Hot News!
• Tea Party leader gets grilled by NAACP membership
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Smitherman still saying the issue is about a “streetcar” (2009)•More on Amy Goodman’s Arrest and the Struggle for a Free Media (2008)
•Journalist Amy Goodman Unlawfully Arrested At RNC (2008)
•Seizing Illegal Guns—Thinking About 2% (2007)
•Information or Advertisements? (2007)
•Nick Lachey: “I have never supported George W. Bush.” (2007)
Contact Us
v mail: (513) 685-0678
e mail: click here
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Hullabaloo and Mercury Rising Pick Up Beacon’s Coverage of the Sloat Spitting Story
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Photo courtesy of here.
Hullabaloo and Mercury Rising, popular and nationally respected blogs, have picked up The Cincinnati Beacon’s coverage of Bill Sloat’s apparently fabricated story about spat upon veterans (see “Bill Sloat: Ace News Hawk, or Modicum of Credibility?” ). How has Sloat responded to protect his credibility? He has not, casting even more doubt into the validity of his flag-waving sob stories.
In a post entitled “More Spittle, Digby at Hullabaloo introduces his continuing coverage of the Josh Sparling spit scandal:
The Cincinnatti Beacon found that people are picking up the Joshua “Zelig” Sparling spitting story as proof of the terrible treatment of veterans. One is a Vietnam Vet who recovered memories of his own spitting incident back in the 70’s. (The Beacon also found that his story doesn’t exactly add up—- as usual.)
Even more interesting is that the Beacon coincidentally shot some footage of Sparling standing with the Freepers. If there was spit lobbed across the wide chasm between the two opposing groups, it was an award winning projectile gob, which makes this passage by the New York Times reporter especially suspicious:
Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.
Over at Mercury Rising, Phoenix Woman sums the situation succinctly, while including a link to our Sloat story:
There was hope earlier this week that they might. But as a couple of Digby’s latest posts (here and here) on the credibility-challenged Joshua Sparling’s latest efforts to start a bogus scandal show, they are all too ready to fall back into bad habits.
There’s also evidence — in the form of yet another questionable (and already-debunked) spitting story, this one an alleged Vietnam-era reminiscence — that the nutcase right is making a concerted effort to retool the spitting myth and apply it to Iraq war protesters.
In response to these attacks on his credibility, Bill Sloat has posted a column entitled “1970 At Ft. Polk Louisiana: Those Were The Days.” But rather than addressing any of the criticisms—like how he could have vivid memories of being spat upon in 1970 after seeing a porno that didn’t exist until 1973, or what it means to have spit land “near” one’s shoulder (among other notable inconsistencies)—Sloat decided to write some pseudo-sentimental fluff piece about Fort Polk:
While Sloat admits that life could be “dazed and confused” (perhaps his admission to fabricating the whole spat-upon-veteran mythology), his post goes on to link to pictures of Ft. Polk. None of the pictures feature Sloat, he provides no real evidence that he ever spent time at Ft. Polk—and further, we never get any evidence about whether Sloat served in Vietnam. After his pointless meandering down a Memory Lane either real or imagined, Sloat concludes with a weak analysis:
Now, there’s a good bit of debate under way on the Internet about whether vets were or weren’t spit at during the Vietnam years, a lot of it stirred up by the post immediately beneath this one. These stories have been challenged as urban myths.
An article in the online magazine Slate from a few years back is HERE, and it directly and sincerely raises questions about the amount of expectoration aimed at troops. On the other hand, there are comments from Vietnam era vets who rebut the assertion there was no spitting.
My take: Only the spittees and spittors know the answer. But the debate will last for years—like the contretemps over who was at fault in Kent on May 4, 1970, troops or students, students or troops. The side you take depends on what you want to believe.
No, Sloat—the side does not depend on what we “want” to believe: it depends on a rational interpretation of facts. For example, your vivid memory from 1970 cannot be correct, as the porno you went to see did not exist until 1973. You’ve been busted, Sloat, and your meandering memories combined with pictures of Ft. Polk will not do anything to save your credibility on this matter.
• Share This Article! | Listen to this article |
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
30 Jan 2007 at 09:17 am | #
Did Bill Sloat fabricate the spitting story? If so, that’s as serious as it gets for a journalist. His reputation would be irreparably damaged.
Good reporters have one thing in common. When facts they have reported are challenged, they defend their work. Bill Sloat knows this. He worked as a beat reporter for the Plain Dealer for decades.
The fact that he has failed to adequately respond to the allegations only adds to the appearance that he made the whole thing up.
Bill, if you’re reading this, you know the rule is always get out in front of bad news. You can keep your head down and hope this goes away, but that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening. You need to provide a substantive and thorough response ASAP.
30 Jan 2007 at 11:42 am | #
The big problem I have with the Vietnam-era spitting stories is why, when emotions were so raw and issues so contentious at the time, would soldiers so assiduously concealed these spitting stories that none ever appeared in print at the time. It doesn’t add up. It appears to me to be a way-too-convenient, ideolologically driven smear. My own recollection of the constant stream of “Destroy the establishment/stand up The Man rhetoric from my SDS sister was that it was all directed at Nixon. I don’t recall her ever saying anything about the troops fighting in Vietnam. The anti-war kids were not stupid enough to think that the soldiers themselves were responsible for the war and the policies that drove it.
Also, after Sloat mentioned this happened in the Vieux Carre, I sort of went, “Um….no.” The freewheeling, live-and-let-live atmosphere in that district is far more likely to involve alcohol, hookers and drag queens that making political statements by spitting on soldiers.
30 Jan 2007 at 01:33 pm | #
“National Guard rifle-fire killed four students.”
Yeah, the National Gaurd murdered 4 students. Some were just passersby.
“like the contretemps over who was at fault in Kent on May 4, 1970, troops or students, students or troops. The side you take depends on what you want to believe.”
There is NO debate over “who was at fault” at Kent. If you think there is, then you are in the radical fringe whack job category with Peter Bronson and maybe Jim Shifrin.
30 Jan 2007 at 01:38 pm | #
That’s the best this guy can do after the Dean just put him through the cred shred on a national level. This guy is finished!
Well, maybe the propagandists at the Enquirer will hire him. You know, the ones that brought you the militaries Grandma War blog and they “forgot” to disclose that she worked for Army.
30 Jan 2007 at 03:51 pm | #
WTF: There is NO debate over �who was at fault� at Kent.
Good catch on how Sloat wrote that up - thnx.
More on Sloat’s worldview in this post which he wrote after ignoring the Beacon’s allegations about fabricating his spitting story. The item’s his take regarding a vandalism incident at this past weekend’s anti-war rally.
Here’s my point. Sloat’s his own boss now and you can get a peek into his mind by what he chooses to report. Dozens of our guys and civilians are getting butchered in Iraq, Bush is now revving up to escalate the slaughter into Iran. Meanwhile, Sloat’s concerned that Dennis Kucinich’s daughter is even-handed in reporting on vandalism by a handful of protesters.
Another thing I hate about this guy. I couldn’t find the post on his blog, so he may have deleted it, but a couple months ago Sloat wrote an item about him taking his son to college and proudly proclaiming his son’s in ROTC. Is Iran the next stop for Sloat Jr.? If my kid was on the verge of going over there and I was a reporter, I’d scream bloody murder against the war. Not our Bill.
I’d also like to know how many times Sloat told his kid the lie about the spitting story. As Sloat likes to write when he doesn’t want to answer a question to a comment he deigns to post: sigh….