Blogger David versus WSJ Goliath
This is day three since John Fund of the Wall Street Journal did a nationally-read hatchet job on me in which he made up quotes and falsely attributed them to me. He has still not retracted, and has not apologized. Neither has The Wall Street Journal. Hint: I wouldn't want my business news or investment advice from a newspaper that just makes things up. I have complained directly to the Opinion Journal. But still nothing. The lies are still out there, online, damaging my reputation.
Update 4/25/06: Thanks to all who wrote. You had an effect. The WSJ finally rather ungraciously admitted the error. I am told they almost never do so, so it is a big win.
Fund's lies and smears are typical of the far right, which controls so much of corporate media. Much of corporate-owned "news" is increasingly just bubbly entertainment, put on in a ceaseless search for at least 15% profits (on news!). As Tom Fenton has argued, corporate news dropped the ball in the 1990s on covering al-Qaeda (props to the hardy few like Peter Berger and John Miller, among a handful who did the hard work), and therefore bears significant responsibility for allowing America to be blindsided on September 11.
Now it has largely gone back to business as usual. They almost never report on Afghanistan or the regrouping of the Taliban. Do Americans even know that we have 18,000 troops in that country. Do citizens of the US even know that brave Canadian troops are risking their lives against the neo-Taliban and al-Qaeda in Qandahar, and that some were recently killed? No. Because it mostly isn't being covered in the mass media inside the US. It would not generate 15% profits. Nothing will, but sensationalism and lies.
The lies have even corrupted our political process. Indeed, Senator John Kerry could never have been swiftboated during his presidential bid unless corporate media jumped aboard and gave all the falsehoods enormous play. They threw the election, folks. Those editors and journalists knew that the swiftboaters had no case. The media caesars put them on anyway, to play lions to Kerry's Christian. Even Kerry was unable to get his message out. A humble college history teacher has as much chance of winning against the billionaire smear machine as a union organizer has of keeping her job in a Walmart.
(When I complain about Faux "news" often being mere propaganda, Fund accuses me of "intolerance"!) If it weren't for this little blog, I wouldn't even have had a way of challenging Fund's and the WSJ's falsehoods. (And, if the media corporations can take "net neutrality" away from us, they'll remove that avenue of reply, too.)
If it were just a matter of ruining my reputation with false quotes, the issue would not be world-shaking, though it is a sad day for America when giant corporations can just crush red-blooded Americans at will. But the paid-for lies of the John Funds of the world have profoundly endangered the security of the United States by plunging it into a quagmire in Iraq.
Iraqi Shiites protest against United States and against Terrorism, March, 2006.
And, the accelerating threat of global warming cannot be addressed because people like Fund shout the evidence down with their cable- and satellite-provided megaphones-- provided by Rupert Murdoch and General Electric.
Not only was Fund wrong about the "weapons of mass destruction" threat in Iraq, a mistake that has cost the US nearly 2400 lives and 14,000 severely wounded, but he is wrong about the threat of global warming. I found that on January 25, 2003, he managed to be wrong about both things all at once! Here he is on Hardball in late January, 2003, urging on the Bush administration Titanic toward twin glaciers!
' MSNBC
SHOW: HARDBALL 21:00
January 31, 2003 Friday
MATTHEWS: John Fund, do you know what turned him [Colin Powell] around from a man who is perceived by the public to be dovish to a man who is the hard line fellow, very much like his fellow Cabinet members, Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney?
JOHN FUND, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": Complete frustration Chris. He basically decided that Saddam Hussein was never going to come clean, that the process was completely flawed.
You know the same people who believe that global warming is absolutely proven and they're not going to listen to anything else are the same people who will accept absolutely no evidence that Saddam Hussein is hiding something and including weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell basically finally threw up his hands and said we have to act because the alternative is to let Saddam Hussein win the game, set and match, and the world cannot be blackmailed that way. '
Actually, Iraq let the UN inspectors in. They inspected 100 of 600 sites designated as suspicious by the CIA. They found nothing. As Fund was talking, Iraq had complied with Bush's demand. Fund wanted to go to war anyway.
He castigated those, like myself, who refused to believe that Iraq formed a danger to the US, as being like people who believe in global warming!!
Why be wrong once when you can be wrong twice? Or, if you throw his manufactured quotes attributed to me into the kitty, three times. Indeed, you begin to wonder if Fund ever gets anything right.

In fact the melting of the ice caps both at the arctic and the antarctic has accelerated beyond scientists' expectations.
Mr. Fund should explain to the people of New Orleans about how warming seas are a myth.
A humble college history teacher is like a canary in the mine. If he starts being strangled for air, it is a sign that we all are in grave danger. People like John Fund are taking our country, and our world, down into the deadly methane of propaganda and falsehood.
Here is my complaint on Day 1.
This is my complaint on Day 2.
------------
Dennis Perrin has more.
James Wolcott weighs in, too.
Also FAIR.
Justin Raimondo.
BTC News.
Corrente Wire makes the interesting point that my blogging may be part of the issue here.
Jane Hamsher.
Glenn Greenwald on the background to the controversy.
See the comments section for Fund's replies.


28 Comments:
Here's a portion of this guy's bio (taken from the WSJ web site):
Mr. Fund worked as a research analyst for the California State Legislature in Sacramento before beginning his journalism career in 1982 as a reporter for the syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak. In 1993, he received the Warren Brookes Award for journalistic excellence from the American Legislative Exchange Council.
He and former Pennsylvania Rep. James K. Coyne are co-authors of the book "Cleaning House: America's Campaign for Term Limits" (Regnery Gateway, 1992). Mr. Fund attended California State University where he studied journalism and economics.
So here's a guy who majored in journalism and economics from California State University (an elite institution of higer education, I'm sure), and who major work experience consists of studying yellow journalism at the knee of the excretable Bob Novak, alleging that everything that Professor Cole has told us about the Middle East is wrong.
I really don't know whether to laugh or cry...
In fairness, the WSJ's editorial page is completely seperate from the news page, which may be the best paper in the country. Remember, the WSJ's news page was at the forefront of pushing the Abu Ghraib story.
As for being damaged by libel in the editorial page, for the most part, those who are going to believe them weren't on your side in the first place. Not to say that you shouldn't demand a retraction, but keep in mind who it is.
I am not the only WSJ subscriber who thinks that it's a great paper, but that they ought to ditch the two page comedy section because the jokes have gone stale.
Do citizens of the US even know that brave Canadian troops are risking their lives against the neo-Taliban and al-Qaeda in Qandahar, and that some were recently killed? No.
Thank you for mentioning this incident and its absence from the US media.
I watched the press conference by the Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and the Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Hillier as the four deaths were announced Saturday. This attack came at a time of growing debate regarding the Canadian mandate in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Canadian press corps is more concentrated (in terms of ownership) than the US, as such the public discussion has failed to address some necessary questions.
The points of this debate regarding the four soldiers, and the mission in general, have tended to focus on the morale of the troops and if there was sufficient armour on the G-Wagon vehicle at the time of the attack. Valid questions, but the lack of discussion regarding the Canadian post factum legitimacy of the US installed Karzai government as our choice for a "democratic" alternative is not present - it is simply stated that we are there to support his administration. Similarly ignored is Canada's role as diplomatic, and in this case, military cover for continued American adventurism. Canadian efforts to support Afghani citizens too often take the form of Howitzers and not water treatment facilities, clinics or agricultural support. These systematic questions regarding the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, and our broader role in the World, are addressed but rarely in the Canadian media.
It needs to be mentioned to your US audience that Canadian public opinion supports the efforts to lift the Afghan people out of the decades of violence. However, it is hard not to feel abandoned, as you rightly point out, by American negligence to set the Afghan mission on the proper humanitarian and security footing.
A greater dialogue needs to occur between the two countries in regards to missions such as Afghanistan, which is simply not happening. The odds of any moves towards this type of dialogue with the newly elected Conservative (read, Republican North) government coming to power is slim. The Harper government is keen to adopt many of the moves from the Bush playbook (i.e. barring the press from returning caskets, strictly enforced executive branch secrecy, increased militaristic bravado, increased acquiescence to American policy, etc...)
Sorry for the digression. It is entirely tragic that Fund is demeaning your work - including your obvious contribution to democratic discourse and to Mid-East scholarship. He is also demeaning the opinions of the entire Yale faculty who support your appointment - second guessing their expert opinion on an appointment to a position completely outside Fund's competency. The Yale professorship ought not to be too pleased that he callously disregards their judgment. And, lastly, I thought it was ironic that he trotted out a Chomsky quote to counter your support for the Mearsheimer and Walt article - since Chomsky contends that their assertions did not go far enough to understand the motivations of US foreign policy. I wonder if he read the whole article from which he selectively excerpted.
Thank you for your thoughtful dedication to your profession and public advocacy.
What suita_steve said.
The pundit class should, figuratively speaking!!!!, be taken out and shot. These idiots are called on regularly to pontificate upon the events of the day, as if they are so qualified to have an opinion upon whatever subject is at hand, and yet almost every one of them is nothing but a partisan hack whose sole talent is putting forth or defending the party line.
What exactly qualifies Jonah Goldberg to have an opinion upon the current state of affairs in Iraq, much less spout it on television as if he knows his copious ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to that topic?
Same goes for Kate O'Beirne, Fund of course, Novak, Krauthammer, Tony Blankley, etc etc etc.
I'm serious. There are perfectly smart and knowledgeable people out there, like Prof. Cole, who are well-qualified to speak about Middle Eastern affairs. Paul Krugman should be on a lot more often when it comes to economics. Yes he's a pundit but he actually has qualifications, unlike virtually the rest of the pundit class.
Week after week we keep seeing, reading and hearing the same old faces who are called upon to comment upon issues about which they are ill-informed, at best. They view all events through the prism of their ideology and spout forth their BS as received wisdom.
It is like calling for a surgeon and getting a witch doctor instead. What is wrong with the bookers for these shows? Are they perpetually lazy? Can they not afford a larger Roladex? Who the hell decreed that Tony Blankley is qualified to have an opinion on tax policy, the situation on the ground in Iraq, and the challenges of the Chinese economy?
Would you like to see the John Funds and Jonah Goldbergs dethroned and replaced with people who actually know what they are talking about? Start complaining. Start writing letters and emailing. I'm starting with the Diane Rehm Show and going from there.
I think they are banking on the fact that you won't take them to court. Personally, I think doing so would be a nightmare. These are some powerful people. But that is the only way they'll take you seriously.
Mr. Fund attended California State University where he studied journalism and economics.
IOW, he didn't even manage to get a degree from that Cal State commuter college!
Oftentimes, "attended" is simply a euphemism for "flunked out of".
Juan,
this is my first comment to you..
I am a fan and regularly recommend my readers (elsewhere) to come visit your well-presented coverage of matters..
still I would appreciate your accepting the following data in relation to a co named in your Fund quest, as in the spirit of assistance and not criticism..
[quote]
U.S. companies including General Electric Co. and Duke Energy Corp. have come out in support of national limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions that scientists say contribute to global warming. They are now being joined by Republican lawmakers who have parted company with President George W. Bush on the issue.[unquote]
this is from a bloomberg article today by kim chipman.
with my best wishes..
p.
Your paper recently published an erronous quote by John Fund about Juan Cole.
When you have lost your integrity, what do you have left? Publishing false
statements and not correcting them shows a loss of integrity.
I subscribed to the WSJ for 18 years but stopped because the editorial page is
harmful to USA. Our country allows individuals to speak freely and not be
squashed by corporate ideology. I know that the editorial page is separate from
the news portion of the paper, but it really isn't. This is but one more false
statement on the editorial page that should not be tolerated in our democracy.
In a country where the administration pays for propoganda like Armstrong, and
the media is entertainment, not education in democracy, we are going to suffer
from rot from within.
Please publish a correction on the Juan Cole error.
I believe the only thing that will make WSJ responsible is being kicked in the teeth with a tort for libel.
They could care less what non-subscribers think.
Find a lawyer and make an example out of the little chickenhawk. Your case seems pretty cut and dry. If there is no record of you ever making the supposed quote, then he's obviously making it up. Just because it's the opinion page doesn't mean a journalist can use lies in place of facts. It's not just his problem alone. His editor has to answer for the sloppy journalism as well. Bleed'em dry, I say.
Thanks for the perspective.
Michael Locker MD
Thanks for the perspective.
Michael Locker MD
Fund has replied by email
-------
"From: Fund, John
Sent: Wed 4/26/2006 10:17 AM
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: I appreciate your lette
"Professor Cole, and I apologize for not having responded earlier, since I was traveling. Your letter was forwarded to me by the OpinionJournal.com editors later on Monday and they also published it.
You cite the quote In which I said you had referred to Israel as "the most dangerous regime in the Middle East." In reality, as you pointed out in your letter you said "the most dangerous regime to United States interests in the Middle East." I relied on a quotation in a newspaper that was incomplete. I have checked with the paper and no correction of that quote was requested by you. However, clearly the quote was incomplete. I will post a clarification and correct the record with my next column. .
Some of your defenders say you were referring to "the regime of Ariel Sharon" with reference to your quote and that it was not a reference to Israel. I would submit that since the dictionary definition of regime clearly refers to the government in power of a country that my interpretation was a fair one.
re·gime also ré·gime (r-zhm, r-)
n.
1.
a. A form of government: a fascist regime.
b. A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime.
2. A prevailing social system or pattern.
If your refer to my letter to you, that you reprint it in full. We reprinted your letter to us in full. Thank you, John Fund"
Cole: Note that he still hasn't got to the original quote, and still insists on eliding things from the quote, such as "the Ariel Sharon regime" or the reference to targeted assassinations of Palestinian leaders at a time when US troops faced Sunni Arab opposition in Iraq.
Fund follows up:
From: Fund, John
Sent: Wed 4/26/2006 11:55 AM
To: Cole, Juan
Subject: RE: I appreciate your letter
Professor Cole, You need to take up your request for a retraction with the editor of OpinionJournal.com. He is James Taranto at james.taranto@wsj.com
In the meantime, I would like you to reprint in full my letter to you on your blog, just as we printed your full letter to you.
I would also respectfully suggest you correct the record on something you quoted me on. I would also like you to reprint the following response to your blog entry:
You said that I "was wrong about the threat of global warming." As evidence you cited a 2003 Hardball transcript in which I said the following: "You know the same people who believe that global warming is absolutely proven and they're not going to listen to anything else are the same people who will accept absolutely no evidence that Saddam Hussein is hiding something and including weapons of mass destruction."
You will note that in that quote I expressed no view of global warming. I was just saying that the type of people who take one point of view on it often took a certain view of the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Could you please point to anything I have written saying global warming doesn't exist or is not a problem? I did oppose U.S. implemnation of the Kyoto Treaty. You will note that in 1997 Congress passed the bipartisan Byrd-Hagel Act by a vote of 97 to zero to oppose accepting a Kyoto Treaty that did not ensure the "meaningful" involvement of developing economies such as that of China in emissions reduction. Not a single Democratic senator voted against that act.
I have never said global warming was not a problem.
I can point you to a June, 2001 CNN appearence in which I said in a debate with Christopher Hitchens that included the following exchange.
Hitchens: I'm old enough to remember Margaret Thatcher, who while not an MIT climatologist does have a degree in chemistry, changing her mind mid government and telling her civil servants: This looks as if it's really important, we ought...
FUND: But she never has endorsed Kyoto and never would.
HITCHENS: No, probably not. But with Bush, you don't get the impression that he knows what the policy was, is now or ought to be. And the last time I heard him express doubts about it was he said, well, if we took these measures, they might impact on the consumer. Well, that's not going to impact the consumer as much as if global warming is true. He didn't seem to be thinking about it.
FUND: New technology will reduce our emissions. We should do that. We should do other steps.
Does that sound like evidence that I "was wrong about the threat of gloibal warming'? What evidence do you have that I have been wrong on that issue? Please respond to my query about whether or not you have misquoted me as saying something I didn't say in that 2003 Hardball broadcast. "
Cole: Fund admits to opposing Kyoto and he also clearly implied that people who believe in global warming are wrong. The quote at Hardball is eloquent and speaks for itself. His tepid hope that vague "future technologies" might "reduce emissions" isn't proof to the contrary. He does not even say in the CNN interview that he thinks the emissions cause global warming. Does he? And, note the sleazeball tactic here of asking me to apologize for accurately quoting him in the Hardball interview. And note the he's trying to take the spotlight off being completely wrong on Iraq.
Raimondo's got your back Juan
John Fund vs. the Truth
He lies about Juan Cole – and much else
Feel free to use this
Gentlemen:
I call your attention to a most serious matter of libel by one of your columnists John Fund, to wit:
"In justifying all the time he spends on his blog, Mr. Cole told the Yale Herald that 'when you become a public intellectual, it has the effect of dragging you into a lot of mud.' Mr. Cole has done his share of splattering. He calls Israel 'the most dangerous regime in the Middle East.'"
This is a fabrication. You can google the quote from Cole's website or from the www search engine, and you will not find it. THus Mr Fund knowingly fabricated a defamatiun of Mr. Cole's character. The quote, in short, is a lie, and I ask that you retract it.
Dr. Cole,
I read Informed Comment daily to maintain a realistic perspective on Iraq and our governments mishandling. The snarkism is a side benefit.
It appears Mr. Fund believes he can parse meanings and leave his smear intact when he really needs instead to admit his error and apologize for his intent. I doubt that Yale University will be fooled, but the WSJ may become wiser and more discriminating. Or not.
Regards.
I couldn't agree more with J. Michael Neal; the WSJ is a great paper for news and economics; unfortunately its OpEd section serves as the top of the Right-Wing Noise Machine food chain. I refuse to buy the WSJ, instead reading it at the library or bookstore.
Prof. Cole, I hope you take them to the mat on this one. This is the kind of lies, distortions and half-truths they engage in all the time.
By the way, bloggers, please spare us the elitist comments about schools such as Cal State University. Not all of us can afford the expense of private schools or elite public universities. I went to CSU Dominguez Hills in the 1970s, had excellent professors, and went on to med school.
I would suggest that Mr Fund then refute the argument that the Sharon government or Likud rule poses the greatest threat to US interests in the Middle East.
Regarding his attempt to use lexical definitions to refute you, if he wishes to parse definitions, Israel is not a regime but a country. Regimes come and go but countries remain. From Mr Fund's quotation, I have to believe that he believes that no matter what action Israel takes, the outcome will be the same, i.e. that the party in power is irrelevent.
The fact that Mr Fund's publishing house is Regnery speaks volumes in itself.
While I strongly concur with the effort to hold Mr. Fund to a standard of journalistic accuracy, I've got to strongly speak out against the cheap shots made about the source of his education - the California State University system.
The California State University and College system is open and available to the upper 1/3rd of California high school graduates. It's the cheapest and most accessable college education available to California's working and middle class, and the CSU system produced a huge number of teachers, engineers, cops, nurses, and business people for the state. It's a great system (though budget cuts have hurt) and it doesn't deserve the cheap shots made against it. Yes, I went to a CSU school, and it was full of Vietnam vets, mothers returning to finish educations after raising kids, and sons and daughters of immigrants.
Take your shots against Mr. Fund's mistakes, but don't make classist remarks against the source of his (perhaps misused) education. That smacks of economic elitism and disdain for the average citizen. Hardly in the spirit of what we're trying to defend.
[It's an interesting time when the Funds of the world have to back away from their fantasies about global warming as a liberal plot. Nice to know that a 99.999% consensus in the scientific community can achieve at least that.]
This is really to second the people who point out the kooky nature of the WSJ "comedy" section. I used to call them the "pro-slavery editorials."
It's fascinating from the standpoint of cognitive psychology how aware of reality the WSJ can be when money is involved, i.e. in the rest of the newspaper, and how divorced from it they can be in what, to them, is the feel-good section. Unfortunately, real people who vote and/or buy politicians have the same schizophrenia, and it's bought us the current Dreamer Team flailing around in the White House.
As you say, there'd be fewer problems with these fantasies if there weren't so many outlets propping them up.
My favorite part is how refuses to source the quote, to disguise the fact that he pulled it out of his ass. A newspaper, yeah right. You know that if he actually read a newspaper which printed that quote he'd inform us which one and the date of publication. Then he compounds the lie by claiming that he contacted the "newspaper" and checked for a correction.
Even if it's true, it shows that he never read your work and read a news report on you. He probably read it on the web somewhere, in some rightwing blog.
Unbelievable. You should demand he reveal his source or apologize publicly.
Prof. Cole,
From his rambling comments it is obvious this so-called journalist is either inebriated or was dropped on his head when young. The fellow probably had a good idea once but it died of solitude. When riding the IRT ( one of the subway lines in NYC), late at night, one comes across some unsavoury characters and one learns to ignore them -- my suggestion is that you do the same, as difficult as that may be. After all, where is the challenge in debating someone who is clearly of lesser intellect?
Look at the bright side -- you have many supporters and they, like me, will continue to read Informed Comment -- funded or otherwise.
Parenthetically, I think I know why WSJ continues to print Fund's jibberish. It is supposedly a serious financial publication and thus cannot publish caricatures in any form but written. Ergo!!
Professor Cole,
I consider IC an excellent, if utterly depressing at times, news source on the Middle East. I thank you for your efforts at bringing perspectives both historical and from indigenous reporting to events in Iraq.
Thanks to suita_steve for posting Fund's WSJ bio. "[A]ttended" Cal State; that brightened my day.
Despite Fund's protestations, he was clearly, if unwittingly, distinguishing himself from those who beleive global warming is proven in order to underscore his point that anyone who doubted Saddam's WMD prowess was a fool. Thus, he was wrong about global warming.
As to the Mearshimer/Walt paper, the most substantive criticism I've read is that it is monocausal (an academic quoted in an April 5 WaPo column by Eliot Cohen). Clearly, there are other major institutional factors; Eugene Jarecki's "Why We Fight" carries weight simply by virtue of the clips of Eisenhower. However, without a historical figure of such stature to counter, the neocons have discussion of the influence of the Likud lobby taboo. To determine if M/W is poor scholarship, it needs hearing.
There's lots more I'd like to comment on, but I have rambled enough. I'll end by thanking you for your discussion of the sacrifice Canadian soldiers are making in Afghanistan.
I just want to say thank you and hang in there. Your posts are informative and insightful.
All the best!
Malissa
As i'm sure Cole's reviewers at Yale have long known, pundits dont know sh*t. If they knew sh*t, they'd be called experts.
Cole's doing the right thing by vigorously defending himself, you gotta set the record straight.
Also, and maybe more importantly, suppose he did call Israel the most dangerous state in the middle east? Shows how jumpy everyone is. The US has totally been encouraging Israel to go the way of forceful domination and ultimately apartheid... policies which aren't going to put an end to anything.
This is a minor point to do with the comments on this issue, not the issue itself.
Commenters: may we please refrain from educational elitism -- i.e. bashing the Cal State system just because Mr. Fund "attended" one of them?
I am a graduate of a commuter-school(bachelor's), and Prof. Cole's U Mich (PhD). I have worked at both the Cal State, and "elite" institutions. The Cal State System has done more to educate students of color, including recent immigrants from Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East than all of the "elite" institutions combined. Their mission is education and their goals are accessibility and affordability. They are largely state-funded and they do the best they can with the money they get, and they deserve our real and rhetorical support, not our pious and pompous scorn.
I also feel the need to give props to the Cal State University system. The education I received at CSU-Fullerton was terrific: I was well-prepared for graduate-level coursework and research when I graduated in the early 1990s.
State colleges and universities are certainly less glamorous than Ivy League and Big 10 schools, but they do serve a diverse clientele - including many who either couldn't afford to attend a more prestigious college or university, or who were the proverbial "diamonds in the rough" (actually that would be me on both counts).
Fund may be a poor representative of the CSU system, but let's be careful not to tar it and other systems like it with Fund's poor research skills.
Otherwise, you have a great blog, that I have enjoyed visiting.
Great outcome.
Michael Locker MD
Post a Comment
<< Home