Links and Minifeatures 10 17 Wednesday

Remember that I promised an apology if it turned out there was credible evidence that the Columbia Noose incident wasn't a put up job? Remember that I also predicted it would fall down the memory hole if evidence surfaced that it was? I've been trying to follow developments, and there just isn't much.

Truthfully, there's not much direct evidence either way, yet. But they're sure de-empasizing the story. I had to dig a bit with search to find anything new

Videos offer no leads yet in Columbia University noose case is only circumstantial.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said detectives have reviewed the footage from three of the six video cameras installed around Prof. Madonna Constantine's office at Teachers College.

Columbia had stonewalled the NYPD for days. The tapes were turned over to investigators only on Thursday - two days after the noose was found - after the NYPD obtained a subpoena, Kelly noted with annoyance.

"We do this all the time - we get videotape all the time from the scenes of crimes," Kelly said. "I think [Columbia] had a very broad interpretation of the law, and we need a common-sense standard here."

Precisely what I'd expect if the school had discovered -or had reason to suspect - a put up.

Meanwhile, Assemblyman Joseph Lentol (D-Brooklyn) said he will introduce legislation to make displaying a noose a felony akin to showcasing a burning cross or a swastika. "I think it is high time that the law recognizes the racial and historic hatred that a noose symbolizes," Lentol said.

I'd say that's definitely going too far. Mind you, I do think we should probably thank the racists who would actually display such for informing the rest of us normal folks that they're scum. Such a ban, however, would likely be overturned on freedom of speech grounds, making it a wasted effort, and grandstanding besides.

Noose incident haunts Columbia University recruiting

And if it was a put-up job?

That and half a dozen articles where grandstanding politicians want to criminalize tying nooses were all I could find that were new. The police have now had over five days - 120 hours - to review 56 hours of videotape from 6 cameras, according to the article. If it were as important as they were saying last Tuesday, wouldn't it be done already?

Soldier's mom finds Silly String shipper

The soldiers use it to find tripwires and other deadly stuff. According to the military, they have less need for it now than formerly. Nonetheless, wouldn't you want your favorite soldier or marine to have it available? I'd rather my least favorite soldier or marine have it available!

The Legacy Media really will go to just about any lengths to report bad news in Iraq, and avoid good. They'll even try to put a bad spin on good news. Case in point: As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch

Ever meet someone who just would not admit you had won? President Bush has met thousands, if not millions. Reading the article, I got the distinct impression it was the result of an editorial roundtable trying to figure a way to spin it in a way detrimental to the president.

Bill Shielding Reporters Passes House; Senate Obstacles, Veto Threat Ahead

I'm against shield laws. California has one; it may not be the worst mistake our state has made but it certainly isn't the least.

Suppose I'm a media source (actually, I am a media source, within what I understand the limits of our state law are. Not that I have any desire to test this).

Further suppose, just suppose, that I don't like someone. Just suppose that, like CBS News and Reuters and World Net Daily, among others, I'm willing to publish stuff that may not stand up to investigation. Well, no problem! I just say that I got it from "confidential sources," and there effectively is no investigation. All the questions stop with me. Other organizations may investigate and come to opposing conclusions. But if I've got a million readers (I don't), that's a million people that heard my version first, and got that locked in their head. By the time contradictory facts emerge, the spotlight has moved. Anywhere from 300,000 to 700,000 of my million readers decide they like my version better ("truthiness" they call it), no matter how much contradictory evidence there may be. Pravda Accomplished.

Accountability is for everyone. Not just the government, but for those who claim to monitor it, and those who claim to report "news" as well. An accusation from someone who is unwilling to have their name published - so that they can be held accountable - is not grounds to believe it's true. It definitely isn't grounds to publish.

What it is, is grounds to investigate. But if when you do the investigation, you can't come up with hard facts - real records in government custody where they're supposed to be (FOIA, anyone?), eyewitnesses and/or experts who are willing to put their names forward and their credibility on the line, that sort of thing - you have nothing. Wishful thinking, if you happen to agree with it, vile slander if you don't. In either case, the people putting it out should be held accountable by their audience.

Making stuff up seems to be a skill most people acquire in early childhood. It's easy to make stuff up. It's even easy to make it internally consistent. If someone had gotten their old typewriter out of the garage to generate the false Texas Air National Guard Documents in 2004 instead of firing up Word and printing it on a laser printer, John Kerry might be President today (shudder!). It does the perpetrators of that hoax intense discredit, and the same applies to all of the news organizations that published the allegations as fact without cross-checking them with eyewitnesses and public records.

Once you have confirming facts, then you can report the confirming facts. At that point, nobody cares who gave the initial tip or who put you onto the story. It's not important. You have records, eyewitness testimony, etcetera. You have the shield of facts in your possession, and that's the only shield a good journalist needs.