Was Jason Leopold Rathered?

[Imalittleteapot]

Don't forget Dan Rather. Maybe Jason was fed false information to get everyone all excited about a Rove indictment that the informant knew wasn't going to happen. First comes the buzz that blossoms into mass delight, all of which evolves into us looking like fools and leaving Leopold with a discredited and tarnished reputation. Just thinkin'.

[Skinner]

1. Let's stop making excuses for Jason Leopold.

He blew it.

[arwalden]

5. Yes!!

:thumbsup:

[Warpy]

6. Thanks, Skinner

Verify, verify, verify.

If you can't, it's just a rumor and likely wrong.

[princehal]

10. Oh yeah

And no one here has aver done that.

He got burned. Is he a liar? I doubt it. Why would someone make something up that would bring them down?

He got burned.

[Skinner]

14. Yes, he got burned.

And part of his job as a "reporter" is to avoid getting burned.

[princehal]

24. Agreed

But it does happen. Hey rather got fired. We are doing our best to stomp Leopld. How come that never happens on the right? How come their "reporters" can say all kinds of smak and get away with it?

I would be afreade to take any risks for the democratic party. I ask again, we accuse him of lieing; but WHY would he lie?

[treestar]

26. Good point.

[grytpype]

29. Because we're the reality-based community.

That's why.

[princehal]

32. Oh Yeah

GO into the religion topic here. Lot's of reality there. Or the skeptic topic.

[Skinner]

31. Nobody has accused him of lying.

He didn't lie. But there are other ways to screw-up that don't involve lying.

[princehal]

35. I just am havieng trouble

following the money. Who benefited from his story?

Why would he make it up?

Did he screw up? Sure. Happens. He should retract and out his bad sources big-time.

Should we trash Truth Out? I dunno, maybe. Might as well trash DU for spreading rumors too. The echo-chamber here gave that article the longest legs.

[Skinner]

46. Allow me to repeat.

Nobody has accused Jason Leopold of lying (or "making it up" which would be the same as lying). Either 1) Jason Leopold got lied to, 2) Jason Leopold's sources got lied to, or 3) Jason Leopold misunderstood what his sources were telling him.

As for trashing DU -- this is a discussion forum, which means everything here should be taken with a huge grain of salt. For the most part, we aren't in the business of original news reporting.

But still, I think some self-reflection would be pretty useful here. For the DU members and for the admins of DU. In the wake of this disaster, the administrators would be fools if we didn't take some time to discuss whether or not we need to treat stuff like this differently. Since this is a discussion forum, my preference is to keep DU as open as possible and let the members sort out the truth from the falsehoods. But maybe there is something we should be doing in situations like this.

[princehal]

50. truth from the falsehoods

I agree with that stance. It is getting so hard to tell the difference all around. The folks in the WH are expert at dis-information. I am sure that thay hoped that this story would go mainstream, and the party as a whole would look stupid.

Their ilk can claim that Hillery Murdered Vince Foster, and get away with it. I have never ever seen anyone on the right refute Limbaugh on this. Maybe that is what makes us better.

But Truth Out is not the Rush Limbaugh show. I am sure it is a bad day for them, all of their good work overshadowed. And with BOTH sides snipeing at them, I am sure it helps them to continut the good work.

[Magrittes Pipe]

51. To be fair...

I'm accusing Leopold of "making it up."

I'm certainly not saying I can't be wrong. All we know is that he did it wrong. I don't have the information to prove his intentions. But the defensiveness was over-the-top. The defense should have been simply "this is what my sources say," rather than taking every criticism personally.

And Leopold's track record is such that... well, let's just say if he were THAT gullible, he'd be the proud owner of a bridge right now.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

53. What is there to do?

You already have a disclaimer on the front page regarding posts on this site. Perhaps when another one of these stories pops up, you could post it right in the thread. Otherwise, if the story had panned out, you would have been quite proud that it was reported here in the beginning, no?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

48. I don't think he pulled it out of his ass.

I think he blindly accepted poor information, without any critical analysis, because it supported his preferred political beliefs. This is a cardinal sin for a journalist.

Might as well trash DU for spreading rumors too. The echo-chamber here gave that article the longest legs.

With a few notable exceptions, DUers do not claim to be journalists. If Leopold wants to call himself a journalist, he should be held to the standards which *should* apply to all journalists.

[theboss]

55. I actually suspect that he lied

Leopold once had a little fame, but it is long since gone. I think he wrote this story thinking that Rove would get indicted within a few weeks. And somehow conned TO to print it.

He took a gamble and lost. But from his perspective, he had no credibility to begin with. A month ago, he was a little-known disgraced reporter. Now, he is a more well-known disgraced reporter.

He will probably be able to get some kind of book deal out of this.

[treestar]

28. Avoid, not be perfect, and dealing with Rove, well, that's a whole

different kettle of fish.

[greyl]

11. Right on. nt

[TornadoTN]

15. Not just once, but many, many times!

[asthmaticeog]

21. .

:thumbsup:

Thank you.

[johnnie]

38. He might have blown it for himself

But I really think the people who "blew it" were the ones who took what he reported as gospel and the ones who attacked him and his believers without knowing the actual facts either way.

Leopold is one of thousands of online "reporters" and every single one of them are out to get the "big scoop". Yes, I agree that it looks like Jason and Truthout blew the story, but what really blew was watching people here viciously attacking each other over the whole mess.

Hopefully a lesson was learned, or a few lessons for that matter. :-(

[OzarkDem]

39. Do you have some evidence to back that up?

[Magrittes Pipe]

42. He doesn't need evidence.

Leopold's having blown it will be announced within 24 business hours. :thumbsup:

[arwalden]

44. Heeee!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Magrittes Pipe]

49. a) You called me a Freeper. You should know better.

I'm a lifelong Dem. Hell, I brought chili to your house and played with your birds. That's a personal attack, and not a very creative one.

b) Jason Leopold has made a CAREER of making shit up and posting it as news. Just like the "24 business hours" thing Will posted. It's utter rubbish.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

54. agreed

[Maddy McCall]

56. Yep, in a big way. Too bad he took two other people down with him.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. Or maybe he's just a fuckwit.

No, actually. Either way he's a fuckwit.

[dogday]

27. Stop it, Just stop it

I am giving you your own words from another post... Perhaps you should heed them yourself....

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

43. I'm sorry, but he properly deserves to be trashed...

...and publicly flogged. Not only for doing a piss-poor job as a reporter, but for then making absolutely pathetic excuses for his inability to follow the basic rules of journalism, and putting the onus for his defence on others. If this is what passes for an alternative to the mainstream media, then we are well and truly fucked. He has utterly destroyed what should have been the difference between the left-leaning blogopshere and the likes of Drudge - the difference being that We Do Not Make Stuff Up.

May he never be heard from again.

[TornadoTN]

3. Perhaps, but that hinges on something important

That is, that Leopold had the same journalistic integrity and stature as Rather. Of course we know that is not certainly the case. Why frame Leopold when he does a fine job of making himself look ludicrous all by himself?

[enough already]

4. I still think he got it right

Rove may have cut a deal with Fitz to flip on Cheney. This isn't over yet.

[AngryAmish]

7. amen

[tiptoe]

12. agree n/t

[texasleo]

8. Dan Rather had decades of credibility under his belt

no comparison.

[IsIt1984Yet]

9. I'd LIKE to think that he had SOMETHING to base it on

other than his wild imagination. I'd LIKE to think that Ash and Pitt demanded SOMETHING.

But... shit, anything is possible.

[meisje]

13. after a wild night binging on meth, the imagination soars

[IsIt1984Yet]

16. ok, that explains Jason, but why were Ash and Pitt so convinced?

[wtmusic]

22. In defense of Pitt

his heart gets ahead of his brain sometimes. But his heart is what keeps him in the fight.

I'm giving him a pass.

[dogday]

33. I have wondered why Marc Ash

would put his credibility on the line... I am anxious to see their notes on this story...

[IsIt1984Yet]

36. Leopold has a history of "questionable reporting" (putting it mildly)

and I also am interested why the hell Pitt and Ash stood so steadfastly behind it. I am also very curious as to why the number of sources kept changing... down to a "single" source per Ash just yesterday. It's a little odd.

[Wholelottaluv]

17. I don't have anything against Leopold

Every reporter gets it wrong on occaision. Didn't he, or Pitt say something about revealing their sources if there was no indictment?

[kstewart33]

23. Gets it wrong 'on occasion'???

Look at Leopold's record which is widely available. He's gotten it wrong many times for many ex-employers and he's been fired for it.

[Wholelottaluv]

37. Well, I suppose

it is time he outted his sources. Tell us what he was told and who told him. Then we can decide for ourselves whether or not he was right to put his credibilty on the line over this.

[PATRICK]

45. His risk to his own credibility

was one of the arguments in his favor- pending the result. We have seen this with other sources, politicians and leaders, who once having failed and earned loss of credibility head right back for a repeat with mystified followings intact but dwindling.

He torched his own reputation for a scoop, not a unique service of whistleblowing or scandal investigation for which loss of a career might be a citizen's duty. Considering his own clouded record, Rove's devious record, Fitzpatrick's steel trap secrecy and the inevitable media reaction regardless of whether the story was true or not, I would think this indicates a failure of judgment even if the sources were 100% on the mark. And after,why would anyone be interested in salvaging some scraps of this scoop through redefining and re-speculating and suffering the same predictrabke savaging with even less foundation? If Palast made a mistake or others that would by a possible Rather that should be defended by all who want their main work to continue. Leopold pretty much took down his whole house on this one and exposed those whose trust he won to a full share of hurt.

I think the lesson here is dogged pursuit of the truth, not sounding the trumpets of triumph every time we think we have the Holy Grail of Bush revelation in a single breaking story. That also works to beef up opposition to THEIR trumpet calls every time a breaking story seems to benefit Bush or scuttle partisan opposition.

Zarqawi and the disintegrating oddities of that story is the opposite tack, comparable to the slack granted Bush after 9/11. Slack used to hang the nation and the world when investigation and accountability would have shown what we later got grudging and partial affirmation of. They blew it through warped intentions and milked the slanted spin of their own failures by getting everyone to focus on the drama of violence edited for immature audiences. Now there is a story of curiosity and common sense vacated even as the story disintegrates into contradiction and unanswered questions of great note- even as the significance of Zarqawi all along is utterly unreported for what it was and had become. If the sources, the military and administration are the worst, so is the reporting. Maybe leopold had bad sources, we certainly couldn't judge a secret one way or the other, but there was a lot of doubt if the reported in this case was up to snuff either.

So we speculate in the great "between" in the shadowlands between liars and truth tellers muted or touted, and the official corporate/government media line of spin. As with conspiracy theories it is best at least to know our place in this fog. Speculation is speculation and reality, not wishful thinking is the thing that should have the bells on. It is enough to demand clarity and proof and respect the track record, the tangible patterns and results, and keep at it relentlessly no matter what gushing advance guard charges into the guns.

Or are we tired or fearful enough to shrink into a cheering section for the magic document, the smoking gun, the last straw, the great progressive messiah, the electoral majority of Dems and think it the Day of Days. The more it does not happen and the more we hold together and grow, the stronger the tidal wave of proper populism, full disclosure and justice, the more chance this world has of meeting its real challenges.

Or it won't just be Leopold's career folding like a broken lawn chair, it will be all of this world's civilization and hopes. One man, one story, one Bush removed is NOT enough. It is barely a beginning, the first pitch in the first inning in the closing game of history's long season.

[Jersey Devil]

18. Yeah, sure, like Leopold = Rather in credibility and stature

Outside of DU and some progressive blogs no one would know Jason Leopold even exists.

[Flubadubya]

19. It's time for him to "out his sources"...

Let's see what comes of that. Well, if he is a person of his word he must do this... if not, then for sure there is no point in ever listening to him again.

[Pale Blue Dot]

20. No. Leopold was not big enough.

I think it's possible that they were trying to Rather a bigger fish (and no, I have no idea who), but it didn't work, and the only one who fell for the the story was Leopold.

[treestar]

25. Yes, I think he should name everyone who told him these lies

Though there are still a couple of scenarios under which they may not be. If it turns out Rove made a deal and that sealed indictment was his if he didn't.

[OzarkDem]

30. Does anyone have evidence

that Leopold's information wasn't correct?

I'm not sure why there's so much vitriol here. Why is it so hard to accept that the reporter may have had accurate information, but that Rove managed to weasel out of the indictment. In fact, there's quite a bit to back up that scenario.

Why would the same Dems who chastise the party for not going out on a limb be so quick to saw one off when a liberal journalist takes the risk?

I'm having a hard time figuring out just what some of you actually stand for.

[Cha]

40. Revenge? With a

Capital R?

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Leopold claimed Rove had already been indicted

There's "quite a bit" of evidence that an indictment has been cancelled? I haven't seen that.

The story started looking unbelievable to me when "24 hours" turned into "24 business hours". Suddenly prosecutors are using terms only used in business service level agreements? A wise reporter, if that was what his source told him, would have had doubts then. Half of his readership had probably started laughing when they read it - I did.

[RandomKoolzip]

52. Leopold's story was "Rove HAS BEEN indicted."

ANd here's the evidence to refute that:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2070153

Seriously, though: you have to stop accusing people who criticize Leopold of being freepers or intimating that they're not liberals or Democrats. That's binary thinking. Leopold got fucked, but then he chose to fuck US - THAT'S why there's so much vitriol.

[WiseButAngrySara]

34. I strongly suspect so. I just reposted a thread on Hatfield and Leopold..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1414120