Sloppy Journalism and Scoop Fever -- No more, no less

[Armstead]

I've basically stayed out of the whole Rove/TO mess. Partly because I didn't care about the brouhaha, and partly because -- like everyone outside of Fitzgerald's inner circle and the Grand Jury -- I had no clue of which way things would go.

But with the apparent news that Rove may be off the hook, here's my thoughts.

The whole episode of how it has been reported by TruthOut and chewed by the priogressive community is, in IMO, a case of sloppy journalism and scoop fever. It's the same sin that the MSM engages in when it gets into trouble.

No more and no less.

There is a cardinal rule of responsible journalism. YOU DON'T CLAIM SOMETHING AS FACT UNLES YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE. You don't engage in either wish fulfillment, impatience to see a situation resolved or a desire to get so far ahead of the story that you lose sight of reality.

Sure, one can speculate, report on opinions of what might happen according to current indications. But that is analysis and pundrity. It's not reporting.

That applies to the Presstitutes in the MSM and to the well-meaning journalists on the progressive side (and those on the right.)

This was not a dark conspiracy. Even if Leopold was used by Rove's team or his opponents, that is nothing that doesn't go on all the time. Journalism is a matter of juggling contradictory spin. What seperates journalism from junk is that you weigh all the self-serving spin from all sides, and don't take anyone at their word -- unless it is the person making the actual decision.

That, imo, was the biggest mistake that was made.It's okay to report speculation. But it's not okay to jump the gun and report speculation as fact.

[question everything]

1. A bit more

I, too, did not follow the whole l'affair the TO. We may have been out of town when this forum exploded, I do not remember.

I usually stay out of conspiracy theories, there are too many here, anyway.

However, I will not put it beyond anyone to purposefully "leaked" wrong information to TO just to see what happened, and, eventually, to expose them as an unreliable source.

Alternatively, someone leaked that "information" hoping to stir the pot, having his/her own agenda.

We've seen something like that happening everywhere all the time, even in kindergarten and in elementary school. We (OK, I) fly a trial balloon waiting to see what will happen.

I think that this was also what happened to Dan Rather.

This is the way it goes. Yes, some sloppy journalism. During the Watergate days WP's Bradlee insisted on two sources confirming the same story. But today, with instant news reporting many skip this test. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.

I agree with you that we need to close this chapter and move on.

No doubt, TO has its followers and it probably IS a good source of news and commentary for progressive people (I've never been there - there are only 24 hours ad day and DU alone can keep me busy for that amount of time). So, if someone likes this site, by all means, keep visit it. But let's move on. We are having mid term elections coming up.

[Armstead]

4. Supposition versus fact

IMO, if TruthOut was led to believe that there was a strong possibility that Rove would soon be indicted, then they could have reported it in a less definitive way.

That, IMO, was the real problem. They thought they had their hands on something, and got carried away and took too many leaps of faith. Unfortunately, others got burned by their eagerness.

At least now we know what we're up against. A GOP with Rove free to work full throttle to practice his black magic.

[SteppingRazor]

2. Yup. Kinda what I said all along...

of course, this sort of talk got me accused of being a freeper a few weeks ago. Now, though, it seems a little more like common sense, not trollishness. What Leopold did was an example of truthiness from the left -- seeing the world as we would like it to be, not as it actually is. And if he got played by Rove's team, well, he should have known better than to trust them in the first place. Over on the TO site, Marc Ash is now saying that one credible source is the source of their info on the Rove indictment. One. Time was, you had to have at least two sources before you could report something as fact -- and if you were going to drop a bomb this big, you better have more than that.

[Armstead]

5. Truthiness of the left...LOL

[Shrek]

3. But apparently TO thought they were sure

Pitt implied pretty strongly that he (or somone) had seen the indictment containing the May 12th date.

[Armstead]

6. It's aint over 'til the Fat Lady Sings

In this case the fat lady apparently wsn;t ready to open her mouth yet, but someone thought they heard something.

[DancingBear]

8. Hell, someone thought he heard La Boheme

He should get his ears checked. :)

[KittyWampus]

7. Um, Leopold had several sources , whom were run by editor, and who

proved to be correct in the past.

That is sloppy journalism.

[Armstead]

9. Yep...It is when you draw conclusions

As I noted above, it is one thing to report what seem to be possibilitie based on evidence. It's quite another claim you have the derfinitive truth of something prematurely.

The only time it is appropriate to claim that something has happened is when it has happened. In this case it would have to be indisputable proof -- like an actual, public indictment.