Byrd Unfairly Maligned, Pork Report Dissected
by John Weckerle
In an October 9 article, Gadabout-Blogalot.com editor Chuck Ring unfairly criticizes U.S. Senator Robert Byrd for supposedly obtaining a budget “earmark” for a company that does not exist. The accusation is demonstrably false. How do we know that? Because we followed the link to the referenced biggovernment.com “Pork Report“, looked the company (Information Manufacturing Corporation (IMC) of Rocket City, WV) up online, and dialed a phone number listed on one of the search results. Perhaps predictably, somebody answered the phone. We spoke with Dave Porter of National Interest Security Corporation (NISC). He advised us that NISC had purchased IMC about two years ago, and that the IMC organization was now operating under the NISC banner. According to RollCall.com, the funding is intended to be used to digitize files for the Naval Criminal Investigation Service. Lauren Holly and Mark Harmon must be thrilled, but we see little cause for outrage; digitization of paper copies is a common practice and can be very useful in reducing the massive quantity of paper stored by Federal agencies.
We also looked at some of the other links on the biggovernment.com “Pork Report” page. There are links to a couple of situations that do, in fact seem to document inappropriate behavior, although at least one (late fees payed by the State of California) doesn’t seem to qualify as “pork.” Neither, for that matter, does the story about problems with new FAA computers, nor does the story on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There was also more apparent foolishness. A headline stating “New USDA research agency already wants more money” led to a nationaljournal.com “Congress Daily” article by Jerry Hagstrom, the entirety of which is as follows:
The Obama administration launched a new agricultural research institute Thursday, but farm lobbyists and others warned that its success depends on whether Congress agrees to substantially increase funding for farm research.
That’s it. No identification of the research institute or the “farm lobbyists and others.” No discussion of how much funding was initially provided and how much was being requested – or, in fact, whether anything was actually being requested. No facts at all, in fact.
The headline “National Science Foundation studies the bug splatter on the front bumper of a moving vehicle” (Editor’s note: we have fixed here the incorrectly entered URL found at biggovernment.com) is likewise misleading. The research in question, which may lead to some very valuable techniques in ecological research, was not conducted by the NSF; rather, the study was “supported by a Beckman Foundation Young Investigator Award, the National Science Foundation, Penn State University, the Huck Institute for the Life Sciences, Emory University, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health.”
The link to the alleged story on whether the Interior Department can account for its guns (not a pork issue) requires a subscription. Ditto for the one on the BLM being too close to lobbyists.
We’re going to be a little blunt, here. First, we wish to state, as we have in the past, that it is important when making accusations, or providing any information for that matter, for those publishing articles to make a reasonable attempt to ensure that their statements are supported by actual fact rather than hype generated by other people, regardless of how much it may resonate with the political philosophies of the writer or the audience. In this case, we cite the commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,” and take the position that there are a lot of people who owe Senator Byrd a retraction and an apology. We doubt he’ll see much of either, but it would, in our opinion, be the right thing to do.
Second, we wish to advise our readers to against the uncritical acceptance of “information” posted on the Internet or disseminated by the media, no matter how good it may sound, or perhaps especially when it “rings true.” Too often does hype substitute for information these days, and with so many important issues facing us, it is critical that we make sure that our positions are not based on inaccurate information. For our part, it seems clear (at least to us) that the biggovernment.com “Pork Report” does more to inflame than to inform, and we hope that our readers will exercise the appropriate level of caution in accepting what its authors have to say.