HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Just because I KNOW someb...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:53 PM

Just because I KNOW somebody will copy and paste

Ok I need to apologize for actually buying a story, sort off, or not checking it further. It is in regards to Mr Polk, or whoever he really is...there is no body in New Iberia Loisianna. Funeral home and county Coroner are pretty sure of that.

This still leaves many open questions as to the thread of it. But the Funeral Home DID NOT handle such a body, nor did the Medical Examiner. No body, no dead Jay...or whoever he is.

So to occupy, I am sorry, any story will no longer rely just on sources. It don't matter if it takes years.

That said, we are in Syria. This is a screaming secret in the foreign press, and for anybody old enough to remember Iran Contra, that was front page and editorial page commentary for year's in the Mexican Press. It only became news here when Hassenfus was captured by the Nicaraguans.

As to Jay, or whoever he is...possers are lower than whale shit.

And yes, I will eat crow, gladly and admit to it. I hope this settles it.

Oh and here is the email from the funeral home...with personal info removed for obvious reasons.

No we did not handle this body.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nadin Abbott" ******
To: <ruth@fletcher.glacoxmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:32 PM
Subject: Jay Polk (Jaymond, or Jomond)

We have been chasing a story on his possible death at the beginning of the year. I understand that you were the place where the body was sent, according to a source.

Your address was given to us by a source.

I only need to know if you did handle this burial, and date.

Sincerely,

Nadin Abbott
Freelance Reporter
San Diego

I hope this helps to settle this part of the story. All the rest of the weird occurrences, including our three "Syrians" and ghosting of sites just add salt to the mystery. Somebody went way too far to insert red herrings, problem is this only encouraged me further to solve the mystery. Oh and as to the military record that emerged...I got my suspicions, something to follow further, that somebody used a close alias leading to that service record our "friends" found. At this point any stories told by him to anybody, I'd take with grain of salt. Though I will be chasing some of the other obvious leads.

In advance, sorry for the pain I might cause, but this is my Mea Culpa, in transparency.

(suffice it to say I intend NOT to answer this thread)

97 replies, 7702 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 97 replies Author Time Post
Reply Just because I KNOW somebody will copy and paste (Original post)
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 OP
Robb Feb 2012 #1
me b zola Feb 2012 #3
pintobean Feb 2012 #5
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #20
Kaleko Feb 2012 #43
L0oniX Feb 2012 #84
LanternWaste Feb 2012 #40
Robb Feb 2012 #58
MineralMan Feb 2012 #2
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #6
MineralMan Feb 2012 #7
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #8
MineralMan Feb 2012 #9
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #12
MineralMan Feb 2012 #15
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #17
MineralMan Feb 2012 #19
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #30
MineralMan Feb 2012 #36
Bonobo Feb 2012 #71
MineralMan Feb 2012 #83
Obama3_16 Feb 2012 #92
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #93
Number23 Feb 2012 #55
Kaleko Feb 2012 #62
Number23 Feb 2012 #65
pintobean Feb 2012 #37
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #45
Kaleko Feb 2012 #48
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #50
L0oniX Feb 2012 #86
joshcryer Feb 2012 #66
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #67
joshcryer Feb 2012 #72
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #87
joshcryer Feb 2012 #96
myrna minx Feb 2012 #4
greytdemocrat Feb 2012 #11
chrisa Feb 2012 #27
Courtesy Flush Feb 2012 #49
Rowdyboy Feb 2012 #53
Aerows Feb 2012 #9
MineralMan Feb 2012 #13
Aerows Feb 2012 #23
Obamanaut Feb 2012 #31
Aerows Feb 2012 #94
MineralMan Feb 2012 #32
jsmirman Feb 2012 #51
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #54
Kaleko Feb 2012 #59
jsmirman Feb 2012 #61
Kaleko Feb 2012 #64
jsmirman Feb 2012 #68
ellisonz Feb 2012 #70
jsmirman Feb 2012 #73
ellisonz Feb 2012 #74
jsmirman Feb 2012 #77
joshcryer Feb 2012 #79
jsmirman Feb 2012 #80
Aerows Feb 2012 #91
MineralMan Feb 2012 #85
Aerows Feb 2012 #89
MineralMan Feb 2012 #95
Aerows Feb 2012 #88
Brickbat Feb 2012 #29
MineralMan Feb 2012 #34
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #41
jsmirman Feb 2012 #52
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #60
joshcryer Feb 2012 #69
jsmirman Feb 2012 #75
joshcryer Feb 2012 #76
jsmirman Feb 2012 #78
Aerows Feb 2012 #90
Brickbat Feb 2012 #14
MineralMan Feb 2012 #16
Whisp Feb 2012 #28
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #47
zappaman Feb 2012 #18
2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #21
AngryAmish Feb 2012 #22
SoCalDem Feb 2012 #56
slutticus Feb 2012 #81
Obamanaut Feb 2012 #24
greytdemocrat Feb 2012 #25
tishaLA Feb 2012 #26
Kaleko Feb 2012 #46
FarLeftFist Feb 2012 #33
MineralMan Feb 2012 #35
FarLeftFist Feb 2012 #39
MineralMan Feb 2012 #42
sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #44
Bluenorthwest Feb 2012 #38
midnight Feb 2012 #57
polly7 Feb 2012 #63
Marengo Feb 2012 #82
lonestarnot Feb 2012 #97

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:56 PM

1. About time. Half-decent apology.

Try to learn from it. Well done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:00 PM

3. You owe Nadin an apology

Your behavior was disgusting in the way that you called her and her integrity out. DU3 has become little more than a place for bullies to feel like big men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:03 PM

5. You're joking, right?

You have to be. Wtf do you think this OP is all about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:09 PM

20. Thanks Nadin, it takes a big person to apologize for a mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:03 PM

43. "DU3 has become little more than a place for bullies to feel like big men."

Agree. This thread is another example of what psychologists call "serial bullying."

Here are two links to a site that can help raise awareness about bullying tactics and how to respond to them.

Home page:
http://www.bullyonline.org/

Four types of serial bully: the Attention-Seeker, the Wannabe, the Guru and the Sociopath:


http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 11:21 AM

84. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:55 PM

40. Clever little back-handed compliment.

Clever little back-handed compliment.

Bless your little heart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #40)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 09:12 PM

58. Actually I was being generous.

The OP apologized for her mistake in not checking out part of her story. I think it was sincere.

However, since you bring it up, there was no similar apology for her repeated fabrications in this forum, set out in effort to dilute blame for -- or simply cover up -- that mistake. Nor, in fact, has she apologized for her behavior toward less credulous readers, who asked precisely the questions she should have before running with a story.

I infer however that she has regrets in those areas as well, and consider the matter resolved.

As an aside, her editor deserves some blame for all this; however she very appropriately went to bat for the OP as things started to fall apart, as well as issued comprehensive, if guarded, corrections on the related stories. Those actions display good instincts, and suggest she is a better editor than the initial situation might've made one think.

I have little doubt this has been an education for both of them, and expect their product will improve as a result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:00 PM

2. Now, That's Crunchy...

Hopefully, a lesson learned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:09 PM

6. Hopefully people would be more polite next time when a story seems questionable.

It happens, people are human.

I never saw the purpose of rudeness when it's just as easy to simply say something in a
more polite way. Nadin is not the only one who should apologize imho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:30 PM

7. I have worked most of my life as a professional journalist.

There was no excuse for the error made in that published story. No excuse at all.

That said, I don't believe I was particularly rude in pointing out its weaknesses when it first appeared. As it turned out, my skepticism was shown to be warranted.

If you're talking about the "Crunchy" thing, I didn't make that description up.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:53 PM

8. Actually I wasn't talking about you. Just pointing out that there are others who

jumped on the story and created an atmosphere where it was not really possible to have a rational discussion to sort out the story. Reporters often get stories wrong, sources often turn out to not be reliable. Corrections are made when that happens. But there is no reason to attack them nor is it productive to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:58 PM

9. But you were talking TO me.

You didn't draw the separation.

The story was unprofessionally written and edited, and not really fact-checked in a proper way. Had it been, it would not have been published. It was amateurish, both in the writing and the editing. It should never have appeared. It was not factually-based. It was not confirmed. It was, in fact, wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:34 PM

12. I addressed your comment because you failed to note the behavior of others in Nadin's

thread singling only her out as someone who might learn something.

I would hope that childish, rude, mockery and swarming of a DUer would also be pointed out as something from which lessons could be learned. Such as: How about people refrain from engaging in such childish and bullying behavior. An error is one thing, the response to it is another and it was all part of this event on DU. Frankly I found the response far more troubling than the error. But then I care about CS here and hate to see DU sink to a level where when someone makes an error they are to be attacked by a swarm. I would that does NOT become a community standard here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:55 PM

15. You can address whatever it is you wish to address.

That's none of my business. And I will address sloppy journalism when I see it. We are forever pointing out the crap that is published by Fox News and other outlets. I pointed out a piece of poorly done journalism. I will continue to do that, since I have pretty high standards for reporting and journalism. I worked in that field for many, many years, and was held responsible for the accuracy and fairness of what I wrote. If something I wrote was as sloppily incorrect as this story was, I'd have been instantly out of a job.

There are standards. Certainly, the Internet has woefully diluted those standards, giving a platform for lousy reporting and writing wherever you turn. But, I don't have to accept those lousy results. And I won't.

You can do whatever you wish. I have no control over what you, or anyone else does on the Internet. I can only control what I do. Calling me to account for what others do is a waste of time. I don't write what they write. I am not them.

If you write to me about what others write, then you're aiming at the wrong target.

On DU, I'm not a journalist. I've never done political journalism. I've never been paid for any writing about politics. If I'm posting factual information, I use the same standards I have always used. If I'm writing humor, I write humor. If I criticize a story that is posted here because I think it was badly researched and is incorrect, I will do that.

You seem to find me a useful target for your scorn. That's OK with me. You're welcome to target me as much as you like. But, you will not do it without a response from me. If you have criticisms of something I've written, then post them, by all means. But if you criticize others in your posts to me, I will simply suggest that you go criticize them directly. That's what you can expect. If you address me with regard to something I have not written, but that you expect me to write, for some reason, then I will tell you that your criticism is misplaced.

The original story that triggered all of this was incorrect. It was wrong. It was amateurish in reporting, writing, and editing. If you wish to defend it, go right ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:04 PM

17. I don't understand why you feel targeted. You made a comment on a subject that was

pretty much beaten to death here and I responded to your comment as I felt you were asking for better standards, but left out the behavior of some DUers who basically derailed a thread where those standards could have been discussed in a more productive way.

People respond to my comments all the time, sometimes not very politely to say the least but I don't feel particularly targeted. It's a discussion board, if I make a comment I expect responses, both good and bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:08 PM

19. No, you were taking me to task for what I did not write.

I write what I write. In this case I was writing about the original story and about how amateurishly it was handled. Others are perfectly capable of writing what they want to say, and you're perfectly capable of addressing what they have written. Your expectation that I would write about what others said about the story is unrealistic. I did not choose to do that, because that was not my subject.

Don't expect me to write anything but what I actually write. Then, we'll get along just fine. If you criticize me for what I have not written, then we will not get along so well. I am not a whipping boy for what others say. I'm fairly careful about what I write, and I think others should be, too. If they are not, it is none of my affair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:34 PM

30. Taking you to task? A comment on an internet blog is not taking someone to task. It is

a comment. And in this case, since you were speaking about standards I merely pointed out how when a thread is derailed by mocking, childish comments, there is no room or opportunity to improve those standards. The comments to the thread were part of the reason why there was no way to get those standards you are demanding. My comment was very relevant to the subject. It is called 'discussion'.

And that is why CS are so important, so that what happened here does not continue to happen and when someone makes an error, which will happen again I am sure, rather than a bunch of people coming in and totally removing any possibility of a rational discussion, the standards HERE on DU which is what we are talking about, will be raised hopefully.

I give credit to Nadin for this OP. Especially considering the attacks on her, something which I think most people who care at all about standards, would be pointing out also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:47 PM

36. You got the last word.

Seeya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #36)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 11:57 PM

71. Actually, her getting the last word, MM, would necessitate you shutting your trap. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #71)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 11:10 AM

83. That's not something I'm known for...

But, hey, thanks for the suggestion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #71)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 05:25 PM

92. I thought Mineralman handled himself quite well in this thread

 

and as a treat should be afforded the last word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Obama3_16 (Reply #92)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 05:32 PM

93. I thought it was instructive to see the assumption that having the last word is would be

important to me. Assumptions are always risky imho.

I am not much concerned about 'last' words, only about meaningful and sincere words which can be first or last, or in between.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:17 PM

55. MM, I just want you to know that we all saw what was posted and you are 100% correct

and it's amazing what some people think that they can get away with. You have my full support, because I know that it means alot to you.

(Sorry, I see that poster type this sentiment to so many people around here, I just had to know what it felt like to be so self-important)

Seriously though, I do agree with what you've written here. And it's fascinating that even in a thread where the OP admits they did some sloppy work and are apologizing for it, there are people here STILL DEFENDING IT. And I'm sure it's no coincidence that the ones doing it have done some pretty sloppy reporting of their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #55)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 10:42 PM

62. "we all"?? You don't speak for me, let alone everyone here. n/t


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleko (Reply #62)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 11:14 PM

65. Thanks for the needless response, but I was speaking to MM

And my comment was a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:49 PM

37. You really should

hold nadin and yourself to the same standards that you want to hold everyone else to.

From my point of view, your outrage is hilarious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #37)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:07 PM

45. Can you point where I do not hold myself to those standards? I am always willing to

take advice on improving myself, if it is given in good faith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:39 PM

48. Please see my post #43 above.

The second link has some truly eye-opening information for people confronted with the behavior you describe.

Ah, what the hell, here it is again

Four types of serial bully: the Attention-Seeker, the Wannabe, the Guru and the Sociopath:

http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleko (Reply #48)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 05:05 PM

50. Interesting, thank you. Another interesting aspect of online bullying, which came up

a couple of years ago when a female blogger was bullied by swarms of mostly men, is that it is most often women who are the targets of such bullying. As a result, many women choose names that do not identify them as women.

Don't know if you are familiar with that case. She was one of the first bloggers to report or threaten to report, the relentless, online attacks on her and the harm it did to her as a person. The excuses made, initially, were that she was 'obnoxious', a 'know-it-all' etc. and I guess 'deserved it', typical excuses which even if true, are not an excuse anyway.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 11:23 AM

86. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 11:31 PM

66. Hopefully people will be more critical next time a story seems questionable.

I saw too many people feigning politeness while spreading unabashed disinformation. To me there is nothing polite, good, courteous, cultivated, about disinformation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #66)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 11:42 PM

67. There is a big difference between disinformation, which is a deliberate attempt to

deceive, and an honest mistake followed by an apology. And neither case warrants online bullying, imho. Critical questioning of facts is the best way to uncover incorrect information. Swarming, mocking, providing fodder for a site that shall not be named but known for its stalking of many DUers, is in no way productive. Women are particularly susceptible to that kind of treatment, which may be why you see so many women condemning it.

Here, have a heart! Why? Because despite your need to constantly disagree with me, I believe you do care about people even though I am always right and you are always wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #67)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 11:59 PM

72. There was a concerted disinformation effort displayed in that thread.

I do not take kindly to people trying to spread disinformation, dishonesty, and even outright lies, provable, correctable, predictable.

We as liberals are supposed to be better at sifting through the cruft and determining what is propaganda and what is not.

A call for "politeness" is just a method of deflection, so that the dis-informative aspects can be easily swept under the rug. Truly Machiavellian at its core.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #72)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 03:03 PM

87. The call was for an end to bullying. I don't think that was meant to be a deflection of anything,

it was intended to directly address a particular subject which it did. The subject of the OP is entirely separate from that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #87)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 10:24 PM

96. I don't think it was meant to deflect, but that was what it does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:02 PM

4. Could you provide a little back story? Is there a link to a previous thread?

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to myrna minx (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:17 PM

11. Good Lord...

Please don't encourage her anymore on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to myrna minx (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:27 PM

27. The story of Jay Polk (from what I understand - correct if wrong)

Jay Polk is a real person who supposedly posted a message on Facebook saying that he was on a Special Forces mission in Syria. Days (or weeks) later, he was killed (with the official explanation being he died on a mission). Nadin posted a huge thread about it here, with some believing that it was a conspiracy of some sort.

Jay Polk is a real person, but he was never killed. He was never in Syria, and was discharged from the army in a little over a month. It was a completely fake internet story that somebody with an imagination (not Nadin - just somebody else) made up and tried to make it look like it was a conspiracy.

That's why you should never always believe what you see on the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chrisa (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:42 PM

49. Wow. I feel left out of the loop.

Reading the OP, I was jolted to see it was about an event in my little town of New Iberia, and I had heard nothing about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chrisa (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:03 PM

53. Thank you....missed the original thread and could make absolutely no sense of this thread

until your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:58 PM

9. No harm done

And bless you for having the strength of character to not only admit you are wrong, but apologize for it. Heaven knows none of us are right all of the time, and we all make mistakes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:35 PM

13. Are you sure?

I'm not so sure about that, really. Harm was done to the truth. Harm was done to the reputation of that publication. Harm was done to people who believed that the "soldier" was dead and went to a bogus memorial service. Harm was done by recognizing a fraud as a hero.

Yes, there was harm done. There is always harm done when publications publish untrue stories. There is always harm done when journalistic standards are ignored and the public gets incorrect information.

You think there was no harm done? What do you think of Fox News? They publish incorrect stories all the times. We revile them for it.

Journalism is a serious business. It has standards. Sadly, those standards often go unmet, and harm is, indeed, done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:20 PM

23. Okay

But I think when someone steps up to the plate and says "I'm wrong and made a mistake" like all people occasionally do, we should accept their apology and not pound them into the ground endlessly for it. I'll take a person that admits they were wrong any day over a person that is incapable of admitting they are a member of the human race and is subject to making mistakes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #23)


Response to Obamanaut (Reply #31)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 05:47 PM

94. Well, this settles it

You've never been wrong and got a shade defensive? None of us LIKES to be wrong, but it takes guts to step up to the plate and SAY you were wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #23)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:36 PM

32. When the apology is sincere,

it will be accepted, but there are still consequences. For professional journalists, a mistake like this one would be a job-ender, if not a career-ender. For amateurs, that's not necessarily the case, but the publication that publishes erroneous material may lose whatever reputation it might have.

This story did not affect you in any way, so there was no harm done to you. However, you are not the only one who might have been affected by it.

Sure, I'll accept a sincere apology for sloppy work. But I won't continue to regard that writer's work with anything but skepticism. That's why accuracy is paramount for journalists and reporters. Without that, they have nothing to sell.

Frankly, I don't see this apology as sincere, in any case, but that's another issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 06:42 PM

51. I think that is far from always true

Last edited Tue Feb 7, 2012, 10:24 PM - Edit history (1)

I am *also* an ex-journalist. This thread has been particularly nasty, in my opinion, but there's obviously back history, and so there's that.

And as an ex-journalist, I cannot disagree with your criticism of insufficiently sourced, insufficiently fact-checked, and occasionally downright factually incorrect reporting.

But this "would be a job-ender, if not a career-ender"? Are you sure about that?

As I mentioned in another thread, did you follow the coverage of Saif Gaddafi's "flight" (as best I can tell, he never really left) from Libya?

For one, the British papers that are prominently linked by google news essentially made up new stories about where he was, if he'd been captured, if he'd been shot, and so on, on a daily basis. I, apparently, incorrectly lumped the Guardian into the properly castigated junk heap, as someone pointed out that they are more reputable than I gave them credit for being. I could swear, though, that they were part of the absolute circus that was the media chasing its tail on that story. Move the Guardian to the side, and you cannot tell me that publications like The Independent and the Daily Mail should not feature drawings of spastic clowns on their mastheads.

But what was worse is that ABC online and other American publications continuously fabricated stories about the young Gaddafi's fate. And journalists have forgotten how to identify uncertainty in a story if they simply must run something - you can still have a story that says "xxxxx Group *claims* that xxxx xxxxx." Even that stab at accuracy is beyond current reporting.

I don't think a single person was fired or even reprimanded over any of the fabulist bullshit written over the course of a journalistic horror show that lasted over a month.

Let's be clear - the web has not "diluted" journalistic standards - it has obliterated them. It's a write first, apologize later world. And I also - with evidence in what I wrote directly above - want to be clear that any idea that "just bloggers" have destroyed these standards is horseshit. Mainstream outlets killed the truth. The lack of journalistic standards is what allowed Fox News to convince a particularly dippy part of our population that every fact is subject to a "but I disagree" rebuttal. On that count, don't think for a second that the New York Times didn't put a gun to the head of "things that are factually true" and pull the trigger. You let Jayson Blair happen, you let Fox News happen. It's that simple.

I'm not excusing Nadin's journalistic failings in running with a story that simply had not been properly sourced/reported. But before you go clutching the pearls for "journalism" - sorry, but those pearls are a laughable nod to modesty by an alley-trolling strumpet.

I'll give you another one: without getting into all the gory details, one decade ago, a certain not-unknown magazine ran a story that appeared under the byline of a well-regarded authority on a topical subject. There was one overwhelming flaw. That "authority" didn't write a word of the piece, never saw the piece before publication, and never even agreed to pen a story for the magazine. Sure, the editor who had claimed to be managing the freelance assignment was fired, but should that *really* have been the only person fired? Every bit of copy that appears in a publication should be fact-checked. How could you possibly claim to have fact-checked an article if you never spoke to the writer of a piece, or, in fact, never even confirmed the provenance of a piece?

Shouldn't a copy desk get fired over that one? How about the Editor-in-Chief?

One decade later, that Editor-in-Chief is still in place. No one got fired except the one editor, who deserved nothing better, but can't possibly be the only one who failed in that scenario.

Fact-checking jobs have been slashed in the industry, as though fact-checking were some sort of optional expense like "premium champagne for the Christmas party."

The web set in play events that have killed journalism, but it's not the web's fault that old media has done such a piss poor job of figuring out how to monetize its content, and it's not the web's fault that "doing away with standards" was a crazy bottom-line approach to what is really a top line problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsmirman (Reply #51)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:03 PM

54. Excellent post, thank you. The notion that there are any journalistic standards

left, is a fallacy. And you have documented well some of the reasons why. Books could be filled with examples of why it is ludicrous to place any blame on bloggers who rarely claim to be traditional journalists nor do they have the resources of some of our most 'respectable' news media.

Should be an OP. The media here, and from what we are reading about Britain, is a national disgrace, but as you point out, it is rare to see anyone's career ruined over sloppy journalism. It's far more likely in fact, to see the careers of actual truth-tellers, such as Ashley Banfield eg, ruined for daring to report actual facts about a story she was asigned to cover. Well, so long as she only reported the approved information that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsmirman (Reply #51)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 09:39 PM

59. Thank you for putting the conceit bandied about on this thread

for the sole purpose of chastising a person into the proper perspective.

I hope somebody will buy more hearts and give a bunch of them to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleko (Reply #59)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 10:41 PM

61. I really am pretty infuriated with the death of journalistic standards

but I know where to place the bulk of my blame.

Let's be serious here - I worked at a top of the food chain publication and, forgive me for being crass, but the crap was just as crappy at that crap-fest.

It's fun having a bunch of stories that would be hilarious if they weren't so messed up - actually, they're still pretty hilarious - but the state of journalism is really, really bad.

I pretty much never make it to the end of an article in the NYT without finding at least one egregious typo.

The strangest thing (at least for me), though, is this: I think I grew up with an unrealistic set of expectations for the media. I have come to believe that there was a post-Watergate flowering of journalism and that the late seventies/early eighties was a time of unusual quality for print publications. But I don't think it was always this way. One project or another has occasioned reading tons of newspapers from the 20's and the 30's. Journalists during that period? Kind of crappy, too.

I still believe that journalists should simply do better. I've never looked back in envy, but I do look back with pretty withering scorn. I left the field because it just wasn't worth the aggravation. One thing that is truly sad, though, is that just as so many of the worst people are the only people who gravitate toward politics, journalism has become a field that only people obsessed with seeing their names in print can tolerate. There are still some good ones out there, but they are little white flecks on an otherwise vapid sea of mediocrity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsmirman (Reply #61)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 10:59 PM

64. Right - and on the receiving end of that constant flood

of disinformation that passes for journalism, I have learned to take nothing at face value anymore. Nothing. I read news articles the way one would read code language, looking for clues as to what's really going on, trying to divine what stories our corpo-guvments are wanting to hide or manipulate.

Btw, I see that my wish was granted by an anonymous reader. Somebody did add a bunch of hearts to the one you had when I posted my last reply. Sweet!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleko (Reply #64)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 11:43 PM

68. Ha - there is something

really nefarious about the heart game (!!!), but because it's for charity, it's brilliant.

I have to say that I find it terribly depressing that this is where you (not unreasonably) have landed, wrt the media.

As I said, Fox has flourished through their "there are no facts - so get a load of some real balderdash!" strategy.

There are facts. There are stories that accurately reflect the events they cover, and there are stories that are filled with lies.

The problem, as I see it, is that with all the focus on a mad scramble for the few crumbs left on the table, there just aren't that many places for journalists with the courage and desire to tell the truth. There are blogs that do that, but there's obviously a degree of cacophony when you're talking about the net. I think there was a time when members of "the reputable media" were in the game to expose, to inform, and to enlighten. I don't see a lot of that out there. There are definitely some "mad in the head" investigative journalists out there, and I have a lot of respect for those folks, because there are few risks they won't take for a story. But they don't run the rags, and the course is set by people with very little journalistic vigor in the bloodstream.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsmirman (Reply #51)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 11:54 PM

70. Just a small note...

On coverage of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi - the cloud of war in Libya was tremendous. Journalists did not have access to conflict areas and were relying on passed information which often was not reliable. It's not easy to figure out who died in an airstrike on a convoy. I have a lot of respect for journalists who venture into combat zones and reporting of that story is by no means a paragon example in the decline of journalistic standards. They were in a rush and maybe things that shouldn't have been published were blogged and then picked up. The fog of war shrouded the reporting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #70)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:06 AM

73. That is absolutely true

it was strikingly apparent that there was no such thing as access to a reliable network.

But this gets at precisely what disturbed me so much about the reporting - there are no longer grownups in charge.

How do you not know how to present uncertainty? What ever happened to holding your powder? Why does stating things you do not know to be true in an authoritative tone have to replace stating things in a manner that accurately reflects your level of confidence in a story?

It's horseshit!!!

I'm sure it's pressure from the top, and even if I don't entirely trust them, I've always had a certain awe for people who are a shitload crazier than I am (reporting from a war zone? No thank you.).

But it's terrible. It's wrong and it's killed the profession. The reporting of that topic in no way, shape, or form needed to go down like that. YOU (CNN, etc.) decided to have a 24-hour news network. But you know what? If you weren't sure of the story at 2 am, just because it's 6am and four more hours have passed, it doesn't mean you have the story. And filling time with reports that lead in no coherent direction just means you are presenting noise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsmirman (Reply #73)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:20 AM

74. Journalism is a business at the core.

Being the first to report something is viewed as crucial to product quality. I think most responsible journalists did present the uncertainty. I would also point out that this is nothing new. I'm sure people had similar complaints when the transition from hand-carry to telegraph was made. The real talent is now in news analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #74)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:39 AM

77. I hear you

and I am ready for someone to tell me that I was young and (more) ignorant in the late 70's, early 80's, but I could swear journalism was significantly better then. So if anyone older than me wants to set me straight, I'm all ears. I was too young to know any better, but the above was definitely my impression.

Now, as a consumer, I imagine that I'm in the minority, but damn it, I don't want my news first, I want it right. First and right is fine, but first and wrong is useless to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsmirman (Reply #73)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 01:16 AM

79. I think the news wire in general, the dry, classic reporting, is still decent.

Don't get me wrong, it still requires analysis and is itself biased by access (if they don't have access to all sides of a given story or conflict then that side will not be shared). I find it to be OK, though. In contrast to "infotainment" whereby corporate media outlets just plaster you with 90% nonsense 10% substance (and that's being kind).

To parse news though you have to really get into details. If you find a story that seems circumspect, the onus is still on you to figure out if it's true or not.

You mention Saif Gaddafi, a good example, but I liked the Mexico escape story (not sure if that's the one you're talking about). The news wire basically said "some guy said such and such," and the infotainment, corporate, pundit filled media ran with it and spent hours covering the possibility, speculating, rambling on and on with no facts. If you watched the infotainment only you would find yourself thinking it actually happened, or was about to happen, or could've happened, or maybe almost happened, and such. The dry, boring, news wire story basically said someone said something and that nothing came of it (the story in fact did not come out until Saif was captured and there was video and photographic evidence showing he was captured, alive, and in good condition).

Looking at Libya, again, you saw that a lot of mainstream / infotainment reporters were stuck in the Rixos Hotel, and that the Libyan government at the time was tightly controlling the narrative. For weeks reports were extremely bizarre, verging on psychosis. Amanpour, for example, was parroting regime language until the end (and other "independent sources" which one might consider "more credible" were claiming nonsense right until they were evacuated from the Rixos). Meanwhile Sky News (an infotainment company) and Al Jazeera (who I consider more in line with independent media) were on the ground, and had a dramatically different story to tell. Totally and completely different story.

Then, you get reports from those who were forced to be in Rixos and when they actually sneak out to get stories from local people, it's parroted as pro-war propaganda or something, despite that, as human beings, these people self-admittedly felt imprisoned and just wanted to know what was real, from their point of view. They probably got it wrong in both instances, while being trapped they played along and regurgitated the states line, and when they got free they went overboard in a sort of resentful way. But, if you sit there and then bring together the sources, you will find yourself sitting somewhere close to the truth.

In that vein I don't think the media has ever been truly balanced. The "infotainment" industry has only emphasized just how out of wack the media can be. It's one reason I don't have cable or watch cable news, because it's just, highly irrational when you get down to it.

This, btw, also applies to the Iraq War. There were a handful, if that, of reporters living in and around Iraq when the invasion happened (Robert Fisk most notably). A mere handful. Either people didn't want the job, or the media companies didn't want to send anyone in there. Meanwhile the US government allowed the embedding of 50+ reporters in the invasion forces. Imagine that! Whichever side is going to have the best stories, and images, right? Talk about profit motive!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #79)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 01:53 AM

80. No - not the Mexico story

I'm referring to the period between October 17th and (his capture on) November 19th, when I read just about everything spanning from him turning into a unicorn and escaping to him being turned into a toad and captured in someone's diorama.

This period, obviously, was when the regime had crumbled, so there was no Rixos-lock.

Regrettably, even Al Jazeera really had nothing as to where Saif was, or what his circumstances were.

(Was there an earlier Mexico story than this recent one? I heard a range of bordering countries, a variety of regions, news of his being surrounded, then crossing a border, then completely free and clear and out of the reach of the new government, etc., but never Mexico during that period)

I understand your concept about circumspect reporting, and yes, I am much more interested in the contents of a story that does not appear to have been sensationalized, but I don't even trust the Associated Press anymore.

It's likely that Sports is still the area of the news/world that I know most about, and in the past few years, I have read stories from the AP that I know to be terrible representations of the reality of a story.

I certainly try to find the middle of the various stories, but I think I served myself well in the case of Saif Gaddafi during that month by concluding that the story was simple - no one saying anything had a fucking clue where he was. So I just stopped listening until there was a report that was obviously, at last, true, and there was video and pictures.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #79)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 05:24 PM

91. I'd call it entertainment masqueraiding as infoducation

Just like selling people that they are from Xenu every time a penny drops in the box, and every time they deride a person speaking truth.

We haven't always agreed, but I'm really sick of people telling me what I HAVE to agree upon, and you, my friend, don't do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsmirman (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 11:22 AM

85. I retired from journalism in 2002.

I had another business I could follow, so I did. You're right about the deterioration of standards all across the industry. I was speaking of the time when I was actively in that career. Certainly the publications I wrote for would have never given me another assignment if I got something that wrong. The amount of editing and oversight steadily decreased during my time, and to the detriment of the final product.

Frankly, I was glad to finally end that line of work. It made my living for a couple of decades or so, but got more frustrating as time went on. I'm an old geezer, so my standards were set in a different time, I guess.

These days, as I find myself having to go back to work, despite my geezerhood, I'm finding the work easier, since I'm basically writing marketing materials for small businesses as I fill their websites with content. The pay per word is lousy, but the writing goes quickly, and my very varied background lets me take on just about any business website job.

My wife, also a journalist, is still plugging away at what she's always done, but has also shifted to editing web content on a contract basis. She's appalled at the poor quality and sometime downright plagiarism she sees, but it's a living, so she fixes the lousy writing and rejects the plagiarism. Beats going hungry and without heat in the winter, I guess.

Still, there are many reliable sources of information out there, if you're willing to dig them out. For that, I'm grateful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #85)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 05:14 PM

89. You said it

You've become a marketer, not a truth teller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #89)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 07:33 PM

95. I'm not a journalist any longer.

On the other hand, I've turned down several contracts on the basis of the business being not something I can support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsmirman (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 05:06 PM

88. I couldn't have said any of that better

Including that it's horseshit that the web destroyed journalistic credibility. Journalists destroyed journalistic credibility and everyone knows it, including journalists. If they weren't aware that they have destroyed their own credibility and turned into glorified Edina Monsoon PR people with the exception of a few, they are out of touch.

They have themselves to thank for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:33 PM

29. Well said.

The OP also did some serious harm to the credibility of her own byline. That's hard to rebuild.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #29)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:42 PM

34. Sometimes, it's impossible to rebuild.

I've known a couple of writers who had their careers destroyed because of sloppiness and inaccuracy. They were friends, too, but that's how it works. One of the problems today is that writers are getting published, not getting paid, and don't understand this basic fact of journalism. It's a profession. Reputation is everything in that profession. Without it, you have no profession.

Since so much that is written today is done without payment, it is devalued, and the standards have gone to hell. I'm retired from that profession. Now, I write web site content for a living. I don't write little blog pieces, but entire websites. The pay is not great, but I'm fast and accurate and able to write such stuff in many different subject areas. So, I make decent money for the work. Accuracy is still important, though, and I still use the same standards I always used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #29)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:01 PM

41. Oh I wouldn't worry about that. Our 'journalists' who reported totally false imformation

on Iraq and its WMDs, some of our most 'respected' journalists, are still on the air and writing in our most respected news papers. Talk about causing harm. Over a million dead human beings and untold numbers maimed both physically and mentally for life, not to mention the harm done to this country.

The idea that we have any journalistic standards in this country is almost laughable considering the past ten years.

So a minor story like this is hardly on the same level as the multitudes of wrongly sourced material that appeared hourly in the media here and which all turned out to be wrong.

There would have to be journalistic standards in order to violate them.

And at least in this case, a correction has been made. I'm still waiting for the the WMD claims to be apologized for and the lack of them given the same coverage their fake existence received.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #41)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 06:44 PM

52. Amen - please see above

pearl-clutching nonsense from a strumpet wearing nothing but.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsmirman (Reply #52)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 09:54 PM

60. I responded above, excellent post by you, thank you! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #41)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 11:52 PM

69. Phil Donahue and Peter Arnett were ostracized.

The MSM needed ratings, and they got those ratings.

However, that merely deflects from the fact that we, as people who can see through propaganda, should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

We knew Scott Ritter's reports, we read Hans Blix's reports, we had Robert Fisk's reports, we understood why David Kelley was suicided.

NYT apologized for their WMD claims.

Other outlets, like the LA Times, were against the war from the start and were proven correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #69)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:21 AM

75. Man

I'm too tired to go further on this tonight, but are you sure that you aren't translating "you" into the public-at-large?

I am guessing you are a good stretch more informed - and able to process these materials - than the average consumer of media.

This almost seems like blaming the victim. Maybe it's the ex-journalist in me, but I refuse to believe that we cannot and should not do better.

And as to the NYT's apology - circumstances happen to be that I had an unusual degree of familiarity with that deal from start to finish - and I can elaborate circumspectly in a PM, but flat out there are things that I am ethically-bound to not elaborate on - and there is no way to pull clarity or satisfaction from either the Times' apology, or really any sort of apology that they could have offered. That is a really ugly story, and with access to versions from the most inclined to see things in a favorable light, my conclusion is that there's not enough makeup in the world to cover up the blemishes. I haven't already said too much, but I'm not going to say too much, so that's all I'm going to say about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsmirman (Reply #75)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:28 AM

76. Fair enough, I should say I mean DU here, sorry.

The Iraq War was a big issue for DUers, 90% of my Iraq War info came from other DUers. If I say "Scott Ritter" I, personally, think most pre-2004 DUers know who that is.

Just so you know, I found the NYT's 'apology' disgraceful. For me, what was more disgraceful was that they had to make one in the first place, that they really bought into the mass media narrative like the rest.

Thank God we had outlets like LA Times, Democracy Now!, Indymedia, and The Independent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #76)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:45 AM

78. Gotcha

I was thinking for a second that I would love to see the world through those eyes, was feeling uncharitable and cynical, but was also thinking, "the public - no, come on, no, no way..." I think I locked in on that because I do think that we have (in my case, had) a responsibility as journalists to not only write well, and truthfully, and interestingly, but also to reach something more than the thinnest slice of the public with work that increases understanding and a desire to be informed.

Good, good, good on the NYT thing - because argh, the thing was so ugly from start to finish. It really was the type of situation that made you feel a range of awful emotions - angry, disappointed, sick, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 05:17 PM

90. I don't have the intention of going after DU members

But when you push ideals with religious fervor, intelligent people start to wonder who you are working for. Uncovering the truth means uncovering lies. I don't begrudge Nadin for that. God knows we have enough people willing to sell lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:55 PM

14. As a freelance reporter, I can only hope you get yourself some training and an editor who knows what

s/he's doing. It's articles like the one you're talking about, apologies like the one in the OP and e-mails like the one you've included here that make it difficult for me to do my job and get paid a decent wage for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:56 PM

16. There you go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:31 PM

28. isn't that the truth.

I'm sorry that this kind of amateur hour stuff makes your work life harder.
I wish people knew how serious these kinds of screw ups can be and to so many people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:25 PM

47. I would disagree, I would say you have more to worry about from our so-called

respected news media, which has landed itself at #47 this year on the list of the World's Free Press. I doubt Nadin's little article, and she has written some other very excellent material btw, will have any major impact on your work. It's not like she's writing for the NYT, and there is publication that caused great harm to journalism in general, not to mention the lives that were lost as a result of their false reporting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:06 PM

18. K and R for the apology.

Good to see!
Would like to see the paper retract the story as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:10 PM

21. You handled this with class.

Others... not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:12 PM

22. Can I have a link to the original? I missed this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:32 PM

56. I always miss stuff too..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 02:23 AM

81. Here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)


Response to Obamanaut (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:25 PM

25. Stop...you're killing me. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Obamanaut (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:26 PM

26. ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tishaLA (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:16 PM

46. Piling on after somebody is targeted for serial bullying and gloating...

is that what your rofl smilie is all about?

Btw. I was juror # 1 on for that post.
__________________________________________________________________
At Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:30 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

One would hope that a trained historian, self proclaimed reporter, writer, gamer, editor,


REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This is an outright attack. Although the OP and the thread involve matter that is "relevant" to the alerted post, I don't think you can have a much clearer "personal attack" than what we have here. The whole post is wrong, but if you have any doubts, the use of "imagined," should settle the issue.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:53 PM, and the Jury voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Borderline case. But it does imply that Nadin is lying or delusional, so I voted to hide these slurs.

Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Piling on isn't necessary the OP is already admitting a fault in the story.

Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: It is an over-the-top comment. The intent was to mock and humiliate.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Although the button I pushed is "post is okay," the post is not okay. But it's really not in my purview to enforce manners on someone. An apology has been proffered with appropriate humility, and some folks simply can't accept "you were right" for an answer. This post reflects far more poorly on the poster than on the person who started the thread, and savvy DUers can discern the difference.

Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: I'd actually recommend you hide the entire thread (I read all of it for context). Its clearly a call-back OP related to a prior thread which must have became a mess. Here, the OP could have just simply said ... "my mistake" ... but the OP also seems to be making some excuses, and diverting some, and even seems to leave the door open that there might be something more nefarious going on. And that, I think that invites some who felt misled in the prior thread to feel the need to come back and respond with an "I told you so" style. This particular post was a little over the top, although I think that was its point ... if one is "over the top" in their initial position, only to be wrong, they have farther to fall. Still, the entire thread serves no constructive purpose whatsoever.

Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation necessary, just read the post.
________________________________________________________________________________

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:40 PM

33. You're still WAAAY more reputable than Drudge, Fox, Redstate. And WAAAY more classy.

You'll never see a retraction from those news sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #33)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:46 PM

35. Those are not news sources.

They're propaganda outlets. There is a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #35)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:51 PM

39. True, but citizen journalists wouldn't link to a news source usually because...

they are usually more concerned with digging for the truth themselves instead of just using already discovered news stories. These mistakes happen, even at the most respected news sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #39)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:02 PM

42. A few citizen journalists do that. Most do not.

We see evidence daily that they do not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #33)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:05 PM

44. True, and thank you for pointing that out. Could also be said about the more 'respectable'

news media considering how they breathlessly reported false information that led us into a tragic war. I don't remember the same amount of coverage retracting all that false information from them. Many people still believe Iraq was sending a mushroom cloud our way. And the harm from that kind of reporting is incalculable.

I agree, Nadin is way more classy than most of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:50 PM

38. Handling a mistake with grace says more than making a mistake. We all make mistakes

we do not all correct them with courage and grace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:43 PM

57. Thanks for updating us on your discoveries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 10:50 PM

63. Good for you, Nadin.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 09:18 AM

82. You're apologizing "Just because I KNOW somebody will copy and paste" ??? N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 10:29 PM

97. woopsie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread