This is the official website that supports Jack Idema. I've seen it before, but re-reading it, it's apparent the clumsily and vaguely worded passage can be misleading:
Finally, someone has told the truth in Jack's case about something, anything. Her name is Sherrie Gossett at Accuracy in Media, and where she was once chastised for false reporting, Ms. Gossett went back and double and tripled checked the facts reported by journalists Stacy Sullivan and Mariah Blake. Sullivan and Blake, reporting for New York Magazine and Columbia Journalism Review, made claims that the CIA determined Jack's al-Qaida training tapes were fake. [I never undertook to 'investigate' Sullivan's and Blake's stories. Nor have I ever accused them of false reporting. -sg]
....There's a lot of convoluted stuff here. So what does "where she was once chastised for false reporting" mean? Who allegedly "chastised" me? This is a reference to Idema's attorney, John Edwards Tiffany, who was irate that we gave media attention to the work of the Columbia Journalism Review and New York magazine, which published highly negative articles about his client. First, there was a short piece I wrote called "NBC Peacock Lays an Egg."
In the January cover story "Tin Soldier" for the Columbia Journalism Review, Mariah Blake revealed how convicted criminal Jonathan Keith Idema fed questionable information on terrorism and allegedly phony al-Qaeda videotapes to both CBS and NBC
In addition, I wrote another piece calling attention to Columbia Journalism Review's reporting and New York magazine's reporting here: Another CBS Controversy.
I also had Idema (live from Afghanistan prison), and two related guests on for an hour-long radio program where I interviewed them all.
Citing another excerpt of the Idema-supporting SuperPatriots website above: "This is a women who obviously actually believes in the credo Accuracy In Media. SuperPatriots.US had Ms. Gossett pegged wrong, and we offer our apologies and thanks to her for standing up against a sea of lemmings."
As I said, a lot of convoluted stuff here.
.....Well, another apology may be in order, since that misleading wording is still on their website! There are already two apologies to journalists on the site, including one to me. But I won't hold my breath waiting for another.
Welcome to the Internet age.