At first my title was “There’s Less Here Than Meets the Eye,” but that fact is so glaringly obvious that I was afraid that people would yawn and skip over the post altogether. But the Good Ship Lollipop lobbed another salvo at HB +Jonah and like all previous cannonades it fell short.
Who is Stokoe writing for anymore? Sure, Stokoe will always have some true believers hanging onto his every word, but ever since challengers arose and forced Stokoe into the arena of real ideas and debate, many who privately expressed discomfort with his one-sided, agenda driven “reporting” have come forward. Sunlight is the best disinfectant as they say, and there’s nothing like more sunlight for the Uber-Meister-of-Accountability-and-Transparency-and-Publisher-of-Stolen-Emails.
The truth is that Stokoe’s “reporting” is chaotic. We’ve known for some time that there are events that he won’t report and others that he reports out of context. We know for certain that he will report every event that advances his personal animus of +Jonah even if he has to stretch the facts. His latest missive (+Jonah – In His Own Words) is a case in point.
What dastardly act did the Villain of Syosset commit this time? What new scandal would our Brave Scribe uncover? “My Goodness!” I thought as I read the piece. “Digging through the stolen emails Brave Scribe discovered — a speech! Brave Scribe sure got him now!”
Then, as I read the speech, I thought that +Jonah sounded pretty good! Finally, a leader with some kahunas! Finally, no more limp-wristed equivocation! Finally, someone who isn’t afraid to take the lavender Stokovites head-on!
I can see why Stokoe didn’t like it and why he provided his own line by line commentary to dispel its authoritative tone. It’s either that or the Stokovites can’t function without Stokoe telling them how to think. Good thing we have Brave Scribe telling us what the words really mean! There’s some real reporting!
The truth is that Stokoe lost any claim to being honest reporter long ago. Maybe he realizes he’s been reduced to the role of antagonist and that’s why he doubles-down on prevarication more and more. Maybe that’s why he can’t see that stealing emails is wrong.
For example, in his earlier cannonade Disinformation Goes International (where Stokoe collaborated with Bp. Mark Maymon to steal Fr. Fester’s emails), we were led to believe Stokoe printed an entire e-mail exchange between a Dallas parishioner and Fr. Joe Fester verbatim. This is flat out false. Overlooking the troubling fact that Stokoe even published the private correspondence of a parishioner, I have proof that in his zeal to discredit Fr. Fester, Stokoe tampered with the record.
You can judge for yourself. First is a screen shot of Stokoe’s reporting of the email exchange followed by a screen shot of the exchange itself. Then I provide some analysis.
Now read the original e-mail exchange:
Notice that in the original e-mail exchange Fr Fester asked two questions:
• how do you get them to look at the video that he is NOT removed. (Feb. 27, 2011, at 8:34 PM)
Note that Stokoe completely omits the second response, publishes a different response (and colors it with his typical purple prose: “He receives the chilling reply…”), and then OMITS Fester’s reasonable reply:
The correspondent who sent me the screen shot of the original e-mail exchange between him and Fr. Fester is a Russian national. He speaks good but heavily accented English. Still, there is a little bit of a language problem. The media personality the correspondent refers to is a Russian ultra-nationalist on the margins of Russian politics but his ideas are often advanced in less confrontational ways by other spokesmen. Roughly speaking you could say the spokesman functions like a Russian Pat Buchanan.
Regardless, Fester in no way asserts that this individual should be used:
Note Fr. Fester’s “chilling” reply:
Clearly, Mark Stokoe is not an honest reporter of facts. Why did Stokoe do this? The only reasonable answer is that he wanted to color his reader’s perceptions of Fr. Fester. Where else has Stokoe tampered with the facts?