![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mrbogey.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsOk, I've been mulling this over since the scandal broke and I think it's settled down enough I can post on it without making people roll their eyes.
In the Anthony Weiner scandal we saw what typically happens in a political scandal in regards to support. Generally political supporters rally around their figure and deny all evidence that supports the scandal while detractors believe all evidence supporting the scandal. In this case, I think that a case can be made that the traditional and overzealous kneejerk Weiner's supporters had ultimately did him in.
Had the evidence been properly weighted and kept in perspective, I don't think we'd have seen him resign.
Well here's the deal, in a political scandal there's a handy rule you have to remember, you need it to be a minor issue and you need it to be over quick. The longer people talk about it the more likely you'll end up having a major scandal that you'll have to resign over. Now if a minor scandal breaks it'll be embarrassing and may mean the end of his political career for higher office but it doesn't mean the end in total.
You can see with David Vitter how timing and degree helped save his office. By facing the scandal quickly and getting it behind him he was able to make it less of a distraction. Coupled with most of the details being left to vague rumors and assertions he saved his career. Though in light of the Weiner scandal his name is being brought up a lot and it may very well cause a revisit... though seldom "old news" gets a congressman out of office.
The news first broke thanks to everyone's favorite boogeyman, Andrew Breitbart. His site published a series of screencaps showing the embarrassing photo. They were billed as coming from a twitter user who was up till then an unknown. Originally posted on his website on the morning of the 28th of May they stated that they were taken earlier that night and were quickly deleted off his twitter along with all his yfrog photos. However, the site, TweetCongress, apparently caught the tweet and archived a copy. The BG article claimed only at that time that a hack was claimed by Weiner and no response was given when contacted for info. The article was then cited the same day by the much more popular Gawker website. And here's where things take off.
Realizing that this info was getting around, the next day a Kos user published his/her big debunking thread detailing the "proof" that it's a hoax. The evidence presented focused not upon bolstering a hacking claim but on a manufactured screencap claim. Claiming that the pic was never posted from the twitter account and that only a hacker posted a link to which Weiner deleted the tweet. Asserting further that since no one saw the tweet during the four minute interval it was up then there's no possible way it's real. At this point a lot of people chimed in claiming to have never seen the tweet themselves and that it's all a hoax. Along with someone who claimed graphics and media expertise who posted a short analysis proving the screencap was fake.
At this point it was declared a hoax by several lefty bloggers of prominent clout as well as unknown ones and the story is kept alive as proof of Breitbart's deceptiveness. The argument put forth by them is exactly the same as outline by Kos. That the screencaps were faked and the account was never compromised.
However, Weiner makes his first mistake in the scandal on the 30th of May and states he was indeed hacked. This upends the entire attack on Breitbart and forces them to start from scratch with the echo chamber. Now the focus is on the yfrog account and how it's insecure. This was then spread around the blogosphere replacing the original claim of a hoax per faked screencaps with a hoax per a cracked yfrog account.
And here's where Anthony Weiner makes his second and fatal mistake on the 1st of June. He admits he can't say with certainty that it's not his penis in the photo.
At this point it's really over. There's some who assert that it's possible it was a stolen pic or photoshopped but the debunkings dry up and people seem to start hedging their bets. At this point Weiner is through.
Why this all went down the way it did is because of most people's flawed ability to deduce complex issues from evidence.
Here's the deal, the original evidence wasn't proof of a certainty that Weiner sent out the picture. Publius@BG was pretty clever in not overstating the case and in giving a decent bit of proof for an assertion. The proof consisting of a screencap of the tweet in context and the yfrog screencap. At this point a hack is possible as is an unintentional tweet. No one can say with certainty which is the case. However, his supporters at Kos really messed up by declaring it a hoax right away and making it into an attack on Breitbart. They focused not on supporting a hack but on denying the pics ever were tweeted.
There was absolutely no evidence that it was a faked screencap. Looking at it, all the user at Kos did was run the pic through an analyzer and used no control in order to contrast. That is absolutely sloppy.
At that time though, Weiner still hadn't contacted any authorities. This is akin to a tell in poker. By not contacting authorities to deal with the issue then any claim made of illegal activity has to be treated suspiciously. His supporters looked past this though because of the certainty of their beliefs in his innocence. That is not a good way to be analytical towards the truth.
By the time the Canonfire post about yfrog came out, Wiener still hadn't contacted the authorities and the entire blogosphere was talking about the issue. The yfrog crack was the best chance at clearing him and we saw his supporters move effortlessly to make that claim. But again, he still hadn't contacted the police.
So at no point during this scandal was there any debunking of the primary evidence and the supporters of Weiner kept banding about new theories that did little to address the core arguments for his having tweeted the picture. They kept the issue alive and in the end turned on Weiner for making them look foolish. The end result was a lot of anger and hostility towards him.
Had his supporters objectively analyzed the evidence and didn't turn it into an attack on Breitbart I believe fully we'd still have Anthony Weiner in Congress as he'd have weathered this scandal with most of his support.
In the Anthony Weiner scandal we saw what typically happens in a political scandal in regards to support. Generally political supporters rally around their figure and deny all evidence that supports the scandal while detractors believe all evidence supporting the scandal. In this case, I think that a case can be made that the traditional and overzealous kneejerk Weiner's supporters had ultimately did him in.
Had the evidence been properly weighted and kept in perspective, I don't think we'd have seen him resign.
Well here's the deal, in a political scandal there's a handy rule you have to remember, you need it to be a minor issue and you need it to be over quick. The longer people talk about it the more likely you'll end up having a major scandal that you'll have to resign over. Now if a minor scandal breaks it'll be embarrassing and may mean the end of his political career for higher office but it doesn't mean the end in total.
You can see with David Vitter how timing and degree helped save his office. By facing the scandal quickly and getting it behind him he was able to make it less of a distraction. Coupled with most of the details being left to vague rumors and assertions he saved his career. Though in light of the Weiner scandal his name is being brought up a lot and it may very well cause a revisit... though seldom "old news" gets a congressman out of office.
The news first broke thanks to everyone's favorite boogeyman, Andrew Breitbart. His site published a series of screencaps showing the embarrassing photo. They were billed as coming from a twitter user who was up till then an unknown. Originally posted on his website on the morning of the 28th of May they stated that they were taken earlier that night and were quickly deleted off his twitter along with all his yfrog photos. However, the site, TweetCongress, apparently caught the tweet and archived a copy. The BG article claimed only at that time that a hack was claimed by Weiner and no response was given when contacted for info. The article was then cited the same day by the much more popular Gawker website. And here's where things take off.
Realizing that this info was getting around, the next day a Kos user published his/her big debunking thread detailing the "proof" that it's a hoax. The evidence presented focused not upon bolstering a hacking claim but on a manufactured screencap claim. Claiming that the pic was never posted from the twitter account and that only a hacker posted a link to which Weiner deleted the tweet. Asserting further that since no one saw the tweet during the four minute interval it was up then there's no possible way it's real. At this point a lot of people chimed in claiming to have never seen the tweet themselves and that it's all a hoax. Along with someone who claimed graphics and media expertise who posted a short analysis proving the screencap was fake.
At this point it was declared a hoax by several lefty bloggers of prominent clout as well as unknown ones and the story is kept alive as proof of Breitbart's deceptiveness. The argument put forth by them is exactly the same as outline by Kos. That the screencaps were faked and the account was never compromised.
However, Weiner makes his first mistake in the scandal on the 30th of May and states he was indeed hacked. This upends the entire attack on Breitbart and forces them to start from scratch with the echo chamber. Now the focus is on the yfrog account and how it's insecure. This was then spread around the blogosphere replacing the original claim of a hoax per faked screencaps with a hoax per a cracked yfrog account.
And here's where Anthony Weiner makes his second and fatal mistake on the 1st of June. He admits he can't say with certainty that it's not his penis in the photo.
At this point it's really over. There's some who assert that it's possible it was a stolen pic or photoshopped but the debunkings dry up and people seem to start hedging their bets. At this point Weiner is through.
Why this all went down the way it did is because of most people's flawed ability to deduce complex issues from evidence.
Here's the deal, the original evidence wasn't proof of a certainty that Weiner sent out the picture. Publius@BG was pretty clever in not overstating the case and in giving a decent bit of proof for an assertion. The proof consisting of a screencap of the tweet in context and the yfrog screencap. At this point a hack is possible as is an unintentional tweet. No one can say with certainty which is the case. However, his supporters at Kos really messed up by declaring it a hoax right away and making it into an attack on Breitbart. They focused not on supporting a hack but on denying the pics ever were tweeted.
There was absolutely no evidence that it was a faked screencap. Looking at it, all the user at Kos did was run the pic through an analyzer and used no control in order to contrast. That is absolutely sloppy.
At that time though, Weiner still hadn't contacted any authorities. This is akin to a tell in poker. By not contacting authorities to deal with the issue then any claim made of illegal activity has to be treated suspiciously. His supporters looked past this though because of the certainty of their beliefs in his innocence. That is not a good way to be analytical towards the truth.
By the time the Canonfire post about yfrog came out, Wiener still hadn't contacted the authorities and the entire blogosphere was talking about the issue. The yfrog crack was the best chance at clearing him and we saw his supporters move effortlessly to make that claim. But again, he still hadn't contacted the police.
So at no point during this scandal was there any debunking of the primary evidence and the supporters of Weiner kept banding about new theories that did little to address the core arguments for his having tweeted the picture. They kept the issue alive and in the end turned on Weiner for making them look foolish. The end result was a lot of anger and hostility towards him.
Had his supporters objectively analyzed the evidence and didn't turn it into an attack on Breitbart I believe fully we'd still have Anthony Weiner in Congress as he'd have weathered this scandal with most of his support.
(no subject)
Date: 18/6/11 15:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/11 15:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/11 15:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/11 15:44 (UTC)and if you're right in your theory -- then how sad for our politics.
Vitter actually broke the law - but because he downplayed it, that was ok?
You also seem to forget Republicans didnt want him replaced by a Democrat so their forgiveness seemed forthcoming...
Weiner lied but didnt downplay it - and because he didnt he lost out. If you're correct how sad that the rule of law doesnt seem to apply unless they choose it to.
(no subject)
Date: 18/6/11 15:56 (UTC)Why do you have to be such a liar?
I never claimed twitter could never be hacked.
Here's the link to the relevant thread for anyone who cares to see what was said.-
http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1023397.html?thread=80906661#t80906661
In it you said this- "Lockheed Martin, PBS, and Twitter were all attacked and hacked in the last few days... just the timing alone should correspond to what he says..."
Which to me is you saying the people behind those hacks had a role in this. I found it so laughable that you were very upset so you manufactured the lie that I claimed Twitter is unhackable.
I guarantee you that you will not post a link to anything I've ever said that supports your assertion. Because it is a bold-faced lie on your part.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/11 00:21 (UTC)The RSA token thread is what I think you meant to show.. and where you tried to make a big show of how "laughable" it was that it could be hacked.
But you keep pushing that revisionism and 1-sided story telling if it lets you sleep at night.
But whatever dude. (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1023397.html?thread=81080485#t81080485)
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/11 02:01 (UTC)Youre conflating RSA and Twitter. It's pointless to talk about this subject with you when you're so wrong and so arrogant.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/11 02:54 (UTC)Ok...
anyway -- all I argued was that it was possible his account was hacked; You acted like an ass with all the presumption AND simply misunderstanding of facts.
But whatever lets you sleep at night...
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/11 19:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/11 16:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/11 16:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/11 04:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/11 17:11 (UTC)If you look at it, he did what most would have done. Claimed hackers did it and delete the evidence.
His eventual confession would have happened anyway due to the other pics Breitbart had.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/11 05:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/11 19:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/11 19:07 (UTC)The public has a very short memory, Weiner will be back, even stronger. I hope.
(no subject)
Date: 18/6/11 19:20 (UTC)And when the claims were made he right away confessed to having some liaisons and left it at that.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/11 02:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/11 19:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/11 03:38 (UTC)Vitter didn't resign because the GOP had his back, even though Vitter actually broke the law.