Am I to discount everything TruthOut has ever written because of one incident?

[trumad]

I don't know.... I've read TruthOut almost since it's inception. I've always found it a great source of political information and it seems to me that they've had a flawless reputation as a go-to accurate source.

BUT then came the Rove indictment story. I honestly can't tell you what was told to the Editors of TruthOut or to Jason Leopold and I can betcha a majority of those who offer up negative posts about TruthOut have no idea as well. Did they flat out make it up? I doubt it. Does Will Pitt come across as a liar? I don't think so and why would he lie?

Did they handle the aftermath of the botched story as well as they should have? Me-thinks not really. If they would have come out with one explanation and said they stick by their sources, I think things would have blown over much quicker. Instead, they made it bigger with some comments that I'm sure they regret. Hey--- they're an on-line pub with not much experience with a major-size backlash like this.

So here's the thing--- If I were to write a pro and con list about TruthOut, it looks like the Pros out- number the cons 10 to 1. Or am I missing something?

[Fridays Child]

1. That sounds right, to me.

And I still doubt that we know the full story on the Rove indictment and/or Leopold's reporting of it.

[Waya]

30. I agree with that....

........methinks there is more to it then we know. However, I do think Leopold should out that source......

[jpgray]

2. They put their trust in an unreliable source. I call it the Chalabi mechanism

Doesn't speak well for their judgment, though in this instance much smaller scale in terms of actual harm, natch. :rofl:

[SeattleGirl]

5. But the real question would be, did the KNOWINGLY put that

trust into an unreliable source? Leopold and TruthOut are not the first to ever be burned by a source.

I still read TruthOut, but hey, that's my choice. If other's don't want to read it any more because of the Rove thing, that's their choice. I have to say, though, that I don't get the high level of animosity leveled toward them. Hell, were it that I was so perfect as to always be above reproach. :eyes:

[jpgray]

9. I think they were lusting after an exclusive a bit too much

My guess however is that this should have been treated with more skepticism, since presumably Leopold would have sought a more big-name vehicle for his story and obviously was turned down. But this is all presumption.

[SeattleGirl]

14. True, they may have gotten a bit ahead of themselves.

If so, hopefully they learned from it. There WAS a lot of Rove frenzy going on at that time, including here on DU.

I still read TruthOut, though.

[QuestionAll...]

77. revealing the sources, if this doesn't come thru...

sure I heard that in the early days of The Fiasco.
but who the fug am I to question authoritay!!

[Recursion]

20. When that happens you out your source

Leopold said that if his source was wrong he would out that source. The source was wrong. Leopold did not out him. As far as I'm concerned Leopold is just a showboater who likes attention and until he outs the source I can never take him seriously as a journalist.

[Union Thug]

23. I still read TruthOut, but I agree, OUT THE SOURCE n/t

[uppityperson]

3. Some people have a tendency to simplify thus...

If you are "bad", everything you do is suspect and mistrusted.
If you are "good", everything you do is wonderful and any mistake will throw you into the "bad" category.

Pros outweigh the cons for me too. (edited to add "some" to subject line)

[SeattleGirl]

6. Hmmm, bad/good. Black/white. Good/evil.

Where have I heard that kind of "logic" before? :rofl:

Good points, uppityperson!

[uppityperson]

12. most people have tendency to do this,

recognizing it and dealing with it by recognizing and accepting shades of grey is a good thing to do. Is most anything only good or bad, etc.

[MADem]

27. The converse is also true, though. Our friend Jack Murtha is the poster boy for that truth.

Jack wasn't beloved by progressives when he was ABSCAMing, walking the halls of the Pentagon and putting his lobbyist-brother on to lucrative contractual directions, or advocating an anti-choice stance. But once he got on the right side of the Iraq conflict, all of his sins were washed away! He, who was once 'bad' is now Saint Jack!

I just don't understand why TO didn't give a solid, sincere "We fucked up, we were conned by a guy who is a serial liar" mea culpa. Instead, they stuck by a guy with a history of 'horseshittery' and never adequately explained or atoned for their cock-up. Indeed, last I remember, they were in a hole and they kept digging. That suggests an absence of judgment, IMHO...so I've no choice, really, but to look askance at anything they say that isn't also reported, independently, by another source. They lost my trust with that fiasco, and not because they got conned--that happens to good people every day--but because they treated their readers like idiots, never explained, and seemed to blame the readers for not 'believing'....like seven year olds and Santa, really.

I might think about that stance for, I dunno, 24 'business hours' and come up with a more charitable approach, but right now I think they treated their readers disrespectfully and relied on more good will than they in fact possessed.

[trumad]

38. Well---because they, (the editors) actually spoke with Leopold's source.

They did their due diligence. AND if you think they didn't then I am to surmise that you think Pitt and Ash are liars. I ain't going there because I trust that they are not.

[MADem]

54. If that is true, they should out the lying source. Something stinks, there

It doesn't make sense to cover for a liar. It just doesn't. And that moving 24 business hour goalpost just sounded like pure, made-up, horseshit to me. "The dog ate my homework" would have been more believable.

Now that is just my opinion, I realize that others may not feel that way. It doesn't pass my smell test, to me it looked like they got caught in a mess and yeah, if they didn't try to lie their way out of it, they suspended judgment and passed on a cockamamie story, or they made stuff up as they went along, and I don't believe that they were being honest with their readers.

Again, just my opinion, and just my impression. Others' mileage will likely vary.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[MADem]

95. Oh please. Watch the tape. He turned down the bribe NOW, he didn't

shut that door for good. Even he admits that he walked way too close to the line on that issue.

He was named by Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator. He testified against others (two Dems, FWIW) for his get out of jail free card.

So who's not being "honest" here? You're suggesting the guy is pure as the driven snow because he waved off the bribe for now? Pull up that tape, or find the transcript--read it, watch it, and tell me he wasn't a smidgen away from selling his influence. He certainly spent enough time boasting about it on the tape. It's great to pull out the "he wasn't an INDICTED co-conspirator" excuse, but it still doesn't explain away his brother's lobbying entanglements, or his anti-choice stance.

Look, I like Jack Murtha. I, unlike some lockstep ideologues, can take the good and the bad, weigh them, and decide that the good outweighs the bad. I use him as an example (do go back and read the post I was replying to...pull the WHOLE string to see WHY I used him to illustrate my point) because there is often a tendency to look at things in black and white, all bad, all good, when the truth is that most people are GRAY. Jack Murtha is very plainly gray...if you like that particular shade of gray, well, that's up to you. I don't have a problem with it, but don't try to tell me that gray is somehow white. Because it ain't.

[zreosumgame]

97. did he EVER take that bribe? seems the door was closed

and that you are just easily manipulated

[MADem]

133. Go ahead and ignore what I said, skip the context too--it's your speciality, I see NT

[Junkdrawer]

4. I would think that there were people out to discredit every progressive...

news and commentary website, but that would be a "conspiracy theory".

And I afraid of looking silly.

[havocmom]

13. I'm not afraid of looking silly in tin foil. Not the first time effective organizations

deliberately misled to discredit.

The fact that it worked somewhat leads me to suspect the tactic will be used with other progressive news sites. The GOP was slow to see the impact of the internets, but some of their people are wheeling along getting it integrated in their battle plans.

[happydreams]

7. IMO this was a set-up like Dan Rather. The

fascisti have found the Achilles heel of citizen journalism and they are working it for all its worth.

[MonkeyFunk]

90. Smart news outfits

have to be on their toes for such a thing. You can't excuse them just for being duped. If you're out-witted by half-wits, you shouldn't be in the news business.

[happydreams]

158. Did I excuse anybody? You miss the importance of this entirely

It isn't about the press being duped its about these fascist slime using taxpayer money to bully the Press.

[liberalnurse]

8. TruthOut had no incident in my eyes.

I believe and trust Will Pitt ... and find Jason to of reported his Rove story with a sincere heart.....no malice intent. What happened after the story broke, as in no Rove indictment does not mean his story and data was false.

n these times of *bush fascism where they can convince the world that a bully dictator had WMD's and had caused 911.....shit, nothing surprises me...The Rove story may of indeed been accurate until...it was erased.

I love TruthOut!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ninkasi]

10. I respect and read TruthOut

It does have some great information. Apparently, whatever evidence the editors and Jason Leopold had was convincing to them. Maybe we'll find out one day what really happened, but in the meantime, I'm not going to stop reading it because of this one thing.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. I don't mind very much that they were wrong...

but what I found troublesome was their subsequent insistence that they weren't wrong.

Anybody can make a mistake - that's not a problem. But refusing to admit it was a mistake... well, that's why we're still in Iraq.

[QuestionAll...]

16. what you said...

I totally agree with. There is no shame in being wrong, the shame is in pretending you are not.

[smoogatz]

15. Dan Rather. Judith Miller and the NYT.

More seasoned jouralists than Leopold have been screwed over by Bushco.

[nashville_brook]

21. wonder how many anti-TOers still read the NYTs

[QuestionAll...]

26. I don't.

but I'm an anti everything in the big scope lately.
btw. TO has not got the audience, compared, and lost a lot because of youknowhat....

[Kelly Rupert]

34. The NYT publishes corrections and outs their sources when they're wrong.

That's why I still read them. There's accountability.

[trumad]

41. Oh really--- Have they done that for White Water and Judith Miller?

no....

[Kelly Rupert]

46. They've apologized for their Iraq war coverage n/t

[trumad]

53. LOL---

I never once saw a correction for their whitewater coverage, Paula Jones, etc...

[jasonleopold]

111. Apologized for Iraq war coverage two years after the war began

[Moloch]

124. NYT also didn't post arrogant messages on DU....

demanding that we believe their stories.

[jasonleopold]

145. Point out one instance

where I "demanded" you believe anything. You call yourself a liberal. You are no better than the liars on the right you claims to abhor. I certainly never demanded anyone believe anything. No one did.

[Moloch]

151. I never said you did.

You were not posting here at the time your article came out. Instead, another Truthout employee demanded that we take the article on faith.

I, and many others, were roundly criticized for being skeptical of your article from a number of people here on DU. Anyone who was skeptical of your article was called a "cretin" and a "fuckshit of low mental weight."

As far as your statement that I am "no better than the liars on the right you claims (sic) to abhor," I think that the media should be held accountable when it released faulty information. That doesn't make me a republican. When Matt Drudge posted a baseless story about John Kerry's alleged affair with an intern, I was equally appalled.

If your article was true, why is Rove free today?

[dogday]

154. And anyone who believed was called

part of the TO knee pad brigade... So what is your point?

[dogday]

153. So, what's one more arrogant post on this board?

We have so many, I can't tell one from the other....

[dogday]

152. I hope that the apology appeased

the families of the dead soldiers.... I can't see how it would though.... You have to look at the bigger picture... What did this story cause... In TO's case, we were all disappointed Rove did not do the perp walk... For Iraq, however, we are all sad and disgusted by the deaths of so many....

[jasonleopold]

107. Outs their sources?

Prove it. Prove one instance where the NYT outs their sources. I dare you

[Balbus]

50. I don't trust any of those three - nor do I trust Truthout.

on edit: And before the obligatory, dipshitted reply of "Oh, you must listen to Rush for your news!" No: I don't. But I love their music.

[LeftyMom]

17. I think the way they handled is is cause to distrust them, more than the original error.

I won't much fault somebody for screwing up and admitting it, provided they don't make a habit of it, but screwing up and insisting you haven't, in defiance of logic and long after that position is unjustifiable based on the facts just doesn't inspire confidence.

Oh, and I read the site for some time before I ever heard of DU, so my no confidence vote should be interpreted in the context of an established previous trust.

[Fredda Weinberg]

18. They lie to save themselves

I don't regret helping Pitt get his publishing contract, but I wasn't prepared for the disinformation campaign he waged here to protect Bev Harris. So yes, he's perfectly capable of lying.

I have a single standard for journalists - of course they can make mistakes, but must be willing to acknowledge them. That includes "our" side - and I'm disappointed.

[Redstone]

19. Everybody makes a mistake now and then. Nobody should think of it as a big deal.

Redstone

[stillcool]

22. there are those too...

who just love to rip apart, vilify, demean, ostracize, and crucify anyone( other than themselves) at every afforded opportunity. I'm thinking there may be a reading comprehension problem, ego issues, or perhaps they're just pissant twits.

[BlooInBloo]

24. "24 business hours" - Liars. I won't read them. Y'all can do what you want.

[BuyingThyme]

25. It seems that Truth Out always tries to get it right.

Most "news" media employ people who get paid to get it wrong.

That's all you need to know.

[demobabe]

28. No professional news source published the Rove indictment story

For Truthout to publish it, and then defend it to the death was at minimum a gross lapse in judgment. I actually think Mark Ash is more to blame than Leopold for the whole fiasco.

Jason has some serious incidents in his recent journalism past (regardless if they're right, wrong, or even if those publications were actively trashing Jason), and it was Ash's duty to be extra careful with Leopold. Truthout's lost reputation can be put squarely on Mark Ash's shoulders. Period.

No professional editor in the world allowed the Rove story to run for the simple reason it could not be verified. It isn't news if it can't be verified. It's rumor. Possibly opinion at best. But this is what separates professional publications from non-professional rags or rumor mills...

Think of it this way: would you use the National Enquirer as your primary news source? Why not?

This doesn't mean that every article Truthout writes is problematic, it just puts them in the category of having to question every story they write because of past reputation problems.

Sure, everyone makes mistakes, but that's what retractions are for, and Truthout never fully retracted the Rove stories. Can they be trusted as a news source? Google doesn't think so. Google had included Truthout as a news source in their news site until the Rove indictment stories. Then they abruptly pulled Truthout, and they've never added them back.

For comparison, Google considers Raw Story a news source and includes them in their news search.

Your reputation is all you have as a news source... when you lose it, it's near impossible to get back.

[jarab]

29. An excellent assessment, demobabe! Thanks. (eom)

..O...

[Octafish]

31. NYT, WaPo, ABCNNBCBS all said Iraq had WMDs.

They helped LIE American into war.

Wouldn't that disqualify them as professional, let alone reliable, sources?

[demobabe]

32. No, because they attributed their sources.

Rumsfeld and others were on the record as saying there were WMDs, and the newspapers reported that. Because the government lied does not make the newspaper a liar. They're just reporting the news which was based on White House reports and information. This is not rumor. It is fact these White House officials said these things about WMDs.

Back to Truthout and Leopold: would you like to tell me who the sources are for the Rove stories? I can't prove Karl Rove was indicted. Nobody else seems to be able to prove that, either.

But I can show you on video White House officials saying WMDs are in Iraq.

[Octafish]

45. Great. The videos show the government LIED.

Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Ashcroft.

They ALL lied.

Leopold and TruthOut said their sources were government officials, and also some newsfolk, speaking off the record.

Maybe they lied to Leopold. Maybe not.

While I don't like unnamed sources, I still want to get as much information as possible.

In short, I'd rather know all the facts.

That's why I'm against government secrecy.

It's also why I'm against liars, thieves, gangsters, mass-murderers, warmongers and traitors like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and the rest of their cronies.

It's also why I'll stick up for reporters who have stood up to them, however flawed.

[Kelly Rupert]

47. And the thing is, we know who the MSM's lying gov't sources were.

TruthOut hasn't seen fit to tell us a thing about who their "sources" were. For all we know they don't even exist.

[Octafish]

51. Good. When will Corporate McPravda tell us they're investigating those lies?

As for TruthOut, I know some of their people. And they are good people.

As for TruthOut's sources, they can rest easy they won't be turned over.

[demobabe]

56. Good people need good editors.

Good intentions do not make a good article.

[Octafish]

61. I learned that in Journalism School.

Good writing IS good editing.

And a free press is the most important enterprise in our democratic republic -- that's why it's the only business mentioned by name in the Constitution of the United States.

[demobabe]

66. Yes, you should edit your work

But if you're a reporter at a pro paper, you still have various editors. At least that's how the big daily newspapers I worked for handled things.

[demobabe]

55. Well, you can certainly do that

I'm not going to stop you. :)

However, I want solid facts in my news. I feel really stupid when I read something I think is fact, repeat it to my friends, only to find out what I said wasn't true.

As soon as Leopold's article went out, the "news" Rove had been indicted was shared at the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association dinner and was met with great applause. 700 lawyers were there, and Hillary Clinton was the keynote.

Of course, they all looked REALLY stupid and THAT was reported in the Detroit Free Press (no longer online but was copied and pasted in this linked comment)...

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/05/rove_indicted.html#comment-17293546

[Octafish]

59. Sorry to read 700 applauding lawyers looked stupid.

Where did I say I don't want solid facts? Like you, I also enjoy basing my belief system on reality.

Here's what I know, based on fact: My country is engaged in an illegal and immoral war, part of longstanding aggression against the people of Iraq. In fact, former President Bill Clinton continued that aggression by enforcing and strengthening the economic sanctions against Iraq started by his predecessor, George Herbert Walker Bush. These sanctions did not do much to squeeze Saddam Husssein's lifestyle, but did manage to boost infant mortality and lower the quality of life for the average Iraqi.

When considering these facts, looking stupid doesn't immediately spring to mind. The proper word is "shame."

BTW: Not to drop any names, but I've crossed paths with many Michigan lawyers, one of whom ran as the Democratic nominee for governor of Michigan. They don't need any help in how they look, but Rev Moon knows, I've tried. ;-)

[demobabe]

64. Reality is all we have my friend...

...or at least I think it is.

I want a new one - one where we don't kill people for oil or money...

:)

[MADem]

93. To be accurate, they quoted BushCo asswipes who averred that

They didn't print "Iraq has WMDs" as a stand-alone fact, along the lines of "Boston has bad traffic" or "New York bagels are delicious."

But this isn't an either-or exercise where one must pick one: TO or NYT....you can dislike and mistrust them all if you so desire.

[Nutmegger]

68. Thanks demobabe! nt

[Bluebear]

33. Getting the story wrong AND insulting people for not believing said story?

Not the way to build trust in your organization.

[trumad]

35. Like I said--the PR in defending themselves was a little to be desired..BUT

These guys are on our sides...They're not some devious secret organization that is meant to discredit the Democrats. They're a progressive online publication.

Again--- they are us...Those who think that what they did helped discredit online progressive rags are in my mind taking it way too far. WHY--- because we're still here and we're growing more powerful by the minute. This story from TruthOut didn't hurt us one bit.

OH---but the righties use this kind of shit against us...oh, they see conspiracy theories on DU and use it against us. Yeah--- so fucking what--- we still won the 2006 elections.

[Kelly Rupert]

36. Leopold made the story up, hoping it would turn out to be true

and then he'd look like they'd have scooped the MSM.

No, really. I have sources who say so. I stand by this report. The story is accurate. I predicted I would be attacked for saying it. You're an idiot for not believing me. I stick by my sources. Okay, I may have overreached. I'm standing down on the Leopold affair.

[trumad]

39. You do know the editors said that they spoke with Leopold's source,

You see...this is what I'm talking about...You say that he made the whole thing up... Aren't you making the whole thing up that he made the whole thing up? How the hell do you know? You don't.

So--you'll dump a progressive online pub down the toilet because of idle speculation?

[Kelly Rupert]

44. Yes, I made that whole thing up.

And for all we know, my wild accusations were just as founded as Leopold's. The editors stood by the source, but since they haven't outed their source, they've lost quite a bit of credibility in doing so. Anybody can pretend they have a source, after all, and it's up to a news source to prove it's trustworthy.

I wouldn't "dump them down the toilet," as you put it. But I wouldn't believe any exclusives they run until I see them anywhere else. I bought into their Rove tale hook, line, and sinker, and don't feel like doing it again.

[trumad]

52. You said "Leopold made the story up"

and I said that his editors talked to the source he got it from---so--did Leopold make it up as you suggested or were you mistaken?

[Kelly Rupert]

63. Two things:

1. My initial post was satirical. I made up an attention-getting headline without factual basis, and then employed exactly the same journalistic integrity that Truthout did in defending it.

2. Personally, I believe that Leopold made it up, and that his editors were covering for him, partially because they believed he would be vindicated anyway, and partially to protect their reputation. I have absolutely no factual basis for this belief. There is also no factual basis for the belief that their source lied. Nor is their any factual basis for any belief in a conspiracy. Nor is their any factual basis for the belief that it was an honest mistake. The only people who know a goddamn thing are Truthout and the supposed "source", and they don't feel like telling us the whole story.

[Moloch]

141. Don't forget that Leopold had a book to sell...

If it had turned out Rove was indicted (which a lot of people believed would happen) then Leopold would have really benefitted financially.

[demobabe]

62. Did YOU speak to Leopold's source?

Don't forget when this whole thing was coming down, first there were a dozen sources, then eight or six, down to three or two, then one?

I can't exactly remember, but the number of sources was all over the map and changed several times from Will Pitt's first posting of Leopold's article on the DU.

Exactly which of the non-existent sources did Ash talk to? All of em? Or was it just one? Or NONE?

Who can tell?

[rolleitreks]

37. It should alert you to their bias and lack of professionalism. n/t

[trumad]

40. Then alert me...

please---- I have an open mind.

If there is evidence that can back up wht you say, I'd love to hear it. My head is not in the sand.

[demobabe]

57. The proof is they published an unsubstantiated rumor

They have not come forward with any proof of Rove being indicted.

They say "trust us" and "the truth will out."

The truth still hasn't outted, or whatever the heck that means anyway.

Reputable papers do not publish unsubstantiated rumors.

The rule on news is you're supposed to have TWO named sources in your article, or you don't print it as news.

Go ahead, call any professional newsroom in this country. Ask em. They'll tell you.

No sources, no story.

TO said they had sources, but to this point, we have no proof of that.

It wasn't a valid news story and should have never seen the light of day.

[trumad]

87. TO said they had sources, but to this point, we have no proof of that.

Right..you don't...which could mean they do have sources...correct?

[demobabe]

89. Sure, they could have sources

Then again, they might not have sources.

Or their source might be a pink elephant in a tutu. Prove to me that's not true.

I have no clue.
This is why we depend on news sources to give us facts, and sadly TO has spun us with several stories that factually were inconsistent, to being inaccurate, to being unprovable. News articles are not rumors, and until a story can be substantiated, it is still a rumor.

Rove hasn't been indicted, there is no proof an indictment exists, nobody has come on record, no target letter has been produced.

The only evidence we have here is that Rove is a free man, and Luskin denies the existence of a target letter or an indictment.

Maybe you'd say he's lying and maybe he is, but I have no proof of that either.

These are the facts I have at this point, which leads me to believe TO's story doesn't hold water, and might have been a complete fabrication. I can come to no other conclusion without facts that say otherwise.

[jasonleopold]

103. Challenge for Demobabe

Go ahead and call every newsroom in the country and ask if they are supposed to have "two named sources" in articles they publish. I guarantee you will get hundreds of different answers. Every news organization operates differently so when if your goal here is to speak like an expert than do your homework.

For example, Bloomberg News rarely, rarely, rarely will run a story with anonymous sources, whereas the WSJ will. The NYT and WaPo runs anonymous sources stories all the time without ever naming a source.

You're ignorance about the news business speaks volumes.

[Moloch]

140. Did you ever go to college?

Two sources. That's what I learned. I've never heard differently anywhere.

Why exactly are you here to defend yourself now, but not when your shoddy work of "journalism" came out?

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

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

[tiptoe]

42. Is "Sealed vs Sealed" still sealed?

[Cameron27]

100. Apparently sealed in cement

:eyes:

[Garbo 2004]

104. Good question. 06cr00128 US District Court for DC. Filed May 16 or 17.

Could be checked via PACER. Although if a case is sealed that in itself doesn't tie it to anything in particular, speculation notwithstanding.

And if Rove, as some have suggested, cut some sort of deal or an agreement with the prosecution and Rove were to be a cooperating witness in the Libby case, the deal/agreement would have to be disclosed to Libby's defense team.

[jasonleopold]

108. it's still sealed. Six months later. Check for yourself

[tiptoe]

172. and IIRC its filing conformed to a 24 *business-hours* timeframe. n/t

[sweetheart]

43. Kill and eat our friends to stay fit

The enemy doesn't taste good, as they're not vegetarians.

If you're john kerry, your career is washed up because of a joke and a miscount,
if you're howard dean, your career is washed up for a microphone yell,
if you're hillary, your career is washed up 'cuz of when you were first lady,
If you're jason leopold, you career is washed up 'cuz you had a bad source,
if you're dan rather, your career is washed up 'cuz you published the truth...
and on and on... the very people who
are doing the good fight, are the ones that we love to eat... pass the salt.

Lifetimes, like plays, have more than 1 act. F. Scott Fitzgerald must be proven
wrong, american lives need a second act, a third and a fourth, or this 1 act
stuff, dispatching the hero before he/she has done the part in act 3, leaves
us with very empty stages in our theatre.

[Kelly Rupert]

48. I really think Leopold could get his career back

if he were to out his source and really tell us what happened.

[Balbus]

49. If it's the only source for a particular story - then yes.

[Cha]

58. If you were

anal retentive ya would.

[Peace Patriot]

60. My pro- and con- list for TruthOut is 1000 pro, 0 con!

TruthOut is one of the most trustworthy leftist sites on the internet, they are rock solid in every way, and publish some of the best writing on the internet.

As for the incident in question, I think, a) it was a professional Rovian hit job to discredit TruthOut, Pitt, Leopold and Ash, which many of our typical crowd of hit and run DUers jumped on, out of stupidity, for personal motives or maybe they were paid (it's an open forum); or b) Rove really was about to be indicted and made a behind-the-scenes deal with Fitzgerald (ratted on somebody to save his own skin?), which might explain why the sources were so sure of their info, or Rove is still under threat of indictment and must testify truthfully at Libby's trial to avoid it, which would explain why Rove's lawyer never released the letter that Fitzgerald sent him (it may have contained conditions), or Rove is still a target in some way (Fitzgerald is playing him to nail Libby, Cheney or others for the outing of Plame/Brewster-Jennings)--with these latter scenarios resulting in people close to the investigations (the sources) being convinced that a Rove indictment was imminent. (It sure looked to me like Fitzgerald had Rove by the short hairs on perjury, so why hasn't he indicted him? Fitzgerald does not tolerate people lying to him--unless he's angling for a higher up.)

I go back and forth between these two explanations for the T/O mistake. They are both quite tenable, but we just don't know enough yet. As to effects, if it was a Rovian hit job, it was very effective. That should give honest DUers pause. The hit and runners here may have participated in a rightwing plot to destroy a great leftwing web site. The obsessive fixation on this mistake--repeated over and over and over and over again ("24 business hours," "24 business hours," "24 business hours," "24 business hours"), certainly points to such a plot, and has the characteristics of Freeper plots we've seen before (for instance, bloggers ready to hammer the rightwing point home, time and again). With most things Bush, it's always useful advice to "follow the money," but on manipulation of the newsstream, it's also useful advice to "follow the impact." Does the leftist or leftist cause get discredited, harmed, marginalized, as a result? Wake up and smell the Roveses!

If that is the case--that it was a sting--then TruthOut may not know what happened. Also, their sources might have been stung (which may be why they won't out them--they were victims, too). However, the Libby case is moving along, and we'll just have to wait and see what part Rove plays in it. I tend to think that those who so desired a Rove indictment--who wanted it so badly as a political tool in the midterms (many here)--misunderstood the Libby case and the events that triggered it. It's a very good bet that Rove was set up to take the blame for the Plame/Brewster-Jennings outings. Not that Rove is any innocent--he's not--but that, in this case, he didn't exactly realize (or was misinformed) that he was breaking the law, that he was not privy to the deeper motives for the outings, and that he was actually the vehicle for a cover story cooked up by someone else (my candidate is Rumsfeld--but the facts of the case so far--in the filed docs--point to Cheney*). I've said it before--an indictment of Rove for perjury would have been a kind of failure for Fitzgerald. He does not want TWO perjury cases. He wants his investigation to SUCCEED--he wants to nail the people who did the outings! (--the main crime in the case). So if Rove was used--was not the instigator of the plot, nor one of its main perps--then Fitzgerald's job is to find our who WERE the instigators/main perps. WE think politically, but he is likely thinking in a very different way, and, if he is to be successful, he must.

I don't think much about T/O and this sting, or mistake. So what? There are so many huge things to think about, and be active about, these days--people still dying in Iraq because of Bush/Cheney policy, the fascist coup in the White House, war crimes, grand theft, accountability, the "balance of powers," our extremely compromised election system, the ten trillion dollar deficit, the future of our country, to obsess on "24 business hours" thing is insane. And to avoid Truthout's excellent and informative content and writing on these and other vital subjects, because they were wrong on a Rove indictment, is foolish. Do you blame US soldiers in Iraq, and shun them, because Bush and Cheney are war criminals? T/O are soldiers, too, fighting an uphill battle against the most awesome disinformation machine ever created. They deserve our wholehearted support.

------------------

*(But it's interesting to note who's out--Rumsfeld!) (--was it really the election? do these guys give a crap about the views of the American people? obviously not! so why is Rumsfeld out?)

[Kelly Rupert]

65. I really think Rove has had bigger fish to fry

than a midsize, somewhat-obscure liberal net publication.

[H2O Man]

67. Truthout

was far from the only news source that believed Rove was about to be indicted. David Shuster reported much the same thing on MSNBC. Many other people were confident that Mr. Fitzgerald was moving towards indictment in early May. I count myself as being among them.

Something happened, and Rove was not indicted. Exactly what happened is still unknown to anyone outside of a very, very small group of people. And none of them are talking.

I note that Mr. Shuster never revealed his sources. It would have been wrong for him to do so.

Likewise, I would point out that most of the journalists contacted by members of the WHIG and the OVP about Valerie Plame did not publicly report on their sources. Even at this late date, the exact identity of two of those involved in calling some journalists in the 48 hours after Novak's first article was published remains unknown to the general public.

[demobabe]

69. Shuster never claimed for fact Rove had been indicted

Yeah, we ALL thought Rove was toast. Bummer when he wasn't (and still isn't).

[H2O Man]

72. No shit.

I never said he did.

[Kelly Rupert]

73. Then the situations aren't comparable n/t

[H2O Man]

84. Not for those

who view life in the most concrete of terms.

[Kelly Rupert]

122. But rather for those

who prefer to twist themselves in circles to defend the indefensible.

[jasonleopold]

127. Tell me, Kelly Rupert

What is indefensible. What makes you so goddamned sure things are so black and white? because you say it? Does everyone have to agree with you or do you respect the fact that everyone has their own mind?

[Kelly Rupert]

135. You're entitled to your opinions, of course,

but as the old saw goes, not your own facts. A crucial aspect of journalism, sir, is distinguishing between the two.

[H2O Man]

128. I have no need

to either attack or defend Truthout. And certainly none of your complaints changes that in the least.

[happydreams]

159. My question again demobabe: Are you a government lawyer? And

did/do you and H20 boy work together.

Interesting how you two converge here.

[demobabe]

70. Additionally, Shuster never said he'd out his sources if wrong

Unlike Jason Leopold publicly did in a radio interview.

[Kelly Rupert]

71. Shuster also did not make a point of insisting he was right

even after proven wrong, IIRC.

[HughMoran]

75. Waterman always takes a fair and measured approach toward controversy

I like that about you.

[Me.]

129. Don't Forget

Hardball was geared up to devote the entire show to the Rove indictment which they expected to come on that Friday.

As for Me., i believe something went down, just don't know what the twists and turns were. My hope is that we, at some point, find out.

[H2O Man]

130. It may be

that much more will become evident when the Libby case goes to trial. It will be interesting to watch the dynamics between Libby, Rove, and Dick Cheney.

It will also be interesting to see how things unfold with the civil case.

While it is likely that the truth about exactly what took place last May will never be revealed publicly, much of it should become clearer during the trials .... if either case actually makes it that far.

[Me.]

131. Question

Relating to your, "if either cases makes it that far"

Why wouldn't the civil case get that far? I don't see the Wilson's settling for money, for I believe the point was to get the truth out. Yes?

[H2O Man]

137. The judge

could dismiss the case.

[happydreams]

157. Were you working with Leopold at the time of this "incident".

This is about the fifth time I've asked you this question without recieving a reply.

[happydreams]

163. Now aint' this rich....H20man

I ask here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2921971&mesg_id=2931357

If you and the demolition babe are working together and now you come on as "adversaries" with all this legal eagle claptrap. Yer not trying to send a message here are you? (read: we are foes)

Did you two ever work together? I've asked you a number of times over the past year or so whether your rapid fire replies with vast amounts of info are collaborative works and you never reply. I've asked you whether you contributed to TO and or Leopold. I get no response.

:shrug:

[HughMoran]

74. Very thoughtful look at TO and the Plame controversy

I tend to give folks a second chance if they seem to be on the good guy side of things (IMO). I wish others could be a little more forgiving, I really don't think they purposefully misled anyone.

[demobabe]

76. Second chance, sure... but third, fourth, or more chances?

Don't forget, the Rove indictment came on the heels of Truthout being questioned about a Leopold article where he said Rove or Rove's lawyer had received a target letter, also of which was never substantiated.

THEN after the Rove indictment fiasco occurred, they held fast to the story, even when it got to unbelievable ends...

I kept waiting for Truthout to do the obvious thing they should have done: issued a statement that they were retracting the story until they had information that could substantiate it.

[HughMoran]

79. This is precisely the attitude that makes me lose hope

I like to think that people on the left are better than this. You make it sound as if none of the things you state are related, yet they are all related to the same story and likely the same questionable source. Since when are liberals so lacking in forgiveness?

[Kelly Rupert]

80. I like to think that people on the left

demand the same integrity from their own that they demand from the opposition.

[HughMoran]

81. I'm not talking about integrity

I am talking about forgiveness. This story is more than 6 months old, yet the bitterness in some is quite real and find it distasteful.

[Kelly Rupert]

82. I hold no personal vendetta against Truthout.

They've simply demonstrated a willingness to play fast and loose with journalistic standards of integrity and so I would not be inclined to trust anything they've written that has not been backed up elsewhere.

[HughMoran]

83. Sounds personal to me

But anyway, that is your choice. I might argue with your idea of what a "vendetta" is, there are an awful lot of posts here making sure that everyone knows your personal dissatisfaction with TO. Am I missing something here?

[MonkeyFunk]

91. I think people would

be a lot more likely to forgive if Truthout said they were sorry.

But they didn't - they insulted us with nonsense like "24 business hours" and continuing to stand by the story long after it was discredited.

[HughMoran]

138. So you cannot forgive people who do not say "I'm sorry"?

Interesting life's philosophy - I have forgiven dozens of people who never said they were sorry. :shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

139. I don't understand

this whole argument regarding "forgiveness".

They're a company that sells a product - news. They sold a faulty product, then refused to even admit it was faulty. Then they insulted people who rightly expressed skepticism.

So you think for some moral reason I should "forgive" them? Do you "forgive" Enron? The concept doesn't even apply.

I would RESPECT them if they had admitted the error and apologized - but they didn't. So I don't respect them. How's that?

[HughMoran]

143. TO = Enron, so I cannot forgive? False choice argument. no?

That's a ridiculous parallel and you know it. They are a few people trying to make a living and they are left-leaning - I cannot comprehend such an unforgiving attitude - but that's just me I guess :shrug:

[jasonleopold]

146. where are these insults you speak about

why do so many people who come to DU distort the truth in their own statements of fact while calling others out for getting things wrong?

there were never any insults by TO toward anyone. Individual writers are on their own. But the organization did not insult anyone. Give me a break

[MonkeyFunk]

155. 24 hours = 24 business hours

is an insult to the intelligence of anybody who speaks English.

[Cameron27]

101. self-delete

[demobabe]

86. No, they're not the same story

Before the Rove has been indicted story was printed, Leopold wrote a story that Rove and/or his attorney received a target letter.

When Leopold was facing severe questioning about the truthfulness/facts of that story, he suddenly came out with the indictment story. It appeared he published that one to divert the bad attention from the target letter story being bogus, figuring Rove would be indicted any day (which appeared was going to be the case), then when he wasn't, then even worse spin began...

I'd forgive Truthout if they were honest with me, but I don't feel they were honest.

[jasonleopold]

105. Demobabe

you are completely fabricating things on this thread to incite people.

What on earth is your problem?

[jasonleopold]

102. Demobabe

has been traveling between two journals for three days now putting forth analysis after analysis on the story, which surfaced again because I happened to write a story about the US Army subpoenaning a TO reporter in the case of Lt. Watada.

I really must question her motives for going back and forth between journals and posting dozens of comments. It's ridiculous. If you are so inclined to believe I made it up then so be it.

And as for outing the source everyone, look at what I actually said on the Ed Schultz show:

I quote: If my sources "intentionally" misled me than they know I would not be so inclined to protect their anonymoity. At no time did I say that if the story wasn't true I would out my souree. My source did not mislead me or my editors and my editors, and I says EDITORS, plural, spoke with the sources. This is a case of the message getting muddled and being peddled by people like Demobabe as fact. Her beef, whether you choose to believe it or not, is with me personally. This is a person who claims she has worked for news organizations and yet doesn't have the slightest idea how said news organizations operate.

As I said in previous comments, Sy Hersh of the NYer has for the past three or four years written hard-hitting investigative pieces that have been utterly discredited by the White House yet his news organization stands by the reports even though they have yet to pan out.

Face it: some of you are going to continue believing and some of you aren't.

[demobabe]

142. I have no personal beef with you, Jason

I have an aversion to bad journalism and media spin. It has nothing to do with you, and I had no intention of bringing any of your prior history up until you made it a big issue. I even complimented you on your book and writing ability.

You gotta stop being paranoid. Columbia Journalism Review points out how you seem to think everyone is always out to get you - that everyone is after you. They compare you to Stephen Glass, not Sy Hersch. To compare yourself to Hersch is obscene. You only get to do that after you've been writing for 30 years and have won a Pulitzer.

http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/jason_leopold_caught_sourceles.php

Why the heck you seek redemption on public message boards is beyond me. It's like a person standing in a pool of pirahnas telling the fish they're nuts for biting and to stop.

Maybe it isn't redemption. Attention? Any attention at all is better than none?

I really don't want to see you be a failure. I really suggest you stop promoting these threads by not posting to them. You're getting close to 100 posts in the last few days. Reminding everyone over and over isn't going to help you, and neither are some of those multiple emotion-charged posts you made while you were mad.

Just let them drop - I'm more than happy to do so...

[jasonleopold]

148. Demobabe... you're the master of spin

Look at the end of the story that you spent time digging up. Notice the correction at the end of hte CJR piece and notice the CORRECTION. The writer put words in my mouth that I never said and had to correct an entire article about it. That makes the whole thing suspect. And he got a shitload more wrong. it's a hit piece.

you really are a piece of work.

You have spent your entire weekend on this. it is you who could not let it drop. YOu're jealousy is so apparent.

[demobabe]

150. Oh, you've found me out.

I'm so jealous of you. Yeah, that's it. I just long for the day when CJR sees fit to tear me a new asshole.

Really Jason, I wish you well in your efforts. I hope your book continues to be successful, and I hope you see fit to write other books, and I hope they'll be successful, too. Good luck...

[happydreams]

162. PSY-OPS!! Your nastiness is in stark contrast to your words.

[happydreams]

160. She/he/it may have had something to do with the orignal "incident"

and now I speculate that her and the waterboy are playing "adversarial roles" to make it look like they are not linked after I called them out.

I wonder why they won't answer my specific questions??? Their oblique response is weird. :shrug:

[Me.]

164. Wow! I Want Some Of What You're Drinking

Two people disagree in a discusion and you read that as psyops and being in cahoots. Thanks for the laugh.:popcorn:

[H2O Man]

168. You are clearly

"one of them." Now you have been exposed by "the last guy" from Arlo Guthrie's Pause for Mr. Claus.

[Me.]

169. Dear Oh Dear

Now I'm going to have to spend my morning looking behind my back to see if I can see myself in the shadows

[happydreams]

177. All you ever had to do was reply to the questions. Did you and demobabe

work together? Did you work with Leopold either directly or indirectly.

[happydreams]

176. That's because you don't know anything about it zipperhead

:eyes:

[Me.]

178. Nice...Name Calling

Very adult, if you are one. And by the way, who are you that you think you can call people out and, further, demand they respond to you?

[happydreams]

179. It was nice compared to what I could have said and

felt like saying.

You should thank me for showing restraint.

[Me.]

182. I Must Be Psychic

I saw a grave marker in your future, and now I find out it was on the verge of happening. You should be thanking the good fairy who gifted you with restraint at your birth. Coulda, woulda and shouldn't...

[Garbo 2004]

165. I can only imagine you're confusing H2O Man with Symbolman.

Demobabe and Symbolman have made their critical views of TO/Leopold abundantly clear in the various TO/Leopold threads.

IMO, H2O Man is one of our leading "Plameologists" and has been consistently supportive of TO throughout this bizarre episode.

Since you have a star you can see for yourself in the archives.

[H2O Man]

167. I think this means

that you, too, are part of the conspiracy.

[robcon]

78. It isn't the event. It was the coverup.

The obvious lies by Leopold were masked by total, utter bullshit by Marc Ash. I lost all faith, but not when they were caught with believing bad sources - that happens.

It was the aftermath that bothered me. The slow, painful way in which they tried to linger on the original story despite the obvious (to everyone else?) nonsense that it was based on.

They didn't own up to their mistakes for a painfully long time.

[Bluebear]

96. :nodding:

[treestar]

85. The idea seems silly

TO has more than one writer, and one writer can be fooled or make a mistake, or who knows, may have been right and time will eventually prove it.

To me, it is just stupidity that says that if a person makes one mistake, they can never be right. Or is fooled one time, they can never be right. Let alone that there are other people who write for TO.

Simple-mindedness at its utmost, IMO.

[RB TexLa]

88. Get lied to by someone, only way to assure you won't be lied to again by them

is to ignore them. Pretty simple really.

[Rex]

92. Some people must have all or nothing.

There is no gray area. They preach progressiveness, but shun forgiveness and mercy. Even for the guys on our side. It is a sick world, getting sicker. We can't just all get along, to much pent up hatred.

[Goblinmonger]

98. TruthOut gets another shot, Leopold doesn't

Three strikes you're out for Jason. TruthOut is still backing him to some extent and that is troublesome. Will Pitt's drunken rant on here really lowered TruthOut in my eyes, too. I'm not all or nothing with TO, but Leopold should be dead to anyone who actually thinks journalism means anything.

[jasonleopold]

106. I hope you don't apply that insane logic

to your children, if you have any.

[Goblinmonger]

117. My children are not "professional" journalists, so no.

I hold journalists to a different standard. I am also not trying to rear journalists to be good adult human beings. What a ridiculous analogy you are making.

If a journalist is fabricating sources, plagiarizing, and stealing from their employer, I don't see why it is "insane" for me to think that person is not worthy of my trust as a journalist any longer. If you choose to continue to listen to someone who commits such huge ethical violations as a journalist, good luck to you.

[jasonleopold]

118. Oh so now

you are using my past and what I wrote in my book against me. What a nice Rovian tactic.

[Raskolnik]

120. Holding people accountable for what they've done and said is "Rovian"!?

It would seem to me that "Rovian" would be one of the last descriptives I would use when someone's actual words and actions are considered when evaluating their work.

[Goblinmonger]

121. First of all, I do not believe you are really Jason Leopold

so I won't continue to have this inane discussion about how one's past as a journalist should or shouldn't affect how people think of them as a journalist.

Secondly, well I don't have a secondly. First one pretty much speaks for itself.

[jasonleopold]

119. you can call me

a criminal, a junkie, a liar, go ahead. I've already said it all myself way before you. but don't you dare accuse me of fabricating sources or stories. That is absolutely untrue

[Kelly Rupert]

123. So we can say you're a liar but we can't say you lied?

Interesting.

[jasonleopold]

126. you truly don't get it.

What do you stand for?

[Kelly Rupert]

134. Intellectual integrity.

And you?

[Raskolnik]

99. Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

Discount everything? No. Approach everything with Leopold's name on it with a high degree of skepticism? Absolutely.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. You know, it would have been nice if they could have just issued a straight up mea culpa

"we fucked up". Unless I'm mistaken, that never came. Instead, like Raw Story with the Melinda Barton "Purge the atheists from the left" debacle, it became more about attacking the "enemies" who dared to question the story--- or the hate piece.

Both outlets lost a lot of my respect at that time. But life goes on. Truthout has certainly done some good work before, and since.

[jasonleopold]

110. Patrick Fitzgerald's office has yet to confirm or deny

all we have is the word of Karl Rove's attorney who has been known to lie to protect his clients. See the story in The New Republic from July 2005, I believe.

Need I remind you that in October 2003 Scott McLellan said publicly that Rove, Libby and others were not involved and that it was "ridiculous" to suggest such a thing. It took two years before the truth about that lie came out.

So again, all you have is the word of Rove's attorney.

nothing else. no documents. Nothing. Just the word of his attorney.

So we are sticking to our story and we have said so many times already, but some people just can't seem to accept that.

[Warren DeMontague]

112. Denial aint just a river in Egypt.

Hey, stick to your story. Knock yourself out.


"Some people can't seem to accept that". I think, if you really want to "stick to the story", while you're at it, you might want to stretch the ol' brain a bit and see if you can figure out why some folks might not be buying it anymore, and furthermore, why they might be inclined to call bullshit on the whole affair. Certainly that might be a more advisable tack than continually playing the victim, pretending that everyone who isn't willing to take your word as the final, ultimate authority is "out to get you".

These folks are sticking to their story, too:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Edit: as for "nothing else" proving the story false; are we to understand that the "24 business hours" still aren't up?

[jasonleopold]

113. I am sticking to the story. that is my point. Debate the shit out of it here.

But I am sticking to it.

[Warren DeMontague]

116. Nah, I've got laundry to do, and I've gotta take out the recycling.

But have fun. :patriot:

[Zynx]

136. It wasn't true?

[jasonleopold]

114. I am so not playing the victim

I am stating my position.

[jasonleopold]

115. Did I ever once

say or claim or opine that people were out to get me? You put that in quotes. No. I never did. So your interpretation is way off base. At what point do you accept that this is the way it is.

[Garbo 2004]

132. As to 06cr00128 it appears TO has only the word of one source and presumably no

documentation since none has been mentioned. According to what Marc Ash posted in TO's town meeting section on June 13, a single source said that the indictment, allegedly 06cr00128, was returned and filed on May 10? 06cr128 wasn't filed on May 10 but a week later and that info apparently was available on PACER at the time Ash posted on June 13th. It would appear your source and "details from the filing records" cited by Ash were demonstrably wrong about the filing date.

That Fitzgerald's office hasn't publicly confirmed or denied the report in itself has no probative value IMO given its record of not being particularly forthcoming to the media.

Ash stated that TO believes, based on the same single source, that Fitzgerald's office would issue some statement if TO's reporting was materially false or inaccurate, as if the Special Counsel's silence on the matter somehow tends to confirm the story.

At the same time, however, TO calls into question Luskin's statements that there was no indictment or deal with the Special Counsel. TO doesn't believe that Fitzgerald's office also would issue some statement if Luskin's statements were materially false or inaccurate?

Presumably it's a bigger deal if a defense attorney makes a materially false statement regarding such a legal matter, whereas it's really not a significant issue for the Special Counsel's office if a small online media outlet gets a story wrong based on false/inaccurate info from an unknown source. As you may recall, Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft said she thought Fitzgerald's office would correct the record if Luskin was lying. I'm not so sure about that. But again, my point is that the Special Counsel's silence on TO's "Rove indicted" articles can't be regarded as a sort of confirmation of the content as TO seemed to suggest.

I'm not bashing TO. But that Fitzgerald's office hasn't confirmed or denied means nothing in itself in regards to TO's articles. Your source who purportedly is in a position to know appears to have been wrong about the filing date of 06cr00128. TO apparently failed to check the source's info with PACER where the filing date was independently available or if TO did check PACER it failed to note the discrepancy with the date/info the source reportedly provided.

[0rganism]

125. Don't discount TO specifically; rather, discount speculative articles generally

Reporting of things that haven't happened yet is, by its very nature, less reliable than reporting of that which has happened.

Ask yourself, when you are about to put faith in any reporting, how much would you bet someone that what you've read is accurate? What kind of odds would you give? If you can't honestly say 10-to-1 or more, don't plan your activities around its truth value. I've seen DUers regularly scoff at polls that offer "95% certainty of being within 3%", but cling desparately to rumors that validate our worldview, however improbable. That's not healthy, it leads to lasting disappointment and -- as you say -- a tendency to discount sources which might, in other regards, be fairly solid.

[Catherine Vincent]

144. Wow!

Reading the comments here. Things never change.

[rman]

149. Of course - Just as everything Ted Kennedy says has to be discounted

because of one incident.
:sarcasm:

[deaniac21]

156. There is absolutely no doubt that Mr. Leopold's writing has

always had a high level of truthiness and that is good enought for me!!

[cooolandrew]

161. Truth out is excellent no news source will always be 100 percent accurate, I go on voice chat and ..

Iraqis living in Iraq confirm most of what truth out says. The source is a million times more reliable than corporate media that's for sure.

[WilliamPitt]

166. I have a story to tell

and hopefully soon, I'll get to tell it.

[Peace Patriot]

170. Mr. Pitt, you are the best of the best!

And your writings--and others at TruthOut--were the first that I found that told me that America was not dead, and that the dream of democracy, dreamt by Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King, and so many others, was alive and well. If we had Medals of Honor for Getting the Truth Out--and maybe we should--you would be top of my list.

[trumad]

173. Well good....

because there's a couple of us who have been watching your flank---but I gotta tell you that it aint been easy and we're a little banged up.

[Raskolnik]

174. Would it be snarky to ask if it will be available within the next 24 business hours?

Because if that would be snarky, I would never say such a thing.

Have a good holiday.

[HughMoran]

175. Tease

Now you got folks all curious & stuff - lol

[robcon]

181. Sorry, I don't trust you or TO anymore, WilliamPitt.

All these statements "it's going to come out" or (currently) "I have a story to tell" is a great disservice to your audience, Mr. Pitt.

You know you can't break your pledge to your anonymous source(s) without release from him/her/them. You have no story, IMO, without releasing the name(s) and info you received. Given how Leopold's/Ash's stories blew up, and the 'facts' didn't turn out as they claimed, I don't believe those sources would want to be named, and I don't trust your claim that you have a story anyone will be interested in.

[deaniac21]

171. GUEST #2: Look! The dead Prince!

GUESTS: Oooh! The dead Prince!
CONCORDE: He's not quite dead.
HERBERT: No, I feel much better.
FATHER: You fell out of the Tall Tower, you creep!
HERBERT: No, I was saved at the last minute.
FATHER: How?!
HERBERT: Well, I'll tell you.

FATHER: Not like that! Not like that! No! Stop it!
GUESTS: He's going to tell! He's going to tell!...
FATHER: Shut uuup!
GUESTS: He's going to tell!...
FATHER: Shut up!
GUESTS: He's going to tell!...
FATHER: Shut up!
GUESTS: He's going to tell!...
FATHER: Not like that!
GUESTS: He's going to tell! He's going to tell! He's going to tell! He's going to tell!...
CONCORDE: Quickly, sir!
GUESTS: He's going to tell!...
CONCORDE: Come this way!
GUESTS: He's going to tell! He's going to tell!...
LAUNCELOT: No! It's not right for my idiom!
GUESTS: He's going to tell about his great escape...
LAUNCELOT: I must escape more...
GUESTS: Oh, he fell a long, long way,...
CONCORDE: Dramatically, sir?
LAUNCELOT: Dramatically!
GUESTS: But he's here with us today...

[bobthedrummer]

180. Fwiw, consider that a major component of BFEE is Information Warfare

in the context of strategic influence-and that includes what used to be the so-called Fourth Estate or free press.

Spend some time in this archived thread for background. There is a real INFORMATION WAR in every aspect.

"Reality vs. Perception Management: The Tinfoil Contoversy" from January 2006
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x71919

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

183. I think your ratio is wrong.

I would say the pros out-number the cons by 110 - 1 or better.

I trust the group and I trust Will Pitt because they have been speaking truth to power for as long as I have been a member of DU. I have only a few bones to pick with anyone here, but in the interest of truth and justice, here is my list of grievances:

Will Pitt is sleeping with Cindy Sheehan for money.

H2O Man keeps writing stuff I don't quite understand, as if he has some sort of training and experience I do not have. And he keeps quoting Chief Onandaga... what's that all about? And what's with the shiny rocks he keeps posting pictures of?

As for Mr. Fitzgerald, how come he had to interview Rove 5 times??? Is he really that unprepared and forgetful? I would like the Shite House to try and get him replaced.