Postman today links to Michael Hood's blatherwatch blog.
Whether you agree or disagree with Hood's politics, you should assume that whatever you read on his site is fiction, unless you have independent verification to the contrary. I know this from personal experience. Nearly everything he has written about me has been false. Several specific examples --
1) In his post last week about the unsealing of the Dotzauer (Cantwell) divorce records, he wrote:
Mike!McGavick ... has the boyz over at Sound Politics doing some of the dirty work that must be done ... don't doubt for a moment that his campaign or the state GOP is behind the personal stuff.I'll state categorically that the McGavick campaign and the state GOP had nothing to do with my unsealing of the divorce file and reporting its contents. I did that on my own initiative.
2) In the same post, Hood also writes:
Stefan Sharkansky, whose invisible means of support has long fueled rumors that he and his blog is on the payroll of a Republican sugar-daddy,My wife's comment to that was "I wish". There is no sugar-daddy (or sugar-mommy) or sugar-entity of any kind, Republican, or otherwise. Hood made a similar false claim back in July that I was "rumored to be on the party payroll". I am not on the party's payroll or on anybody's payroll. The only sources of revenue for the site are ads and tip jar (thanks, readers!), both of which help pay for hosting and research costs, but neither of which provides an income for any of us writers, including myself. I receive no other compensation for the blog. Writing the blog is my part-time hobby and outlet for poltical engagement and nothing more.
3) Back in April Hood wrote:
Local media, who for a short time depended on Shmuckarsky's [sic] daily numerical revelations, around the perfervid election "scandal," stopped using him as a source after so many of his "facts" turned out to be erroneous.I don't claim to be immune from errors, but I do like to be as accurate as I can be, so I wrote to Hood and asked him to let me know which of my '"facts" turned out to be erroneous' so I could correct them. Two months later he finally admitted that he couldn't produce one single example of an incorrect fact:
We'd heard this from several print media types, none of whom were willing to go on the record on this or give us a clearer description of the information he allegedly fed them erroneously. They still swear it's true ...Gee, then either his "several print media types" don't exist, they're lying, or they're not diligent enough to find a single mistake out of the hundreds of items I've posted on King County elections.
4) Hood claimed that "[Sharkansky] repeatedly refuses to be on the radio at the same time as Goldstein". I was on the radio with Goldstein more than once. I have selectively declined some invitations and accepted other invitations for joint radio or in-person appearances with Goldstein. That is very different from "repeatedly refuses".
5) Hood also had himself bitchslapped by Dan Savage for misreporting the end of my column in The Stranger.(The reality was the experiment had run its course for both The Stranger and for me and it was a mutual decision to wrap it up). For all I know The Stranger might have had reasons for ending the column that they did not communicate to me, but The Stranger's own editor Dan Savage proactively disputed Hood's report.
At least Hood had the decency to post retractions when confronted. Maybe the best advice for reading Hood's blog is to ignore everything but the corrections. (And free and friendly business advice to legitimate publications that buy Hood's freelance work -- either keep it in the fiction section, or employ an extra army of fact-checkers and increase your liability coverage).
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 09, 2006 01:38 PM | Email ThisIf the MSM ever focused an ounce of attention on the left as they do the right, liberals and Democrats would suddently have nothing to talk about.
Just listened to another Cantwell ad spinning the Democrats Social Security lie. It's not like the evidence of their dishonesty isn't everywhere.
Posted by: MJC on October 9, 2006 01:43 PMSame old Stefan.
Dave Reichert had Gary Ridgeway in 1984, and let him go. Ridgeway was killing regularly back then, and if he had only tailed him for a week or so, he would have caught him in the act. But he didn't. 17 years and dozens of murders later, the DNA evidence finally caught Ridgeway, long after Reichert had given up the trail.
Nice work Sheriff Dave.
Posted by: Goldy on October 9, 2006 01:48 PMYou should be careful with that argument, because it effectively leaves you with very few candidates at all, even on your side of the fence...
Gosh, those constitutional guarantees have to be in place for alien terrorists, but not for citizens? Is that what I hear the Great Hypocrite saying?
I visit Sound Politics to hear it directly from the Horse's Mouth; if I want to hear it from the other side I go to HA.
Posted by: swatter on October 9, 2006 02:13 PM
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.... (-:
PS... Goldie, your still a jerk.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 9, 2006 02:18 PMMy word, the guy has the ability being from the Times to get access on any issue from any of the reporters. So, instead, here he is with a madon against McGavick, and now Stefan and Eric.
I think the guy is done with blogging and needs to go back to his cubbyhole and write dumb articles. So much promise he had, but now, he is hopeless.
Posted by: swatter on October 9, 2006 03:10 PMWell first, we were raised on "hooked on Phonics".
Number two we know that the liberals lie, so the only thing a conservative can do is spell check your posts, because the rest is hot air.
Number three, we actually have something interesting to say, and we don't pick apart another with dribble about each other's spelling. It is the content that matters.
Thats why Sparky.
Posted by: chris on October 9, 2006 05:50 PMInquiring minds and all that...
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 9, 2006 06:15 PMThat's the sound I just heard of Stefan landing lots of blows against the shrieking leftist malcontents over at Blatherwatch, who apparently don't major in the facts and have no interest in doing so. Way to go, Stefan! We're in your corner and we appreciate everything you do and glad to see you put the facts out there so everyone can see what a farce that Blatherwatch site is.
Posted by: Michele on October 9, 2006 07:42 PMHis obsession with talk radio is clearly indicative of someone who wishes they had a louder voice than that offreed by his blog and its 20 or so moonbat readers.
He is the very definition of a loser. "I can't accomplish anything on my own, so I'll try to tear down those who have accomplished so much more than I."
But then again, that attitude is what being progressive is all about. Hood is a miserable, friendless, lost soul.
Some people over here could stand to learn to not be so idelogical (as Blatherwatch is) except toward the right - which will be easier after the elections are over. I will say that SP is more objective and truthful than Blatherwatch and HA combined and also more civil toward the trolls (i.e. leftist ideologue).
Posted by: KS on October 9, 2006 10:03 PMMeanwhile, I'll take every assertion you've just made with a grain of salt until I have my own independent verification to the contrary.
Works both ways.
Posted by: Daniel K on October 10, 2006 12:06 AMIf Goldy would have found dirt on McGavick similar to the way that Stefan did, Blatherwatch and Horses pitut.org would have applauded and ran with it and thought nothing of the mudslinging - they would claim that it is for the greater good (greater good means its all about us winning). So don't try and claim moral superiority because noone will believe your BS.
Posted by: KS on October 10, 2006 06:53 PM