Credit where credit is due - almost
Posted by BrianLot’s of crazy conspiracy theorists are finding a bit of egg on their faces right now. The list is long and sordid, including, but most certainly not limited to, the New York Times.
After WHNT’s broadcast of the Don Siegelman segment on 60 Minutes suffered technical problems that resulted in the bulk of the story not being seen many assumed that it was an intentional act by WHNT. The ringleader was, as usual, Scott Horton of Harper’s. The veracity with which Horton and his ilk - including the Alabama Democrat Party - presumed it was an intentional political hit job was astounding.
Horton immediately made up his mind that the blackout was an intentional act. He claimed that some unnamed person at CBS told him it was an “editorial decision” by the station. [I would link to the particular column, but he has since removed this language.] He went on to state that the station was owned by Oak Hill Partners, which “represents interests of the Bass family, which contribute heavily to the Republican Party.” [Again, he has removed this from his site as well.]
Fortunately the internets often lets our words live on long after we might otherwise desire.
It turns out that all of the wacky conspiracy talk about the blackout was bunk. (I’m just shocked.) WHNT has since offered sufficient description of the technical errors, including a timeline of events. Better yet, it turns out that the particular member of the Bass family that runs Oak Hill Partners is predominantly a Democrat contributor and has never, I repeat, never given one thin dime to George Bush. The New York Times issued a correction to their piece and published an additional article that is something of a mea culpa. As for Horton, he was a big boy and wrote his own “oops” piece which was quite fair - right up until the end. Here goes:
I have now gotten considerably more detail on the political campaign donations of the investors behind Oak Hill Capital Partners, the investor group that acquired WHNT from the New York Times Company in 2006. The key figure in the Oak Hill group is Robert M. Bass. His campaign donation profile shows that he has supported both Democrats and Republicans, but that his donations to Democrats far exceed those to Republicans. The complete five-year search can be examined here. Note specifically that he has never supported George W. Bush–either in his races for governor of Texas or president. Sid, Edward and Lee Bass, who have been heavy Bush supporters, do not appear to have any interest in Oak Hill Capital Partners. Consequently, the supposition that the blackout at WHNT was politically driven censorship on the part of the ultimate owners has no merit. The station continues to insist that the problems were purely technical.
He was doing so well and then had to toss in that last sentence. Instead of saying something to the effect of, “Gee, it really does look like WHNT had technical problems,” he instead opts to say the equivalent of, “They’re still cowering behind their excuse, but I don’t believe them.” He stubbornly writes that the station “continues to insist” as though it is some petulant child unwilling to fess up to its bad acts. He would have done better to just leave that last sentence out. Something tells me that his ego and myopia just wouldn’t let him do that, though. No, he has to interject a hint of disbelief that there was no intent, although he does so by cowering behind the “I’m just telling you what they said,” tactic.
Related content:
March 1st, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I had thought we were done with this. I never for a second believed that wacky Bass Bros. conspiracy theory, but it sure had legs. The station made a valiant attempt to rebroadcast the show at every opportunity to prove there was no attempt to prevent it’s airing. BUT, I still believe SOMEONE made a very foolish decision, whether there was malice behind it or not. I’ve been asking the same questions since wednesday of everyone at WHNT who I thought might have an answer. After a flurry of damage control responses Monday and Tuesday, all of a sudden NOTHING. Complete silence. I suppose that’s one way to make it go away.
I would still like to know two things. Why the lies about the station being unmanned? We know from the engineers emails that this was’nt true. Then they refined it on thursday to “wasn’t staffed by an engineer”. If that was true, who punched up the crawl across the bottom of the black screen blaming the outage on CBS? That same person could have easily switched the feed to one of the two working backup recievers, instead of waiting 8 minutes for the CHIEF engineer to amble on over. This could have been resolved in seconds. Why would they ever leave the station unmanned by competent personnel with no active redundant backup as required of them, during the prime time showing of a heavily promoted program during sweeps week? Please explain.
And my second point is that EVERY reporter/journalist IMMEDIATELY towed the official line, declaring that this was an innocent comedy of errors, when there’s NO WAY they could have ruled out the POSSIBILITY that someone CAUSED the “glitch” to two of four CBS recievers. Of course glitches happen all the time, and are completely innocent in origin. But can a “glitch” that causes a blackout of the video feed in reciever #1 also simultaneously switch reciever #3 to the wrong channel? It’s a separate unit.
Then there were attempts to compare it to the malfunction that switched the feed during the last minutes of a game the previous day. That’s not true. They had already declared that CBS erroneously made that switch to another game too early. There were also attempts to compare it to the time there was a power outage and they had to read the news with flashlights. HUH? NO CONNECTION.
So why all the misleading statements and NO answer the these questions? I wish they would just humor me and explain. Tell me I’m full of it. Something. Of course, they are under no obligation. But you’d think they would want to just put this speculation to rest, really. But nothing.
The news director Denise, quite the attractive woman(irrelevant) has staked her journalism degree on this being an innocent comedy of errors. Why won’t she just reaffirm that she still believes it? I’m sure you would love me to shut the hell up too, Brian. Maybe you could get an answer out of her. And in the event I am completely off my rocker, I will formally and publicly apologize.
March 1st, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Jack, I doubt that you will ever get an answer to your satisfaction. That doesn’t mean it was intentional or even an act of neglect. “Stuff” happens.
And I don’t expect you to “shut the hell up.” You’re entitled to your opinion and you’re free to express it here.
March 1st, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Thanks Brian.
By the way, here’s an absolutely beautiful piece from that hottie Larisa Alexandrovna, and the more I read, the hotter she gets. Love to hear a point by point response, if you have the time or inclination….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/an-open-letter-to-powerli_b_89341.html