Horowitz attacked "the creatures" at Media Matters, claimed we drew distinction between "lies" and "falsehoods" -- but he has done the same
SUMMARY: David Horowitz attacked "the creatures" at Media Matters for America for "pars[ing] the difference between making false claims and lying" to rebut Horowitz's assertion that Media Matters accused him of "lying" in noting his false claim that his book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, doesn't attack "professors' political speech" outside the "classroom."
In an April 25 post on his FrontPageMag.com weblog, conservative activist David Horowitz called Media Matters for America employees "creatures" and claimed that Media Matters "pars[ed] the difference between making false claims and lying" to rebut Horowitz's assertion that we accused him of "lying" when we recently noted his false claim that his book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (Regnery, January 2006), doesn't attack "professors' political speech" outside the "classroom." According to Merriam-Webster Online, a "lie" is "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive [emphasis added]." As such, Media Matters did not claim to know Horowitz's intent in making these false claims, nor did we claim that Horowitz intended to make them; instead, Media Matters simply noted that his claim that he does not criticize what professors say outside the classroom was untrue. Moreover, Horowitz himself employed the distinction in defending President Bush against claims that he lied about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.
On April 10, Media Matters posted an item noting that Horowitz "falsely claimed that although he has criticized what university professors teach in the classroom, he has refrained from criticizing 'professors' political speech' outside of the universities at which they teach." When, on the April 12 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Fox News co-host Alan Colmes confronted Horowitz with Media Matters' findings, Horowitz dismissed Media Matters as a "smear site." He then wrote an email to Colmes, which he also posted on his FrontPageMag.com blog, claiming that Media Matters had accused him of lying. Horowitz placed the words "lie," "lied," "liar," and "lies" in quotation marks to suggest that they were direct quotations. Media Matters responded with an April 14 item:
Media Matters never referred to Horowitz as a "liar" nor made any assertion that Horowitz "lied." Media Matters simply corrected Horowitz's false claim that he has refrained from criticizing "professors' political speech" outside of the classroom by pointing to numerous occasions on which he had done so[.]
In his April 25 post, Horowitz took issue with the distinction made in the item between a "lie" and a "falsehood":
I posted the email to Colmes in this blog and as if to prove my point Media Matters responded a day later by repeating its deceptive claim and accusing me of lying, about the claim itself:
In the email exchange, Horowitz told Colmes that "reasonable people can disagree about sound-bites on a fast-paced show like Hannity & Colmes where you're sitting in the dark and things are coming at you from all sides ... but calling people liars over these matters is not right." In the blog post, he also used the words "lie," "lied," "liar," and "lies" in quotation marks to portray how MediaMatters referred to him. However, in our April 10 item, MediaMatters never referred to Horowitz as a "liar" nor made any assertion that Horowitz "lied." MediaMatters simply corrected Horowitz's false claim that he has refrained from criticizing "professors' political speech" outside of the classroom...[7]
The reader is invited to parse the difference between making false claims and lying.
This was not the first time MediaMatters had attacked me for "falsely" criticizing their site in this manner. Just four months earlier, MediaMatters featured another article whose headline said it all: "Caught Giving False Information Horowitz Attacked MediaMatters With (Yet Another) Falsehood." But of course that's not "lying." To say that it's lying is....lying.
The difference between accusing someone of lying and accusing him or her of merely issuing a falsehood is clear. Media Matters did not presume to know Horowitz's intent in pointing out the falsehood. It is a distinction with which Horowitz -- his claims to the contrary notwithstanding -- is familiar. In an October 14, 2004, speech at Georgetown University, Horowitz drew a distinction between an intentional lie and a false statement. In that speech, Horowitz described charges that Bush "lied" about WMD as "reckless and baseless" because Bush had good reason to believe that his statements about the Iraqi threat -- which were later proven false -- were true when he made them:
Even the charges which followed the failure to locate stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction are reckless and baseless given the fact that there is no evidence the President lied about these weapons in advance of the war, and indeed the evidence would lead to the opposite conclusion, since all national intelligence agencies, including those of the Muslim countries of Pakistan and Jordan were saying the same thing.
In a subsequent item , Media Matters more thoroughly debunked Horowitz's claim that The Professors does not criticize academics' political speech outside the classroom; our study found that Horowitz noted outside-the-classroom speech and activities of 94 of the 100 professors he profiled, including 52 professors for whom he listed only out-of-class activities.
In addition to referring to the "creatures" at Media Matters, Horowitz noted that he published the April 25 blog post "so that others may begin to understand the character of the opposition, who share a political DNA with the totalitarians[.]"
From Horowitz's April 25 blog post on FrontPageMag.com:
This month, when I was in Pennsylvania to speak at Penn State, I appeared from a Harrisburg studio on a segment of the Hannity & Colmes TV Show. I was supposed to talk about an incident that had occurred in a high school in Alabama, where a science teacher had shown his class a film attacking President Bush and other Republicans (the teacher was himself running for elective office as a Democrat). There was no question that the film had been shown; the teacher had been suspended. But before I could finish my comments on the case, the liberal host Alan Colmes interrupted to ask me about an article that had appeared on the website MediaMatters which said that I had "falsely claimed" on an earlier Hannity & Colmes segment that I had not criticized professorial views made outside the classroom in my book The Professors. Because the charge was entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand and I did not want to be deflected from the point I was making, I dismissed the accusation observing that MediaMatters (with which I had many previous encounters) was a "smear site" that should not be taken seriously. Colmes expressed alarm that I should make such an accusation, and after the show I sent him an email explaining my position:
"One reason I refer to MediaMatters as a 'smear site' is that they invariably take reasonable differences of opinion and refer to them as 'lies' by their adversaries (like me). This is one of those instances. My book, The Professors, makes a case that certain professorial behaviors are non-academic and unprofessional ... I have never called for the firing or disciplining of a professor for having leftwing views inside or outside the classroom. The sliver of truth in the MediaMatters' statement is that since my book is a series of profiles of 101 professors I do describe their general perspectives which may or may not be expressed outside the classroom, and sometimes (but pretty rarely) I do comment on the content of what they say. But there's a difference between this and saying that because what they say is ludicrous outside the classroom they shouldn't be in it."
I posted the email to Colmes in this blog and as if to prove my point Media Matters responded a day later by repeating its deceptive claim and accusing me of lying, about the claim itself:
In the email exchange, Horowitz told Colmes that "reasonable people can disagree about sound-bites on a fast-paced show like Hannity & Colmes where you're sitting in the dark and things are coming at you from all sides ... but calling people liars over these matters is not right." In the blog post, he also used the words "lie," "lied," "liar," and "lies" in quotation marks to portray how MediaMatters referred to him. However, in our April 10 item, MediaMatters never referred to Horowitz as a "liar" nor made any assertion that Horowitz "lied." MediaMatters simply corrected Horowitz's false claim that he has refrained from criticizing "professors' political speech" outside of the classroom...[7]
The reader is invited to parse the difference between making false claims and lying.
This was not the first time MediaMatters had attacked me for "falsely" criticizing their site in this manner. Just four months earlier, MediaMatters featured another article whose headline said it all: "Caught Giving False Information Horowitz Attacked MediaMatters With (Yet Another) Falsehood." But of course that's not "lying." To say that it's lying is....lying.
I have not brought these matters up in search of sympathy; I can take care of myself. I am aware that the creatures at MediaMatters will be energized by any news that their smears may be effective. They already know this or they would not be spending millions of dollars provided by Democratic Party funders to conduct these campaigns. I am publishing so that others may begin to understand the character of the opposition, who share a political DNA with the totalitarians who call themselves "progressives" and who have blighted our age.
... little David is a big boy! Please. If he didn't care, he wouldn't even respond. It's funny.
Boy these smear merchants (Horowitz, OReilly etc) are really thensitive. aw poor babies.
ROFLMAO
I would say Horowitz is responsible to KNOW what he has written in a book he published. If he did not make the requisite reasonable attempt to KNOW what he himself had SAID he shouldnt have made claims as to what he DID say. In my opinion even calling him a liar in this instance is not much of a stretch
Horowitz is responsible to KNOW what he has written in a book he published
Amen.
If books like his required peer review before being published, he'd never make it.
Solon,
You are absolutely right that Horowitz is responsible for knowing what he writes in his own books. That should be a bare minimum.
I like the fact that MMFA does not get into the intent area though. What Horowitz said was false. That is really all that matters. When words like "liar" "lied", etc. are used, it gets argumentative fast. It suggest mindreading the intent.
I will leave it to the conservative blogs to mind-read, because without that, they have nothing.
I have found that this approach also makes for better parenting. I used to argue endlessly with my children about lying, deceit, etc. Now I point out that what they did was wrong and/or the information they provided was false. It is a good way to enforce accountability and move away from what innocent/dubious intentions they may have had. It makes for much shorter and less acrimonious discussions as well.
Horowitz has no argument without changing what MMFA said. Any reasonable observer should be able to see right through Horowitz pathetic use of the strawman.
Just to clarify, it's not a distinction between Horowitz's lying and being "wrong," but in being TRUTHFUL.
A number of years ago, I actually read one of this loon's screeds all the way through hoping I'd find a grain of truth. There was pathetically little truth and page after page of some of the most ideologically driven nonsense since Joseph Stalin. TRUEly, Horowitz (whom I slipped and referred to as David Berkowitz in a review--Freudian slip?) is one of the most ideologcally driven writers I've ever seen. He is, yes, quite Stalinist. The sad thing is, some other loons take that sociopath seriously!
..how much space MMFA is devoting to Horowitz's mistatement, while devoting zero space to a refutation of THE BOOK ITSELF.
The fact is that Horowitz's book has recieved intense scrutiny and I'm unaware of anyone having refuted either the book's basic premise or the facts stated therein.
The fact that Horowitz has defended idiots like Ward Churchill against being fired for out-of-class statements should mean something to thinking human beings, but since MMFA spends its capital combing the media for misstatements, mistakes, or differences of opinion that it labels "untruths", I'm not surprised that it revels in such trivia as if it has uncovered the Rosetta Stone.
To be wrong about everything. Just google David Horowitz debunked. It would be a lot of writing to debunk even an essay by this whacko much less a book. I am in awe of the people who have undertaken this massive project.
"how much space MMFA is devoting to Horowitz's mistatement, while devoting zero space to a refutation of THE BOOK ITSELF." I think you meant to say misstatementS, plural. Just go back through MMFA and you will find several. This man makes up claims about Universities with only vague information about the persons involved, and with little or no evidence. Just look up the Colorado story for one. And that is just scratching the surface.
..how much space MMFA is devoting to Horowitz's mistatement, while devoting zero space to a refutation of THE BOOK ITSELF.
Goodness, man, get a clue. MMFA isn't a site for book reviews.
"Goodness, man, get a clue. MMFA isn't a site for book reviews."
Oh really?
[link to mediamatters.org]
[link to mediamatters.org]
[link to mediamatters.org]
I.e., a typical day for Grhino.
The first item had to do with what World Ahead Publishing issued in a press release. The second one had to do with what Anne Kornblut wrote in the New York Times. The third one had to do with what Dick Morris said on Fox.
In other words, they were all contemporary accounts of misinformation that was being perpetrated through the mass media. Do us all a favor and look up the definition of "book review," and see how they differ. Then feel free to come back when you're more educated.
Some teacher you are.
A Media Matters for America Analysis of Rewriting History
[link to mediamatters.org]
you're right...they don't do book reviews...they do "book analyses"
You found something from two full years ago--right after the founding of the site--that could pass as a book review. Dug for that one a long time, didn't you?
Maybe Brock & Co. intended to do book reviews as a regular feature, but obviously it didn't continue.
In other words, my statement, "MMFA isn't (present tense) a site for book reviews," was correct. But thanks for going to all that trouble to point it out.
Horowitz's argument is that the professors of the United States are indoctrinating the college aged youth of America in their classrooms. But MMFA's analysis shows that most of the problems Horowitz has with these professors is their out of class activities. Even the few in class examples (such as a selection of a book) are dubious in their support of the indoctrination theory. If a history professor puts Mein Kampf on the reading list, this does not make him/her a Nazi.
So Horowitz claims "50,000" professors are indoctrinating our kids, but even his 100 best examples don't bear this out. In addition, Horowitz makes no attempt to document right wing professors. (And there is indoctrination on the right; my psychology professor would say "what do we do with criminals?" and the lecture hall would respond "Kill them." I kid you not.)
So why should MMFA waste time on fact checking everything in Horowitz's book? The logical claim is nonsense and is unsupported by the evidence regardless of the accuracy of said evidence. In a sense, the book debunks itself.
Keep up the good work. He wouldn't keep attacking if you hadn't hit him where it hurt.
How dare he whine about being smeared when he calls progressives "totalitarians... who have blighted our age?"
Apparently, Horowitz feels that it's "totalitarian" to hold people accountable for their own public statements. What a whining, mewling little twerp this guy is.
MMFA's approach of not imputing intent is the very thing that keeps it from being a "smear site".
Intent and motive are emotion-based. Facts and things that are not facts are reality-based. If the right wing did not commonly substitute emotions for the truth, there would be no need for MMFA.
Prosecutors are not required to prove, or even show, motive. They bring it in to "sell" their case to the jury, because humans often like to know why something could have happened to believe that it did happen. But in logic and law, motive is actually irrelevant.
Horowitz is responding instinctively to a factual question with emotions and charged words. His parents apparently never received the brilliant insight Open_Mind discovered: remove intent from transactions and they become simpler, cleaner, and ultimately less neurotic.
Claims from anyone who equates the revelation of errors with being smeared should be scrutinized before being accepted as facts, and Horowitz/s very hysteria should make us more skeptical.
While he may be correct in some of the things he said. Media Matters is clearly a one sided view of the media. They do give you the accurate quotes that are made by the Conservative media, however they do not report of the fallacies of the liberal media.
that MMFA does an excellent job of anaylizing the topic and pointing out the "discrepancies" with regards to conservative misinformation. MMFA does not hide the fact that that is their mission....
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Conservatives have been allowed to propagate and selectively dissimenate propaganda which supports their agenda and our "liberal media" has given them the platform to work from. Horowitz, O'Reily, and others of the like are not used to any constructive, well researched criticism. MMFA has proven to be honest and reliable resource. I can't recall a time when MMFA had to retract an article because it turned out to be "false" or "unverifiable". I can recall numerous times that conservatives have had to return to a previous statement to "clarify" what they meant only after MMFA did their homework.
Those who post on this site in opposition to MMFA's stated mission and who continuously support this administration's failures time and time again are doing nothing more than living in denial. Like an osterich burrying its head in the sand. They just don't want to see it comming.
David Horowitz is a peripatic ideolog in search of causes to promote himself... just another flea looking for a fresh bite.
You have had a massive attack of foot-in-mouth disease . . .
Horowitz is trying the same thing in academics what others did successfully in the media and politics.
"the creatures" is of course a nice try to marginalize opposition and reduce them to non-humans (like rats and bugs). He not even has the courage to say people or something like that. He still has his communist retoric, so to see.
..seeing Horowitz squirm. He's digging a deeper hole for himself. He repeatedly misrepresents the MMFA articles and keeps getting caught.
I admire MMFA's strick adherence to principles of civil discourse, and their refusal to slip into pejoratives like calling people 'liars' when they don't present evidence that meets a rigid definition of the word. On the other hand, there's no reason to same standards should apply to posters, and I, for one, am perfectly happy to state that Horowitz is a liar. A lying liar - of the variety who's pants should be on fire. An habitual, bald-faced liar, precisely for the purpose of deceiving. If you can stomach it, a ten minute tour of his web site on any given day will resolve any shred of remaining doubt.