As you note, the Kochs used to be a major funder of Citizens for a Sound Economy. FreedomWorks was created after a major rift within that organization led to CSE's dissolution and the creation of the Koch-backed Americans For Prosperity on one side and FreedomWorks on the other. Relations between the two groups are civil. But, it'd have to be a cold day in Hell for the Kochs to be cozying up to FreedomWorks. . . . It's possible there's been some rapprochement in recent years. But I rather doubt it.
This is roughly what I heard from others. In other words, the central thesis of the article, that the Kochs are engaged in a broad astroturfing effort through Freedomworks, is most likely bunk. That story should never have gone up with absolutely no verification of a fact so central to its core thesis.
If Santelli or Koch sues, the rest of us big media bloggers are going to have to work hard to reassure our employers that we won't put them on the hook for a lawsuit.
Maybe I'm not in the libertarian loop enough to know if the Koch angle is the big deal about the story. I found the primary claim to be that the website, tea parties, etc were all planned by FreedomWatch beforehand and that the viral reaction to Santelli was a fake-grassroots movement (because that's definitely what it looks like to me). Is that discredited because someone else besides the Kochs were funding FreedomWatch?
Yes, because the other groups aren't linked to FreedomWorks . . .
Just for the record, I never implied that I agreed with the accusation that the Kochtopus was responsible for this particular shenanigan. I just wouldn't be surprised, past being prologue and all that.
It is interesting to note how Megan jumps to the defense of the brothers grim on such short notice. I guess the oil billionaires need a skirt to hide behind occasionally.
i wish this was actually some libertarian orchestrated conspiracy. it would give me such hope to know that us libertarians have such an effective and rapid response team/cabal out there. hahah
What in the world would they sue for? They're both public figures--they would need to show actual malice, which is pretty damn difficult to do in this country, especially since they took it down. A journalist like yourself should know a little bit more about libel law before posting about it.
Lucy, The Koch's are richer than God. They can file lawsuits Knowing full well they would lose, but still inflict massive legal fees on the defendants.
The courts provide all the justice you can afford.
I'd say that this is arguably malicious. There's no actual reason to believe several of the things that they flatly stated, such as that Koch is funding all of this--no sourcing, nothing.
I'd say that this is arguably malicious.
Well, that's one thing. Here's another: Does this expose anyone to hatred and obloquy? Challenge any woman's chastity? Cause doubt about anyone's fitness to perform their chosen profession?
Santelli would have to show that his reputation suffered; that he's no longer held in as high regard by people in his community as he was before the article was published. He also has to show it was false. And that it was done with actual malice, meaning that the writer wanted to hurt his reputation, rather than just wanting to break a story.
In Megan's mind, every time a newspaper got something wrong, there'd be a lawsuit. That's not the law.
B Spock,
It is interesting to note how Megan jumps to the defense of the brothers grim on such short notice. I guess the oil billionaires need a skirt to hide behind occasionally.
I don't find it interesting at all. Then again, I'm a libertarian who doesn't have any beef with the Koch family. I also don't have any beef with the Mises Institute or LewRockwell.com or Reason or Cato and so on. Yes, I'm aware of their differences and that's all fine. I don't generally agree/disagree with one "group" with libertarianism more than others. I have my own blend of opinions and POVs. But there's more than one way to see things.
Personally, I found this whole story a bit surreal and didn't think it made much sense. Seeing the name Koch thrown in there did strike me as a bit odd though. I don't really have a strong reason to support that reaction. But it did strike me that way.
"the rest of us big media bloggers are going to have to work hard to reassure our employers that we won't put them on the hook for a lawsuit."
Like maybe cutting and pasting the entire contents of another publication without permission after it has been removed?
The now-deleted Playboy article had prima facie evidence gaps.
If you're going to run the risk of a defamation lawsuit from CNBC or Santelli by asserting this grave violation of journalistic integrity, you should at least make an argument that goes from one dot to the next in an orderly fashion. The Playboy article didn't, and if you're a Playboy lawyer, that's a very good reason to get it pulled.
Megan pointed out some of this earlier but just to rehearse:
1. The article doesn't provide any kind of connection between the person who registered the "Chicago Tea Party" website in 2008 and the Sam Adams Alliance.
2. And yet, the claim that this was all long-planned-out rests on the 2008 domain registration.
3. The article doesn't attempt to provide any reason to believe that Rick Santelli knows, spoke with or had any dealings of any kind with the 2008 domain registrar.
4. The article doesn't attempt to provide any reason to believe that Rick Santelli knows, spoke with or had any dealings of any kind with anyone from the Sam Adams Alliance.
5. The simplest explanation for why the Sam Adams Alliance removed Eric Odom's bio from its website is because he didn't work there anymore.
6. The simplest explanation for why the Sam Adams Alliance removed the Koch intern program information from its website is because the deadline for applying for the program had passed. The assertion that the Sam Adams Alliance was trying to hide its association with the Koch intern program does not cohere well with the fact that they posted information on their website about the Koch intern program in the first place.
7. The only reason these actions could look even marginally suspicious is if you already think the Sam Adams Alliance was hip-deep in some kind of conspiracy relating to the 2008 domain registration...and as noted, there is no evidence of this and the Playboy article doesn't even pretend there is any evidence for this.
8. The article doesn't attempt to explain how it is that anyone from the Sam Adams Alliance or its former employee, Eric Odom, managed the feat of organizing 40+ protests on February 27. The protests happened, but there is very little reason to think that if Eric Odom had gone to Tahiti and the Sam Adams Alliance had dropped off the face of the earth, that the protests, except for the one in Chicago, wouldn't have happened exactly as they did.
9. "Sleeper cells"? The Playboy article implies that the Sam Adams Alliance or Odom had been constructing "sleeper cell" blogs. Which blogs are these? What role did any of these non-specified "sleeper blogs" play in organizing the February 27 events? To have some journalistic integrity, wouldn't you have to at least identify them and tie them in some concrete way to the grand conspiracy to make this charge have any integrity? Please, God, someone write an article on Wikipedia about "sleeper cell blogs" and watch it get deleted in five seconds.
On these limp reeds (perhaps better to call them non-existent reeds), the Playboy graffiti artists say right out that Santelli's rant was non-spontaneous, planned in advance and in the service of an ideological agenda...that is, a violation of his journalistic integrity and, if true, cause for him to lose his job.
Considering all these in the cold light of day under the watchful eye of an attorney trying to save Playboy money defending itself from a defamation lawsuit is reason enough for Playboy to have removed the article.
Well, your employers don't need to concern themselves, Megan, because no reasonable person would have the expectation that anything you write is not bollocks.
As for Santelli, it's moot whether his reputation is hurt for his being "exposed" as a stooge.
"... the rest of us big media bloggers are going to have to work hard..."
Just as well. It's so hard to keep up with the dizzying pace of the hard-hitting investigative journalism on this blog. You better slow down.
You "big media bloggers" are a gift from God... what would we do without you.
Yeah, really, the idea of someone suing over this story is absolutely ridiculous. You are wringing your hands over nothing. Which makes me wonder what your motive was for bringing up such a nonsensical hypothetical.
Gimme a break, McArdle. The story isn't Koch nearly so much as it is Freedomworks. That these phony grassroots groups keep their associations a secret is hardly the fault of the reporters.
They've shown pretty conclusively that the Tea Party was pre-orchestrated by these phony grassroots groups. If the rest of the press finds something wrong with the final conclusions, they should do some fucking reporting and see where they really go, rather than whiteknight for a public fraud.
In your case, you should have been upfront with that weaksauce disclosure and, more importantly, stepped away from the story. It's all well and good that you trust yourself to remain credible, but how can WE trust you when you're living cozy with a former employee? Appearances mean something and you'd be right to pass the story to someone who doesn't appear to have any kind of conflict of interest or questionable connections.