October 09, 2006
Michael Hood, serial liar
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 This
Hey, since when do liberal attacks have to be fact-based? This guy is simply taking his que from the Democrat Party that has based its entire success on its ability to convince voters of its lies.
If 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.
So... um... your entire refutation of Michael's expose of Reichert's true role in catching the Green River Killer is simply to say that everything he writes is fiction?
Same 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.
Your argument seems to be thus:
1) He failed at one task over 20 years ago (for whatever reason, you leave unspecified).
2) Thus, he's a bad candidate for a job which vaguely relates now.
You 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, my how we can be such hypocrites, eh HA?
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.
WOW..... all of us who coment on SP and NOW FAMOUS.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.... (-:
PS... Goldie, your still a jerk.
6. Okay, so your argument now is that Michael Hood speculated that Stefan is getting money from the Republicans and therefore he is always a liar. I don't think you guys would do very well under those standards either. And Goldie is not a jerk at all.
I find it interesting that Postman can't drum up his own articles anymore and must resort to blatherwatch and individual comments on SP.
My 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.
8. Of course not david.....he's more of a scum-sucking dog.
9. Why are so many conservatives such shitty spellers?
Well 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.
Why are all
Dhimmicrats such imbeciles?
Inquiring minds and all that...
SMACK! OOF! BAM!! SMACK SMACK!
That'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.
Michael Hood is someone who has never amounted to anything in his life. He is typical of those on the left - while Stefan and the other posters here at SP fulfill their role as watchdogs on government, Hood chooses to go after thos in the media who have opinion that differ from his.
His 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.
14. At least Mr. Hood posts corrections. U(sp) would need a whole other blog if they started to do that.
15. What's his name, jdb/biteme/blowjob?
16. Oh I get it!
He caught Snarky making up crap,(not that hard to do) called him on it. Still doesn't change the fact that Sheriff hairdo uses "greenriver" as much as Bush use 9/11. Must be in the playbook. Talk loudly about your biggest failure, and people won't notice what a FUp you are.
Did they ever convict that Texas woman who almost drowned her baby and caused brain damage?
Or is Barbara Bush still out of jail.
I do not take Blatherwatch serious at all. First off, Hood is a spinmeister who employs circumstancial evidence and is ideological to the left. It is entertaining to read - at times when it talks about talk radio. The only affirmative thing that I can say about Hood's political take is that he believes McDermott is a buffoon ! #14 - Give an example of where Blatherwatch has posted corrections. You are only an occassional SP reader, because SP does post corrections in their updates.
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).
Shark - You ask for "independent verification to the contrary" regarding your viewpoint of Michael Hood's writings. There has already been much written by the Seattle PI about this same matter.
Meanwhile, 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.
19. Now I understand why Goldstein always references Hood. A good source of disinformation is the hallmark of the extreme left. Be it the 9/11 "Truth" movement or Global Warming hysteria, the left enjoys a steady diet of fantasy.
20. Sparky @ #9
Why is it so many liberals are unable to communicate without using foul language?
21. Sparkler @ 9: Ditto! Horrendous spellers...makes my eyes hurt!
J'bo @ 13: IMHO, YOU ARE AN IDIOT! If you were a reader of news or poetry, a connoisseur of fine food, or knew anyone in the labyrinthine circles of Seattle, you would know how ignorant you sound! Oh well, it's Sound Politics...
22. If Reichert is going to base his campaign largely on the Green River case (since he's accomplished nothing in Congress but march in lockstep with the administration) then yes, it's certainly fair game to point out just how miserably he failed. (And it wasn't 20 years ago -- it just took him 20 years before the solution basically fell into his lap, despite his best efforts...)
#18 - If you believe the Seattle PI is a fountain of truth - you are way delusional. One of the better attributes of this blog is that it presents opposing views (and often contradicting facts) to PI stories. We live in a polarized society and it is important to get both sides of the issues.
If 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.
24. Addenda to the last sentence..because noone of rational mind will believe your BS.