March 24, 2008

BlumerNetDaily, Part 1

Filed under: News from Other Sites,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 8:41 am

NOTE: The two BlumerNetDaily posts will stay at the top for the rest of the business day.

UPDATE: For the benefit of WND, I am labeling portions of the text of Parts 1 and 2 for “material lifting,” “link hogging,” and “credit grabbing.” I am not claiming that the items labeled necessarily represent all relevant instances, or that the instances cited have necessarily been fully described.

UPDATE 2: Apparently, WND needs help distinguishing between “opinion,” “assertion,” and “speculation,” so I am providing them further assistance in that regard.


OVERVIEW (opinion): I am outraged, and totally out of patience, at the brazen lifting of material, link hogging, and credit grabbing that is been going on for days at WorldNetDaily — based largely on material originally posted at BizzyBlog.

This is the first of two parts. Part 2 is here.


(opinion) When WorldNetDaily (WND) reporter Aaron Klein did a March 20 story about the Rev. James A. Wright’s publication of a Hamas-authored op-ed in the weekly bulletin of his Trinity United Church of Christ, the new information that justified the story’s existence came from this BizzyBlog post (“TUCC’s Church Bulletins from July 2007 Probably Make Whether Obama Was Present on July 22 Irrelevant”).

(assertion) At that post, yours truly broke information that no one else had about the specific content of a full month of TUCC bulletins, and gave a general description of the “tone and tenor” (to quote Barack Obama) of the almost 100 other issues of the bulletin I had obtained.

(opinion) What I brought forth correctly fits the definition of “exclusive” (item 13; “a piece of news, or the reporting of a piece of news, obtained by a newspaper or other news organization, along with the privilege of using it first”).

(opinion, based on the definition of “exclusive”) Despite the real source of the relevant reportage, WND passed off, and is still passing off, Klein’s story as an “Exclusive” (credit grabbing). I am given to understand, in the doublespeak of the self-styled “Free Press For A Free People,” that an “exclusive” can be any article, regardless of its originality or lack thereof, that appears only at WND.

(opinion) That’s complete horse manure.

(assertion) In his story, posted on Thursday at 12:45 ET, Klein originally linked to the graphic of the bulletin instead to the BizzyBlog post containing that graphic (in my opinion, link hogging). (speculation) I do not know whether he got the URL for the graphic directly from elsewhere and didn’t bother to look for the original post (bad enough), or whether he went to the post and decided to link only to the graphic (much worse).

(assertion) I became aware of Klein’s article and the linkage issue when Debbie Schlussel very proactively contacted me about the situation. I am grateful for her proactivity.

(assertion) I e-mailed Klein, who (opinion) seemed accommodating enough. (speculation with assertion) If Klein was accurate in the estimate he communicated to me, the link was fixed so that it would point to the BizzyBlog post roughly 15 hours after his article originally went up.

(assertion) But in the intervening time, dozens of bloggers, including a couple of very big names, had already linked to the WND article, carrying only the picture link at their site. (assertion of an estimate) I very conservatively estimate that I have lost 5,000 hits, both from WND itself and others, that should have gone to the post but instead went to the graphic. (opinion) The move by WND denied BizzyBlog quite a bit of exposure it should have received — and the damage continues, though at a lower level (consequences of link hogging).

(assertion of another person’s stated opinion) Schlussel, a former WND columnist who has apparently had many similar past experiences, posted on their credit grab Thursday evening, calling what had occurred “Nauseating–but par for the course.”

(assertion) I was advised by a very wise gentleman that I should be patient with WND, that they do good and important work, etc. etc. I appreciate his still-wise counsel, and, based on the facts at the time of our e-mail exchange, I was going to let the situation just described ride.

(assertion) But it’s gotten worse, and I’m not going to do the doormat thing (opinion) for actions as blatant as those I will describe in this post, and this one that follows.


(assertion) First, there’s this article from Saturday’s WND:


(assertion) The good news is that WND acknowledged the original source (and yes, it got the link right).

(assertion) The first piece of bad news is that WND was so sloppy that readers of the referenced article above are going to believe that the BizzyBlog post went up on Friday, March 22 (“today”), and not Monday, March 17.

(opinion) The worse piece of bad news is that WND is pretending that it is THE SOLE REASON for the statement Obama issued on Friday! (credit grabbing)

(opinion) What, unmitigated, gall:

  • (assertion) The BizzyBlog post with the reference to the church bulletin went up on Monday, March 17, just before 5 PM.
  • (assertion) Michelle Malkin noted the post in a before-noon March 18 entry.
  • (assertion) Little Green Footballs was, as far as I can tell, the first “heavyweight” to link to the story with a direct reference to the July 22 bulletin carrying a reprint of a column, originally carried in the LA Times, by a known Hamas terrorist. That occurred late in the afternoon (ET) on Wednesday, March 19.
  • (assertion) An uncounted and probably uncountable number of other blogs picked up the story from there.
  • (opinion) But, if I’m to believe the overbearing Oregonians at WND, it was only after Aaron Klein weighed on Thursday, March 20 at 12:45 PM, that Barack Obama started feeling any kind of pressure to react (credit grabbing, and in essence lifting the material/handiwork of many others by acting as if no prior work other than the BizzyBlog post and graphic existed). Additionally, building on the absurdity, Obama was under sooooo much pressure from WND’s journalistic giants that he responded Friday (link requires registration; alternate link here; BizzyBlog host link here), roughly 12-24 hours later (hard to tell because of time changes) to an Israel-based publication that is little-known in the US. Obama is soooooo worried about WND’s story that, as of late Sunday evening, he had put nothing up in the “News” section of his campaign web site about it — even though the same section of the web site does include Purim-related verbiage that was part of the same missive to that publication.
  • (opinion) My more measured and less grandiose take, posted Friday evening, is that Obama wanted to be able to say, if ever asked, that he condemned the TUCC bulletin giving space to a terrorist, while calling as little attention as possible to the reason why the condemnation was necessary. Clarice Feldman at American Thinker seems to like that explanation.

(opinion) In doing what it did in this instance, WND continues to inveigh readers with the fantasy that if it weren’t for them, the world as we know it would have ended years ago. How hard would it have been to write the following?:

Obama is reacting to information originally revealed at BizzyBlog early last week that was subsequently carried at or referred to at many other blogs. WND’s Aaron Klein also covered the news on Thursday, tieing it back to previous Obama campaign-related stories.

(opinion) Obviously, that would not have been hard at all. But, it would have required the overbearing Oregonians to acknowledge that WND is not the center of the New Media universe.

(opinion) Apparently, they won’t stand for that.


Go to Part 2 for more about the material-lifting, link-hogging, and credit-grabbing WorldNetDaily.


1 Comment

  1. [...] here for details.  Sure puts WND in an extremely bad light.  Something they should consider, in this age [...]

    Pingback by » BizzyBlog Wuz Robbed — March 24, 2008 @ 7:41 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.