Did you check Google?
http://www.military.com/news/article/mcchrystal-quashes-restraint-medal-rumor.html

None of them have been awarded posthumously because none have been awarded. This medal does not exist.

You're welcome.

Great Franko, glad to hear it's not real. But the liberal fascination with emotional manipulation in the craft of civilization continues.

The holiday weekend's latest example: I just saw Micmacs, the new French film.

SPOILER ALERT

In the master plot point, war criminals are punished by exposure on YouTube. Lefties think shame, and the encouragements fit for a school child, are the best tools for crafting civilization... Which is lunacy.

To play devils advocate...

When you're fighting a regular army, such as the Germans in WW2, it makes sense to award bravery. Both you and the opposing army come together and fight, and in the end, the loser surrenders, the winner gets spoils, peace treaty signed, and you're done.

Insurgency is different. There is no standing army to fight, and there isn't a peace treaty to sign in the end. The end of the conflict, when it comes, won't be celebrated with a ticket tape parade in NYC. It'll be a tiny whimper.

An insurgency like the Taliban are a cancer: they live and work among the people, able to blend back into the population at a moments notice. In order to win, you have to get the "host," the population in this case, to reject the cancer. This is incredibly hard because traditional tactics don't work.

For example, during the occupation of Germany, if Army units were met with sniper fire, they would pull out of a town, shell it for a day, and then move back in the next day (a good book on this is The Candy Bomber by Andrei Churney). The Taliban know this, so they'll launch mortars from a mosque and then turn and run. If we shell the mosque, we anger the locals, who will continue to support the Taliban.

You win the way the British won in Malay. They divided themselves into small units, lived among the population, altered the populations rules to make it hard to hide insurgents. For example, they made all rice cooking communal, and done in the center of the town under their supervision, so that the insurgents couldn't be fed by the population. They also launched night raids because the insurgents operated at night. Above all, they were very specific on how they punished the local population, and restrained their use of force. A good read on this is Learning to eat soup with a knife by John Nagl (both books are Navy War College recommendations, BTW).

Generals Petraeus and McChrystal are both soldiers, and they wouldn't put restrictions on their men and women without careful thought to both the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of war. It seems odd, and a bit un-American, to reward soldiers for holding fire. But not doing that means we lose sight of the big picture, like missing the forest for the trees.

From the link franko posted:

Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal may have put the kibosh on plans to establish a valor award for troops who hold fire rather than risk the lives of innocents.

Seems they were going to do this but decided not to.

I am glad they decided not to make this medal official. It just seems so... counter productive... if that is the right word.

U.S. Troops don't make a habit out of going around shooting civilians anyway so why would this medal even be considered. WE ARE AT WAR. People die in war. Our troops are very well trained and actually have amazing restraint considering the circumstances but unfortunately in war, things happen so fast that civilians can be killed unintentionally. Collateral damage is actually pretty minimal on the U.S. side in most situations but obviously expected in time of war. The fact that ONLY 2400 civilians have been killed in the 8 years we have been at war is actually pretty good in my opinion. I don't dismiss the fact that someone lost their life, but the fact is, we lost more people in ONE DAY on 9/11 when we weren't at war.

Besides, the statistics the supporters of this medal have on the number of civilians killed in combat zones are likely skewed anyway in an attempt to make their case stronger. I would be willing to wager that many of those civilians were killed by car bombs, 'honor' killings, and suicide missions by insurgents and not by U.S. Solders at all. And if they were killed by our troops, those "civilians" were likely not just civilians but harboring insurgents or connected to terrorists organizations. The number of them that were collateral damage is likely much smaller on the U.S. side.

Sorry, I meant 2400 civilians in one year....
But I take everything the media and UN say with a grain of salt. No one can really know the true number.

Umm, anyone getting a whiff of "72 virgins" in the (even merely considered, not actually done) awarding of medals to soldiers who die protecting muslims? Suicide for Allah, anyone?

M4, I think there's a simpler explanation... it's some Pentagon JAG's idea of how war ought to be conducted. Not a new problem; we've had them as far back as the Civil War.

> The fact that ONLY 2400 civilians have been
> killed in the 8 years we have been at war

It's a bullshit metric. Essentially zero of the enemy forces we're fighting are military in any meaningful sense. The bad guys are civilians. Complaining about civilian deaths is to buy into a child's fantasy of what this all means.

It'll be an extra piece of fruit salad that is not needed...and redundant...

There are already 3 awards specifically for valor, and numerous others that can have the "V" (for valor) device added to it...and none of them require in the citation the verbage: "While killing or wounding enemy combatants..."

And how and to who would it be awarded? Would the award go to troops that fire second? Would it only be awarded to troops that get fired upon from an elevated position while they are talking to locals? What about the troops that drive in Afghanistan and aren't running the locals off the road? Dumb dumb dumb

About all the value I can see out of it is getting it to the forefront and military leaders recognizing that subordinates should be awarded for showing restraint...

The Soviets killed 1,000,000 Afghans...and they lost. When all else fails, new tactics.

">The fact that ONLY 2400 civilians have been
> killed in the 8 years we have been at war

It's a bullshit metric. Essentially zero of the enemy forces we're fighting are military in any meaningful sense. The bad guys are civilians. Complaining about civilian deaths is to buy into a child's fantasy of what this all means."

Oh I agree with you Crid. It's bullshit either way. Throwing that civilian casulty number out there is really just another tatic that the pussy foot left wing legislation and the UN uses to try to garner sympathy and support for their agenda. Like I said, the numbers likely aren't true anyway and we have no idea how many of those "civilians" are actually insurgents. All I was sayin was that hypotheically, even if the casualties were civilians in the true sense (which we know they likely aren't) 2400 still isn't a bad number and no one should be getting thier panties in a bunch over it.

Amy wrote: Seems they were going to do this but decided not to.

Actually it seems to me the writer was using a weasel word ("may have put the kibosh") because it reads better. But as far as I can tell, this was an idea suggested by a British officer for a possible NATO medal, and really had nothing to do with Obama or the US military.

You should update your blog entry, which still claims this was a true story implicating the Obama administration. This is misleading and might give readers the impression you are some kind of partisan hack.

Wrote to the reporter and his editors (again -- wrote earlier, but I was on deadline). Awaiting a reply. Here's my e-mail:

I was on deadline today, so I couldn't properly respond to this. In the Hollrah piece, it says:

"But the greatest insult to our troops in the field, and to the officers who lead them, may be a new battlefield medal designed by the Obama team."

Please point me to the link in a news story where it shows that this was, indeed, "designed by the Obama team." Or that they had the slightest thing to do with it. Or that even exists. Despite the words "is awarded" from the piece.

And again, the end of the paragraph uses the words "were awarded." That makes it sound like, well, like they actually WERE. And if you go to my blog you'll find that I'm not the only one who "misunderstood."

What I see in news reports is that a Brit Major General proposed it. And that it was being considered at headquarters ISAF.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/Medal-for-_courageous-restraint_-plan-get-mixed-review-from-troops-93007014.html

I'm no fan of Obama, but I'm a fan of accurate reporting, and accountability when there's inaccuracy.

-Amy Alkon, FOTC (Friend of The Corps)

"WE ARE AT WAR."

Sorry, Sabrina, but no, we are not.

And that's part of the problem.

Congress has the Constitutional duty to declare war. They have not done so. Doing so trips all sorts of triggers clarifying the conduct of Americans of all types. However, it would also interfere with Congress behaving as it wishes.

The engagement continues under the War Powers Act, exactly as it did for President Bush.

Can't say which good idea fairy whispered in whose ear, but there was definitely talk of this going around in military circles about 2 months ago. Can't say who squashed it either, but the concept was met with much derision and skepticism from all of us...

Here's my entire exchange with them, from top down to the original:

From Amy Alkon:

Apparently, you don't care if you publish inaccuracies, and he apparently doesn't, since the news stories of May 13 made this clear that it was a suggestion of the British Major General. Does your author research his pieces by listening to the radio? It's all I can conclude without any supporting material that this was "designed by the Obama team."

How disgusting, as a 501c3, that you are, in part, supported by taxpayers and do not care that you have apparently published something untrue.

There's enough bad stuff happening right now in this country that it's extremely unhelpful to publish fictions or justify what many misunderstood as apparently dunderheadedness on the part of readers, which can, to me, be the only reason you wouldn't respond with some sense of accountability.

I know, what pain that people don't just believe what you put out and not expect truth and accuracy. -Amy Alkon

PS What's the Lincoln Heritage Institute? Not listed in any substantive way on the Internet like AEI or Cato are.

In a message dated 7/8/10 3:25:12 AM, newmediajournal@verizon.net writes:

All inquiries on this article should be directed to the contributing author.

 
From: AdviceAmy@ aol.com
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:18 AM
To: AdviceAmy@aol.com; newmediajournal@verizon.net; phollrah@fairpoint.net; franksalvato@newmediajournal.us

Subject: Re: "Medal designed by the Obama team"? Re: Paul Hollrah correction -- medals were never awarded - not "posthumously"

So...this medal was designed by "the Obama team" or you just decided to not respond and/or be accountable?

You claim on your website that you provide "fact-based information."

Please substantiate the Obama comment or be accountable for publishing an error.

I am so sorry I made the mistake of assuming you were a legit site and a piece on your site would be written to standards of truth and accuracy. -Amy Alkon

PS The Orwell quote on your sig below, Mr. Salvato, is pretty hilarious.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
 -- George Orwell

In a message dated 7/7/10 12:43:07 AM, AdviceAmy@ aol.com writes:

I was on deadline today, so I couldn't properly respond to this. In the Hollrah piece, it says:

"But the greatest insult to our troops in the field, and to the officers who lead them, may be a new battlefield medal designed by the Obama team."

Please point me to the link in a news story where it shows that this was, indeed, "designed by the Obama team." Or that they had the slightest thing to do with it. Or that even exists. Despite the words "is awarded" from the piece.

And again, the end of the paragraph uses the words "were awarded." That makes it sound like, well, like they actually WERE. And if you go to my blog you'll find that I'm not the only one who "misunderstood."

What I see in news reports is that a Brit Major General proposed it. And that it was being considered at headquarters ISAF.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/Medal-for-_courageous-restraint_-plan-get-mixed-review-from-troops-93007014.html

I'm no fan of Obama, but I'm a fan of accurate reporting, and accountability when there's inaccuracy.

-Amy Alkon, FOTC (Friend of The Corps)

In a message dated 7/6/10 8:01:54 AM, newmediajournal@verizon.net writes:

I think the original text is pretty straight forward; question over declaration.

Frank Salvato
Managing Editor
The New Media Journal
www.NewMediaJournal.us
Email: franksalvato@newmediajournal.us

"Novus Ordo Seclorum"

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
 -- George Orwell
 
The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(3) research and education initiative whose mission is the reintroduction of the American citizenry to our constitutional ideology and to educate the public on critical issues facing our nation, chiefly, the threats of radical Islam and the advancing American Fifth Column.
 
 
From: AdviceAmy@ aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 10:35 AM
To: phollrah@fairpoint.net; franksalvato@newmediajournal.us
Subject: Re: Paul Hollrah correction -- medals were never awarded - not "posthumously"

Thanks. I think this sounds like they were awarded. Best,-A

Would we be surprised to learn that the preponderance of these medals were awarded posthumously?

In a message dated 7/6/10 6:56:52 AM, phollrah@fairpoint.net writes:

Amy:
I was a bit surprised by your question because I did not remember saying that the "courageous restraint" medals had been awarded posthumously.  I went back and check and I didn't.  I simply asked the question, "Would we be surprised..." to learn that the preponderance of the medals were awarded posthumously.
The planning for the medal was confirmed by Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis of the International Security Assistance Force headquarters in Kabul.  He is quoted as saying, "The idea is consistent with our approach.  Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians.  In some situations our forces face in Afghanistan, that restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions."
I'm sorry if you misunderstood the context of what I wrote.
Paul

From: AdviceAmy@ aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 8:42 AM
To: PaulHollrah@gmail.com; contact@newmediajournal.us
Subject: Paul Hollrah correction -- medals were never awarded - not "posthumously"

Please check and forward to Mr. Hollrah -- guessed his e-mail address (his old AOL address listed online does not work).

Dear Mr. Hollrah,
I posted a quote from a column you wrote, then (embarrassingly!) discovered that part of it was incorrect -- the medals were not awarded posthumously. In fact, they were not awarded at all. Sigh. I really fact-check my stuff, and I guess I was naive in not fact-checking your column before I posted the quote. Am I wrong? Please advise:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/06/this_seems_a_li.html

Best,-Amy Alkon

Of course, all he had to say to not get the "caustic response" is "Thanks - we'll look into it." Or "Thanks, we're investigating."

Amy, you nailed them. Asked the right questions and stuck with it.

"I simply asked the question, "Would we be surprised..." to learn that the preponderance of the medals were awarded posthumously."

I can see how this might be read in the manner he suggests. Is it likely the average reader will read it that way? So was this atrocious writing that demands a clarification, or a deliberate misreading? I think your correspondence with them suggests the answer.

More:

In a message dated 7/8/10 7:49:11 AM, newmediajournal@verizon.net writes:

“501c3 means you are exempt from taxes, meaning you don't have to pay them, meaning you are, essentially, supported by taxpayers.”
 
This says it all...You are proving yourself not be not only an ideologue but intellectually challenged...either that or completely disingenuous.
 
We are NOT supported by anyone but those who contribute. Taxpayers are excluded from what we do unless they give to us directly to us, ergo, TAX EXEMPT...that is unless your Libertarian mindset believes that money not gleaned from government and raised in the private sector is somehow due the taxpayer. (This exposes you, by the way...)
 
YOU are the one that mentioned AEI and CATO, not I. So eat that statement.
 
As far as a response to accuracies, I stand by the statement that we are looking into it and that will be all that we say until we conclude. Insisting that you get your way just makes you akin to a Progressive, which is what most of your ranting leads me to believe you are...disingenuous, caustic, intolerant of process and overbearingly demanding....narcissistic to boot.
 
So, you are now deemed an idiot and I am blocking your emails from this point forward.
 
Should you continue to send us harassing emails we will notify AOL of your actions requesting a suspension of your account due to harassment as per their policy.
 
Goodbye and good riddance.

My response:

" I stand by the statement that we are looking into it"

Had you sent that statement initially, I would have been satisfied.

My e-mails are in response to a piece you printed, and your e-mails to me, and while you clearly find them annoying, they are not harassment.

And this is thuggery: " Should you continue to send us harassing emails we will notify AOL of your actions requesting a suspension of your account due to harassment as per their policy."

I've been printing your replies to me on my blog. I'm sure people will find this one telling.

Got a civil response from the author, Paul Hollrah, which I appreciate. Will post in a minute or two.

Hollrah wrote me:

Amy:   What follows is an email message that I sent to Frank Salvato yesterday:   Frank:  

A few paragraphs prior to my discussion of the Courageous Restraint Medal, I discussed the Rules of Engagement (ROE) implemented by the Obama Administration.  Those ROE require that U.S. troops must be able to see the enemy with weapon in hand before they are allowed to return fire.  One videotape circulated on the Internet showed a platoon of Marines pinned down by enemy sniper fire.  But since the enemy was firing from some distance behind the open window of a building, the Marines could not actually see the weapon being fired.  Although they were taking deadly fire, they were prohibited by the ROE from putting small arms fire or an RPG through the window opening. 
 
It seemed only logical to follow that with a discussion of the Courageous Restraint Medal (CRM) which had been widely discussed in the media for weeks.  It seemed to me that the CRM was such a preposterous idea that it would have been way over the top for career military people, but not necessarily for the Obama people.  So I looked it up on the Internet and I found that the planning for the medal was confirmed by Lt. Col Tadd Sholtis (USAF) of the International Security Assistance Force headquarters in Kabul. 
It was not a joke; it was actually in the works.  Lt. Col Sholtis is quoted as saying, “The idea is consistent with our approach.  Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians.  In some situations our forces face in Afghanistan, that restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions.”
I closed that discussion with the rhetorical question, “Would we be surprised to learn that the preponderance of these medals were awarded posthumously?” 
 
The word “were” was intended, not in the past tense, but in the commonly used context where the phrase “were to be” was insinuated. 
 
My error occurred when I included the words “is awarded to soldiers and Marines who demonstrate uncommon restrain in combat by not firing their weapons even when they feel threatened by the enemy,” as if the CRM was currently being awarded in the field.  Not being sure of the current status, and just to be safe, I should have said “The medal is to be awarded…”
 
I’m sorry for causing you unnecessary grief.  
 
Paul

 
You seem to make much of the term "Obama team."  If one were to study the un-military quotes from career military men such as James Jones, Mike Mullen, William Casey, and others, all of whom have become nearly indistinguishable from Rahm Emanuel, Valerie Jarret, and David Axelrod on issues such as gays in the military, it's impossible to determine any longer where the Chicago political mob ends and where the U.S. Naval Academy and the West Pointers begin.  If Obama claims to be the Commander in Chief, then the military has become part of the "Obama team."
 
As I have indicated in my note to Frank Salvato, my error occurred in using the words "is awarded" when speaking of the CRM.  Given the amount of discussion in the media over a period of weeks or months I assumed that it was actually being awarded.  
 
I'm sure you recognize that my discussion of the Obama Rules of Engagement, the new Justice Department rule on detainee interrogation, and the Courageous Restraint Medal were only ancillary to the main point, which is that it is demeaning to military men to have to serve under a community organizer from the Chicago political machine.  
 
I have admitted my error and I have apologized for it.  
 
Paul

My response to Paul:

Thanks very much. I have to say, I was shocked by your editor's response to me -- especially the last one, in which he threatens to report me to AOL for harassment. I'll forward it to you. Had he simply written "We're looking into it and will get back to you," I would have been satisfied, and awaited a reply.

I just care about the truth, and was embarrassed at printing an apparent error and wanted to come clean. I don't agree with you on "The Obama Team," but I appreciate your response. All the best,-Amy

Interestingly, about the guy's response, "You are quite caustic. Civility goes further, you know."

I started quite civilly. And got nowhere!

My first note to Mr. Hollrah was quite civil.

As was my unanswered e-mail to his editor about "the Obama team":

Please point me to the link in a news story where it shows that this was, indeed, "designed by the Obama team." Or that they had the slightest thing to do with it. Or that even exists. Despite the words "is awarded" from the piece.

And again, the end of the paragraph uses the words "were awarded." That makes it sound like, well, like they actually WERE. And if you go to my blog you'll find that I'm not the only one who "misunderstood."

No response. So I wrote a second e-mail about the Obama team bit:

So...this medal was designed by "the Obama team" or you just decided to not respond and/or be accountable?

You claim on your website that you provide "fact-based information."

Please substantiate the Obama comment or be accountable for publishing an error.

I am so sorry I made the mistake of assuming you were a legit site and a piece on your site would be written to standards of truth and accuracy. -Amy Alkon

I was embarrassed I'd blogged something apparently untrue, and sought substantiation. There's harassment for you!

More about Frank Salvato here:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/fsalvato/bio.shtml

Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us and serves as the vice president and executive director of Basics Project. He is a contributing writer for GOPUSA, CNS News, ChronWatch, Opinion Editorials, Men's News Daily, Canada Free Press, American Daily, The American Chronicle and The North Carolina Conservative.

His pieces have been featured in Townhall.com, The Washington Times, The Conservative Battleline, American Enterprise, The Federal Observer, US Politics Today, The London Morning Paper, and Pravda among over 100 other publications both nationally and internationally. He served as an editor for The Washington Dispatch before leaving because of philosophical differences. He has been quoted in The Federalist.

He has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel and is a semi-regular guest on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent and USA Radio Networks, The Kyal 2K Show (KTKK, Salt Lake City), The Bruce Elliott Show (WBAL, Baltimore) and has been a guest on American Breakfast with Stan Major (National Radio Network), The Kevin Matthews Radio Show (Chicago) and The Brad Messer Radio Show (San Antonio).

His writing has been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. He has worked as a professional jazz musician, firefighter/paramedic, harbormaster, political strategist, media consultant and writer. He supports conservative and traditional causes including the Republican Presidential Task Force.

I do agree with Salvato on one point: "tax exempt" is not the same as "supported by taxpayers." It's normally the Left that conflates these, since their mindset is that everything rightfully belongs to the government, and whatever it lets you keep constitutes a gift.

at least he's still "rewarding" Americans. -knock on wood-

Hi, Amy I'm new to your site; I've only heard as much as you mentioned in your book, about it, where i was a "you" fan. Anyway, hope I'm using the comment section right, I still need to browse around your page a bit. ~later

I can't believe anyone would read "were awarded" as "were to be awarded." I don't think the "to be" part is "commonly used context" or insinuated. It reads as past tense. "Were to be" is also past tense, isn't it? The problem is, "were to be" reads like the medals were discussed and dismissed before being awarded to anyone. Now, maybe I'm reading too much into the statement, but "were awarded" sounds like they were, you know, awarded. I don't buy that the "to be" was implied.

I also disagree with his definition of "the Obama team," Amy. Saying anyone in the military is part of the Obama team because he is the Commander in Chief sounds to me like he was playing it up a bit saying that it was from the Obama team. I do not consider people who keep their positions regardless of the administration to necessarily be a part of any particular president's team. By that logic, a guide at the Smithsonian Institute is part of the Obama team because he works for the federal government. I don't think anyone who actually is part of the Obama team would say that. Sounds like embellishment followed by backpedaling, in my opinion.

I have to wonder how many other readers have been accused of harassment by the editor. If he considers fact-checking to be harassment, then he must have incriminating photos of someone high up at AOL to get that many people banned. I was reading his responses and wondering the entire time he was ranting why he didn't just say they were looking into it. Seriously, isn't that what editors say to give people the brush-off? "We're looking into the situation, thanks for your continued readership." Like I used to go look in the stockroom of my store for something I knew we didn't have to make the customer happy, and so I could tell her I looked. Placate and move on. Instead, he started out with this: I think the original text is pretty straight forward; question over declaration.

Obviously not straightforward, honey, since you had many, many questions on it. I'm betting he'd been defending the sentence in question to others already and was getting quite testy about it. He's also essentially admitting to playing up the sensational aspect of the story: it's a question, not a declaration, therefore we can say what we want. If you're not making a declarative statement, then you have an out when it turns out not to be true. But you've planted it in the minds of your readers anyway.

Yes, from the editor's responses, this now reeks of sensationalism rather than honest mistake.

CRM: Not even wrong.

Amy Alkon, FOTC (Friend of The Corps)
Amy - I love the way you sign your blog, You are indeed a very good FOTC.

Here is the word on this, this medal does not exist, but this is worth commenting on. As leaders, we don't so much exercise restraint as we exercise judgment in order to accomplish the misson and to protect our personnel to the degree possible while conducting operations. Wars are bad things and combatants and civilians get killed, but we do everything possible to minimize civilians casualities and to protect civilians from harm. We are good at what we do and our efforts to protect the innocent from harm does not hinder our ability to violently kill the enemy.

Hope all is well in your world. Let me know if you need anymore shirts, maybe we'll start an Amy FOTC chapter.

Another e-mail exchange with Paul Hollrah:

His e-mail:

Amy:
  I'm sorry this exchange has occurred.  It was I who created the problem for Frank, who must rely on his writers not to make errors of fact or misstatements.  Of course, if one were to compare the error rate of those who write for the New Media Journal to those who write and pontificate for the mainstream media, there is no comparison.  I know lots of people, mostly neighbors and relatives, who get everything they know about politics and current affairs from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times or the Washington Post.  As Ronald Reagan used to say, "They know lots of stuff... almost none of which is true."  That is what is most sad about the current state of journalism in America.   Paul 

My reply:

Dear Paul,
Thanks for yet another civil reply. It is actually Frank who created the problem for Frank with his low-blow behavior.

Questions about a story and requests for substantiation when there's a potential inaccuracy are just a normal part of putting out news and information.

I was utterly shocked by his responses to me -- calling me an idiot and an ass...accusing me of being cheap...simply because I persisted in seeking substantiation for something a site he edits published. I'm guessing, if something was posted on CNN that he found unsubstantiated, he'd go after them -- and rightfully so.

I don't judge people by the medium but by the record of what they write and their apparent integrity. Matt Welch of reason, for example, is a guy with great integrity.

Accordingly, "New Media" is just a medium. It doesn't come with integrity. People like to assume it's the big media outlets that publish incorrect stuff, or aren't accountable. Anybody at any outlet is capable of that. All the best,-Amy

While I respect that the author keeps responding in such a thoughtful and civil way, I have to say that I'm not terribly impressed that part of the defense here is "Well, we're not as bad as the mainstream media!" Or that he's saying that people who get their news from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post are all woefully underinformed. I'm not saying that the big media outlets don't make mistakes and are always fair and balanced, but come on. That's the kind of bullshit some of the über-trendy indie-movie types trot out about "mainstream" films. Just because there's money behind it doesn't make it biased or hacky. And just because a medium has little money doesn't make it better or nobler than the bigger outlets.

Integrity and the lack thereof can come from anywhere.

That jerk Frank Salvato that you quoted above says:

"We are investigating the perceived inaccuracies and will respond responsibly, not in a kneejerk fashion because Snopes (an exposed liberal-leaning organization) mandates “fact.”"

Really? That's something else that I would like for him to substantiate with some links.

Because I am very aware that a rumour was spread all over the internet making exactly that claim... that they were exposed as being a liberal-leaning organization, but it's not hard at all to find the debunking of that rumor.

So this guy is just digging his hole deeper the more he flies off at the mouth.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/

You're welcome Amy.

I laughed at the hypocrisy when I saw Salvato say that. Here is a guy trying to defend the fact that he has some in-depth journalism to do and you just have to hold your horses. He criticizes you for being shoddy for using Snopes as a reference to see if they have researched the claim. Then he relies on a false rumor about Snopes that that was propagated all over the Internet, without any reliable references, to try criticize you. Why should he need more time? Shouldn't the research have been done ahead of time? He should already have his list of references, which you requested, handy. You caught him with his pants down, and his reaction is to bite your head off.

More proof (as if we need any more) that many journalists can't manage their own biases when doing their job, are lazy, and their gold standard is no longer reliable sources but instead is simply whether the story has enough truthiness.

Frank Salvato has some explaining to do and owes you an apology.