The Fayetteville Observer, which initially published an article whitewashing Julian Bond’s incendiary speech at Fayetteville State University such that it didn’t sound controversial in the slightest, has now published a follow-up and made available an MP3 file of the speech in response to the controversy over said speech’s contents. (My previous posts can be found here and here.)

The article makes clear that the truth, unsurprisingly, lies somewhere in between the claims of Bond’s detractors and his defenders.

On the Nazi/swastika issue, it does appear that the audience members who told WND about Bond’s speech misheard or misunderstood him. He wasn’t comparing Republicans to Nazis; he was making a comment that he makes often about the Confederate flag, which he, for some reason, refers to as a “swastika”:

According to a recording of Bond’s 45-minute speech reviewed by The Fayetteville Observer, he referred to the Confederate flag as a swastika.

“Their (Republicans) idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side-by-side,” Bond said in a series of jabs against conservatives, getting applause from the audience of about 900 people.

I’m not sure why the Confederate flag should be called a “swastika,” considering it, um, isn’t a swastika. But I suppose Bond is alluding to this theory that the flag “represents for African-Americans what the swastika represents to Jewish citizens and Jewish people around the world.” So basically, he is evoking Nazi imagery in order to buttress his argument, but he didn’t literally equate Republicans to Nazis. WorldNetDaily’s roving reporters were wrong on that point.

What about the alleged comment that Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell are “tokens”?

According to the tape of the speech, Bond accuses the administration of using Powell and Rice — both of whom are black — “as kinds of human shields against any criticism of their record on civil rights.”

Human shields? So basically, yeah, he is calling them “tokens,” just not in so many words. The audience members accurately summarized Bond’s remarks, they just erred in saying or implying (or perhaps WND erred in hearing or inferring) that “tokens” was a direct quote.

And what about the alleged “Taliban” remark?

He makes a reference to the Taliban in saying that “Republicans draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics.”

But he doesn’t call judicial nominees the Taliban. He merely calls millions of American citizens the Taliban. I’m not sure how that’s better, but okay.

Look, WorldNetDaily’s report was inaccurate. I’m not going to stoop so low as to defend it as “fake but accurate”; it was inaccurate, period. WND didn’t lie, they didn’t deliberately deceive, but they got inaccurate information from audience members and they ran with it. As a result, the article was wrong.

That said, Bond’s remarks are still beneath contempt. Calling the Confederate flag a “swastika” when it, in fact, isn’t a swastka, cannot sensibly be interpreted as anything other than a not-so-subtle attempt to infuse an otherwise harsh-but-valid criticism of the Bush Administration with irrelevant Nazi imagery. Referring to highly successful African-Americans as “human shields,” simply because they have different political beliefs than you, is really no better than calling them “tokens.” And describing conservative Americans as “the Taliban wing of American politics” is a grave insult, akin to calling American liberals “communists,” or perhaps more analogously, “Stalinists.” It’s one thing if you’re saying it as a joke or a light-hearted remark, but this is a standard part of Bond’s stump speech, and it’s clear that he means it.

Also, the Fayetteville Observer’s initial report of Bond’s speech remains an example of shoddy journalism. The editorial page editor, defending Bond on his blog, says, “There is no question that Bond’s speech was a strong piece of advocacy and strongly anti-administration.” But if all you read about Bond’s speech was the Observer’s initial article, you wouldn’t have gotten that impression at all. The article said the speech “was interrupted several times by applause as he jabbed at the Bush administration,” but the only example cited is the comparatively tame “We have a president who talks like a populist and governs for the privileged.” The “Taliban,” “human shields” and “swastika” comments, all of which are far more controversial, weren’t mentioned.

So, what have we learned here?

1. WorldNetDaily isn’t the most reliable news source out there. They don’t make sh*t up, but they don’t have the same stringent rules about sourcing that some other news organizations have, so they’re more liable to get details wrong as a result of misstatements by their sources. And, like so many journalists — conservative and liberal, mainstream and “alternative,” blogs and newspapers alike — they are more liable to run with a poorly sourced report when it happens to comport with their preconceived notions.

2. The Fayetteville Observer isn’t the most reliable news source out there, either. A national (liberal) figure can make highly controversial remarks at a speech in Fayetteville, and yet those remarks may get left out of an Observer report about the speech, in favor of a blandly positive summary that makes a firebrand sound like a statesman.

3. Julian Bond doesn’t directly equate Republicans with Nazis. He’s far too clever for that. He references Nazi imagery in such a way that many listeners will inevitably associate Republicans with Nazis, but that association can’t be traced directly to Bond because he was only talking about the Confederate, uh, “swastika.”

4. Julian Bond doesn’t think very highly of Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. Instead of judging them by the content of their character, he sees only their skin color. He can’t wrap his mind around the notion that maybe, just maybe, the Bush Administration hired them because of their immense personal accomplishments. Instead, he believes they are nothing but “human shields” who have been appointed because of their race in order to cover the administration’s tracks on racial issues and make it look diverse. In other words, tokens.

5. Julian Bond thinks it’s okay to compare principled Americans with whom he disagrees (conservatives) with a brutal tyrannical regime that committed wanton violence in the name of religion, subjugated women and minorities, and sponsored terrorism against the United States.

I think that about covers it.

UPDATE: Welcome (again), InstaPundit readers!

As I said last time… if you recognize my name but can’t quite place it… I’m that Katrina guy. Welcome to the Irish Trojan’s blog. Please have a look around!

Anyway, back on topic… David Crisp, who commented on my first post about Julian Bond, is criticizing me — gently — over on his blog:

[The controversy] interests me only because of the speed with which certain elements of the blogosphere jump to factual conclusions that match their prejudices, especially when an opportunity presents itself to trash mainstream media. If there is anything that reporters (and someday bloggers?) ought to know, it is that truth rarely breaks down in such simple terms.

I definitely agree with the latter point, as I imply above (”the truth, unsurprisingly, lies somewhere in between”). And perhaps I should have been more careful. But in my defense, I’m not sure it’s fair to say that I “jump[ed] to factual conclusions that match [my] prejudices.”

For one thing, I don’t have some sort of virulent anti-liberal prejudice; I’m actually a Democrat, albeit a Lieberman-esque one. My “prejudice” is anti-idiotarian, not anti-liberal. (To the extent that I sometimes get more upset about idiotic liberals than about equally idiotic conservatives, it’s only because liberal idiots make me, as a Democrat, look bad, and hurt my party’s chances of doing well in elections.) But anyway, sure, I’ll admit that I am more predisposed to believe bad things about people whose comments strongly indicate they are idiotarians — which Bond’s still do, IMHO, even with the corrections noted above. You can’t, in all seriousness, call millions of honest and decent Americans with whom you (and I!) disagree a “Taliban wing” and escape the “idiotarian” label, in my book.

Anyway, as for “jumping to conclusions”… I actually wrote out an even more blistering rebuke of Bond the day before publishing my initial post, immediately after reading the WND article, but decided not to publish it until I’d found some sort of further confirmation. Only after I found independent sources confirming that he’d made similar remarks at another event did I feel comfortable that the WND article was sufficiently credible to blog about it. And even then, I did very explicitly point out WND’s status as a partisan, right-wing publication, thus giving my readers the information they needed to judge for themselves. So while I was, to some extent, burned by WND’s mistakes, I don’t think I was being irresponsible by posting about the article. And I stand by my conclusions about Bond and the media. The “Taliban” remark alone is enough to justify my conclusions about Bond, and the more I think about the “Confederate swastika” remark, the more I’m convinced that the only reason he would use that locution is to subliminally associate the Republican Party with Nazis. And it absolutely is bad journalism not to report on Bond’s more inflammatory remarks, even though they’re not quite as inflammatory as originally reported.

Oh, one last thing. I forgot to link to Opinion Journal’s most recent discussion of this issue. They apparently wrote it prior to reading the latest Fayetteville Observer article, so some of the discussion is outdated by the new information. I assume they’ll have more to say about the matter this afternoon.

…that I’m really happy nothing blew up yesterday?

Thank you, that is all.

NAACP chairman Julian Bond denies he made the incendiary comments that he is alleged to have made last week, comparing Republicans to Nazis and calling Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice “tokens.” He apparently does not specifically deny that he compared judicial conservatives to the Taliban. (I discussed the allegations extensively here.)

Bond says “I didn’t say these things I’m alleged to have said,” and asserts that the controversy stems from “an irresponsible attack by a right-wing blog — a partisan blog.” He is referring to WorldNetDaily, which reported what he allegedly said. But while there is no denying WND’s partisan right-winginess, Bond’s denial appears, at first blush anyway, to lack credibility, considering that an entirely independent source confirms he made the same Nazi (and Taliban) comparisons a week earlier in a different speech. (A third source confirms the Taliban remark.) So… is Bond claiming that not only the audience members who contacted WND are lying, but that the student newspaper and university P.R. office of the College of William & Mary are also lying?

Anyway, here is what WorldNetDaily is saying about Bond’s denial:

Stung by national criticism of a speech in which he reportedly equated the Republican Party and Nazis, Julian Bond, the chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, denies the comments attributed to him by members of the audience and has lashed out at WND as a “right-wing blog.”

Fayetteville State University in North Carolina has issued a careful statement on the speech by Bond and issued a press release including the NAACP leader’s denial of the remarks.

“I didn’t say these things I’m alleged to have said,” the university quotes Bond as saying. “There is no one in the audience who can say I said them. The reporter from the Fayetteville newspaper did not report I said them. I have denied I said them and refuse to engage in a back and forth about what I did say. This is an irresponsible attack by a right-wing blog — a partisan blog — and these kinds of attacks should be expected and dismissed for what they are.”

However, WND has spoken to and corresponded with members of the audience who do assert Bond made the statements. And the university, despite its efforts to dismiss the matter, refuses to release a recording of the full event or even a transcript of Bond’s remarks.

University officials say they reviewed a tape of Bond’s speech. But an official statement issued by Jeffrey Womble, director of public relations for the university, was carefully worded to avoid addressing whether Bond actually uttered the words attributed to him in the WND story.

“We received numerous calls and emails from concerned individuals about Mr. Bond’s presentation, so we felt compelled to review the tape in an effort to address their concerns,” said Womble. “After a close review, we have concluded that the comments attributed to Mr. Bond about the Republican Party, Dr. Rice, and Mr. Colin Powell were not made.”

Specifically, he said, nowhere during Bond’s speech was reference made to the Nazi Party.

However, the key quotes reported by WND never mentioned the Nazi Party. Instead, Bond was quoted as saying: “The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side.”

That quote and other comments reportedly made by Bond at the speech were relayed by members of the audience who were appalled at the specific charges as well as the overall divisive tone of the address.

Leon Delaine, who describes himself as “African-American,” is one of those audience members who contacted WND. He said he and his family walked out on the Bond speech because of the offensive comments.

Here is the press release from Fayetteville State. The key excerpt is:

FSU officials reviewed a tape of Bond’s speech to verify the alleged comments. Based on the review, it was determined that nowhere during Bond’s speech was reference made to the Nazi Party, nor was the word “token” used.

I would really like to know the truth of this matter. I am not assuming that Bond is lying, but I’m not assuming that he’s telling the truth, either.

My guess — and it’s only a guess — is that he is relying on Clintonian defenses here. “I didn’t say these things I’m alleged to have said” could mean only that the exact quotes relayed to WND by audience members weren’t quite right, which wouldn’t be altogether too surprising. But if, for example, he said “The Republican party would fly the American flag side by side with the swastika” instead of “The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side,” that’s hardly a defense, even though it would make his technical denial true. Similarly, if he didn’t say “token” but instead described the same concept using different words, that wouldn’t improve things much, but it would allow the university to say what it said in its press release.

If Bond is relying on Clintonian defenses, a key question becomes why Fayetteville State University is aiding and abetting his deception. If, on the other hand, he really didn’t say these things, or anything like them, in his speech at Fayetteville State, I have to wonder about the William & Mary speech. Did he make the swastika comment there, as reported by the student newspaper? Is some grand conspiracy afoot to falsely accuse Julian Bond of outrageous remarks? That notion strains credulity, it seems to me. On the other hand, perhaps he did say those things at William & Mary, but didn’t say them at Fayetteville State. David Crisp raised this possibility in a comment on my previous post:

The fact that Bond made similar comments in other venues may add credibility to the story. But it also means that if World Net Daily (or its stringer) did fabricate the story, it would have believable quotes to use.

If that’s the case — that he called Republicans Nazis at William & Mary, but not at Fayetteville State — then WorldNetDaily’s report is flatly false, and “fake but accurate” is no defense for the shoddy journalism. However, notwithstanding WND’s incorrect report, the outraged tone of Bond’s statement (”irresponsible attack” … “these kinds of attacks should be…dismissed for what they are,” etc.) would be somewhat dishonest if that’s the case. I mean, if they got the quote right but the venue wrong, that’s bad journalism, but it’s not like Bond comes out looking any better just because he said these things at a different university than originally reported, so it’s hard to see what he’s so outraged about — unless of course he’s trying to dishonestly trick people into thinking he never said this stuff at all, anywhere.

One way or another, someone is going to come out looking bad here, if the truth comes out. Maybe even some folks on both sides! But will the truth come out? It would be great to see that videotape. I can’t imagine what either Bond or the university would have to hide, if they’re telling the truth. It was a public event, so it’s not like releasing the tape would violate anyone’s privacy or academic freedom or whatever.

NDLSers, take note: the SportsCenter commercial featuring Professor Tidmarsh’s son, 2004 national spelling-bee champion David Tidmarsh, is now available for download from the iTunes Music Store. It’s free. Here’s the direct iTMS link. (Hat tip: Chris McLemore.)

Yes, the guy in the background at left is the good professor himself. :)

By way of one last congratulatory post in honor of the World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers, I thought now would be as a good time as any to post this photo of QB Ben Roethlisberger, which surfaced on Deadspin last week:

Heh. Proving that Jerome Bettis isn’t the only Steeler with a taste for Domer-ish clothes. (And proving that Matt Leinart* isn’t the only quarterback with facial hair who knows how to have fun!)

Anyway, I’m guessing an awful lot of Steelers and Steeler fans happily took the advice on Big Ben’s shirt last night and this morning. And why not? They are champions, after all.

So, congratulations again, Steeler fans. And may I suggest that you have another glass of water and some bread. :)

P.S. The photos (yes, there are several) have, of course, inspired a t-shirt of their own. God bless the Internet.

*For the record: although the photos of Leinart in the above-linked post are genuine, the text that accompanies them is not entirely accurate.

Boi From Troy notes that not all sports teams from the Steel City were victorious on Sunday.

“Super” my ass. That game had nothing on the Rose Bowl. :)