In his unconditional defense of Haley Barbour, Sid comes to a new low.
Loaded questions are expected in journalism and in the courtroom, but they should be identified for what they are.
Sid Salter put together a blog post last week after the Bloomberg article was published. He's called the article "a manufactured story" dismissing it outright and then introduces the tactic, the tool we were waiting for.
"When did you stop beating your wife?"
Presenting a question or information that is a red herring to confuse or lead the audience is an old standby. The writer can say he wasn't making a claim or the lawyer can say it was unintentional and even if it is struck it will lead the jury.
In response to an article questioning the Governor's supposedly blind trust and then the information that either Barbour lied about his remaining interest in his lobbying firm when he became Governor or the Clarion Ledger got it wrong; Sid Salter decided to change the subject.
He questions where Bloomberg News got the information and alleges that the Ethics Commission leaked it. He introduces supposed motive for the Director and a member of the Commission, but then says he of course believes them when they say they are not responsible.
No matter what he says after that he knows he has lit the flame of suspicion. Partisan Republican websites now have up posts and polls asking which person is responsible for the leak reinforcing the smear that one of them is responsible.
He knew what he was doing when he wrote that. His intention was and is to deflect any negative attention from Haley Barbour. In that defense he doesn't care who he hurts and he's crafty enough to know how to write his article to introduce the needed information while continuing to appear somewhat hands off.
An interesting point to be made is that one of the folks he attempts to tarnish is the Attorney General's brother and due to a request by the Daily Journal it is now known that Jim Hood has been discretely attempting to settle questions concerning the trust since last year. If they had wanted to make a story out of it he could have. Instead Attorney General Hood has been handling the matter quietly and confidentially in a manner that is commendable.
If Mr. Salter wants to operate as a partisan hack he should be able to, but not under the guise of a non-partisan observer.
I apologize to the anonymous poster who responded to this post earlier. I accidently deleted the comment in the moderation section while deleting a few spam comments. I read your comment and even though it was an attack on me I'd be happy to post it if you would send it again. Again, I apologize.
ReplyDeleteJohn this is really a good post. I did not know you were here, I will return frquently. Thanks for posting with me as well. We can help each other....great site.....
ReplyDeleteothor cain
And thank you, I value your opinion.
ReplyDeleteWithout getting into the details of the trust, does it bother anyone that info is leaked from the commission? Its going to discourage people from submitting confidential financial information to the commission if they have to worry about it being leaked.
ReplyDeleteDiscouraged??? How about the people who file an ethics complaint against a sitting official? The person who files the complaint is prevented by this ridiculous law from even mentioning he or she has filed the complaint. BUT, the subject of the complaint is provided not only the content of the complaint, but also the filer's identity. How's that for tamping down any "whistleblower" activity in state government? I'm glad that someone had the temerity to put some "sunshine" into this commission that parades as a good government group, but actually provides indecent cover for perpetrators of unethical behavior. I am hoping that the next group of legislators will have the courage to do something about this. Our "ethics law" is the laughing stock of any open government believer -- a group that until recently included Sid Salter.
ReplyDelete"How about the people who file an ethics complaint against a sitting official? The person who files the complaint is prevented by this ridiculous law from even mentioning he or she has filed the complaint. BUT, the subject of the complaint is provided not only the content of the complaint, but also the filer's identity. How's that for tamping down any "whistleblower" activity in state government?"
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is ridiculous. It is something we must fix and soon. Remind me again after the elections and I'll try to put some focus on that.