THE NEW SAM-AND-COKIES: Impossibly bad!

TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2014

Part 2—Zernike, counting to two: New York Times reporting of the Fort Lee mess has been almost impossibly bad.

(Note to readers: From this point on, we are evaluating the work of the New York Times. We are not evaluating the conduct of Chris Christie, or even that of David Wildstein, who wasn’t his best friend in high school.)

The reporting has been remarkably bad. Consider what happened on December 10, when the Times made its first attempt to report this extremely peculiar affair.

On Monday, December 9, New Jersey’s Assembly Transportation Committee conducted six hours of hearings into the traffic lane closings which had occurred in September. On the previous Monday, the committee had held an earlier hearing into the matter.

Eight hours of hearings had now been conducted. At the Times, reporter Kate Zernike swung into action.

Presumably, Zernike had attended the two days of hearings. For whatever reason, her 1100-word report started off with an obvious factual error:
ZERNIKE (12/10/13): It would seem a minor whodunit for a small suburb: On the first day of school in September, three access lanes leading from Fort Lee, N.J., streets to the George Washington Bridge were unexpectedly and mysteriously shut down. Cars backed up, the town turned into a parking lot, half-hour bridge commutes stretched into four hours, buses and children were late for school, and emergency workers could not respond quickly to the day's events, which included a missing toddler, a cardiac arrest and a car driving into a building.
Oops. Only two access lanes were closed, as Zernike seemed to know. Later in her multiply-bungled report, she wrote that bridge officials had been ordered to close “two of the three lanes” that lead from Fort Lee to the bridge.

Everybody makes mistakes. Zernike proved this point the next day, perhaps with the help of her editor.

For unknown reasons, her second report about the lane closings started like this:
ZERNIKE (12/11/13): The inspector general of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey opened an investigation on Tuesday into the sudden closing of three lanes on the New Jersey side of the George Washington Bridge in September, which caused huge traffic backups, and the actions of a close associate of Gov. Chris Christie who ordered the shutdown.
We were back to three lanes being closed!

Three days later, Zernike published her third news report on this topic. By now, she had abandoned her attempt to account for the number of lanes:
ZERNIKE (12/14/13): It began with a few orange traffic cones in September, when local access lanes to the George Washington Bridge abruptly closed for four days, gridlocking Fort Lee, N.J.
It wasn’t until January 9 that Zernike was able to state the number of lanes that were closed at the start of a news report. Skillfully, she counted to two in a major front-page report, while making a larger misstatement:
ZERNIKE (1/9/14): The mystery of who closed two lanes onto the George Washington Bridge—turning the borough of Fort Lee, N.J., into a parking lot for four days in September—exploded into a full-bore political scandal for Gov. Chris Christie on Wednesday. Emails and texts revealed that a top aide had ordered the closings to punish the town's mayor after he did not endorse the governor for re-election.
Did those e-mails really “reveal” the motive for this peculiar action? Actually, no—they did not.

Even last night, Rachel Maddow continued discussing the possibility that the closings could have been payback for Democrats’ refusal to reconfirm a New Jersey Supreme Court Justice. Others discuss a possible tie to a billion-dollar development project in Fort Lee.

As everyone knows, the motive for these ill-advised lane closings is still completely unclear—unless you read the front page of the New York Times, whose ranking reporters have always been quick to settle on tales about motive.

Let’s be clear—Zernike’s problem counting to two isn’t especially important in the overall shape of this story. In fact, bridge authorities closed two access lanes out of three, thereby creating the traffic mess Zernike colorfully described.

The exact number of lanes they closed doesn’t exactly matter, though Zernike’s problem counting the lanes is not an encouraging sign.

That said, Zernike was bungling other factual matters in those first three news reports—and those other misstatements did matter. Those other misstatements started tilting the story in a way certain folk might tend to like—and Zernike seemed extremely willful with quite a few statements and claims.

Zernike’s more recent misstatements and novelizations have probably been more significant than the liberties she seemed to take in December. For today, though, it’s worth reviewing some of her misstatements that month, in the wake of those hearings, when Fort Lee was still young.

To appearances, Zernike took some remarkable liberties last month, grossly misstating, embellishing and obscuring certain facts. That said, the Times has behaved this way for a very long time when it assigns villain status in the dramas it likes.

(See Gene Lyons’ Fools for Scandal to read about the front-page New York Times reporting which invented the Whitewater pseudo-scandal. That highly willful misreporting began in January 1992.)

In her three news reports in December, Zernike struggled to count the number of lanes which were closed. With which other facts did she struggle?

Another fairly minor example: It was in those reports that the story about Christie’s alleged high school/childhood friendship with Wildstein began gaining currency. Here too, Zernike wandered the countryside, making a shifting set of statements, most of which were false.

On December 9, she reported that Wildstein had been “a high school friend of the governor's.” On December 10, she dialed that back, reducing Wildstein to a “high school classmate.”

By December 14, her initial claim had been restored. Wildstein was “an old friend of Mr. Christie's,” Zernike reported, “a high school friend of the governor.”

By now, almost everyone, possibly including Zernike, has abandoned these claims about childhood and high school friendship. Back in December, Zernike gave legs to this narrative in a shifting set of claims.

Who knows? Zernike may have believed the things she wrote about that alleged high school friendship. Her claims about the December 9 hearings seem harder to explain.

On December 10, in her first report, Zernike's clams were fairly mild, perhaps even accurate. By December 14, none of the testimony had changed. But Zernike’s descriptions had.

“Bridge workers” had testified that there was no traffic study, Zernike misleadingly reported. (She was speaking about only two such “workers,” a fact she never managed to state in any of the reports.)

And not only that! In their testimony, those same bridge workers “said they had feared for their jobs, because Mr. Wildstein worked for Mr. Baroni, and Mr. Baroni worked for the governor.”

Zernike hadn’t made this dramatic claim on December 10, the day after the hearings. By December 14, her story had improved.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at what those “bridge workers” actually said about that traffic study. We’ll also consider what they said when they were repeatedly asked to discuss their alleged fear for their jobs if they refused to do as David Wildstein directed.

For today, just consider the claim we have quoted—the claim that the so-called bridge workers “said they had feared for their jobs, because Mr. Wildstein worked for Mr. Baroni, and Mr. Baroni worked for the governor.”

There were only two such workers. Below, you see what one of them, Roberto Durando, said concerning that point.

What kind of “bridge worker” is Durando? The committee’s official transcript describes him as “General Manager, George Washington Bridge and Bus Station.”

Here’s what the bridge worker said:
ASSEMBLYWOMAN STENDER (12/9/13): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You’ve spoken a lot about the chain of command and how you respected that. That’s clearly part of the culture at the Port Authority, that there is an existing chain of command. And when I questioned you before, you said [in response to leading questions] that Mr. Wildstein reports to Mr. Baroni, and Bill Baroni reports to the governor.

Clearly, David Wildstein, in my opinion—based on what we’ve heard today—acted with impunity with this whole study, and they— Not wanting to tempt the fate—

Did you believe that when it [the directive] was coming from Wildstein that, in fact, this was coming down through the chain of command from the governor?

DURANDO: I have given that no thought whatsoever.

STENDER: Thank you.
Earlier, Durando said this, testifying under oath:
ASSEMBLYMAN WISNIEWSKI: So would it be fair to say that you did have a concern about your continued employment if you went outside of his [Wildstein’s] direction?

DURANDO: I honestly don’t know how to answer you.

WISNIEWSKI: Well, either you did or you didn’t.

DURANDO: Well, I was not fearful that I was going to get fired.
On December 10, Zernike reported these statements in a fairly accurate way.

By December 14, her tale had improved. Zernike reported that this “bridge worker” testified that he “had feared for his job, because Mr. Wildstein worked for Mr. Baroni, and Mr. Baroni worked for the governor.”

That formulation comes straight from Assemblywoman Stender, who isn’t at fault in this matter. You can see Durando’s reply.

Times “reporters” have played it this way for a very long time. In her disregard for the protocols of her own profession, Zernike seems to be a lot like Wildstein, the man who ordered two traffic lanes closed—two traffic lanes, out of three.

Tomorrow: Testimony versus reporting

Discourse on method: In the material you have just skimmed, we were discussing the conduct of Kate Zernike, a major “journalist.”

We were not evaluating the conduct of Christie, a politician, or even that of Wildstein, a former bridge worker. Concerning Wildstein, did you know that those “bridge workers” each testified that he had been questioning the need for the access lanes from Fort Lee since 2010 or 2011?

We’ll show you those statements tomorrow. Wildstein seems like a rather strange dude. But then again, so does Zernike.

48 comments:

  1. By the way, the failure of the NYTimes reporters to credit what accurate information they have had to local New Jersey reporters and the Bergen Record in particular is shameful.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Discourse on method: In the material you have just skimmed, we were discussing the conduct of Kate Zernike, a major “journalist.”

    We were not evaluating the conduct of Christie


    Bob is mighty generous to spell it out for the braindead trolls who inhabit this place. But most of us know that, and are grateful someone has the fortitude and commitment to slog through the unending bullshit and chronicle the horrors therein. Most of us don't have the time or patience, which is exactly what these people and the troll contingent hope to count on. Thanks, Bob.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What he should add, in service to truth and accuracy is:

      "I am really using this whole thing as another club to beat Rachel Maddow with, and to cover my posterior for the incredibly stupid things I wrote about this before it blew up in my face, knowing what short memories my loyal tribe has."


      Delete
    2. Why does Rachel Maddow keep providing all those clubs to beat her with?

      Delete
  3. In 2004, NY Times fact-checking was so respected that its head of fact-checking wrote a book, The Fact Checker's Bible: A Guide to Getting It Right. So, where were the fact-checkers on this story? Were they laid off in an economy move? Are they less competent than previously? Was their reputation undeserved? Do political attack articles get excused from fact checking, as op-eds do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The NY Times is a business. Businesses fuck-up all the time. That's why governments should NEVER just believe the word of business-people, and should NEVER hope to run a government like a business.
      On a completely-related topic, shutting down K Street and making lobbyists get a real job will decrease regulation*.

      * Most regulations on business are designed to erect barriers of entry into current business markets.
      Berto

      Delete
    2. "Businesses fuck-up all the time."

      "To err is human." But who fucks up more? Businesses? Government? Non-profit organizations? Individuals?

      Delete
    3. Everyone fucks-up.
      So, we should:
      1. Regulate and oversee businesses, and hold business-people accountable.
      2. Make government as transparent as possible, and
      hold government workers and government representatives accountable.
      3. Regulate and oversee non-profit organizations, and hold those who work in non-profit organizations accountable.
      4. Enforce laws and hold individuals accountable for their actions.

      We've got our work cut out for us, in regards to numbers 1 and 2.

      Berto

      Delete
  4. These small errors do matter when people are hanging whole theories on small points of supposed fact. People are overinterpreting what little info they have, so a wrong fact here or there can change the whole scenario being proposed. Look at the fact about whether or not Sokolich was asked for his endorsement. Look at the fact about whether or not Sokolich is Serbian (Stepien is a Serbian name, is he the one who was going to be made unhappy).

    It is odd to me that so many people are willing to go whole hog for theories based on interpretation of very small points of fact, when they are not willing to buy into the claims of a different mayor who is claiming she was actively solicited for cooperation on a development project as a quid pro quo for receiving Sandy funds. That one people are backing away from because there is no substantiation for her very serious claims (which are being vigorously denied by Christie's staff). In this traffic situation, the facts are so unclear that everyone feels confident in espousing the worst possible interpretations with little encouragement. What is the difference and why will people jump on this very unclear situation while avoiding the other one?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly which theory hangs on the thread of the exact number of access lanes that were close in Ft. Lee?

      If there is no theory that hangs on whether 2 lanes were closed or 3 were closed, then Bob burned roughly 25 paragraphs and half his total post on a complete non-issue.

      On the "high school chum" issue, Bob is apparently the only person in the universe who continues to rely on Christie's self-serving and plainly false assertion that "David and I were not friends in high school. We were not even acquaintances in high school." Christie has already acknowledged that he knew Wildstein from high school from working on a political campaign together. And so there isn't a lot of sock-puppet confusion on the sematics, from thefreedictionary.com: acquaintance: Knowledge of a person acquired by a relationship less intimate than friendship.

      Which leaves us with the "bridge workers." Looking forward to more on that tomorrow.

      Delete
    2. Three lanes are all the lanes there were allowing Ft Lee residents to access the bridge. Closing all of them would make a very different statement than closing two of them. Closing all of them would not plausibly be a traffic study, so the theory that there was a study hinges on the number of lanes closed, for one.

      Who knows better than Christie who he hung around with in high school? Calling a person's remark "self-serving" is a veiled way of calling Christie a liar. There is nothing fair about ruling out anything that support's a person's case as "self-serving." If Christie were correct about never being acquainted with Wildstein in high school, his recollection would still be self-serving because it supports his version. Christie has never denied that Wildstein was at the same high school, so how has his statement been disproven? Christie says he didn't have a relationship with Wildstein -- so they were not acquainted by the definition you offer here.

      Delete
    3. "the theory that there was a study"

      And where else in the known universe beside the World According to Bob is that theory operative any more?

      Delete
    4. Evidence supporting the theory that there was a study was presented to the legislature's investigating committee. It has been omitted from the NY Times and MS-NBC discussions. Concluding that the presence of a study has been ruled out by any investigation is premature.

      Delete
    5. Sock 234,
      "I knew who David Wildstein was. I met David on the Tom Kean for governor campaign in 1977. He was a youth volunteer, and so was I."

      It's from the big Christie press conference. You can't just make up a new meaning for "acquaintance" because it suits you. So Christie assertions are self-serving and plainly false: you can't say you knew who someone was and met them and also claim that they are not an acquaintance. (The same is likely true for the baseball connection, but that's just gravy.)

      Delete
    6. 2:52. Patrick Foye, executive director of the Port Authority, subsequently told the same committee that there was no study.

      But what does he know about it compared to you. After all, Somerby has told you that their could have been a study.

      Delete
    7. He didn't conduct it and he is not investigating it. He stopped the lane closures when others complained to him. So, how is he the final authority on whether there was or was not a study?

      Delete
  5. "
    Let’s be clear—Zernike’s problem counting to two isn’t especially important in the overall shape of this story. In fact, bridge authorities closed two access lanes out of three, thereby creating the traffic mess Zernike colorfully described.

    The exact number of lanes they closed doesn’t exactly matter, though Zernike’s problem counting the lanes is not an encouraging sign."

    If the number doesn't matter - why a whole snark-fest post centred around it?

    Who said 'Traffic across the bridge wasn't affected" around the time frame Zernike was making her earth-shattering mistakes?

    THE WHOLE BLOG IS ABOUT VENTING HATRED UNDER THE GUISE OF FACT-CHECKING.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only around one-third of the post is about Zernike's (repeated) misreporting of the number of lanes. If you bothered to venture further, you would have read more egregious examples of bad journalism by Zernike.

      And nothing says "venting hatred" more than screaming in all-caps.

      Delete
    2. It's typical Bob, 12:51.

      "Look over here, but it's not important."

      Delete
    3. When Zernike doesn't see anything wrong about 3 lanes (not 2) in her story and fails to correct the error subsequently, it implies she is not a careful reporter or that she is not being edited, or that she is writing in haste. None of these things is good journalism. It is important because it makes all the rest of the facts in her article suspect.

      Why can't the NY Times, our "paper of record" do a better job? Details matter in life. A small mistake can result in a medical drug overdose causing death, or the Hubble telescope not working, or a whole manufacturing run having to be scrapped. Close enough is not good enough. Why don't professionals in journalism check their work?

      Delete
  6. "Concerning Wildstein, did you know that those “bridge workers” each testified that he had been questioning the need for the access lanes from Fort Lee since 2010 or 2011?"

    Bob, do you think that Wildstein and those other "bridge workers" were unaware of a huge development project in the works for which those lanes were critical?

    Do you also think somebody at the Port Authority years ago woke up one morning and said, "Let's give Fort Lee access they don't really need."

    I'm gonna guess, and gee whillikers it's just me speculating, that there was quite a bit of study and analysis by professional traffic engineers before those lanes were put in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. State of the art in traffic flow changes, advances, makes progress, just as other fields do. Design of 3 lanes that slow down traffic over the bridge for no good reason may be better understood today than when those lanes were originally created. Note that the lanes were not created in 2010, but the concern about traffic flow over the bridge was expressed then. The Port Authority is responsible for bridge traffic flow, not traffic in Ft Lee, development or not. Assuming Wildstein was worried about some development there makes no sense -- it makes a lot of sense that Sokolich would care about it and oppose any effort to decrease those lanes. Is it legitimate to slow down people on the approach to the bridge in favor of a development that benefits, at best, only Ft Lee and Sokolich. Why is it not corrupt for Sokolich to lobby the Port Authority to keep lanes slated to be decreased by ginning up a political revenge fantasy to embarrass Christie (as leverage to keep those lanes)? You have to see this through Dem tinted glasses to buy Sokolich as the victim when there are several alternative interpretations of this situation.

      There were originally plans to redo the connection between the Palisades Interstate Parkway and the GWB. Those plans were put on hold. Maybe that project is being revived or someone wishes to justify the need to revive them? It could be that this study was to provide some justification for that effort.

      Delete
    2. Blog commenters don't make any better traffic engineers than bloggers. Which is why your defense of blogger Somerby's defense of blogger Wildstein's "bungled" study (or top secret experiment) makes no traffic sense.

      The access lanes are for people who get to the bridge from
      OR THROUGH Ft. Lee. All caps are used so some of you who may think there is a moat around the corporate limits of that municipality will understand there are people south of the town who go through Ft. Lee to get to said Hudson crossing.

      If you guys care to read the details of what was found when they closed the two access lanes, the delays created in and around Ft. Lee far outweighed the few minutes of reduced travel time resulting for those already on the main lanes headed onto the bridge. But any competent person with a computer could have told you that with or without a fat guy in overalls moving cones for a week.

      Delete
    3. I'm no traffic engineer, but I drive across roads designed by traffic engineers.

      In his testimony before the Jersey committee, Foye said that about 25 percent of the GWB traffic accesses at Fort Lee. There are 12 toll booths total. Three for the Fort Lee access.

      Also, relying on my expertise as a driver, when one route I normally use is going to be reduced for construction or whatever for any significant amount of time, I tend to look for an alternate.

      Maybe it's just me, but if I knew the Fort Lee access was going to be greatly reduced, I might try something else rather than sit in gridlock every morning, thereby negatively impacting another access point.

      So it would seem to me that the increased access at Fort Lee is very much a benefit to motorists who ordinarily use other ways to get to the bridge.

      Delete
    4. "If you guys care to read the details of what was found when they closed the two access lanes, the delays created in and around Ft. Lee far outweighed the few minutes of reduced travel time resulting for those already on the main lanes headed onto the bridge."

      They gained 45 minutes. That is more than a few minutes. If you are making a point, be honest about it.

      Delete
    5. You ask me to be honest by stating mainlain treaffic saved 45 minutes??? You goota be kidding.

      You know who your source is for that? WILDSTEIN!
      Oh, pardon me, Bob repeated it so it must therefore be true.

      Please follow the link to an unbiased source.

      http://tollroadsnews.com/news/poorly-executed-toll-lane-reallocation-trial-at-geo-washington-bridge-escalates---two-top-execs-of-panynj-are-out-in-political-furore'

      An excerpt from this excellent article:

      Mainline flow did improve

      "As expected it improved traffic flow in the mainline and motorists who normally took 20 minutes to get through the old toll plaza and across the bridge were able to do it 15 minutes."
      .....

      "A report by PANYNJ engineers monitoring the trial on its fourth day, Thursday, September 12th, said that backup onto local streets in Ft Lee were two lanes and half a mile long. Their preliminary estimate was that on average 600 vehicles experienced 2800 vehicle hours of delay - which was saying the average delay was 4 hours 40 minutes!"

      Five minutes saving for mainlane motorists versus 4 hour and 40 minute delays for bridge for entrants at Ft. Lee.

      You suggested I was dishonest. I am not. But you are a fool. Fortunately you have Bob and the imminent intellectual collapse of America to wrap yourself in for consolation.

      Delete
    6. How many vehicles saved 5 min each? How many vehicle hours of improved traffic flow were gained? You cannot make a comparison without knowing that. Be honest.

      Delete
    7. You are both dishonest and stupid. I gave you a link.
      Here it is again.

      http://tollroadsnews.com/news/poorly-executed-toll-lane-reallocation-trial-at-geo-washington-bridge-escalates---two-top-execs-of-panynj-are-out-in-political-furore'

      The paragraph follwing the last one I quoted reads as follows:

      An engineer, Daniel Jacobs, reporting to Mark Muriello at 5:14pm on Thursday emailed a six page powerpoint in a file titled "Fort Lee Trial Review.ppt." It said that with mainline traffic of about 11,600 vehicles saving 5 minutes in travel time under a thousand vehicle-hours of delay would be saved. This was outweighed several times by aggregate new delay at Fort Lee."

      Delete
    8. And to quote the actual figures in traffic engineer talk, 966 vehicle hours saved on the bridge vs. 2,800 vehicle hours lost by the new delay at the Fort Lee access.

      And please note that the author of that review, Daniel Jacobs, used the phrase "as expected."

      Realize also that not notifying the public also skewed the 966 vehicle hours saved number. Had the public been notified and chosen alternate access points to that bridge, or another way across, you would have to take into account the vehicle hours lost at those alternates as well.

      Delete
    9. So, you know how many vehicle hours were cost by the lane closures and you know how many were saved but there was no study?

      Delete
    10. Nobody said the professionals at the PA didn't measure the impact of what their political hack blogger boss ordered them to do against their better advice.

      If there was a study, there should be a paper trail from its conception to post implementation analysis.

      Delete
  7. Reserved. Anonymous @ 1:43. The lanes were "reserved" for access for traffic coming from and through Ft. Lee.

    All it takes, apparently, to unreserve them is a fat guy in overalls moving some cones who is not an aquaintance from high school of one David Wildstein.

    Although it could have been an acquaintance of David Wildstein from high school. We don't know. Everything is possible. Including that we do know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, allow me to rephrase:

      "I'm gonna guess, and gee whillikers it's just me speculating, that there was quite a bit of study and analysis by professional traffic engineers before those lanes were reserved for access for traffic coming from and through Ft. Lee."

      Is that all better now?

      Delete
    2. No. You failed to mention the fat guy in overalls with the cones.

      Delete
    3. Are you suggesting that once something is built it is never studied again? Are you aware that conditions change? For example, if suburbs that people originate from on their trips THROUGH Ft Lee grow, wouldn't there need to be a change in those access lanes at some point? What if those suburbs decrease in population? Have they? Do you even know?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 6:38

      Are you the same as Anonymous 6:25? Because you are suggesting this order to close lanes made by a Pseudonymous Blogger in a Must Hire Position created by a Christie appointee is a study. That Anonymous suggested the times savings touted by that same Pseudonymous Blogger were accurate.

      Delete
    5. "Do you even know?"

      Well, I do know that Foye testified before the New Jersey committee under oath that approximately 25 percent of the GWB traffic accesses at Fort Lee, and that 25 percent of the tollbooths and lanes are dedicated to the Fort Lee access.

      Delete
  8. (Note to readers: From this point on, we are evaluating the work of the New York Times. We are not evaluating the conduct of Chris Christie, or even that of David Wildstein, who wasn’t his best friend in high school.)

    Of course around the time Zernike was reporting two to three lanes of closure "we" were introducing Wildstein to "our" readers thusly: "The minor official was a high school friend of Christie’s."

    "We" may have gotten that information from the New York Times, "We" don't know.
    But while "we" have been reporting the unacknowledged errors of others, "we" have not acknowledged "ours."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you saying Somerby introduced Wildstein as a high school friend of Christie? He didn't -- he criticized that characterization (which was denied by Christie).

      Delete
    2. The reason direct quotes are used is because those were the first words written about Wildstein by Somerby. Where they came from we don't know. The fact he wrote them has never be noted. Or corrected. He has gone on to criticize the way others have changed all sorts of things.

      Delete
    3. Somerby was relaying what the media had been reporting, in an early blogger about the reporting on the Christie story.

      You guys really aren't just ignoring context in order to shoot peas, are you? You truly ARE dumber than a shoe.

      Delete
    4. There was no contect to ignore. Somerby simply stated something as a fact. He let it stand for a month. He then began criticizing others for saying it. And it stand today uncorrected and unacknowledged.

      Delete
    5. Cecelia, Somerby wrote about Wildstein being a high school friend of the Governor in a paragraph with absolutely no attribution. The only way you could know what he was relaying or know it came from an early blogger is if you are.....

      Delete
    6. "You guys really aren't just ignoring context in order to shoot peas, are you? You truly ARE dumber than a shoe."

      Interesting question, Cecelia, followed by a very un-Malala conclusion.

      How come you never ask yourself that question about your leader as your read his latest pea-shooting?

      Delete
  9. According to Kevin Drum:

    "If I understand things correctly, the governor's office has explained that there are two pots of money, flood mitigation and Sandy relief funds—and they say Hoboken has gotten $70 million in relief funds, mainly paid out directly to local residents and businesses. But that's not what Zimmer is complaining about. She's charging that Christie held up Hoboken's share of the $290 million flood mitigation fund. So far, though, all that Christie's office has said in its defense is that "Hoboken has not been denied on a single grant application for recovery efforts under the current programs for which they are eligible."

    This is easy to explain. If Christie's people say that she received no flood mitigation funding, then it makes them appear as if they are doing something to harm Hoboken. If they have not submitted any grants or have not yet made decisions on pending grants, then they have not done anything to harm Hoboken. It matters how they report this. I really cannot blame Christie for phrasing things in a way that will lead to less trouble later on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If they have not submitted any grants ..." this refers to Hoboken, not Christie's staff -- sorry for the awkward writing.

      Delete
    2. Quick Q Anonymous 6:33 pm.

      Were you quoting the good Uncle Drum or his evil twin?

      Delete