Gage versus Powerline, Round 2 (or, Argument by Insinuation)

On Monday, the Star Tribune published a commentary by Camille Gage in the Star Tribune which sounded a cautionary note about relying on partisan blogs. As an example, Gage used a post by John Hinderaker on Power Line that linked to accusations of voter registration fraud in Racine, Wisconsin, Gage's hometown. Gage checked out the claims and confronted Hinderaker when he guest lectured in her class at the Humphrey Institute.

The piece got wide play in the liberal blogosphere with posts on Eschaton and Political Animal. Gage ended her essay on a sound note: "Will the Internet become a source of compelling, citizen-based journalism or the wild, wild west of news -- where bloggers post first and ask questions later? Probably a little of both, and savvy news consumers would do well to approach their news sources, both online and traditional, with common sense and healthy skepticism."

Power Line went balistic. Hinderaker refuted Gage's claims while noting that she was a Howard Dean contributor (presumably an indication of her "leftwing moonbat" status) and sarcastically asking if Camille J. Gage was even "really her name." (Aside: Hinderaker was incensed that the Strib didn't do any fact checking of Gage's piece. From the quest to "fact check" Krugman at the New York Times, I'd say it seems to be common practice to allow commentators to fact check their own work. Indeed, Powerline's op-ed response to Gage makes clear that they fact check their own published opinion pieces: "On Power Line, we apply exactly the same standard of fact checking that we use for the numerous columns we have published in the Star Tribune, the New York Times, the New York Post and other reputable newspapers over the past 13 years.")

Hinderaker's response to Gage was so forceful I decided to try to verify the Racine voter fraud story. It's clear that voter fraud did occur in Racine, but the specific incident that Power Line linked to was harder to verify. The only article that referenced the accusations of allowing illegal aliens to vote was the one Power Line linked to from the questionable source of Agape Press ("Christian News Service"). The article is singled sourced to an anti-immigration activist, unnecessarily vague and does not name names.

I couldn't find any more on the case using Google News. But lacking Lexis Nexis, I decided to wait and see what details Power Line would come up with.

They've now published the op-ed response they submitted to the Star Tribune. Again, it presents a forceful case that Gage didn't know what she was talking about when she wrote her commentary: "Because the editors did no fact checking, they did not know that the FAIR report, far from having 'no factual basis,' has been the subject of a criminal investigation."

Until you dig a little deeper, that is.

Fortunately, the California blogger (and Racine native) who runs Blogenlust did just that. He asked Gage for her evidence, which she gave to him. She covered her bases quite well, speaking with the news editor for the Racine Journal Times, the Racine County Clerk, Susan Tully (the source of the complaint), and did an internet search on the Latino registration group Tully cited, then called their press contact. This is journalism, not just making a "few calls" -- and far, far more than Power Line did to validate the story, even after Gage raised the issue with Hinderaker in class.

When Powerline published their op-ed, Blogenlust did more digging, and was unable to verify Hinderaker's claims of a criminal investigation related to their October post. The only source he was able to find was press releases on the FAIR website, including one that states that the DA decided "not to pursue criminal prosecutions resulting from FAIR's investigation." Sounds like there isn't a criminal investigation into these carges, after all.

"[A]fter doing this research," Blogenlust writes, "I'm not very satisfied with Hinderaker's response. He doesn't seem to address the content of the original article, and makes claims that aren't easily supported by evidence. Of course, I haven't put that much energy into finding the sources Hinderaker cites, but I've done enough to know that his claims are not as clear cut as he suggests. And, in fact, it seems as though he is purposely confusing the story. I say purposely because Hinderaker is a lawyer, and presumably he isn't an idiot and can figure out that these things don't add up."

Blogenlust got a reply in from Hinderaker about this, and he says: "As I understand it, the indictments are not directly related. How all of these events in Milwaukee and elsewhere fit into a general pattern of corruption is yet to be determined. The criminal investigation is pending. A joint federal-state task force is looking into the broad issue of voter fraud in Milwaukee, and I suspect it will be a while before this plays itself out."

This is not the impression you get from reading Power Line's op-ed. This is argument by insinuation.