WSJ: Rove's Camp Takes Center of Web Storm

[ProSense]

Rove's Camp Takes Center of Web Storm

Bloggers Underscore How Net's Reporting
Dynamics Provide Grist for the Rumor Mill
By ANNE MARIE SQUEO
May 16, 2006

On Saturday night, attorney Robert Luskin was trying to barbecue at his Washington home when the phone started ringing nonstop. A story posted on an Internet site Truthout.org reported that his client, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, had been indicted.

Mr. Luskin says he issued an explicit denial to anyone who contacted him. But the story set off a fire storm, with reporters from newspapers, television and elsewhere seeking to check its veracity, and Web log writers seeking comment.

With more people turning to the Internet for news, bloggers have blurred the lines with traditional media and changed both the dynamics of the reporting process and how political rumors swirl.


Mr. Rove is the subject of an investigation by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald into whether the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative was illegally leaked by Bush administration officials. Mr. Rove has testified before the grand jury in the case five times, most recently last month.

But there is no evidence the Bush adviser was indicted last week. His lawyer says it is plain wrong. Mr. Fitzgerald hasn't commented, and he is expected in coming weeks to make a decision about whether to charge Mr. Rove for perjury or related wrongdoing in the matter.

On Friday, Truthout posted another story by the same correspondent, Jason Leopold, reporting that Mr. Rove had told President Bush and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten that he would be indicted imminently.

more...

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114774060320053665-thX800H42zwJ_CbAllza7zwnpRE_20060614.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Except since no one could get in touch with him

Saturday night he didn't have to deny anything.

[Catherine Vincent]

2. That figures the WSJ would go with Rove's side of the story.

Did they bother to call Leopold about his articles? And look at this:



They didn't bother to mention that Drudge lied.

[demobabe]

7. They didn't "go with Rove's side of the story"

There are only two real sources that can comment here:

a) Rove and his lawyers & PR guys
b) Fitzgerald's office

We know what Rove's people said; Fitz's office declined comment.

They wrote the story with the facts that were present. This is how a news article is written.

Notice they didn't deny anything about Leopold's article - that would have been taking Rove's side.

[Catherine Vincent]

11. If you don't think that article is slanted, then there is no hope for you.

[demobabe]

12. Explain to me how it's slanted

Or maybe there's no hope for you?

[Duer 157099]

3. That story could as easily be titled:

"Liars, Cover-Uppers Astonished That They Are Not Believed"

(is cover-uppers a word? I think so)

(btw, the liars and cover-uppers would be Luskin and Rove, et al; just in case that wasn't clear enough)

[darkmaestro019]

6. It's a word now, heh. I get sick of the "That's not a word!" fascists

if it clearly conveyed an idea, it's a word NOW. There WERE no official words till the first dictionaries--no official spellings, either. : ) This is how there got to be ANY words to begin with.

[linazelle]

4. Why do they hate the web so much? It has never done anything

to them. Has it? :shrug: :crazy:

[Radio_Guy]

5. WSJ is going to look so bad

when Rove's indictment is announced this week.

[demobabe]

9. How are they going to look bad?

They quoted what Luskin said. What, are they supposed to edit Luskin's words to be something more to your liking?

The issue is that Leopold published an article and news sources were trying to verify the story. The story wasn't about whether or not anything Leopold said was actually true, and they certainly didn't say anything like "Rove is not going to be indicted this week."

[Spazito]

8. Wow, the WSJ only acts when given their marching orders by

the repubs! I guess the article has caught their attention and has them concerned to fax their talking points to the WSJ, interesting.

[teriyaki jones]

10. Have you ever actually read the editorial section

of the WSJ?? It is absolutely uber-right-wing, but on a different level than Fox. They succeed in sounding reasonable and well-informed very convincingly--unless you know better. Very good at cherry-picking, misrepresenting or just totally skewing the facts and figures.

I'll never forget hearing Rachel Maddow warn us, on Air America, not to read the WSJ editorial page, "It will BURN YOUR EYES!" Truer words were never spoken.

[Spazito]

13. That was my point, they get their talking points straight from the repubs

which means Jason's article is starting to bother them, maybe even worry them. The WSJ editorial section is not fit to be used at the bottom of a birdcage, imo. For them to even acknowledge the Truthout article and try to slime it usually means they are afraid of something in it.

[question everything]

14. There is a world of difference between the news and the editorial

departments of the WSJ.

Their news are of first class. I often post stories here and often the reactions are: this is from the WSJ??

Their editorials and op-ed are a different matter altogether.