Reply #62: For someone who pays no attention to forums

[WilliamPitt]

he certainly appears to have precise knowledge of less than a dozen posts I made on DU about his site, less than a dozen posts out of several million.

Two words, sir: Terrance Wilkerson.

Oh, and this:

Women in the Clinton era: Abuse, intimidation and smears
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/June1999/061099/clintonwomen061099.htm

All the President's victims: Bill Clinton's long history of sexual violence against women
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Feb1999/020399/clintonrape020399.htm

"Journalism is best served by those who seek follow the story wherever it leads and don’t let political or philosophical bias sway their course," says Thompson. You wouldn't know it from doing a google search under CHB and the word 'Clinton.' The fact is, CHB made its bones pushing the same Clinton tripe as Newsmax and sites of that nature. It was easy, it was cheap, it was sensational. Facts? Feh.

But let's take this article here on its face.

But a reader sent me a link the other day to a post on DU by William Rivers Pitt, a self-proclaimed guardian of all things Democratic and liberal

Self-proclaimed? Find me where I ever proclaimed such a thing.

Pitt, for those of you who don’t spend time reading the left wing side of the partisan political divide, served as managing editor the liberal commentary site truthout.org and currently serves as a “writer and editorial director” of Progressive Democrats of America. He taught English lit and journalism at some trendy private school near Boston and his father is chairman of the Democratic Party in Louisiana.

I have not been managing editor of truthout since March. My father was the chairman in Alabama. The school I taught at was far from trendy, unless hardass Catholic schools suddenly became hip when I wasn't looking. The condescension is duly noted amid the blizzard of factual errors.

The role of a journalist, Findley Peter Dunne wrote, is “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I was a journalist with several years of experience, a dozen awards and a war under my belt before Billy Pitt crawled out of his mother’s womb.

You were afflicting the comfortable while doing Gingrich's and D'Amato's hatchet work way back when? Oh, and by the way, Judy Miller can lay claim to the same acolades as you. Don't snuggle up too close to that kind of standard. The fact that you're old doesn't make you right.

He claims my bread and butter is “telling people things they wished were true.” Got news for you Billy boy. We raised questions about the Iraq war when 84 percent of the lemmings out there waved the flag and chanted the pro-war chorus and most of the members of your own party voted to give George W. Bush the authority to wage that war.

Congratulations.



Yet those who remember that story overlook the many other stories that we’ve published that used named sources. Dr. Justin Frank, a prominent Washington psychiatrist and author of the book, Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, provided us with much needed insight for our earliest stories on Bush’s mental condition.

Perfect. That book was entirely speculation. To say you are justified in basing your speculation on the speculation of someone else, doctor or otherwise, is pretty much exactly what I am talking about.

And I don’t care much for partisans who claim to be journalists while publishing under a political party banner. Truth is non-partisan. It doesn’t’ subscribe to a particular political philosophy. And truth is not served by an alternative media that looks at things from a partisan political slant. A Robert Novak who writes that all things Democratic are bad is no different from a William Rivers Pitt who claims the same things about Republicans.

Truthout publishes under no political party banner. As a 501(c)3, we can't. We take no money from any party. You are correct in saying truth is non-partisan, but so are hard facts and named sources. I'd also like to see where I say all things Republican are bad. I don't care much for journalists who paint with broad brushes while getting their facts repeatedly wrong.

There will be other Presidents and elected officials, Democrat and Republican, who will face the same scrutiny from Capitol Hill Blue. I approach all elected officials with equal skepticism because I'm a journalist and that's what real journalists do. Unfortunately, my skepticism is all too often rewarded with yet another story of yet another politician abusing the public trust.

So here's my question: if you are, in fact, wandering around Washington with a big skewer in your hand, and this is known, and it is also known that you have it in for every politician you meet, how is it you get so many 'sources' to talk to you? If you're such a badass, who in their right mind would tell you anything? Especially in this White House?

I, flatly, don't believe you. Whenever I use a source, I name them. Period. You have disdain for teachers of journalism, but this former journalism teacher thinks sticking to the basic protocols is a wise idea. Yes, anonymous sources are part of the game. For you, for the 'big stories' that always seem to get this place in a twist, anonymous sources are the whole game.

Yes, you apologized for Terrance Wilkerson. But how many more Wilkersons are there lurking beneath your by-line? How many people are selling you hooey, which you are more than happy to print under the anonymous-source rubric?

It is hard enough working to make the alt-mdia a legitimate news source without having publications like CHB roll the rock back down the hill. If it satisfies you to burnish your credentials and publish hatchet-pieces with bad facts under your name, so be it. I don't trust you any further than I could throw you, many feel the same as I do, and you have no one to blame for that but yourself.

But you won't see this, because you don't pay attention to forums. Alas. It's too bad, because post 34 above asks a bunch of good questions.