Karl’s Folly

Here’s the media matters rundown on how veteran journalists are reacting to Jonathan Karl’s exploits last week:

The slippery language Karl and ABC News adopted in describing the emails has drawn fire from media ethicists and veteran journalists.

At best, it’s extremely sloppy. At worst, it’s a deliberate attempt to conceal the secondhand — and possibly distorted — nature of the information ABC was relying on so as to put its shoulder to the wheel of a highly prejudicial reading of the affair,” said Edward Wasserman, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, and a Miami Herald columnist. “Whether best or worst is true, it’s highly problematic ethically, and the failure to acknowledge and correct is even worse.

Tim McGuire, journalism professor at Arizona State University and former president of the American Society of News Editors, criticized Karl for failing to adhere to basic standards of ethics.

If the ethical journalist is dedicated to transparency Mr. Karl seems to have failed that standard,” he said in an email. “The Benghazi story raises such trust issues anyway it seems to me all the details of what Mr. Karl saw are crucial to both sides.”

Tom Fiedler, dean of the Boston University College of Communication and former Miami Herald executive editor, said Karl’s report “cries out for a correction.”

“Karl was sloppy – or being deliberately ambiguous – about these e-mails to enhance the ‘exclusive’ he claimed to have,” Fiedler said. “Most important here is whether the ‘summaries’ of the e-mails cast a different light on the event than the e-mails themselves.”

Fiedler said that Karl’s reporting has suffered from its inconsistent and at times false descriptions of what he had reviewed.

“At minimum, Karl should have acknowledged on the air and in his on-line postings that he had only seen (or had read to him) summaries, and that he couldn’t say whether those summaries were in context of the original e-mails,” he added. “This caveat is no small thing as Karl could well have left himself vulnerable to being used for political purposes.”

Kevin Smith, chair of the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethics committee, called it “inaccurate reporting.”

“I don’t understand how you can claim to have the emails but then backtrack and say you were quoting from summaries,” he said. “What was the fact when you initially reported – had the emails or summaries? Were you trumping up the story? Did you know the difference and if you did, why did you misrepresent? In the end I’d say there is a serious credibility issue with ABC’s reporting on this issue.”

So how has Karl reacted? By giving you, me, and everyone else the middle finger:

Jonathan Karl, chief White House correspondent for ABC News, addressed criticism of his reporting on the Benghazi talking points controversy, saying in a statement to CNN that he regrets the inaccuracy of his report.

“Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I should have been clearer about the attribution. We updated our story immediately,” he said in the statement to Howard Kurtz, host of CNN’s “Reliable Sources.”

I guess when it is someone as ethically challenged as Howard Kurtz holding your feet to the fire, you probably just think you can tell people to piss off and be done with the whole matter.

What happened is clear. Karl lied to us because he trusted his source. His source, however, burned him, and Karl’s lie was exposed. Instead of burning his source to show that he takes this matter seriously and won’t be lied to again, he is doubling down and protecting his source, because as we all know with our current media, access is more important to accuracy.

If the editors at ABC News had any damned integrity, Karl would be forced to expose his source, apologize, and then take a couple weeks off. Maybe some summer school ethics course.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

81 replies
  1. 1
    Svensker says:

    If the editors are ABC News had any damned integrity

    Just re-read that a couple of times.

  2. 2
    WereBear says:

    Exposing his source would make him look like even more of a hack than he is now. Better to burn the reporter; the woods are full of them!

  3. 3
    👽 Martin says:

    Karl is a Republican. He’s made that perfectly clear over and over again. What does everyone expect here? Of course he didn’t fail – the system failed him. He’s the real victim, you see.

  4. 4
    TG Chicago says:

    …with our current media, access is more important [than] accuracy.

    I like this line. Pithy and catchy.

  5. 5
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Anya yesterday remembered this FAIR report on Jonathan Karl. He has a history. Because the continued popularity and respect shown to the should-be-legendary incompetent Condoleeza Rice is a particular hobbyhorse of mine, here’s the part I want to quote

    After moving to ABC in 2003, Karl contributed several pieces to the neo-con Weekly Standard, such as his April 4, 2005 article praising Bush Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as out to “make her mark with the vigorous pursuit of the president’s freedom and democracy agenda.”

    I’ll be pleasantly surprised if Karl or ABC feel compelled to do more than issue a couple more “We’re sorry if you think we did something wrong” press releases. One of the funny parts of the AP story is the MSM’s righteous indignation that Obama for some reason seems to hold them in minimum high regard

  6. 6
    hildebrand says:

    Two bits says he will be working for Fox within three months.

  7. 7
    scav says:

    Things that work / hold true dispite crumbling / disproved evidence:
    • Reinhart and Rogoff economics
    • The Laffer curve
    • . . .

    ETA: “work” clearly to be intoned in that Rebublican manner. The evidence is corrupt, the theory is self-eidently correct. that sort of professial mien.

  8. 8
    Shalimar says:

    What happened is clear. Karl lied to us because he trusted his source. His source, however, burned him, and Karl’s lie was exposed. Instead of burning his source to show that he takes this matter seriously and won’t be lied to again, he is doubling down and protecting his source, because as we all know with our current media, access is more important to accuracy.

    Your interpretation. To me, Karl is saying he was a willing partner to the lie. “Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands.” That doesn’t sound like someone who was burned, it sounds like someone who doesn’t give a damn that his entire story was 180 degrees opposite the truth.

  9. 9
    c u n d gulag says:

    If he’s not fired, at the very least, he should be made, as a continuation of his employment, to let everyone know who was his “source” for this BS!

    That person’s not a “source” – that was a person with a clear agenda.
    And if I was a journalist, I’d be demanding to know, so that if this “source” told ME something, I’d know that I’d need some independent verification on whatever I was told.

    And the only reason s/he was “caught,” and the BS revealed, is that the White House released the e-mails – something that that person with a clear agenda didn’t see ever happening, probably because HIS/HER side would NEVER in a million years, release anything like that!

  10. 10

    The GOP once again turns perception into reality. They’ve said for years that the MSM is useless, and with their help, it has become exactly so.

  11. 11
    👽 Martin says:

    @c u n d gulag:

    That person’s not a “source” – that was a person with a clear agenda.

    But Karl is a person with a clear agenda. That’s not hard to discern over his career. This is not atypical for him. This has been his career – it’s only that he got caught this time.

  12. 12
    scav says:

    Ignore Any Reality Before the Curtain! The Invisible Source Speaks Truth and The Invisible Hand Does No Wrong!

  13. 13
    TAPX486 says:

    First of all the story does not ‘still stand’. The full set of e-mails disproved his version of the documents.

    Second he doesn’t even have the gonads to appear with Howie and make his ‘sorta kinda but not really’ apology in person.

    He is definitely destined for bigger and better things at Faux news or maybe he could be The Saga from Wasilla’s press spokesman.

  14. 14
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    I’ve come to see almost all journos in the emmessem as Dung Beetles rolling up their balls of shit.

  15. 15
    Suffern ACE says:

    I wonder if Karl is the sort who thinks this is just like Watergate in that those nasty reporters spun tales about that honest Mr. Nixon. I wouldn’t actually put it past Nixon to pop out for a moment to claim “yeah. This is Nixonian”.

  16. 16
    the Conster says:

    The critics of Karl are making a category error by criticizing his journalism. What he’s doing is ratfucking, and what he’s accomplished is what he intended to do all along which is why he has no shame about it. An actual journalist would act completely differently.

  17. 17
    JWL says:

    Integrity at ABC News?

    It was owned by a different corporation in 1980, but Lest We Forget: George Will helped Ronald Reagan prepare for a debate with Jimmy Carter during the 1980 campaign. Neglecting to mention that salient fact, he on to laud Reagan as having turned in a “thoroughbred performance” on ABC’s Sunday morning talk show.

    He wasn’t fired, and has remained a fixture on that wank fest for 33 years.

  18. 18
    c u n d gulag says:

    @👽 Martin: Good point!!!

  19. 19
    Corner Stone says:

    @JWL: “Path to 9/11”
    Enough said.

  20. 20
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @JWL: I remember seeing GWill on CSPAN in the late 90s and someone called in and asked him how he could stand working with that deranged Clinton-lover Sam Donaldson, GWill solemnly informed the caller that he knew no one who felt more strongly than Donaldson that Clinton should have been convicted and removed from office. The third stooge on ABC’s flagship political show back then was Cokie Roberts, one of the professional Beltway Catholics (Russert, Tweety) who were traumatised by thoughts of the Clenis.

  21. 21
    Mudge says:

    The more I read about this, especially Karl’s deep roots in Republican circles, the more I think that Karl might be directly involved in the production of the “summaries”. Complicit. Thus he cannot name a source, the source would out Karl as the author.

  22. 22
    drouse says:

    Interesting thing up over at Digby’s. Call it a bit of context.
    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com.....keefe.html

  23. 23
    scav says:

    And Karl, an interesting turning point in the fairy tale is when people stopped reacting to the invisible and oft-threatened wolf and noticed it was always the same individual yelling about it. Beware of becoming the story. Especially as this lot of pirahas loves mob action, are hungry post-election and can get worked up over not much at all. There’s professional courtesy and there’s being so clumsy as to be the bleeding hammerhead in the local feeding frenzy.

  24. 24
    WereBear says:

    @c u n d gulag: And the only reason s/he was “caught,” and the BS revealed, is that the White House released the e-mails – something that that person with a clear agenda didn’t see ever happening, probably because HIS/HER side would NEVER in a million years, release anything like that!

    I’m finding that worthy of a “well played!” or am I the only one?

  25. 25
    TAPX486 says:

    Karl is probably the least of our worries. We have congresscitters who over the past week have said
    1. Obama’s administration is run by the Muslim Brotherhood – louie from texas
    2. Obama’s foreign policy will encourage another Hitler (or maybe the same one he wasn’t quite clear) to invade Poland – Sen. Grassley
    3. Based on some information that he read somewhere but doesn’t remember where, Obama is working with foreign elites to destroy the constitution – Rand Paul
    4. The IRS will deny medical coverage to conservatives – the ever enlightened Michelle Bachmann.
    and just to prove that #3 wasn’t just a slip of the tongue
    5. he has heard, but can’t produce the document, that the Obama administration and the IRS have a written policy to target conservatives – the ever popular Rand Paul.

    Maybe If I go to sleep for 20 years all of this will pass.

    It’s bad enough when you have idiot talk show host suggesting that Hillary be shot in the vagina because she is personally responsible for the deaths of the members of seal team six (seems the ben laden raid never happened and they had to shut the seals up) . But when you have numerous members of congress spouting the same type on nonsense it puts the ability of the country to govern itself at risk.

  26. 26
    RSA says:

    Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly…

    Mistakes were made.

  27. 27
    I, Floridian says:

    Well, he does have a storyline to push, after all.

  28. 28
    👽 Martin says:

    @WereBear: Well, this isn’t unusual for this administration. They do turn over a lot of documents, at least outside a handful of contexts (drones most notably). So, I don’t think this was anything exceptional other than a bit of the GOP believing their own propaganda again.

  29. 29
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    The only reason I can think of for Karl’s not being censured by his employer for this is that ABC wants to grab some of that sweet Faux News audience. ABC knew Karl’s predilections when they hired him.

  30. 30
    Mike in NC says:

    @JWL: @Corner Stone:

    Integrity at ABC News?

    Also, too: Diane Sawyer, who first landed in the Village on the payroll of Tricky Dick Nixon.

  31. 31
    scav says:

    @TAPX486: well, that might be chalked up as a more vocal and slapstick form of deadlock, and they’ve long played at that game. More worrying from a governance stanpoint might be the chaos at the OH IRS. But other bureaucracies seem to getting a bit of their mojo back.

  32. 32
    Roger Moore says:

    @hildebrand:

    Two bits says he will be working for Fox within three months.

    I’ll take you up on that. There seems to be an incorrect assumption that only Fox is dedicated to serving the Republicans, so anyone who does so will inevitable wind up there. This is wrong; just about every branch of the media is willing to carry the Republicans’ water, so there’s no need to leave his current digs. Equally important, he’s likely to have helped his reputation more by going for the scoop than hurt it by being used. That’s just the way the reporting business is these days.

  33. 33
    Anya says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: I’ll be pleasantly surprised if Karl or ABC feel compelled to do more than issue a couple more “We’re sorry if you think we did something wrong” press releases. It’s ABC’s funeral then. Every time they have another hit piece against dems, everyone should remind them of this episode. But best of all Karl cannot grandstand anymore during the white house press briefings.

  34. 34
    belieber says:

    Yawn, until he is fired all this hot air is just a bunch of journalists masturbating.

    Of course if he was fired Fox or buzzfeed or politico would immediately give him some token gig but that’s besides the point. A good old fashioned firing or “decided to spend more time with his family” is the only message these people understand.

  35. 35
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate: Oh I think they’ve got quite a bit of it already. Also their motivations in catapulting the propaganda are not dissimilar to FOX’s. Getting viewers is only part of it, spreading the right wing gospel is at least as important.

    NB: What Roger Moore said.

  36. 36
    catclub says:

    Frist post with “Blogger ethics panel.!”

  37. 37
    debbie says:

    Not a peep from George this morning about his compadre.

  38. 38
    Felonius Monk says:

    It’s time for Karl and a few thousand other media wannabees to take their destined places in the country’s Used Car lots and Real Estate offices where they really belong.

  39. 39
    MomSense says:

    @TAPX486:

    As long as you don’t live too close to the ocean–or you might wake up under water.

    I nominate the fact that the media are not adequately covering climate change for the real scandal list.

  40. 40
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    @debbie: George “Does Reverend Wright love America as much as you do” Stephanopoulos? Shocking.

  41. 41
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @Felonius Monk:

    You’re being too kind. They should take their places in the world of minimum wage part-time jobs that they are helping to advance.

  42. 42
    Roger Moore says:

    @👽 Martin:
    This is the advantage of being innocent. The Obama administration can say they’re innocent and cooperate with Congress secure in the knowledge that the facts back them up. If the Republicans investigate honestly, the administration will be cleared. If the Republicans behave dishonestly, the administration can wait for them to commit themselves and then release documents that prove their dishonesty. It’s more about giving the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves than playing 11D chess, but it’s still a good solid strategy.

  43. 43
    Wapiti says:

    If Karl doesn’t burn his source, it might be because he doesn’t have a source. Given his history, who can tell that he didn’t just make up the story out of whole cloth?

  44. 44
    Roger Moore says:

    @Felonius Monk:

    It’s time for Karl and a few thousand other media wannabees to take their destined places in the country’s Used Car lots and Real Estate offices where they really belong in front of the wall.

    FTFY.

  45. 45
    Thirty Twice says:

    The White House needs to apply the pressure. Pull his credentials. Karl has stopped reporting and become an advocate. Burn him.

  46. 46
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @Thirty Twice:

    Umm, no. The ensuing shrieks of “White House Silences Critics!” would deafen half of America.

  47. 47
    Ruckus says:

    Integrity at not just ABC but integrity at any major news outlets. Unless another news outlet sees a profit motive they will not complain much if at all, for that might affect their access. Besides they are all just chasing their own and each others tails anyway. Otherwise we would have huge outcries on West, TX, and people shooting each other. But those are just local stories, only interesting for the people directly affected. News companies are run by the same kind of people that run other large corps, they are addicted to money at the cost of what we used to call their souls, or in plain language, their ability to see anything as the center of the universe other than themselves. I used to say they thought the stick up their ass was the axis of the earth.

  48. 48
    mouse tolliver says:

    As Joan Walsh noted over at Salon, the fact that the GOP was peddling doctored emails to multiple reporters is a scandal all by itself, and the media should be all over it. The last time a GOP staffer pulled this kind of crap, he was fired. And that staffer just happened to be David Bossie, the man behind Citizen’s United, which was the direct cause of IRS-gate.

  49. 49
    R. Porrofatto says:

    Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly…

    Quoting a statement incorrectly means you accidentally shuffled a few words around or left one or two out by mistake. Adding words that completely change the meaning of the text is in no way “quoting.” What Karl means is “I regret that the White House released the original email because it showed how the email I reported was clearly doctored and fraudulent.”

    Remember how Dan Rather was accused of inventing the Bush AWOL story? Maybe Karl wrote this one himself.

  50. 50

    Martin, Jim F.L., and shalimar have it. It’s not that “Karl could well have left himself vulnerable to being used for political purposes”, it’s that Karl’s function is to help the Republican Party.

    Maybe he didn’t care whether his emails were accurate; maybe he fabricated the quotes himself. Either way, he was doing what he’s paid to do. Who ever said factual accurafcy was relevant?

  51. 51
    MattR says:

    @Mudge: Karl had to have a source to give him a general description of what was in the emails, but it wouldn’t shock me at all to discover that the source of the specific “State Department” references in Karl’s story was Karl himself.

    (EDIT: After a few moments reflection, I don’t think this can be true since Major Garrett at CBS has reported that GOP operatives had been shopping these emails to various news outlets)

  52. 52
    MattR says:

    @mouse tolliver: I found the tail end of that Salon article very interesting for the history it provides.

    Speaking of the Sunday shows, I can’t believe nobody asked what the House GOP was doing to get to the bottom of the scandal of who released the doctored White House email to Karl, Garrett and other reporters. As Alex Seitz-Wald reported Friday, back in 1998, when a House GOP staffer was revealed to have selectively (and misleadingly) leaked testimony from former White House counsel Webb Hubbell, that staffer was fired, with even former Speaker Newt Gingrich railing against the abuse.

    That disgraced House staffer, by the way, was David Bossie, who went on to head Citizens United, which unleashed a flood of ugly dark money – and also helped produce the IRS scandal that is currently eclipsing Benghazi in Scandalgate. Nicely played, Republicans – always and ever abetted by the mainstream media.

  53. 53
    TAPX486 says:

    @MomSense: Planning ahead. I currently live far enough from the ocean that I have that future beachfront property all ready line up:-)

  54. 54
    Thirty Twice says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate:
    Let ’em howl, says I. Mind you, I don’t expect it to happen, but any administration with a stomach for a winning fight would.

  55. 55
    👽 Martin says:

    @Roger Moore: True, but at least in this case, they turned over the documents to disprove Karl months ago. In this case it’s probably more true that the GOP simply figured they’d gotten the virus out into the community and any efforts later to educate the public would fail. That Jake Tapper jumped on it so quickly spoiled that plan. I don’t give Tapper too much credit here – it was an opportunity to burn a competitor and give themselves a story – and this situation is very much the exception to what normally happens. Remember the public outcry that everything surrounding Acorn was fabricated and that Congress killed a non-profit out of partisan fraud? Yeah, I seemed to have missed it as well.

  56. 56
    👽 Martin says:

    @mouse tolliver:

    and the media should be all over it.

    The GOP has been doing this since Nixon. It was reported in 1973. Nobody cared then.

  57. 57
    mouse tolliver says:

    @Bill E Pilgrim: Also, too. This would be the same George Stephanopoulos who asked Obama a Bil Ayers question during a Democratic presidential debate because his friend Sean Hannity asked him to. This was an ABC News debate that focused exclusively on Fox News nonsense like flag lapel pins. It was so bad the they got booed when the debate was over.

  58. 58
    Karen in GA (who really needs a better name) says:

    I’m trying to find it — I’d swear Karl is the schmuck who one referred to Kim Jong-Il as “Kim Jong the Second.”

  59. 59
    Karen in GA (who really needs a better name) says:

    I’m trying to find it — I’d swear Karl is the schmuck who one referred to Kim Jong-Il as “Kim Jong the Second.”

  60. 60
    Karen in GA (who really needs a better name) says:

    P.S. FYWP.

  61. 61
    EthylEster says:

    From the post: …

    .it’s a deliberate attempt to conceal the secondhand — and possibly distorted — nature of the information ABC was relying on so as to put its shoulder to the wheel of a highly prejudicial reading of the affair,” said Edward Wasserman, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism

    Hey, Mr. Big Shot Dean, you write crappy!

  62. 62
    Chickamin Slam says:

    I think Tunch would do a better job of reporting. If worse came to worse he could just knock over something during the interview.

  63. 63
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @Karen in GA (who really needs a better name):

    That was Rick Perry, in a 2011 press release.

  64. 64
    Keith says:

    Shorter Jonathan Karl: “I was proved fucking right”

  65. 65
    kindness says:

    Karl had to know he was getting played by the Republican that gave him the data. The e-mails had all been entered into the Committee Record 2-3 months ago. No way Karl thought something that big was out there and hadn’t already been played up.

    No, Karl was a willing pawn in the continuing efforts to sink the Obama Administration by the usual Republican Illiterati.

  66. 66
    Patricia Kayden says:

    Reporters like Karl are why many people do not care about the AP “scandal”.

  67. 67
    Kathleen says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate: That would be a great reality show. Pundits/”Reporters” being forced to provide an “value added” outcome to a customer.

  68. 68
    Patricia Kayden says:

    @hildebrand: That would be fine. All stupid journalists need to move to one station and Faux Noise fits the bill nicely.

  69. 69
    grandpajohn says:

    Actually if the editors at ABC had any integrity, they never would have hired his republican shill ass. if you read his background he has never been a reporter, he is a shill pure and simple for the repubs.

  70. 70
    oaguabonita says:

    @Ruckus: “I used to say they thought the stick up their ass was the axis of the earth.”

    Why did you stop? That’s a great line (count on me to steal it!) — especially for its accuracy.

  71. 71
    grandpajohn says:

    @Thirty Twice: Actually he has never been a reporter and has always been an advocate . read his history

  72. 72
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    I think Karl weighed the options and chose to protect his career because it’s more than likely that his source is not some low-level Republican operative. If it was someone that he could have blown the cover of to make his lies look better then I think he would have done it in a heartbeat.

    Power and access is everything to a conservative writer, lies are just a part of the job.

  73. 73
    mere mortal says:

    Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I should have been clearer about the attribution.

    This actually makes a tiny bit of sense. At least I can see a scenario where the spoon-feeding source is trying to walk the dim-witted reporter through the implications of the quotes, emphasizing the parties who the source wants to take blame. This scenario relies upon the dim-witted reporter thinking he is being read (or sent) a verbatim reproduction when he is really getting the Cliff’s Notes interpretation as value-added.

    That’s the only scenario where this epically humiliating course of events could save the dim-witted reporter’s job while at the same time make that reporter unwilling to burn the source who usually so helpfully spoon feeds him inside information.

    Aside from a completely debased media (yeah, yeah), that confusion on the part of the dimwit is the only vector that can save the identity of the source that otherwise should be burned.

  74. 74
    mere mortal says:

    “Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly”

    Passive tense weasel words, and not even grammatically correct. A dim-witted reporter indeed.

  75. 75
    LosGatosCA says:

    I think the posters here are clearly insensitive to the fact that if Karl burns his source it’s unlikely will share any misinformation going forward.

    That would be tragic for everyone. The free flow of misinformation is vital to continued governance by your betters. Try to remember that in the future.

  76. 76
    oaguabonita says:

    @LosGatosCA: “I think the posters here are clearly insensitive to the fact that if Karl burns his source it’s unlikely will share any misinformation going forward.

    That would be tragic for everyone. The free flow of misinformation is vital to continued governance by your betters. Try to remember that in the future.”

    Excellent. If I could see a way to uprate this post, I would.

  77. 77
    Cacti says:

    ABC = Always Be Conservative

  78. 78
    Arundel says:

    People have mentioned the political right-leanings of ABC News in the past; here’s another one. I’ve read that the program Nightline was started at least in part to embarrass President Carter during the Iran Hostage crisis. “It’s now day 43 of the Americans being held hostage in Teheran”.. every night they would report on it- and it was obviously a big story, but it was relentless how they tallied the number of days, every single night. “It’s now Day 67..” on and on. Just a daily drumbeat at what was presented as Carter’s “failure” and a not-so-subtle advocacy of Reagan for the upcoming election. Knowing what we know NOW about why the hostages were kept until the minute Reagan was sworn in– well, it just blows my mind.

  79. 79
    sm*t cl*de says:

    the email was quoted incorrectly

    I regret that the passive voice was used.

  80. 80

    […] Cole explains the big news – the way ABC News got played by ‘sources’. Like many marks, Jonathan Karl still doesn’t want to admit he and ABC got […]

  81. 81
    derek says:

    What needs to be taken note of in this whole Jonathan Karl brouhaha is that he is, in the words of FAIR, “A Right Wing Mole” [see http://fair.org/extra-online-a.....c-news/%5D
    See also what Digby says about him here: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com.....keefe.html. Given this, we should not be surprised at what he wrote nor at his failure to admit his errors. As Digby says, “Karl’s history does suggest that he’s tied in with the conservative network in DC, which means that his reasons for not exposing his source may very well be personal. I’d guess they all know a lot of things about each other. It would be risky.”

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Cole explains the big news – the way ABC News got played by ‘sources’. Like many marks, Jonathan Karl still doesn’t want to admit he and ABC got […]

Comments are closed.