Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

"The Asman" Saga Continues

Reported by Nancy - April 21, 2005 -

Regular readers may be aware that I've been critical of a couple of David Asman's recent "Observer" segments on FNL. In fact, my blog entry on 4/7 that pointed out several errors of fact in one of his "Observer" pieces spurred him to send us a gmail, to which I previously responded publicly (links to all are below).

Now he's sent a second gmail, also in reference to a post I made about one of his "Observer" segments. Because another blog has published the gmail that Asman sent us on 4/18, I see no reason not to publish it here as well:


From: Asman, David
Date: Apr 18, 2005 3:59 PM
Subject: Note from the Asman
To: newshounds@gmail.com, "Asman, David"
You can always tell the extent to which you get under a bigot's skin by the extent to which they lie in order to save their prejudicial views. Of course I gave full attribution to the New York Sun on air, as I give full attribution to all the sources from which I get my Observer material. I won't bother to send you yet another correction because you failed to make note of the other correction (below) that I sent you two weeks ago, and you obviously don't care to correct the record. But I'm happy that you gave the story in the Sun even more exposure, which it deserves:

David,
Someone just sent me a critique of my last Observer in which one of your writers suggests that I never mention Republican "Porkers." In fact I enclose an Observer in which I begin by focusing on the president's use of the war on terror as an excuse for excessive spending and go on to mention a particularly egregious bit of Republican pork. Would you care to correct your record?
David

When confronted by a huge increase in federal spending under his watch, President Bush and his supporters quickly roll out the war on terrorism as an excuse. But national security can also be a great cover for local pork-that is, using federal tax dollars to fund local projects that have nothing to do with the national defense. In fact, about half of the $33 billion homeland security bill signed into law last week has little if anything to do with protecting us from terrorists. For example, the two senators from Montana inserted a $3 billion payout to local farmers in the Homeland Security bill. Democrat Max Baucus and Republican Conrad Burns claim that their drought relief package helps us preserve our resources in case of attack. But the spending watchdog group called Citizens Against Government Waste sees this as just another example of pork masquerading as national security. Says the group: "Drought relief has nothing to do with homeland security and should not get wrapped up in the essential task of defending the homeland from terrorists. For elevating home state politics above homeland security and ignoring the deficit, Sens. Baucus and Burns are Porkers of the Month for October 2004."
And that's the Observer.

Here's a timeline:
4/6 - Asman does an Observer entitled "Who's In Need of Rejuvenation?"
4/7 - I post a blog entry critical of his 4/6 Observer
4/7 - Asman does an Observer entitled "Is Government Spending Out of Control"
4/8 - I post a blog entry critical of his 4/7 Observer
4/11 - Asman sends us a gmail (mis-addressed to David Brock at Media Matters)
4/12 - Asman does an Observer entitled "Setting the Record Straight"
4/13 - I write an addendum to my blog post of 4/8 & post a new blog entry responding to Asman's 4/11 gmail & to his 4/12 Observer
4/13 - Asman does an Observer entitled "Movies As 'Propaganda' "
4/18 - I post a blog entry critical of his Observer
4/18 - Asman send us another gmail (above)

Get the pomposity out of the way first: "Note from the Asman"? The only response that deserves is a resounding bwahahahaha.

I've responded previously to the info he includes again in pararaphs 2 & 3, as noted above.

So let's focus on the first paragraph -- the only new info in this gmail:

"Bigot"? "Prejudicial views"? Does Asman really not know the meaning of these words? Or is he simply using a standard Fox ploy, just throwing random insults around & hoping something sticks? Apparently, in his parallel universe, being critical of him is the equivalent of bigotry & prejudice.

"They lie"? The official Fox transcript, which I linked to in my original post on this topic, contains no reference to the New York Sun. If, as he claims, he "gave full attribution to the New York Sun on air" why isn't that reflected in the official Fox transcript? is he saying that Fox transcripts aren't reliable? What constitutes "full attribution" in the world of "The Asman"? Does that include taking quotes out of context to imply that the person speaking was critical of only the New York Times?

Finally, whoever is sending him selected material from our site (gee, I wonder who that could be?) apparently "neglected" to send him either my updated post of 4/8 with addendum, or my post of 4/13 in which I replied to his 4/11 gmail & his 4/12 Observer. Of course Asman himself didn't bother to check to see whether there had been a correction or a response posted -- that would require a few seconds of actual research, which is obviously unfamiliar to staff at FNC. Nope, he just fired off another gmail full of errors.

And, while I updated my 4/8 post & responded publicly to his first gmail within 34 hours, & am responding publicly to his second gmail within 3 days, Asman still hasn't publicly acknowledged or corrected the errors of fact in his "Observer" segment from 4/6, nor has he responded to the Catholic News Service's request for such a correction.

Keep it up, Mr Asman. You're a shining example of what passes for journalism at Fox.