Clint Talbott Can’t Stop Lying
January 31st, 2008
Michael Roberts is on a roll, checking in with another update about Ward Churchill and the Boulder Daily Camera.
A More Messages blog from January 30 includes an e-mail Q&A with Ward Churchill, who responded to a query about the dropping of charges against one of his supporters over an episode involving Boulder Daily Camera reporter Heath Urie. However, the final section of the communique was temporarily omitted because it made a separate accusation against the Camera that required a response from the paper. With apologies to Paul Harvey, here’s the rest of the story, which deals with the 2005-2006 period when the question of whether or not Churchill should be allowed to continue in his role as University of Colorado Boulder professor ate up huge chunks of newsprint at publications across the Front Range.
The concluding section of Churchill’s e-mail found him responding to an assertion that editors at the Camera couldn’t squeeze in letters or op-ed pieces from some of his most prominent defenders, including the University of Hawaii’s David Stannard – yet somehow space for attacks against him was always available. According to him, this claim is accurate. He wrote that the Camera “simply declined to run [Stannard’s] or any of a number of other pieces favorable to me submitted from scholars around the country, meanwhile finding room to run hostile material on a regular basis.”
“The Camera wasn’t alone on this score, BTW,” he went on. “The Colorado Daily did pretty much the same thing… and so did the Post. The Rocky, of course, was worst of all. The Boulder Weekly was pretty much the only Metro Area rag that even made an effort at retaining something resembling balance.”
In addition, Churchill wrote that a Camera representative told him that, “despite running editorial material about me every single day, their policy was that responses appearing under my name could not appear more than once or twice per month. They did allow, however, that they were aware that this placed me at a rather glaring disadvantage, and that this was undoubtedly unfair. That’s when it was suggested that I write responses under other people’s names, and that they’d run them with a wink and a nod, thereby letting me have ‘my’ say while still maintaining ‘appearances’ (of what was left a tad mysterious). My response to that proposition was to ask why, if they felt material arguing my case [could] appear under names other than mine, they weren’t publishing the material submitted by people like Stannard. I got no answer.”
Clint Talbott, the Camera’s editorial page editor, begs to differ. Here’s his take:
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to respond. My brief response is this: The charge that the Camera declined to publish letters and op-eds favorable to Churchill or from Churchill supporters is completely false.
We strove throughout the relevant time to include letters and op-eds from supporters, detractors and those whose opinions could not be easily categorized. Below, you’ll see a sample of letters from 2005 that defended Churchill’s right to speak, his scholarship and/or his blow-back critique in the “Eichmann” essay.” [This material has been placed at the bottom of the blog.] We also published op-eds from vocal defender Tom Mayer, local activist Ty Gee and instructor Ursula Lindquist that challenged the Camera’s editorial view (and the academic committees’ damning assessment) of Churchill’s academic practices.
For the record, the Camera consistently defended Churchill’s right to make provocative claims about 9/11 victims. His scholarship was another matter, to us, and to his colleagues at the university.
I have no record of receiving anything from David Stannard, and I am not familiar with that name. I know I have received suggested op-eds from [CU sociology department staffer Tom] Mayer (and perhaps others) that were far too long to print. I have not spoken to Churchill since sometime in the mid-90s. So this conversation, if it in fact occurred as he says it did, took place either between one of two former editorial writers, one of whom is deceased.
It’s easy to say we declined to print “any number” of pro-Churchill pieces. It requires more rigor to specify a number; just a wild guess that he did not specify so much as a ballpark figure. Similarly, it is easy to recount an alleged conversation with an unnamed staff member. It is more revealing to name the staffer (which, I’m inferring, Churchill does not do).
We do have a once-a-month policy on letters. And we do not bend it for public figures, even when they are in the national spotlight. I can certainly believe someone here told him that much. Beyond that, however, I guess you’d have to take Churchill at his word.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Clint
What follows is nearly 7,000 words worth of pro-Churchill material – the sort of commentary that may resurface if and when the onetime CU prof’s lawsuit against the university over his July 2007 dismissal reaches the courtroom stage. By then, Churchill and the Camera will likely have plenty more about which to disagree.
Of course, almost all the “nearly 7,000 words worth of pro-Churchill material” comes in the form of letters and open forum blog postings, rather proving Churchill’s point, and Mr. Talbott seems to have included anything that mentions Churchill in any sort of positive light by every letter writer in the last three fucking years.
So what’s missing?
Well, the obvious. During the period in question, the Boulder Daily Camera was giving space to every jackass, lunatic and rapist/murderer who’d ever had a bone to pick with Mr. Churchill. And then, as I understand it, was relying on their once-a-month policy to forbid any sort of rebuttal.
It’d be sort of like me, as a newspaper owner, calling Clint Tabott a rapist on the first of the month, printing his rebuttal, then calling him a child molester on the fifteenth and refusing to allow him to respond out of my sense of journalistic integrity.
An example?
How’s about when the Boulder Daily Camera, riffing on one of my favorite of the local media’s sleazy tricks, ran a Suzan Shown Harjo editorial accusing Ward Churchill of being an ethnic fraud, quoting Dennis Banks and Clyde Bellecourt to that effect.
Think it might have anything to do with anything that Ms. Harjo’s buddies, Dennis Banks and Clyde Bellecourt, have a longstanding feud with Mr. Churchill that ain’t got a thing to do with his ethnicity?
That maybe what really gets under their skin is that Mr. Churchill and others in Colorado AIM have been accusing them for about a decade of being involved in a particularly nasty bit of kidnapping, rape and murder?
And that said accusations seem borne out by the fact that one of their cronies has already been convicted of said rape and murder and another one’s been extradited from Canada to stand trial?
Now, don’t you think the Boulder Daily Camera might should give a little space to that kind of information? Even if it violates their once-a-month rule?
Seems like a fair question to me. But, hell, maybe rebuttals as regards that sleazy little maneuver were some of the ones “far too long to print.”
Or, maybe, just some more examples of correspondence the Camera doesn’t care for getting, ahem, lost.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Good catch, Ben (even though Talbot’s attempt to conflate letters to the editor with editorials and op-ed pieces ought to have been transparently obvious to even the dimmest bulb out there).
The bottom line here is that, quite apart from the consistency with which the Camera ran its own in-house anti-Churchill propaganda as boxed editorials, it could find room for boxed anti-Churchill op-eds by the likes of Suzan Harjo but not for even the most tepidly pro-Churchill op-eds, such as that submitted by the noted scholar, David Stannard.
All told, I recall the Camera running only one op-ed of the latter variety. It was by CU professor Tom Mayer, a local talent who was beginning to make noise about the paper’s glaring editorial imbalance.
Michael Roberts should demand that Talbot ante up the full texts of all the Camera’s anti-Churchill editorials and op-eds as well as the texts of every pro-Churchill editorial and op-ed it’s run.
THAT would be an interesting juxtaposition.
Better still, Roberts might demand that Talbot provide copies of all the pro-Churchill opinion pieces the Camera received but declined to publish, as well as all the anti-Churchill opinion pieces meeting the same criteria.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:36 pm
You go, Metro.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Question for Michael Roberts: Are you telling us that Paul Harvey is still alive??? Good god, man, THAT’S a REAL scoop!
The man was a prime candidate for a place alongside Walt Disney in the cryogenic preservation vault 30 years ago.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Ain’t Harvey’s son doing the show now?
February 1st, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Why on earth does anybody care about this stuff?
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:10 am
Alex, then why do you not only bother to read it, but then POST? And what will be even more telling….
Why will you bother to come back and respond? (That should shut him up.)
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:46 am
Reminds me of the Ballerinas insisting nobody reads this site. Right after quoting verbatim every word I’ve written over the last three months.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Who does cares whether the “news” media spews disinformation, right, Alex? Or whether due process is observed? Or whether “our duly elected officials” are guilty of election fraud? Or…
Just so long as the media bias isn’t “liberal,” only people of whom you disapprive go to jail, and only reactionary jackasses end up holding office.
Right?
Of course it is, you right-wing asshole.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
While it’s undoubtedly true that Clint Talbot can’t stop lying, it’s worth noting that Jim Paine can’t either. Witness his spin today on Ward Churchill’s recounting of how, during the spring of 2005, the Daily Camera’s editors suggested that he write op-eds and submit them under pseudonyms.
Quote Paine: “Ward Churchill says he was asked to write pseudonymous supportive letters to the editor by the Daily Camera.”
Paine follows with a long passage in which Westword’s Michael Roberts mostly paraphrases the Good Prof’s observations. Therein it’s obvious that Churchill was talking about op-ed ARTICLES. Nothing at all is said about “pseudonymous supportive letters to the editor.”
Assuming that Mr. Moonbat actually doesn’t know the difference between an op-ed piece and and a letter to the editor would go a long way towards explaining how he came to lose his job editing a backwater newsrag Down South.
It’s far more likely, however, that—as always—he’s deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Which raises the question of why he, like Talbot, is so eager to try and equate letters to articles.
The answer in both cases is, of course, that with only one exception, the Camera ran no pro-Churchill op-eds during the entire period in question. So much for Talbot’s pretense that he runs a “fair and balanced” shop. And so much for Paine’s desire to cast the impression that Churchill ghostwrote whatever was published in support of him/his positions.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
the police underworld
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Fuck off, Scrunt.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:37 am
flap-dragon!
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Ahhhh…
A retort truly worthy of a scrunt, Scrunt.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:02 am
off topic. Look at these IED videos on video.google. Are we losing.. even losing the war in youtube comment threads? Following the related clips is numbing, and many of these aren’t the, like, regular IED mortars that make a 20′ explosion which wouldn’t destroy a tank, but a big 60′ fireball. The news hasn’t been showing much, for instance about the gas line explosion. These are often flagged for the adult registration area, but a dozen new IED films appear every day. Maybe the last one with the shockwave is mislabeled as an ied.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MYBG7tXogU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-H9sTBF7Gk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrBLz6R6lc4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3_M9jA1VfA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNbtVsR4SQc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTSWi4M7yQE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92Zu7P06SUE
February 4th, 2008 at 10:40 am
oops. for shockwave I meant this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqKwCp27QSs
The soundtrack of the first one above is amazing. Do they have anything like this from Vietnam?
oh, this is impressive. Homeland security can’t even control enemy infiltration of the american youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFygIOQclNQ
February 4th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Somebody got bored with Metroplex, I guess. Those are not my comments, Rama.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Yeah, right. Reckon you figure I believe in the tooth fairy, too, hey Scrunt?
February 4th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
It sounds like this group needs better dieting and nutrition. I recommend Dr. Joel Furhman’s “Eat to Live” book, and his site Drfurhman.com. Good videos with cooking tips.
Really isn’t the same since Leroy Churchill’s been marginalized. But don’t fret, even Pirate Ballaweenie’s losing steam.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Dear Fat Grant Crowell: Please take your own advice and hit the health food store, and get on a diet. I’m dying in here under this thick layer of lard and I can’t get out!
Everyone’s seen the photo of Fat Grant trying to emulate Ward Churchill’s photo with a rifle. Everyone saw how small your clip was compared to Ward’s.
I’m tired of being embarrased trapped inside this fat skin. Please let Skinny Grant out! Please, I’m dying to get out!
February 5th, 2008 at 8:41 am
yep - Look what’s happening outside your beloved burger restaurants. there is a grease problem http://www.ci.longmont.co.us/pwwu/ipp/fog.htm
February 5th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Okay, Rama, you got me. I lied. It really was me making the comments. But that’s to be expected of a scrunt. Right?
February 6th, 2008 at 9:53 am
It is a pity. Grant is losing his looks. After his maladaptive socialization process, he hasn’t yielded a woman who wants to cook for him, (or have you recently found anyone, Grant, tell us). And so increasingly unattractive, he only has some already-divorced frat brothers to keep company while they listen to Tom Leykis and eat microwave meals and mcnuggets.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Heh. I was just clued in that he has a blog, Hilda: http://www.grantasticdesigns.com/blog/
February 6th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Ben, best to wait for my upcoming podcast show, The G-Spot. I haven’t updated that podcast for a while.
If you would rather find something more amusing, you can check out my icon at searchmarketingstandard.com, or searchenginewatch.com under the ‘SEW Experts” section. Heck, even searching my name will show what blogs I write for in my field.
And despite “Hilda’s” feigned interest, I do have a great woman who is my fiance, and we love cooking for each other and exercising regularly. No quip from me here; not every blog post has to be about making fun of someone’s weight or personal life. (Oh, and doing very well in both departments, thank you.)
February 6th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Okay - so your persona just an obnoxious act you put on to members of the public, where essentially 100% of your internet commentary amounts to humor-challenged, snide and sexist put-downs, and your hobby is stalking. ‘Get a life’, well said.
The interesting thing about his business is that he is able to do so well in a field which must be the most common vocational course in high schools right now, flooding the labor market. He must be a business savant. It is expensive to provide useful mechanic, shop, medical tech courses, or even early childhood/home ec, but with classroom computers essentially all the students these days learn to construct a webpage with Dreamweaver, do a few projects with Illustrator and Photoshop, do an animation in flash or 3-d, or hook up some application to their facebook, plus Junior Achievement level marketing. But Grant gets paid enough to do this at an advanced level so he can fund plane tickets to do documentaries nobody wants to see. I guess lots of people are so dumb at business that they can’t handle a credit card.
February 11th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
The only thing the Camera can say that resembles accuracy is that they let bloggers respond on their website to defend Ward. Same with the RMN blogs. Other then that it was constant attacks allowed against Ward for years on end on paper. The part about them asking him to use different names was a set-up. They would have immediately published that he used fake names and that would have harmed his reputation.
The mass media has been trying to frustrate, slander, hurt, falsely accuse and defame Ward for years. He is still standing and wiser then ever. While I do not agree with all he says he is a true teacher, historian and patriot who cares about his countrymen unlike the treacherous mass media whores who are fascist psychopath piranhas chomping at the bit to send wise and decent Americans to concentration camps or run them out of town on bogus charges. The Camera has no credibility. I stopped even responding as the bias against decent men is so great.