WYFP with Capitol Hill Blue?

[Tamyrlin79]

Every time anyone posts an article from Capitol Hill Blue, SOME PEOPLE (not naming any names...) get their panties in a wad, and I'm just about sick of it. The recent article citing Bush as saying that the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper" is a case in point. Click on any thread about this and find any number of detractor comments, despite the fact that this particular quote was sourced THRICE before publication. That seems pretty credible to me.

While I admit that it is often gossipy information, like Bush having temper tantrums, or Bush back on the bottle, or Bush becoming isolated and hating his staff, that doesn't mean it isn't true, particularly if it is sourced. I have yet to see proof from any CHB nay-sayers that

1) CHB is consistently wrong/unreliable,
2) That CHB's sources are madeup/unreliable
3) that it knows it is wrong and publishes such wrong info anyway and
4) how any of this, if true, is distinguished from similar behavior in stories at "mainstream" outfits like the New York Times and the Washington Post. They have been wrong (WMD anyone???), made up stories (Jason Blair?), etc. Yet, I don't hear clarion calls to not believe anything and everything read from those outfits. So, why the double standard? Why should I believe them and their anonymous sources and not CHB?

So, what gives with CHB-haters out there? I give it as much credibility as I give any other news source, be they Raw Story or the NYT or MSNBC. By all means, tell me why I'm wrong to do so. And, this time, try proving it rather than just reflexively dismissing anything emanating from CHB out of hand.

Short of that, please consider letting CHB be CHB in all its gossipy goodness. If thrice-sourced quotes isn't credible enough for you, then read something else, but don't demonize those of us who find it interesting, compelling, and (gasp!) credible. And try not to call them liars if you can't back it up and show how/where they are wrong. I'm just sick of the knee-jerk demonization here anytime something from CHB makes the news. Thank you.

/Rant

P.S. Some of you might want to consider whether it is to our political benefit to have this quote and other similar info "out there". While I don't think we need to stoop to the "anything goes" level of the Right, do you not think that it does our side "good" to have the media-pundits talking up quotes like this? IF CHB were the Washington Times or any other right wing rag of dubious credence, you can bet that it would be all over Drudge within the day, and talked about on Rush Limbaugh ad nauseam by the next. Even if it isn't true, is to to our benefit to be quiet about it, or to make a stir and have a media circus and force the White House to come out with a denial of the quote? Come on people. Wake up and smell the politics. It's only our country and the "goddamned piece of paper" that embodies it that we're trying to save here.

[thebigidea]

1. why would a GOP leader give a shit about the Constitution?

and why would he talk to W of all people about it?

[grytpype]

2. That article was not sourced.

"Three totally unidentified people, not even their general job functions are known, we don't even know how they could possibly know this" told CHB that Bush said a booboo word.

Worthless. Sounds made up. Probably is made up.

All those CHB stories follow the same pattern. "Some people that I can't identify in any way told me that Bush had an angry outburst and blurted out a profanity. And no other news source has this so don't bother looking for it."

Now I'm not saying that couldn't happen or didn't happen, I am saying CHB doesn't know it happened because they made it up.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

6. Yep...right on cue. Thanks for proving the OP's point of view.

[Terran]

29. Oh bullsh*t

Answer me this: would you consider as reliable any right-leaning publication that printed similar items about politicians we like and ALWAYS failed to name sources? I'm sorry, really; I'd LOVE for CHB's stuff to be the truth, but I can't accept a news organization that can't prove they don't make shit up.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

32. Can you post an example where he's made stuff up about Herr Busch?

[Terran]

37. Don't get it, do you? That's the whole point.

NO ONE can tell whether CHB relates facts or makes stuff up. I can't prove they lie and you can't prove they tell the truth, and that's not how journalism is supposed to work, last I heard. Now how about answering the question I posed to you above?

[Tamyrlin79]

46. And that is the point.

You believe anonymous sources elsewhere, but won't believe CHB's. Why? Clearly, they trade in gossipy stories, and those, by nature, are gonna lean towards the anonymous sources, particularly in this whitehouse.

So, if you can't prove them wrong and i can't prove them right, that DOES NOT make them uncredible. It makes them indeterminative. So, rather than a "no CHB story is credible" position, wouldn't something more akin to caveat emptor (let the buyer/reader beware) be more rational? I'm not saying they are perfect. I'm saying that the off-hand dismissiveness goes too far.

[Terran]

48. I believe very few anonymous sources

and I especially don't believe any anonymous source who purports to be quoting someone word for word. If that person claims to have been in the room, I need to know who he or she was. You don't see real news agencies anonymously quoting people like that. CHB is not journalism, by definition. Journalism is factual, not "indeterminative"; gossip is "indeterminative". I don't do gossip, and I WILL dismiss it off-handedly.

[Brotherjohn]

70. I don't believe any anonymous sources when nothing else backs them up.

Stories about unnamed sources in the WH revealing Valerie Plame's status as a CIA operative were backed up by multiple reporters telling the same story (and eventually, an investigation and testimony backing it up, and the actual fact that she WAS a CIA operative, and that her cover WAS blown).

Stories using anonymous sources to claim that the U.S. knew that the Niger-uranium claims were bogus were eventually backed up by numerous government documents, including repeated warnings that the WH received not to use the information, the revelation that the main evidence was in fact bogus, and the eventual coming forward of the main person making that claim (Joe Wilson).

Stories using anonymous sources to claim that Iraq was importing aluminum tubes for use in a WMD program were eventually discredited because the sources proved to be untrustworthy (and the tubes were actually shown to be unusable for uranium enrichment).

Bob Woodward claiming someone in the WH said something controversial is NOT anonymous sourcing. He IS the source.

Paul O'Niell claiming someone in the WH said something controversial is NOT anonymous sourcing. He IS the source.

An anonymously sourced story usually has to lead to something for it to become newsworthy. It has to be backed up. The only way to back up something somebody "said" is to release a tape, or at least to have one of the witnesses come forward. In the latter case, it would still result in nothing happenning, because it would merely end in a case of "you say this / I say that".

You argue below for the "issue" to be pushed, for the WH to be pressed about this rumor.

Unless there is a tape, all that would happen would be Snotty Scotty saying "I refuse to dignify such rumors with a response".

But there isn't a tape. So it's not news.

[Tamyrlin79]

76. Just because you know what scotty would say

doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked. I'd ask it for Joe Q. Public's sake, not the White House's. Getting them to "not dignify it" still means they have to address the issue. The point in such an effort would be to keep them on the defensive, not to prove it correct or incorrect.

[Brotherjohn]

79. There's plenty of factually verified subjects upon which to press the WH.

Ones which deal with life and death, and with war and peace, and with accusations of actual acts by the WH that are illegal.

If you were on the WH press corps, you would be free to ask about an off the record comment anonymously sourced. I'm saying, however, that as a news story, unless there was corroboration, it would be instantly off the radar. Period. And if every member of the WH pressed Scotty about it, if they had no corroboration other than an anonymous report on a web site,they would (rightfully this time) be laughed out of the room.

If you’re going to publish a story that someone made an inflammatory statement, behind closed doors, off the record, and anonymously source it… it will be DOA as news unless you have a tape (or at least until a source comes out).

It’s not like you’re publishing a story that someone diverted funds to an illegal operation, or distorted known intelligence to start a war… and sourced it anonymously. Those are things that can be checked out, and pursued, via a variety of routes, without revealing the source. They can (and often do) lead to something.

If your story is that someone “said something”, the only way to further verify it is to reveal the sources (in which case it’s still just going to be “he said / she said”), or reveal a tape of the statement. Otherwise, the story ends there… with the allegation.

This isn’t about the usefulness of anonymous sources. It’s about the corroboration of anonymous sources (or lack thereof).

[Tamyrlin79]

90. yeah, dull boring facts that get asked about every damn day.

Why is this Party so damned shy of political fireworks? And all it would take is, what, ten seconds of question time? Seems worth it to me...

As for stories that someone "said something" vs.stories that they are doing something illegal, the former can only be verified by participants in the room, whereas the other can be verified. Do you not publish a story simply because you weren't in or dont' have a tape of the meeting? If you interview three people about what happened in a meeting, do you not believe their account, if they all agree and their accounts concur with each other? If the FBI interviews three witnesses present in a meeting where a crime was plotted, can the conspirators not be charged with conspiracy based on those three witnesses' testimony, even if their names are withheld for witness protection purposes? Hell, even treason only takes two witnesses to charge.

So, why shouldn't I believe CHB in this case? They've got three "witnesses" who agree that a statement was said in a meeting in which all were present. Why are they so uncredible as to be dismissed when they report this?

[Brotherjohn]

95. Again... AGAIN... because of CHB's track record.

I have repeatedly read claims of inflammatory statements coming out of the WH by CHB.

Not a single one of them has ever panned out, been revealed to be true. They all have remained, to this day, simply "claims" made by CHB.

And they are not even claims of anything illegal going on. Yes, it would be morally reprehensible for a president to say the Constitution is just a piece of paper, but all it would prove would be that he's a neocon asshole with a temper (that's news?). If there was an actual tape of it, it could influence voters. But otherwise, we'd look ridiculous even asking it without further verification.

You attempt to make a parallel with the FBI questioning 3 conspirators. But that is no parallel at all. Besides the fact that there's an actual crime involved (and not just someone being an asshole), if the FBI has a reason to question 3 conspirators, there is usually much more feeding into it than a simple statement by one that someone said something. There is usually physical evidence, surveillance, and even is there is not, there is intensive, controlled questioning and testimony, on the record, and the results of all evidence will eventually be judged in a court of law.

Here, we have a reporter simply saying 3 guys said something. And adding more anonymous sources does not help his case. If he accumulated 100 anonymous sources, imagine how ridiculous that would look.

The guy has no track record. None. If ever one of these inside quotes of his panned out, there might be some reaosn to trust this. But none ever has, and there is no reason.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

98. sure. Just like the fact he lives in a bubble So it was wrong? Until Time

newseek, US News, USA Today, WaPo FOLLOWED what CHB wrote months earlier?

Great logic.

It almost sounds as though you are protecting the president.

[Brotherjohn]

103. To write a story that he "lives in a bubble" or that he "has a temper"...

... is not news. Those aren't "scoops" and impart no investigative journalistic credibility to CHB. They're just "public interest stories" about how we have an asshole for president.

They're things everybody already knows, but that, yes, the MSM was too cowardly to write about in the atmosphere we had when 9-11 was still fresh, and we were "at war". But they're merely observations on the man.

The only thing CHB claimed to have in the way of scoops are these "inside" quotes, which are always over the top, and always anonymous.

Of COURSE a little web log that thrives on controversial stories and "inside" quotes (which again, are never verified... CAN never be verified) is going to be the first to write about stuff like this.

"Protecting the president". Nice. Read any of my posts on the president. Ever. Then accuse me of being a troll. I can't even stomach listening to two seconds of the man on the radio.

I'm just saying this guy's "scoops" have never panned out. Never. I'd LOVE to have reliable information that Bush said such a thing (or is drinking again, etc., etc), but I and others here are rightfully skeptical, based on CHBs track record. If you don't back up this kind of "he said" claim with a tape (or at the very least a named source), then it will always remain a rumor.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

80. Gee...I seem to remember that some of the mainstream media outlets.....

...have written stories about Herr Busch's mood swings/anger, and they wrote their stories some time AFTER CHB erote about it.

If CHB wrote about that subject first does that mean CHB should be taken more seriously, or less seriously?

[Terran]

99. Produce links

to any mainstream stories that compare remotely to CHB's claims, complete with similar quotations.

Never mind, you won't be able to.

[Brotherjohn]

104. Exactly. To quote "insiders" saying he's binge drinking, or denigrates...

... the Constitution by saying "it's just a piece of paper"... those are extraordinary claims unlike anything in any MSM story I have ever read. That's not to say they aren't TRUE. But that is to say there isn't any real hard evidence that they are.

Because the MSM later comes along and publishes stories "similar" to CHB in that they say the president "has a temper", or the president "lives in a bubble"... those are just commentary on the man. They're long public interest pieces that paint him in a not-too-flattering light.

But they aren't hard news, they aren't scoops, and they ARE the kinds of thing that OF COURSE a small web log that leans towards the controversial and critical is going to "report" on long before the MSM.

We here at DU (and many left-leaning blogs) have been saying Bush is a hot-tempered, uneducated, inarticulate asshole (who's probably off the wagon) for years. But that doesn't make it reliable reporting.

[0007]

62. Seems to me that Bob Woodward and a whole bunch more

are in the category as Capital Hills Blue. So let's yap yap yap and yappity some more.

[Brotherjohn]

72. Bob Woodward doesn't say "I heard somebody said something".

Bob Woodward says "I myself heard them say something (and he usually has it on tape, in the course of an interview, with access). It's NOT anonymous.

And if you're going to talk about Plame-gate (in which his behavior has been less than stellar), he was privy to anonymous sources on the matter, but never published a story on it... and multiple other reporters had the same story about what those anonymous sources were saying, and facts have shown that what they were saying was true (that valerie Plame worked for the CIA).

Plus, Woodward has a track record that gives him some credibility. CHB does not.

[400Years]

75. Well we know for a fact that NYT lies to our faces

and then pretends not to so NYT has even less credibility than CHB.

That pretty much holds true for the entire mainstream media.

[400Years]

77. Well we know for a fact that NYT lies to our faces

and then pretends not to so NYT has even less credibility than CHB.

That pretty much holds true for the entire mainstream media.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

83. Who told Woodward about the alleged "slam dunk" quote that.....

...Woodward attributed to Tenet? Did Woodward ever state who told him that? Has anyone asked him if he hasd a tape of THAT conversation?

And how about the quote Woodward attributed to a dying Bill Casey who was no longer capable of talking to anyone according to his family? No tape exists of THAT conversation.

Woodward has NO credibility. Period. He lied about certain facts regarding Watergate, he lied about the quotes he attributed to Bill Casey, and IMHO, he lied about the "slam dunk" quote he attributed to Tenet.

And as far as Watergate goes, you tell me where he got his sources in his vast year and a half of work experience in the field of journalism.

A guy with his background...Yale, NROTC, Yale secret society member, officer in the US Navy with heavy-duty clearances, and briefing officer in the Pentagon...is an intelligence operative. Period. In fact, it has been stated very clearly that Woodward is/was an operative with the Office of Naval Intelligence. IMHO, he was planted at the Post under ONI's equivalent of the CIA's "Operation Mockingbird", and has worked hand-in-glove for the last 40 years with those that are currently in control of our government.

One man's credibility is another man's bad smell.

[Brotherjohn]

94. We KNOW Woodward had access, at least. We KNOW he was in a position...

... to get such information, at least. We know nothing of the sort about CHB.

His motives aside, your own version of his background reveals he is, at least in a significantly better position to know what is going on in the WH.

This is not to say we should automatically trust what he says. As I post many times here, anonymous sourcing is all fine and dandy, but if that's all the story ever amounts to (as is the case with these repeated stories from CHB), it will go absolutely nowhere. That is simply fact. It won't.

For all Woodward has ever reported on, much of the anonymous sourcing has been verified through other sources, and much else has been debunked. It could be taken somewhere, further researched, and verified.

But if you're talking about simply something someone "said", it can't really be carried any further, unless someone produces a tape. It's simply an allegation of a statement, and simply something offensive and inflammatory, not illegal or in any way revealing (of anything other than the man has a temper and is a conservative boob, which we all knew).

Woodward saying someone said Tenet told Bush it was a "slam-dunk" case may very well have been a plant... (but if memory serves me correctly, Tenet may havem at least implicitly if not explicitly, verified saying it). In any case, all it has amounted to is one tid-bit in the folklore of what led to the war. It partially allows Bush to claim he was "misled' by the CIA (which may have been it's reason if it was a fabricated quote), but it is one of many many pieces of evidence pointing one way and the other as to whether the WH knew before-hand that the intel they were peddling was faulty before the war. It didn't stand on it's own as the only part of the puzzle. If it did, we wouldn't even remember it.

In any case, what I was referring to was Woodward's first-hand accounts. Someone brought up Woodward's reporting, so I simply made the point that there's not a clean parallel there due to his proven access and his track record... which you may debate, but at least he HAS one. CHB does not.

[mattclearing]

8. Seconded.

Seriously...there are plenty of reputable publications that would print this if someone gave it to them. The fact that no one is doing so should tell you something.

[librechik]

67. yeah--the Guardian or AFP or the Mirror would have had it

by now if there was anyway to source the thing. That headline went EVERYWHERE so you know they have heard this story.

So it's unconfirmable. Yet I still believe it.

remember, "believe" is what you do when you know in your heart something is true, yet have no facts to support it.

[mattclearing]

88. Yeah...journalists can't print that.

They need real sources.

[Stuckinthebush]

3. This has been going on for a while now

Many have been adamant that CHB is unreliable. Other than that, I have no clue. I'm not saying it is true or false, but I'm with you, I'd like to know why.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FreedomAngel82]

14. That's ridiculous

That's purely ridiculous. Just because one person doesn't like another place doesn't mean they're rightwing. Give me a freakin break. Maybe you're rightwing. :sarcasm:

[mattclearing]

23. That's bullshit. And you should apologize.

I've stated repeatedly that my problem with Capitol Hill Blue is that they are the only people with these stories, when other, actually reputable publications would gladly print them if they could substantiate them. The fact that the other, reputable publications do not should tell you something.

You just readily defend that which you want to believe. That doesn't make it true.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. Apologize to who for what? Take a reading comprehension course.

[Terran]

31. You just accused a whole bunch of honest DUers of being

right-wing defenders. That's what for.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

89. No. I stated VERY clearly, "a few". It's not my fault that so many....

...fish skipped the bait entirely and just jumped straight into the boat.

Your post is a fine example of a lack of reading comprehension. But, don't feel bad....you have a LOT of company of the knee-jerk variety.

[Terran]

100. "a bunch" or "a few", it doesn't matter

and since your wretched post got deleted by the mods for the tripe it was, I can't verify that you actually said "few", but I don't remember that. If questioning my reading comprehension is your best argument, then you better give it up and go home.

[mattclearing]

34. Apologize for calling everyone who disagrees with you a rightwinger.

Which, by the way, is against DU rules.

[FreedomAngel82]

36. Read your post number four

You accused people who don't trust Capitol Blue Hill of possibly being rightwingers themselves. That's uncalled for and quite rude.

[Walt Starr]

5. There was not source cited in the CHB article

CHB is a tinfoilhat nutball site. It never sources its stories and Doug Thompson is as paranoid as it gets.

The only things consistent about CHB is it consistently gets the stories wrongs and it consistently makes shit up.

The easiest way to tell it's a nutball site is that stories sourced from them are NOT allowed in LBN here.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

11. Just WTF are you accusing me of?

Doug Thompson is as far from a "journalist" as it gets. He's a nutball and always has been even back in the days when he carried water for Freepers about Clinton being a rapist!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. Is there something you didn't understand about my post, Walt?.....

...I thought I made myself pretty damn clear.

As far as what this guy said about Clinton nearly 7 years ago, even folks like him can come to the realization that what's occupying the White House now is not even close to what this country needs. Even he can recognize fascist scum when he sees it.

[Walt Starr]

22. Yeah, right

BTW, Batboy was his source on this article.

:eyes:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

28. I'll take that as a non-response to my request for valid information.

[FreedomAngel82]

15. Why don't you yawn yourself?

People can state their opinions or not. Read the original post and than see if you're still yawning. They were ASKING WHY poeple are against Capitol BlueHill and people are answering. Don't like it don't read it.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

21. Yawn. Ho-hum.....

...if you don't like MY posts, don't respond.

[FreedomAngel82]

39. You're wrong of accusing people

I don't trust Capitol Blue Hill so are you going to accuse me of being a rightwinger too? You need to get off it. Maybe you're the rightwinger eh? How do you like being accused? We're not like republicans who are lock step in center with the party line. Give me a break.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

87. My original post stated quite clearly "a few"....evidently, the mods...

...objected to even that very small number of people.

Some of you people are ridiculously predictable.

[Caution]

7. Here's why I think you are wrong to do so

This is my opinion only. You posted your rant, here is mine. I won't bother responding to replies because we have both made up our minds on this issue. But you asked why.

Just because someone says something is "thrice" sourced doesn't make it true. The NYT and MSNBC actually have this process called "the editorial process" by which the editor confirms the contents of stories. Is this process always accurate? NO. (Judy Miller for example). However CHB has no editorial process, no track record of reliability, and no credibility as a legitimate news source.

The article you mention is based solely on hearsay and on unnamed supposedly sourced hearsay. In other words it has NO reliability whatsoever. Only the reader's ability to "trust" CHB and this basically only comes about because it "sounds" plausible. Just like the arguments for the "theory" of Intelligent Design "sound" plausible.

Quote someone on the record. Have other legitimate newsites pick it up. Then they can begin to get something like credibility.

Just because what CHB is saying sounds plausible or because it validates our fears about the idiot-in-chief doesn't make it true. Maybe it is, I don't know. But I'm certainly not going to point friends and family to it in an attempt to sway them away from supporting Bush.

If you wish to go ahead and keep posting their crap feel free to do so. Many of us are against the usage of CHB in the LBN forum and as a reliable news source, I don't question your right to post it just where it is posted. It's not LBN and never has been.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

13. How about telling us when CHB has been wrong? Seems to me if you....

...folks are so bent out of shape about CHB that you should at least be able to point out some examples.

[Walt Starr]

16. Sweet raisin Danish, here we go again

Why the fuck whenever a CHB groupie asks that do we have to go back and proive the shit again and againa and again.

Get a clue and do a fucking search on GD. They've been debunked numerous times here.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

24. Nice way to be personally abusive, Walt....

...that does a lot to prove how much you believe in the Freedom of Speech, doesn't it?

Tell you what, if you've got something of value, post it...otherwise take a chill pill.

[Walt Starr]

26. Do a search

CHB has been proven to be a crap site sellinig crap to people who want to read crap numerous times in GD.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. Right. You launch your personally abusive attack, and now....

...you want me to supply the answers you should be posting in response to my request??

You're a real card, Walt. LOL.

[Walt Starr]

33. Dude, I am sick to death in doing your research for you

This issue has come up time and again. It's a crap gossip site that just makes shit up. It's been debunked numerous times on DU. I am NO doing your homework for you.

[Tamyrlin79]

52. It's not his research, it is YOURS.

Look, if someone posts something on here, and you disagree, it is YOUR responsibility to back up your position with the research in question. Apparently, YOU have read the research in question, YOU have easier access to gathering/recalling where it exists, and YOU are the one citing it in your comments. If there is research/info that backs up your position, then TAKE THE TIME TO PONY IT UP OR DON'T FRIGGIN POST ABOUT HOW "WRONG" SOMETHING IS!!!!

Asking for others to research something that proves your position is like turning in a research paper without citations and telling your professor to fill it in.

[mattclearing]

57. Walt's right. Everytime this CHB clown posts something,

it ignites this same flame war. I don't see why y'all keep wanting to fight it.

[Beelzebud]

60. What exactly is there to research?

There is no way to verify a rumor like this. Which is why some of us can see it for what it is: Bullshit.

[Tamyrlin79]

66. CHB says they verified it with three sources.

So, if it is bullshit, then it is sourced bullshit. My question is why I shouldn't believe them.

And there is plenty to research. Walt seems to think there is, anyway. Substantively, how is their editorial process substandard or sub-par? Why are their anonymous sources not to be believed but the NYT is? Is there anything in the past which taints Doug Thompson's journalistic credibility? What? The detractors could point to this sort of information that would be persuasive here. But I haven't seen any such thing yet... other than more "it's just crap" or "it's just bullshit" knee-jerk crap.

[mattclearing]

113. Yeah, three blind quotes.

If someone with access to the President really wanted to get this story out, you'd think they'd pick a better circulated publication, or one with a better reputation.

How come it isn't in The Nation, HuffPost, Salon, or half of the UK rags? Surely any of them would be happy to print this if they could substantiate it.

Face it, CHB is full of shit.

[Tamyrlin79]

35. Proven??? All I've ever seen is crap posts

talking about how its such a crap site, with no substantiation. Just declaratory "CHB is shit". Sorry, I don't buy it just because you say so.

[Beelzebud]

40. "Sorry, I don't buy it just because you say so."

That's really funny, because that is the same attitude I take towards CHB.

Like I said. There are plenty of REAL factual stories that show how bad Bush is. Why the need for unsubstantiated rumor, when there are plenty of REAL issues?

[Tamyrlin79]

53. Well, what you said wasn't thrice-sourced, was it?

Unsubstantiated? Try "thrice-sourced rumor". That's how I view this one. And, yes, I do consider the fact that our president views the constitution that creates his office and that he is sworn to uphold as so much trash a "REAL" issue.

[Walt Starr]

42. There's a function here called "search"

It's your friend.

[Tamyrlin79]

54. don't you have to be a donor to use it, though?

Seems like I've tried before and not been able to utilize it for some reason.

[mattclearing]

73. Perhaps you should donate. n/t

[Tamyrlin79]

91. Nah. don't hang out here enough.

And don't care to search DU enought to send them money to do it. I'll spend what little I have contributing to candidates. And, besides, DU banned a good friend of mine for (what I think was) no good reason, so I won't be giving them a dime on principle.

[mattclearing]

92. Right. Nice principles. Freeload and flame away. n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

41. So why don't you point out when they're right?

Point to stories that they've been right about where they reported about it.

[SidDithers]

109. As the esteemable Will Pitt has posted so eloquently...

Terrence J. Wilkerson.

You can research the sorry tale yourself.

Anyone else find it ironic that a poster named Media_Lies_Daily is so vociferously defending a previously discredited media site?

Sid

Edit: In case you won't do your own reaserch.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x16022

Might also be spelled as Terrance.

[rinsd]

10. CHB is a nutjob site...I have it thrice sourced right on this thread!

"Wake up and smell the politics"

I think by and large what "we" are and what "we" strive to be is directly counter to that.

[FreedomAngel82]

12. That's what I do

I read something and at least keep it in mind. Malloy said he trust's them but it takes me a while to trust someone.

[Warpy]

17. It's a gossip sheet

It's loads of fun to read and we'd all like to believe it's the truth, but there's a very good chance it may be fantasy.

Read it, enjoy it, but be careful about believing it.

Oh, but I'd love for that stuff to be true....

[Walt Starr]

20. Just like The Enquirer and Weekly World News

No difference at all. Gossip rags intended to titillate with no real information involved.

BTW, shhhhhhhh, Batboy was the source for the Bush statement in the article cited. ;)

[Beelzebud]

19. I base my opinion off their track record.

They are a gossip page. Thats it.

I hate when right-wingers point out stories on newsmax as if it were a news sorce.

I'm not going to let my liberal friends off the hook because they want to use an equivelant to newsmax, to make themselves feel better.

There is plenty of REAL news stories to make Bush look bad. No need for the rumor mill...

[Tamyrlin79]

38. And I think that rumor mills and whisper campaigns have their place.

They've certainly worked for the right. Hell, at least we can claim our rumors are thrice-sourced.

[Beelzebud]

44. I guess if you don't mind adopting their tactics...

Personally I'd rather we win on the truth. I'd rather we win on the issues. I'd rather we win on the facts.

[Tamyrlin79]

55. And, you don't know that this isn't the truth... OR a fact.

And that's my point. All the more reason to make an issue of it to get the WH to confirm or deny the rumor.

[Beelzebud]

59. This doesn't pass my bullshit-o-meter. Sorry.

No one "debunks" newsmax, and they print shit every day.

CHB is no different.

Let's put it this way. They aren't worth the trouble of debunking.

You can read it, and believe it all you want. Just don't be suprised when a few of us see it for what it is, and call you on it.

[Tamyrlin79]

68. And that's my point!

Why do you feel the need to "call us on it" if it "isn't worth the trouble of debunking"??? And why don't you think that we also 'see it for what it is'? (and what, exactly, do you think it is????)

And WHY isn't it worth the trouble? I keep asking, but none of the critics out there seem to have an answer to what about CHB is so uncredible as to be contemptible, which is what it gets from people around here. I just want to know what makes it deserve such scorn?

[Beelzebud]

69. For the same reasons I didn't believe all the rumors about Clinton.

I'm not naive, and when I see bullshit, I say so.

Going by your logic, the rumors about Clinton being a rapist must be true, because more than one source said so.

Hillary must have had Vince Foster killed because more than 1 person said so.

[rinsd]

78. "Hillary must have had Vince Foster killed"

Well Dan Burton conducted extensive ballistic experiments in his backyard, so it HAS to be true.

[Tamyrlin79]

84. That is not what I said.

And those rumors had a different context. When did CHB become a shill for the left? Do they have a political agenda like the right wing spin machine of the 90's that makes their report suspect? If the Vince Foster rumor had been verified by three anonymous sources in the room when clinton (allegedly) pulled the trigger, would you believe it then? In criminal law, we call those 'witnesses'. There was never any such thing with Vince Foster. yet, here we have three witnesses to a statement affirming that it was said, attesting that the deed was done. Why shouldn't I believe that?

You didn't believe those rumors in the 90's because they weren't credible. So, my question is why is this one not credible? Why is CHB not credible when they report something like this? Is the author tainted? is their editorial process somehow lacking? What?????

[Beelzebud]

86. Back in the 90's CHB was spreading these rumors!!!

[Caution]

81. There is a rumor out there that we never landed on the moon

Heck that rumor has more to substantiate it then "three sources" ! It's still complete and total bullshit.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. Ha! CHB. Good for a laugh and entertainment, Bad for Factual Data LOL

I enjoy reading CHB. I like fiction.

T'would be a cold day in hell though before you could muster up enough argument to convince me they are legit lol.

and P.S. to you to. Wake up and smell reality bub. All of us here know what we are trying to save, so your self-righteous preachy tone ain't really gonna impact anybody. We know our mission, and we know it is best served with facts than fiction.

[Tamyrlin79]

43. And my point is that you haven't shown that this isn't "fact"

Something isn't "fiction" just because you call it so.

And as for self-righteous preachy tones, right back at ya, bub. That's how I perceive all this "don't believe CHB" business: Liberal "We are too good to believe that" Self-righteousness. And, yes, I choose to preach against it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

45. You even proved it in your OP

I challenge you to prove to US how it is fact.

FACT is, it isn't. 90% of the time it is crap. It also isn't fact because you call it so, bub. What I'm curious about, is why are you so passionate about the CHB issue? Does it affect you somehow? You're not a sponsor or something are you?

[Tamyrlin79]

47. I'm not trying to prove anything.

If you want proof, call up CHB and ask the sources.

I'm just saying that in any article in any other publication, three sources saying the same thing, even if anonymous, is credible. The same exact article in the NYT would not get the same treatment. Why?

So, you have judged CHB "crap" 90% of the time. Which 90%? Again, I could say the same thing about any edition of the NYT or most of what airs on CNN. How is CHB any different? Why is it singled out in a way that these others are not?

I'm passionate about it because I'm sick of every time I read something on there and find it credible, and then post it, people (like yourself) dismiss it as "crap" with no justification at all.

And, for the record, no, no relationship with CHB, other than occasional reader.

[400Years]

50. I have yet to see anybody prove CHB is pure fiction, it may be but

aside from accusations, I have yet to see anybody here prove it is fiction.

ps. I don't care if it is or not, but I would like to see people back up thier claims.

[Walt Starr]

64. You're asking to prove a negative which is a logical fallacy

The claimant with the inital positive assertion is under the burden of proof in logical discourse.

That means, Doug Thompson needs to name some sources, or at least their positions wihtin the administration. He never does it and his bullshit is never picked up by reliable sources.

[400Years]

71. No, all they would have to do is prove CHB's positive assertions false

that is big difference than trying to prove a negative.

As far as reliable sources. Are there any?
The only people I trust are the folks over at Democracy Now and a few others but
as far as the WashPost or NYT I trust them less than CHB because I know they have
lied.

I tend to think the CHB stuff is made up but I don't go around claiming I know that
for a fact.

[Tamyrlin79]

74. And your positive assertion is that "it is fiction"

Can be proven or disproven, too, no?

I think that your "burden of proof" in this case is too high. How can you expect him to name positions in the administration/gov't when that would be all that's necessary to identify them. I doubt if you'd be satisfied with "a senior administration official" or "a senior Republican in congress" as the cite, either. You want a burden of proof that would make stories like this impossible to get.

If you want to then criticize CHB, then it falls to criticizing their editorial process that might allow for fake sources and quotes to "get through" or attacking the author's credibility, which I haven't seen a basis for either. If their process is good, then why wouldn't any article published be credible, even if anonymously sourced?

[BuyingThyme]

49. Three unnamed sources is the same as

no sources at all.

[Tamyrlin79]

56. I disagree.

One might be, but three? come on. At what point do you consider the information credible if
you can only get unnamed sources to admit to the information. One, no, probably not. Two, maybe, but three? Each one makes it more credible if you ask me.

[0rganism]

51. Double standards vis a vis accountability: the Jayson Blair example

> So, why the double standard? Why should I believe them and their anonymous sources and not CHB?

When Jayson Blair was found to be a plagiarist and a fraud:
1) Kurtz of the WP confronted the NYT regarding Blair's stories
2) Blair resigned his position on the NYT staff
3) Both Blair's managing editor and executive editor also resigned
4) The remaining editorial staff and the ombudsman had to offer both an apology for and an investigation of Blair's actions to their readers

Has CHB done anything to demonstrate that they enforce a similar degree of journalistic ethics, however low the bar? I'm really asking this question, not just posing it as a rhetorical device. It's possible the folks at CHB do have some accountability and I haven't heard about it. I would not want to make the mistake of decrying them outright without some notion of how they handle inaccuracies when such errors are brought to their attention.

Nor am I saying that ANY media source should be regarded as credible across the board. Particularly in these dangerous times of media consolidation and overt GOP propaganda, the "mainstream" corporate media has proven itself to be unreliable and irresponsible on many occasions, and does much to wither its own reputation worldwide. What we should be asking of any source is, "What have they done lately to earn our trust?"

Whether the NYT and MSNBC have done much or little to reduce your (really, our) trust, what has CHB done to gain it?

[Tamyrlin79]

63. Re: Jayson Blair

So, when was Doug Thompson proven a plagiarist and a fraud, or accused of anything that taints his reporter credibility? Such information is what I'm calling on CHB critics to pony up... or shut up.

As far as policies at CHB that demonstrate their journalistic ethics, that's my question: Would those who don't want to believe CHB please point out why their process is flawed and cannot be believed? I have yet to hear any argument that their internal standards and procedures are sub-par or what have you. Everything appears credible and above-board, from all I can tell. So, why shouldn't I believe them? Why does their process not equate with the NYT or any other media outfit?

[rinsd]

65. A brief explanation......

CHB wasn't always popular with DUers until they were writing about Bush. Same thing with the National Enquirer.

Some of us remember the vicious crap put out by both about the Clintons and I'm a bit leery about a source that seems to serve up the "red meat" to which ever crowd is more ravenous at the moment.

"So, why shouldn't I believe them?"

You are free to believe what ever you wish. Just be aware that anonymous sourcing on the internet is more likely to be false than true.

[mattclearing]

112. After you read this linked post, keep defending Thompson.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5579316&mesg_id=5581271

This guy just out to trash talk whoever is in power. Jayson Blair had superiors and editors. Thompson has only himself to answer to.

If he were a real journalist, he'd find he can't back up his reports enough to print them in a reputable newspaper.

[Brotherjohn]

58. Anonymous sources are fine, but nothing they ever publish along these...

... lines (ridiculously inflammatory quotes attributed to bush et al) ever pans out. It's merely a matter of looking at their track record. These kinds of statements attributed to Bush are never verified by anyone other than them saying "He said it. Really!". And they are always over-the-top statements that are even hard to believe coming from Bush. The kind of statements that we would all LOVE to have him be caught on tape saying (and thus, a built-in audience for CHB).

When Drudge or any other rag publishes something really astounding, if nothing else comes out to back it up (independently) within a few days, it is rightfully, thrown into the wastebin of "journalism".

If other sources and/or publications reveal corroborrating (sp?) information, then the story gets more credibility and stays alive.

But that's a big part of it, too. This isn't even a "story". It is, simply, gossip about what someone allegedly "said". To report that someone said something obnoxious (even horrendous for a president to say, albeit somewhat believable for this one) behind closed doors is simply trading in gossip... unless you can back it up. It's not like a story dealing with an investigation, when a source opens doors to something more relevant and concrete. Even if true, it's just relating a temper tantrum (second-hand, via anonymous sources). Call that news if you will, but most people don't consider it newsworthy.

When Bob Woodward or Paul O'Niell publish controversial statements made by White House officials in a book, they are publishing first-hand information, and they are themselves the source, and that makes it more newsworthy. When Dick Cheney says "Fuck You" to a senator on the Senate floor, and it's caught on tape (or at least by a bunch of Senators who verify it), THAT is more newsworthy.

When a reporter publishes information on a White House leak sourced anonymously, or a story on aluminum tubes sourced anonymously, THAT is also newsworthy because it directly relates to questions of war and peace... of legality and illegality.

This is just an anonymous story about an inflammatory quote, by a reporter who has no track record of any of such (repeated) stories by him ever being backed up by anything other than same stories.

[Beelzebud]

61. I just had 3 anonymous sources, from within the CHB staff, inform me

that most of what they print, at CHB, is made-up bullshit.

Prove my sources wrong.

[Caution]

82. Hey, I just had three anonymous sources tell me the same thing!

Now that story is appearing in multiple venues too! It *MUST* be TRUE!!!!! This is HUGH!!!!11111!!!!!!

[Beelzebud]

85. Yep! We should start our own news service!

We'll call it "Capitol News Hill Max Blue"!!

:D

[jim3775]

93. Doug Thompson: Fun and Games With the Democrats

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/rant.asp?offset=20&ID=254

Somebody in charge of the Democratic Party and Al Gore's laughable Presidential campaign has their head up a well-known posterior orifice.


The Dems will open their convention with a speech from admitted adulterer and known sexual predator William Jefferson Clinton.

...

This is the same Al Gore who has backed, without question, the antics of Clinton, the man who porked White House intern Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, the same Al Gore who looked the other way when Clinton lied about that affair before Federal Court and the same Al Gore who willingly participated in the "anything for cash" fundraising activities that violated just about every election law on the books.


Strange year for politics. The Republicans welcome an openly gay Congressman and The Rock to their podium and the Dems won't let a woman who knows Hugh Hefner before the audience.


Now we know why the symbol of the Democratic Party is a jackass.

WMFP, MFP is that Dough Thompson posted article after article on his formerly republican website about how Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broderick and all of that other bullshit that he was accused of in the 90's and the freepers were stupid enough to believe it. Now he has realized that there is a new audience he can trick.

[mattclearing]

96. Can you do me a favor and re-post this as a new topic?

I want all those Capitol Hill Blue lovers who step up to defend this "journalist" to see it and continue to defend him.

[rinsd]

111. It was the same way with the National Enquirer....

People wanted to run with the Bush boozing story claiming all sorts of credibility for NE based on their fear of lawsuits etc. Of course they forgot how vicious NE was to Bill, Hillary and particularly Chelsea.

[RedEarth]

97. WDWYFPM

Translated...what does WYFP mean?

[lectrobyte]

102. I think it means "What's your freakin' Problem" nt

[Lerkfish]

101. sorry to burst your outrage bubble, I WANT to believe everythign CHB

reports, in fact I've even stated it SOUNDS about right.
but the difference is the same stories never appear anywhere else.
as far as CHB saying they checked with three sources, since those sources are unnamed, we don't know whether those sources are valid or doing more than passing on what they've heard. And, if those sources are valid, other news organizations would be hearing from them as well.

there's a difference between a scoop (which means getting the news BEFORE others get it), and being the only news organ to post hearsay.

[Brotherjohn]

105. That's the best synopsis of this whole thing I've read on this thread!

"There's a difference between a scoop (which means getting the news BEFORE others get it), and being the only news organ to post hearsay."

A scoop IS getting the news BEFORE others get it... it goes somewhere and is further verified.

An anonymously sourced quote that can never be verified is no different from what the Weekly World News does. It is, merely, heresay. Espacially since the "story" is merely about an inflammatory quote. It's not as if anything actually happened.

And as I mention above in posts this morning, publishing your musings on how the man lives in a bubble and has temper tantrums months or years before Newsweek or Time do is NOT a scoop, and says nothing whatsoever about journalistic credibility and sources. It simply says you're more willing criticize the guy with an unflattering story about his behavior.

[Lerkfish]

110. thanks. I think people confuse the terms.

"scoop" -- getting the news first
"exclusive" -- the source has selectively agreed to talk with you only. However, note this means the source identifies themselves, otherwise the exclusivity does not benefit the source (who in return might request more time for explanation, etc.)
"hearsay"-- posting what someone heard and then told you. Unless others heard it and are WILLING TO GO ON RECORD as hearing it, it becomes only hearsay and is unprovable, EVEN IF ACCURATE.


(corrected a misspelling)

[yodermon]

106. Forget CHB. Voice of the White House is much better.

CHB sux bigtime, man. Check out Voice of the White House!:
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2010.htm

The Voice of the White House

December 5, 2005: “Being in the White House these days is akin to being on the RMS Titanic just after she ran over the iceberg. Bush in coming apart, almost literally, Cheney is behaving like a turpentined Chow and there is the distinct probability that Jack Abramoff will snitch on many Republicans for taking large bribes, not to mention the even greater probability that Fat Karl the Eunuch will be indicted for more lies. These evil portents have everyone here either working up a resume or whining that Bush is being unfairly attacked by evil left wing nasties, like the New York Times and other inconsequential papers.

Neil Bush, a crooked whacko is now running around with Dr. Moon (who declared himself Emperor of the World in the Capitol lobby with a number of Republican Congressmen in awestruck attendance) and the Bush people are wincing in anticipation of the fall out. Neil is a stupid crook who has lived off his rich family’s name for years and has about as much character as Brother George, the Beloved of God.

The spin doctors come and go here and some have suggested attacking Syria, others want us to threaten North Korea with bombing and yet others recently suggested that Bush go to Iraq for Christmas and personally rescue soldiers “injured” in a fake bomb attack. Just imagine, ketchup all over his military flak vest! I hope if they pull this one, they don’t use Heinz ketchup.

Three more years of this is not good for the country but Bush will never leave on his own and no sane Beltway person wants the sadistic and nutty Cheney in the Oval Office.

If Bill Clinton ran again, he would be a cinch to get in. Not so his wife who is as mean as a broke-backed snake.

Someone came into the office two days ago and threw a roll of toilet paper on my desk. I thought they were trying to tell me something about my hygiene but it turns out that the roll had Bush’s ugly face imprinted on each and every little square! How funny! If I could get into the Executive Potty, I would put it in there but just for fun, I had a secretary friend put it up in one of the women’s lavs. Much fuss. No doubt, the Secret Service is looking for prints even as we speak.

My best to all the ferocious flag-wavers out there who are certain I do not exist and tell them that if they send you their addresses, I can send each and every one of them a roll of Bush Potty Paper. I have half a carton in the back of my car. I gave one to a friend at the British Embassy and he gave it to the Ambassador! Bush is not liked in the Diplomatic Corps here. He is viewed as an idiot and a madman by one and all. Heil Bush!

Happy Holidays!”

ISN'T THAT HUGH!!!11!1!! GOSIP? I THINK U SHLD USE VotWH INSTED OF THAT CHB RAG! PLUS, TBR NEWS IS A REPUTABLE ORGANIZATION RUN BY WALTER STORCH AKA PETER STAHL AKA GREGORY DOUGLAS, WHO IS NOT A HOLOCAUST DENIER AND DEFINITELY NOT A NAZI.

bcz it doesnt mattr whatevery they said in the past, right, it's their current reporting, and you know, it could help us politcally, right? cool.

[walldude]

107. The problem with CHB is there is never a public source

they always use sources that can't be verified. That said, I like reading that stuff and I like to believe that it's all true but I sure wouldn't call it factual.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

108. Right.

the fact that this particular quote was sourced THRICE before publication. That seems pretty credible to me.

Why? How are three anonymous sources more credible than one?

While I admit that it is often gossipy information,

So you admit that it is "gossip" and wonder why people have a problem with the treatment people here give it? Please. Gossip is gossip, NOT news.

that doesn't mean it isn't true, particularly if it is sourced.

Give me one good reason to believe anything that they say is actually true. I could write what he writes, make up sources, etc. Why should I believe this website, which only cites anonymous sources?

I have yet to see proof from any CHB nay-sayers that

1) CHB is consistently wrong/unreliable,

Of course not. Because they never post anything that is verifiable in any way. This is by design.


2) That CHB's sources are madeup/unreliable

I've seen no evidence that they are NOT madeup/unreliable. It's known as "establishing credibility." It's what real news outlets do, and CHB does not.


3) that it knows it is wrong and publishes such wrong info anyway and

I hardly see where that's relevant, given the first two points.

4) how any of this, if true, is distinguished from similar behavior in stories at "mainstream" outfits like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Well, for one thing, those outlets are often quite viciously called to task when they are wrong. Because those are professional news sources. They often get it wrong. But generally speaking, when they are factually wrong they correct themselves. Many times the damage is already done, but there is at least a minimal standard of professionalism. Plus, they publish articles that are verifiable. If you're unable to tell the difference between real news and gossip, then there's no point in even having this argument.

They have been wrong (WMD anyone???), made up stories (Jason Blair?), etc. Yet, I don't hear clarion calls to not believe anything and everything read from those outfits.

You DON'T? Jesus, which DU are you reading? Also, you are saying that something that should be taken with a grain of salt is equivalent to made up bullshit, which it isn't.


So, what gives with CHB-haters out there?

We don't like lies. Funny, that.

I give it as much credibility as I give any other news source, be they Raw Story or the NYT or MSNBC.

I fail to see why you would put CHB in the same leage with professional journalism outlets.

If thrice-sourced quotes isn't credible enough for you, then read something else, but don't demonize those of us who find it interesting, compelling, and (gasp!) credible.

Nope. Sorry. People who spread lies are every bit as bad as the people who write them in the first place. Try again.

I'm just sick of the knee-jerk demonization here anytime something from CHB makes the news.

Then perhaps you should stop posting lies from discredited gossip sites and expecting rational people to believe that it is news, that it is true, or that it is anything other than what it is - anonymously sourced gossip from some guy with a web page. Get a fucking grip.


P.S. Some of you might want to consider whether it is to our political benefit to have this quote and other similar info "out there".

It isn't. It has absolutely no impact on anything whatsoever. In the bigger scheme of things, CHB is irrelevant. It will, I hope, remain irrelevant, and I am working to maintain its irrelevancy by contradicting people who attempt to prop it up as a real source of information. Again, sorry.

IF CHB were the Washington Times or any other right wing rag of dubious credence, you can bet that it would be all over Drudge within the day, and talked about on Rush Limbaugh ad nauseam by the next.

Your point is what, then? That we need to be even more idiotic than Rush?

Even if it isn't true, is to to our benefit to be quiet about it, or to make a stir and have a media circus and force the White House to come out with a denial of the quote?

That isn't how politics works. If you look at truly effective smears like the SwiftBoat thing, they don't make assertions of fact. They ask questions. They repeat the questions ad nauseum, until the question itself becomes the story. This is why wholly made-up garbage like Drudge's Kerry's-mistress story never get legs. Have I mentioned that CHB is crap in this paragraph?

Come on people. Wake up and smell the politics.

I've been awake and smelling the politics long enough to know that entities like CHB are no friends of the Democratic party. You want to cast your lot with them, fine. But don't bitch when people don't believe the bullshit, and when you fail to convince them that your unsourced rumors are worthy of attention.

It's only our country and the "goddamned piece of paper" that embodies it that we're trying to save here.


Which is why I won't waste another second of my time with asshats like Rense, CHB, or any of the other assortment of assholes who are abusing the blogosphere for advertising revenue. This is sick.