Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

Sharyl Attkisson

Wikipedia Weaponization: A dissection of bias

(Language warning)

The controversy over Wikipedia agenda editing and bias is longstanding, as I have reported for several years.

Well-meaning Wikipedia editors are often outmatched and outgunned by more powerful editors who control pages and topics on behalf of vested special interests, or who are deeply, ideologically entrenched.

My own Wikipedia biography is unimportant-- except to the extent to which it makes the point about what's happening across the platform.

Read about the Wikipedia Correction Project

Those interested can read the commentary Wikipedia editors are engaging in about my Wikipedia biography. The discussion on this "talk" page ranges from the obviously biased to the unhinged. Honest Wikipedia editors attempt to weigh in and point out violations of Wikipedia's own policies made by some editors but they are often drowned out by the nonsense that has become routine.

Check out the Wikipedia alternative "Everipedia," a new, more accurate and fair (so far) project of Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger.

One of the most disturbing aspects of Wikipedia's weaponization is the evidence of agenda editors seeking out the subjects they are editing --to harass and attack them.

As I have sought to point out Wikipedia's bias and mistakes, several Wikipedia editors have threatened to stop me, have found me on Twitter to attack me and my followers, and have taken other steps to otherwise attempt to harass me outside of the Wikipedia platform.

Who would have dreamed that "volunteer editors" for an online encyclopedia would stalk subjects and harass them under a cloak or anonymity?

Watch: "The Dark Side of Wikipedia"

One such Wikipedia editor who attacked me and my followers on Twitter, "Gamaliel," was discovered to have posted a great deal of profanity and hate on his Twitter feed about a variety of other subjects. (Language warning)

When these hateful tweets were exposed, "Gamaliel" deleted the tweets, blocked those who'd found them, and returned to editing my biography on Wikipedia where he complained on the "talk" page that my followers had attacked him. (Mind you, nobody knew who he was until he sought me out on Twitter to attack me.)

"Gamaliel" then retreated to Wikipedia where other agenda editors such as the conflicted Toa Nidhiki05 sought to soothe his feelings with what amounts to a commendation in the strange underworld of Wikipedia:

Another well known pharmaceutical interest Wikipedia agenda editor, "SkepticalRaptor," edits my page even though he is also clearly biased. On the "talk" page associated with my Wikipedia biography, for example, he referred to Emmy Awards as "pathetic" and does not recognize that I am, as a matter of indisputable fact, employed as a journalist, as I have been for the past 35 years. "SkepticalRaptor" wrote: "We only provide information that can be sourced and presents a neutral article regarding an anti-science, pseudoscience-pushing right-wing 'journalist.' If we're going to do some fanboi crap here by listing her pathetic list of awards, then that should include adding all of her false anti-vaccine claims over the past few years. That will be fun. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(Note: I have never expressed anti-vaccine views or reported any false material.)

After simply defending myself in the face of being unable to correct errors and bias on the widely-viewed Wikipedia biography in my name, another editor reacted as though I was the one who started the attacks. He wrote: "On the bright side, knowing from our first hand experience that Attkisson is the sort of person who makes public accusations without evidence does much to help us better understand what our reliable sources are trying to communicate about her. Silver lining and all that. Rklawton (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)"

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has separated from Wikipedia due to his objection to the direction it has taken. Read about his Declaration of Digital Independence here.

Once I point out the Wikipedia mistakes, bias and errors; or use Twitter to counter the attacks made by Wikipedia editors; the editors retreat to the "talk" pages of Wikipedia where they complain, oblivious to the notion that they are the ones who prompted the conflict by promulgating false and biased material).

In other words, the Wikipedia editors believe they are free to publish all manners of libel, bias and false information on a subject, but the subject is considered to be out of line if she corrects the record.

Some Wikipedia editors do know better but intentionally resort to attacks and obfuscation as part of a tactic to prevent honest edits from being made to a Wikipedia page. When there is no so-called "consensus" among Wikipedia editors in a dispute, then the status quo-- the false and biased information in the case of my biography page-- stays put. So an agenda editor need only chew on a dispute over and over, throwing up red herrings and asking for third opinions, until the group declares no consensus can be reached.

Here are a few more of the discussions among some of the Wikipedia editors editing my biographical page, which is supposed to be "neutral" according to Wikipedia policy. You can decide for yourself if these Wikipedia editors sound capable of being neutral.

Fair point, far-right hyper-partisan would be a better description of Sinclair. It's way to the right of Fox.

Wikipedia editor Guy (Help!) 18:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sinclair's political agenda is very noteworthy to an article about Attkisson. She chose to align herself with an aggressively ideological organization.

Wikipedia editor R2 (bleep) 20:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding CNN, NYT, PBS, Washington Post:

None of those organizations are liberal in my view. More importantly, none of them are consistently described as liberal by reliable sources (unlike for example the Huffington Post).

Wikipedia editor Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Attkisson provides no justification for her claims of bias. I can't help but wonder if her reporting is equally as sloppy.

Wikipedia editor Rklawton (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

When another editor noted WIkipedia’s well known problems of bias and inaccuracies:

Please stop using this page as a discussion forum about the failings of Wikipedia. If you continue to do so, I will request that administrators block your IP address.

Wikipedia editor R2 (bleep) 20:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This Wikipedia editor is suspicious after I told them that my birth place on Wikipedia is incorrect:

There's something odd going on here. In this C-SPAN interview, Brian Lamb said to Attkisson that she was born in Sarasota and she didn't correct him. There may be more to this than meets the eye. I'm going to keep digging.

Wikipedia editor R2 (bleep) 22:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sarasota was also listed on old versions of her CBS bio while she worked there. I'm mystified as to why she would now insist she wasn't born there. And I haven't managed to find any evidence she or anyone else ever contested these details here.

Wikipedia editor: R2 (bleep) 22:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

When a well meaning Wikipedia editor asked for my list of awards after I noted some had been deleted from my biographical page, it elicited this reply:

I've removed this entire section as it is completely unsourced, links to unreliable or partisan awards, includes book sales lists, and incorporates non-individual awards. The Emmys might be salvageable but everything here needs sources and including unsourced content at the request of a BLP subject seems incredibly unwise. There is no reason to mention them again in some “awards” section, especially when half of it is just outright bad, other than to provide puffery.

Wikipedia editor ToaNidhiki05 15:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

When other well meaning Wikipedia editors balked at "ToaNidhiki05's" assessment, he retorted:

Also, I don't appreciate you accusing me of disruptive editing. All I did was remove an unsourced, uanessacry, and puffery-ridden section proposed by the BLP subject. You are accusing me of vandalism, essentially, and that's unacceptable. I suggest you ether remove/strike your comment or report me to the appropriate noticeboard if you actually think I'm disrupting anything...I have requested a third opinion be offered for this dispute.

Wikipedia editor ToaNidhiki05 20:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

And, though I never suggested controlling my Wikipedia biographical article, simply correcting inaccuracies and bias, the pharmaceutical interest agenda editor "SkepticalRaptor" writes:

Subjects of BLPs don't have a right to edit or control the edits of their article. We only provide information that can be sourced and presents a neutral article regarding an anti-science, pseudoscience-pushing right-wing "journalist." If we're going to do some fanboi crap here by listing her pathetic list of awards, then that should include adding all of her false anti-vaccine claims over the past few years. That will be fun.

Wikipedia editor SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There are other sources, so we should be able to document that she's an antivaxxer. She pretty much follows the Fox News/Trump party line on many of their anti-science issues. --

Wikipedia editor BullRangifer (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

A well meaning Wikipedia editor attempted to ask why agenda editor Toa_Nidhiki05 removed the following context from my Wikipedia biography:

“ 'The fact is, the government has acknowledged there’s a link [between vaccines and autism],' Attkisson says, citing the recent admission by a senior Central for Disease Control epidemiologist that he and his colleagues improperly omitted from a 2004 study the data that tended to support such a link. 'They simply say it’s not a causal link'.”

Toa_Nidhiki05 said he removed the quote simply because "it isn't true." He went on to falsely state:

Attkisson "falsely makes a contrast between the facts and what she believes, like she has some sort of secret evidence. Her stance on vaccines is already apparent, as is her belief in government conspiracies (mentioned in the January 2019 TV shows). The exact nature of her belief that vaccines cause autism is irrelevant, because it’s flatly false. She believes a casual link exists, and that’s what we note - her misattribution/conspiracy theory about the government isn’t needed. The fact that this has been removed twice now by different editors should give you pause in re-adding it again without consensus. 23:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor Toa Nidhiki05 23:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have never expressed any "anti-vaccine" opinions; I have quoted evidence and scientific studies on various sides of vaccine safety issues. Further, I have never reported on any false conspiracies.

The historic use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" as propaganda tool, as used by "Toa_Nidhiki05" in an attempt to controversialize, is well described in my book "The Smear." Obviously, a rational person knows that many events factually fall under the definition of "conspiracy," which simply means a plot by more than one person to commit a crime or wrongdoing. There's nothing controversial about the notion of a "conspiracy" when it is factually true. The mafia is a conspiracy, as were Bonnie and Clyde's crimes, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as is most any crime involving more than one criminal. It is not controversial to acknowledge that conspiracies are, in fact, conspiracies. Having said this, my reporting does not involve me alleging "conspiracies," real or imagined.

Meanwhile, another Wikipedia editor agrees that the government's acknowledgment of a link between vaccines and autism should not be included, as the Wikipedia editors use my biography to try to (incorrectly) portray the issue as settled science:

"I support exclusion as well. It's confusing, not obviously relevant, and arguably misleads readers into thinking that fringe views are accurate.

Wikipedia editor R2 (bleep) 23:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

So who are these people who make their biased opinions and incorrect conclusions count above all else on Wikipedia?

It's hard to know, since they edit under a veil of anonymity on Wikipedia. "Toa Nidhiki 05" describes himself as a 24-year old kid from North Carolina; a guy who says he has an alter ego and is really, really into comic books.

If all of that is true, I've been investigating vaccine controversies since he was about seven years old. But he appoints himself as Wikipedia's arbiter of facts and truth on the topic.

This is how Wikipedia works.

Correcting the record

For the few who might be interested, and for the record, the following is a summary of some of the problems that remained on my Wikipedia biography page the last time I checked.

Wikipedia begins by describing me as a "writer." It is true that I write as part of my job; but I have never described my profession as that of "a writer." None of my professional contracts describe me as a "writer." I am an investigative journalist. I have been a journalist for approximately 39 years.

Calling me a "writer" is bit like describing a judge as "a lawyer," calling a police officer a "a professional driver," or saying a professor is "a researcher." These descriptions are all subsets of their occupation, not their occupation itself.

1. Issue: Vaccine issue misrepresentation

A Wikipedia agenda editor recently added this non-cited, unbalanced comment to the top of my biographical page. 

Wikipedia quote:

Attkisson has published stories suggesting a possible link between vaccines and autism, a theory rejected by the scientific community.

First, among my 30+ years of reporting, the vaccine-autism topic is not, likely, even the top 10 topics I reported on most heavily or received the most recognition for. Thus, it is an inappropriate inclusion at the top of the biography. It is only included because certain Wikipedia agenda editors wish to improperly use my biographical page to shape opinion on the vaccine-autism issue, libel me, and falsely portray me as “anti-vaccine.”

Second, the comment is not neutral, is out of context, and is unbalanced since many in the scientific community have not rejected a link between vaccines and autism; and some scientists support the concept of a link. For example, the head of CDC immunization safety has acknowledged that it appears vaccines triggered autism in a child with mitochondrial disorder, as determined in a landmark federal lawsuit that the government sealed so that nobody would know about it. Further, it is libelous and misleading for Wikipedia to imply my reporting has somehow been discredited; though an organized effort has been made by conflicted sources and vested interests to make that appear to be the case.

Third, to the extent Wikipedia editors allow my biographical page to be used to spin on the issue of vaccine safety, it should be balanced with facts such as: 

Many studies and pro-vaccine scientists support the idea of a link between vaccines and autism, including (among many others) former Director of the National Institutes of Health Dr. Bernadine Healy; the former government medical expert witness in vaccine injury cases, pediatric neurologist Dr. Andrew Zimmerman of Johns Hopkins; Dr. Jon Poling— also a Johns Hopkins trained neurologist; and the current head of immunization safety at CDC Dr. Frank DeStefano. None of these experts was called controversial until they publicly stated that vaccines may-- or do-- trigger autism in a certain subset of vulnerable children. Only then did they face organized attacks falsely labeling them as “anti-vaccine,” “tin-foil hat” or “discredited.” In fact, by any neutral assessment, they are none of those things.

My reporting on vaccines and autism has been recognized with independent reporting awards and has been cited positively in the peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine.

Watch Sharyl Attkisson's TedX Talk: "Is Fake News Real?"

2. Issue: Non-sequitur quote from conflicted source/blogger

A Wikipedia agenda editor added this strange non-sequitur to my biography (below) as if to imply that the accuracy of my reporting was challenged or at issue, when it never was.

Wikipedia quote:

Erik Wemple, in his Washington Post blog, said CBS News had greater resources to deal with potential litigation than Attkisson as an individual and commented "if her nearly aired stories are as bulletproof as she suggests, where’s the risk?"[31] He quoted Sonya McNair, a spokesman for CBS News, who had told him the operation "maintains the highest journalistic standards in what it chooses to put on the air. Those standards are applied without fear or favor.”[31]

First, the cited quote is from a blogger, Erik Wemple, who is a well-known supporter of the longstanding propaganda effort by Media Matters and some linked to the Obama administration to attempt to contoversialize my reporting on topics contrary to their interests. Such sources should be considered invalid or, at least, should include the proper context as to their lack of impartiality.

Second, the CBS/Sonya McNair quote is completely out of context and so is presented in a misleading way. The wording included in Wikipedia seems to imply that CBS questioned my reporting. In fact, that was never the case. In fact, all of my investigative reports were approved not only by a series of producers, but I also chose to have them approved by the CBS team of lawyers. I initiated my departure from CBS ahead of my contract expiration because so many of my investigative reports were being spiked for reasons having to do with corporate and political conflicts of interest. The CBS/McNair quote was a defensive response to public reporting about certain CBS personnel inappropriately spiking stories, not because my reporting was questioned. CBS executives worked hard to convince me to remain at CBS, which I agreed to do for a time, and our parting was ultimately amicable.

3. Issue: Media Bias Chart section

Wikipedia agenda editors have improperly slanted my Wikipedia biography by omitting relatively important work, but highlighting relatively unimportant work that they hope can be used to discredit or controversialize me. 

The first inappropriate example they’ve chosen to single out is a “media bias chart” I created. The goal is apparently to falsely portray me as conservative or politically conflicted— a constant theme on my Wikipedia biography.

Wikipedia quote:

In 2017, Attkisson created a media bias chart. According to PolitiFact, this chart "labels anything not overtly conservative as 'left'". 

First: A fact error. I did not create the chart in 2017. Wikipedia is apparently relying on false information from a BuzzFeed article.

Second: The media bias chart is hardly one of my more significant projects or writings, so it is strange that it is highlighted among all else in my Wikipedia biography when much more significant work is omitted.

Third: Wikipedia disingenuously fails to note that both PolitiFact and its parent, Poynter, are on the aforementioned media bias chart and therefore should not be cited as if neutral sources. 

Fourth: If Wikipedia wishes to include BuzzFeed's negative assessment of the “chart” as part of my biography—which seems out-of-place—then it should also include some of the extensive, positive feedback the chart received for its perceived accuracy. As it stands, the section on Wikipedia is one-sided, out of context, and violates Wikipedia policies on neutrality.

Wikipedia quote: 

BuzzFeed News reported in August 2018 that Attkisson indicated on her website that she compiled the "subjective" chart "from various sources and your feedback”.[37]

Again, Wikipedia editors disingenuously fail to note that BuzzFeed also appears on the chart and, so, is not a neutral source on this topic. Further, the BuzzFeed article about the media bias chart contained false and misleading information, which I addressed in this article. (You can read a reprint in full at the end of this post.*) 

Wikipedia quote:

She linked "various sources" to a study from the Pew Research Center, a Washington think tank that BuzzFeed said "measures audience bias, not the alleged bias of an outlet and a college library's website that cites another college library's project describing media outlets." 

Again, Wikipedia quotes BuzzFeed, which is a conflicted source because it is on the chart, and which published false information about it (as detailed in my article). Additionally, the BuzzFeed quote appears to only be included in my Wikipedia biography to falsely imply that my work is misleading or unfair. 

Further, Wikipedia fails to note that I made no grand representations about the media bias chart; quite the contrary. I called my chart “subjective… based on information compiled from various sources and your feedback.” I also noted “…outlets on left and right sometimes publish material that's on the opposite side of the political spectrum, or that has no political leaning at all. The placement [of a media outlet on the media bias chart] is based on perceived overall tone and audience. Position on the chart doesn't necessarily imply credibility or lack thereof. Sources on far right and far left have, in many instances, produced excellent, factually correct information at times…Compiling such a chart is obviously difficult for many reasons, some of them having to do with space. The spacing should be considered relative and not an indicator of absolute position.” I also included links to alternate charts, left and right. 

None of this context is included on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia quote:

Attkisson’s chart includes such websites as InfoWars (to which Attkisson is said to link from her own site).[37]

I’m not even sure what the above parenthetical section means, but it appears to be another attempt by a Wikipedia agenda editor to follow BuzzFeed’s lead and controversialize me by trying to associate me with InfoWars. In fact, this Wikipedia passage again lacks context and balance. My blog on the media bias chart included links to several other popular media bias charts so that people can compare and make up their own minds on this subjective issue. The links I used included a widely circulated chart produced by InfoWars; but also charts produced by Pew research center and Media Bias/Fact Check. By Wikipedia cherry picking the mention of one controversial site (InfoWars) and omitting mention of the others I linked to, it shows bias and demonstrates lack of neutrality.

Watch Sharyl Attkisson's TedX Talk on Astroturf and Media Manipulation

4. Issue: False info in Vaccine Reporting section

The talk page attached to my biography provides the clearest picture of conflicted Wikipedia editors fighting to the mat to include biased, false and libelous information. It makes a prima facie case for why these very editors should be barred from not only editing my page, but also from editing on the issue of vaccine safety. Additionally, it demonstrates their inability to make neutral or fair assessments and decisions. Further, it emphasizes the point that a biographical page is no place to promulgate a one-sided discussion on a contentious issue.

Wikipedia quote: 

Anti-vaccine reporting[edit]

This misleading title, "Anti-vaccine reporting," forms a false conclusion about my reporting on this topic. There is no fair way that my reporting can be construed as “anti-vaccine.” I have never done a story on anti-vaccine efforts (not that there would be anything wrong with doing a story on the efforts of anti-vaxxers, but it has not been a focus of mine). My reporting on vaccine safety issues is no more “anti-vaccine” than my reporting on Firestone tire safety issues was “anti-tire” or my reporting on Red Cross fraud makes me “anti-charity.” Any implication otherwise is false and libelous.

Wikipedia quote;

Attkisson has published stories linking vaccines with autism; this contradicts the scientific community who reject such a link.[38][39][40] 

It’s irresponsible for Wikipedia agenda editors to attempt to litigate the vaccine-autism issue on my biographical page, and to further do it in such a one-sided fashion. Also, the above passage lacks the context mentioned earlier, that many studies and pro-vaccine scientists have stated there is or might be a link between vaccines and autism. This includes some scientists at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). 

Wikipedia passage:

Seth Mnookin, Professor of Science Writing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, described Attkisson as "one of the least responsible mainstream journalists covering vaccines and autism. Again and again, she’s parroted anti-vaccine rhetoric long past the point that it’s been decisively disproved."[41]

The above statement is false and libelous. First, my reporting has not parroted anything. Second, my stories have not been "anti-vaccine" in any sense. Third, since many scientists, court cases and published studies have found links between vaccines and autism, it is patently false to call such links "decisively disproved."

Wikipedia irresponsibly and presents Mnookin as if he is a neutral analyst. However, he is a well known vaccine industry advocate and fanatic who has made numerous false and libelous allegations about me. Additionally, if Wikipedia decides that my biographical page is, indeed, the place to litigate the vaccine-autism issue, then in the interest of neutrality, it should include the fact that Mnookin is himself a controversial and conflicted figure (as demonstrated in many published works); and that many others have recognized my reporting as accurate and fair.

Wikipedia passage:

Anna Kata, an analyst at McMaster University, has accused Attkisson of using problematic rhetorical tactics to "imply that because there is no conclusive answer to certain problems, vaccines remain a plausible culprit."[42][verification needed] 

Again, Wikipedia cherry picks a vaccine advocate (not a neutral party) and then uses a quote that is unsupported by the footnote referenced: there is nothing at the actual citation that criticizes or even mentions me. Obviously it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to include this passage and quote with an invalid citation... but it's yet another transparent attempt by an agenda editor to controversialize my reporting.

Wikipedia passage:

In a January 2019 episode of her television show Full Measure, Attkisson mischaracterized statements made in 2007 by a medical expert, Andrew Zimmerman, regarding a hypothetical relationship between vaccines and autism.

This allegation that I mischaracterizaed anything is libelous and false on its face. It is not a matter of opinion, it is provable by examining Dr. Zimmerman's affidavit (which I posted on my website) and the actual story. It is shocking that Wikipedia would allow this statement to exist on my biography for even a minute.

Further, the article refers to a "hypothetical" relationship between vaccines and autism. This is a mischaracterization since Dr. Zimmerman, the government's medical expert at the time, concluded there is a relationship between vaccines and autism; nothing hypothetical about it (in his opinion).

Wikipedia passage:

Attkisson falsely said that the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP), which refuted claims of a causal link between vaccines and autism, was based primarily on Zimmerman's testimony, and that Zimmerman's nuanced views on the subject were kept hidden from the public by the federal government until 2018; 

This claim is false and libelous on its face. This is a misguided Wikipedia editors attempt to twist my reporting into something it never said. Further, this passage fails to note that the referenced vaccine court agreed that a child’s autism had been cause by her vaccinations. (The case was secretly pulled from the Omnibus proceedings, settled confidentially and sealed so that other parents would not know; but word eventually leaked out). Wikipedia also fails to note that the government has paid many other vaccine brain injury cases that resulted in autism. This context is important or the passage leaves the misimpression that the issue was laid to rest in the negative sense. It was not.

Wikipedia passage:

…the program called [the government's alleged coverup of the vaccine-autism link, as described by its own medical expert] "one of the most consequential frauds, arguably in human history."[disputed – discuss] 

The above passage is the focus of what may be one of the most ridiculous Wikipedia "talk" page discussions among ridiculous discussions. Originally, Wikipedia editors falsely attributed the above quote directly made to me when I never said any such thing.

When I pointed out that I never said the quote, as demonstrated by simply watching the news story referenced, Wikipedia agenda editors then reasoned that it was fair and all-the-same to pretend it was my own quote, anyway, because I “obviously” feel that way.

When some well-meaning Wikipedia editors suggested the quote should actually be attribute to its source (imagine that!), Robert F. Kennedy, Junior, the Wikipedia agenda editors balked and wanted to attribute it to my “program” instead.

I only speculate here, but I assume the agenda editors do not want the quote accurately sourced to Kennedy because the idea that I used him-- a far left liberal-- in a story, runs counters to Wikipedia's other major false narrative that I am “conservative.”

Further, the Wikipedia editors falsely claim my vaccine reporting provides no counterpoints and is one-sided. In fact, for every vaccine story I have done, I have sought and represented comments from both sides. Many of my stories, including the one Wikipedia attempts to criticize, begin with me stating that vaccines have saved many lives.

The fact that all of this context is omitted further demonstrates that my Wikipedia biography is not neutral and some of the editors are conflicted.

Wikipedia passage:

…the views that Attkisson said were kept secret had already been made public in 2006 and were noted in the OAP.[44]

The above statement if provably false on its face. The views of the government’s pro-vaccine expert, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman— that the government had covered up and misrepresented his scientific opinion that vaccines cause autism in “exceptional” cases of vulnerable children after all— were not made public in 2006. They were not widely reported until January of 2019 after Dr. Zimmerman signed a sworn affidavit saying so.

Wikipedia passage:

David Gorski was sharply critical of the segment, calling it a "propaganda piece" and a "conspiracy theory".

Again, Wikipedia cherry picks opinion-- this time from Gorski, a well known, conflicted vaccine industry propagandist. Wikipedia omits the many sources who complimented the segment, showing lack of neutrality.

5. Issue: Computer hacking claims section

Once again, Wikipedia editors omit more important and relevant work, but highlight a "computer hacking claims" in a way intended to controversialize me.

Wikipedia passage: 

Computer hacking claims[edit]

The section title is misleading and attempts to controversialize me at the outset. The "computer hacking" is not a “claim,” it is a fact proven though multiple forensics reports and stated publicly by CBS News in a press release.

Wikipedia passage:

…a report by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) was released[50] stating that "their investigation was not able to substantiate... allegations that Attkisson's computers were subject to remote intrusions by the FBI, other government personnel, or otherwise"

This passage is libelous in its implications and apparently based on a propaganda campaign that resulted in widespread misreporting on the topic. The OIG did not examine the primary computer at issue, therefore could not and did not rule out remote intrusions, which have been substantiated by multiple independent examinations. More details regarding the false reporting on this topic are published here.

Wikipedia passage:

…and the deletion seen in Attkisson's video "appeared to be caused by the backspace key being stuck, rather than a remote intrusion”.

Same issue as above: The implications of the above passage are false and libelous. The OIG did not examine the primary computer at issue, therefore could not and did not rule out remote intrusions, which have been substantiated by multiple independent examinations. More details regarding the false reporting on this topic are published here. Further, the OIG did not examine the separate computer that it claimed had a “stuck backspace key.” (There is no backspace key on that computer, and no key was “stuck.”) More details can be found here.

In conclusion...

Some Wikipedia editors devote a great deal of time on the forum complaining that I am not "going through the proper Wikipedia processes" by publicly discussing their mistakes and bias.

They are apparently unaware of the months of intense efforts I expended years ago "going through the Wikipedia process" with Wikipedia editors, trying to understand the broken system and working within it, only to have well-meaning editors admit to me they were outmatched by agenda editors who are trolling and controlling my page.

Only in the weird world of Wikipedia does this torturous, ineffective system make sense. Only on Wikipedia is it deemed acceptable for libelous and false information to reside on a Wikipedia biography because we are to rest assured -- it will eventually be sorted out.

Below is a reprint of my article after BuzzFeed wrote biased and false information in an article about my "Media Bias" chart. That bad information is now quoted on my Wikipedia biography.

*The following is a news analysis

Today I received an inquiry from BuzzFeed reporter Tasneem Nashrulla that appeared so sloppy— even for a writer at a quasi-news site– that it was particularly remarkable.

First, the reporter contacted me only after the article that mentioned me was published. (That’s sort of frowned on in journalism circles.)

Then, when I pointed out the reporter’s errors and misimpressions, and asked for a correction, the reporter and his or her editor declined.

The subject matter was a Media Bias chart I constructed some time ago. (See here.)

See what you think of the BuzzFeed position.

Original email from reporter:

Hello Sharyl,

This is Tasneem Nashrulla, a reporter with BuzzFeed News. I’m writing about President Trump’s claims this morning about Google search results being “rigged” against him to shut out conservative media outlets.

He appears to have seen this on last night’s episode of Lou Dobbs Tonight which cited a PJ Media study that used your Media Bias Chart from 2017 to analyze Google search results on two different computers to test the premise that Google search results had an anti-conservative bias.

I saw that you updated your chart today. Could you tell me what prompted you to update the chart today and what changes did you make to the original chart?

You had earlier included a link to this Lorain County Community College site which contained a list of the political leanings of magazines and newspapers. The link no longer appears in your article. Did you delete the link today and if so, why?

You included a link to a Pew Research Center chart as a source for your media bias chart. The Pew chart says it measures audience bias, not media bias. Can you explain how this study factored into your chart?

Do you believe that your chart is an accurate representation of media bias and if it can be effectively used to analyze Google search results to show that Google has an anti-conservative bias?

We’ve published our story on the study, and will update it with your responses.

Thank you.

Tasneem

My response:

Hi Tanseem!

I did not update chart today. Can you tell me what prompted you to make that allegation?

I did not change the original chart today. Again, please let me know what makes you make that allegation?

If I do update the chart in the future it will be to add new items or change items based on feedback.

I didn’t delete any links or make changes to the article.

Yes I think it’s a pretty accurate representation obviously because I wouldn’t aim to create a chart with an inaccurate representation, but since much rests on matters of opinion, that’s up to the beholder.

Please read the article for caveats and notes such as: Compiling such a chart is obviously difficult for many reasons, some of them having to do with space. The spacing should be considered relative and not an indicator of absolute position. A number of the information sources technically belong on top of one another.

As I stated in my article, there are many views and alternates such as the ones I linked to in the article:

Ideological Placement of Each Source’s Audience

https://www.infowars.com/alternate-reality-viral-propaganda-chart-demonizes-independent-media/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

My chart adds to the charts that are out there and can be considered alongside them or as people choose.

I then read the BuzzFeed article that had already been published and followed up with this:

Tasneem, I just looked at your article. I understand what you are aiming to do. Nonetheless, please correct the following misrepresentations:

“Attkisson said she compiled the chart ‘from various sources and your feedback.’ The link on ‘various sources’ is to a Pew Research Center study that measures audience bias, not the alleged bias of an outlet.”

The above sentence implies that I have misrepresented something. I have not. 

“The ‘media bias chart’ includes sites that are not news outlets but peddlers of outright unproven conspiracy theories — such as Infowars.”

The above sentence also seems to imply something improper. I didn’t title it a “news” chart, it’s appropriately titled a “media” chart and Infowars is a media organization. 

“Attkisson also links to more Infowars content on her website explaining the chart.”

The above statement falsely implies that I used “infowars content” to “explain” my chart (as if for sourcing). That’s untrue. As explained in the article, I included links to alternate/opposing charts and one of them is infowars. The infowars chart is not a source for my information but a competing chart, if you will, with different results. Please make this clear in your correction and let me know when it posts. Thanks.

After checking another of the reporter’s allegations, I followed up with this:

[Tasneem]

Lastly, I checked and the missing Lorain link you asked about isn’t missing, it’s still there where it alway was on the word “sources” at the beginning of the article.

Check your work.

Here’s the BuzzFeed response:

Sharyl, thanks for getting back. We believe we have represented everything appropriately. I’m happy to add a description of the Lorain link to our story.

I was asking about the date because the dateline on your post that contains the chart shows today’s date.

Best,

Tasneem

Attkisson Note: On WordPress, to put an old article on the front page requires putting the current date on the article. This apparently led the BuzzFeed writer to falsely conclude — before asking — that I had mysteriously changed or altered the content of my Media Bias chart. I don’t blame the reporter for not understanding the technology, I’m technically challenged myself, but that’s why it is irresponsible to make assumptions and conclusions before you have full information. We should be wise enough to know when there are things we might not know.

I asked to appeal to a supervisor the BuzzFeed decision not to correct the misimpressions in the article. Tasneem connected me to editor, Tom Namako, who almost immediately stated they weren’t going to change the article and stand by it as written.

I asked Tom Namako about Tasneem’s mistakes. He said it didn’t bother him because they were made in an email to me, not in the story. I suggested this reflected something about the quality of the reporter. He said he has confidence in and stands by his reporter.

I asked that Tom correct the misimpressions given in BuzzFeed article, particularly the false implication that I somehow used InfoWars to explain or develop my chart. I pointed out that the InfoWars link I included was among a selection of links at the bottom of my article pointing to alternate media bias charts that are different than mine– so people can consult different views than mine.

Nonetheless, Tom said he said he wasn’t going to change anything in the article because, “The fact is you linked to a conspiracy theory website.”

And that was that.

(Here’s the uncorrected BuzzFeed article followed by a link to the InfoWars chart and the MediaBias Fact Check chart)

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/trump-google-lou-dobbs

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Unscientific poll... on presidential polls

We made a poll to ask about polls! Last week's sharylattkisson.com poll asked readers whether or not they are influenced by presidential polls. A vast majority of respondents - approximately 81% - said they are not swayed by presidential polls.

Full poll results are posted below:

Do presidential polls influence you?

Yes (1%)

No (81%)

Sometimes (16%)

Stop bothering me (2%)

Your favorite summer time activity?

Our unscientific poll at SharylAttkisson.com asked about your favorite summer time activity.

And the results are in! (And I think they're a bit of a surprise.)

Most respondents love to relax at home.

Check out the full results below and be sure to vote in our new poll: Do presidential debates influence you? (See the black box on the sidebar of home page, or scroll down on mobile site).

Favorite summer activity:

27% Beach

2% Foreign travel

15% US travel

48% Relax at home

8% Something else

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Parents of kids with cancer question chemicals in water and cell phone tower as possible causes

There is fascinating, new information uncovered an investigation by CBS Sacramento regarding the cluster of school children with cancer.

Some parents blamed a nearby cell phone tower, which has now been disabled. The company that operated the tower said it was well within safety limits but took it down in response to the public outcry.

Now, some are turning their attention to chemicals in the water.

Watch the CBS Sacramento investigation by clicking here.

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

The Weaponization of Wikipedia

The egregious vandalism and misuse of my biography page by Wikipedia agenda editors continues.

I understand that cases like this matter little except to those who are libeled. However, I would argue that they are important to the extent they represent what's going on across the increasingly-troubled Wikipedia platform.

Wikipedia has been "weaponized."

Anonymous political and special interests control pages on behalf of paid clients. Devoted ideologues use their authority on Wikipedia to censor and controversialize ideas with which they disagree. There are attacks, libel, biases, false information and censorship.

In my instance, the Wikipedia editors have violated multiple Wikipedia policies over the years governing matters such as neutrality, libel and attribution.

And there's nothing anybody can do about it.

The well-meaning Wikipedia editors-- and there are many-- are simply outwitted and overpowered by the bad guys.

As I have reported and discussed these matters publicly, anonymous Wikipedia agenda editors controlling my biographical page have mounted a campaign to attack me beyond my Wikipedia page.

"To put it bluntly, this is unacceptable behavior," wrote a Wikipedia agenda editor in discussing my public objections to the false information and slander on my Wikipedia biographical page. "...some action needs to be taken."  (Toa Nidhiki05 01:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC))

Wikipedia editors have long been known to track down, troll and attack those who criticize them.

As I reported in my Full Measure investigation, some Wikipedia editors have even gotten together and tracked down personal details about someone they don't like, figuring out where they travel, what they do in their spare time, and where they work-- even calling their boss on the phone to try to get them in trouble. No kidding.

Not long after the "something must be done" threat against me by the Wikipedia editor, additional false and biased information was edited onto my Wikipedia biographical page, an attack blog was published against me, and Wikipedia interests came after me on Twitter.

The Twitter attackers included a Wikipedia editor @wikigamaliel who calls himself "Gamaliel@ALA" on Twitter.

@Wikigamaliel proceeded to state that he knows "how I feel" and "what I think" about certain topics based on my Twitter followers, whom he called "nutty." (He received a "like" from @Wikimedia UK regarding his "nutty" comment about my followers. These are Wikipedia's supposedly neutral arbiters of information.)

When some Twitter users then flagged extensive hate, profanity and bias in @Wikigamaliel's recent Tweets on many subjects, he deleted some of the Tweets and blocked the users.

But he's still editing away on my Wikipedia biographical page and, presumably, many others.

The Talk Pages

Wikipedia's "talk" pages are arcane, to be sure, but they can provide a window into the bias, twisted justifications, and mangled logic used by Wikipedia agenda editors to make sure false and biased information stays on a page... and fair, truthful information is censored.

This is where matters of controversy are supposedly arbitrated and settled. Instead, it's the place where the agenda editors band together and play games to beat back attempts to change their will.

Read Wikipedia's Sharyl Attkisson "Talk" page

For example, when I politely inquired on the "talk" page as to why someone had deleted my most recent Emmy nominations and awards, it launched a tortuous month long debate among the Wikipedia agenda editors and some well-meaning editors.

In the end, the discussion ended with: paralysis. The Wikipedia editors decided there was so much disagreement over this simple, easily-resolved point, that nothing should be changed. Of course, that was the goal all along of the agenda editors. They made sure there was a protracted discussion and no "consensus." Without "consensus," the edit will not be permitted.

(As an aside, the reason the awards I asked about were deleted is because they fight the Wikipedia agenda editors' attempts to falsely portray me and my reporting as "conservative"; the awards included a daytime Emmy award and a news Emmy award for my undercover investigation into Republican fundraising.)

There are other awards and citations the Wikipedia agenda editors will not allow because the awards and citations disprove the false narrative that I am "anti-vaccine" or unscientific in my reporting.

The Absurd

And then there's simply the absurd.

One lengthy discussion about me on Wikipedia's talk page (attached to my biography) actually involved why it was supposedly okay to attribute a direct quote to me, though I had never said it.

After all, said the Wikipedia agenda editors, Snopes reported I said it, so even though I didn't say it, it is okay to claim that I said it.

"It's all the same," claimed Wikipedia's agenda editors.

Another absurd discussion among the Wikipedia editors controlling my biographical page talked about how they could tell how "I feel" based on items I retweet.

Yet I'm pretty sure the Wikipedia agenda editors realize that people often retweet items with which they disagree or on which they have formed no particular opinion. In fact, I often retweet items that are contrary to one another, so it's difficult to understand how a sincere Wikipedia editor could claim to glean my "feelings" because of them. My twitter profile even explicitly states that retweets do not imply agreement.

Watch "The Dark Side of Wikipedia," a Full Measure investigation

And when I politely pointed out to Wikipedia editors an item of low hanging fruit that needed correcting-- the false birth place they had listed for me-- it unleashed a torrent of attacks and speculation by the uniformed Wikipedia editors such as "Why would she deny where she was born?"

Clearly I'm up to something nefarious.

In other words, Wikipedia editors will unskeptically rely on false, published information from strangers for no other reason than-- well, it's published-- but then express unabashed suspicion of the source herself providing facts and offering documentary proof.

As Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger noted after separating himself from his original creation: Wikipedia is "broken beyond repair."

Today's status quo is a system whereby Wikipedia editors can make every kind of false claim and libelous accusation about someone they've never met, but go on the attack when the false information and bias are exposed.

What do you think? Leave your comments on this page.

Read the "Sharyl Attkisson Talk page" on Wikipedia by clicking the link below. Warning: you're entering a world where reason and logic are turned on its head.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharyl_Attkisson

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

ICYMI: The most important vaccine-autism report this year

This Sunday on Full Measure, we will be running a replay of what I think is the most important vaccine-autism report this year.

It tells how the government's own pro-vaccine medical expert, a world-renowned pediatric neurologist, concluded -- based on scientific studies and other scientific information -- that vaccines can cause autism, after all, in "exceptional" cases.

The physician, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, goes on to say that the government went on to misrepresent his opinion in vaccine court and cover up what he had told them.

The story is so important that it triggered a wave of vaccine industry propaganda. There was an organized effort to falsely claim that the Dr. Zimmerman is somehow "anti-vaccine" or, perhaps, no longer of sound mind.

Other false claims included that Dr. Zimmerman's opinions have been misunderstood or mischaracterized. Fortunately, you can read his full affidavit and published studies for yourself. Click here.

The propaganda campaign has included social media attacks and false information being posted on my Wikipedia biography to try to discredit the story or convince people not to consider the information. The false information includes the claim that I or my reporting are "anti-vaccine."

As I have written in The Smear, this sort of attention typically means one is hovering over an important target.

See for yourself and make up your own mind!

How to watch Full Measure

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Unscientific poll shows support for "Brexit."

The latest unscientific poll at SharylAttkisson.com shows strong support among respondents for the British exit from the European Union.

The exit remains stalled three years after the referendum vote on June 23, 2016 as politicians grapple with how to execute it.

Part of the problem is that those responsible for negotiating the terms are largely against it. The political upheaval will be the subject of an upcoming story on Full Measure.

Here are the results of the poll:

Regarding Brexit:

94% I support

3% I oppose

2% I don't know/care

>1% What's Brexit?

Be sure and vote in our new poll on the home page in the black box in the sidebar or scroll down on the mobile site.

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Victor Avila, Lone Survivor

Victor Avila was a special agent with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE in Mexico. On February 15, 2011, he and fellow ICE Agent Jaime Zapata got an unusual assignment: a task that required them to travel an infamous Mexican highway to pick up equipment. 

This is the story of how Zapata was murdered by cartel thugs, the connection to Fast and Furious, and the mystery that still remains.

Watch the video investigation at the link below, which first aired on Full Measure Oct. 2017. The transcript follows.

Victor Avila: Lone Survivor--a Full Measure investigation

Today we investigate the incredible case of a US federal agent who survived a brutal attack by Mexican drug cartel thugs. It shows how violent cartels are wreaking havoc south of the border. But it also says a lot about serious shortfalls inside the US government which is still stonewalling on unanswered questions -- nearly eight long years later.

Victor Avila: I fought the assignment. I challenged it. 

Sharyl Attkisson: You were supposed to drive down an extremely dangerous and maybe forbidden road, right? 

Victor Avila: Correct. 

Victor Avila was a special agent with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE in Mexico. On February 15, 2011, he and fellow ICE Agent Jaime Zapata got an unusual assignment: a task that required them to travel an infamous Mexican highway to pick up equipment. 

Sharyl Attkisson: And the assignment was unusual because there was an edict not to travel on that road, is that correct? 

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Victor Avila: Correct. The U.S. Ambassador to the Regional Security Office of the U.S. Embassy had issued a notice of alert, prohibiting all U.S. personnel to drive on Highway 57 northbound, specifically to Monterrey. 

Sharyl Attkisson: Because the cartels control that highway. 

Victor Avila: Correct. There was numerous amounts of violence and shootings involving the Mexican government and military and the cartels. 

Sharyl Attkisson: Why would you be sent on an assignment that's so dangerous, that defies instructions? 

Victor Avila: I don't know. 

Not only that, they were sent on the forbidden road without the normal armed escort vehicle. So they were all alone, on the way back with Agent Zapata driving, when two SUVs approached and forced them off the highway. Zetas cartel members surrounded them, shoved the barrels of a handgun and an AK47 rifle into their slightly cracked-open window and opened fire. 

Victor Avila: During the shooting I saw Jaime get hit. He said: I'm hit, I'm shot. The handgun was shooting. I grabbed the handgun and burned my hand trying to stop it from shooting. And I tell Jaime, go, go, go, go. Like step on the gas. Jaime was already severely wounded and he, I grabbed the handle from the Suburban. I slammed it down in gear and pushed his right leg onto the accelerator. The Suburban went into the median of Highway 57. 

Sharyl Attkisson: At what point did you get shot? 

Victor Avila: I was shot during that time, I didn't realize. I didn't know that I had been shot. I was bleeding profusely from my chest and my leg and I had a lot of shrapnel and glass from my face. 

911 Call: This is Victor Avila from ICE. We are shot! We are shot! We are on the highway. 

Over 100 rounds were fired. Agent Zapata didn't make it. That's Avila in a wheelchair at the funeral. This past July, Avila and his family were there when the final two of seven known attackers were convicted in Washington D.C. federal court. But that hardly closed the book on unfinished business. Like why the feds were investigating but didn't manage to stop, two suspects who trafficked some of the murder weapons. In 2012, I first uncovered internal case files showing that in June 2010, the government opened a case named 'Baytown Crew' against this Texas man, Manuel Barba. According to documents, while under federal investigation, Barba took delivery of ten AK47s. Federal agents even recorded Barba talking of having sent the firearms to Mexico and obliterating the serial numbers before they were trafficked. One of those weapons was used in the shooting incident which killed Special Agent Zapata according to court documents. Meantime, federal agents were also investigating another suspect, Otilio Osorio, as he trafficked a different weapon used in the shooting. 

Victor Avila: I was very familiar with Fast and Furious and was following it. I never knew that we would end up being somewhat tied to that. 

Avila sees an eerie similarity to the government's Fast and Furious scandal that was unfolding at the exact same time. In Fast and Furious, federal agents secretly allowed thousands of weapons to be trafficked to Mexican drug cartels. One was used in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, not long before Agents Avila and Zapata were shot. 

Victor Avila: We want answers from the assignment, why the ICE supervisors and the U.S. Embassy ignored the alert from the U.S. Ambassador. Why they put us on this road without any operational plan, without an escort. What specifically did the government know and evade and cover-up about the transmission of those weapons to Mexico? 

When Avila got stonewalled, Congress demanded the Inspector General investigate and Avila filed a civil suit against the government. Meantime, he returned to work but says he was marginalized, repeatedly transferred against his wishes, and eventually felt forced to retire. 

Victor Avila: I never, never imagined that the treatment would be what, what it is. I never expected and I never felt entitled to any special treatment after being shot. All I wanted was to continue with my life and possibly my career. But my career ended that day. 

In March, years after Congress demanded an investigation, the Inspector General finally issued a report. Incredibly, it found that Barba was a known criminal in federal custody before he trafficked one of the murder weapons. He was let loose because the feds wanted to use him as an informant. But that left Barba free to lead the Baytown Crew trafficking ring that sent firearms to Mexican drug cartels, including one used in Agent Zapata's murder. All these errors had significant consequences, concluded the IG. 

Victor Avila: To this day, I, I don't know of anyone being admonished, held accountable at all, to this day. 

Documents Avila says are crucial for his lawsuit were kept secret as part of President Obama's unusual Fast and Furious claim of executive privilege. 

Victor Avila: To this day we have not received any documents related to either the firearms or any of the investigative documentation related to our shooting.

Sharyl Attkisson: Are these documents part of what's been withheld after President Obama issued an executive privilege claim? 

Victor Avila: That's correct. 

Sharyl Attkisson: There is a new President. There is a new Attorney General. How come you can't get the documents now? 

Victor Avila: We're trying. We're trying and my goal is to have this new administration lift that order and allow us the ability to view all the documents and get answers to our questions. 

Sharyl Attkisson: What are people to make of the story that you've told and things that happened to you? 

Victor Avila: I believe part of my duty as a survivor is to continue to tell the story. It's important for me that Jaime's death not go in vain. He paid the ultimate sacrifice for his country. And we deserve answers just like the Zapata family deserves answers.

The Department of Justice did not respond to our request for comment. There has been no movement on Agent Avila's request for additional documents. The men convicted in July are expected to be sentenced next month.

11/19/2017 Update: Seven Mexican drug cartel thugs found guilty of shooting Avila and murdering his partner have been sentenced to terms ranging from 12 years to life in prison. Two suspects in the shootings received life in prison. Avila called the lesser sentences given to five other suspects a "complete and utter disappointment."

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.