...Webster defines a "smear" as an "unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization."hmm... let's all make like Socrates and define our terms here, shall we?
But my dear friend, Ms. Britt, at first overlooks what would seem that necessary condition for a "smear." Where's the pejorative in a "smear" that is substantially true?
"substantiate: (verb) To support with proof or evidence."
thefreedictionary.com
"substantially: (adverb) To a great extent or degree"
thefreedictionary.com
"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug."
Mark Twain
"I do not think that word means what you think it means..."Quick Recap
Ignatio Montoya
- Elizabeth Britt described Mr. Kirsch's columns as "smears".
- Mr. Kirsch takes exception to this because a "smear" is an unsubstanitated (unsupported with evidence) accusation.
- His columns, he points out, are not smears because they are substantially (to a great extent or degree) true.
Because Greg Kirsch says so.
Greg Kirsch is his own cited source.
The only evidence that Mr. Kirsch offers in his columns is that he beleives them to be true.
There is no way to verify what Mr Kirsch knows or how he knows it.
We just have to take him at his word as the Last Honest Man In Whatcom County.
Substantiate and substantial do sound a lot a like, I must admit.
But this isn't some parlor game. Greg Kirsch isn't like some latter day Truman Capote dishing gossip in an exclusive cocktail party. He is posting his hearsay and innuendo on the internet.
Rumor and innuendo and smears and hearsay are not defined by being inherently false. Their defining characteristic is that they lack any supporting evidence. You can't rely on hearsay, or on anyone who is indulging in hearsay.
One of the oldest bully boy tricks from the school yard is "Prove me wrong."
If someone disagrees with you, that person has to prove you wrong or its the same thing as admitting you are right. It's nice work when you can get it.
If Greg Kirsch can verify his claims about Kelli Linville or the McShanes or any damn body for that matter, you couldn't tell from reading his column. His supporting evidence and verification of these bold assertions are hidden from view.
When something is "self evident" that doesn't mean you use yourself as evidence, Dude.
Bob Woodward relied on confidential sources, but he verified every fact revealed to him by Deep Throat before he filed any stories about Watergate.
Its not like he just start pulling information out of his butt and then broke out his Ronco Turd-Bedazzler to give it a crusty veneer of credibility.
Thanks a pantload, Mr. Kirsch.
Hugs.
I must say the more this BSer goes on, the less I think of Pike for not putting a stop to it. Either he loves it, or he has no control over GHK.
ReplyDeletePike is lucky Sam's blog is on hold or he would be getting raked widely, along with Kirsch.
Although Socrates is long dead, he did leave us with some important wisdom.
ReplyDeleteIf an allegation is substantially true, it cannot be a smear.
It is all in the specifics, which seem to be lost in a a blizzard of genralizations.
As one must deal with a cave troll in the mines of Moria, so we must deal with this political troll. Stick a few arrows in him, drive him back to the depths whence he came, and then ignore. I like kicking the guy as much as the next but its time to move on. Bigger fish to fry this cycle.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth,
ReplyDeleteGeneralities heaped upon more generalities does not help, nor does assigning responsibilities or general name calling.
You could simply point out a couple of Sir Kirsch's false accusations or smears, or whatever you wish to call them, and prove them to be patently false, and you would have the upper hand in this debate.
All we have here is bunch of name calling without either side doing much of job substantiating the names being thrown around.
Prove it, no you prove it you lying SOB. No you have to prove it.
And then the epitomy of name calling "Liar liar, pants on fire".
If you are going to call someone a liar, you bet you have to prove it.
Politifact him. There is power in facts.
Yes, there is power in facts. And I enjoy writing fact check articles.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the suggestion!
For me the kicker is just the photoshop he should have apologized for and removed and the snarks at those who found it childish and nasty hearted.
ReplyDeleteThe rest is politics and who done its. I'm not picking sides in that one, the facts speak for themselves.
Greg Kirsch is writing these posts from the comfort of his home in California. I'd call it sour grapes - but I think he has a serious problem.
ReplyDeleteThe guy is stalking elected officials and members of the community from his home in a different state.
For all we know, he could be dangerous. I suggest a blackout on Kirsch's posts. Feeding his need for attention only adds fuel to his obsession to destroy the reputations of people who actually live and work here.
No more Kirsch
I have to say I disagree that something substantially true cannot also simultaneously be a smear.
ReplyDeleteIt is substantially true that I do not know 100% certain for a fact that Greg Kirsch is not the grandson of Adolf Hitler. That does not mean that I have not just smeared Mr. Kirsch.
Kelli Linville did get a DUI. She was upfront about it and paid the penalty. It is a fact; bringing it up now is a smear.
Context is the key.
Pfffft. These allegations by Sir Kirsch are substantially untrue. If there were facts, he'd reference them. The guy's been sitting in a corner with his dark glasses on muttering and sputtering for 4 years. His life is passing by before his eyes. He's got nothing left but a strange obsession.
ReplyDeleteHow do you prove that lies are wrong?
Sunshine,
ReplyDeleteHere's an excerpt from a site I ue as a reference.
"To construct a persuasive argument, you must first determine what your purpose is. Do you intend to persuade by offering a defense or an attack?
Since you will be expected to argue your views in an attempt to persuade your reader to see the issues as you do, and, possibly, to act upon the views or recommendations you have prescribed, you must understand and be able to use effectively the rhetorical elements involved in writing persuasive arguments.
In addition, you will be expected
to identify your specific audience for your essay. The audience determines the approach you take to your argument. Next, with your purpose and audience in mind, you must take a stand on your topic, state a claim that reflects that stand, and finally provide evidence to support that claim.
http://www.fountainheadpress.com/contentresources/eng_constructingargument.pdf
Members of the Community are not obligated to defend themselves from poorly constructed blog posts that fail to provide evidence to support allegations.
If Kirsch wants to be taken seriously as a journalist, he needs to prove his claims by providing evidence to support his claims.
If refuses, he loses credibility! It's that simple.