One link is about this:
An obscure right-wing blogger, Wild Bill, has outed one of Mark Foley's victims, a former Congressional page. It is a despicable act. Wild Bill however, gets almost no traffic, so the damage done to the victim's life could have been minimal.
All that ended, however, when some of the most highly-trafficked right-wing bloggers decided to direct their readers to Wild Bill's site. First, Roger L. Simon, co-founder and CEO of Pajamas Media -- a portal and advertising broker for nearly every major right-wing blog -- posted a link to Wild Bill on his personal site. (The Pajamas Media portal also linked to Wild Bill.) Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit -- probably the most highly-trafficked right-wing blog -- followed suit by linking to Simon's post and the Pajamas Media post.
Hmmm. Another link is about this:
EMILY LITELLA ALERT: Drudge is reporting that Foley's accuser was actually 18 years old at the time the Instant Messages were sent. Stay tuned.
Okaaay. What is Professor Reynolds endorsing there? BTW, Professor Reynolds is wrong, as even Drudge is forced to admit that "A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday." No correction from Professor Reynolds to date.
UPDATE: Reynolds corrects this falsehood. His other linked falsehood remains uncorrected.
And finally, Professor Reynolds links to this:
. . . And a look at the GOP playbook: "Gerry Studds (D-MA) had sex with a 17-year-old male page. In 1983*, he was reprimanded. Republicans wanted to censure him. But 79 Dems voted against upgrading the condemnation. The GOP wants you to know that some in the Democratic Party, in 1983, apparently did not find Studds's conduct to be deserving of a full censure, which carries significant penalties."
Except, that is false. Billmon:
Studds was censured, not reprimanded -- even though the latter was the penalty recommended both for him and for GOP page bender Dan Crane by the House Ethics Committee.... The vote to upgrade [Democrat] Studds' reprimand to censure was 338 yeahs to 87 nays.... But the vote to upgrade [Republican] Crane's reprimand to a censure passed by only 289 yeahs to 136 nays.... In both cases, the final vote on censure was overwhelmingly lopsided -- 421 to 3 in Crane's case, and 420 to 3 in Studd's. (My source on all this is "House Censures Crane and Studds," Washington Post, July 21, 1983, page A1. I looked it up using Nexis, but haven't been able to find a copy on line.)
Now, we are told by Professor Reynolds that his linking does not mean endorsement. But the next question is begged, does Professor Reynolds care if his links are falsehoods? The answer must be no. He has no corrections at this time.
Lesson learned. Do not trust Professor Reynolds' links, they are not vetted for accuracy. Or as one wag wrote - EMILY LITELLA ALERT . . . for Instapundit.
