General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: You know, I've been on DU for sixteen years... [View all]Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And went and read the Washington Post's blog on the issue, and then went and looked at the Internet Archive at the blog posts in question, and saw the timestamps, and the Twitter feed they were posted to, and saw that the screenshots matched what was on the archive, and drew the conclusion from that that the claim of "hacking" was absurd and nonsensical, and contradicted by readily available evidence (or at least, evidence that was readily available at the time; whoever manages Reid's defunct blog added a robots.txt to exclude the Internet Archive, thus removing it from that archive, which does not look particularly innocent; however it exists in Internet Archive mirrors, and the Library of Congress archive). I am quite capable of reviewing information and drawing my own conclusions, and my conclusion is the same one that Reid's erstwhile employers at the Daily Beast came to after their review: the "hacking" claims are implausible at best, and fabricated at worst.
I wouldn't care if Reid owned her words and apologised; claiming "I was hacked!" when the readily available evidence (including one of the posts in question being quoted on, and linked to from, DU in 2007) does not help her credibility elsewhere.