Reply #108: Right.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

the fact that this particular quote was sourced THRICE before publication. That seems pretty credible to me.

Why? How are three anonymous sources more credible than one?

While I admit that it is often gossipy information,

So you admit that it is "gossip" and wonder why people have a problem with the treatment people here give it? Please. Gossip is gossip, NOT news.

that doesn't mean it isn't true, particularly if it is sourced.

Give me one good reason to believe anything that they say is actually true. I could write what he writes, make up sources, etc. Why should I believe this website, which only cites anonymous sources?

I have yet to see proof from any CHB nay-sayers that

1) CHB is consistently wrong/unreliable,

Of course not. Because they never post anything that is verifiable in any way. This is by design.


2) That CHB's sources are madeup/unreliable

I've seen no evidence that they are NOT madeup/unreliable. It's known as "establishing credibility." It's what real news outlets do, and CHB does not.


3) that it knows it is wrong and publishes such wrong info anyway and

I hardly see where that's relevant, given the first two points.

4) how any of this, if true, is distinguished from similar behavior in stories at "mainstream" outfits like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Well, for one thing, those outlets are often quite viciously called to task when they are wrong. Because those are professional news sources. They often get it wrong. But generally speaking, when they are factually wrong they correct themselves. Many times the damage is already done, but there is at least a minimal standard of professionalism. Plus, they publish articles that are verifiable. If you're unable to tell the difference between real news and gossip, then there's no point in even having this argument.

They have been wrong (WMD anyone???), made up stories (Jason Blair?), etc. Yet, I don't hear clarion calls to not believe anything and everything read from those outfits.

You DON'T? Jesus, which DU are you reading? Also, you are saying that something that should be taken with a grain of salt is equivalent to made up bullshit, which it isn't.


So, what gives with CHB-haters out there?

We don't like lies. Funny, that.

I give it as much credibility as I give any other news source, be they Raw Story or the NYT or MSNBC.

I fail to see why you would put CHB in the same leage with professional journalism outlets.

If thrice-sourced quotes isn't credible enough for you, then read something else, but don't demonize those of us who find it interesting, compelling, and (gasp!) credible.

Nope. Sorry. People who spread lies are every bit as bad as the people who write them in the first place. Try again.

I'm just sick of the knee-jerk demonization here anytime something from CHB makes the news.

Then perhaps you should stop posting lies from discredited gossip sites and expecting rational people to believe that it is news, that it is true, or that it is anything other than what it is - anonymously sourced gossip from some guy with a web page. Get a fucking grip.


P.S. Some of you might want to consider whether it is to our political benefit to have this quote and other similar info "out there".

It isn't. It has absolutely no impact on anything whatsoever. In the bigger scheme of things, CHB is irrelevant. It will, I hope, remain irrelevant, and I am working to maintain its irrelevancy by contradicting people who attempt to prop it up as a real source of information. Again, sorry.

IF CHB were the Washington Times or any other right wing rag of dubious credence, you can bet that it would be all over Drudge within the day, and talked about on Rush Limbaugh ad nauseam by the next.

Your point is what, then? That we need to be even more idiotic than Rush?

Even if it isn't true, is to to our benefit to be quiet about it, or to make a stir and have a media circus and force the White House to come out with a denial of the quote?

That isn't how politics works. If you look at truly effective smears like the SwiftBoat thing, they don't make assertions of fact. They ask questions. They repeat the questions ad nauseum, until the question itself becomes the story. This is why wholly made-up garbage like Drudge's Kerry's-mistress story never get legs. Have I mentioned that CHB is crap in this paragraph?

Come on people. Wake up and smell the politics.

I've been awake and smelling the politics long enough to know that entities like CHB are no friends of the Democratic party. You want to cast your lot with them, fine. But don't bitch when people don't believe the bullshit, and when you fail to convince them that your unsourced rumors are worthy of attention.

It's only our country and the "goddamned piece of paper" that embodies it that we're trying to save here.


Which is why I won't waste another second of my time with asshats like Rense, CHB, or any of the other assortment of assholes who are abusing the blogosphere for advertising revenue. This is sick.