An Open Letter to Professor Edsall: Retract

Update at End

Let me first say that I respect professor Edsall tremendously. He is a treasure to journalism. Unfortunately, he has been incredibly sloppy and bordering on defamation in his latest entry on the unfortunate death of GOP programmer Michael Connell.

Edsall rightly takes to task the many people that have prematurely determined that Connell's death was anything but an accident. I agree with him on that point. I have seen an incredible number of conclusions drawn and people are jumping the gun, while others are going completely into insane musings of missing bodies and such.

Where Edsall is at fault is in his sourcing. Here is what he writes:

Instead, about three miles short of the Akron-Canton Airport, Connell's plane crashed to the ground in an upscale section of Lake Township, killing Connell instantly. "I was standing in the kitchen and I looked out the window and all I saw was fire," Taylor Fano told The Akron Beacon Journal. "It took out the flagpole and the cement blocks surrounding the flagpole . . . . It skidded across the driveway and right in-between a line of pine trees and a small fence around an in-ground pool."

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating the accident and has not yet filed a report, but there was no immediate evidence of wrong-doing or sabotage.

Nonetheless, Connell's death provoked a groundswell of commentary among conspiracy theorists on the web, including Larisa Alexandrovna, Raw Story, Velvet Revolution, ePluribus Media, and TheZoo.

I cannot speak for anyone other than Raw Story and myself, but I can say without question that neither I or Raw Story pushed a single theory. On the contrary, we have stated otherwise. Click on the link provided by Edsall and you will arrive at my personal blog entry, in which I say as follows:

I am not saying that this was a hit nor am I resigned to this being simply an accident either. I am no expert on aviation and cannot provide an opinion on the matter. What I am saying, however, is that given the context, this event needs to be examined carefully. If you want to understand the context more broadly, I suggest you read this article I did a while back about the break-ins and arson cases that Siegelman and others have experienced.

Just to be very clear and state again, I am not claiming conspiracy theory or direct relation to Karl Rove or the White House in any of these events. What I am saying, however, is that these possible relationships cannot and should not be overlooked by investigators. There are far too many serious and reasonable questions that must be answered for the public.

Now unless journalism now means no context, no asking of questions, no examining all possibilities, what about the above could in any way be called a conspiracy theory? Either Edsall did not read what he linked to (something Michelle Malkin also did) or he is willfully misleading his readers by misrepresenting what was written.

The Raw Story article he links to simply discussed the allegations against Connell, the history of the case in Ohio, and cites my blog entry and that exact portion i just cited above. Again, not a single word was written by Raw Story suggesting any knowledge or any conclusions as to what may or may not have happened. In fact, we did a follow up piece, from which I will cite below:

Curtis Randy Cole, a close friend and former colleague of the GOP political consultant who died when his plane crashed in a suburb here last Friday, dismissed suspicions of foul play in an interview with RAW STORY Sunday evening.

In an interview at his Ira Road home where he based his recent failed run for Ohio State's 41st District House seat last year, Cole, the former President of Michael Connell's government contracting company GovTech Solutions, revealed how the bad news arrived to Connell's friends and family members late Friday night. "I got a call from a GovTech employee late Friday that that his plane had crashed," Cole said, "I thought 'bad weather' or 'icing of the
wings.'"

--snip--

A reporter for a Cleveland television station said Sunday that Connell had been warned his plane might be sabotaged.

"Connell...was apparently told by a close friend not to fly his plane because his plane might be sabotaged," 19 Action News reporter Blake Renault said. "And twice in the last two months, Connell, who is an experienced pilot, canceled two flights because of suspicious problems with his plane."

Randy Cole isn't buying it. When told of the alleged threats Cole said that in all the hours he spent flying with his friend in the close-quartered cockpit of the Piper Saratoga, he says Connell never shared any worries or suggestions of threats or intimidation. For Cole, something went wrong and for him the weather was the most likely culprit.

Does this sound like Raw Story is selling conspiracy theory Mr. Edsall? Again I have to ask why Edsall linked to Raw Story and my blog entry as proof of something the complete opposite of what we wrote?

Yet, by the same token, Edsall conveniently leaves out an article done for the Huffington Post by former ABC producer, Rebecca Abrahams and he also leaves out what Scott Horton - his colleague at Columbia - wrote for Harper's Magazine.

Edsall has provided a rather ominous look at journalism and perhaps we can now understand the failure of mainstream media. Instead of addressing the complete lack of interest in the corporate media to even do a single story (with exception of CBS News) about a high level insider who had close ties to the White House dying, he spends his time addressing the conspiracy theorists and does so by linking to people who put forth no conspiracy at all. What does that tell you about how journalism now functions? Sadly, a great deal.

Edsall could have included this, the most pointed reporting by actual journalists I have seen thus far (see video clip below), but he did not. Why?

I would also like to say that I am proud of my work. My asking of questions got a man out of prison. And members of Connell's family have thanked me for my reporting on his case.

Mr. Edsall needs to retract his inclusion of me in his conspiracy story and apologize. He also needs to retract his inclusion of Raw Story as well. Failing to do so, now that he has been made aware of his errors, would very quickly prove that Edsall is no longer operating under ethics that me and many others have long respected him for.

UPDATE

Mr. Edsall has retracted his earlier statement and apologized. I thank him for his response.

Follow Larisa Alexandrovna on Twitter: www.twitter.com/larisa_a

Comments

[deminmo]

Taken on the surface this accident just seems to be an unfortunate
event. After reading what Connell's wife said my first response would
be she is under a lot of emotional stress and just wants the media to
leave them alone.
Based on what has happened in the last 4 years, the admission that
Chaney recently gave on tape, and the one Bush gave about al Qeada,
Why is it so far-fetched that a person with a lot of inside information, who
might be rethinking alignments, might be prevented from changing their
mind? More investigation needs to be done. And why has the preliminary
investigation not been released?

[somewhereintexas]

Fatal accidents that happen during high dollar litigation, or during hotly contested elections, or in other high stakes situations, where the outcome of the accident is extremely favorable to one side, should be investigated until all questions are answered.
To assume this crash wasn't an accident might be understandable, but is not reasonable. On the other hand, to claim this high stakes accident is only that, and could not be anything more, rendering further inquiry unnecessary, isn't reasonable, either.
Connell was coming from College Park, MD, according to his flight plan. The National Archives, also located in College Park, MD, is connected to the high-stakes litigation that makes the timing of this accident so intriguing.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/20/AR2008122002102.html?hpid=topnews.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-abrahams/white-house-emails-the-mi_b_136653.html.
This locus of coincidence is not proof of anything, however. It's not even evidence. At best it's a lead. But in a serious investigation all leads are followed until they can be ruled out, right?
Also note the Post article, titled "Bush E-Mails May Be Secret a Bit Longer - Legal Battles, Technical Difficulties Delay Required Transfer to Archives" and dated December 20 in the link above, doesn't mention Connell, who died the day before on a flight out of the Washington area.

The "conspiracy theorist" meme unfortunately can be an effective tactic against those with the courage to ask reasonable questions when they're most needed.

[modmom]

Also worth noting is that Ohio Attorney, Cliff Arnebeck, requested protection for Connell (which has been documented). Leaving out certain facts is what fosters what Professor Edsall terms as conspiracy theories.

Thank you Larisa, for bravely reporting what other's deem as non issues without bothering to investigate suspicions.

[wanderindiana]

Aside from Edsall calling a string of websites conspiracy theorists, I am struck by his ignorance (and that of other traditional media outlets reporting on Connell's death) of all those organizations having done the research and legwork that even put Connell on anyone's radar.

While Edsall and others are busy disrespecting these organizations, facts about Connell that are being reported as common knowledge would not have been readily available for these "professionals" to "report" without the prior work of the "conspiracy theorists".

I find the unattributed, cherry-picked use of others' research even more shameful and offensive than the name-calling.

[radiodujour]

Readers may be interested in listening to the following interview:
December 22, 2008
Peter B Collins talks with Brad Friedman (bradblog.com), Larisa Alexandrovna (rawstory.com) and attorney Clifford Arnebeck about the mysterious death by plane crash of Karl Rove's IT Guru Mike Connell who was set to testify that he participated in manipulating the Ohio 2004 presidential election to insure that George W Bush would remain president of the United States.
http://www.radiodujour.com/people/connell_mike/
(This is a personal not for making money site dedicated to promoting independent media)

[DLSteinhardt]

Just astonishing to me how many serious journalists such as Mr. Edsalll veer from correctly scolding those who cry wolf at every opportunity to smearing those who raise important questions about suspicious events, as if journalists are supposed to fall back on the classic NY cop line: "Nothing to see here folks, go on home!"

Journalists aren't here to reaffirm the status quo, they're here to raise questions. I've read all your entries at Atlargely.com, Larisa, and they raise just as many questions about weather and Mr. Connell's health and piloting as they do about possible foul play.

[Larisa Alexandrovna - Huffpost Blogger]

What is even more astonishing is Edsall's swift-boating is given front page, while my response is buried. Seriously, how is this ethical?

[davidly]

It's not. He's the political editor. End of story.

[TomR]

An FAQ or Q&A would be good. So far, I have the impression from the various sources I've read that there's an allegation Rove threatened Connell and his wife if he does not "'take the fall' for election fraud in Ohio."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/lawyer-to-ag-mukasey-rove_b_115036.html

I'm most interested in why Karl Rove would make such a threat. And surely, Mike Connell probably discussed this with his wife, no? Unless he tried to keep her totally out of the loop. Once she found out after the alleged threat became public, wouldn't she have confronted her husband about it? How can she think the election was won fair and square? Does she think Ohio election attorney Cliff Arnebeck made up a wild claim about Rove and sent it to AG Mukasey? How does she account for Arnebeck's letter?

Something doesn't add up.

- Tom

[ntmessage]

Walking a self-established fine line around seemingly clever discourse then believing one is maintaining objectivity (deniability?) while actively promoting negative discourse is neither clever nor professorial.

Admittedly, without the history of being around the inner world of journalism for as long as many in this milieu, I can only comment on recent events. In that case, and in my opinion, Edsall has quite a lot to answer for, especially around the propagation of pure rhetoric during the primary and questionable suppression of comments to some of his posts pointing out the same, under the guise of moderation.

Your article is spot on except for the second sentence.

Public accountability for hit and run, hack journalism without censor must be the rule, even in opinion blogs. An apology in this case is obvious. It is not credible that this was a mistake, oversight or not purposeful in my opinion. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for your representation of his past work. In the meantime, do not hold your breath.

[BaileyWo]

You're projecting all over your shoes. Go back and read her articles. She was providing a context that demanded investigation. She made no untoward accusations. Her reportage was responsible and ethical. What you are doing is not.

[ntmessage]

Hmm. Think I got this one right... A recent pattern that should produce an apology.

[Shrinath]

All data that parades itself as 'news' has been taken with a huge pinch of salt. After hearing the news of Mr.Connell's death, that too in a plane crash where he was three miles out, the first thought was "Sabotage" with a big and blinking 'S'. At that distance he would instituted descent procedures and would have been in touch with the ATC. I did read Prof. Edsall's piece and yours.

The only thought left now is- "will there be any objective journalism?". It would indeed be crude to compare but, Rachel Maddow comes to mind.

Mr.Connell's untimely accident needs to be investigated thoroughly. Whether the cause was natural and inflicted needs to be known in this era of misleading and obfuscated, agenda infused 24 hour news cycle. And their family needs to know the truth.

[MoniqueF]

Perhaps an investigation would be taken (more) seriously if Connell's widow were the one to demand it. After all she must know more than anyone.

[Larisa Alexandrovna - Huffpost Blogger]

That is not my sense from talking to her. Despite her name being the one listed for all of the companies. She really appeared entirely out of the loop to me.

[janmarbol]

"...Now unless journalism now means no context, no asking of questions, no examining all possibilities, what about the above could in any way be called a conspiracy theory?..."

----------­----------­----0-----­----------­----------­----

That sentence pretty much sums it all up.

If an investigative journalist doesn't ask him/herself things, then where is the "investigative" part of investigative journalism? Jumping to conclusions about someone asking questions sounds more like a conspiracy than someone asking questions.

Good job, Larisa. Nothing wrong with your reporting, and transparency in this case is essential, no doubt.

[Larisa Alexandrovna - Huffpost Blogger]

I said asking questions. Not asking questions of myself. Trying a reading class, I hear they are helpful to people who are not really adept. Or is it that you are trying to really that you don't intend on reading what I actually wrote? Gawd... this is what I mean. You are an astonishingly timely example of the agenda-minded "reader."

[davidly]

Some might chalk it up to blogger's syndrome, I happen to think that the error is not only inexcusable - as in, weighed against journalistic standard - it sounds intentional. If Thomas B. Edsall wants to qualify real investigative reporting as purveyance of conspiracy theory, so be it. He's not the only one with the "reasonable" problem. There is a much bigger problem, unfortunately; that is, that once a story has been given the conspiracy taint, it's consequently given a pass. It is the likes of the journalist/blogger mentioned in this post who advance this as acceptable.

The factual faux pas here, however, goes beyond whether or not he fesses up: For that he would earn my respect; but not yet my trust.

[senorlou]

Great clip.

[senorlou]

Great clip. Dead men tell no tales.

[Telemachus]

Well stated. I think for there to be any public confidence at all in the investigation, we must know up front the names, titles, and experience level of the investigators assigned to the case. We must know when they first heard of the event and how; when they got there; and what they did when they arrived. There must also be an airtight chain of custody of every scrap of wreckage, every photograph taken, every interview with every witness.

And finally, maybe, some reporters willing to do their jobs and give this case at least as much attention as they've been giving to O.J. Simpson or Caylee Anthony.

[Larisa Alexandrovna - Huffpost Blogger]

That is the issue. No one is reporting on his alleged role in two separate scandals, nor that a high level person died. And instead of taking the corporate media to task - because in the absence of information, conspiracy theories will grow - Edsall focuses on Raw Story, the only news outlet doing extensive reporting on it. It is absurd and unethical.

That is the point I make, that you also state very well. Given that the public has a certain feeling about this, this is precisely why a transparent investigation has to take place and this is why no conclusions should be reached prematurely - no conclusions. Edsall has already concluded the crash was an accident, despite all the evidence being in. Yet he takes to task people who are unwilling to put forth a conclusion either way. Sounds a bit confused to me.

[ricchase]

Yeah, that's right. Wait until we have a thorough and complete investigation. Let's see now, that will no doubt be by the NTSB. The same government agency that investigated the 9/11 plane crashes. The same agency that found no problems with the lack of isolated debris at Shankstown, nor commented on the FACT that debris was found more than 6 miles from the "crash" site. Or questioned the relatively small hole made in the side of the Pentagon. (It only became larger after the roof collapsed, long after the initial damage was done.)

I am not optimistic that anything other than vanilla will be discovered from any "government" investigation, regardless of what may, or may not, be the actual cause of this crash.

[Oahspe]

"because in the absence of information, conspiracy theories will grow -".....Pre­cisely,and that's the plan.Then,it can be dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" and discredited as worthy of further discussion by MSM.