Riehl World View: Wizbotched Again

This is in response to this from Kevin at Wizbang.

Kevin,

First, at this point, I find it ironic that you or Wizbang would question anyone's "tone," given Paul's tone throughout this - which you all too conveniently ignore.

Here' s a sample for you -

How people as stupid as you can still breath just amazes me.

goofball ... brain dead boy ...

you were demonstrably clueless

Whatever his motivation, insanity or traffic-whoring. Here are your links. Now go play in traffic and quit emailing me.

And you claim to be pissed off? Give me a break. I don't care what you fancy yourself to be, try taking responsibility for what is written by a writer on your own blog as far as tone before complaining to me about mine. Not to forget this insult to all blogs of smaller readership than Wizbang with this from Paul. - "From his pathetic stats, this might be the case." It seems that type of adolescent tripe is fine with you, but God forbid someone point out his posting errors without bowing to King Kevin - BS. Now to the point of the matter.

Second, in your new post you conveniently left out Paul's posting of the statement that the Times was wrong in saying the topic was the subject of almost daily narratives in the (Sri Lank-an) national papers.

The New York Times said national newspapers had carried "almost daily narratives" about the baby's fate. Wrong. The national press jumped on the band wagon much later.

That was one of two primary assertions by Paul in labeling the Times "sloppy" and "fraudulent." Now I suppose you claim that it was the statement of the LBO article. Well, excuse me, what with all the quotation marks and an apparent lack of any real original content, one can hardly tell where LBO and Wizbang begin and end. Do you do original thought and content? Or simply violate any reasonable standard of Fair Use by filching entire articles from other sources. Oh, I forgot, Paul struggled with his links. That's no excuse for perpetuating an inaccurate story. If you are going to simply plagiarize, is it too much to ask you to plagiarize what is accurate, as opposed to that which is not so? Shouldn't you take a moment to verify something, as I did? Do you have any standards of accountability at Wizbang?

The Times was right, Paul and LBO were wrong, it's just that simple. I provided multiple links here that proved this story was all over the press before the Times picked it up. And also provided solid reasoning as to WHY it was all over the Sri Lanka media - it was a precedent setting legal issue and a compelling human interest story for heaven's sake.

Additionally, the LBO Wizbang concoction, for lack of a better word, stated that the Times misrepresented the notion as regards families stepping up to claim the child - it didn't. This is from the very Times report you sourced.

She points out that she and her husband are the only ones among the nine couples who have bothered to file for custody in a court of law.

That above is all the judge stated in his decree - and the Times had already acknowledged it. Yet, that didn't stop Paul was proclaiming:

In the end, what was at least sloppy and at worst fraudulent reporting from Somini Sengupta at the New York Times (and others) brought "more misery and heartache" to the parents and the child, and caused their separation to be extended several days.

If there is any sloppiness or perpetuation of fraud here, it is by Paul for basically plagiarizing a story he never verified, making judgments from it, I assume because it fit a political agenda of attacking the Times and would work up the readership. There is nothing responsible or enlightening about that. It is the worst kind of reporting, new media or no.

You're mad, Kevin? What about the dedicated large and small bloggers who would like to see a serious new media come out of blogging, but have to carry the weight of what amounts to no more than yellow journalism from the likes of a Wizbang? And to top it off, merely questioning you draws, not debate, but personal insults like "loony, brain dead and traffic whore."

Get off your high horse, buddy and welcome to the new media. Smaller blogs are far from intimidated by your traffic numbers, link-whore contests or seminar attendance. Wizbang is as accountable as anyone else, you blew it on this one and you can't deal with it. Too freaking bad. Go cry in your sitemeter and get used to it.

This is far from the first time that Wizbang has found itself in precisely this position. Just look at my comments and trackbacks. If anything, Wizbang and Paul specifically are developing a track record for this nonsense. And just because I am a conservative doesn't mean I have to tolerate Wizbang's shoddy work in this case.

You're not "pissed off" as you claim, you're pissing in the wind, the wind is simply your own hot air and the urine is now running down your own leg - go change - and for heaven's sake, try to start paying attention to what is posted and said by Paul on your blog. You'll clean up better. Now, are we done, or would you like to continue?