Let's not beat each other up over this Truthout/Rove Indictment thing.

[Skinner]

If the Truthout story turns out to be correct, then I'm sure we all agree that it's huge news. If they are correct, then kudos to Truthout and to Jason Leopold for getting the scoop.

But at this point it should be fairly obvious to everyone that until there is some independent confirmation in other news sources, then it is only natural that there is going to be some disagreement here on DU about whether the Truthout story is correct.

All I ask is that we all keep these two points in mind:

    - It is totally understandable that some people trust Truthout's story, and believe it is true.
    - It is totally understandable that some people remain skeptical until they get independent confirmation.

This is not a litmus test issue. Progressives are not required to believe or disbelieve Truthout. Feel free to disagree with one another, but let's not demonize our fellow progressives simply because they hold a different opinion on this.

Thanks.

Skinner
DU Admin

[Oceansaway]

1. Touche !!..n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

2. Always the voice of reason...

:thumbsup:

[xchrom]

3. thank you skinner!

[Harper_is_Bush]

4. Thankyou Skinner.

That needed to be said.

[MichiganVote]

5. Agree. Is this the part where we blame Clinton or am I too early?

[proud patriot]

6. thanks Skinner

:hi:

[Redstone]

7. We'll know soon. Until then, it's pointless to speculate.

Yes?

Redstone

[Tiggeroshii]

8. Yeah.

I for one like the news, but am scared it might not be true. Hopefully we'll get some confirmation and/or an announcement by Monday.

[Obamarama]

9. Bravo...couldn't agree more. Lets stay HOPEFUL but CIVIL.

[stevedeshazer]

10. Well said

I'm waiting....

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Thanks Skinner

But please remember that we are just all excited about Fitzmas! It's here!! It's here!!

:woohoo: :woohoo:

[Maddy McCall]

12. Thank you, Skinner.

Those of us who have asked questions have been villified today.

[Patsy Stone]

13. Right on!

It's a big tent. :)

[bigwillq]

14. Thanks for posting this Skinner.

:hi:

[babylonsister]

15. Thanks, Skinner, and I hope you're feeling better!

:hi:

[Roland99]

16. Wonder why a post like this wasn't around when Truthout and RawStory

were being slammed left and right.

[Skinner]

30. I don't know, Roland.

But I get the feeling you have a theory. Why don't you share it?

[Roland99]

32. No theories...just wondering why venomous attacks were allowed to fester

[WilliamPitt]

36. It's a fair question, Skinner

I wound up taking a week off because I got sick of the full frontal attacks on truthout, Leopold and myself. There were about a dozen call-out threads going at any given moment. There weren't many gray areas. I have no 'theories' aside from mods being in a tight spot because the 'public' figures being tagged were also DUers of long standing. I can't imagine what a pain in the ass that might have been.

I hope you will, therefore, be patient when I call out everyone who pulled that shit once the deal officially goes down. A lot of apologies are owed.

[Skinner]

37. I can certainly understand your frustration.

This place can be rough. If your website (or any website) is willing to go balls-out and take risks that's a great thing, but it also guarantees that you're going to attract attention and even take some heat.

But I think you need to understand that it is not my job -- or the job of the moderators -- to protect Truthout or Rawstory or any other website from criticism here on DU.

This is a discussion forum, and there are lots of people here with lots of different opinions. We post our rules for the world to see, and those include rules against personally attacking other members of this website. If someone personally attacks you, we'll delete it if we are aware of it. But you are not Truthout. We have no rules against questioning the credibility of any media outlet and I think you would agree that it would be highly unwise for us to have a rule like that. DUers cannot judge the credibility of the information they read here unless that information is open to criticism.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you this, but the best thing that Truthout and Rawstory and every other website out there can do to prove the doubters wrong is to do your job the best that you can. If/when this Jason Leopold story is shown to be true, you'll have the last laugh.

And a word of totally unsolicited advice: I'm not sure you'll do Truthout any favors if you come over here "call out everyone who pulled that shit" after you are proven right. I'm sure there are plenty of other people here who are willing to do that for you. If I were you, I wouldn't get bogged down in some of the stupid shit that happens here. Whenever I do, I always end up regretting it.

[Roland99]

39. There's a difference between dissent, debate, arguing and flat-out attacks

The latter being rather unhealthy for any discussion board but, unfortunately, was allowed to continue unabated in multiple threads over a few days.

[EVDebs]

129. Roland, Skinner, WillPitt all DUers: Keep Eyes on the Prize

The question is: How can ANY Republican hope to govern given the current situation ? They've got how many more days of ineptitude and ideological failure to go ?

FDR always experimented and found the projects that worked, discarding what didn't. This administration keeps rowing in a flooded canoe.

[WilliamPitt]

42. I hear you

and thanks.

There will be an "Apologize to Jason Leopold here" thread. That much has to happen. The man is aware of all the derogatory comments thrown his way. WHEN he is proven correct, I am going to make sure there is space available for those who have had fun riding him down. He deserves that much, and will have it if I have a say in the matter.

[Maddy McCall]

45. Can you point to any derogatory comments made here about Leopold?

I've seen none.

Since when did DUers asking questions about an article constitute attacks or derogatory comments about the author?

People here attack Republicans for "drinking the Kool Aid," but for us to accept any news item on blind faith is nothing more than "drinking the Kool Aid."

I would love nothing more than to see Rove indicted, convicted, and jailed for the rest of his life for what he's done. If you are certain that it's a done deal, well, good for you in having faith in your reporter. You've probably had lunch with him, drunk a few beers with him, and so forth. For you to have faith in him is one thing. But for you to expect everyone at DU to hold his work in high esteem just because you say we should is unrealistic.

I'm a skeptic. It's served me well in my career. There's not much that I take on blind faith.

[riderinthestorm]

52. Count me in here

If there are derogatory articles about Leopold personally, I'm not on DU enough to have made note of them.

I have some issues with the content of this particular story:
1. Why does JL say that Fitzgerald tells Rove's atty that Rove has "24 hours to get his affairs in order"? This appears to be some kind of direct reference to a booking? Yet, no booking appears 24 hours (ostensibly) after this discussion?
2. No other news source reports on a Grand Jury meet on Friday. So when exactly was this indictment?
3. There is a very wierd and cloudy reference to "15 hours" of time spent with Rove's lawyers and Fitz. The implication is that this occurred in one day??!! Impossible!

I don't want to be labelled as someone who unfairly smeared JL or Will Pitt but there are issues with the article that warrant clear thinking. When I directly asked WP if there would be a perp walk today (Sat), Will said that nothing was going down until Monday. Well, this seems a direct contradiction to JL's article.

I would like nothing more than proof positive that Rove walks the walk. But until Fitz stands there at that podium and announces the charges, I don't think anyone who questions this JL story should be automatically demonized.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

53. You're kidding, right? There have been countless attacks on...

...Leopold, RawStory, Truthout, and Will Pitt for quite some time now.

Why don't you do a search for a post started by any of those four and read some of the threads?

When you're done, come back and let us know which of the attacks on those four didn't happen.

IMHO, you'd have to be one heck of a "skeptic" to believe that those four haven't been attacked, usually by the same set of posters.

[Kire]

64. the burden of proof is on you

You can't just say it's out there, go find it. You have to show us where it is.

provide the links and the moderators will delete them

Incidentally, we shouldn't be able to find them because they're, presumably, already deleted if you've alerted the mods like you should.

[Roland99]

97. Just search back a couple of weeks for when the news of a 'target letter'

was being posted. Back around the end of April. Many of the individual posts have been deleted and 'name removed' but there were many attacks, some quite vicious.

[Kire]

139. You search.

I don't know what you're talking about specifically. So I'll never find the exact post you're referring to if you don't provide a link.

[Joe Chi Minh]

117. On the contrary, who would want to waste their time, seeking to

prove anything to people who vaunt their scepticism, when they really mean ignoring what looks like an unambiguous convergence of indications in the one direction - not least the extreme improbability of the authors dreaming it all up, thereby jeopardising their already considerable presonal reputations.

What possible flaw could prompt intelligent people to imperil their reputations in such a way? It's not a rhetorical question; nor is it enough to protest, "Oh well, we don't KNOW yet. We'll know later. In the meantime, we can claim the only moral authority for not putting two and two together, before it's been officially ratified as six (...the real question was what do three and three make, But they always ask the wrong questions)." As the great Welsh Labour politician once said, "Why look in the crystal ball, when you can read the book?"

Any theories about the flaw or flaws?

I haven't even been following this saga, but as the man on the Freeway Blogger answered Savage, when told by him, "You don't even know me! You don't know anything about me!": "I hear what you say on your radio program!

[Kire]

138. Huh?

I asked about personal attacks. I asked for links to them.

How can you pretend to say that skepticism "really means" anything other than skepticism?

Improbable is not the same as definitive proof. Which is why it too should be asked for. But I didn't ask for proof of Jason Leopold's claims. In other places, I asked for other sources. Proof would be good, too. Why would somebody want to prove something that they said? Because their credibility is on the line. If you want to be believed at all for anything you say ever, then you need to back it up.

Like I said, by the rules of common law, the burden of proof is on you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

[Harper_is_Bush]

74. I haven't seen any attacks on Leopold or W.Pitt...

but have been the recipient of some from you, who has chosen to characterize any and all questioning of the Leopold story as vindictive and indicative of them having an "agenda on this board".

Much of the hostility and attacks began with yourself.

[Laurab]

103. I've seen tons of them and I'm not on here all THAT much

Personal attacks against Jason, the same for Will, although not as many, very detailed posts about Jason's background, which some people seem to feel makes him untrustworthy. It's ok to want confirmation but these are sometimes hateful attacks. And no, I'm not going to find them for anyone - I'm glad they're gone.

I've seen the same type of attack posts about Rawstory, and people did manage to chase liveoaktx away with the attacks on her. I'm glad Will and Lala didn't allow the venom to chase them off. I miss liveoaktx and the instant videos we used to get. "Misery Accomplished".

It's one thing to be skeptical, quite another to attack. For me, it's enough that Will Pitt backs Jason - Will has earned my respect time and time again. I'm also quite grateful for the work that Rawstory and Truthout do. I see people posting that it hasn't been in the mainstream media, so therefore, it can't be true. I've noticed in the past 5 years or so that a LOT of things don't seem to make it to the "mainstream media", yet they happened.

It makes perfect sense to be skeptical, although I'm not. What doesn't make sense is how downright MEAN some of the posts have been. Why are we trying to chase off independent investigative reporters? I, for one, don't want to count on the MSM for my news - I would have missed a hell of a lot over the past few years.

[Hutzpa]

112. Could this be a swift boat type attack?

Remember 2004 Presidential Election, how they turned the Kerry gun-boat achievement into smear, this could be the same here, there are trolls in our midst and they are well placed to tantalize anything that will hurt their God. We have to remember that.



:shrug:

[uppityperson]

49. Hi Will, I'm with Maddy (#45)

I am NOT slamming Leopold, just waiting for confirmation as I would of a story from any 1 source. That is all.

Edited to add, did a quick search and (some of) the people I see slamming Leopold, well, I see them behaving rudely towards others often also. Disclaimer is in there to not call any one or two or several out, but (some of) them are generally rude. Ignore them.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tavalon]

78. As well you should

but then (unsolicited advice here) get out of the way. Yes, you have been his champion and yes, you are both right and you know it but you have been a lightning rod from time to time and this could be a prime time for that. Then again, everybody could be so flip-flappin' shitfaced happy that no bad will come down from it.

You know you're right. Jason knows he's right. Many of us "know" y'all are right. Soon, the world will know and Jason will get a Pulitzer. And the blogosphere will, in that moment, have arrived to take over the job vacated by the MSM. And, frankly, I hope you get swept on his coattails though it could just as easily have gone the other way. I know you don't do this stuff for the kuddos but because it's the right thing to do. That said, you do it really, really well.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

55. Criticism is one thing....personal attacks on a poster's veracity....

...is something else if it can't be backed up with anything factual.

[Kire]

65. Here's a post where the facts are not backed up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1181478&mesg_id=1182759

BTW, I respect you.

[althecat]

73. Listen to Skinner folks... he is a sanguine fellow...

... who comes highly reccommended.

As for Jason, he has a thickish hide and has endured far worse than the irrational critcism of a few legion naysayers here in DU. I would expect that once this story goes orbital he will be more than willing to be magnanimous about it all.

[liberalnurse]

51. Don't hold your breath Will.....

I don't sense the bashers will show their face on such a thread. I indeed know who they are as I bookmarked the thread.... I will be full of shits-n-giggles when they have to eat their words. I look forward to the outing. O8)

[tavalon]

79. I disagree

DUers can be a lowly bunch but in the end, they stand up with a dignity not seen on the other side. I've seen it before and I suspect I will see it again. I would have dumped this place long ago had it been about all this happy horseshit but people I've never met and may never meet have also reached out in amazing ways to help one another.

Sometimes we hit a lower common denominator than other times, but usually, our meter is in the green zone.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

50. That is an EXCELLENT question. Thank you.

[Cooley Hurd]

17. Happy to be K&R # 5 - skepticism is part of being a liberal...

If we accepted everything we read as fact, we'd be conservatives, wouldn't we? ;)

[Nikki Stone 1]

18. Agreed. Thanks, Skinner!

:)

[thefool_wa]

19. Ah Skinner, always the voice of reason

And I whole-heartedly agree.

There is a part of me that feels, until it is confirmed, I should remain on the skeptical side. That Monday will tell the tale for sure. However, I can't help the warm feeling in the bottom of my heart that tells me the first dominoes have been toppled and it is only a matter of time before the whole string of them are left lying on the ground.

Here's hoping that the scoop is not empty.

[Ladyhawk]

93. Yeah, that's exactly how I feel.

I know I should be more cautious, but I have passed on the information to others. I usually don't do that. :shrug: Now I have them on the edge of their seats, too. I've cautioned others that the info could possibly be bogus, so at least I have an out. Truthout doesn't. They have to be right or they will lose a lot of credibility. They must know that so I am assuming they've done their homework to the best of their ability. I hope they know what they're doing. :)

[NNN0LHI]

20. Fuck that. I want to fight

:hi:

[caligirl]

21. Comment at the Daily kos thread on this, NYDaily news National desk

is aware of the story and is trying to confirm it. This is posted at another DU Rove thread, where I found it.

[hiley]

23. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1181555&mesg_id=1181555

[Cocoa]

22. why do you hate Truthout?

just kidding. :-)

[Kire]

66. LOL

Why do you hate AMERKA?

[kpete]

24. ABSOLUTELY 100% AGREE

I came to DU looking for information.
Sometimes it turns out to be true, sometimes it is speculation, sometimes its opinion.
I appreciate all the resources here.
True or untrue, agree or disagree, I get to make up my own mind.

Thats why I am a liberal - I try to keep an open mind.

I must say though that Jason Leopold rocks (that is MY opinion)

Thank you for the forum

And down with the WH regime!

[Kire]

67. You say Jason Leopold rocks.

I say Stephen Colbert was not funny.

;)

[tavalon]

81. I say

I disagree with you on both points. I watched Stephen three times because I laughed too hard the first two times to get all the jokes. And I knew Leopold was not jumping the shark as soon as I heard it. I share one thing with that stupid ass "prezdint" of ours and well, also Stephen Colbert, if he is to be believed, and that is that my gut tells me plenty faster than my head. I can follow up with the head (and choose to much more often than the chimperor) but I often (too often for some of my close friends and family) can intuit exactly what's going on, even before they can.

[Kire]

83. hi tavalon!

:hi:

hi again

That smilie in my post about Colbert not being funny is pretty small, so you may have missed the wink. Colbert is as good as George Carlin or Richard Pryor. I won't say better, but you know, we're talking about George Carlin and Richard Pryor!

[tavalon]

84. I did miss the wink

My bad. Of course it's okay if you didn't like Colbert, it took me until the Correspondents Dinner to fully get him.

[Schema Thing]

124. Your "gut" is your head, silly.

Bush doesn't know that. I suspect someone as smart as Colbert does.

[tavalon]

132. That is profoundly correct

It's another term for one's higher self or intuitive self. Bush has neither. Colbert has both. Thank you for calling me on that. I've never liked that I shared that with Bush, I now see that they really are different things in our cases.

Thanks.

[Schema Thing]

133. No problem, good sir!

Guess I'm all about having far less "sub" in the ol' subconcious, y'know?

[tavalon]

135. Me too

And, um, I have girl parts, so that would be good ma'am, but thanks! :)

[Schema Thing]

136. you look so masculine; "ballsy" even, in that picture ;-)

Sorry, don't know why I assumed you were male.

[tavalon]

137. I am honoring Stephen Colbert

for the next few weeks. My usual picture is of a donkey saying Kiss My Ass. Yeah, I have 'tude but I think that's because I'm a Leo. ;)

No problemo.

[DS1]

25. Anyone can say Rove is under a sealed indictment

and it'll be out in the next week, this weekend would have excellent odds.

:shrug:

[Maddy McCall]

26. Unless, of course, the indictment is dated May 19 instead of May 12.

That would be bad for anyone who said that Rove was indicted yesterday.

[DS1]

27. Yes, but any article prefixed with DEVELOPING HARD is immune to single

day event nitpicking. So, while others employ that tactic in the name of haste over accuracy, truthout does not, and for that :patriot:

[Maddy McCall]

34. Forgive me for being nitpicky about those little things called facts.

:rofl: :patriot:

[uppityperson]

28. Thank you Skinner. Some also believers and skeptics. Patience

Patience all.

[greendog]

29. But ~I LIKE IT~ when we beat each other up...

...:spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

31. Awww shit, Skin-Skin!!!

I just spent the last hour and a half getting the nails set in my fungo bat just...soooo...for the battles, too.

Damn, you are just no fun anymore.

;-)

[ninkasi]

33. Thanks, Skinner

You are absolutely correct. I hope that Jason Leopold is right, and tend to think that he wouldn't put his name to a story that turns out to be false, since so many liberals read Truthout, Will Pitt, and DU. In the meantime, I do understand why some feel that we need more verification of the story. I am hoping that Leopold is right in this, for obvious reasons.

I have always realized that my belief in whether a thing is correct or not does not determine the validity of that thing. Truth exists independent of my beliefs. I am waiting for the truth to be revealed.

[Raksha]

35. I already posted the Truthout link on another forum

where the resident freepers are asking me if I believe in Santa Claus! That kind of thing is typical coming from them and I'm used to it. So I told them it's not official yet, but Truthout has a good track record. Maybe I was jumping the gun, but I wanted that "lefty blog" to get credit for the scoop so I can rub their noses in it later on.

[jazzjunkysue]

38. AMEN!

:grouphug:

[applegrove]

40. Thanks Skinner.

[Catherine Vincent]

41. Thanks for this.

We need to be reminded of this every now and then.

[mmonk]

43. Sound thinking as always. Thanks.

[Radio_Guy]

44. I will not berate those who need independent confirmation.

But I will give an "I told you so" when Karl Rove gets his mugshot taken Monday, if it hasn't already been taken.

[Kire]

68. Who will tell you so if there is no such mugshot?

not me

[spanone]

46. kick and recommend l

[Jersey Devil]

47. What harm is there in a bit of Sat night fantasy?

The reality is that the oppressiveness of the Bush regime has us all on the end of our nerves. It may be true or it may not be true. No one can really know at this point. But let us dream because we need to know that every so often the truth does win, that right does prevail, that goodness overcomes evil.

It could all be a bit of fantasy, but such delicious fantasy, how can you resist it?

As far as Truthout, my conclusion is that they are going for broke, to make a name for themselves should they turn out to be right with the scoop of all scoops. Does it bother me? No, not at all. Sometimes in life chances have to be taken.

[Donailin]

56. The harm is in Sunday morning depression

and tomorrow is mothers day, and I've been depressed all week because nothing has happened. And I'm a mother and would love to be able to have some real tangible hope for the future of my sons and daughter.

It gets hard on some of us when we get out hopes up and then they are dashed. It's been like this for four years now. It begins to wear away at the soul.

I should note though, that I have total confidence in Fitgerald. This guy is literally trying to save the country -- he's going after the big cahuna, Cheney, and I would wait another six months if I thought that's what it will take for him, because he just never loses.

Not one leak out of his camp. Not one. How fucking discliplined is that? The man is remarkable -- a national treasure.

[WilliamPitt]

121. Sunday morning depression?

Well, here's some Prozac:

The article clearly stated that there is no definite time when this will be announced.

The courts are closed on Sunday.

So...you and everyone else rending their clothes because this didn't pop today need to take a breath.

[Kire]

69. The harm is being embarassed.

Not just the Free Republic et al. This could just be another "look at the loony liberal blogosphere" story in the Washington Post or any opinion page in any newspaper in the world.

[Heywood J]

48. Kick

I'd rather not see the place descend into wankery again, if it can be helped. The same with seeing every thread turn into a Leopold/Truthout discussion.

[WildEyedLiberal]

54. Demonizing fellow liberals is standard operating procedure at DU

Why should it be any different with this issue?

[Kire]

70. Because demonizing fellow liberals is bad.

[midnight]

I love that pic. of Kerry.

He looks truely at home with his surroundings, and having a good time.

[midnight]

130. I love that pic. of Kerry.

He looks truely at home with his surroundings, and having a good time.

[RagAss]

57. There's a lot of credibility on the line here...

and it's not just the reporter's. There have been a number of jubilant posts here since the early evening and a Freeper counter attack will have a boat load of ammo to fire at us for months to come.

[Kire]

71. exactly

[tavalon]

80. No, they won't

It's happening, hell, methinks, it already happened and that we will be getting a midmorning civics lesson from Fitz on Monday and most of his stuff will be in the past tense, i.e. Mr.Rove was indicted on Friday on __________ counts of ___________. These counts represent_________ in the staccato voice we became so enamored of last fall.

It's weird that they were able to clamp the lid this tight over the weekend and why they wanted to is beyond me, but it'll all be fine by Monday.

[druidity33]

92. agreed...

I'm sure Rove's lawyers could have argued successfully that he needed more than 24 hours to "get his affairs in order". He arranged with the police how and when he'll be taken into custody and my guess is that we won't be seeing any mugshots or perpwalks in the near future. We will be "informed" via press conference with lawyers and a very carefully worded spin. Watch for Fitz' Press Conference... that's where we'll get a sense of the nitty gritty...

just throwing down my 2 pennies...

[rug]

58. I, for one, am waiting for confirmation on that 7 pound fish.

[Sabriel]

72. No shit. I'm waiting for W to show up and call us out on that one!

I mean "W" as in the Devil's Spawn Crawford Coward "W" and not the William Pitt "W" of course. I think the latter is a pretty good guy.

(That fish W claims he caught was from what is essentially a dirt aquarium. I wouldn't have bragged about catching a stocked fish out of a hole in the ground my image makers dug for me, anyway. That's really pathetic.)

[WiseButAngrySara]

59. Wonderful! Much needed voice of reason, Skinner! I love T.O.! ....n/t

[KAT119]

60. Right On, Skinner, Thank You....

[SeattleGirl]

61. I totally agree, Skinner.

It's amazing how we can turn on each other so easily and so quickly at times, rather than "respectfully" disagreeing with each other, AND presenting our best argument as to why we think the way we do about a particular issue.

[Vidar]

62. Agreed, though very hopeful.

[VolcanoJen]

75. That's a damned good post, Skinner.

:toast:

[northofdenali]

76. K&R -

I think we are all so hopeful that it's true, we're all a little crazy!

Thanks, Skinner - as usual you're a voice of reason.

[maddezmom]

77. thanks for the post, Skinner

:)

[donheld]

82. Will Pitt and Truthout are gonna get a beating just like you got

Skinner, do you still have that wet noodle handy? :evilgrin:

[hholli-1]

85. can we all at least agree...

that ALL of these reports are coming from the same t r u t h o u t report written by Jason Leopold?

I am seeing dozens of references to this on the 'net all siting the same reference...Mr. Leopold.

Now please understand, I have every reason not to dispute Mr. Leopold's report, but we have been burned before. I am hoping a little independent verification might be in order, although my fingers ARE crossed.

This is the most corrupt administration in our nation's history, and I am not sure if our democracy can withstand the assault she has since these creeps took office.

[Ellen Forradalom]

86. Honestly, it gets to be the Itchy & Scratchy Show around here.

[deutsey]

87. Oh, that's just like you, Skinner

Always trying to take away the ammo from our circular firing squads.

:evilgrin:

[H2O Man]

88. Good idea.

I have tried to keep my part of the on-going discussion respectful and rational. Two of the people who are in the "anti- Jason/Will/Truthout" camp are people I like. I try to engage them in debate about the facts. I get a sense that a big part of the controversy has little to do with the facts, however, and has a lot more to do with personalities.

The truth is that in a couple of days, the people who like Jason/Will/Truthout will view events as supporting what Jason and Will have reported, and the "anti- Jason/Will/Truthout" folks will take a "yes, but..." position. And those who are watching the show will be able to decide for themselves who was more accurate, and who should be saying, "sorry."

[Joe Fields]

89. To Skinner I will say this.....

It used to be, back in my day, during the breaking of the Watergate story, that the editor of the WAPO(forgive me for not remembering his name, it's early morning and I am just having my first cup of coffee) required Woodward and Bernstein to have at least two confirmed sources, before he would allow the story to be run.

Times have changed, and not for the better. Now you have rumors being printed as fact, in order to get a "scoop." Often times a story has to be revised, once the truth of it comes out, and the effect on readership is one of skepticism. Journalistic integrity is compromised. This is why the e-media is looked upon with jaundiced eyes.

If Truthout, Jason Leopold in particular, wants to be looked at with the respect reserved for major publications, then it must submit to the same high journalistic standards that these publications have been held to .

I realize that these standards of journalism have taken a backseat to the sensationalism the media feels the public craves, and that even giants, such as the WAPO are lacking in the integrity they once enjoyed.

Is it asking too much for the public to expect a news gathering entity to be able to confirm a story, before it is printed? How can an entity call itself "Truthout," if even they cannot confirm if a major story they have run is true?

We, the public, who rely on the truth, should remain unbending when expecting confirmation of a story.

[treestar]

94. Maybe they do have two confirmed sources? What are

confirmed sources? Do they have to be evident in the article? I see unnamed sources in the MSM too.

The MSM never lies or covers things up? What about that reporter that printed stuff about Iraq in the New York Times and got fired because it turned out to be wrong? Or that young guy who made up a story out of whole cloth? People believed that because it was in the New York Times. Turned out they were wrong.

Right wingers I have debated say things to the effect that the New York Times is liberal, so they don't believe anything in it. They won't read it and if you quote them to support your argument, they dismiss your argument merely on the ground that you used the NYT to support it. I have debated with right wingers who know about Truthout - they brand that as liberal too.

There is something about the fact we need the MSM to confirm a Truthout scoop that is ironic here, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is.

The right wing is not going to believe it until Fox News says it, and Fox News doesn't have to report it, ever. If they do it will be a footnote to the reports on whatever sensational crime they've found and decided to beat the drum on. Someone on the board suggested there will be something on the Natalee Holloway case. When forced to discuss it because "the liberals won't stop talking about it," they will be framing it as persecution from the start. Don't we already know that?

[bridgit]

98. "What are confirmed sources?" they would be sources rather beyond here-say

& verifiable as such

[treestar]

105. What is hearsay in your definition? All news sources would be

hearsay if they are just reporting what someone said. Even reports of what Bush said would be hearsay, at least if not on video.

What is a confirmed source? How is that defined? One who gives their name? In which most of what Woodward and Bernstein had reported was unconfirmed. Or anything based on unnamed sources is unconfirmed.

[bridgit]

107. someone who is willing to go on record...

with two corroborating sources is i think what used to be standard

[H2O Man]

108. Apply that

to Woodward & Bernstein's work. Specifically, what would have happened as far as Mr. Felt's imput.

[bridgit]

110. that was the model i was referring to, they ran round like ninny's...

trying to get all their ducks in a row, and it made for what become actionable cause yes

[Joe Fields]

127. If you were to apply brigit's definition of a source, then .......

you would be correct. Watergate may never have broken. But, the definition of a source means one who has firsthand knowledge of events. If two sources can corroborate the same event, then you have credibility. The sources do not have to be named. Only proven.

[treestar]

114. OK, I guess you're just talking over my head then. I don't know the

definitions of the terms used. What is to go on the record? What record? To name themselves?

TO does have corroborating sources that are independent of each other.

[bridgit]

118. that's essentially correct, which is why you see 'quoted by a source...

that requested anonymity', or 'anonymous sources at the pentagon' they prefer to remain 'off the record', and the record can often be the reporter's notepad and so forth; further however...

requesting by way of passive demand the minutiae of things already known is a grand pass-time of the right that will be in full bloom & in no time at all, if any portion of this tale is found wanting imo

[Joe Fields]

126. Confirmed sources do not have to be named in the article.

And, it is quite possible that Leopold has been vetted by his editor, concerning credible sources. I was only addressing Skinner's post. And, if you read my post CAREFULLY, you would have seen that I addressed the issue of confirming sources in major publications these days. It is symptomatic of the entire media, which has tarnished the entire industry. But if the e-zines demand the same credibility that the MSM once enjoyed, they must be EXTRA careful when breaking a story.

[Beausoir]

102. Good post! I agree with you. I have no choice but to wait for facts.

If and when Fitzgerald announces something..THEN and only then will I believe it.
If and when that happens..I will owe NO ONE an apology.

The idea that if I don't pounce on some sketchy blog information, that if I wait for official information, I somehow owe someone an apology is just loony.

Just wait for the facts.

[symbolman]

141. This is exactly what I have been saying all along

and I even offered up a Challenge to TO, that if there was no Target Letter delivered to Rove or Luskin as REPORTED as Fact on TO on or before April 26th that TO would need to donate to the DU 1000 dollars, if indeed it is shown that a Target Letter WAS delivered as reported then I would issue a public apology (only regarding that "fact" I was taking issue with), and *I* would donate 1000 dollars to the DU.

This was done as I explained in that thread to maintain the veracity and credibility of the e-reporting as my site is Takebackthemedia.com, and we've been activists for 5 years now to great effect.

The thread was civil and a lot of debate and questions were being bandied about. Then Will Pitt showed up and told me flatly to "shove that 1000 dollars up my ass", that he would pay someone 1000 dollars to do such a thing, that my little film (Rove's war, which I researched for a full year and has been out for 6 months and selling well, in fact some here say it's worth twice the price) wasn't selling worth a sh*t, and a variety of other things so vile that I haven't heard since drill Sgts got in my face in 1971 when I was drafted for Nam.

Here's the link to that thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1176916

I am still very angry that it was allowed to happen, and of course the thread was locked, that upset me as well. If someone can say things like that to you and you aren't given a chance to at least say, "Hey, I'll buy a plane ticket and you're welcome to say that to my face.." (wouldn't you be angry at remarks like that?)

Now I can be accused of trashing Will Pitt for HIS remarks, that's the irony of this whole situation, and I think it's unfair. I don't ask for special favors here, and I have gotten out of line myself, but I either reigned myself in and got more civil, or ignored the thread/poster or even apologised in public.

A lot of people are getting beat up here for simply disagreeing. Some are being SKINNED Alive (then the thread goes away, is that fair to the original poster, that someone can scream at them, so the whole thread goes down? This empowers the true attacker IMHO) when as Skinner says here, they are not REQUIRED to like or dislike, agree or disagree with websites - and I would include Public Figures, myself included. As a Public Figure myself, I've had to adopt a thicker skin and stand up to higher standards, but I can tell you this, I've NEVER told anyone to shove anything up their ass, and can't believe something like that came out of Pitt's mouth. I suspect he may have cooled down and entered into a civil debate but it was too late, dead thread.

I've been accused by Will and others of having a "Vendetta" against Raw Story, TO, and persons related to them, and I've given them hell, but for the most part I've asked some hard questions while doing so. And I've learned that by being civil you really don't "lose" and arguement, you can't because you've maintained your humanity, dignity and purpose for asking tough questions.

I'm sorry that this subject is so heated, and yes I do have a dog in this fight, the very credibility of the Left, which if true journalistic standards are not adhered to, and the LEFT is not Sterling clean, we will be considered a laughingstock, could affect the elections, our whole future.

When I posted about Leopold's checkered past and why I personally don't believe him, I was attacked for "outing" him, for attempting to destroy his character - but in my own posts, I promoted HIS BOOK, where HE admits to Grand Larceny, outing sources, forgery, his battles with reputable websites and publications that fired him - those that attacked me for this admitted at the same time what *I* had said in that thread, that this information was OUTED BY LEOPOLD and was available on Truthout and Raw Story themselves.

Why was *I* the bad guy for that when THEY had this info on their own sites? This is what puzzles me - I was showing the reason I personally don't trust the guy, and even the sites that discussed it were fair, showing their sides and his, so you could make up your own mind.

I admire the work the mods do and thank them, and Skinner for this great board, but I worry that overly passionate people (who may be wrong) may have the ability to get any thread locked down by simply all alerting at the same time, or being so savage that the thread and debate are shitcanned, thereby stifling any dissention. I think that's dangerous, for the mods just doing their jobs it's a hell of a decision and a rough call.

I've not written this to attack Will Pitt, but I feel an apology is in order for that post, if not I will not be forgetting it, I attend and film many left wing events so our paths will cross, and being Irish I worry about my natural inclination to educate people the old fashioned way.

His site's reputation is built on what they are reporting, and will rise and fall with that, my reputation may not be well known here on the DU since I have been not pushing TBTM so much, but this was a personal attack and I cannot in good faith let it pass. As for PM'ing him, I have, and he's admitted that I'm on ignore, so please tell me how I address this given the thrust of your advice here.

This is not to say that I will not post at least one more post, as I grow weary of the battle for minds, when this seems more about souls, because I still think that someone needs to point out some very glaring problems - and our site is interested in our side not adopting the right wing media's playbook.. maybe we can rip a page out of it (like I did to Joe Scarborough on his show, had him CORNERED with my ARMY OF ONE MoveOn entry), but to use what I am seeing as the same tactics is going to cost us in the long run.

Another issue I have is the talk of GOP operatives here on the DU being used to trash innocent people, and I think this needs to stop. It IS a reality, as a lobbyiest pal of ours told me two years ago the discussion boards are going to be infested by PROS. But for someone, and I will not say who, to make innuendo that someone like Takebackthemedia.com has been lurking and pretending to be a Progressive Org, just waiting for someone like Raw Story to show up FOUR YEARS LATER to discredit them is ridiculous, but dangerous at the same time.

Let's not bandy that kind of thinking around so loosely, yet this is something that should be debated. I have no doubt in my mind that there may at this point be actual whole "progressive" sites created by the right to discredit us - how can we identify them if we are accusing long time activists of that same thing.

All I have to say, and I thank you for posting this, there's going to be a real shitstorm when Rove goes down (and many predicted this years ago, as I did myself after all that research - at this point the time and date seem to be immaterial in a sense, since they have been so fluid even by Leopold's reporting, so like I've said, I don't see a "scoop" here, putting a chip on every spot at the roulette table guarantees a win, but the cost is you lose the rest of your money) and the Heat may be unbearable. Just so we disagree with FACTS and not emotion, or raw hate.

[Carni]

90. People-- is there any way an indictment can be covered up?

I have no beef with any T.O or Rawstory (except I will admit that athiest column annoyed me, but that doesn't mean their articles and scoops aren't as or more legit than the so called established media)

If the reporter at TO (JL) is willing to stick his neck out twice to report this then IMO he must have some type of good info to base his contention on, because if he's wrong there will be a lot of carping going on (and what person in their right mind wants to contend with that shitstorm)

Which leads me to my question...if this did all take place Friday, is there a possibility that Rove could admit guilt and still cop a plea over the weekend?

Could the whole thing be sealed if he does?

Is he receiving some type of preferential treatment through WH pressure?

My knowledge of criminal law is pretty much a joke, so if I sound like a moron forgive me--but I am still worried the slimey vermin will somehow get out of this and the questions above are what are running through my mind.

It's not so much that I question what is being reported by TO it's that I wonder what in the name of God is going on to keep it silent over the weekend in the MSM.

[treestar]

96. It can be sealed because of liklihood of publicity that will affect

it. So it seems like this would be likely to be in that category.

[Carni]

109. That's what I was afraid of :(

Thta would explain why we aren't hearing about this anywhere else--Grrrrrrrr!

[bridgit]

91. Truthout is as susceptible to a garden variety journalistic foible...

as any body out there, they want to be seen as 'scooping the story' just like all the rest right, left & center; where holding your shot & keeping your powder dry would suffice

[treestar]

95. They won't take big chances on that, though. If they turned out

to be wrong too many times, it wouldn't be good for them, obviously, which would also be true for any outlet of the MSM.

There have been examples here and there but still not that many, of stories being found to be untrue. But how often do you see stories in any media outlet that end up revised? Maybe I'm not following the media that much, but I don't see that many stories that happens to - when it does, it ends up being a media event in itself.

People talking about the Dan Rather event - I don't remember it exactly - but if it happened to him, then why believe anything from the MSM either?

[bridgit]

100. how do you know that?

i do remember the dan rather thing, and it isn't pretty having to watch what you understand as 95% true being torn asunder by way of a poorly toned kinko's photocopier.

at junctures such as the one america is presently at, there can be no downside to getting it just right, just like the baby bear's bed; cause the other side is renown for stuffing ill prepared facts where the sun don't shine. and i want these nuts gone, and not solidified in power for years more to come vis-s-vis a rush to print any portion of a story that is deathly grim and beyond any one outlets desire to scoop it.

the story will need to take root somewhere else, perhaps in due course it will...it just can't sit over at truthout's server, you have a problem with MSM? many people do.

but after 'the rather gig', many others are simply not interested in getting it wrong. too many news cycles have to be wasted trying to answer how & why things were not sourced properly. and the world doesn't have that kind of time to waste imo

[treestar]

106. Then that would apply to TO too wouldn't it? Why would they want

to get it wrong any more than the MSM?

[bridgit]

111. it should apply to the national enquirer for that matter...

[Beetwasher]

99. Today, On Days Of Our Underground Lives

n/t

[lonestarnot]

101. Stop all that damn denouncing right now you hear! xoxoxo

:toast:

[derby378]

104. I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I'm cool

I hope Rove gets indicted, and soon - my patience is wearing out with this slow-as-molasses pace the grand jury is moving at.

[mdmc]

113. time alone, time will tell

:shrug:

[Renew Deal]

115. I think we need to wait a few days for an announcement.

So far H2Oman and Truthout are right on. At least for the last couple weeks.

[immoderate]

116. Who is this Skinner guy? He's good!

:)

--IMM

[Seabiscuit]

119. Well put, Skinner! I personally am reserving judgment and keeping my

fingers crossed that Leopold's got it right. Sure, it's possible Leopold's sources were off base, but there were over half a dozen of them so there's a damned good chance the story has teeth.

[rucky]

120. The way I evaluate sources:

1) What's their track record?

2) What are their newsgathering methods?

3) What's their slant?

I confess, I don't read TO enough to know, but it has a good reputation.

And frankly, I'm willing to give the left-biased newssites the benefit of the doubt, while I tend to be more skeptical of RW "news". I think I have a good reason for that beyond my own personal bias, considering the track record of the RW media.

[Rex]

122. I believe it, Truthout has not been wrong yet.

And if it is wrong then so what, one mistake compared to Fauxnews (which has a far, far larger budget) gets the news wrong 99% of the time! Cut Truthout some slack and wait & see.

[midnight]

131. I'm pulling for you Truth Out.

Here's to me having my mother's day wish come true.

[brentspeak]

123. Ok, but why are Truthout articles on this allowed on LBN??

Right now (12:41 pm, May 14), there's a truthout article thread on LBN entitled "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators".

Rove has been indicted? That's great! But, er, where's the confirmation?

If the "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators" article turns out not to be true, what does that do the credibility of your website's Latest Breaking News forum?

[Midlodemocrat]

125. Thank you for this, Skinner.

[nomatrix]

128. Skinner, how do you keep your sanity?

Few people are willing to take risks. Especially here. There certainly has been hotter issues than this one. Why so many threads about this story?

This big tent of DU has many views, strongly held opinions and it has it's share of inside agitators.

Dogging threads....Some will hunt down members to argue differences.
Baiting threads....waiting for someone to appear to argue with.
Labeling threads....calling members racist, conspiracy theorist, etc.
Nitpicking threads...wears the crap out of anyone until they given up and leave.

People please look at this. Who does this serve?

Some have taken risks and go out there against the fray. Whether it's Will Pitt, Randi Rhodes, Greg Palast, Skinner...
Am I doing what they are doing or playing it safe? Who gains when I dissect them?

Risk takers thanks for putting your necks out there and

Thanks Skinner for your patience.

[DallasNE]

134. Two Points

Jason's source doesn't have the exact charges nailed down. This suggests that the situation could still be fluid.

Second, there is nothing regarding others. What about Stephen Hadley? Or even the possibility of Cheney being named an unindited coconspiritor. I have no idea if either of these will ever materalize but what is not said suggests that the work may not have come to a final conclusion.

Let's see what Monday brings.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

140. "When civility is outlawed, only outlaws will remain civil"...

...um...wait a minute...let me think about this one for a bit.

:evilgrin:

I hope the waters remain calm on this one too, because if there EVER was a "powder keg" issue, it's THIS one. "IF" it doesn't pan out, yeah...there will be some here who feel their chain was yanked. It's the manner of expressing the yanking that separates us from our friends in the animal kingdom WITHOUT opposable thumbs.

:eyes:

But this one REALLY is "HUGH." Think about it.

1). Bush goes down the tubes...what would happen? Rove would just find another stooge and regroup.

2). Rove goes down the tubes...what would happen? Bush becomes a lost child in a shopping mall crying for his mommy. The only difference being that THIS lost child is a dry drunk with the ability to do all kinds of things in a moment of anger that I don't even want to think about.

:patriot:

[grateful581]

142. thanks Skinner

Some of us are being attacked because we need conformation of this big story.

[KharmaTrain]

143. A Lot Was Personal...Sad And Needless

As more an observer than anything else around here, I saw a lot of personal feelings come to the surface that manifested in this argument. It wasn't about Truthout in specific...but the egos and the tendacy around here and on other similar sites to get wrapped up in the personalities on the board rather than the issues themselves.

I'm from the skeptical camp, but not because of Mr. Leopold, Mr. Pitt, Truthout or anyone. It's based on a lifetime of raised expectations that turned into ashes...and how I've seen that happen here many times. A story so delicious pops up and everyone wishes for it to be real...when the truth falls short of those wishes, then out come the knives and the pity parties. I hope this doesn't happen, but I suspect even if/when Rove is indicted, there will be some here who will not just be disappointed, but angry that the indictment wasn't stiffer.

My concern about this story is simply why would a small blog on the progressive fringes of the internet have this scoop, yet not a peep came from other sites or sources that have provided either their own scoops or verification in the past. Specifically, I've been waiting to hear from Lawrence O'Donnell...the man who first said Rove leaked to Cooper that really kicked this scandal into Fitzmas mode. Also, other than DU, I saw little of this story...nothing on TPM or Kos and even Christie Hardin at Firedoglake (who would love to see Rove in shackles) was not confirming. This is no knock on Truthout...and I will gladly sing its praises should an indictment come down on Monday and this story and all the credit should be given to Mr. Leopold.

It's so easy to get carried away at a keyboard. People who are normally mild-mannered can turn into typing lunatics out here. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and those who feel out of joint go and take a walk or watch a movie or find something to chill out.

Peace...

[Greylyn58]

144. Always nice to have a reasoned voice

among the crowd.

Thank you for reminding everyone that we should respect our fellow DUers.

[Swamp Rat]

145. Cogitate on this:

:D

[rodeodance]

146. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

[foreverdem]

147. Thanks Skinner

Well said. We all want the same thing, whether it happens today, tomorrow or next week, we are all on the same side.