8/18/02 10:21:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Now this is interesting...
emperorsclothes1@aol.com wrote:
>From Emperor's Clothes Email List
URL for this article is http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/boycott.htmJoin our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm. Receive articles from Emperor's Clothes Website
www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
=======================================
REUTERS TRIES TO 'DISAPPEAR' THEIR OWN DISPATCH ON FIREFIGHTERS' BOYCOTT!
Letter from a reader and reply by Jared Israel
[Posted 17 August 2002]
=======================================DEAR EMPEROR'S CLOTHES,
Regarding "FIREFIGHTERS VOTE TO BOYCOTT TRIBUTE," at http://emperors-clothes.com/news/no-sale.htm
I can't find the Reuters article that you quoted, the one on angry firemen boycotting Bush, at the Reuters website - ?Instead I found this article which is contradictory to your reprint. It's called "Firefighters to Protest, but Not at Memorial," and it can be read at http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=politicsnews&StoryID=1340893
Among other things, it starts with the statement:
"Dousing what he called rumors and gossip, the head of the biggest U.S. firefighters union declared on Friday that he will not use a memorial service for fallen comrades to protest President Bush for rejecting funding for fire departments."
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Bush... but what's the deal?
Greg S.
Dallas, Texas***
DEAR GREG,
Thanks for the heads-up! Here are a few thoughts.
First, we would *not* justify putting out false information on the grounds that it's anti-Bush or anti-anyone. (Though of course we could make a mistake, etc.)
However, regarding our post of the August 14th Reuters dispatch which asserts that the Firefighters Union voted to boycott the Oct. 6th memorial because Bush planned to attend, we didn't fall for a hoax. Until just an hour ago, you could access the Reuters story at:
Sometime this afternoon that WebPage became unavailable. Now it seems to be available again. If it disappears once more, you can read it at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/archive/freiss.htmYou might want to save the page...
Steve Friess wrote the August 14th Reuters dispatch. Peter Szekely wrote the August 16th Reuters counter-dispatch.
Szekely's replacement attempts to ridicule the idea that the Firefighters ever intended to boycott the Bush event, but it's unconvincing. It unwittingly provides evidence that the firefighters did indeed vote to boycott.
As you noted, Szekely begins the August 16th dispatch by stating that Firefighters Union chief Harold Schaitberger belittled the claim that firefighters voted to boycott the memorial as being based on "rumors and gossip."
Further down Schaitberger is quoted saying:
"'We would never consider taking any action at this memorial or any other memorial," he said. "To suggest that our people would use our own memorial to honor our own -- it's something that could not and would not ever occur.'" [END QUOTE]
If this "could not ever occur" how is it that the Christian Science Monitor, the Ottawa Citizen and the New York Post published accounts, apparently written by journalists who were in Las Vegas, all reporting the boycott? (We'll post a review of those articles on Sunday or Monday.)
In the very next sentences we are told:
"Although Schaitberger acknowledged that some IAFF delegates *may have considered the vote to be an endorsement of a boycott of the memorial service,* he said [the] essence of what was approved became distorted through rumors and gossip."
How many is "some"? Would that be 10%? 50%? Or does "some" really mean everyone who voted for this unanimously passed resolution?
How could "some" delegates think they voted to boycott the memorial if they didn't? Especially if it would be such an extreme act - i.e., "something that could not and would not ever occur."
Wouldn't delegates be attentive if they thought they were voting for something unthinkable?
It's reasonable that people who were not at the convention would misunderstand a resolution due to rumors and gossip.
But how could delegates who were actually there be misled? Why would they rely on rumors and gossip when they could hear the resolution, read out loud and clear?
Was there something odd in the wording that made extreme misunderstanding possible? Something that allowed gossipmongers to fan out and spread rumors to "some" delegates?
If so, why doesn't Szekely quote the content of the resolution so we can see how it could be misrepresented? Doesn't his failure to quote the text suggest that in fact it was *not* misrepresented?
And come to think of it, why doesn't Szekely mention that Reuters own Steve Friess originally wrote that the Firefighters voted to boycott the Oct. 6th event? Indeed, that Friess quoted Mr. Mohler, the delegate who presented the resolution?
If Friess got it wrong, why hasn't Reuters printed a retraction? It's now the evening of August 17th and I just checked the Reuters corrections page. (You can find it by going to the Szekely article (2) and scrolling to the bottom. Then click on "corrections.") As of now I found 26 Reuters corrections for August 16th and 17th. But nothing about firefighters.
If Steve Friess wrote an article (1) stating that something that "could never occur" did occur - and he was wrong - why doesn't Szekely mentioned this? You know, something like, "Our own Steve Friess wrote that...." Followed by "Meanwhile, Firefighters Union chief Harold Schaitberger commented that..." And so on.
Steve Freiss' August 14th dispatch does not sound like rumor and gossip to me. Here's an excerpt:
"Firefighters and survivors will be urged to skip the Oct. 6 event in protest, said R. Michael Mohler of the Virginia Professional Fire Fighters Local 774. Mohler made the boycott motion before about 2,000 union leaders convening in Las Vegas for the IAFF's first national conference since Sept. 11.
"'The president has merely been using firefighters and their families for one big photo opportunity,' Mohler said. 'We will work actively to not grant him another photo op with us.'"
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/archive/freiss.htm[END EXCERPT FROM FRIESS DISPATCH]
How could Mr. Mohler, who actually brought forward the resolution, be mistaken about its contents? Or did Freiss lie about what Mohler said? If Friess lied, or if Mohler was mistaken about his own resolution (quite a trick), why doesn't Reuters, which obviously favors the Szekely account, explain how Friess got it wrong?
The obvious reason they don't is that Freiss did *not* get it wrong!
Freiss' dispatch is specific and factual. By way of contrast, Szekely's August 16th counter-dispatch is general and self-contradictory (see above). It reads like a dishonest piece with a purpose.
Here's what I think happened.
When the story broke, the Firefighters Union leaders came under great pressure, probably including from their Democratic Party allies, to 'correct' the delegates' overly-tough stand.
Once Schaitberger agreed to retreat, Reuters was 'mobilized' to correct their error, i.e., of reporting what had happened. Since Reuters couldn't very well dismiss as rumors and gossip its own writer's *quotes* from Mr. Mohler; and since the dispatch was only used by (at most) a few newspapers, Reuters took the path of least resistance: it eliminated the Friess dispatch. Friess never happened.
By the way, Szekely also doesn't mention that reports similar to the Freiss account appeared in some newspapers. These reports seem to be written by eyewitnesses. More on that in an upcoming article.
Best regards,
Jared Israel
Emperor's Clothes1) For the August 14th Friess article, go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/archive/freiss.htm2) For the August 16th Szekely article, go to http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=politicsnews&StoryID=134
***
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm. Receive articles from Emperor's Clothes Website
Send a link to this article to a friend! Click here or cut and paste the following URL into your browser:
mailto:ENTER FRIEND'S EMAIL ADDRESS HERE?subject=Here's a great article from emperors-clothes.com!&body=I just read the following article which I thought you would find most interesting. Here's the address: http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/boycott.htm
=======================================
EMPEROR'S CLOTHES URGENTLY NEEDS YOUR HELP!
=======================================In order for Emperor's Clothes to continue publishing we urgently need your help. We rely entirely on contributions. Not only are we (again!) behind on all our usual bills (such as rent, paying our computer guru and phone bills) but we also need to pay for the plane fare which allowed Editor Nico Varkevisser to attend a most interesting meeting in Moscow, about which you will be reading shortly.
We do not charge for articles and we do not accept advertising. We're as frugal as possible, but we do have to pay bills. In order to continue publishing, we urgently need the help of our friends.
Please send whatever contributions you can! $20, $50, $100, or more. More would be very helpful, but every penny will be used to get articles to more people.
You can make a donation using PayPal at https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=emperors1000@aol.com&no_shipping=1
You can make a credit card donation by going to our secure server at
http://emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#donateOr Mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. (USA)
Or make a donation by phone at the donation line, (U.S.) 617 916-1705.
Note: If you mail a donation or make one by secure server, please let us know by email at emperors1000@aol.com to make sure we receive it. Thanks!
Thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes.
www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
This Website is mirrored at http://emperor.vwh.net/ and at http://globalresistance.com
ES,
Regarding "FIREFIGHTERS VOTE TO BOYCOTT TRIBUTE" at http://emperors-clothes.com/news/no-sale.htm
I can't find the Reuters article that you quoted, the one on angry firemen boycotting Bush, at the Reuters website - ?
Instead I found this article which is contradictory to your reprint - http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=politicsnews&StoryID=1340893
Among other things, it starts with the statement:
"Dousing what he called rumors and gossip, the head of the biggest U.S. firefighters union declared on Friday that he will not use a memorial service for fallen comrades to protest President Bush for rejecting funding for fire departments."
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Bush... but what's the deal?
Greg S.
Dallas, Texas***
DEAR GREG,
Thanks for the heads-up! Here are a few thoughts.
First, we would *not* justify putting out false information on the grounds that it's anti-Bush or anti-anyone. (Though of course we could make a mistake, etc.)
However, regarding our post of the August 14th Reuters dispatch which asserts that the Firefighters Union voted to boycott the Oct. 6th memorial because Bush planned to attend, we didn't fall for a hoax. Until just an hour ago, you could access the Reuters story at:
Sometime this afternoon that WebPage died or was murdered.
Fortunately we saved it. You can read the August 14th Reuters dispatch, exactly as Yahoo posted it, at:
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/archive/freiss.htm
You might want to save the page...
Steve Friess wrote the August 14th Reuters dispatch. Peter Szekely wrote the August 16th Reuters counter-dispatch.
Szekely's replacement attempts to ridicule the idea that the Firefighters ever intended to boycott the Bush event, but it's unconvincing. The text provides evidence that the August 14th Friess dispatch was accurate.
As you noted, Szekely begins the August 16th dispatch by stating that Firefighters Union chief Harold Schaitberger belittled the claim that firefighters voted to boycott the memorial as being based on "rumors and gossip."
Further down Schaitberger is quoted saying:
"'We would never consider taking any action at this memorial or any other memorial," he said. "To suggest that our people would use our own memorial to honor our own -- it's something that could not and would not ever occur.'" [END QUOTE]
If this "could not ever occur" how is it that the Christian Science Monitor, the Ottawa Citizen and the New York Post published accounts, apparently written by journalists who were in Las Vegas, all reporting the boycott? (I'll be preparing a review of those articles shortly.)
In the very next sentences we are told:
"Although Schaitberger acknowledged that some IAFF delegates *may have considered the vote to be an endorsement of a boycott of the memorial service,* he said [the] essence of what was approved became distorted through rumors and gossip."
How many is "some"? Would that be 10%? 50%? Or does "some" really mean everyone who voted for this unanimously passed resolution?
How could "some" think they voted to boycott the memorial if they didn't? Especially if boycotting a memorial is such an extreme act - i.e., "something that could not and would not ever occur."
Wouldn't delegates pay attention when they were voting for something unthinkable?
It would be easy for people who were not at the Las Vegas convention to misunderstand the essence of a resolution due to rumors and gossip.
But how could that happen to delegates who were actually there during the vote? Why would such delegates rely on rumors and gossip when they heard the resolution, read out loud?
Was there something odd in the wording of the resolution that made such an extreme misunderstanding possible? Something that allowed some individuals to take advantage, fanning out and spreading rumors and gossip to "some" delegates?
If so, why doesn't Szekely quote the content of the resolution so we can see how it was misrepresented? Doesn't his failure to quote the text suggest that in fact it was *not* misrepresented?
And come to think of it, why doesn't Szekely mention that Reuters own Steve Friess originally affirmed that the Firefighters voted to boycott the Oct. 6th event? Not only affirmed it - quoted the delegate who presented the resolution?
If Friess got this wrong, why hasn't Reuters printed a retraction? It's now the evening of August 17th and I just checked Reuters corrections page. (You can find it by going to the Szekely article (2) and scrolling to the bottom. Then click on "corrections.") As of now (this might change) I found 26 Reuters corrections for August 16th and 17th. But nothing about firefighters.
If Steve Friess wrote an article (1) stating that something that couldn't occur did occur - and he was wrong - why isn't this mentioned by Szekely? You know, something like, "Our own Steve Friess wrote that...." Followed by "Meanwhile, Firefighters Union chief Harold Schaitberger commented, "Friess is full of beans. This just did not happen." Or whatever.
Steve Freiss' August 14th dispatch doesn't read like rumor and gossip to me. Here's an excerpt:
"Firefighters and survivors will be urged to skip the Oct. 6 event in protest, said R. Michael Mohler of the Virginia Professional Fire Fighters Local 774. Mohler made the boycott motion before about 2,000 union leaders convening in Las Vegas for the IAFF's first national conference since Sept. 11.
"'The president has merely been using firefighters and their families for one big photo opportunity,' Mohler said. 'We will work actively to not grant him another photo op with us.'"
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/archive/freiss.htm[END EXCERPT FROM FRIESS DISPATCH]
How could Mr. Mohler, who actually made the resolution, be mistaken about its contents? Or did Freiss lie about what Mohler said? That's hard to believe. Anyway, if Friess lied, or if Mohler was mistaken about his own resolution (quite a trick) why doesn't Reuters, which obviously favors the Szekely account, explain how Friess got it all wrong?
The obvious reason they don't is that Freiss got it right.
Freiss' dispatch is specific and factual. By way of contrast, Szekely's August 16th counter-dispatch is general and self-contradictory (see above). It reads like a poorly done piece with a dishonest purpose.
Here's what I think happened.
When the story broke, the Firefighters Union leaders came under great pressure, perhaps including from their Democratic Party allies, to 'correct' the delegates' overly-extreme stand.
Once Schaitberger agreed to retreat, Reuters was 'mobilized' to correct their error, i.e., of reporting what had happened. Since Reuters couldn't very well dismiss as rumors and gossip its own writer's *quotes* from Mr. Mohler; and since the dispatch was only used by (at most) a few newspapers, Reuters took the path of least resistance: it eliminated the Friess dispatch. It never happened.
I can't find it on the Reuters Website. A few hours ago it was pulled from Yahoo. And this although the fact that Reuters put out completely contradictory accounts of the Firefighters' action is *big* news! I guess the Empire has some servants willing to sacrifice their own economic gain (e.g., hits for Yahoo) for a higher purpose...
By the way, Szekely also doesn't mention that reports like the Freiss account appeared in a few newspapers. These reports seem to be written by eyewitnesses. More on that in an upcoming article.
Best regards,
Jared Israel
Emperor's Clothes1) For the August 14th Friess article, go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/archive/freiss.htm2) For the August 16th Szekely article, go to http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=politicsnews&StoryID=134
***
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm. Receive articles from Emperor's Clothes Website
Send a link to this article to a friend! Click here or cut and paste the following URL into your browser:
mailto:ENTER FRIEND'S EMAIL ADDRESS HERE?subject=Here's a great article from emperors-clothes.com!&body=I just read the following article which I thought you would find most interesting. Here's the address: http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/boycott.htm
=======================================
EMPEROR'S CLOTHES URGENTLY NEEDS YOUR HELP!
=======================================In order for Emperor's Clothes to continue publishing we urgently need your help. We rely entirely on contributions. We are again behind on all our usual bills, such as rent, paying our computer guru and phone bills.
We do not charge for articles and we do not accept advertising. We're as frugal as possible, but have to pay bills. In order to continue publishing, we urgently need the help of our friends.
Please send whatever contributions you can! $20, $50, $100, or more. More would be very helpful, but every penny is used to get articles to more people. Thanks for reading Emperor's Clothes!
You can make a donation using PayPal at https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=emperors1000@aol.com&no_shipping=1
You can make a credit card donation by going to our secure server at
http://emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#donateOr Mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. (USA)
Or make a donation by phone at the donation line, (U.S.) 617 916-1705.
Note: If you mail a donation or make one by secure server, please let us know by email at emperors1000@aol.com to make sure we receive it. Thanks!
Thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes.
www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
This Website is mirrored at http://emperor.vwh.net/ and at http://globalresistance.com
To unsubscribe, which can only be done from an email address which is actually subscribed, click or send an email to unsubscribe@emperor.vwh.net