The December 3 and 12, 2009 issues of the Daily Planet published many letters from all over the country condemning our editor, John Gertz.  The occasion was the publication in the New York Times on November 28 of an article about the dispute between DPWatchDog and the Daily Planet.  That article did little more than lay out the basic stands of the two parties:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/business/media/28paper.html?_r=1&pagewanted=allor

With earlier letters, there are by now probably about twenty-five letters condemning this website or our editor.  Some fascinating patterns have emerged.

Look as one will, these letters show not the slightest evidence that our critics had visited this website before condemning it.  Actually, one letter does seem quote this website, but in fact it merely quotes the NY Times’ quotes taken from this website. 
Incuriosity is a constant hallmark of O’Malley’s minions.

We have tried to communicate with some of our detractors, usually along the lines of politely pointing out that their various accusations are wrong, and inviting them to show us evidence to the contrary.  We never ever hear back.  In response to the NY Times article we received very many emails from all over the country condemning us.  Most just used the subject line to say things like “F____ing fascist pig” (we are a family website).  Nice company O’Malley keeps.

Intellectual laziness and cowardice are also hallmarks of O’Malley’s minions.

One leitmotif running through the condemnatory letters in the Daily Planet is the assertion that we are quick to condemn people of anti-Semitism when they are merely honest critics of Israel.  Anyone reading through this website will find this charge to be completely false. Take for a prime example Daily Planet foreign affairs analyst, Conn Hallinan.  He is virulently anti-Israel.  Moreover, we have provided strong evidence that he condemns Israel on trumped up charges and falsified evidence.  We have therefore expressed the opinion that Hallinan is a thoroughly dishonest journalist.  We have noted that this may be because he is a life long Communist, and he may therefore instinctively believe that his dishonest means are justified by his utopian ends.  However, nowhere do we suggest that he is an anti-Semite.  Daily Planet Managing Editor and cartoonist, Justin DeFreitas, once published a cartoon that employed clear anti-Semitic iconography (see here). Nevertheless, we do not regard DeFreitas to be an anti-Semite, and we have said so.

We have used the ugly charge of anti-Semitism very sparingly, and only when forced by the evidence.  We used it in reference to the article written for the Daily Planet by Kurosh Arianpur, an Iranian living in India (see here).  However, virtually everyone, even Becky O’Malley, agrees that Arianpour is an anti-Semite.  We have used it to describe the writings of frequent Daily Planet contributor, Joanna Graham.  We believe that this self-described Marxist would also freely admit, if asked, that she is an anti-Semite (for example, she has called Ariapour “eloquent” and has thanked her lucky stars that she did not have to marry a Jew).  And then there is Becky O’Malley herself.  We have carefully weighed a plethora of evidence, and sadly concluded that she is “possibly” an anti-Semite, but only possibly.

Another leitmotif running through the letters is that this website is somehow “censoring” the Daily Planet.  The mechanism by which this is allegedly accomplished is never described.  Presumably, it has something vaguely to do with advertising.  No one at DPWatchDog approaches advertisers, though we have responded to two queries.  Without doubt, some advertisers have dropped their ads in the Daily Planet on account of Jim Sinkinson’s letters.  We have also heard that Sinkinson and others refer advertisers to DPWatchDog.  We are a source of solid research, and we make our findings known through this website.  Our research is therefore freely available to all.  However, it is inconceivable that advertisers would actually drop their ads in the Daily Planet were they not persuaded by strong evidence that the paper is a monger of hate and is journalistically malfeasant.  By the Daily Planet’s account, there are only two or three lonely super-ultra-right-wing-religious-fanatic-lunatic-extremists out there vilifying their fine newspaper.  Were that the truth, who would drop their advertising? 

As for censoring, do we censor Sarah Palin when we simply refuse to buy her autobiography?  Do film critics censor anyone when they pan a movie?  Is Berkeley’s hard left community upset that advertisers have dropped FOX’s Glenn Beck?  Did Berkeley’s hard left complain when O’Malley called for a boycott of members of the Chamber of Commerce for supporting the downtown redevelopment plan (see here)?  Are advertisers censoring the Daily Planet when they simply refuse to subsidize hate?