« Students arise! |
Blog Home Page
| Lower education »
October 28, 2005
Churchill denies American Thinker quotations
Ward Churchill is denying to the Denver Post having made remarks at an address at DePaul University, which we reported on yesterday.
Here is what Chaya Gil reported:
DePaul Professor Jonathan Cohen reported:
Churchill is able to deny having made the remarks noted by two witnesses because tape recorders were banned. Such a ban does not encourage the belief that Chruchill is willing to stand by remarks that he makes. Why else would he be unwilling to allow hard evidence of his remarks to be created?
We received no inquiries from the Denver Post yesterday.
And as for honesty, Churchill faces his own problems in that sphere. The Denver Post reports in the same article:
We take an accusation of dishonesty from him as a badge of honor. And we wonder how often he has read this site, so as to be able to freely slur our intelligence and honesty?
UPDATE: John Ruberry at Marathon Pundit has posted an audio file (courtesy of Walking Eagle Productions) of Churchill's talk, which is very muffled, since obviously it was covertly recorded. John says that it confirms our account. I am listening right now.
UPDATE 2: John Ruberry has listened carefully and now says:
UPDATE 3: Thanks to Andrew Marcus's cleaned—up audio version available here, we can now hear Churchill's words clearly. It is evident that he was quoting from an email, as he claimed in the Denver Post article. We regret the error in failing to note the context of the quotation, which itself was reasonably accurate, considering that no note taking was possible. The intent of the thought was not attributable to Churchill directly, as was originally indicated. Incidentally, the quoted words were spoken in a louder tone of voice than the remarks about an email, which may account for the omission of the context.
It appears that all other aspects of our reporting of his address were fully accurate. Had DePaul and Churchill permitted open recording and note taking of his remarks, the error would not have been made. The forbidding of recording of remarks and banning of the press is both suspicious in itself and an invitation to errors.
There is plenty else in Churchill's talk to raise eyebrows. But because we are committed to accuracy, we have corrected our reporting as soon as we had evidence of any mistakes. That is an example Churchill might consider for himself.
Thomas Lifson 10 28 05