The story is now more about Drudge, than Ware.
Take this to the bank: Drudge Is Being Smeared!
 |
When Matt Drudge reported that CNN reporter Michael Ware heckled Senator John McCain at his press conference after taking a leisurely, uneventful stroll in the streets of Baghdad, a number of blogs and even newspapers picked up the story. But now some people are backing off the report, leaving the damaging impression that Drudge just made it up. Even if it turns out that Drudge was right, no matter how many corrections are run it will still be impossible for Drudge to completely regain his reputation. I think it's incredibly irresponsible to let this smear against Matt Drudge fester before all the evidence is in. No one has unequivocally disproved Drudge's story and to imply otherwise is unfair to Drudge.
When Drudge ran his story about Ware (which seems to have disappeared from his server for some reason but can be seen in the picture above), there didn't seem to be any reason to doubt it. Drudge based his story on a very reliable anonymous source whose credentials no one had questioned and who didn't appear to have an axe to grind. "An official at the press conference called Ware's conduct 'outrageous,' saying, 'here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. I've never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter,'" Drudge wrote.
And the story certainly sounded true. Ware was the reporter who said, "I don't know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about" when McCain said there were many safe neighborhoods in Iraq, and Drudge's report, based on an impeccable anonymous source, seemed to confirm the impression many people already had that Ware's reporting was biased. "Ah, professionalism," commented Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit about Ware's biased, unsourced reporting. "Maybe it is time for CNN to find a reporter that can function sober," Lorie Bird at Wizbang wrote. "Maybe Ware was drunk; that would be consistent with his own description of how he spends his time in Baghdad," John Hinderaker at Powerline said charitably. "But he is an extreme manifestation of an all too common phenomenon--the journalist as advocate rather than neutral observer." Blackfive commented, "I don't have any evidence that Michael Ware was ever hinged, but he is certainly Unhinged now," adding that Ware has spent "four years lying drunk under his bed in his Green Zone." Rodger Morrow called Ware "a useful idiot" and Ace of Spades, writing from his parents' basement, said that Ware has "trouble seeing" that the surge is working "from the lounge at the Intercontinental Hotel."
Then the left-wing smear machine kicked in. Ware unsurprisingly denied that he had heckled anyone. Inconclusive video seemed to show that Ware was silent throughout the press conference, which abruptly ended when Ware raised his hand to ask a question. Of course, it's very possible that Ware heckled McCain very quietly when the camera wasn't on him and everyone knows from the Rodney King case that videos can give false impressions. As Say Anything points out the video doesn't prove Ware didn't heckle McCain beyond a reasonable doubt and the burden of proof is on Ware to show that Drudge's anonymous, unimpeached source was lying.
Some liberals even claimed Drudge's anonymous source had an agenda even though no one could know for sure whether he had an agenda or not since no one knew who the source was! Many attacked the messenger, claiming that Drudge had gotten so many stories wrong before, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of his stories have turned out to be true.
Although Paul Meringoff at Powerline bravely said that Ware's denial was itself "enough to condemn him as unfit to cover the war," other conservative bloggers began to cut and run from Drudge caving in to fierce left-wing pressure. Some of those who originally reported story appended one-sentence updates all the way down at the ends of their pieces casting doubt on the story and Matt Drudge's reporting. They gave the false impression that Ware's denials were somehow equivalent to Drudge's impeccably researched article based on an unassailable anonymous source, reducing the story to a he said/she said argument.
Although Hinderaker at Powerline stuck to his guns about Ware being a drunk, he said, "Drudge owes his readers an explanation regarding his stance on the story," leaving the unfortunate impression that he was beginning to doubt the veracity of Drudge's reporting. Hot Air said the video "sort of" supports Ware, but pointed out it came from a Michael Ware fan site. Still, they pointedly refused to defend Drudge. Jules Crittenden said that even if this particular story was not true that doesn't mean the press isn't "pro-Al Qaeda" and reiterated that Ware is a "consort of terrorists," but unconscionably left Drudge out to dry. Lorie Bird at Wizbang also left the impression that Drudge's story was not technically true even though Ware is still a drunk. Rick Moran wrote, "One would have to say at this point that [Ware] is telling the truth - at least the truth as he perceives it to be," and added, "Perhaps he was drunk at the press conference," yet not only did he refuse to defend Drudge, he doesn't even mention Drudge at all in the post. (Correction: In the comments Mr. Moran points out this sentence in his post, which I somehow missed, although it just serves to confirm my main point about the unfair smearing of Drudge: "So it appears that Drudge doesn’t know what the word [heckling] means -- not surprising since it isn’t the first time his headlines have failed to jive with the story being reported." My apologies to Mr. Moran for the error.)
Reynolds appended an update to his original post that seemed to criticize Drudge and at the same time reduce his own responsibility for leaving any false impressions no matter how the story eventually turns out: "Looks like Drudge got burned, as, to a lesser degree, did those of us who relied on him." Then Reynolds went even further, writing a rather defensive post claiming that he doesn't "promise never to link to things that turn out not to be wrong," trying to wash his hands of all responsibility for casting doubt on Matt Drudge's reputation in case Drudge is vindicated. "I can't find where Drudge has retracted, but on this evidence I'm going with Ware over Drudge," was his weak conclusion. Don Surber also agreed that he was now going to believe Ware over Drudge, based apparently on the flip of a coin: "I'm going with Ware over Drudge. Them's the odds -- great editor, lousy reporter." Is that what the reputation of a fine reporter like Drudge hinges on--the odds?
It should be obvious that the people attacking Drudge are biased. And even if it turns out that Drudge made a mistake on this one story, is it fair to cast doubt on all the good reporting he has done and trash his reputation? Once a reputation is damaged, it can never be fully repaired. Some people will now always believe that Matt Drudge is a liar no matter how many times conservative bloggers unquestioningly link to him in the future. These bloggers should be embarrassed that they are perpetuating these smears of Drudge even as they cast doubt on Ware's veracity. They act as if they have no responsibility for smearing Drudge's good name, claiming that they are merely linking to stories attacking Drudge or posing questions as if they can't be bothered to do some cursory research on the answers to those questions or at least apply a smell test to allegations before they publish them. If these bloggers who are now sowing the seeds of doubt about Drudge's reporting abilities are not responsible for smearing him, then who is?