CapitolHillBlue comments on Truthout controversy

[Cocoa]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/05/truthouts_big_gamble.html

<snip>

Central to the issue is a admittedly biased web site (Truthout) and Leopold, a writer with a checkered past. In 2002, Salon removed a story written by Leopold from its website because it said it could not confirm existence of an email that was central to the story about Enron. Salon's editors cited many "inconsistencies and problems" in what they said were changing explanations from Leopold.

"At the end of this process we felt that the essential trust between editor and writer that underlies all reliable journalism had broken down, and that in the wake of that breakdown, we had no choice but to take the story down," Salon posted on its web site.

Leopold called the Salon explanation "nothing but lies" and claimed the web site had craved to "political pressure."

<snip>

Interestingly, the regulars on left-wing web sites Democratic Underground support Leopold, despite his questionable record, even though they would never forgive such transgressions from a reporter who wrote from the other side of the political fence.

But support for Leopold is not universal, even among the liberal blogs. A number of threads on DailyKos continue to question his credibility, which the blog has done in the past.

more...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. That's rich.

[wryter2000]

9. I hear you

Pot...kettle...black.

[Richard Steele]

15. And an IMAGINARY pot, at that! (IMHO) nm

[LeftNYC]

2. There are people on here who are not supporting Leopold...

lets wait for the truth...

[Teaser]

7. I ain't supporting or not supporting.

I'm certain Leopold is confident of his sources. This is too big a story to put out without it having multiple sources. The question is, are his sources trying to ratfuck him (a la Dan Rather/National Guard).

[wryter2000]

11. Thank you

This isn't about supporting anyone. The story is either true or it isn't. If it's true, we'll know soon.

[smb]

90. Soon....

If it's true, we'll know soon.

In 24 "business hours". :eyes:

[LeftNYC]

33. I agree with you. Hopefully, he isnt getting screwed by what he says

are 5 sources.

[Nothing Without Hope]

40. yes, that's the way I look at it too. If the sources burned Leopold, it

was a deliberate move to discredit him and/or to affect Rove's standing: "ooooh, the saintly, falsely accused hero, see how the liberal media lie about the wonderful Bush Administration, which is making everything better."

I lean toward believing that there is indeed an indictment, and time will tell.

As for Capitol Hill Blue, it's well known as an interesting but unreliable gossip source. Its multiple articles on how Bush is really screaming nuts are especially intriguing. But without other sources for the scenes recounted in CHB from "WH insiders," who knows? I always view these articles as possibly true, but not to be relied upon or quoted without careful noting of the questionable source.

[dchill]

47. If there's an indictment in the wings...

(and David Shuster seems to think so) - then the only way Leopold gets "burned" is if Fitzgerald gets burned, too. I mean that I think Gonzo is trying to get the indictment thrown out, and never mentioned. Also, I'm thinking that it could be time for Bushy's Nixon/Cox moment. Actually, I kind of hope so.

I don't think Leopold will be vindicated - I think we all will.

[Nothing Without Hope]

50. I agree - no doubt Gonzo is pulling strings and making threats,

trying to get this quashed before it's public. They want Fitz out of there, not only because they want to keep their treasonous crimes buried, but because the "doctrine" of unlimited presidential dictatorial powers, unchecked, secret, and unstoppable, is part of their agenda.

[dchill]

74. That would be another "insane conspiracy theory"...

If Gonzo hadn't made a little trip on Friday to the courthouse...
So that makes it just a conspiracy! :)

[Catherine Vincent]

3. CapitolHillWho?

[Miss Chybil]

4. I'm not "supporting" anybody. I'm waiting...

edited to add:

Just because somebody writes a story doesn't mean I owe him my "support" and just because somebody else says it might not be true, doesn't mean I believe them, either. The facts always have a way of trickling out. So, as I said, I'm waiting.

[maddezmom]

5. ditto

:hi:

[Balbus]

6. Very smart!

[Bluebear]

12. Ditto. nt

[Jacobin]

62. Its not a fricking football team

Its simply whether a report that says Rove was indicted last Friday is true or not.

If he's a scoop hound out to manipulate the process to manufacture a scoop based on his best guess of when it happened, he's a liar and not worth listening to.

If in fact Rove was indicted last Friday (which appears to be a fable), then he got a great scoop.

I don't 'support' liars just because they might say something happened that I would like to hear happened, when its a fable.

[BuyingThyme]

Looks like a fair assessment to me.

[guruoo]

22. To me, DU seems divided into pro, anti, and

'wait and see' factions.

[BuyingThyme]

26. Yes, but you have to admit that Jason is so well liked here

that he's dictated the debate over the last few days.

[guruoo]

35. Liked or not, that still doesn't justify this...

'Interestingly, the regulars on left-wing web sites Democratic
Underground support Leopold, despite his questionable record,
even though they would never forgive such transgressions from
a reporter who wrote from the other side of the political fence.'

This thread is a perfect example of the pro, anti, and wait
and see' divide I was talking about.

[BuyingThyme]

42. That statement is absolutely true.

[guruoo]

48. Only if one chooses to ignore all the DUers...

in the anti, and 'wait and see' camps.

This very thread tells the tale.

[BuyingThyme]

51. The ANTIS have been almost non-existent, and even scorned

until now. And wait and see is a standard applied legitimate reporters, not to reporters with questionable records.

Had a non-biased standard been applied to Leopold, people here would have been less inclined to wait. But, as CHB points out, very few here dismissed Leopold outright.

[girl gone mad]

55. I agree.

People who have serious doubts have frequently been shut out of the debate around here.

[guruoo]

67. In other words, all DUers that failed to...

publically dismiss him outright were in reality,
supporting him?

Hmmm... sounds familar.
Where have I heard this before?
Somebody help me out here.:rofl:

[BuyingThyme]

69. Your brand of dishonesty will not fool people here,

but it will expose you for what you are.

I have no problem with your insecurity and dishonesty, but please don't use my honesty in your little game.

Thank you.

[guruoo]

76. I don't believe you're being necessarily dishonest,

but to me your bias is obivous when it comes
to the breakdown of DU'ers opinions
on this subject.

(However, I will admit that my previous response was
indeed unfair, and over the top. And for that I apologise.)

[Ladyhawk]

34. Here's another "wait and see."

:hi:

[guruoo]

38. Has anyone bothered to take a poll?

:toast:

[bvar22]

58. The "Pro" and "Anti" factions....

...are extreme (but very vocal) minorities.

[stop the bleeding]

8. the regulars

is this Cheers?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

10. No. He must mean...

The people who get a lot of fiber in their diet.

[Bluebear]

13. Or those who don't drink Diet soda?

[Teaser]

25. Can I be Frazier...

no not the lamo Frazier who first showed up on Cheers. And not the fat and prissy Frazier of the spin off. But the mean/angry/acerbic Frazier of the post-Diane & Lilith years.

[maddezmom]

29. sure, if I can be Carla

Just for the day!:D

[stop the bleeding]

32. since I am nerdy and dorky

and I lived in Indiana for a while then I guess I'll be Woddy's character - now I can't remember his name ;(

[maddezmom]

37. Woody Boyd

:D

[guruoo]

14. This is bullshit...

'Interestingly, the regulars on left-wing web sites Democratic
Underground support Leopold, despite his questionable record,'

[karlrschneider]

18. I dunno, there are a lot of Leopold sheep around here...

:eyes:

[guruoo]

23. There's three factions...

pro, anti, and 'wait and see'.

[Branjor]

41. As I am not psychic

I'm in the "wait and see" category.

[karlrschneider]

44. Yeah, well I guess "24 business hours" is still in progress...

sheesh

[guruoo]

53. Didn't he say he would out his sources if...

this turned out to be a setup?

[karlrschneider]

60. I'm not sure, people have made that claim but I haven't seen him

personally say it. If he does that, he's committing journalistic suicide (which might be the case no matter what happens next.)

[guruoo]

68. Yep, and of course,

the bustistas know this.

[arikara]

81. I'm honestly curious here...

how would it be committing journalistic suicide to out sources who lied to you and caused you to look bad?

[VolcanoJen]

36. That part is indeed bullshit.

Include me out.

[donheld]

91. I can't say I support Leopold, I don't know him

I support Will because I know his record. Jason, I just don't know.

[WiseButAngrySara]

16. I supported Leopold, in spite of his 'background,' until yesterday.

I think he's being "Rathered" and he trusted in sources who were not trustworthy. Why would Luskin, KKKRove's attorney, deny Leopold's/TruthOut's story? A lawyer on that thread stated that Luskin could be disbarred for lying about this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1197128

[bunkerbuster1]

17. Capitol Hill Blue = Drudge with fewer click-throughs

whiny little bitches, desperate for attention, all.

[Marnieworld]

I really wish the whole WMD issue got this much skepticism

Whether Leopold's sources are reliable or trustworthy is so irrelevant ultimately. No one dies from the lack of verification here. Did anyone take the time to verify the Chalabi-fed Judy Miller fantasies in the NYT? Did anyone try and verify Colin Powell's UN speech? All this investigation into an investigator- so much skepticism about what? Something that we'll all know sooner or later? What a waste of energy. At least Truthout is trying to publish the truth. Can't say the same thing about so called "real" journalists.

I almost want word of indictment soon just to stop this in-fighting and bickering.We got bigger fish to fry- and I'm not talking about 7.5 lb perch! ;)

[Maddy McCall]

19. Count me as one "regular" who didn't fall, hook, line, and sinker.

Thanks to all of you who did, though. You've done wonders for DU's reputation.

[girl gone mad]

64. The real shame is that..

an event which should have been one of the few highlights of the past 5 years will now be tainted and less momentous, however one looks at it.

[bobbieinok]

75. DU's reputation????? doesn't exist for M$M, for republicans, for

RW talk show hosts, etc, etc, etc.......

the rest (left of center) know people make mistakes, so what.....

if Leopold has such a rotten reputation, why would Will Pitt accept anything from him????? IOW, does he really have a bad reputation other than according to Capitol Hill Blue (it's record is pretty wishy-washy) and Salon, which certainly hasn't always been such a bastion of truth and light (remember all the questions about it's corporate support, etc)

bottom line, name me one news outlet or journalist exactly right 100% of the time

[Ganja Ninja]

20. What's the big deal anyway?

So he jumped the gun a little. Rove still isn't exonerated. So if someone on the left gets a little carried away then that make everything said on left wing websites BS?
When it comes to matters of truth and honesty I'll take the record of left wing internet sites and stack it against right wing sites or even the MSM media any day.

[BlooInBloo]

30. The big deal to me is that our claim to be stewards of "reality based"....

... is somewhat tarnished by the immediate, evidence-free acceptance of truthout's claims.

This tarnish (again imo) is exacerbated by the crap the demand-evidence crowd has had to put up with from the who-cares-about-evidence-I-want-it-to-be-true-so-it-must-be-true crowd.

It is further exacerbated (again imo) by truthout claiming, in essence that we readers are so stupid that we don't know what "24 hours" actually means, and tries to slip us a "3 business days" roofie while we aren't looking. Presumably it was decided that they could get away with that because of the immediate, evidence-free acceptance of the initial claims by DUers.

It'll be hard for DU to say things like "hope is not a plan" when criticizing republicans in the future, because of this.

Unless truthout turns out to be correct of course, in which case things are more-or-less all good.

[guruoo]

43. OK, then show us the numbers...

How many DUers are in support?
How many are sceptical?
How many are 'wait and see'?

[BlooInBloo]

52. For the "in support" category: enough to damage our credibility.

I'm not sure what the point of a specific number is. Suppose I said "37%". What would you say then?

What if I said "36%"? "42%"?

Ooooh - I bet you'd have a fascinating reply if I said "28.54% !!

A lot. Enough so that if the story is false, our credibility as proud members of the "reality based community" is damaged. Enough to be dismayed that so many support so blindly.

Enough so that people would say without hesitation "I don't even care any more if the story is true".

Enough to feel suckered into believing the marketing hype about how Democrats are different and believe in things like evidence, corroboration, and truth.

Enough for me to not have a good comeback to a republican who says to me "Hey BlooInBloo, how can you claim that Democrats are so reality-based - when something with no evidence comes out on YOUR side, Democrats are more than happy to flock to it like it's the holy grail."

[guruoo]

56. So, if 10% support him it ruins DU credibility?

...So says the self-fufilling prophet.

[BlooInBloo]

63. You said "ruin". I said "damage". Possibly you see no difference...

... But I do...

[guruoo]

71. In other words, the only way we could have...

prevented this potential 'damage' to DU credibility would have been for
all members to have immediately fallen in lockstep
with the 'hang jason' party line.

[BlooInBloo]

73. LOL! Again, something I never said, suggested, or implied....

I have yet to hear a reason why the following is unreasonable: to withhold assent to such a big story until evidence of its truth is publically available and/or independent corroboration is presented.

Only someone who doesn't understand English, or else is mendacious, would say that "withholding assent" is even close to the same thing as "dissenting", btw.

Instead, DU largely threw the evidence-requirement (for belonging to the reality-based community) straight out the window as soon as a story was written that they liked.

[guruoo]

77. DU did this?

Once again we're back to the breakdown in opinion.
Initial exuberance expressed by those in hopes that
the story was true doesn't count.
Bottom line, overall DU has been quite divided on this subject.

Now go play with those words for awhile.

[BlooInBloo]

79. ROFL!! Just ignore those on the who-needs-evidence side!

"Initial exuberance expressed by those in hopes that
the story was true doesn't count."

What a wonderful way to protect our cred as "reality based" - to ignore the existence of a large segment of DU.

LOL - you guys kill me.

[guruoo]

80. DU's credibility will survive this debate

fully intact, in spite of the naysayer minority that has been working overtime to win converts to
some kind of self-destructive, self fulfilling prophecy.

On Edit: Now I'll ignore you.

[BlooInBloo]

82. TOTALLY! Why do they hate DU? It's the hate-DU-first crowd!

That's what I say!

Don't they know that criticism of DU only serves to give aid and comfort to the enemy!

:rofl:

You guys kill me.

[guruoo]

85. Here you go

Knock uself out
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1206677

[BlooInBloo]

86. I'm not sure what your point is with that.... I see that poll as....

... saying that 41% of DUers accept a claim that is completely evidence- and corroboration-free simply because they want it to be true SOOOOO badly.

It's EXACTLY that phenomenon that I see as DU losing its cred for being the guardians of the "reality based community".

What should I be seeing?

And please keep in mind that I'm not saying that truthout's claim is false. I'm just saying that their claim is presented without a lick of publically verifiable evidence or corroboration.

The only thing I can say with certainty is that they think I'm so fucking stupid that I don't know what "24 hours" fucking means.

[11cents]

31. He didn't "jump the gun a little"

He wrote a story saying that Rove has already been indicted and was given 24 hours -- oops, 24 *businss hours" -- to clear out of the WH. If it turns out that Rove is instead indicted *tomorrow* or sometime later, we will know that Leopold's story was entirely false. Not "jumping the gun" false -- instead, we will know that he wrote a story with detailed accounts of events that didn't happen. We will know that he's the blog world's own Jayson Blair. So these are the alternatives: either he got a fantastic scoop and deserves applause, or he's a liar who should never be believed again.

[Ladyhawk]

39. Word. If he's wrong, it doesn't matter why.

Truthout will become as laughable as Capitol Hill Blue, Drudge, Newsmax, etc. I'm still hoping they're right--I'm waiting and seeing--but if they aren't, their journalistic reputations should be ruined. And yes, I'm talking about Truthout as a whole. Everyone there is supporting Leopold, after all.

If they're right, Leopold should win a Pulitzer and Truthout should be lauded across the land.

I jumped the gun a little and internally celebrated prematurely, but since my deconversion from fundamentalism, I've developed a healthy kernel of skepticism, so it wasn't hard to step back from the whole picture and say, "Hmmm...something's a little weird here." We'll find out by and by. We don't have that long a wait.

[guruoo]

78. You'd completely write off TO over one story?

[BlooInBloo]

84. Nah. Just that writer.

[guruoo]

88. Fair enough

[Ladyhawk]

87. This is an awfully big story to fuck up.

Let's put it this way: I would regard them with great suspicion, depending upon exactly what went wrong.

Also, past behavior of certain TO reporters has made me a bit suspicious. That's as much detail as I want to provide because I don't want to smear anyone unnecessarily. Let's just say that if they're wrong about this story it will confirm some of my suspicions. I'll allow others to come to their own conclusions. I'm certainly not going to start a shitstorm based on suspicion either now or after the truth of the matter has been revealed. Let the facts stand on their own.

[AlCzervik]

21. i'm not speculating on this at all, if Rove gets perp walked--excellent

if he doesn't it will be one of the suckiest things ever. I can wait, i waited years for Delay to get his, i can wait a little for Karl to catch his Karma train.

[guruoo]

45. Is this what you have in mind?

[DS1]

24. Paraphrased...

HEY GUYS!!! OVER HERE!!

[Blue-Jay]

27. I wondered what happened to those matcom vacation pics.

[stop the bleeding]

28. life never gets old

thank you LOL!!!

[patcox2]

46. Maybe they should call it "rumourout.org"

Or "unsubstantiatedconjectureout"

[guruoo]

49. Oh boy, here we go

Let's just start a competeting activist blog war while were at it.

[patcox2]

57. I am amused by the factions, name-calling, the high-school theatrics.

Its all so silly. Cliquey. All the heroic fantasies and speeches about "standing with" and who you stand with and the chest-thumping emotional childishness. hee hee hee, it is all so funny, says I.

I could care less who what where or how on this issue.

[guruoo]

65. Yeah, i'm pretty much done with this one

People get frustrated, and turn on each other.
Same thing happening on FR, BTW.

[Catrina]

70. So, what should the NYT call itself now? "OOPS!.org"?

Or the WAPO ~ or how about CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC et al? What should we call them now that it's clear they facilitated a war based on total lies? "forgetthelieswetoldyou.org"?


People died as a result of their collaboration ~ yet, people here are 'waiting for verification from the MSM'!

I'm waiting for verification from Fitzgerald ~ even if Jason Leopold is wrong about this, he'd still be more credible than the media who told us about WMD and Mushroom clouds and Al Queda connections etc. and caused 70% of the population to believe that Iraq was the cause of 9/11!

[guruoo]

72. Thanks for putting things in proper prespective

:patriot:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

89. Problem is, if blogosphere sites like to.org ever wish to be taken

seriously as a source of NEWS as well as opinion by a wider universe than "the converted", like it or not, they must be MORE accurate than NYT or WaPo in things that they write, particularly if they are trying to get a scoop. Equal to or worse doesn't cut it.

And, as far as I'm concerned, NYT and WaPo ARE "oops.com" to me after Judy Miller and a lot of other water under the bridge. Doesn't mean that I consider them without any value, but I certainly don't trust or believe ANYTHING that even smells like Iran invasion tub thumping propaganda that is published there especially if it seems driven in ANY way by the Bush Administration. There are, to me, real consequences of trust being abused.

[Elidor]

54. Doug Thompson is hardly unbiased on this matter

He's been into it very publicly with Pitt and Truthout before. Interesting that he tries to paint DU as supporting Leopold, when in fact any visitor to the site can see the tremendous flame wars over the matter.

[guruoo]

59. Exactly.

'any visitor to the site can see the tremendous flame wars over the matter.'

[robbedvoter]

61. Left out the part where Salon admitted their own error:

"However, no Salon editor actually saw, before publication, the e-mail mentioned in the story -- purportedly from Thomas White to a colleague, reading "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q." We recognize now that this was a mistake, and we regret it."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00084.htm

[BuyingThyme]

66. By indicating that they made an error in trusting Leopold, you're not

making a very good case for Leopold.

[guruoo]

83. Are these Orchestrated Attacks on Leopold a diversion?

'These Orchestrated Attacks on Leopold is a DIVERSION ....'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1205687