Well, this is truly troubling. Despite their claim that they reserve the right to edit letters for fairness ("All letters are subject to editing for length, style and fairness"), the Daily Gazette on Thursday printed a letter from Beth Jacobs of Schenectady that repeats an ancient lie about Governor Sarah Palin. (That letter, incidentally, along with Thursday's other letters has disappeared from the
Gazette website)
Specifically, she said that:
Yes, the left is sexist but Sarah Palin proved she is worse by forcing women to pay for their rape kits when she was mayor.
Unfortunately for the Gazette and Ms. Jacobs, when an Alaskan official was asked to investigate and find out if any victims had actually been forced by a town to pay for their rape kit, he could find none. Despite the facts that:
-no one can be found that was forced to pay for a rape kit
-Wasilla had perhaps 1 reported rape during Palin's time as mayor (and certainly no more than a couple)
-the majority of the 'information' for this libel comes from liberal blogs, including the worst of the worst, the Daily Kos
-the people that cling to this myth do things like partially quote Wasilla officials saying that they don't want taxpayers to have to pay and fail to quote where he continues by saying he wants the rapist to pay
-that the left acknowledges that they have nothing to indicate Palin knew anything about the program (perhaps because there were no rapes, or essentially no rapes or even reported rapes during her time in office)
the Gazette is still willing to print a letter accusing Palin of doing something they have no evidence anyone, let alone a Wasilla resident during Palin's time in office, was forced to pay for a rape kit. Ms. Jacobs goes so far as to indicate that rape victims faced arrest over paying for these rape kits.
But the worst was yet to come. I emailed the Gazette with some of these facts that disprove this claim, and the Gazette, in the person of Art Clayman of the opinion section, emailed me back
with the exact same tired smears and libel that I had written to indicate was false, as if that someone answered the claim. An opinion column in the New York Times was presented to rebut my evidence drawn from state records!
As you will see, I explained that this was not sufficient to justify libel, but Mr. Clayman went on to make the extraordinary claim that it is OK for a newspaper to publish this sort of libel, despite the fact that the writer and none of the 'evidence' he used to 'rebut' my information,
presents a single instance where the claim is found to be even remotely true, if they "don't know it is incorrect"!
By that standard, as I note later, it is OK for them to repeat the ludicrous smear that Trig Palin is not Sarah's child because the Gazette does not have copies of DNA tests showing that Trig is not Sarah's daughter's baby. Is that the kind of standard that our papers are using?? That they think it is OK to print libel unless the person libeled is able to prove the negative. To give another example, they are saying it is OK to say that Mayor Stratton has a secret love child by a hooker that he abandoned. Unless the Mayor was able to somehow prove the negative, that there is no child, they think it is acceptable for a news organization to print such a thing, even if I give
no evidence that it is true, simply because they "don't know it is incorrect" and
it could be true. I actually had to read his response several times to see if this was actually what he was saying.
I was so stunned that after I picked my jaw up off the floor I wrote back, asking Mr. Clayman to verify that this standard, the 'could possibly be true' (as bigfoot and the yeti could 'possibly' be true), was actually the journalistic standard used by the Gazette. I made it clear that I would be publishing this information and asked Mr. Clayman to confirm his statement. I then gave the Gazette an additional day to respond. They have failed to do so, which can only lead me to believe that Mr. Clayman had indeed given me the standard by which accusations are judged at the Gazette...that no matter how silly the claim (such as that a working, pro-family, pro-woman female mayor could charge rape victims for their own rape kits and then possibly send the police to arrest them if they don't pay up), the Gazette is willing to print it unless they have concrete evidence that proves the negative - that they "know it is incorrect".
Absolutely stunning. This is perhaps the most inappropriate standard for printing potential libel I have ever heard of. The definition of libel that you'll see me quote momentarily is
right from Merriam-Webster. The claim in question is indeed made without cause (there is no evidence presented by the author, the original smearers, or the leftwing websites Mr. Clayman presents as evidence to back the claim), and the tone of the letter (worse than sexist?) makes it clear what the intent of Ms. Jacobs is ("public contempt").
What follows is the troubling exchange in which the Daily Gazette's opinion department staff justify the printing of libel unless and until the person libeled can prove to their satisfaction that the libel is untrue. Try to ignore the juvenile grammar of Mr. Clayman and focus on what he has to say.
My first letter:
Good evening,
Could someone explain to me how on earth Beth Jacobs' letter got through whatever editing process you have that I would assume is supposed to screen out the most wildly inaccurate and phony claims in letters? The bogus charge that Gov. Palin charged rape victims for 'rape kits' was debunked 10 months ago.
In the bizarre instance that I actually need to tell you this for the first time, I suggest starting with these:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODA1YWM5ZjM2ZTU5ODliZTY2NTczMGUwZWYwNTVlMTQ=&w=MA==
"In light of Wasilla’s low number of rapes according to available FBI statistics (one to two per year, compared to Juneau’s 30-39), and the fact that the Wasilla Finance Department cannot find any record of charging a victim for a rape kit, it is entirely possible that no victim was ever charged.
Del Smith, the state’s deputy commissioner at the Department of Public Safety, testified in support of the rape-kit-charging-ban legislation during multiple hearings. During one, state representative Jeannette James asked if she “understood correctly that Mr. Smith is saying that the department has never billed a victim for exams.”
Smith replied that “the department might have been billed, but he has not found any police agency that has ever billed a victim.”"
and
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/24/old-media-pushes-false-rape-kit-charge-against-gov-palin
"Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella has said that the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.""
Seriously, can someone explain what sort of editorial review this letter passed through? This is lunacy that you are still repeating this stuff nearly a year after these smears were first printed. I am calling on the Gazette to publish a written correction setting the record straight, there is no reason to mislead readers by publishing this made up filth. You might as well allow readers to claim that Trig is her daughter's baby by Todd and all the other foolishness if you're going to publish this.
And the first response from Mr. Clayman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26fri4.html
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200810070007
By Ken Dilanian and Matt Kelley, USA TODAY
WASILLA, Alaska — In 2000, Alaska lawmakers learned that rural police
agencies had been billing rape victims or their insurance companies $500
to $1,200 for the costs of the forensic medical examinations used to
gather evidence. They quickly passed a law prohibiting the practice.
According to the sponsor, Democrat Eric Croft, the law was aimed in part
at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor. When it was signed,
Wasilla's police chief expressed displeasure.
WASILLA LIBRARY: Palin did not ban books as mayor
"In the past, we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance
company when possible," then-chief Charlie Fannon told the Mat-Su Valley
Frontiersman, the local newspaper. "I just don't want to see any more
burden put on the taxpayer."
Now that Palin is the Republican nominee for vice president, Democrats
such as former Alaska governor Tony Knowles — who signed the rape-kit bill
into law and was defeated by Palin in 2006 — are raising the issue to
question Palin's commitment to women's issues and crime victims. Palin
appointed Fannon after firing his predecessor shortly after she took
office in 1996.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Washington | Barack Obama | Congress | United States
Senate | John McCain | United States House of Representatives | Sarah
Palin | Joe Biden | Anchorage | Maria Comella | National Center for
Victims of Crime | Tony Knowles | Sexual Assault | Domestic Violence |
Matanuska-Susitna Valley | now-Gov | Wasilla Mayor Dianne Keller | Charlie
Fannon | Frontiersman
"In retrospect, I would have asked the female working-mother mayor of that
town why her police chief was against this," said Croft, the former
Anchorage state representative.
Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said in an e-mail that the governor "does
not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to
pay for an evidence-gathering test."
"Gov. Palin's position could not be more clear," she said. "To suggest
otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation of her commitment to
supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice."
Comella would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of
Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it. The campaign cited the
governor's record on domestic violence, including increasing funding for
shelters.
Knowles criticized Palin to USA TODAY, and again Wednesday in a
teleconference organized by Democrats. "It seems like one of those pieces
of legislation that you can't imagine it would ever have to be written,"
he said.
Until the 2000 legislation, local law enforcement agencies in Alaska could
pass along the cost of the exams, which are needed to obtain an attacker's
DNA evidence. Rape victims in several areas of Alaska, including the
Matanuska-Susitna Valley where Wasilla is, complained about being charged
for the tests, victims' advocate Lauree Hugonin, of the Alaska Network on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, told state House committees, records
show.
In cases when insurance companies are billed, the victims pay a deductible.
Fannon told the Frontiersman that the tests would cost the department up
to $14,000 per year. He said he would rather force rapists to pay for the
tests, not taxpayers. Fannon, who is no longer police chief, could not be
reached for comment Wednesday; his home phone number has been disconnected.
It is not known how many rape victims in Wasilla were required to pay for
some or all of the medical exams, but a legislative staffer who worked on
the bill for Croft said it happened. "It was more than a couple of cases,
and it was standard practice in Wasilla," Peggy Wilcox said, who now works
for the Alaska Public Employees Association. "If you were raped in
Wasilla, this was going to happen to you."
After calling Wasilla Mayor Dianne Keller for comment Tuesday, USA TODAY
was instructed to submit a public records request, under which the city
has 10 days to respond. As of Wednesday, the city had not responded to a
request for records reflecting Wasilla's prior policy, including when it
took effect and the cost to sexual assault victims.
In 2000, there were 497 rapes reported in Alaska, FBI statistics show.
That's a rate of 79.3 per 100,000 residents, the highest in the nation.
Nationally, victims' advocates have for years reported scattered instances
of rape victims being required to pay for their forensic tests, says Ilse
Knecht of the National Center for Victims of Crime in Washington. Those
complaints have subsided somewhat after Congress in 2005 passed a law
requiring states to provide rape exams free of charge or reimburse victims
for the costs, says Knecht, whose group supported the provision.
"The reason we passed the legislation was that we saw it was prevalent
enough to be a pretty considerable problem," Knecht says. "There are no
other victims of crime that end up being billed for evidence collection."
The Senate version of the legislation that included the rape-exam
provision was sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the Democratic vice
presidential nominee. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama was one
of 58 co-sponsors; Republican presidential nominee John McCain was not.
Matt Kelley reported from Washington
My response:
Wonderful, Mr. Clayman, you've sent me the stories that helped originate this lie after I sent you the items that disproved them. What is that supposed to accomplish?
"Del Smith, the state’s deputy commissioner at the Department of Public Safety, testified in support of the rape-kit-charging-ban legislation during multiple hearings. During one, state representative Jeannette James asked if she “understood correctly that Mr. Smith is saying that the department has never billed a victim for exams.”
Smith replied that “the department might have been billed, but he has not found any police agency that has ever billed a victim.""
Unless you are willing to proffer proof that Mr. Smith was wrong, this is a tasteless year old lie that warrants a written correction in the Daily Gazette. Reprinting articles that contain things like intentionally curtailed quotes from Mr. Fannon do nothing to make the case that this is true.
And here's where it gets really disturbing:
And one of arrticles i sent you analyzes your article and says why it
debunked nothing.
the truth is, the policy existed in alaska and wasilla while palin was
governor. it is unclear exactly how many times people were charged, by
whom, or what palin thought of it.
if you want to write a letter saying this is a "lie" that has been
debunked, we will run it. but we see no need for a correction, because we
don't know it is incorrect.
art clayman
And my final response that went unanswered:
The articles you sent take partial quotes and interpret them as they wish, implying that the officer wanted to charge victims, when in fact the excised portion of his quote makes clear that he wants to charge perpetrators, not victims or taxpayers. They make claims that are simply laughable on their face. One of them seems to repeat the ridiculous book-banning claim. They produce not a single verifiable fact or shred of evidence to back the claim, a claim that itself was never originally backed by evidence, not a single person that can say 'this happened to me'. In other words, it does nothing but argue that 'it could be true because you cannot prove a negative'. That's unacceptable reasoning for a high school student, let alone a newspaper. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the defendant the last time I checked and you have published an accusation backed up by no facts, no testimony, no records.
The fact that you then proceeded to lie to me is equally unacceptable. It is not 'unclear' how many people were charged. It was investigated and no one was found that was charged. 'Zero' is not 'unclear'.
Let me get this straight, though, ignoring claims on one side or the other and turning simply to journalism. Despite the fact that no one can produce a single person to verify this claim and despite the fact that an investigation indicated that no one was charged - you are saying that it is OK to publish libel ("a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt") because "you don't know that it is incorrect"? No DNA testing was done to prove that Trig is Governor Palin's son. Is that OK to publish since "you don't know that it is incorrect"? Just let me get this straight - is that the official policy of the Daily Gazette? I just want to give you a chance to respond before I publish that a representative of the Daily Gazette has indicated that the paper's policy is that it is acceptable to publish libel, despite official investigations that rebut the claims, because "you don't know that it is incorrect" and can find opinion columns and stories on leftwing websites as backing evidence.
Did you notice also how Mr. Clayman 'moved the goalposts'? We went from the fact that she charged people for rape kits to a "policy" that supposedly existed. Even this is unsupported. All we actually learned is that the town seems to have had a policy to have the hospital bill the victim's insurance company, but that the town would pay the cost if they had no insurance. Despite the half-truths, half-quotes, and innuendo, they can present nothing to make their case. They can produce no policy. No victim. No bill. No statement. But because they have accused someone of a negative, they claim it is acceptable to print in a newspaper because the negative cannot be proven to their satisfaction.
I am shocked. I had no idea that the Gazette could have such a juvenile, indefensible policy in place as to allow libel simply because the libeled is unable to prove the negative to their satisfaction. So much for innocent until proven guilty. So much for the accuser having to make a case before repeating the charge and demanding it be answered ('Where is your love child, Mayor Stratton?!').
Apart from the Times Union refusing to investigate a documented charge of seeming plagiarism have I been so shocked by our local press. Yes, that's saying a lot.
Posts
