Attack of the killer seals: Lieberman's defenders get desperate
By Michael Berman
http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- HERE'S A GOOD WAY to measure the effect you're having: see how low your opposition will go.
By those standards, JWR is doing well. Very well.
On Wednesday and Thursday, one of the attack web pages of the Jewish Left (their front cover being, without exaggeration, an advertisement for the National Jewish Democratic Council) went after one of their favorite targets: JWR editor-in-chief Binyamin L. Jolkovsky. Twice in two days -- we're impressed.
First they claimed that Jolkovsky fed the story about Lieberman eating on Tisha B'Av to Matt Drudge. Any evidence of that? Of course not -- the Brooklyn-based Jolkovsky was hardly following Lieberman through the South on Judaism's national day of mourning in order to catch that one. Drudge has no shortage of sources, and you can't blame Jews of faith for noticing when the highest-profile Jew in the country plays up his adherence to tradition -- and then publicly flaunts its precepts. But how better to discredit JWR than claim it's on an anti-Lieberman witchhunt?
On Thursday, though, they outdid themselves. They provided a "full" transcript of the interview between Don Imus and Joe Lieberman to "prove" that Lieberman never said there was no ban on intermarriage, as was first reported here. Jolkovsky's story has been gaining momentum ever since -- it has now been cited by media the world over; sometimes JWR is credited, and other times not, but you saw it here first.
How did these desperate souls try to besmirch this publication? Easy: they provided a false transcript which is now making its way around the 'Net. We're not talking about a "we love our candidate" spin on the truth, either, like putting "(laughter)" after his joke fell flat -- though they did that, too. In this transcript, though, they rewrote the crucial question in order to protect him. Their version simply omits the words "marriage, or" from the question Imus asked: "Is there a ban on interracial or inter-religious marriage, or dating, or that sort of thing?"
At which point Lieberman said "No, there's no ban whatsoever." The rest of the transcript is more or less accurate. It's amazing what you can do by omitting two words -- and amazing how low the left will go to save you from the facts.
Don't believe us? Hear for yourself. JWR stands by our story. The question and answer are straightforward, and the omission of these crucial words from the transcript can hardly be written off as an innocent error. Interestingly enough the site credits MSNBC and the JNDC for providing the text -- and as biased as the liberal media might be, we think MSNBC cares about its reputation enough to avoid such obvious distortion.
If that were only true of those Jewish crusaders for their confused version of "truth."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Berman is a contributing editor of JewishWorldReview.com To comment, please click here.
By Michael Berman
http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- HERE'S A GOOD WAY to measure the effect you're having: see how low your opposition will go.
By those standards, JWR is doing well. Very well.
On Wednesday and Thursday, one of the attack web pages of the Jewish Left (their front cover being, without exaggeration, an advertisement for the National Jewish Democratic Council) went after one of their favorite targets: JWR editor-in-chief Binyamin L. Jolkovsky. Twice in two days -- we're impressed.
First they claimed that Jolkovsky fed the story about Lieberman eating on Tisha B'Av to Matt Drudge. Any evidence of that? Of course not -- the Brooklyn-based Jolkovsky was hardly following Lieberman through the South on Judaism's national day of mourning in order to catch that one. Drudge has no shortage of sources, and you can't blame Jews of faith for noticing when the highest-profile Jew in the country plays up his adherence to tradition -- and then publicly flaunts its precepts. But how better to discredit JWR than claim it's on an anti-Lieberman witchhunt?
On Thursday, though, they outdid themselves. They provided a "full" transcript of the interview between Don Imus and Joe Lieberman to "prove" that Lieberman never said there was no ban on intermarriage, as was first reported here. Jolkovsky's story has been gaining momentum ever since -- it has now been cited by media the world over; sometimes JWR is credited, and other times not, but you saw it here first.
How did these desperate souls try to besmirch this publication? Easy: they provided a false transcript which is now making its way around the 'Net. We're not talking about a "we love our candidate" spin on the truth, either, like putting "(laughter)" after his joke fell flat -- though they did that, too. In this transcript, though, they rewrote the crucial question in order to protect him. Their version simply omits the words "marriage, or" from the question Imus asked: "Is there a ban on interracial or inter-religious marriage, or dating, or that sort of thing?"
At which point Lieberman said "No, there's no ban whatsoever." The rest of the transcript is more or less accurate. It's amazing what you can do by omitting two words -- and amazing how low the left will go to save you from the facts.
Don't believe us? Hear for yourself. JWR stands by our story. The question and answer are straightforward, and the omission of these crucial words from the transcript can hardly be written off as an innocent error. Interestingly enough the site credits MSNBC and the JNDC for providing the text -- and as biased as the liberal media might be, we think MSNBC cares about its reputation enough to avoid such obvious distortion.
If that were only true of those Jewish crusaders for their confused version of "truth."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Berman is a contributing editor of JewishWorldReview.com To comment, please click here.