by James A. Bacon

It is horrifying to watch in real time how the media generates falsehoods and then spreads them without correction. About two weeks ago The Cavalier Daily, the student newspaper at the University of Virginia, published an article about a 47-year-old controversy in which Bert Ellis, who then was a tri-chairman of the student union and now sits on the UVa Board of Visitors, invited William Shockley, a racist and eugenicist, to speak at the university. The story, shorn of critical context, spread to the Democratic Party of Virginia, then to the Washington Post editorial board, and most recently to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Insinuated but not stated baldly, is that Ellis is a racist. In its latest mutation, the lie is used to build a case that Governor Glenn Youngkin, who appointed Ellis to the board, is, in the Post’s words, “racially obtuse.”

Bert Ellis is a colleague of mine. We serve together in the leadership of The Jefferson Council, which is dedicated to upholding the Jeffersonian legacy at UVa. I don’t know him intimately, but I have gotten to know him pretty well. I have heard him speak candidly on a host of incendiary issues, and I’ve never heard him utter a racist sentiment.

With this column, I’m putting Virginia’s mainstream media on notice: stop it! You’re treading dangerously close to libel. You can no longer claim innocence of the facts. If you persist, you deserve to be sued.

The origins of animus. The falsehood started with The Cavalier Daily.

The CD first took note of Ellis’ appointment to the Board of Visitors on July 1, in a news story that highlighted his disapproval of the University’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) policies and his reaction to the infamous “F— UVa” sign on the door of a Lawn resident. At one point, Ellis had contemplated using a small razor blade to remove the sign, which he believed desecrated a World Heritage Site, but departed when two University ambassadors told him that any action would be considered malicious damage.

On July 26 the Editorial Board ran an editorial denouncing Ellis’s appointment as a “blatant disregard for the University’s core values.” The editorial criticized him for the razor-blade incident, attacked him for his views on a recent student vote to water down the Honor Code, and castigated him for his assertions (well documented, but never acknowledged by the CD) that UVa’s DEI programs amounted to indoctrination. “This is not your University,” the editors proclaimed. “It is ours.”

In a statement whose timing suggests that it was coordinated with the CD editorial, the UVa Student Council the same day denounced Ellis for the razor blade incident and his views on DEI, characterizing his views as the latest expression of White supremacy. “From the bondage and abuse experienced by enslaved people, to the violent occupation by Nazis and KKK members, to Bert Ellis — the Lawn is no stranger to racist violence under the guise of ‘Jeffersonian ideals’ in order to maintain power for the white elite.”

Having proclaimed their animus toward Ellis, the CD editors proceeded to dig up whatever dirt they could find by rummaging through editions of the newspaper in 1974 when he served as tri-chairman and spokesman for the Student Union.

The hit jobs. On August 18, the CD published an article about a 1974 controversy in which William Shockley was invited to the University. Shockley, who won a Nobel Prize for his contribution to inventing the transistor, was making waves at the time for his theory that African-Americans had lower IQs than Whites and for his advocacy of voluntary sterilization for low-IQ individuals. Although his theories were hotly contested, many White Americans found them plausible and he received considerable notoriety.

The CD article detailed Ellis’ role in inviting Shockley, and described how he overruled the protests of the Black Student Union to cancel the event. The CD neglected to inform its reader of critical context, however. The event was a debate. Ellis and his co-chairmen also invited African-American biologist Richard Goldsby to contest Shockley’s views. As Ellis and others recall, Goldsby demolished Shockley, exposing the flaws in his thinking for the world to see. In other words, Ellis created a showcase for debunking a racist theory.

The only hint in the CD article that there might have been a debate was a photo montage that included an image from the Corks & Curls yearbook with the descriptive cutline: “Shockley vs. Goldsby.” The CD provided no explanation of the photo, and the nuance was otherwise ignored.

Correction: Towards the bottom of the story, the CD did run a copy of an ad that appeared in The Cavalier Daily promoting “the controversial debate between William Shockley and Richard Goldsby.” The story also referred frequently to the event as a “debate.” Bacon’s Rebellion regrets the error.

To the contrary, the editorial staff has been relentlessly critical in its portrayal of Ellis, including his decision to not co-sponsor an event featuring gay rights advocate Frank Kameny. Ellis did nothing to block Kameny’s appearance, he simply chose not to co-sponsor an event associated with the Gay Student Union (GSU). The gay rights movement had barely gotten off the ground at the time, Ellis’ view was the majority view among Americans, and his appraisal that the Kameny appearance would not be well received could well have been accurate. But the CD spun the incident in an August 28 editorial as an assault on free speech, quoting Andy Humm, president of the Gay Student Union at the time: “Bert Ellis did not want anybody to hear from Frank Kameny,” said Humm. “That’s his hypocrisy.”

In a subsequent letter to the CD, Humm accused Ellis of having a “history of suppressing LQBTQ+ voices going back to our time at the university.” Aside from the fact that there was no such thing as a “LQBTQ+” movement in 1974, only a gay rights movement, and the fact that no one has alleged any anti-gay sentiment on Ellis’ part since then, Humm’s statement is unsupported by the facts. Ellis did nothing to prevent Kameny from appearing at UVa.

In a Sept. 4 column, Executive Editor Jessica Moore doubled down on the Shockley controversy, criticizing Ellis’ defense in 1974 of the event. “Eugenics had fallen out of popularity several decades earlier after Hitler used it to justify millions of murders by the Nazi Party and that many student groups explicitly told Ellis the invitation was inappropriate and unwanted,” she wrote. “Yet, Ellis still insisted that Shockley’s presence was necessary.”

She neglected to acknowledge that the “event” was a debate with Richard Goldsby.

Outraged by the editorial, alumnus Tom Neale, an officer with The Jefferson Council, emailed the CD editors hitting back with a Nazi comparison of his own. Comparing the critics’ “slanderous accusations” to the tactics of Nazi propaganda chief Josef Goebbels, he wrote: “They all neglect to tell the truth about then University Union President Bert Ellis and eugenicist William Shockley. In reality, Ellis and the University Union arranged a debate in 1975 between Shockley and African American biologist Richard Goldsby. Goldsby eviscerated Shockley during the debate and destroyed his credibility. The reality, therefore, is Ellis and the University Union not only didn’t support Shockley and his racist views, they completely debunked them with the debate.”

Editor Eva Surovell yielded no ground. She responded: “I ask that you refrain from using inflammatory verbiage such as ‘slander’ to describe reporting which has been nothing but factual and historically accurate. While we may disagree philosophically on this issue, I must also note that I do not appreciate the tone of your last email.”

Democrats Join In. Through most of August this year, attention focused on Ellis had been limited to the Charlottesville community. Then on August 29, the University Democrats and the Democratic Party of Virginia released a joint statement calling for Ellis’ resignation. The letter repeated the now-familiar razor-blade incident and Ellis’s role in the Shockley event. The Democrats described the event as a “stain” on UVa and demanded that Ellis acknowledge the “irreparable damage” he had done to Virginia race relations. Wrote the Democrats:

He organized student events using University funds. That year, the Union and Ellis held an event entitled The Correlation Between Race and Intelligence, featuring William Shockley, an unabashed racist, white supremecist [sic], and eugenicist.

No mention of a debate. No mention of Goldsby. No mention of the fact that 394 people attended the debate, paying $1.50 per head, making it one of the best- attended speaker events of the year.

The Post piles on. The Shockley pseudo-controversy broke into the mainstream media the next day, August 30. The Post editorial board criticized Governor Youngkin for a series of “racially obtuse appointees,” including Ellis. The Post wrote the following:

The student council at the University of Virginia called for the resignation of Bert Ellis, a Youngkin appointee on U-Va.’s Board of Visitors who had attacked the school’s diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives — even traveling there with a razor blade to cut down a sign on a student’s door that he regarded as offensive. That was before a report by the U-Va. student newspaper, the Cavalier Daily, that Mr. Ellis, as an undergraduate in the 1970s, fought to bring a noted eugenicist to campus to air his pseudoscientific views that Black people are genetically inferior to Whites.

True, Ellis has criticized DEI policy at the University, but that criticism was not linked to his “traveling there with a razor blade.” That was an entirely different controversy, regarding the “F— UVA” sign on the Lawn door in a World Heritage Site. But the Post’s confusion on that point pales in comparison to its formulation that Ellis “fought tor bringing a noted eugenicist to campus to air his pseudoscientific views.”

No mention of a debate. No mention of Goldsby.

The RTD spreads the calumny. Yesterday the Richmond Times-Dispatch published a column by the dean of Virginia’s Capitol Hill press corps, Jeff Schapiro, airing Democrat criticisms of Youngkin on a range of issues, from Youngkin’s insistence that schools continue to refer to George Washington as the “father of the country,” to his campaign appearance with Trumpist candidate Paul LePage in Maine, to his appointment of Bert Ellis.

Schapiro is honest enough to describe “grouchy, liberal Democrats” as “artfully selective in their representations of the facts.” But he then proceeds to recount those representations about Ellis. Here is how he formulates the Ellis controversy:

Defending his choice of a conservative financier for the University of Virginia governing board who — as a student in the 1970s — organized a campus talk by a Nobel Prize-winning geneticist who argued Black people are intellectually inferior, Youngkin wondered if his nominee was being unfairly measured by contemporary woke-ish metrics.

Again, no mention of a debate, no mention of Goldsby, not even of the Student Union. Ellis now is just someone who “organized a campus talk” for a racist.

Lies spread, as Tom Neale wrote in his letter to the Cavalier Daily editors, through constant repetition. I don’t see anyone engaging in sinister, Goebbels-like tactics of concocting deliberate lies. The process is subtler. Rather, crucial context is shorn away, and falsehoods grow, as in the child’s game of telephone, through subtle elaborations and reconfigurations.

As the Ellis-invited-a-racist-to-campus meme propagates, it will drift ever further from the real-world context in which it originated and will be shaped to suit the rhetorical ends of Democrats who are increasingly assertive in portraying Republicans as racists. Sadly, Democrats don’t pay much attention to Bacon’s Rebellion, so the meme will continue to evolve disconnected from reality. However, I will continue to track the meme’s permutations. Politicians and pundits, you’d better watch the libelous insinuations. We’re paying attention.

Update: Inside Higher Education has propagated the Ellis-invited-a-racist-to-campus meme in a Sept. 9 article. Offending quote: “Youngkin has dismissed reporting by the student-run newspaper, The Cavalier Daily, that documented how Ellis helped to bring eugenicist William Shockley to campus in February 1975 for an academic debate while Ellis was a student and a chairman of the University Union… (UVA was the intellectual home of Virginia’s eugenics movement in the early 20th century.)”


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

104 responses to “A Lie Is Born”

  1. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    Maybe we finally have the case for Sullivan v NY Times to be reformed. It has become slime your political enemy first and hide behind how hard it is to prove malice, and is used almost exclusively (maybe exclusively!) against anyone who does not align with the narrative, usually Republicans, but climate deniers, vax deniers, election deniers (see the pattern – you make what you believe unfalsifiable, and then anyone who opposes you is a “denier” – which is also a sure sign that the so-called settled opinion people can’t defend their so-called settled opinion!).
    Also, the CD should search its records for the 1976-1977 year when Bob Elkins was the first “out” RA (resident advisor). President Hereford wanted him removed. There was a LOT of controversy.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Sadly, “the narrative” is employed by partisans on both sides. Truth has suffered, viz., QAnon promoting its peculiar brand and the outright lies by Alex Jones. The latter was not protected by Sullivan v NYT; nor could Sarah Palin use it as a sword. QAnon and Jones are not liberal or Democratic bastions.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        It’s mind boggling that folks on the right get their panties in a twist over “media bias” given their own propensities.

      2. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        So you read Q?
        Seems you Libs are the ony ones spending any time there.
        Meanwhile…the NY Slimes, the Washington Compost, the Richmond Times Disgrace, the Charlottesville Daily Regress, UVA Pravda Today, the Cav Daily, the major networks, the official government propaganda, the government working with Fakebook, Twitter, YouTube to censor dissent, the weaponized DOJ and FBI, political judges (Amy Berman anyone? KBJ? ) and you are worried about Q? Or even Bacon’s Rebellion?
        Give me a break.

        And you Libs might come to regret the Alex Jones case – it was pretty well forum shopped and hostile judged and guess what…it could come back to bite you.

        Conservatives want laws applied equally. It’s not that hard to understand. If the J6 people deserve jail for mostly trespassing, then go after the real Summer of Hate people with the same zeal…

        It’s obvious to anybody not a Marxist…

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          I read this speech in a course studying Marxism. Plagiarism?

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Marxists read Q? Wow…

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          There is a “mix” here and those not aligned with you can and do present potent alternatives to your views.

          If you broke into the White House would you just be arrested for “trespassing”? That’s the law you want applied “equally”?

          “deniers” are folks who disagree and disbelieve the facts, evidence and realities and continue to choose to believe conspiracy theories instead.

          “deniers” believe that government, science, and other institutions are “lying” and prefer to believe folks like Alex Jones.

          Wackadoodles one and all.

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Larry – if I broke into the White House, I would expect more likely to be shot.
            And if I walked into the Capitol, when the doors were opened, I would expect, at most, a ticket, not 5 years in jail.
            Meanwhile, an entire summer and billions in damage and where are the prosecutions? Where is the FBI using geo-fencing, like it has for the J6ers? Do you approve of the jail abuse of the J6ers? You probably cared more for the Guantanamo Muslim 9/11ers that Americans guilty of supporting Trump?
            So, let me get it straight…geo-fencing is legit for J6ers, but not for vote mules and not for the Dem Antifa shock troops in the real summer of hate?

            The government never lies? You believe that? Really? Or only when Trump is in charge, and then it is your duty to “save our Democracy” by not respecting it? There’s a word for that…

      3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        BR is the flag ship of “missing context”…

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          TRUTH! Gawd, for all the _itching here by JAB, think back about most of the columns and their “context”. It’s funny as heck.

          1. DJRippert Avatar

            If you’re going to be the anonymous critic, you can at least be specific. What articles do you see as missing context?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            The VAST majority of them DJ and you know it. There are a few largely by folks like Dick and some others but the vast majority of articles here are one-sided and devoid of context and some of them are just plain biased and even misinformation at times.

            I’m not “anonymous”. You did “out” me some time ago , right?

            Beyond that – you guys worried about “anonymous”, you almost NEVER get on the anonymous Conservative commenters. RIght?

            So Cowards on the left and free pass on the right? Sounds about right for BR.

          3. DJRippert Avatar

            Yeah, I “outed” you back in the old days when you used your full name. Actually, you “outed” yourself. I just showed how easy it is to use the internet to research people these days. You chose to go anonymous. Jim Bacon, Steve Haner, Peter G and I chose to remain public.

            But, once again … be specific. What articles and why do you believe they lacked context. I read just about every article on here and most 0f the comments. You’ve had more than a decade to comment on specific articles lacking context. I don’t recall a single instance of you doing so. If I’m mistaken, refresh my memory. But be specific.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            I’m comfortable with my screen name and when the critics call the anonymous guys on the right cowards also, I might reconsider.

            THe lack of context in BR is the rule not the exception except for some authors like Dick and a couple others.

            Lying by omission is common with many BR articles. It becomes the impetus for comments more often than not.

            You want an example?

            Try accusing school systems of “grooming” – or CRT – by using really sketchy anecdotal evidence and just ignoring the larger context – and TRUTH.

            Read Mr. Baders columns or Kerry’s and try to see anything at all like balance and context.

            If you read these columns and you think they have context, I think you also may have a blind eye to it.

            In that case, fine, but don’t be using a double standard –

            lying by omission is NOT the usual you see with most mainstream media… and more often than not, you do get the context.

            Not here, usually.. IMO.

        2. DJRippert Avatar

          If you’re going to be an anonymous critic, you can at least be specific. What articles do you see as missing context?

  2. Have you communicated with Mr. Shapiro about the issue?

    1. No, I haven’t. I know Jeff well — we used to work together. But I don’t blame him for originating the lie, falsehood, whatever you want to call it. The falsehood jumped the shark when the Democratic Party of Virginia picked it up, and then the Washington Post repeated it. Jeff basically used the same formulation as the Post. At least he was candid enough to admit that much of what he was writing was Democratic spin, which makes him more honest than most.

      Maybe I should chastise him for not reading Bacon’s Rebellion!

      1. Oh, I know he did not start the lie. But if he was going to write about the the current ‘controversy’ he should at least have noted the reason for Shockley’s visit to VMI.

        You should chastise him for that omission…

        …and for not reading Bacon’s Rebellion.

        😉

  3. DJRippert Avatar

    Eva Surovell … now where have I heard that last name before?

    1. Scott Surovell has a daughter named Eva. I have no idea whether she is the Eva Surovell at UVA, but the surname is not very common, so it seems likely.

  4. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    JAB’s anatomy of the Ellis tale demonstrates the paucity of journalism versus media reporting. Partisans on both ends of the political spectrum contribute their bias in promoting erroneous information while social media functions as an amplifier. Stuffing Pandora back into the box is a thankless task but a necessary effort.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      You are right, especially about he pernicious role social media plays in America today.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        IMO, social media is not pernicious in and of itself. However, it offers to all a speech platform that too often is accepted as gospel or accepted as “many people say” credibility.

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          The algorithms are pernicious. They learn that like-minded people stay more engaged than people with differing opinions and that “us vs them” interactions keep those eyeballs on the site (and the ads) longer. So, you see things ranked that are more what you believe and that increase divisiveness.

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Only if you read the material and believe it.

          2. DJRippert Avatar

            Which far too many people do.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            “believe” is an interesting word in the current world.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            The platforms are super easy to use and I agree the algorithms do tend to match “birds of a feather” – if you let it. In the end, it boils down to the person and all the platforms really do is allow them to more fully express their feelings and views.

            It does not change people’s own speech about issues.

    2. Social media can be a blight. However… it played no substantive role in the Ellis controversy.

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        Have you checked? How much amplification of the “lying through omission” journalism occurred on social media? How did the Dems find out about the CD article? The people you chose to friend, the articles you like all feed into algorithms that spread the original lie.

        1. That’s a good point.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          “lying through omission” is not a social media thing.. it’s been practiced for centuries.

  5. DJRippert Avatar

    I have no idea if this rises to the level of slander. However, “forgetting” the debate aspect is clearly journalistic bias or outright incompetence.

    1. More likely libel.

      Slander is spoken. Libel is written.

      😉

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        Good point. Thanks.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        With malice aforethought… provable monetary loss, etc., etc.

    2. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      It’s helpful to distinguish reporting from journalism. When network TV entertainment divisions assumed responsibility for news reporting, the lines became blurred.

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        True. Where is today’s Walter Cronkite?

  6. LarrytheG Avatar

    In terms of media “reporting”, lies and misrepresentations, I point you to FOX “News” and the slew of right-wing blogs that have no trouble at all with lies and misrepresentations.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a4e2632373753e52b4445594e26af9fe1d95d11baa2f0dde2adb2e8022e8ea97.jpg

    1. Which is relevant to the post… how?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        you have no shame JAB:

        ” It is horrifying to watch in real time how the media generates falsehoods and then spreads them without correction. “

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          Let me repeat for Jim, “Which is relevant to the post… how?”

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Time will tell. Somebody in that photo of Northam was wearing a hood…

          2. Yes. I wonder who that was.

    2. Randy Huffman Avatar
      Randy Huffman

      Larry, I watch Fox, and read alot of media. Yes, there were certain opinion based announcers who felt there was a case against Dominion and felt fraud had occurred, but many, and I mean many, others simply reporting the controversy and taking the view that time will tell.

      Here is an example of an interview a Fox reporter had with Dominion on November 20, allowing them to present their case. In addition to hearing what Powell or Giuliani had to say, I saw a number of these balanced types of articles and interviews on Fox and other conservative media, they allowed both sides to air their views.

      https://www.foxnews.com/us/dominion-rep-on-trump-campaign-claims-its-physically-impossible-to-switch-votes

      Considering that NY Times and many other media HATE Fox News, you should not take anything reported by them on this controversy seriously.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        All are blessed that Fox demonstrates no hate, maybe except Tucker Carlson.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        you got it backwards guy. FOX news HATES other media. And they do LIE and the excuse is that they are “opinion” celebrities who influence folks to do things like go riot at the Capitol and worse.

        Media “bias” has been around forever. People would say they would use the news to line their canary cages.

        Never read one source and believe it which is NOT the motto of FOX viewers!

        We have election deniers because of media like FOX News who legitimizes conspiracy theories like Dominion systems.

        1. Randy Huffman Avatar
          Randy Huffman

          Your wrong, we’re not going to change each other’s minds so I’m not even going to try

  7. Is there a constructive role any of us non UVA independents can play in this?

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      Look for other (non-UVa) examples. I saw one on TV this morning. A Democratic ad trying to justify the so-called inflation reduction act. The final part of the ad asked, “How will this be paid for?”. The answer, “By making big companies pay what they owe.”

      Bull****.

      Companies paid what they owed. The addition of a minimum corporate tax erased some exemptions and deductions that have been on the books for years (including during periods when Democrats controlled DC). But, if the ad told the truth and answered the question of how the costs will be paid by truthfully stating, “By raising corporate taxes” then people would understand that the act will not reduce inflation. Which, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the lying Dems want people to think.

      When you see a lie – speak up. Like Jim Bacon has done.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        “The was a standing order that everything the President took home was automatically declassified.”

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          When something IS declassified, it goes back to the classification authority which then updates the other documents that contain the newly-unclassified docs.

          You don’t take the docs and say THEY are unclassified and forget all the other docs that contain the same classified data.

          unless of course you are an idiot who makes such foolish claims.

          1. DJRippert Avatar

            I agree. There is no excuse for Trump’s apparent behavior.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            remember this is not some dumb local yokel ,, this is the POTUS.

        2. DJRippert Avatar

          Fair point. Trump screwed up and screwed up stupidly with the classified material. In a much lesser matter, I have always double checked with corporate HR and security on the day I left an employer to ensure that nobody thought I was taking anything confidential with me. Better safe than sorry.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            “screwed up” is an understatement when talking about the Commander in Chief and classified docs.

            Wanton carelessness, and autocratic behavior is what it was and is.

      2. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Generally, courts accept advertising as puffery known to all. Skepticism about the content of political advertising is the rule whether on TV or in writing.

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          Saying that a huge new public policy will be paid by making “large corporations pay what they owe” is more than puffery. It is deceitful. Those corporations paid what they owed. The tax rates were effectively raised on large companies.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            pay their “fair share” that they have not been paying?

      3. LarrytheG Avatar

        You know when you talk about Dem politicians “lying” about legislation , you really do reveal a one-side political bias, as if no GOP pols ever lie about legislation.!

      4. “When you see a lie – speak up. Like Jim Bacon has done.”

        I do. I’m not shy, as you may or may not have noticed.

        The tax code is what it is, and corps have generally paid what was required by it. Never mind that its labyrinth of schedules, exemptions and credits were all enacted by Congress and signed by the President, mostly after intense corporate lobbying.

        The “Inflation Reduction Act” may be the biggest misnomer ever perpetrated by Congress. Although I don’t believe Biden will be able to sell it as curing inflation as long as people have to go to the grocery store or pay for anything else in the coming months (years).

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      By “non-UVa independent” do you mean an independent who did not attend UVa? Then no. Just do as I do and stay out of it. (snicker)

      1. Precisely what I meant, tks. Think that may be good advise even with the (snicker).

  8. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Re:Libel. Ellis is a public figure so the only way he might win is if he proves actual malice. Good luck with that. As far as you, JAB, putting editorial outlets “On Notice” about possible libel, you are more delusional than I thought. To quote Dr. Evil, “I am shaking in my little space boots.”

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      While I’m no expert, omitting the fact the “speech” in question was actually a debate with a well-regarded Black man taking the other side seems like actual malice to this layman.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Actual malice or plain vanilla malice to be proven essentially requires evidence of intent. Offering an omission as proof would not work.

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          You’re the lawyer, not me. But, as Catholic, I was always taught that lying through omission was no better than lying through commision.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Do you consider it something to be admitted to at confession?

            I’d say if that were the case, that you’d need a heck of a lot more priests – working 24/7.

            what is this about “lying by omission”?

            From whenever newspapers were printed, one could claim than virtually any article did not have ALL aspects of an issue.

            How does that make it “lying by omission”?

            that just seems to be a bomb-throwing word that the usual suspects use.

  9. The controversy has to do with the totality of the circumstances, in my view. Ellis is opposed to DEI, and a staunch conservative, chosen as such for his current post by a a governor who ran on a platform opposing aspects of DEI. The razor incident and the student union invite add to the argument against, however unfair the latter might be. You’re going to get backlash at a place like UVa for that sort of appointment, especially when the gov’s prior appointments have been controversial.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      The totality of the evidence.

    2. walter smith Avatar
      walter smith

      Wait… a staunch conservative whose one campaign contribution in Virginia was to Terry McAwful some years ago?

      1. You know, I checked on the FEC website and there’s a Bertram Ellis from GA who’s made tons and tons and tons of contributions to Republican candidates, including the Orange Idiot. Is that the same guy you say only made “one campaign contribution”?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Again, the totality of evidence…

          1. DJRippert Avatar

            And apparently, you definition of “totality” excludes that campaign contribution to McAuliffe. Given your anonymous posting, I think it’s fair to ask (in the interest of totality), do you now, or have you ever worked for the Cavalier Daily or any other libtwit campus newspaper?

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Apparently, a different donor with the same name. FYI, my brother-in-law also shares that name.

        2. DJRippert Avatar

          Please read and respond to the comment at hand. “… one campaign contribution IN VIRGINIA …”. You do not state whether the FEC website showed campaign contributions to Virginia candidates.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            why does that matter as long as we know his political leanings?

          2. I was responding to good ole’ Walt. What comment was that you made? That he’s not a “staunch conservative” because he gave $$ to MaAuliffe? Not sure I follow the logic.

        3. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          Maybe. But his involvement in VA was one – apparently to McAwful. I would say his appointment was not a political payback and was principled, which is what you Lefties hate, isn’t it?
          Hey, can I disqualify all people now based on political contributions? Fair trade. Have you done this for all the other BOV members? I guess they support black face and Klan robes…but that fits with Democrats anyway…

          1. I didn’t say that donations are disqualifying, I just said that he’s a staunch conservative, which he pretty clearly is (assume Bertam Ellis = Bert Ellis). I’m not even sure his appointment was ‘payback,’ but I’m sure the Gov. took into account his overall willingness to make political donations, given Youngkin’s hope to run for higher office.

  10. disqus_VYLI8FviCA Avatar
    disqus_VYLI8FviCA

    …and the RTD, Washington Post, etc wonder why they are dying a slow death and will eventually go out of business. It’s this kind of lazy or slanted reporting (probably both – they are horridly lazy and if the narrative fits their agenda, why look too deep?) that have readers dropping their subscriptions. I won’t shed any tears, they have done this to themselves.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      They’re dying because electrons are cheaper, faster, and, uh, uh, oh yeah, cleaner, yeah that’s the ticket, cleaner than ink.

      1. disqus_VYLI8FviCA Avatar
        disqus_VYLI8FviCA

        That is incorrect.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          I will miss them too. Rain-X your windshield and polish with a newspaper, and you will never use your wipers again. Something in printer’s ink is magical on glass.

          1. Agreed. And I’ll add my plug for Rain-X Anti-Fog. It works beautifully on helmet face shields in cold and/or wet weather.

      2. DJRippert Avatar

        Right. All industries are going down the drain because of digital transformation. Facebook doesn’t exist. Nor the Drudge Report.

        Let’s be honest – old style journalists and newspaper editors weren’t the sharpest tools in the shed to start with. Like the dinosaurs, when the world changed and they didn’t … they went extinct.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Re: old style journalists
          You should add “present company excepted”

      3. “oh yeah, cleaner, yeah that’s the ticket, cleaner than ink.”

        Had a long time family friend at the Wash Post. During the Watergate years she would remark that “Newspapering is a dirty business’ to which any Repubs present would heartily agree. She would follow it up by holding her hands up and saying “The ink gets all over your fingers”. Then if anyone was interested she would give a short discourse on their efforts to move from oil based to water based inks.

        Looks like they’re headed towards inklessness these days.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      Neither the POST or Times or WaPO are “dying”. It’s YARWC – yet another right wing canard – from those who see FOX and Alex Jones and other right wing blogs as the “truth”. We now have conspiracy theories about, climate, vaccines, elections. That’s the kind of “news” that critics of the Post seem to favor instead.

      1. disqus_VYLI8FviCA Avatar
        disqus_VYLI8FviCA

        Nice try, but wrong as usual. Fox News, always the boogyman. Too funny and too predictable.

  11. “Is there a constructive role . . . .”? The erosion of fact-based journalism, backed by journalistic standards of reporting accuracy and fair summarization, is what’s missing –totally missing from social media etc., but not a little absent these days in the MSM as well as they fight to the bottom line using lowest common denominator tactics to try to keep readership. Expect, and demand, better of the media you support!

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Of this we were warned. “When the newsroom is expected to create a profit…yada, yada, yada” — Murrow, or Huntley, Brinkley, or H.K. Smith, one of that ilk warned that sensation would replace integrity.

  12. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    My flippin’ hero… George Costanza in real life…

    “Ever dreamed of being paid to do nothing? For one man in Japan, it’s his reality—and it’s earning him a tidy pay packet.

    Shoji Morimoto, who lives in Tokyo, rents himself out to accompany people wherever they want him to go.

    “I will lend you a person (me) who does nothing,” the 38-year-old says in his Twitter bio. “I can’t do anything other than eating and drinking and answering very simple questions.”

    According to his Twitter account, which has almost a quarter of a million followers, Morimoto is always accepting bookings.

    Morimoto—who is known as Rental-Do-Nothing-Man in Japan—charges 10,000 yen (around $70) per booking, plus travel and food expenses.

    In an interview with Reuters on Tuesday, Morimoto said he had completed around 4,000 assignments over the past four years, which amounts to roughly $280,000 at his rate.

    “My job is to be wherever my clients want me to be and to do nothing in particular,” he told the news agency.”

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      There are some women on 14th St in DC (and some men too I hear) who have the same occupation.

      1. When’s the last time you were in DC? 14th street is now one of the toniest neighborhoods in the city.

  13. LarrytheG Avatar

    JAB seems to be complaining about a lack of “context” and equating that to libel.

    As someone who has written quite a few articles in BR that in my view REALLY lack context, methinks JAB is the pot calling the kettle black here.

    Journalizing does not REQUIRE nor has standards for “context” and/or telling the “whole” story – in the minds of others reading or critics.

    Over, and over and over in BR, I see truly one-sided articles that lack context out the wazoo.

    You’d get laughed out of court if that is your “libel” complaint.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      Anonymous troll – be specific. What articles published on BR do you believe lacked context? And … did you question the context at the time that the article was published?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        see the name-calling gives you away . you guys can’t seem to behave without personal attacks..

        If you READ my comments, you’ll see that they OFTEN deal with omissions and one-sided perspectives.

        I’ve cited Dick as an example of someone who actually tries and often succeeds with showing both sides of an issue and often in a informative and fair minded way.

  14. VaPragamtist Avatar
    VaPragamtist

    “Editor Eva Surovell yielded no ground.”

    The CD editor is Eva Surovell? Scott Surovell’s daughter?

    Well there you go. Clearly this young lady is not mature enough to set aside personal political biases in favor of journalistic integrity.

  15. AndyNewYork Avatar
    AndyNewYork

    Let me clear up some of the facts here–since you’ve misrepresented what happened in 1975. (Bert Ellis is welcome to chime in.) I was president of the Gay Student Union and we did get the University Union to co-sponsor a talk by pioneering gay activist Frank Kameny–a gay activist since the late 1950s, by the way, though you write our LGBTQ+ movement “had barely gotten off the ground at the time.” (You also write that “there was no such thing as a ‘LGBTQ+’ movement in 1974” when in fact lesbians, bisexuals, and trans people were integral to it from the get-go. Yes, the word “gay” dominated for a while–and the only ones calling us “queer” were bigots–but the movement did embrace all aspects of those in sexual minorities and reflected that in the civil rights legislation we were working for and had passed in some places by 1974.) Ellis was a “tri-chairman” of the University Union but unilaterally withdrew UU’s sponsorship and a few bucks to promote it with us. As he told the Cavalier Daily at the time, “When I saw it (the Kameny request), I immediately canned it. I did not want the University Union associated with the GSU…. In view of the student population here, it is not the type of activity the University Union should sponsor. It’s [homosexuality] not an issue viewed highly in the University, and it would not help the University Union’s position and prestige.” Yes, Kameny’s talk went on with the sole sponsorship of the GSU but the University Union had reneged on a co-sponsorship agreement because of Ellis. As for whether Ellis has evolved from his anti-gay views it would be good to hear from him–but he doesn’t return press calls. Does he stand by canning sponsorship of a talk by Kameny while sponsoring one by Shockley? Does he support the basic rights of LGBTQ+ people to be protected from discrimination, marry the ones we love, and make love without fear of reinstatement of anti-sodomy laws (which I happily violated in Virginia and my home state of New York in the 1970s)? By the way, Frank Kameny WAS well-received at UVA in 1975 and went on to be widely honored–including by the White House and many other groups–for his groundbreaking contributions to the cause of social justice. I hope Ellis has evolved. I know I have since my time at UVA–aided by coming out there and accepting myself and being inspired to work for civil rights for all.

  16. Correction: Towards the bottom of the story about Ellis’ role in the Shockley event, the Cavalier Daily did run a copy of an ad that appeared in newspaper promoting “the controversial debate between William Shockley and Richard Goldsby.” The story also referred frequently to the event as a “debate.” The author regrets the error.

    While the CD barely noted Goldsby’s role in the event — mentioning him by name only once in passing — the editors did clearly state that the event was a debate. The flagrant mischaracterization of the event began with those who cited the CD article.

  17. Correction: Towards the bottom of its first Shockley story, the CD did run a copy of an ad that appeared in The Cavalier Daily promoting “the controversial debate between William Shockley and Richard Goldsby.” The story also referred frequently to the event as a “debate,” although the text of the article mentioned Goldsby’s role only in passing. Bacon’s Rebellion regrets the error.

  18. Correction: Towards the bottom of the story about Ellis’ role in the Shockley event, the Cavalier Daily did run a copy of an ad that appeared in newspaper promoting “the controversial debate between William Shockley and Richard Goldsby.” The story also referred frequently to the event as a “debate.” The author regrets the error.

    While the CD barely noted Goldsby’s role in the event — mentioning him by name only once in passing — the editors did clearly state that the event was a debate. The flagrant mischaracterization of the event began with those who cited the CD article.

Leave a Reply