at the rally will be:
Congressman John Conyers (schedule permitting); Congresswoman Barbara Lee
(schedule permitting); Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (schedule permitting);
Congressman Maurice Hinchey (schedule permitting); Cindy Sheehan,
Co-Founder of Gold Star Families for Peace; John Bonifaz, Co-Founder of
AfterDowningStreet.org; Medea Benjamin, Co-Founder of Global Exchange;
Stephen Cleghorn, Member of Military Families Speak Out; Rev. Lennox
Yearwood, Board Member of Progressive Democrats of America; Ray McGovern,
former CIA analyst; Reg Keys, Member of Military Families Against the War,
challenger to Tony Blair in last election (flying in from UK); William
Rivers Pitt, Reporter for Progressive Democrats of America; Leslie Cagan,
National Coordinator of United for Peace and Justice; Kevin Zeese, Director
of Democracy Rising
More information, and flyers promoting the rally, are available at
www.afterdowningstreet.org
Flyers to print, copy, and distribute widely:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/rally.pdf
LOCAL RALLIES PLANNED AROUND COUNTRY
Supporters of this campaign are independently organizing rallies on
Thursday at locations around the country.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=211
AfterDowningStreet.org is a rapidly growing coalition of veterans' groups,
peace groups, and political activist groups. On May 26, 2005, we launched a
campaign to urge the U.S. Congress to begin a formal investigation into
whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection
with the Iraq war.
##
You are subscribed to the Democrats.com Press List.
To which I replied in two separate e-mails, first on the press release:
Yes, Democrats.com did send out a copy of the AfterDowningStreet.org
Coalition press release. So did several other members of the Coalition.
Once again, your sentence beginning
"The event organizer, Democrats.com"
is factually incorrect and our request for a correction stands.
As does our request for a clarification that Democrats.com was not
responsible for the messages distributed by any activists or groups other
than ourselves.
Bob
p.s. Perhaps we would get further in this discussion if I offered a
suggestion of how you could correct it:
"One of the groups in the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, Democrats.com"
and then on the "crap on your web site":
Because we cannot x-ray people's brains when they sign up, so we have no
way to exclude hate-filled idiots.
When hate speech is posted on our website, our volunteer moderators
attempt to engage the author in a dialogue to determine whether the author
lacks information (in which case education can overcome hate) or simply
hates. You can see that dynamic at work in the responses to the post.
If the author is determined to be a person of hate, the author is banned
from the community. Our records show this to be the last post by that
author (pcreenan), who was then banned.
You might then ask whether the hate-filled thread should be scrubbed. If
that were the only post on the page, I would do that. But I believe the
thoughtful responses by our members have value that deserves to be
preserved.
Now since I've tried to give you a thoughtful answer to your question,
perhaps you could try to give a thoughtful one to mine:
How will you respond to John Conyers' letter?
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001475.htm
Bob
The later e-mail was sent at 3:25 pm on Friday, long before the end of the working day. I cc'd Michael Getler on the first but (by oversight) not the second. I never received a direct reply to either one.
3) Milbank's third attack was published on Sunday, June 19:
Ombudsman
Memos, 'Wing Nuts' and 'Hit Lists'
By Michael Getler
Sunday, June 19, 2005; Page B06
The bulk of the mail last week, by far, was focused once again on the "Downing Street Memo."...
Milbank's column was about the June 7 Bush-Blair news conference in Washington and it reported that "Democrats.com, a group of left-wing activists" had sent e-mails offering a "reward" for anyone who could get an answer from Bush about the report that intelligence had been "fixed" around Iraq policy. Later in the column, Milbank wrote that a reporter who did ask such a question, and who had no idea of the activists' e-mails, "wasn't trying to satisfy the wing nuts."
Post Assistant Managing Editor Liz Spayd said "the term referred to one specific group" and not everyone who was questioning coverage of the memo. As for the term "wing nuts," she said "that word is probably sharper than it should have been." I agree. It was a needless red flag that undoubtedly would be read as disparaging beyond the group that Milbank was referring to. But columnists do get more leeway and the term has infiltrated political discussion in these heated times.
As a quick aside, note how Michael Getler implies that the term "wing nuts" can be appropriately applied to Democrats.com, but not groups "beyond" us. See my counterargument above: I would accept the term "wing nuts" for Democrats.com members if the term was applied equally to Republican Party activists - something I cannot recall ever seeing in the Post. Indeed, a search of WashingtonPost.com reports the only time "wing nuts" was used was on June 8 by Dana Milbank.
But then we get to the attack which prompted this and detailed long blog post:
Here's Milbank's view: "While you have been within your rights as ombudsman over the past five years to attempt to excise any trace of colorful or provocative writing from the Post, you are out of bounds in asserting that a columnist cannot identify as 'wingnuts' a group whose followers have long been harassing this and other reporters and their families with hateful, obscene and sometimes anti-Semitic speech."
This is clearly a serious accusation. Is it based on any facts?
Our rules explicitly prohibit personal attacks. They also state:
If you are a victim of any violations, please contact us.
I personally read every report of violations, and I cannot recall more than one or two in five years, to which we replied promptly and appropriately. We have never received one from Dana Milbank or any other reporter that I can recall.
So what is the factual basis for this potentially libelous charge?
One June 10, Milbank replied to a press release from David Swanson:
David-- I thought you'd like to see the type of email your readers have
sent me this week. DM
> Better jump on that Downing Street Memo quick Jew boy/Jewess/or Shabbas
Goy
The Jews aren't always so clever as they would like themselves to
believe. Whenever they are in danger they prove to be the stupidest
devils" (Goebbels Diaries (1948) Pg 183).
The Jews in England now demand laws to protect them from anti- Semitism. We know these tactics from our own past when we were struggling for power. I didn't help much. We were always able to find loopholes in the law. Besides anti-Semitism cannot be eradicated by law once it has taken root with the people. A law against hating Jews is usually the beginning of the end for the Jews (Goebbels
Diaries. Lochner (1948) Pg 336).
David replied:
Dana,
I should hope it would go without saying, but I'll say it: I and our organization have no interest in that sort of communication, do not condone it, and have not encouraged it. I also do not know whether you are Jewish, and the question has neither entered nor occupied my mind prior to this moment.
And based on my ten years of experience on the Internet, I added my $.02:
that didn't come from our side - it came from some rightwinger.
Three days later, Milbank provided more information to another colleague who inquired about the "wing nuts" charge on June 8. Milbank claimed that during one working trip "people inspired by" Democrats.com called the Post operator "at all hours," falsely claimed an emergency to get their calls forwarded to his cell phone, then "would scream obscenities." He added "it baffles me why you guys think these harassment tactics help your cause."
Milbank provided no dates, no names, and no evidence that the callers had any connection whatsoever to Democrats.com. Still, I did not attack his undocumented claim, but instead took the high road.
Dear Dana,
We have never met, but I am a great admirer of your solid journalism.
I am distressed to learn that you received such outrageous calls.
I sincerely hope they were NOT from Democrats.com subscribers.
We encourage activism, but we do not encourage, condone, or tolerate personal attacks.
Had I learned of this at the time, I would have requested the names of the callers to (a) determine if they were associated with Democrats.com and (b) take appropriate action, including a personal reprimand and removal from our subscriber list.
I have devoted the past 6 years of my life to building Democrats.com into the leading online community of Democratic activists, and I remain committed to its quality and success.
If you or any of your colleagues receive such attacks in the name of Democrats.com in the future, please send them to me personally.
To which Milbank replied:
Thanks for your note. Much appreciated.
I have now made the record of our correspondence public, in order to allow readers to judge whether Dana Milbank's attacks on Democrats.com are legitimate or libelous.
I would certainly welcome a reply to Milbank to any of these points, and will publish them in full.
In the absence of a reply, however, I repeat my request to Ombudsman Michael Getler (ombudsman@washpost.com) for a correction, and I welcome all civil letters to Getler from Democrats.com supporters on my behalf.
In addition, I must now ask the Post to publish the following letter to the editor under my name:
To the Editor:
On behalf of more than 300,000 supporters of Democrats.com, I write to express my outrage over Dana Milbank's libelous charge that our "followers have long been harassing this and other reporters and their families with hateful, obscene and sometimes anti-Semitic speech."
Democrats.com strictly prohibits personal attacks and takes immediate action against anyone who violates this rule.
Mr. Milbank never contacted us about any personal attacks* documented any personal attacks from Democrats.com supporters, so I am appalled that you published the allegation as though it were factual, and did not ask me for a response to this despicable charge.
I therefore request an apology from the Washington Post.
Sincerely,
Bob Fertik
President
* My first version was inaccurate, since Milbank contacted us on June 10 about the most recent personal attack. However, he did not identify the sender, so there was no way for us to determine if the sender was a supporter or opponent of Democrats.com. The first version was written with the earlier attack calls in mind, which we were never informed about when they occurred, and also were not documented.
Updates:
- DCCC's jesselee works in the DNC building, so (s)he ought to know a thing or two about the event:
In what sense Democrats.com was "the event organizer" I can scarcely imagine. In fact, what is "the event"? Is it simply "an overflow crowd watch[ing] the hearing on television"? Because that seems to me solely a function of the hearing itself, which was quite obviously organized by Conyers. In fact, I know Conyers' folks and was in touch with them at the very time they were arranging for room here in DNHQ. "The event" consisted of those from the public who could not fit into the public hearing room (which was exceedingly small for the reasons Conyers explains) being allowed to watch it on television in a large empty space in DNHQ. Some in the public handed out fliers that neither Conyers nor anybody in DNHQ would condone, but unlike some we know, we do not screen people for anything we might find offensive before we let them into a public event.
Furthermore, Milbank's reporting leaves an uninformed reader with a flagrant misconception. By claiming that Democrats.com organized the event, whatever that event was, without noting that they are an entirely independent group, he left the distinct impression that they were some form of an official Democratic organization, and that the Democrats were handing out these fliers in their own headquarters.
I'm sure Milbank gets a daily pile of hate mail from the Republican bully squad, but that is no excuse. That column is a joke...
Oh, and by the way, if you can bare to look at the left wing radical circus that Milbank "sketches," here it is...
