Where does Larisa Alexandrovna go to get her reputation back?

[benburch]

I've been watching for months as a cadre of people here on DU have said vile things about the reporting of Raw Story's Larisa Alexandrovna.

She reported that Valerie Plame was working on WMD proliferation in Iran, and cited anonymous sources. She was called a liar. She was called a fraud of a reporter. Now today we find out that her story was correct in all partculars.

She reported that we were already at war in Iran, and that we were sponsoring the MEK as our clients in Iran to conduct destabilizing operations, citing anonymous sources. Again she was called a liar. Again she was called a Fraud. And since then a number of stories have been published in the M$M that confirm the details in her original scoop.

So, guys, and you know who you are; Where does she go to get her reputation back? Are you going to be honest adults and issue her a full and formal apology here in the same forum you used to tear her down? Or are you going to slink off to the corner to wait for her next big story so you can tear her down all over again, secure in the knowledge that people will remember your negative spin before they will remember that you were eventually proven 100% wrong?

What about it?

"You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

[Hissyspit]

1. She still has her reputation with me.

I think she's great.

The atheist column was stupid, but she didn't write that.

[IdaBriggs]

2. Kicking for Apologies for Larissa --

You know who you are!!!

[Dave Reynolds]

6. You will never see many.

Too many folks are like our dear numb-nutted president, unwilling to admit mistakes.

I steered clear of all those RawStory-bashing threads.

It seems the most strident bashers are in the print media. Hmmm...

[Mabus]

53. I steered clear of them too

I got bashed once or twice for posting headlines from rawstory and linking to it. For the most part I ignored the detractors.

I think rawstory has been a great resource in the past and I think it will continue to be one in the future. It is one of the websites that I visit several times a day to keep up on news, especially breaking news. I've told friends, if they don't have a lot of time to find news, to look at two places - DU's Greatest Page and rawstory.com. I've gotten a number of "thank you's" for pointing people to rawstory.

[DemReadingDU]

69. My 2 favorite sites too!

Rawstory is my 1st favorite site and then I go to DU's greatest page to get more info. I just ignore the bashing stuff, besides don't have time to read it anyway.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

3. IMHO, I don't think Larisa will get an apology from that bunch.

[jasmeel]

4. I've always appreciated Larisa work and Rawstory's work!

Great job Larisa!!!

[Catherine Vincent]

5. I hear crickets.

[benburch]

34. They would do well to listen to a cricket...

This one was employed as a conscience...

[understandinglife]

7. Larisa is a superb investigative journalist and poet. Period.

She knows I know this and have never doubted her.

I'm glad you posted this, benburch. :thumbsup:


Peace.

[TomInTib]

8. Well put, benburch. And I would also like to know just where..

all those folks find an infallible news source.

I have yet to find one.

And Larisa is one of ours.

I wonder how may of those same backbiters were amongst the folks who cost DU the irreplaceable contributions of liveoaktx?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

23. OK I admit I haven't been around a lot

but what happened to LiveOakTX? I loved her updates! And canofun is a tremendous site.

[TomInTib]

29. Oh, it was awful...

not only was she pissed off enough to never come back, but a longtime DUer was tombstoned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=843748

[Blue_Tires]

64. very disturbing trend there n/t

[GrpCaptMandrake]

74. Thanks for that

I haven't seen an old fashioned DU flamefest in awhile. Disgusting.

This is, in fact, a perfect example of what Ben was talking about in regard to Larissa. Personally, I don't *get* this urge on some folks' part to tear down what others are trying to build in the name of getting a little honesty out there.

Larissa has, as Ben notes, been vindicated. But her detractors are far too lacking in (a) deceny and (b) candor to admit they were unutterably wrong, just as was the case with that Conofun thread.

I often wonder about the movitves of some of these serial detractors.

[sojourner]

89. even if not the same folks, i'd bet $$ that they are from the same

"source" --- swear to god I think they are/were paid disrupters, infiltrators/sleepers called out when the time seemed "right". maybe i'm wearing my tin-foil hat a little tight, but that's what I truly believe. :tinfoilhat:

[KAZ]

9. Look at her detractors, understand their agenda...

... and expect nothing. They're here for one reason, and one reason only.

[pnwmom]

22. Could you elaborate on that, please? I plead ignorance.

[KAZ]

24. This may be a good place to start.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1077197

Thanks to Benburch.

[pnwmom]

28. Thanks. Actually, I did read that, but I'm still wondering what you

meant about the motivations of her accusers.

I have also appreciated her reporting, by the way.

[KAZ]

35. On her reporting, me too. Try this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=66847

Certain things, and people, tend to get deleted over time.

[eppur_se_muova]

27. This is based on a famous quote:

In the immortal words of Ray Donovan, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Labor who was acquitted of corruption charges in a court of law after a prolonged trial by media, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

(I was thinking he wasn't the first to use that line, and that the quote went back to the 50's or so, but I couldn't find anything. Didn't look that hard, admittedly.)

[Connie_Corleone]

10. Recommended.

Sometimes the MSM takes months to report on something we already found out about from Rawstory or Truthout.

[lady lib]

11. Well, she never for a second lost her reputation with me.

I've always been appreciative of her efforts and impressed by her work.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[sojourner]

90. DITTO that!

:thumbsup:

[flyarm]

12. Larisa always has my utmost respect...she is a wonderful journalist!

and human being!

Thank you LALA RAW..for all you do for truth and honesty ..for all of us!

fly:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[tuvor]

13. Maybe some DUers need to earn their own reputations back.

That is all.

[valerief]

14. Larisa is the Al Gore of Progressive News. Just because she's

right doesn't mean people will listen to her. But she should be throwing around a boatload of I Told You Sos.

[IndyOp]

15. Reputations are earned over decades...

Laura is doing great and so is Jason Leopold of truthout.

No one is 100%. I remember Thom Hartmann writing about the theft of the 2004 election on November 5/6/7 - just a few days after the heist - and he got the wrong story. His source was not reliable. He apologized. He has decades of credibility built up (with me anyway) -- so I stood by him easily.

I have not criticized Laura or Jason - ever - I have a wait and see attitude about most big stories, no matter the reporter. I tend to believe Laura and Jason both, and I know that if they are right others will confirm their stories.

I think some of the people who are criticizing Raw Story or other similar web sources are not yet realizing that the MSM *is* reading these sources and following their trail. I happen to *know* this is the case for one well-known MSM reporter...

;-)

[Old and In the Way]

16. Larisa and RawStory do a great job for us.

I'm amazed with some of the scoops they've gotten. :toast:

[drm604]

17. She's always had my respect. n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

18. you rotten BAStard!

thought you were going to bash her, ha

thanks for this thread....

she deserves high praise for her courage and enterprising reporting

[slay]

19. I never knew she lost it

Seriously. I mean, sure there was that time a few weeks ago where Rawstory published an essay that was intollerant of athiests (yes, yes, i know it was only the "wacko" athiests), but that was not written by her and seems to have all been worked out. People who have done their research know Larisa does great stuff. But I agree with you - her reputation should not be slammed, especially here at DU. Not that I would ever try to stop free speech mind you. :)

[Richard Steele]

20. Her rep was never in question at my end.

And I never took her detractors seriously.
Do you think that any thinking person ever did?
That would be a SAD thing, if true.

The internets are full of small people talking big trash,
and all of them together STILL "ain't worth the powder to blow them up with",
as grandpa Steele used to say.

The know-nothing faction idiots who took such glee in slamming Larisa
were always beneath notice. Their own words made that very clear to me.
I don't lose sleep over the drool-bedaubed "opinions" of mean-spirited idiots.

And I hope she doesn't either.
Cuz she ROCKS, and everyone with a brain and a modem damnwell knows it.

[kohodog]

21. Nothing. It is her detractors who need to appologize.

And I think on DU they are few but vocal. I think with some there is an agenda that goes way beyond discussion board disagreements. I appreciate the fact that Raw Story is willing to go out on a limb. The rest of the media is afraid of their shadow. Raw and some other sites sometimes get it wrong, but even then the kernels they report have lead to more digging and more light shed on the crooks and liars in power.

[newswolf56]

25. Her reputation is fine among those who matter. As to those who...

denounce and belittle her, she has already replied:

You cannot strike me still...

The rest of this fine poem is here:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_smith/2006/02/speaking_to_jin.html

If the history of this era is ever written as it should be written, she will be one of liberty's true saviors: a role-model for the ages.

[fooj]

26. Time for the naysayers to STFU.

Step up...own your mistake...and let's move forward. Together.

Peace.

[ms liberty]

30. Nice...

and needed to be said, methinks.

I've stayed out of the whole mess; I've read some of the bashing threads, but I still haven't seen the "atheist bashing" essay. From the bashing threads I've gathered that it was an editorial, not a hard news piece so not having read it I didn't have enough knowledge to comment. Would that be a correct representation of the essay, that it was an editorial piece?

It seems to have been rather pissy around here lately. I'd rather get along and be positive than fuss and fight; I try to be objective and not take things too personally. We're supposed to be on the same side here, more or less. I don't mind disagreement, but when disagreement is taken as permission to get personal - THAT I mind.

I take RS the way I take every news item I see: I read it, evaluate it, and wait for further confirmation. No news source in the world is 100% right 100% of the time. RS does as well or better than many sources we all read every day.

[benburch]

31. Yes.

Personal opinion piece by a columnist who isn't even an editor at Raw Story.

The piece offended me.

And I think Raw Story was wonderful for allowing it to be published.

Contradiction? Nope! I believe that people have a right to speak their minds.

[ms liberty]

49. Thanks -

That was the impression I got. I was almost hoping I was wrong, since being right would mean that a lot of people got ultra-pissy over an editorial. A bit too silly for me, that.

Certainly, it may have been offensive to some, but it was one person's opinion. It took guts for RS to publish it, when they know their readership is liberal. And for people who are supposed to be open-minded to get their backs up so badly over this is kind of not-progressive at all, is it?

[benburch]

54. Not progressive as I see it.

"Reprehensible" covers my take on it.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. Just so we're clear, this subject has zero to do with your OP.

Let's recap a bit, shall we?

Raw Story published what lots of people- right or wrong- believed was a totally unjustified smear job on "extremist atheists", with definitions so poorly worded (by the author's own admission) that certainly a lot of atheists felt she was lumping anyone who publicly stood up for their own disbelief in Western religion, in any way, shape, or form, or anyone who dared claim a logical basis for said disbelief- in as an 'extremist'.

The original piece, now edited to say who knows what else, also certainly seemed to contain calls for "disavowal" and language about "cleaning out the attic" of the left of said atheists, language which certainly struck many of us as frighteningly close to calls for a 'purge'.

Lastly, the head of the Opinion Dept. at Raw Story published an angry early response to the piece's MYRIAD critics (now, as well, vanished from the net) where he refused not only to apologize but to even acknowledge why so many people might have felt the piece went over the line- instead, in a pattern that sure seems familiar, he lashed out at the piece's critics, making broad brush accusations and conspiracy-minded noises, ever playing the poor victim of, again, "extremist atheists", if not outright Republican Disruptors, a charge that has been leveled countless times in these threads against anyone who took offense to what almost everyone agrees, from Will Pitt on down, was an extremely poorly written hit piece that served no purpose except to seemingly slam a large group of people-- and who knows why.

Now none of this - none of it- has anything to do with attacks on Larissa's credibility or journalistic abilities, or her professional integrity. For the record, I haven't seen any of those attacks, but I do take your word that they're floating around here somewhere. Personally, I've always appreciated Larissa's work, and up until about a week ago, I never had any beef with Raw Story, either. Did they have the right to publish the op ed piece? Of course. Did people overreact? Maybe. And maybe people would have "overreacted" if they had published an identical piece attacking (and calling for purges of) "uppity" minorities or "militant" gay people. With the standard disclaimer that they weren't going after ALL members of those groups, just the really in your face ones.

So lots of people -and not just on DU- were disappointed with Raw Story, and called into question whether a self-proclaimed "progressive" site should be piling on to the already large mountain of shit unbelievers face in our society as it is. Did that cause flame wars on DU? Sure. Would it be a good idea if we all calmed down and worked on our common goals? I think so. I'm proud of Larissa for scooping the Iran story. I think Raw Story does valuable journalistic work, although I still happen to think their Op Ed department is under the wrong management. And I also believe that the folks who have been soured on Raw Story by this series of events are entitled to their feelings on the matter- the internet is a big place, and none of us are obligated to support any particular site any more than we're obligated to support Hillary in the primaries.

Just my two cents.

Peace.

[benburch]

73. You pretty much summed up the response.

(But without noting the VILE language and personal invective used against ALL persons connected with Raw.)

Like I said, Reprehensible. People here ought to be better than that.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. I must have missed that part.

I'm serious, I missed it. I saw some folks angry at Raw Story in general, and Avery Walker in particular - but the one thread I saw where Larissa was participating, I didn't see what you're referencing. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, and for my money, she certainly didn't deserve anything of the sort.

[Carni]

76. Great post!

That is in a nutshell also how I feel about the whole deal!

[SidDithers]

84. Thanks for posting that, impeachdubya...

Just as there is a serious disconnect between the news department at the WaPo and the editorial page there, so too, it seems, there is a disconnect at rawstory as well.

Larissa's well intentioned post in R/T unfortunately further inflamed the situation by belittling the valid concerns about the rawstory editorial, and her further posts speculating that rawstory's detractors were trolls certainly didn't help either. Some replies to her post(s) were definitely rude, and some were not. Some would consider her post(s) rude as well.

As I stated below, Larissa's reporting is first rate, but I didn't think her comments in defense of rawstory were fair or accurate.

Just because rawtory is a progressive media outlet, do my opinions of them have to be unequivocally supportive?

Sid

Edit: speeling

[Media_Lies_Daily]

94. It was a letter to the editor. When you see one of those in the....

...print media, do you get pissed off at the writer or the media outlet that printed it?

You're correct that this has nothing to do with the excellent reporting by both Raw Story and Truthout, but some posters tried to make them the issue. Why?

[Warren DeMontague]

95. It wasn't a letter to the editor-It was an editorial they chose to feature

There is a clear difference. If there isn't, do you think they should be running pieces by Bill O'Reilly up there? Ann Coulter? Michael Savage? Random Freeps? I mean, those folks are entitled to their say, too, right?

Of course they are. But that doesn't mean a prominent, self-proclaimed "progressive" web site has to give their hate-filled blather and bigotry air time.

And I guarantee you, if it was an idenitical piece slamming "militant" gays or "uppity" minorities, people would be just as incensed.

Actually, as the whole thing played out, I ended up MORE pissed off at the head of Raw Story's ed. dept, because of the way he lashed out incoherently at all the piece's critics (and there were a lot of them) in a very snarky and uncalled for "response". Melinda Barton, at least, acknowledged that the piece she wrote was bad enough that lots of folks took it (she claims) the wrong way. In retrospect, I'm not excessively "pissed off" at either of them- but short of an apology or an acknowledgement of the scope of the fuckup (part of which was his responsibility) from Avery Walker, Raw Story has dropped several notches in my estimation.

Sorry, it just has.

Now, as for the second part of your post- seeing as I wasn't one of them, why don't you ask the posters who did that, directly?

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

96. Thank you for that summary. It encapsulates my position on this.

Since I have never commented on Ms. Alexandrovna's reporting, the OP doesn't apply to me. My only issue with her was described by SidDithers in post#84.

[SeattleGirl]

32. I've never lost respect for Larisa, and have been dismayed by

the disparaging remarks about her, and the outright attacks on her. Thank you for posting this, ben. It needed to be said, and you said it well.

[hlthe2b]

33. Never lost it, IMO....But, we simply have to figure out a way....

to stop letting the flame baiters and other detractors lead us down their path and away from our common goals... We've already driven off LiveOakTx, whose posts to inform us of her nearly instantaneously posted videos (along with those of C&L) were invaluable to us...We've worn down some of our strongest assets (Will Pitt, along with Larisa comes to mind).

Yet, all I can think of to do is not let ourselves be manipulated. It is clear to many of us--both old-timers and newcomers alike-- when someone appears to be trolling. The moderators do an impressive job, given as large as DU has become, yet, we have to work within the constraints of the (necessary) rules that bar us from calling the disruptors out. As a result, the damage is often done, before the inevitable tomb-stoning and thread deletions.

What can we do? Well, using that ignore button or stepping away for a while when the flamebaiters are about to get under our skin. More importantly, continue to give the proven assets among our membership benefit of the doubt. If their heart, objectives, and dedication was clear a month ago, a year ago, it is very unlikely they have changed overnight, despite any misunderstanding or incident which might suggest so....

Larisa, Will, LiveOakTx, and many others, I'm sorry that you have been caught up in the pettiness that sometimes breaks out here-- some of you, so often your ears must bleed. Never forget that there is a long standing core that will have your back and do our best to provide a bit of support. More often than not, we'll be the majority. Occasionally, crazy tides of emotion or incidents may give rise to a much more vocal minority... But, we'll be here to try to set things back to balance...Promise....

[benburch]

37. They try to drive me off too.

But they don't realize that I'm too dense to realize that I ought to leave... ;)

[hlthe2b]

40. LOL

We're not letting you go anywhere, BenBurch! :toast: to your amazing contributions!

[Catherine Vincent]

51. I think the folks from that other board want you to leave.

They like you so much they want you over on their side. LOL!

[Nictuku]

36. I have only Respect for Larissa

I hope she continues on! Keep up the good fight!

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EC]

39. I absolutely look for her posts

and read her site daily...and look for her at Hoffington...

[never_get_over_it]

41. Wow - I've been fortunate

to never see any of that crap - I think Larisa is great!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

42. Her reputation is in tact with me. I think she's great. nt.

[KitchenWitch]

43. She has always had great credibility with me

It sucks that other people feel the need to rip her apart.

[spag68]

44. plamegate

anyone who reads more then one newspaper and more then one tv channel, knew from the start that this was revenge driven against her husband. As far as destabilizing foreign govs. , our gov. has been doing that for years. So if someone is criticizing this women for her reporting, they must be either ignorant or rethugs or both. If you don't believe a reporter, go do some research,

[Beetwasher]

45. Larisa's A Total Hottie

In more ways than one, and there's no need for her to get her rep back. She's always had it w/ me!

It's the one's who have been dissing her (and others) that need to worry about their rep.

[suffragette]

46. Larisa keeps investigating and writing about all those pesky stories

that those in power wish would just go away.
And she always does a damn fine job and makes sure those stories get told.
She is our modern Ida Tarbell and I thank her for it.

[cascadiance]

47. Larisa is a GREAT reporter in my book!

She epitomizes what a journalist SHOULD be, which so many fail to do these days. Try to find the truth and put out the big headline when it is deserved, but hold back when you're not sure. I think we'll find out that she's held back a lot of stuff (even though it seems like she hasn't to some), when it still doesn't pass the smell test. And she will protect her sources or defend what she thinks is the right report on a story, even if it means going to jail. She's said so in so many words on Luke Ryland's blog. And for the RIGHT reasons, not those that are manufactured like Judith Miller.

Larisa, you rock with me!

[AtomicKitten]

48. She's a bold woman that goes where reporters don't dare go ---

investigative journalism.

She has my appreciation and support.

[pacalo]

50. You speak for me, ben!

Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

(...)

You are permitted to criticize public figures, who are not protected under our rules against personal attacks. However, if a public figure is a member of our community, that person is protected by our rules and you are not permitted to personally attack that person. (You are permitted to offer constructive criticism of their activities as a public figure.) from Discussion Forum Rules, DU

To my way of thinking, "constructive criticism" does not include character assassination.

If vile attacks are allowed at all, they'll continue.

[troubleinwinter]

52. Have you forgotten....

[benburch]

56. Thank you for posting that!

:)

[fooj]

63. Hey...that's a bitchin' trophy!

Got one for me? LOL!!!!

Larissa earned it. No question.

:hi:

[Garbo 2004]

55. Scott Ritter wrote last year of US sponsored MEK activities in Iran

so I don't understand why some people may have questioned the story Larisa wrote. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm

Let me be clear: I'm NOT saying that Larisa didn't do independent reporting or didn't develop the story herself. Just that she wasn't entirely alone on the basic premise of the story so when I saw her article I had no reason to think it was anything other than what it appeared to be: a legit story. (Later confirmed, as noted.)

Was her reporting on that story really attacked? I don't specifically recall that but then I may have passed over that or was just spacing and not paying attention at the time with other stuff I had going on.

Anyway, it's always good to see further confirmation of independent reporting. For example, not exactly a confirmation, but when Larry Johnson (former CIA) months ago in his blog linked to Larisa's Plame/Iran article I figured he likely wouldn't have done so if he didn't think or rather know that it was accurate.

I was watching today when Shuster mentioned that Plame was working on nuke proliferation/Iran and her outing signifcantly damaged US's ability to have intel on that now oh so important matter. Now the question is, will anyone else in the corporate media pay any significant attention to that? Or will it sink back like a stone to the realm of the independent news sites and blogs?

[spuddonna]

57. Amen! K&R!

Thank you for a great thread... :)

[Bozita]

58. If she's not trustworthy, why do so many of her stories hit the MSM later

Larisa's a keeper.

[sojourner]

59. thanks for this ben...

it's not just larissa. there are some "DUers" who have of late been using incredibly divisive, not to mention personally damaging, tactics against people who have been working hard at laying bare the scandals and the lies surrounding the president and his minions.

i've been astounded to see their posts, and even more astounded to see the "play" their posts and their comments have received.

i don't know any of these people personally. and i noted that in many cases they have 1000+ DU posts to their credit - leading me to assume that they've been 'round these parts awhile. that, even though i hardly recognize their screen names. all the same, watching the effects of their posts... the besmirching of reputations, chasing off DUers who I thought had more than proved their mettle (for example our friend liveoaktx who always supplied us with the latest videos), and now trying (so I've read) to chase off Will Pitt.

i've come to an unsettling conclusion. there are disrupters here, bought and paid for. professionals who have waited for the right moment to strike. they were here when our friend Andy needed our support. and just now, when the administration appears at its weakest, when a concerted, unified effort could make a difference, here they are, stirring up division, animosity, and even vile hate-filled rhetoric worthy of the worst Pug.

I do not trust these people who claim to be exercising their "right to free speech". I think they are wily, crafty and cunning -- I think they are enemies of freedom. I KNOW they are destructive. I hope we will, as a community, rise above them and show them that true patriots put more merit on the enterprise of securing freedom and protecting democracy than on a single issue (no matter how passionately held), or a single personality, things that can be used as a wedge to separate men of like mind.

[Historic NY]

60. Did you ever hear of disinformation campaigns..........

perhaps a few moles exist here to disrupt. I've found for the most part Raw Story is mostly accurate and will instantly make a correction if information is misleading. I'm surprised on how many times they are on the mark.

[nicknameless]

62. Larisa's reputation is untarnished, as far as I'm concerned.

However, her assailants' reputations ...

Thank you for posting this, Ben.

[Starfury]

65. As far as I'm concerned, she never lost it!

RawStory is one of the handful of sites I check on a regular basis.

[rman]

66. She never lost her reputation.

[madokie]

67. I try my best to be non judgemental until I can smell the vileness

and so she still has her reputation well intact with this okie. I have learned in the short time I have been here that there is some things you just don't post about here for the fear of being tared and feathered. In my estimation that in itself is wrong but hey I'm just one guy with one noodlily appendage.

[JNelson6563]

68. I never criticized Raw Story

nor have I yet siad n'ary a bad word regarding their reporting.

What helped me to see them more clearly though ws the anti-atheist screed they published and then (in the stupidest mannner imaginable) tried to justify/excuse/explain it.

Julie

[Jazzgirl]

70. Lala never lost her rep with me!

I always read raw and Lala. If lala posted on DU I always made sure I hit them. She has always been credible to me and always one up on the so-called "press".

JG

[mmonk]

71. She hasn't lost it.

eom

[SidDithers]

72. Larisa's news reporting has always been top notch...

but the way she belittled the legitimate concerns of atheist progressives over the Barton article was not.

Does our support for her have to be all or nothing? Or are we allowed to have mixed feelings about her and rawstory.com?

Sid

[Spazito]

75. The only ones I have lost respect for are those who have deliberately

and repeatedly tried to slam Raw Story and it's staff. It is always the same little group with a few add-ons. Jason and Larisa are still tops with me.

[benburch]

79. And even WORSE when they do it over an opinion piece.

Silly me, I thought opinion pieces were just that; One writer's opinions.

[Spazito]

85. It seemed to me the opinion piece was simply an excuse for further

attacks on Raw Story and it's staff for some of the posters who had attacked Raw Story before this opinion piece was even written. If it hadn't been that piece, I have NO doubt they would have posted negative comments on some other story, column, etc.

[leveymg]

78. She never lost her reputation. And all that implies. eom

[mopinko]

80. could you post some links? i stay out of those threads, but

i would like to update my ignore list.

[BurtWorm]

81. Anyone who can get Michael Ledeen to talk the way she did

deserves a lot of respect.

:applause:

[xultar]

82. I don't remember the article but this is a feather in her cap!

[myrna minx]

83. Larisa is top notch in my book.

Her reputation is completely intact, it never went away. We can't allow allow a few noisy disrputors destroy the reputation of the last few independent journalists. :loveya: lala. The lady who never sleeps. I have your back, lady, fwiw. :loveya:

[Marnieworld]

86. She never lost it with me

People bitch about RS too much. Nothing's perfect but jeesh! There are bigger issues. Larissa is one of the good "guys" fighting the good fight and I always trust her work.

[Jack Rabbit]

87. As far as I am concerned, she lost nothing

She's a damn good reporter. We should be proud of her.

[WillyT]

88. What Jack Said !!! - K & R !!!

How's the Crow here at DU, LOL!!!

:shrug:

[robertpaulsen]

91. Thank you, benburch. Recommended!

I especially enjoyed the McCarthy era quote. Good night and good luck to Larisa!

[Cocoa]

92. I've questioned Raw Story several times

questioning is not wrong, it's necessary.

I hope people aren't intimidated by this ridiculous taunting crap.

[SidDithers]

93. Agreed...

and good point.

Sid

[hwmnbn]

97. Lala_rawraw never lost her reputation with me.........

I read, and will continue to read everything she writes. I can't think of a better way to thank her.

Lala_rawraw rocks!! :yourock:

[Synnical]

98. I've never challenged Larisa

Supported her - she lives in my city. She's a great reporter.

It's Raw Story and the editor I don't like so much right now.

Cripes. I don't know who you are referring to Ben, but I'm slightly annoyed right now if you're thinking of atheists who were peeved at the Barton Column.

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[paineinthearse]

99. Where does she go to get her reputation back?

:wtf:?

IMHO "lala raw raw" never lost her reputation.

She's the best!