Monday, June 7, 2010

Does John Smithson Read The Huffington Post - A "Socialist Rag?"

I was perusing John Smithson's Midknight Review when I noticed something in addition to an improperly cited Associated Press piece - John Smithson cited an article that appeared on The Huffington Post - the online media website that Smithson himself attacked me for reading, calling the publication a "socialist rag." I understand that the article he cited was by distributed by the Associated Press and appeared on many websites, but Smithson's use of the article on his own site does more to discredit his baseless attacks against me over a month ago, after all, why would a self-proclaimed conservative activist cite an article that would dare show it's face on a socialist news outlet? The answer is simple - The Huffington Post is not socialist.

Now putting that all aside, lets look at Smithson's improper citation. Below are images of both Smithson's post and the article found on The Huffington Post:

Notice something about Smithson's article? He references an "AP story" but does not indicate which story or who's story, even though one could most likely assume that it is the text below his editor's notes that begin with "WASHINGTON (AP)," but does Smithson identify the author?


If I was looking at the article, I may assume that it was Smithson who wrote the article, not Laurie Kellman, being that Smithson failed to credit Kellman. 

The authors and readers at The Midnight Review have noticed John Smithson making a greater effort in crediting sources, but Smithson still falls short, either failing to connect to the original articles or failing to reference the authors, and in some instances, both.  We here commend the increased effort on Smithson's part but we noticed there is still more work that needs to be done.


  1. Kevin, if you are going to continue with your slander, at least get it right. In fact, I do not read the Huffington Post. Secondly, MOST AP stories are presented without an author's name attached. Third, my crediting has not improved - it remains at the same high standard it has been from the beginning. Your cut and paste tripe is the real problem. But, hey, who comes to this blog anyway.

    The pettiness of your critic is challenged only by the schoolyard "cry baby" and has the intellectual effect of a "tattletail."

  2. Slander is "defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing." I think you mean libel, and no, my writings are not libelous - not like the tripe you wrote about myself and this site...

    As for the AP story, I guess The Huffington Post goes above in beyond in crediting authors for their work. I have come across articles that didn't have an authors name, and I try to list a name with my post when I do any citations. If no name can be found, I link to the original source, whichever site it may be.

    As I had indicated, there were no hyperlinks directing readers to the original source, so your article was somewhat misleading, making it appear as if the Associated Press knocked on your door and gave you a copy of the article for use on your site.

    As for your question of "who comes to this blog" - apparently you...

    I have plenty of traffic and the people who do visit this site desire factual information and thoughtful comments. I don't mind varying opinions, but I do not like writing things that are misleading or untrue. This is why I had updated my last post that you commented on, to show you that my figures were more then correct...

  3. Actually slander works for me.

    No one, absolutely no one, reading my blog would assume that the "Washington AP" article was of my authorship. I attach an author's name on every occasion there is an attached name. You show a chart in an article today evaluating Big Governments traffic compared to others. Your creation or another's ?? Guess we will never know.

    Traffic? You think you have the inside track on figuring out traffic patterns. Nonsense. You major in minors and in so doing, offer nothing to your readership.

    I have never pretended to be a high volume blogger. I have several blogs, two are "main stay" sites "Midknight Review" - the site you plagierized your blog's name, and "Charts and graphs." Together, they do approximately 3000 hits a month, 80% of which are return traffic - it's almost 100% on charts and graphs. I have 56 mailing lists of 80 people each that I send out every 4 to 6 weeks and am working on the 57th list as of a few days ago. All names are by request, btw. So while you think you have all the information needed to evaluate my work, you clearly do not.

    BTW - i block my personal cookies. My returning visits to all my sites are not counted - something you suggested to the contrary - something I decided to leave without a response.

    In the same period of time your profile registered 30 views, mine registered probably 150. Location on the blog or a higher volume of "newbees" ?

    I have been interviewed by a graduate program at UCLA (last fall) and have more than 100 major colleges, universities and school district reference by blogs each and every month. So I am a happy camper.

    By the way, I grabbed our daily paper, the Fresno Bee. I found 23 stories without an author, 8 of them were AP articles and none of the paper's staff editorials have names associated with them as a matter of policy.

    Apparently your readers like the "tit for tat" of your daily posts. Mine do not. I lost traffic when I featured our disagreement so I left off on that assignment. You should know that I had to start from scratch after Dec. 26. I am having my best month since January.

    If you get off your ad hominem theme and deal with issues, I would be willing to blog roll your site.

  4. You referenced the chart I posted showing traffic between Big Government and Media Matters. I included a link to that actual page that I got my information from.

    You also again insist that I plagiarized your site name, which is more libelous then me pointing out particulars of your website. And your reference of the Fresno Bee means nothing to me - I already acknowledged that some articles don't supply an author's name. My argument against your post was your lack of credit in addition to your formatting...

    I also never suggested anything about your personal cookies. You must be mistaken. I think you are referring to a comment I made showing that each of my visits to your site were counted separately and then included into your final total...

    As for this "tit for tat," I have to disagree. There is no "tit for tat." You accused this site of plagiarism, and so now myself, along with the others on this site, have increased your site into the article rotation to prove that your claims are baseless.

    Unless you wish to retract your claim and issue an official apology on your website, then I will have to continue in notifying my readership about your site.

  5. I hope you enjoy some increased traffic due to my reports...


Please share your thoughts and experiences in relation to this post. Remember to be respectful in your posting. Comments that that are deemed inappropriate will be deleted.