pantslessprogressive said: The alleged news here is that, according to the BG, a woman has come forward saying she received dirty pictures. I say we should see the email exchanges from this AOL account.
» SFB says: Yeah, I’m not exactly trusting the info here. Who knows — maybe they’re not bluffing and they actually have something. But if they’re just showing pictures of cats and we’re hearing the background from Breitbart vs. a more-trustworthy source, it’s hard to get behind this. — Ernie @ SFB
At a time when the GOP is playing games with the debt limit, a member of the Supreme Court is refusing to recuse himself from matters he has a financial interest in, and middle class incomes are stagnant, many want to change the subject. I don’t. This was a prank, and a silly one. I’m focused on my work.Rep. Anthony Weiner • Trying to draw a line in the sand on this whole Weinergate story, which has certainly gotten a bit crazier over the past day. The Atlantic Wire has a roundup of the story, which has gotten to the point of farce. CNN also got Weiner on camera today, where he seemed at least a little annoyed to be taking the questions. But ultimately, though, this piece of evidence (grabbed by Soup) is the strongest against Weiner doing anything wrong. Also, has anyone noticed how Mediaite has kinda gone crazy over this story? We love the site and everything, but they got a Photoshop expert to analyze the photo. A bit much, eh? They’re not the only ones, but you know what, we’re going to leave this mess alone for a while. The EXIF data is good enough for us. source (via • follow)
So, a guy who has been building exactly this narrative for months turns out to be the one and only unique retweet of the picture in question? Just as Rep. Weiner’s cryptic hashtag about the Seattle time zone is reason to raise reasonable flag of suspicion, so too is this.Mediaite’s Colby Hall • Who noticed the same trend we did with the Rep. Anthony Weiner saga yesterday — that the guy who retweeted the Weiner thing (which took place nearly half an hour before the BigGovernment post first went up) appeared to be going out of his way to build up a narrative that suggested a saga like the one that actually happened weeks before it actually did. The person who was targeted by the rogue tweet wrote an exclusive statement for the New York Daily News where she noted the same thing — that this specific Twitter user harassed her. We think that this evidence suggests strongly that Weiner’s Twitter account was hacked, rather than Weiner sending the rogue tweet himself. The user’s tweets are suddenly protected, but not before a number of people noticed the trend.
orioninacobweb-deactivated20110 asks: I have no questions; I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your latest post on Anthony Weiner. I thought you went about in exactly the right way, particularly noting your bias at the very beginning. I think keeping biases in mind in the best way to try to approach things from an analytic point of view. I should, of course, admit my bias as well and say that I also sincerely hope there is no truth to this scandal. So, thank you very much :)
» SFB says: Thanks for the comment. We know that tackling the Weiner story might be a little tough considering the guy has a big fan base among the left, but the analysis at least offers something to go by, instead of just denying it out of hand. I’d like to think that even if something goes against our own political lean, we at least air it out. I think it’s important to note that the guy who first retweeted Weiner’s tweet had been looking for a way to hang the guy out to dry for a long time. I err on the side of Weiner getting hacked (it’s too perfect not to be), but there isn’t any firm proof of it. — Ernie @ SFB
whyarethegoodurlsalreadytaken asks: Am I the only one who thinks this whole "Weiner-gate" is being blow out of proportion? I'm a New Yorker, and there is barely no coverage of the incident. Out of the NY Post, the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, and the local paper Newsday, only the Post has had any coverage of it. It seems like most of the area has just dismissed the claims all together.
» SFB says: For what it’s worth, The New York Times has essentially ignored a Breitbart original once — with ACORN — only to be caught by surprise after the fact. (Also, the New York Daily News has covered it.) So, from our perspective, it’s better to be ahead of the story and catch what evidence we can than to see the steamroller of a smear campaign do the work for us. If Weiner’s in the right — and we hope he is — we merely want to be sure we exhausted all available options on the story, which has been picked up by large sites people read, like Mediaite and Gawker. — Ernie @ SFB