Washington Post scandal deepens as new questions arise as to whether the Obama Campaign “manufactured” research concerning anti-Obama e-mails for the Post
Andy Martin pursues questionable Barack Obama “research.” What did Washington Post know and when did it know the facts about anti-Obama e-mails? Did the Post hold a story to allow the Obama campaign to manufacture “research?” Andy Martin raises troubling questions about Obama’s manipulation of the mainstream media.
“Factually Correct, Not
AMERICA’S #1 POLITICAL
BLOG ON THE 2008 CAMPAIGN
DID THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN MANUFACTURE INTERNET “RESEARCH” FOR THE WASHINGTON POST?
DOES THE WASHINGTON POST OWE READERS A FULLER EXPLANATION?
(NEW YORK)(July 5) A week ago the Washington Post (“WP”) published a full-page article about the “research” of Danielle Allen concerning anti-Muslim e-mails against Senator Barack Obama:
We have continued to investigate this story. I have also sent a new e-mail to the subject of the WP story, Ms. Danielle Allen, seeking new information and new answers.
Our conclusion: there is a reasonable basis to believe the Washington Post allowed the Obama campaign to “manufacture” “research” for use in the WP story.
The now undisputed timeline is critical to understanding why our theory of the case triggers intense suspicion.
In November, 2007, the WP contacted Beckwith, who manages an Obama web site, http://www.theobamafile.com. Thus, as early as November of last year, a WP reporter was working on a story about anti-Muslim e–mails directed at Obama.
The same WP reporter, Matthew Mosk, also contacted me about the same anti-Obama e-mail story. Mr. Mosk subsequently reported our conversation accurately so I have no personal dispute with his writing. Although it was several months ago I unfortunately did not keep a record of the date of my phone call with Mosk.
Mosk’s story claimed Allen received an anti-Obama, anti-Islam e-mail on January 11th, 2008. She allegedly did nothing about the e-mail until March 5th. In an e-mail to me, Ms. Allen stated that she did not start researching the anti-Obama e-mails until March 5th. March 5th was the day after Obama suffered major losses in primary elections.
Allen says that “word of mouth” led Mosk to Allen between March 5th and late June when Mosk’s article appeared in the WP. Here is where the facts start to look slippery.
Allen has never published anything publicly about her study of the anti-Obama e-mails. So we are left to accept the claims about her “research” in the WP at face value.
Whose “word of mouth” was used to refer Mosk to Allen? When was Mosk referred to her?
Mosk had done his own research and reporting in 2007. He did not need Allen to do a story on anti-Obama e-mails. They were circulating across the Internet and “hard left” Obama operatives in the media had already identified me as the alleged mastermind of a vast conspiracy to defame the candidate. Indeed, Ben Smith of Politico.com takes credit for “exposing” me last year as the e-mail majordomo, when all this time I was sitting out in the open. How do you “expose” something that isn’t secret?
When and how did Allen surface, and why? By March 5th, when Allen began her research, Mosk had not yet published any story on the anti-Obama e-mails; Allen herself apparently did nothing about the supposedly urgent anti-Obama e-mail before March 5th.
It appears Mosk did his own research for months, and found nothing sufficient to generate a full-page story. Then Allen began her “research” and a full-page story suddenly appeared about her efforts to uncover the anti-Obama online operatives. My conclusion: Mosk went to the Obama campaign and told them he was working on a story. The Obama campaign mobilized Allen to do “research” that could be used to float the report ultimately appearing in the Washington Post.
Is this a plausible conclusion to draw from the available facts? I believe it is. I invite your responses and suggestions. We need to get to the bottom of whether the WP allowed itself to be used to suppress information about Obama, by allowing his campaign to “manufacture” research for use in a WP feature story. Alternatively, it looks as though the Post “held” the e-mail story after being told by the Obama campaign they had someone “doing research” on the anti-Muslim attacks. We don’t have all of the answers, but there are sure a lot of questions floating around out there. Mr. Mosk and the WP do not appear to have been candid with their readers.
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of http://www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, being published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com. MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]