Washington Post scandal deepens as inconsistencies develop in reporter's version of Danielle Allen's Obama claims
Andy Martin questions why the Washington Post's coverage of Senator Barack Obama appears "curiouser and curiouser." Why are there factual inconsistencies in a Washington Post article about Barack Obama's religion? Post reporter Matthew Mosk's story does not jibe with Danielle Allen's e-mails to ContrarianCommentary.com.
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com
“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”
AMERICA’S #1 POLITICAL
BLOG ON THE 2008 CAMPAIGN
WASHINGTON POST TIME LINE APPEARS CONFUSED, REPUDIATED BY DANIELLE ALLEN
DID ALLEN "MEET" OBAMA, OR NOT? WASHINGTON POST, ALLEN APPEARS TO HAVE DIFFERING VIEWS OF THE WORD "MEETING"
(NEW YORK)(July 3, 2008) Yesterday I published a column on Danielle Allen's actions in "researching" e-mails attacking Senator Barack Obama's religion. I accompanied my column with two e-mails Ms. Allen sent me. All of this activity concerns a story in the Washington Post that raises more and more questions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062703781.html
Ms. Allen sent me another e-mail today (Wednesday, July 2nd). She told me that she did not start researching the Obama e-mails until March 5th of this year. She said:
Dear Mr. Martin,There is a mistake in your press release. I did not begin my research specifically on the smear emails until March 5th. I had concluded my volunteering with the Obama campaign on Feb. 5th.Please correct this.Thank you,Danielle Allen-- UPS Foundation Professor of Social ScienceInstitute for Advanced StudyEinstein DrivePrinceton, NJ 08540609 734 8281
Since Ms. Allen provides a specific date, March 5th, one assumes she has a diary or maintains some sort of time sheet record in which she records her activity for the day.
Matthew Mosk, however, wrote that Allen received the Obama e-mail on January 11th. His story says, "By the time it reached Allen on Jan. 11, 2008, it had spread with viral efficiency for more than a year."
Thus, there is an unexplained gap between January 11th when Mosk says Allen received the e-mail, and March 5th when she claims to have started researching the claims against Obama. That was very late in the primary season, but significantly came after Obama's losses to Clinton on March 4th. Hmmm. Damage control, anyone?
As I prepared this report and tried to analyze the confusion between Allen and Mosk, I went back to yesterday's e-mail, contained in my earlier story. More confusion. Mosk wrote: "As an Obama supporter -- she had met the senator while she worked as a dean at the University of Chicago -- it made her angry."
The only problem with Mosk's claim is that it is contradicted by Allen's e-mail to me, published yesterday, in which she stated "(3) I have met Mr. Obama once (in a shouted greeting across a parking lot) in Chicago."
A "shouted greeting across a parking lot" would hardly be considered a "meeting" by most people. Why did Mosk suggest Allen had "met the senator while she worked as a dean," when that meeting was not a meeting at all but a mere "shout" in a "parking lot?"
Finally, Ms. Allen suggests she met Mosk through "word of mouth." But if she didn’t start her research on the Obama-religion e-mail until March 5th, when did her "word of mouth" reach Mosk? How could word of her Obama research have percolated so rapidly?
I am left with questions. There are growing inconsistencies between Matthew Mosk's story in the Washington Post and Danielle Allen's e-mails. How can Mosk and Allen have divergent views of the facts?
None of this makes any sense. The actions of the Washington Post appear more and more suspicious. My suspicions increased on Wednesday when the Post published what could be a major conflict-of-interest story on Obama, disclosing the senator got a preferential mortgage rate from the Northern Trust Company. The Post did so on the eve of the July 4th holiday when media attention is declining. Is the Post trying to conceal and confuse scandalous information about Obama's campaign and the senator personally?
I invite your responses and comments.
---------------------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, being published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com. MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]
Andy Martin questions why the Washington Post's coverage of Senator Barack Obama appears "curiouser and curiouser." Why are there factual inconsistencies in a Washington Post article about Barack Obama's religion? Post reporter Matthew Mosk's story does not jibe with Danielle Allen's e-mails to ContrarianCommentary.com.
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com
“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”
AMERICA’S #1 POLITICAL
BLOG ON THE 2008 CAMPAIGN
WASHINGTON POST TIME LINE APPEARS CONFUSED, REPUDIATED BY DANIELLE ALLEN
DID ALLEN "MEET" OBAMA, OR NOT? WASHINGTON POST, ALLEN APPEARS TO HAVE DIFFERING VIEWS OF THE WORD "MEETING"
(NEW YORK)(July 3, 2008) Yesterday I published a column on Danielle Allen's actions in "researching" e-mails attacking Senator Barack Obama's religion. I accompanied my column with two e-mails Ms. Allen sent me. All of this activity concerns a story in the Washington Post that raises more and more questions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062703781.html
Ms. Allen sent me another e-mail today (Wednesday, July 2nd). She told me that she did not start researching the Obama e-mails until March 5th of this year. She said:
Dear Mr. Martin,There is a mistake in your press release. I did not begin my research specifically on the smear emails until March 5th. I had concluded my volunteering with the Obama campaign on Feb. 5th.Please correct this.Thank you,Danielle Allen-- UPS Foundation Professor of Social ScienceInstitute for Advanced StudyEinstein DrivePrinceton, NJ 08540609 734 8281
Since Ms. Allen provides a specific date, March 5th, one assumes she has a diary or maintains some sort of time sheet record in which she records her activity for the day.
Matthew Mosk, however, wrote that Allen received the Obama e-mail on January 11th. His story says, "By the time it reached Allen on Jan. 11, 2008, it had spread with viral efficiency for more than a year."
Thus, there is an unexplained gap between January 11th when Mosk says Allen received the e-mail, and March 5th when she claims to have started researching the claims against Obama. That was very late in the primary season, but significantly came after Obama's losses to Clinton on March 4th. Hmmm. Damage control, anyone?
As I prepared this report and tried to analyze the confusion between Allen and Mosk, I went back to yesterday's e-mail, contained in my earlier story. More confusion. Mosk wrote: "As an Obama supporter -- she had met the senator while she worked as a dean at the University of Chicago -- it made her angry."
The only problem with Mosk's claim is that it is contradicted by Allen's e-mail to me, published yesterday, in which she stated "(3) I have met Mr. Obama once (in a shouted greeting across a parking lot) in Chicago."
A "shouted greeting across a parking lot" would hardly be considered a "meeting" by most people. Why did Mosk suggest Allen had "met the senator while she worked as a dean," when that meeting was not a meeting at all but a mere "shout" in a "parking lot?"
Finally, Ms. Allen suggests she met Mosk through "word of mouth." But if she didn’t start her research on the Obama-religion e-mail until March 5th, when did her "word of mouth" reach Mosk? How could word of her Obama research have percolated so rapidly?
I am left with questions. There are growing inconsistencies between Matthew Mosk's story in the Washington Post and Danielle Allen's e-mails. How can Mosk and Allen have divergent views of the facts?
None of this makes any sense. The actions of the Washington Post appear more and more suspicious. My suspicions increased on Wednesday when the Post published what could be a major conflict-of-interest story on Obama, disclosing the senator got a preferential mortgage rate from the Northern Trust Company. The Post did so on the eve of the July 4th holiday when media attention is declining. Is the Post trying to conceal and confuse scandalous information about Obama's campaign and the senator personally?
I invite your responses and comments.
---------------------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, being published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com. MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]
posted by Andy Martin | 12:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home