Are DUers starting to believe Capitol Hill Blue now?

[Quixote1818]

It seems they nailed Spy gate and now the Bush/Abramoff connection.

Mounting evidence proves White House lied about relationship with corrupt lobbyist
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jan 19, 2006, 00:00

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8014.shtml


When George Met Jack
White House aides deny the President knew lobbyist Abramoff, but unpublished photos shown to TIME suggest there's more to the story
By ADAM ZAGORIN, MIKE ALLEN
Posted Sunday, Jan. 22, 2006

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1151784,00.html

[tuvor]

1. Reputations are earned.

Perhaps they're earning a good one right now.

[AX10]

2. Repuations are earned over time.

[northzax]

3. see that;s the funny thing about these guys

if you keep making up outlandish crap, you are still right sometimes.

[Maggie_May]

4. I wonder what Scotty is going to say now.

:popcorn:

[sendero]

5. I've stayed out..

... of the CHB bash-fest - because I cannot tell. A lot of folks here claim they are bullshit, but I dont' see many examples of where they got it wrong.

Just because they print stories that cannot be "verified" does not mean the stories are automatically bullshit.

[EST]

6. I've watched this suspicion fest unfolding here for a while.

I've also been getting and reading CHB for a while. The suspicion and warning-off that seemed to occur with every CHB quote led me to be pretty selective and set the bar fairly high.
They do not just shoot in all directions, blindly, thinking they'll hit something; I've found them to be more credible that the WPo. I wouldn't want to stake my life or reputation on a piece that is under sourced, from anyone, but I am convinced CHB is more trustworthy than their detractors would allow.

[Quixote1818]

8. Yep, + CHB didn't make the mistake of saying their would be 22 indictments

and the Bush Administration would come tumbling down like a deck of cards, like too many Democratic news sights did, and too many DUers give a pass on. A lot of people hate Thompson for going after Clinton on his womanizing but look what happened in the end. Monica! He even nailed that when you think about it.

Thompson goes after both sides and I respect him for that.

[Richard Steele]

7. Believe what? That he states the obvious?

What the heck am I supposed to be seeing in that first link?
All I see is a bunch of stuff that I was seeing here on DU
long before he cut-n-pasted it together and called it an 'article'.

So, what is that supposed to make me 'believe', exactly?


And all his juicy little anecdotes, which he claims
to recieve from an endless stream of 'anonymous insiders'...
They are FICTION.
Pleasant fiction, for those of us who love America
and hate its enemies in the WH, certainly.
But they are FICTION nonetheless.

His latest "scoop", regarding Abramoff visiting the B*sh compound
in Crawford, claims to be based on the word of a B*sh
campaign worker named Dale Knally.
Sadly, Mr. Knally does not seem to exist.


So I remain firm in my belief that Capitolhillblue
is not a good use of my time.
He is not a JOURNALIST; he is a liar
who occasionally rises to the level of 'Blogger'.

[tyedyeto]

9. Those here who dismiss CHB will never acknowledge that ...

they may have been mistaken in their belief that CHB is not reliable. Doesn't matter what is revealed days, weeks, or even months later, CHB is to them a non-reliable source. Period. So, never bring them up or your standing in this community will go down the tubes.

[Orangepeel]

10. I enjoy CHB, but I don't trust it as a news source

I think that the writer posts what he thinks ought to be true given known facts. Sometimes he's right.

It's basically a political gossip column. There's certainly a place for that, but personally, I wouldn't bet on anything that's only posted there.

[EST]

11. Seems like virtually everything that used to be

regarded as a reliable news source or outlet has become little more that a political gossip column, with no particular responsibility for getting the facts straight and a sizable motivation to skew everything.

Does there now exist, in this country, any place at all that one can obtain unbiased, thoughtful reporting from? I tend to look to al Jazeera and BBC for world news and the Guardian for commentary. Even c-spin has to be untilted to be get the picture.