Bob Cox's History of Online Terrorism, Example #1

According to the Media Bloggers Association's Statement of Principles, "When we blog, each of us is accountable for our own actions, and we own our own words."

The following comments - made by Bob Cox on his website, OlbermannWatch - reflect Bob's commitment to the principle that bloggers "act responsibly and with personal integrity."

Excerpts from an online conversation in April 2006:

"Having already demonstrated what you ... are all about - lying, liberal, loons who all seem to think you might someday be the future Mrs. Olbermann - I don't see any further value in showing you all for the loons you are. You've done that suffeciently [sic.] for yourselves.

If anyone else wants to bother with [the name of a Cox critic] here, she's in New York, she connects to the internet via a cable modem from Cablevision, she has an optonline.net email account and can found most days smoking her hash pipe and starting out the window looking for black helicopters. Drop me a line if you want the details necessary to chase [the name of a Cox critic] down the rabbit hole."

This is abominable behavior. This is online terrorism. This is threatening. This is bullying. This is intimidation.

Cox identifies the location of a person who has commented on OlbermannWatch based on the IP address. He makes a defamatory comment by stating that the individual has a drug problem. He invites OlbermannWatch readers to terrorize the individual by stating he has the requisite information.

More examples from the same online discussion on OlbermannWatch:

"I have been building my career showing up OlbyLoons like you and that is probably not fair - it's like bringing a gun to a knife fight."

Here Cox unambiguously states that he is leveraging the recognition he has gained through OlbermannWatch to promote his "career" - which I assume to mean his career at the Media Bloggers Association.

"If you are going to lie try to cover your tracks a little better or it take the fun out of my favorite sport - showing up Olby Loons for the fools they are."

Cox admits that he thrives on instigating conflict. His "favorite sport" is to insult and belittle those who hold contrary opinions.

Is this the type of person that you would trust to campaign for a code of blogger ethics? Is this the type of person you would trust to be the president of an ostensibly non-partisan organization?

extreme right-wing bias already evident in Bob Cox’s account of blogger coverage

In an interview with KSL Salt Lake City’s The Nightside Project, Robert Cox reveals clear right-wing partisan bias in blogger coverage of the Libby trial.

From the interview:

“… we did, I think, get a few good ‘gets.’ David Shuster from MSNBC made a pretty glaring error, put it out live on the air and our guy caught it first. When the judge gave out instructions ruling Valerie Plame’s status at the CIA I think he added some interesting color commentary.”

Out of the hundreds of journalists reporting from the trial, Cox chose to single out an MSNBC employee.

Fox News mouthpiece Bill O’Reilly has repeatedly called NBC “an activist network.” Regular OlbermannWatch contributor Johnny Dollar’s blog is a member of Blogs for Fox and OlbermannWatch founder Bob Cox has consistently voiced his support for the Fox network.

What was Shuster’s grave error?

According to his own statement, Cox’s slam came not for the accuracy of Shuster’s reporting, but from his “color commentary.”

The extreme right-wing Media Bloggers Association is showing its true colors.

excerpts from a BBC interview with Robert Cox on blogger coverage of the Libby trial

Excerpts from a BBC interview with Robert Cox on blogger coverage of the Libby trial:

BBC: How does a judge know which bloggers to accredit?

Cox: … This is actuallyhttp://www2.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif the issue they had. They didn’t want to put up a sign saying ‘bloggers welcome’ and then get every knucklehead with a web site showing up at their door, so they were interested in working with our organization at least for two of those seats because we have a large membership of bloggers and we vet those bloggers and we will deliver to the court, you know, people who are particularly qualified to cover this trial.

These "particularly qualified" bloggers include the individual who asked "how should bloggers cover the Libby trial" after the trial had already begun?

BBC: What can a blog bring to court coverage that any kind of conventional reporter, dashing out of the court, you know, to file a story or jump on to the camera, can’t?

Cox: Well, one thing that is definitely going to be different about this trial is the immediacy of the coverage… Bringing bloggers into the mix, obviously, brings in a great deal of opinion…

BBC: But isn’t the point about reporting a court case to report the court case? You know, the opinion has to wait until the reporting has been done.

Cox: Well, I guess you haven’t read many blogs then because you don’t have to wait to be into the story to form an opinion.

It's interesting that Cox mentions the incorporation of opinion.

Even though crooksandliars.com is recognized for leaning left of center in its political views, and even though crooksandliars.com is also represented at the Libby trial through the Media Bloggers Association's access, the person representing crooksandliars.com is far from being one of their "traditional" bloggers.

Cox has attacked Crooks and Liars in the past for its left-wing affiliations and jumping on the pro-Olbermann bandwagon, but when discussing the MBA's presence at the Libby trial, it may be productive to examine the bloggers themselves rather than their affiliations.

Murray Waas - the representative for crooksandliars.com - began his career working for muckraker Jack Anderson and those early experiences seem to have informed his current reporting. He's been praised for his investigations, but at the same time, he has also been called a a primary contributor to fostering a culture of scandal.

This is quite consistent with Cox's right-wing, populist views of the role of bloggers vis-a-vis the mainstream media. In Cox's own words: "readers don't trust journalists because they play a 'wink wink' sort of 'inside game' where they don't tell the readers what they know and don't demand that sources 'own' their own words."

Cox is criticizing the media's perceived "inside game" while, at the same time, advocating for an elite cadre of professional bloggers?
http://www2.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
Another blogger's work, Outside the Beltway author James Joyner, clearly leans towards the right of center. Political views aside, his blogging is certainly responsible. His point of view, however, is unambiguously Cox's point of view as well.

When taken together, what does this mean?

In one way or another, the Media Bloggers Association representatives at the Libby trial are an extension of Bob Cox's extreme right-wing views. This is by no means a fair and accurate snapshot of the blogosphere, but rather a representation of Bob Cox's political affiliations.

Two of the nation's most popular political blogs - Daily Kos and the Huffington Post - are absent from the live coverage of the Libby trial. Even though they are not MBA members, wouldn't their presence have assured the vanguard blog coverage the MBA claims to be providing? It most certainly would have, but then again, their presence would also have gone against Cox's personal views.

Blogger Covering Libby Trial Asks "How should bloggers cover the Libby trial?"

One of the bloggers selected by Robert Cox's right-wing Media Bloggers Association to cover the Libby trial admits that he doesn't know how to cover the Libby trial:

So, what do I have to offer as a blogger, that isn’t already being offered by other bloggers and by the members of the traditional media? What is my hook, my spin, my unique perspective?

Ummm. Shouldn't you have thought about that before you signed up to cover the Libby trial?

My initial thought is that my interest won’t be the standard legal type stuff that you can get everywhere else. I’m not a lawyer. The closest I’ve ever gotten to a trial has probably been watching Perry Mason as a kid, or waiting in the jury selection room, hoping I wouldn’t get called.

You're there to cover a trial. Why would you not be interested in "the standard legal type stuff?" If you've never been to a trial, why are you there in the first place? Are you close friends with Bob Cox? Do you swallow his particular brand of right-wing insanity?

What is the impalpable essence of the courtroom atmosphere as it relates to our national story that can’t easily be summed up as “Today, Judith Miller testified that...” It has to do with our common story and perhaps a little bit with group dynamics.

So, in other words, your coverage isn't going to include facts that the mainstream media might miss. It's going to include subjective interpretation and using that penetrating analysis of yours to discover the "group dynamics" of the courtroom?

These are the pioneers by which all subsequent blogger coverage of landmark trials is to be judged?

If you're the best and the brightest of the blogosphere, I'll take the mainstream media any day.

Johnny Dollar's Lessonshttp://www2.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif

Additional evidence that pointing out manipulations, gross inconsistencies, and hypocrisy with Johnny Dollar, Robert Cox, and the rest of the insane asylum that is OlbermannWatch is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Lesson #1: "There are two ways to smear someone. You can be covert: publish facts, but not the whole truth; let careful wording lead readers to the desired conclusion. Or you can be overt: a full-on personal attack, drenched in hyperbole, preferably culminating in high-decibel name-calling."

Case in Point:

As our favorite carnival barker spat out his traditional patter, he touched on all the proper spin points: the "escalation" (DNC spin-term for sending in reinforcements, with the added bonus that it has VietNam resonance), lawmakers opposing the surge, The Great Leak Case, Kerry bows out, Hillary, and--glory be!--Cruise News!

The infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann led off with "Mister" Bush and Capitol Hill Republicans: the honeymoon "could be over". Only one Republican supported the anti-surge resolution, and that Republican was rewarded with a lengthy clip. Was he the only one who spoke? Silly rabbit, of course not. All of the rest of the Republicans disagreed with him, but how many of them got clips from Edward R Olbermann? You guessed it: zero. The most biased hour in television news.

Publish facts, but not the whole truth? Check. Let careful wording lead readers to the desired conclusion? Check. A full-on personal attack, drenched in hyperbole, preferably culminating in high-decibel name-calling? Check.

Little Johnny Dollar's Exam Score: A+

Lesson #2: "One of the favorite tricks of propagandists involves cherry-picking. If you recall the old tale of the blind men and the elephant, it's along those same lines. Except that, unlike those blind men, the haters deliberately choose anecdotal snippets to wilfully [sic.] create a false impression."

Case in Point:

Inside Cable News alerts us that Geraldo Rivera has had his fill of our hero, Keith Olbermann. Rivera, still smarting over Olby's cackles of delight regarding an incident from three years ago, let loose on "punk" Edward R Olbermann with both barrels:

He called Olbermann a coward -- specifically a "[female part of the anatomy] who wouldn't walk across the street against the red light." He then said he was ready to fight him, saying: "I would make a pizza out of him."

This of course got Olby all a twitter, and he quickly emailed his pal Dan Patrick at ESPN to make sure the subject would come up today. And sure enough, it did. Listen to the mp3 audio:

KO's hot flashes are never-ending sources for amusement, but we note all this here because it is yet another example of Krazy Keith rewriting history to make himself look good.

Cherry picking? Check. Choosing anecdotal snippets to willfully create a false impression? Check.

Little Johnny Dollar's Exam Score: A+

Lesson #3: "Running numbers can reveal patterns. But figures can lie..."

Case in Point (OlbermannWatch survey results):

Is Keith Olbermann a misogynist?

The answer is "Yes".

4,083 answers have been submitted.

A. Yes 57% (2329 votes)
B. No 42% (1721 votes)
C. Not sure 0% (33 votes)

Does running numbers reveal a pattern? Yes - about the OlbermannWatch readership. Do these figures lie? Yes.

Little Johnny Dollar's Exam Score: A+

Lesson #4: "It isn't easy being a Fox hater."

Case in Point: Based on my own personal experience, Fox makes it very, very easy to hate Fox.

Little Johnny Dollar's Exam Score: F

Is Johnny Dollar admitting to being a propagandist and smear merchant?

Johnny Dollar on his blog, Johnny Dollar's Place: "Name-calling and personal attacks: the last resort of all propagandists and smear merchants."

Johnny Dollar on OlbermannWatch: "the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann" ... "Olby cackled his insults and the gullible swallowed them whole. But, as is the case with so many of Keith's assaults on Mr Bill, this too proved to be nothing more than Another Olbermann Lie."

If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it must be a propagandist and smear merchant.

Remember little Johnny: you said it, not me.

WOW has people thinking

One response to yesterday's round of emails alerting bloggers and the media as to MBA's right-wing bias in its Libby trial coverage:

Thanks for the updates; I wasn’t citing Bob Cox as much as I was the aggregator for the trial’s blogging. If the aggregator is slanted or biased, then I’m truly sorry I cited it.

However, Bob Cox can hate or like whomever he chooses and I sit way to the left of him on the Olberman fence.

You asked: “Are you confident about the absence of a right-wing bias from MBA? Do you believe that the information that you are receiving from them is both fair and accurate?”

In a word, now, no. I’m going to re-read the aggregator and ensure that Firedoglake and other bloggers from the ‘other’ side are included, and if not, de-link the citation because it’s not presenting a “fair and balanced” aggregate. If it is, then it stands for itself.

Either way, thanks very much for the info that I didn’t have.