Schmalfeldtian Journalism

If you were a the beach this weekend, read this post to get up to date.

Short version of the story: Bill Schmalfeldt published at  Breitbart Unmasked Bunny Billy Boy Unread or whatever the site is these days.  It was based upon a document that is a clear forgery.  We’ll get to that.

Bill Schmalfeldt commented to the article:

Any evidence that the document is not authentic should be sent in a comment to the story at Breitbart Unmasked. You SAYING it is not authentic doesn’t MAKE it not authentic. Rather than sitting there and yapping uselessly, I give you the same opportunity I afforded Aaron Walker… the threats and promises of violence don’t change the fact that Walker has had this document for months (at least) and hasn’t debunked it. So let’s see the exculpatory evidence and I wlll ensure that it gets added to the story.

And Dave… what happened to your promise to me that you would contact me in advance to get my opinion before writing a hit piece about me?

Fisking the journalism of Team Kimberlin is tricky.  It takes a thousand words to dispute a ten word lie.  I’ll try to be brief, and offer an explanation of my perspective of Schmalfeldtian journalism.

You know how Bill used to bloviate about how he has 30-years investigative journalism? I dealt with it here. I’ve actually spent more time in radio, and a lot of it writing news.  I took college courses 30 years ago, but most importantly I have kept myself out of trouble — while still working on the air.  In short, I know stuff.

Now to Bill’s commentary:

  1. It is the responsibility of the news writer to determine something is true before publishing.  Bill knows that.  Basing a story on a document that is so obviously false is journalistic malpractice.  
  2. Bill mentions threats and promises of violence.  I have no idea where he saw that, but it wasn’t here.  Sure.  Folks have said for a long time that someday Bill’s gonna find somebody who…  Fill in the rest.  Protip: Being an idiot 24/7/365 is not a good plan.  Bill really has only stayed alive by confining his worst stuff to the internet.  
  3. He says “let’s see the exculpatory evidence…”  Again, it’s not actually my job to prove his fake documents are fake, but let’s offer two items: John Hoge has pointed out that the Philippine agency involved does not publish documents with the date arranged in the way it is in this document.  I noted in my article update that the author misspelled the name of the most dangerous Philippine terrorist group.  No red flags went up in the   Breitbart Unmasked Bunny Billy Boy Unread newscenter
  4. The only exculpatory evidence we really need is a byline stating: William Schmalfeldt.
  5. The document states that an individual was raped, and also that individual aided in the prosecution of terrorists.  By any standard no journalist would ever publish this story.  This story might endanger the life of an innocent person. 

The story is clearly a part of a concerted effort to intimidate the subject of the story, whose husband is suing Brett Kimberlin.  Since that individual was put on a witness list in the case, I think it likely that Mr. Schmalfeldt should plan on his defense should he be officially accused of witness intimidation.  

I don’t absolutely know that such a criminal charge or civil tort can be applied to this situation, but obviously that’s what is being done here.



This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Schmalfeldtian Journalism

  1. BusPassOffice says:

    Someone hasn’t read Wisconsin statutes especially 704.16 The threat that associating with terrorists grows everyday and some say , should I call? should I say something?

    also, do you know someone who left a job as an online editor, podcaster, and failed customer service rep due to a mysteriously mysterious disability to collect disability, only to return to work as an online editor? Well you can report any suspicious activity to the office of Inspector General, free of charge and free of intimidation.

    Call today, after all, it’s your tax money they are stealing

    Liked by 3 people

  2. He’s attempting to intimidate the witness. All he’s accomplishing is getting the witness and others mad, making people laugh at him again, and digging his own grave. I doubt anyone got intimidated by it.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Black Betty says:

    You know, I don’t really comment on this shit anymore but, why is Schmalfeldt in possession of unredacted foreign intelligence documents? And why is he publishing foreign terrorism intelligence reports on behalf of a convicted terrorist?

    Liked by 6 people

  4. You mean helping them to identify a person who cooperated bravely with her native country’s law enforcement? You’re thinking too much. They made the whole stupid thing up. Same as usual.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Perry Mason says:

    Is it normal for “journalists” to identify alleged rape victims by name?

    Isn’t that a Bozo no-no?

    Liked by 5 people

  6. It’s not typical. Rare occasions — for instance AFTER the Duke Lacrosse ‘rape’ hoax blew up, the alleged victim was identified. But the Att’ny General of NC had to say the Duke lacrosse team committed no crime. Only then did most folks print/say the accuser’s name.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Paul Krendler says:

    So if I understand the Schmalfeldtian logic, we are to take reportage as true in the absence of debunking or exculpatory evidence.

    If that’s the way this works…

    …and his Captive Nurse never denied, debunked or provided any evidence to contradict sources who maintain she was a prisoner and a, shall we say, frequent independent contract provider of unique truck stop services, then we must assume that those sources are correct, mustn’t we?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I saw a recent tweet wherein the Milwaukee Maggot whines about @captivenurse and asserts knowledge as to who owns the account. Maggot, why would anyone be obliged to care how you feel in the wake of your wife’s passing? When did you show any sign of giving the slightest of shits about anyone else’s grief? The Breitbart family? The Stranahans? You’ve made it one of your contemptible hobbies to mock the dead and abuse the grieving. By comparison, we’ve taken it very fucking easy on you and yours, you sniveling cunt.

    Liked by 7 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s