Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Analysis: Was Joy Reid Hacked?

For several years, MSNBC's Joy Reid posted homosexual insults at a politician on her blog.  She eventually admitted that it was actually her and she apologized for it. 

Now more homosexual insults have come out and Reid is claiming that her site was hacked. Here is her statement of denial for analysis. 

Question:  Was she hacked?  

Here is her statement:  

In December I learned that an unknown, external party accessed and manipulated material from my now-defunct blog, The Reid Report, to include offensive and hateful references that are fabricated and run counter to my personal beliefs and ideology.
I began working with a cyber-security expert who first identified the unauthorized activity, and we notified federal law enforcement officials of the breach. The manipulated material seems to be part of an effort to taint my character with false information by distorting a blog that ended a decade ago.
Now that the site has been compromised I can state unequivocally that it does not represent the original entries. I hope that whoever corrupted the site recognizes the pain they have caused, not just to me, but to my family and communities that I care deeply about: LGBTQ, immigrants, people of color and other marginalized groups.

Analysis Expectation

"I didn't write this.  I was hacked." 

In some manner, this is the expected.  It is simple, straight forward and economical.  It needs no persuasion because it would have the psychological wall of truth between her and the allegation. 

Linguistic Disposition 

With the claim of being hacked (not her word), what was written was, according to the subject, done by an anonymous author. 

Let's see if we can get Joy Reid's view of the anonymous author.  This is called "Linguistic Disposition."

The anonymous author wrote a number of homosexual insults.  The author equated being homosexual with insult.  

Originally, she apologized for the posts which included mocking the sexuality of Rachel Maddow.  The old blog post belittled then Gov, Crist as dreading physical relations with his wife on their honeymoon and included a joke about Crist having sex with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Reid commented in the blog that Crist got married to a woman in the first place to help him become McCain’s 2008 running mate. Mediaite counted 17 times Reid's blog derisively referred to Crist as “Miss Charlie,” and the subject led her to opine on why gay men stay in the closet.

“When a gay politician gets married, it usually indicates that he is highly ambitious, and desires to put himself in a position to move up the power ladder,”
Some confusion exists as Reid apologized originally but now in referring to the posts from her blog that have been recovered, she introduced the above statement that someone else wrote them. 
The anonymous author wrote that homosexuality was "gross" and 
“Keeping it real … most straight men feel exactly the same way, and would have the exact same reaction to the idea of stripping naked in a sweaty locker room in close quarters with a gay teammate. Most straight people cringe at the sight of two men kissing… Most straight people had a hard time being convinced to watch ‘Broke Back Mountain.’ (I admit that I couldn’t go see the movie either, despite my sister’s ringing endorsement, because I didn’t want to watch the two male characters having sex.) Does that make me homophobic? Probably.”
This is the context of "Linguistic Disposition" in Statement Analysis. 
What does the subject (Joy Reid) think of the anonymous author who wrote these things?
This is critical in obtaining a profile and in identifying the anonymous author. 
Expectation:  We hold to the expectation that Joy Reid will have a decidedly negative linguistic disposition towards the author who wrote the above insults. 
We now look at Joy Reid's denial and LD: 
In December I learned that an unknown, external party accessed and manipulated material from my now-defunct blog, The Reid Report, to include offensive and hateful references that are fabricated and run counter to my personal beliefs and ideology.

The first thing she begins with is the element of time.  "In December" is noted to not begin with the pronoun "I", nor to deny authoring the published material.  The material was republished in April 2018.  

The original insults, Reid apologized for.  The blog was deleted but was recovered.  

Timing is very important to her.  She reports what she learned in December, rather than issue a denial.

Remember, outright lying is rare.  People will go to extremes to avoid it.  By simply saying, "I didn't write that", there would be nothing more to say, only to wait behind the psychological wall of truth for the inevitable evidence of hacking to emerge.  It is interesting to note that she released this statement yesterday, but learned of this 4 months prior.  Timing is important to her, so much so that she begins her denial with it. 

Next, we note that author is now mentioned.  Who is the author of the blog post?

a.  unknown
b.  external
c.  party 

If the author is "unknown" the word "external" becomes unnecessary.  

"party" is gender neutral and is not a "person" either.  "Party" can be a legal term and it can also indicate plural. 

Expectation:  we expect this person to be a "hacker" in the softest language and for Joy Reid to condemn the hacker by linguistic disposition.  Therefore, due to the context, neutral disposition is "positive" linguistic disposition thus far. 

Since "external" is unnecessary, in the principle of "masking", the analyst should now consider the opposite. 

Remember the Ramsey ransom note?

The author wrote "we are a small foreign faction", and in masking, we note that the self revelation of plural often means singular, and the need to call oneself "foreign" suggests domestic.  This is "masking the identity" of the anonymous author.  

We expect Reid to identify and condemn the author as a hacker, criminal, and one of hate due to the homosexual slurs used. 

Question:  Will Joy Reid condemn the author?

We continue to listen to her and notice just how sensitive the element of time is.  She began with "time" and now continues with it in the following: 
I began working with a cyber-security expert who first identified

"Began" identifies the element of time and "first" identified does so as well, as we now expect a "second" or "third" identification of the hateful hacker. 

Q.  Is it a "hateful hacker" who criminally broke into her website?

began working with a cyber-security expert who first identified

 the unauthorized activity, 

It is not the hacker, but the "activity" (the actual writing) and she wants us to know that the unidentified outside party was not authorized. 

This is unnecessary information. 

Note "activity" specifically avoids condemning the author as it address what was done, but not by whom. 

This is a form of distancing language, much like blaming an inanimate object rather than the person operating the inanimate object. 

She did not condemn the author, but addressed the "activity", not as immoral, unethical, hateful, etc, but only as not authorized by her. 

and we notified federal law enforcement officials of the breach.

This is of special interest.  

Q. Who first learned?  
A. "I" did. 

Q.  Who began working with cyber expert?  
A. "I" did. 

Q.  Who contacted "federal law enforcement officials of the breach"?

A.  "We" did. 

Note that what was written were "offensive and hateful" "references", not slurs, insults, etc. 

Again, this focuses upon the writings and not to condemn the author of the writings. 

Note the unnecessary inclusion of going against "my personal beliefs and ideology."

This is to contradict what she apologized for posting previously.  

Q.  Is it necessary to state that the insults were against her personal (private) beliefs and ideology?

A.  It is for her. 

She continues to address the material but not the criminal who broke into her website. Actually, no one "broke" into her website, like "references" she uses the softer "breach." 

Question:  Did an anonymous author post false material?

 The manipulated material seems to be part of an effort to taint my character with false information by distorting a blog that ended a decade ago.

Answer:  No it was not "false" material but only "manipulated" material.

Next, we have the subject taking the roll of victim:

yet it only "seems" to be part of an effort to taint her character. 

One should question how these insults taint her character but the ones she apologized did not. 

Note that the ones insulted were homosexuals, not the subject.

The need to portray herself as a victim is noted. 
Yet the need to portray herself as a victim necessitates a "victimizer" who should be identified as a criminal, hater, hacker, thief, etc.  

Question:  Was the site compromised?

Answer:  We believe her words and do not interpret.  What does she say?
Now that the site has been compromised 

a.  "Now" is the element of time.  She does not state "my site was hacked" but reports it as a matter of timing, not fact. 

b.  "compromised" continues to use soft language.  

Next we have her assertion and her "sermon": 

1.  Assertion

"I apologize" is very different from "I would like to apologize" which is still very different from "I can apologize."

Here she does what many deceptive people do under an allegation: they report what they "can" say, rather than saying it. 

I can state 

This is a psychological distancing perspective of what she "can", or is capable of stating. She continues to weaken this assertion by the multitude of words: 


This is an unnecessary qualifier of what she "can" say.  She is choosing her words very carefully: 

that it does not represent the original entries.

If she is unwilling to say that these are false posts, we cannot say it for her.  She distances herself from saying this by reporting what "represents", which is another degree of separation. 

She is not able to condemn the hacker. 

 I hope that whoever corrupted the site recognizes the pain they have caused, not just to me, but to my family and communities that I care deeply about: LGBTQ, immigrants, people of color and other marginalized groups.

Unnecessary Sermon:

She deals politely with the "whoever" that did not break into or hack her site, but "corrupted" it with a "representation" not false material.

Linguistic Disposition towards the anonymous author:  Positive. 

Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated. 

Joy Reid is the author of the insults posted. 
Joy Reid is unwilling to say she was hacked .  If she cannot say it, we are not to say it for her. If she was hacked, the statements of insult remain as her own.  

Joy Reid is unable to condemn the hacker. This is where anonymous authors give themselves away.  In a context where the expected and acceptable linguistic disposition is negative, anything but negative is positive.  The insulter is not a "bad" person, but she does admit that this "party" caused her pain.  

In this, she has told the truth. 

Joy Reid came to her views as an intelligent educated adult.  Being incapable of condemning the author, she reveals that her beliefs have not changed.  The need to sermonize in the unnecessary manner reveals her own projection of guilt. 

The passivity, soft minimizing language and the disposition towards the author indicate both deception and authorship.  

This is an example of Statement Analysis in abbreviated form.  For training in detecting deception, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 


Anonymous said...

"In December I learned that an unknown, external party..."

This appears an attempt to convince. If the account was hacked and she knew, would the expected be for her to say who it was and the issue would go away. By the virtue of the account being, "hacked," both the words "unknown" and "external" seem unnecessary, weakening her statement even further. Could the word, "unknown" suggest possible masking straight away?

Anonymous said...

Could the word "external" also suggest the likelihood of it being an "internal" hacker?

Anonymous said...

I'd refrain from passing judgement since a before and after of her decades old blog isn't available.

It's one thing to state she and others might be repulsed by homosexuality (which I think she is and shouldn't deny it)to someone changing the text to a pornographic type wording that isn't her character.

It's mainstream to say everything's hunky-dory and toss around "marginalized" to keep ones job when the unknowns revolt en mass.

I watched Brokeback Mountain and was repulsed. I didn't know it was about homosexuals until half-way through it as I wasn't paying close attention.

Anonymous said...

The Wayback Machine supports NO tampering.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Absolutely brilliant analysis from the General.

Subsequently, the General had worked the Linguistic Disposition. This allows us to know:

What does the subject (Reid) think about the hacker?

We know in anonymous author identification, the author will criticize self, but gently, nicely, or, in other words, have a favorable disposition towards...


I formally promote the General to 2 stars.


Anonymous said...


Is this becoming "par for the course"? (Pun intended)

Black women claim they were discriminated against at Pennsylvania golf club


YORK, Pennsylvania -- Black people have long complained about getting pulled over by police for "driving while black," or being eyed suspiciously by store security guards for "shopping while black." Now a group of women says it got into trouble for golfing while black.

Officials at the Grandview Golf Club in York called police on the group, accusing them of playing too slowly and holding up others behind them.

No charges were filed, but the confrontation Saturday touched a raw nerve after two other somewhat similar incidents. Two black men in Philadelphia were handcuffed and arrested on April 12 after a Starbucks employee called police because they hadn't bought anything in the store. And employees of an LA Fitness in New Jersey wrongly accused a black member and his guest of not paying to work out and called police, prompting an apology from the company.

One of the black women golfers, Sandra Harrison, said they were at the second hole when representatives of the Grandview Golf Club told the group they were playing too slowly.

After the ninth hole, about an hour and 45 minutes later, they were told that they took too long a break and needed to leave.

Harrison said she and two other women left because they were so rattled by the treatment.

"It was like we were playing with targets on our backs," she said. "What other reason could there be other than we were guilty of being black while golfing?"

The club called police on the two women who remained.

typically leave the course when asked by club personnel.

"In this instance, the

Anonymous said...

members refused to leave so we called police to ensure an amicable result," the statement reads. It says the women skipped holes and took an extended break.

"During the second conversation we asked members to leave as per our policy noted on the scorecard, voices escalated, and police were called to ensure an amicable resolution," it reads.

It's part of golf etiquette that slow-moving players let groups behind them play through if they are holding things up, and often golf courses have employees who monitor the pace of play, letting golfers know when they are taking too long.

The five are part of a larger group of local women known as Sisters in the Fairway. The group has been around for at least a decade, and all of its members are experienced players who have golfed all over the country and world. They're very familiar with golf etiquette, Harrison said.

Normally clubs don't allow groups larger than four. Sandra Thompson told the York Daily Record she was the last member to arrive, and checked with a clerk to see if it was OK to join the four others, knowing a fifth member might be an issue. The clerk said it was fine, said Thompson, an attorney and president of the York branch of the NAACP

video on her Facebook page showing the interaction with club co-owner Jordan Chronister, his father, former York County Commissioner Steve Chronister, and several other white, male employees.

In it, Jordan Chronister tells the women he's been timing them and that they must leave the premises. The women respond that they took an appropriate break and that the men behind them were still on their beer break and not ready to tee off. The women are then told that the police have been called. And so they wait.

Northern York County Regional Police arrived, conducted interviews and left without charging anyone.

"We were called there for an issue, the issue did not warrant any charges," Northern York County Regional Police Chief Mark Bentzel told the York Daily Record.

JJ Chronister, who owns the club with her husband Jordan Chronister, said she hopes to meet with the group of black golfers to discuss how the club can use what happened as a learning experience and do better in the future.

Zeke the Greek said...

I agree she's lying, but I am confused about the indications that gender and number (plural) vagueness is relevant. I get why it's relevant if someone is covering for someone they should know the gender of (for example, Charlie Rogers should have known the gender of those who she claimed physically attacked her), but, if it were true she were hacked Reid wouldn't know if it's a man or woman or group or one person, so she either wouldn't know or she's masking and have to use vague, unspecific terms either way. I understand why her lack of a negative disposition is telling; I don't understand why lack of gender/number is a flag here. Or maybe it's not and I'm misreading...

Anonymous said...


I-Team: Black Men at Center of Viral Video Showing Them Getting Kicked Out of LA Fitness Detail 'Humiliating' Encounter

Statement Analysis Blog said...


gender neutral usage is appropriate.

in analysis, it is to be noted regardless as we let the statement guide us. It should be included in all analysis as matter of routine.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

This winter, I was at MSG when asked to show my ticket...again.

The problem was that I did not have it on my person, but Heather had it. The security employee told me that I needed to have it to be allowed back to the section.

I thought it best to walk with him to the seat so Heather could hand me the ticket and I could show him, rather than refusing to do so.

Our interaction was polite. As a professional, he had his job to do. As a paying customer, I wanted to see the game with my family. I had a ticket to show him. He needed to see it. I did not take offense.

He thanked me and I returned to my seat.

We were seated in an uncomfortable surrounding. It was such that it was difficult to enjoy the game.

Since the game was not crowded, I went up the stairs to where he was and asked him if we could grab "those seats over there" and nodded to the issue we were facing.

This is not something generally permitted but he allowed it.

Later he came down to the seats and joked about the crowd we moved away from.

Had I given him attitude, the outcome would have been different and we would not have enjoyed the game.

When going back and forth to concession or bathroom, we are supposed to have our own ticket to show security. its the rules. I did not follow the rule.

Security professional was black male, 40's.

"treat others the way you want to be treated" was a radical new ideology that western culture embraced which led to civility.


Bobcat said...

The important question, Peter, to me, is; did the Rangers win?

Anonymous said...

And the FBI is investigating!

Zeke the Greek said...

That makes sense, thanks!

Statement Analysis Blog said...

They lost horribly.

Nadine Lumley said...

But the bkack member had entered with his pass and had not left. They wanted him to stop his game and go get his pass from his locker and scan in again even though he had never left the secure area. Yr comparing apples to oranges

CeriB said...

How did you end up watching Brokeback Mountain without realising it was "about homosexuals?"

CeriB said...

I think it's because a person who has hacked her is automatically external and unknown. She would say "external" and "unknown" just by saying "hacker." External and unknown are unnecessary language. She needs the reader to believe that the hacker really really was external and unknown - because they were internal and known.

In Charlie Rogers case, the expectation is that she *would* know the number / gender of attackers. In this case, the expectation is that she wouldn't know. The subject trying to convince us that she doesn't know, when no such convincing is necessary, is therefore a flag for deception