BizzyBlog too busy to apparently read other blogs (including the Dispatch's)
While we had three posts on Thursday alone on "Samuel the Plumber" information, including citing to information from the Columbus Dispatch's blog, the Daily Briefing, this morning Bizzy is busy bemoaning a conspiracy theory that it's a late Friday news dump:
UPDATE 3, Nov. 22, 8:20 a.m.: A Google News search on “Joe the Plumber” Ohio (typed as indicated) shows that the earliest relevant story appeared in the Columbus Dispatch at about 5 p.m. on Friday (”15 hours ago,” per Google News, though the story now carries a 7:33 p.m. time stamp).
How convenient.
The Dispatch story does not mention of Mary Taylor’s statement, or for that matter the post-decision reaction of any Republican.
Yeah, except the Dispatch's blog had a post about Senate President Harris' reaction up on Thursday. I know because I posted about it... two days ago. Mary Taylor's press release isn't news. It's political grandstanding. What would she say if the Governor started publicly criticizing her personnel decisions? There is no credible argument that the situation with the ODJFS Director has anything to do with the job of the State Auditor. If there were, then why didn't Mary Taylor do anything about it other than send out a press release? Why didn't her office investigate it instead of the I.G. Because it's had nothing to do with her official duties; that's why.
As for the timing of everything, well, how could it come out any different? Bizzy apparently thinks it's "odd" that the first published news accounts about the I.G.'s report wasn't until Friday... even though the report itself only became public late Thursday afternoon. (Papers stopped issuing afternoon editions a looooong time ago.) He thinks it's odd that it's not until a day after the issuance of the I.G.'s report that the Acting Director issues additional punishments. Why, I don't know.
And he bemoans that the Dispatch doesn't carry any Republican post-decision reaction (because it's SOOO easy to find a Republican legislator on a Friday when they've long since left town.) Apparently, Bizzy can't be bothered with the Dispatch's blog which had reactions from Republicans a whole twenty-four hours before BizzyBlog himself even wrote about the IG's report, or the published newsstory in today's Dispatch with Sen. Harris' reaction (published the same day that Bizzyblog is complaining about any lack of reporting on the Republican reaction.)
I don't know whether BizzyBlog's multiple omissions are the result of inadvertance or intentional misleading of his readers, but it's hard to find someone's outrage genuine when he doesn't write about it until a full twenty-four hours after it's already been reported on the national news and such obscure information depositories such as Yahoo! News, the AP, and a site I'm sure no conservative has heard about called the Drudge Report.
BizzyBlog threw long on this story and claimed, with no evidence, that there was a systematic effort by the Strickland Administration to find information about "Samuel the Plumber" in some sort of Nixonian effort to publicly reveal embarassing information about Sam the Plumber. None of that has been proven to be true, even as it relates to the ODJFS. In response to news reports that mentioned searches by the Ohio Department of Taxation and the Ohio Attorney General's office, BizzyBlog said that they all "did wrong", with no evidence. Instead, we have a few isolated cases in which employees and the ODJFS Director accessed information inapppropriately, but did not disclose the contents of that information to anyone.
One could turn the same tactic on BizzyBlog and ask why his late posting on this may be an attempt to avoid the embarassment of acknowledging that he falsely accused the employees of multiple state agencies of violating the civil rights of a private citizen with a reckless indifference as to whether the accusation was true or not because he had absolutely no first-hand information in which to make such a bald assertion. (Around the office, we call this "libel.")
Desparate to avoid people from realizing the multitude of employees throughout several state government agencies he may have libeled, now BizzyBlog is pounding the table in a classic distraction technique to get people to question absurd notions as to why an agency didn't take action until the next business day when the report evidencing the misconduct was issued until late in the day the day before? And while he rants and raves about how everyone else was late to the party, he hopes nobody notices how late to the party he is, or the piles of professional reputation of honest public servants he soiled as he step over them on his way there. Pay no attention to the what I've said yesterday, he begs, look what I'm saying now.
But what else can you expect from someone who thinks being published in the tabloid NY Post is a badge of credibility?
Um, that doesn't "clarify" anything...
The term "Friday news dump" refers to deliberately sitting on information and releasing to for coverage on the Saturday papers and T.V. when most people won't find out about it. The agency didn't get the report until late Thursday at the earliest. Therefore, it's hardly surprising that it wouldn't be until the next day that its decisions would be announced.
After all, the decision was announced right around the same time you were writing how the agency wasn't announcing anything about the other ODJFS employees involved. Seems in that context the agency was getting information quicker than you could process it.
Your update still fails to address the misrepresentation that no Republican reaction has been reported, or that the employees in the Taxation Department and AG's office you falsely maligned had been cleared of any wrongdoing.
You're assigning conspiratorial notions with no evidence and in spite of a completely rationale explanation that it's not unusual for an agency to take some time before its ready to publicly announce personnel decisions in spite of a recently released report.
I mean you're complaining about the timing of the release of information while whistling past the fact that it was publicly available at the time you initially expressed outrage at the lack of such disclosure. Having been shot down there, now you complain about the "timing" of the release even though the timing of it was largely out of the ODJFS' hands.





Clarification