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? I 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: unequivocally 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.