Witch Hunt Escalation
Today’s edition of the Rocky Mountain News is a dramatic escalation in the Ward Churchill Witch Hunt. The News devotes more space to this one cause than the Washington Post ever did with the Watergate scandal. It’s possible that the revelation of “Deep Throat’s” identity made some reporters and editors at the News want to be big-time Investigative Journalists, but they picked the wrong issue and ultimately, in our opinion, seriously embarrassed themselves.
For those of you not intimately familiar with the Churchill Saga and/or Colorado politics, a good introduction can be found in “Are you now, or have you ever…” which we published on March 13th, at which time we thought the affair was pretty much over and done with. Wrong. The News evidently thought the issue was serious enough to commission their own investigation of “charges before a CU panel” and publish a “Special Report” on their findings.
That this is still a witch-hunt, pure and simple, is more than adequately demonstrated by the front-page treatment of the report. We can’t reproduce the front page legibly here, but if you click this link you can read it for yourself. (The original will be available on the News’ web site for around 2 weeks. The articles will be available for a similar period before going into their “pay-per-use” archives.)
First we will describe the scope of this extraodinary rendition, and then we will talk about the actual content.
It begins on page one, obviously, and note that it occupies two-thirds of the page. Under the picture are the words “The five-day series begins today on 21A.” A five-day series! Turn to page 21A and you find the entire top half of the page is devoted to “THE CHURCHILL FILES Shadows of doubt.” 80% of that space is occupied by a photo, with a single column of text on the right, ending with “Flip to FILES on 22A.”
Page 22A is devoted entirely to the “Churchill Files,” without a single ad. That is a lot of ink. “The MAYTAG store” probably paid several thousand dollars for their full page ad on the facing page, but of course you would have to go through an advertising agency to find out the actual rates. Now we “Flip to FILES on 24A.”
Page 24A is devoted entirely to the “Churchill Files,” without a single ad. That is a lot more ink. The files continue on page 25A, occupying the top third of the page.
Last, but certainly not least, the leadeditorial on page 14c is headed “Don’t ignore new revelations…Expand focus of Churchill probe” and embedded in the editorial is a box with this quote “The standing committee on research misconduct must expand the scope of its investigation to account for the revelations.”
***Oops! We goofed. it has been brought to our slightly embarrassed attention that the editorial described in the last paragraph is talking about four new allegations of copyright violation contained in two articles published on Friday, i.e. the day before the Special Report. We’ll leave the paragraph in place, with this correction, because it provides context for some of the comments we’ve received. Please deduct 1/4 page or equivalent column inches from the totals in the next paragraph.
We have a total of 3-1/4 pages devoted to the Churchill files. That’s an astounding four hundred and sixty-five column inches for you newsies out there. And remember, this is only the first day of five!
Wow, these “new revelations” must be absolutely horrifying! Unless of course they are only “shadows of doubt” as the page 24A subhead says. Well, boys and girls, if you actually read what the News is saying, you will find that these “new revelations” are shadows of doubt at best. The News says so!
Let’s look at the sensational front page summary of their “special report.” The sub-head says that the investigation “reveals strong evidence of possible misconduct by professor.” Note that little word “possible” in their. Not evidence of misconduct, but evidence of possible misconduct. Anybody who understands plain English will see that if it is only possible misconduct, then the strength of the evidence is pretty much irrelevant.
The entire investigation is summarized on the front page for you, as four “issues” and “our findings.” Every single one of the “findings” is qualified. Here they are, with our analysis of the findings.
AT ISSUE
Did Ward Churchill falsely accuse the U.S. Army of using smallpox as a weapon of genocide against American Indians?OUR FINDINGS
His claim cannot be supported by the sources he has cited.
That’s a very clear and concise question, calling for a yes or no answer, and the “findings” do not answer the question. In the first place, there’s a difference between a false accusation and a claim. All that the News has been able to “reveal” is that the claim is not supported by the sources that Churchill cited. If his claim could be disproved we are sure they would have said so.
AT ISSUE
Did Churchill commit plagiarism by publishing the work of others and claiming it as his own?OUR FINDINGS
An essay he “prepared” for a book was actually taken from a Canadian scholar.
Again, a simple yes or no question and a finding that doesn’t say either. And note that they put the word “prepared” in quotation marks. Wonder why….
AT ISSUE
Did Churchill mischaracterize two important pieces of federal Indian law?OUR FINDINGS
His contentions about the Dawes Act of 1887 and the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 are incorrect.
We have problems with both the “issue” and the findings this time. Seriously, folks, in what context is it an “issue” if someone mischaracterizes a “piece of law,” and does it matter whether it is an “important” piece? Regardless of how real an “issue” this might be, it’s still a yes or no question and the “finding” is something else again.
AT ISSUE
Did Churchill misrepresent himself as having American Indian ancestry?OUR FINDINGS
His assertions that he is descended from Cherokee and Creek ancestors aren’t supported by extensive genealogical records
.
One last time, the “findings” do not anwer the question that was asked.
That’s it. Those are the four “new revelations” that the Rocky Mountain News says the committee must account for. (Oops, that was a different four revelations) Those are the new revelations that the News is going to take five days to account for.
These are not revelations, and they are not news, and there can be only one reason for promoting this issue so hysterically– the Rocky Mountain News, along with its Republican ownership, is out to get Ward Churchill by any means necessary. The only people who will conceivably read their report in full are those who are already convinced that Churchill is a witch who must be burned at the stake.
Need any more convincing? Don’t forget we have two competing newspapers in Denver. How much attention did the Denver Post pay to these new revelations? The Saturday paper is a combined issue, and includes a single editorial page under the RMN masthead. On that page there was not a single word about the Churchill affair.
In our opinion, the CU committee must expand the scope of its investigation to account for external political pressure, yellow journalism (in both senses of the word) by the Rocky Mountain “News,” and the increasing propensity of government to persecute people whose opinions are contrary to official dogma.
–SG
What do you think? Please enter a comment below.
June 4th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
First, you must have missed where the Rocky on Friday published four hitherto undisclosed cases of intellectual property theft by Churchill. That was all new, but not a peep out of you.
Second, you’re dissecting the notices for coming articles. An honest analysis should have waited until you’ve actually read those articles to find out what information and arguments they contain. Right now, you’re bullshitting, and in a rather intellectually dishonest fasion.
June 4th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
Evidently we can’t read. Or perhaps don’t know what day of the week it is. But in our defense, there was certainly room for confusion.
The front page summarized four issues that were investigated, and the newpaper’s “findings.” The editorial does indeed refer to the articles that were published on Friday, under the by-line of Laura Frank. There were two articles, and they contained four new allegations of copyright infringement. The editorial did refer twice to Friday’s paper, and we missed it. We’ll consider a re-write of our article and make that adjustment. Or, since that would destroy the context of some comments, we might try to find another way.
But there is no way we can be accused of dissecting the notices for coming articles. We dissected the four specific issues, and the findings, as printed on the front page. There was no suggestion that these were to be the topics in the remaining four days of special reporting, or that the four allegations published Friday are to be the subjects.
June 4th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
When Ward Churchill’s essay came to my attention, I thought it curious that several Churchill supporters insisted that the entire affair was a witch hunt, perpetrated by right wingers and supported by people who never read the essay. I read the essay and much more. I am not a right winger and I loathe many right wing views and the messengers of those views. Yes, I was offended by his essay, but frankly, I’d heard it before and we’ll hear it again, as free speech allows the expression of any opinion without prohibitions concerning the quality or truth of the speech. What caught my eye was the unscholarly writing. My concern was only that this person was somehow tenured at my daughter’s school and couldn’t write well, make an original argument or properly support his point of view by arguing legitimate opposing views and substantiating his “facts”. Rush Limbaugh advocates in the same fashion, which I find annoying and worthless. This, and not the words of some womanizing blowhard on the television, kicked off my study of the Churchill issue. I’m not the only Churchill critic on the liberal side of the fence and I suggest that the polarization of American politics should not be injected here. Churchill is found wanting by many.
The Rocky Mountain News has made the judgment that the Churchill story is a matter of importance to many of its readers. Clearly, you had no interest in reading further than the blurbs announcing the investigation by RMN. That seems pretty closed minded. I assume that we all have the right (and responsibility) to check all available information before we try to form appropriate opinions.
You have thoroughly confused the RMN four part investigative report and the editorial citing new revelations and why they must be included by the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct. You wrote,
“That’s it. Those are the four “new revelations” that the Rocky Mountain News says the committee must account for. Those are the new revelations that the News is going to take five days to account for.”
The “new revelations” are additional charges of plagiarism as reported on Friday. Please see
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3826262,00.html
and http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3827452,00.html
Your knowledge of Churchill is so pedestrian that you don’t even recognized Churchill’s own words.
“And note that they put the word “prepared” in quotation marks. Wonder why….”
In his statements answering these charges and elsewhere, Churchill used the word “prepared” to characterize what others are calling plagiarism of work done by the Harvard-educated Canadian professor, Cohen. That’s why RMN put the word in quotes.
I suggest you take the time to read the entire report before passing judgment on RMN’s work. You will find that the questions are answered by experts in the body of the article. The “yes” or “no” answers are ours to make, depending on whether we find the experts convincing. I do.
June 4th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
It seemed at first that you were falling into the trap of reading our article as a defense of Churchill, which it is not. But we don’t have to belabor that because you went off on a tangent and destroyed your own arguments.
You say “The Rocky Mountain News has made the judgment that the Churchill story is a matter of importance to many of its readers.” Is that supposed to be a justification for their having treated it as being more important than any other news in that issue of the paper? You’re also making an assumption that the editors assign reporters and choose articles based on the importance of the subject matter to readers. You’re giving them way too much credit. From day one the Rocky Mountain News has gone out of its way to push for the firing of this one, previously obscure and irrelevant professor. Is it really a newspaper’s responsibility to investigate college professors? Didn’t we leave that behind in the 1950s?
“Your knowledge of Churchill is so pedestrian that you don’t even recognized Churchill’s own words.” Well, we’re talking about one word since accurate counting seems to be so important in this thread. There is no way the use of the word “prepared” in quotes or otherwise can be considered as quoting Churchill. Putting the word in quotes is a warning to the reader that the word does not have its usual meaning in that specific context. For that matter, it’s still bad journalism if they were in fact quoting him. Churchill said “I prepared an essay” is a long way from “An essay he ‘prepared.'’”
When you say “You will find that the questions are answered by experts in the body of the article.” If that is so, why did they print different answers or non-answers on page one?
Credit where it is due– the RMN has done a great job of stirring up feelings on issues that should be considered objectively and unemotionally by those who have the responsibility for the ultimate decision. Just spare us the pretense that it is unbiased journalism.
June 4th, 2005 at 9:51 pm
LOL, you’re a moonbat. Ward is a fraud and his minions are fools.
June 5th, 2005 at 1:53 am
ROFL We might well be moonbats (can’t be sure since the word’s not in the dictionary.) Ward probably is a fraud, and his minions are almost certainly fools. But so might you be. Shall we get the RMN to investigate you?
June 5th, 2005 at 8:02 am
“There is no way the use of the word “prepared” in quotes or otherwise can be considered as quoting Churchill. ”
It’s the importance of the words and not the quantity. Consider the importance of the word “is” to former President Clinton.
S.G., read the overview article in full. Then tell me what RMN left out that might have removed doubts about Ward Churchill’s research misconduct, etc.
June 5th, 2005 at 8:59 pm
Let the man have his free speech. I resent being forced to pay for part of the Univerdity stump he uses. That is public money and it is being used in an irresponsible way, as if it is private money. Pull him off the public tit and let him earn his keep elsewhere.
June 6th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
I have been reading SG since its very first article was posted. I can’t remember a previous posting that has caused such heated debate. Some nerve has really been struck here. I can’t figure out why. In my opinion, the whole Ward Churchill scandal (or what ever you want to call this mess) is a non-issue. The real issue is not that Churchill is an idiot or what he has to say is right or wrong, the real issue is why is there such a need to persecute the guy? Why is there such a need to waste so much time trying to get the guy fired?
Shouldn’t the newspapers spend more time reporting on important stories like the Michael Jackson trial, the run away bride, or the fact that CU football is going to be terrible for the foreseeable future because they no longer have the tools available to them to recruit top players that other big football programs have available to them. These are real stories that people care about, damn it! (Sarcasm anyone?)
I don’t know what this country would come to if the news media spent more time reported on stories that actually mattered. Thank God we have Internet blogs to read like SG that actually might stimulate freethinking. Even though I don’t agree with previous comments to this posting, I am glad that the people posting these comments are actually reading SG. They need it the most!
June 6th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
quote:
——————–
“You say “The Rocky Mountain News has made the judgment that the Churchill story is a matter of importance to many of its readers.” Is that supposed to be a justification for their having treated it as being more important than any other news in that issue of the paper? You’re also making an assumption that the editors assign reporters and choose articles based on the importance of the subject matter to readers. You’re giving them way too much credit. From day one the Rocky Mountain News has gone out of its way to push for the firing of this one, previously obscure and irrelevant professor. Is it really a newspaper’s responsibility to investigate college professors? Didn’t we leave that behind in the 1950s?”
——————–
You seem to be pissing into the wind here, with predictable results.
Ward Churchill is of course entitled to whatever speech he can find an audience for, even if in the end that audience is merely himself. But he is not entitled to plagiarize or lie, nor is the University of Colorado entitled to use taxpayer money to tenure a professor who was notably below the normal hurdles for obtaining tenure (and can’t even seem to string much of a concise argument together).
CU is the largest and most prestigious publicly-funded school in the state. Being made into a national laughingstock because of free speech is one thing; but being made thus because of deception, plagiarism, and bad university tenuring practices at CU’s primary campus is most definitely a serious issue in the public interest, particularly for (taxpaying) residents of the State of Colorado. So in spite of your protestations that “maybe Churchill IS bad BUT,” this story is potentially relevant. Taxpayer money is being received by CU, and in addition to that, Colorado recently allowed significant tuition hikes at its publicly-funded universities. The people whose money is being spent (or wasted, as the case may be) in the name of a good education will want to know how a mistake like Churchill happens, and how serious the mistake actually was.
Is the level of coverage being devoted to Churchill “excessive?” Perhaps, in your judgment. On the other hand, in my judgment it is comparable to the coverage the News has devoted to other major topics in the public interest while such stories remained active, such as the crime spree and arrest of accused serial rapist Brent J. Brents some months ago. If you know of news articles the News “killed” this week in order to make space for the recent Churchill human-interest series, then by all means, proceed and declare.
Otherwise, the only thing that qualifies as “hysterical” are your assertions, revealed for what they really are by all that vaguely conspiratorial talk about political opression, witch hunts, and the News’ “Republican ownership.”
June 7th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
In the view from Boulder, Churchill has always been known as a PC-minority IdPol shill who relies on mendacity, rabble-rousing and fraud. Except among the deluded (who, of course, among the Kerry Dem supporting/Michael Moore worshipping/Green party voting masses who make up the majority here - a very large group indeed).
Please give SG a Captain Renault award for maintaining the phony shock that the RMNews has discovered the academic version of gambling going on here, even as he counts his winnings! You ain’t credible.
June 8th, 2005 at 11:43 am
In my opinion Sten Gazette is absolutely right about this being a witch hunt spearheaded by the RMN and republican interests. Almost all the commenters are supporting this by being focused on the “issues” and if they even bothered to read the original article they are so upset by Churchill that they can’t see what the article is saying. At least two of the comments show that their writers have fallen for the lie that this is different because CU is a state school and funded by taxpayers. In fact CU only gets 10% funding from the state. The regents are elected, therefore they are political. So the state does have more control and influence than you would expect with a 10% equity but CU has its own procedures for handling academic issues and the state and RMN should not be butting in. Unless you really do think it is time for the universities to be purged, and if you do then you should apply the same level of investigation to every prof in every college.
How credible is Orson if he starts out with a bunch of white-christian-republican, right-wing, neo-con, born-again, fascist, childish name-calling? If you read what the article said, Sten Gazette has done a very credible job of nominating the Rocky Mountain News for a Captain Renault award.
June 9th, 2005 at 10:21 am
“Almost all the commenters are supporting this by being focused on the “issues” and if they even bothered to read the original article they are so upset by Churchill that they can’t see what the article is saying.”
Ingrid, what evidence brings you to this conclusion? I for one, read the article and had little reaction to what Churchill was saying, having heard this viewpoint on the US many times before. My reaction was purely with regard to Churchill’s skills and inability to express himself. If you doubt that, consider that Churchill has eagerly and repeatedly explained his meaning at subsequent speaking engagements. A successful communicator makes his meaning clear in the writing. Who would care, if not for the fact that this is a teaching professor, writing about a subject in his area of study for several decades?
“In fact CU only gets 10% funding from the state.” Now, where do you suppose the other 90% comes from? I open my wallet every semester to pay my daughter’s tuition, so I know at least one source. Grants are taxes distributed by the government. Does the 10% include these funds? No. Will grants continue to be awarded to a university that breaks its own tenure rules? How does an alumni view this? Ingrid, the university is “given” money. Nothing is required except reasonable research, acceptable scholarship and education of students. (Having no students takes them out of the tax exempt 501(c) status.)
“but CU has its own procedures for handling academic issues and the state and RMN should not be butting in.”
Does it occur to you that some don’t believe CU has handled its responsibilities and instead sweeps problems under the rug? They are just as guilty of keeping problems secret as any other group whose funding depends on their reputation and performance. CU has not been a very good watchdog.
The press has countered this problem. If they have lied, we’ll know about that too. A free press has always been required in a democracy. Their research on facts and their editorial comments should be welcomed in a free society. Letters to the editors give every reader an opportunity to rebut any and all reports. As a last resort, our laws and courts protect us when the press publishes errors and lies. I fully expect Churchill to use that resource when the time comes.