Relevance is in the eye of the beholder

You be the judge:

Charlie Sykes posts this:

MONDAY, June 12, 2006, 11:43 a.m.
GOOD CATCH

Owen Robinson takes note of the curious omission in Eugene Kane's latest column. Wonder if Kane shared this detail with his editors?

What’s interesting is that the man quoted, Gibson Caldwell, is none other than Lewis Gibson Caldwell III, who is currently serving his sentence for slashing the tires of Republican Get Out The Vote vans.

I wonder why Kane didn’t bother to mention that? It is also interesting that Kane uses a different variation of his name than what his own paper had used in the past. It’s almost as if Kane didn’t want anyone to notice. Is it relevant? Well, this guy is saying how crime isn’t a problem and bemoaning “gentrification,” while serving time for his own criminal activity. Seems relevant to me.

Kane responds:

Riverwest column has blogosphere buzzing

Some folks are telling me the Gibson Caldwell I quoted in my Sunday column on Riverwest is actually Lewis Gibson Caldwell III, one of the people sentenced in the Great-Tire slashing case.

The column was about various residents' attitudes about rising incidents of crime in Riverwest; I don't think Caldwell's political involvement in the tire slashing case is relevant to the story. BUT if I had known it was him, I would have acknowledged it. He didn't give me his full name.

I get out on the streets with notebook in hand talking to real people a lot; it's the difference between me and most bloggers. It's interesting Charlie Sykes posted the first blog item about Caldwell. [Actually, it was Boots and Sabers.--Xoff]He even quoted a blogger who suggested I knew who Caldwell was and was deliberately misleading readers.

Sorry, Charlie. Don't you think if I knew who he was, I would have used a better fake name? Maybe even Liz Woodhouse?

Now comes Owen Robinson, the original poster, who defends Sykes and says:

That’s a cheap shot. Granted, a well aimed one, but still cheap and a complete non sequitur. What does Charlie Sykes have to do with the fact that Eugene either (a) completely missed the fact that his interviewee is a criminal political hack, or (b) attempted to conceal the identity of his interviewee to avoid discrediting his comments? Nothing.

The fact that Sykes used a phony name for a guest on his show seems relevant to me, even without the other embarrassing/sordid details. What do you say?