CHB vs. William Rivers Pitt, Round Two

[MarkTwain]

Partisans can't be journalists
By DOUG THOMPSON
Nov 20, 2005, 09:27

Normally, I don’t pay much attention to the patter on Internet bulletin boards – particularly extreme partisan boards like Free Republic (on the right) or Democratic Underground (on the left). But a reader sent me a link the other day to a post on DU by William Rivers Pitt, a self-proclaimed guardian of all things Democratic and liberal: “As far as I am concerned, CHB's bread and butter is telling people things they wished were true, instead of telling people what is actually true,” Pitt said. “Publications like this give the entire alt-media a big black eye.” He went on to add: “They have never, not once, quoted a source by name.” Pitt, for those of you who don’t spend time reading the left wing side of the partisan political divide, ....

- SNIP -

Frankly, I’d expect a former teacher to show more accuracy in what he writes but then I’m dealing with a writer to admittedly flaks for a partisan point of view. That is the real problem with alternative media today – the belief that such media must represent a certain point of view to do its job.

- SNIP -

Never quoted a source by name? We’ve published more than 25,000 stories since going online on October 1, 1994, and 99 percent of them are based on named sources. Yes, we’ve had some notable stores based on unnamed sources, like the ones last year saying Bush was losing it, lashing out at his staff in uncontrolled temper tantrums. At the time, a lot of people, including Pitt's buddies at Democratic Underground, doubted the story but it has since been picked up by a whole bunch of the mainstreamers that your enemies over at FreeRepublic call “shills of the left wing.”

- SNIP -

And I don’t care for partisans who claim to be journalists while publishing under a political party banner. Truth is non-partisan. It doesn’t’ subscribe to a particular political philosophy. And truth is not served by an alternative media that looks at things from a partisan political slant. A Robert Novak who writes that all things Democratic are bad is no different from a William Rivers Pitt who claims the same things about Republicans. Journalism is best served by those who seek follow the story wherever it leads and don’t let political or philosophical bias sway their course.

- SNIP -

© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7673.shtml


... Mr. Thompson's article is a lengthy one and not well represented by just these excerpts. It is worth a read. I await all of the expected snarky comments to follow but hopefully we might find one or two which will debate this matter with the same thoughfulness and cogency as does Mr. Thompson.

[wtmusic]

1. Oh oh...Doug says were "extreme" and "partisan"

:cry: WAHHHHH! :cry:

:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. He has a partial point here

believe it or not, we are partisan and god help those who have said the dems have problems, do a search you will find your answer

[calimary]

177. Well, I for one AM partisan, and proud of it, and very happy to admit it.

I figure there is SO DAMNED MUCH extreme wrong-wingism on the air, in print, on cable, EVERYWHERE - for so many years now, that it's only reasonable to start leveling the playing field a little. After all, we're Dems. That's what we're about. Besides, as far as being biased - at least WE admit it. Unlike the Pox "news" people who hide behind a very shabby, moth-eaten facade of being "fair and balanced." They neglect to add "...but only to one side" afterwards, though.

[Cha]

91. Extremely Truthful and

Patriotically Partisan! And I'll throw in a couple of these..:patriot: :patriot:

[billbuckhead]

2. This guy needs to back to philosophy class

Maybe he can debate Will Pitt. I'd like to see that.

[greatauntoftriplets]

3. Thompson needs a fact checker.

Will's father is chairman of the Alabama Democrats, not Louisiana. There must be numerous other errors as well.

[MarkTwain]

5. Apparently, so does Mr. Pitt...

"Never quoted a source by name? We’ve published more than 25,000 stories since going online on October 1, 1994, and 99 percent of them are based on named sources. "

[acmejack]

6. Will has ahell of a lot more credibilty than CHB will ever have.

Snarky enough, Twain?

[NMDemDist2]

8. but many/most of those stories were links to MSM if you look n/t

[Midlodemocrat]

29. Exactly. Will is dead on about CHB.

Pure speculation...no facts.

[wtmusic]

9. They must have done 25,000 named-source stories in the first year

Every story I've seen at CHB has been hype-gossip-trash-bullshit confirmed by unnamed sources. *yawn*

[greatauntoftriplets]

10. Can you document that?

n/t

[MarkTwain]

14. I did not make the claim...

... I quoted Mr. Thompson's own reply to Will's primary challenged regarding named sources - and as a reader of CHB I might add, one which caught me by complete surprise.

You are advised to ask Mr. Thompson to cite his source for his claim.

[greatauntoftriplets]

15. Why should I believe Thompson....

who obviously has his facts wrong?

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/050714/resign.shtml

On edit: Redding Pitt is resigning his position.

[MarkTwain]

19. But, referencing the matter of Mr. Pitt's....

primary claim regarding "named sources," can not the same be true of Mr. Pitt?

As anyone who reads CHB (inclusive of those articles originated by them and not just linked to the MSM), it is well known that the vast marjority of those articles do claim, at the least, one or two named sources as either primary or secondary.

I respectfully suggest that Mr. Pitt is wrong in his primary thesis.

[POAS]

26. Are you not repeating his claim here?

Are you not proclaiming that Mr. Pitt does not check his facts?
Witness your subject line:

"Apparently, so does Mr. Pitt..."

in response to:

"Thompson needs a fact checker."

Now since you seem to have CHB's back, then please give us more than a one liner quip, and please try not to be snarky.

[MarkTwain]

35. I am merely referencing the original claim...

.. by Mr. Thompson.

I have no particular dog in this hunt. Except that I happen to like, and respect, both Mr. Thompson's CHB and Mr. Pitt.

Indeed, I have followed and respected Will far longer than CHB.

Note the use of the term "apparently." I was neither confirming nor agreeing with Mr. Thompson's assertion, I was referencing it so that the terms of the debate might be definitively understood.

[POAS]

40. I fail to see how debate

is furthered by referencing a self serving claim that does not, on its face, seem to be supported by the facts.

Before I accept your assertion that you have no dog in this fight perhaps you can point me to the response or thread wherein you took Mr. Pitt's position in opposition to CHB.

You might further explain why, if your dog doesn't hunt either party, you chose to begin a thread on this very "hunt" and further started it by stating or repeating (if you will) the CHB position.

[MarkTwain]

42. Regrets for your vision failure, but...

1. the claim is not for me to either support or deny, although as I have stated in other posts, as a reader of CHB I find Mr. Pitt's claim to be lacking. That is what caught my attention in the first place.

2. other than that claim by Mr. Pitt relative to named sources, I have no axe to grind. I do, however, find a number of points raised by Mr. Thompson to be worthy or further discussion and possible challenge.

3. with respect, that's a stupid question. This is a discussion board. People post topics every minute of every day for debate. Why do you presume a personal motive instead of engaging, without seeming personal animus, in that debate?

[POAS]

43. Thanks for not being snarky.

[MarkTwain]

47. Likewise.

[stepnw1f]

60. That's Funny......

Wow, are they desperate.

[Frances]

20. I noticed that too

Actually I think that Will's father is the former chairman of the Alabama Democrats.

As soon as I saw that the writer didn't know the difference between Alabama and Louisiana, I was suspicious.

[MarkTwain]

30. The matter of a mis-step by one state...

... is not, I respectfully suggest, as critical as the claim that CHB and its articles are never sourced by name, as was the supposed claim of Mr. Pitt.

I believe that the whole of Mr Thompson's article is cogent and raises a number of challenging points for both progressives, in general, and this community, in particular to consider.

Thank you for your post.

[EFerrari]

49. Or, at least, a fact. n/t

[mmonk]

4. pfffffft

:spray:
Seems Will struck a nerve.

[MarkTwain]

12. Mr. Pitt threw the first punch...

... and as the very (rightfully so) respected journalist and thinker that is Mr. Pitt, it would be expected that Mr. Thompson would reply. I doubt that Will expected otherwise.

Mr. Thompson's reply is neither extraordinary nor neurologically exceptional. It's called healthy, thoughtful, and reasoned debate. Which, from the tone and content of most of the replies thus far, has been lost here at DU.

[fishnfla]

16. You really dont like DU, do you?

whats the deal man?

[MarkTwain]

24. Why has the posting of a legitimate matter of debate...

... become a matter of whether one does like or not like DU?

I respectfully suggest that this type of thinking is as primitive as that found in the GOP and by its own more strident (and insane) representatives at the so called "Free Republic."

Having been here since its inception in 2001 and a contributor and to answer your question, however: No. I do like DU but become disenchanted by some of its tone most especially represented by your type of knee jerk question.

[JNelson6563]

27. Yer either with us or agin us

No criticism is acceptable and a reasoned counterpoint to a fellow DUer is unacceptable.

And we wonder why DU is likened to Freeper land. Ugh.

Julie

[fishnfla]

28. Its clear that nobody can reply in anyway that you approve

That really limits the debate, when you prejudge the standards to your own limited view.

So, why even bother?

[MarkTwain]

36. Please quote once...

...where I have posted anything other than that which references the debate or points to a particular item for clarification.

Please see my post number 35.

Even if you do perceive that I disagree on a point, that should not stifle a healthy discussion, that is why it is called debate amongst reasoned and thoughtful adults.

[whalerider55]

41. markus twainus

just an observers point here about tone-

i'm a publicaly elected official, and in my capacity as such, when i get into a public debate through which i really want to provoke those i am debating with, i always use terms like "merely," "I respectfully submit..."

because i always use those terms with a hint of condescencion, i make my point with arrogance and focused anger. I'm not suggesting you are doing this, all i'm saying is that the tone is wicked familiar to me as my own when i'm looking to prove that i am smarter and more facile than the oppoent.

as southside johnny used to say, it ain't the meat, it's the motion.

beyond that, i also have no dog in this hunt. as a part-time jouranlist for nearly 30 years, my advice is to take everything you see in writing for pubblic consumption with a grain of salt- including what I write.

that's always b een my advice.

whalerider

[MarkTwain]

45. Thanks for the suggestion...

... I agree with your premise vis-a-vis the suspected arrogance of those terms in debate.

However, I assure you and others that this is not the case. Yes, the use of those terms have been employed with purpose. That purpose is to attempt to reduce the level of personal acrimony which I knew would infect this thread from the beginning (kindly see my first post). When dealing with matters of Kerry, PETA, or CHB, this board has a tendency to go into hyper-drive, emotionally - losing most reasoned discourse.

I truly felt that if I attempted to inject some common courtesy, the level of hysteria might be reduced.

BTW, I fully agree with you latter points, as well.

[fishnfla]

46. Your the one who brought snark in your OP

and then a few minutes later castigated the replies as insufficient, and my own as knee-jerk.

I am not worthy enough to reply to you sir. But consider this:

Why is it on every issue, from 9/11 intelligence failures, to election/voting issues, to this bullshit war in Iraq, Terry Shiavo, you name it, Will Pitt and DUers have been a head of the curve? Right up truths alley.

Now Mr Thompson and CHB are publishing stories that us partisan hacks should be going ga-ga over, yet we take his slant with a healthy grain of skeptical salt, why would that be? Because we are right to be so doubtful. We always consider the source.

You and your friend Mr Thompson should read the book "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki. The truth is out here, my friend

[MarkTwain]

48. And, I was proven right within the first five minutes...

... was I not?

Thanks for the rest of your reply. I will check out that book.

[Toots]

51. You are extremely defensive for someone who has no dog in the fight

Will Pitt is not always right nor is he always wrong but he does make legitimate points. You may feel because a person has ideological beliefs they are not qualified to comment but that just makes Will's point that you tend to neglect proper news and relay unsubstantiated gossip. You basically admitted a partisan slant is not acceptible so immediately you have eliminated most of the field. Truth may not know partisanship but how it is represented does and you should be intelligent enough to realize that fact....

[MarkTwain]

53. Why is the tender of a counter-point...

... presumed to be defensive?

Why are some on this board so resentful and fearful of debate and find it necessary to personalize not just their opponent (perceived or otherwise) but to throw such meaningless characterizations at the member who merely raises the topic for discussion?

Other than that introductory challenge to me, the rest of your post, presuming that it is appropriately directed to Mr. Thompson, offers an interesting point of view.

[papau]

55. Is there more to this than CHB good or not good journalism? Any facts?

CHB is in my world not bad, but I don't jump on what they say as God's Truth.

The sourcing to MSM is unimpressive.

And I find debate on DU to be far more reasoned than you seem to suggest.

But the then that is only IMHO.

[MarkTwain]

57. Neither do I....

... perceive either Mr. Thompson or Mr. Pitt as stating or echoing the words of god.

From my recollections of the work of CHB, their original articles do, for the most part, contain one or two primary or secondary sources. Their linking to MSM is no different than Raw Story, Buzzflash, or many other progressive media sites.

As someone who's been here from the beginning, the tenor of debate here has suffered a decline - to be expected of any growing community. I just find the usual reactions to CHB here at DU to be somewhat comical proving that we have our share of hysterics as does the so called "Free Republic."

[AuntPatsy]

68. Careful, your agenda is beginning to show..

If you would like to be taken seriously, you should at least hide your distain for those on this message board.

[MarkTwain]

69. My disdain is reserved only...

... for those who cheapen it and egnage in debate tactics from the playbook of Karl Rove (villify your opponent; never respond to the content or merit of the argument) or act like hysterical Freepers who perceive the mere profer of argument as "distain" (sic) for our community.

[AuntPatsy]

70. And which you feel that your not playing by?

[papau]

54. Well said :-)

:-)

[MarkTwain]

56. And, if I may be so self-indulgent...

... well answered.

[papau]

59. :-)

:toast:

:-)

[Occulus]

66. Two questions for you:

1) is it beyond the pale to ask that incendiary articles, such as the one about Bush losing it, include sources a step above 'an anonymous source',

and

2) is it too much to ask that articles NOT containing a source other than 'anonymous' be taken with a grain or two of salt?

I mean, come on, fair is fair.

[MarkTwain]

73. It is not above the pale...

... nor below it, for that matter, to expect named source(s).

However, the reality of political life and the media is that "you can't always get what you want." Especially in the matter of the sanity (hah...) of the man who presently calls himself President and most especially in the matter of his White House which is in a constant state of lock down and revenge.

All sources, named or unnamed, should not only be taken with a grain of salt, but with a sincere question as to their motive.

Thanks for two good points.

[Laurab]

93. Why didn't you just send this to Will Pitt?

Rather than post it here, KNOWING that in essence, you were attacking someone. If you really wanted Will Pitt and the other writer to have a debate, there's no doubt in my mind Will would have been glad to do it. It seems to me you chose instead, to post it here so that you could post quite a few "snarky" comments, attack a well-known and well-liked DU'er, and do it very publicly. I don't get it. You could easily have stated your affection for CHB without being the OP of what seems to me to be no more than an attack post. Or, if unable to do that, perhaps do it in a more diplomatic way, and without the "snarky" comments in defense of your post.

And you're his "friend"? With friends like that......

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[thebigidea]

102. how dare you whine about attacks when you compare DUers to Rove?

what pretension!

You do not occupy the high ground when you call others "simpleminded" and cheer on insults to Pitt involving booze. Your every sentence is total hypocrisy.

[MarkTwain]

109. If the tactics of Karl Rove are employed...

... as has been obviously done, then the Rovian characterization is deserved. No matter how much you may find it offensive. To paraphrase an admonition already reflected in this thread about Mr. Thompson: "too close to the nerve" perchance?

There is nothing hypocritical about the truth; regrets that it hurts.

[mmonk]

65. I repeat,

seems like Will struck a nerve (given the reply and its tone in writing by Mr. Thompson).

[DS1]

7. What a douchebag

I think he lost what little credibility he started with when he started spouting about "Billy Pitt crawling out of his mother's womb"

Someone's got a complex :eyes:

[zippy890]

99. my feelings exactly

'Billy Pitt crawling out of his mothers womb' phrase - just nasty.

I find Will Pitt's writing more credible

[OldLeftieLawyer]

11. Capitol Hill Blue?

<turning page>

"Next!"

[fishnfla]

13. Quack Drs. cant make a diagnosis by watching someone on TV

Thompson's "source" for Shrubs behavior was some quack Dr. He kept shilling his book in the same tired article. It was just as lame as Bill Frist and Terry Schiavo.

Truth is non partisan. Thompson and CHB seem to have the market cornered on Bullshit, however.

[Zen Democrat]

61. A "quack"? You think Dr. Justin Frank is a quack?

Dr. Justin Frank is a clinical professor of psychiatry at the George Washington University Medical Center in Washington, D.C.

[fishnfla]

81. As a journalistic source for CHB, he sure is a quack

I see Mr Thompson quoting him all the time as a secondary/background source because of his bunko book.I'm starting to wonder if he has a feduciary interest in it. The book is speculation and junk science.

[IndyOp]

17. The truth is in the middle --

Will was wrong when he said 'never quotes named sources' -- and Thompson gives links to 2 CHB stories that do quote named sources.

I am not a regular reader of CHB, but I know that a number of articles I have read of theirs do not quote named sources (sorry, I am not interested enough in this issue to go find them). Thus, I doubt that Thompson is correct when he says that 99% do include named sources.

I am in COMPLETE disagreement with Thompson when he sets up the straw horse that Will (and others) can't be decent journalists if they take a position on the issue. Bullshit.

IMO, the only way to have decent journalism - the way it is done in the UK and most other countries - is that the author announces their position up top and then reports.

Adherence to 'objective journalism' is part of the reason why Americans understand nearly zip about the rest of the world. Only the US would send 'generalist journalists' around the world to different locales so that they can claim objectivity when what they really are is ignorant. Only the US sends journalists to Iraq who don't speak Arabic, don't understand the history and culture of Iraq, and who therefore are dependent on US mouthpieces and Iraqi's who speak English to tell them what is going on so they can repeat it. Bullshit.

We've got to get away from the 'pretense' of objectivity - we all see the world through the filters of our culture and our personal experience - announce them (in words or by affiliating yourself with an outlet that represents that point of view) so that readers know where you are coming from and then report.

[immoderate]

18. Thompson equates DU with FreeRepublic?

That's enough to question his sanity right there.

We are not the mirror of FreeRepublic.

--IMM

[Hugin]

21. Uh, oh... I'm feeling an uncontrolled temper tantrum coming on...

Aaaaauggghhh! *stomp* *stomp* *stomp* Waaaaaaaa!

Would someone please ask Congress Puppet Schmidt to
sit down and shut up... Thanks.

Geeze.

[meganmonkey]

22. Seems like all I do around here lately is eat popcorn

:popcorn:

[Hugin]

33. I've gained a considerable amount of weight....

Cholesterol is up in the mid-300's...

But, I can't stop.

:popcorn:

[BlackVelvet04]

23. I've read many articles from CHB and quite frankly

almost all of them were wishful thinking that faded into oblivion.

Will Pitt slapped CHB's hands and they responded as would be expected.

[MarkTwain]

25. Although I don't necessarily agree with your...

... assessment of CHB and its articles, thank you for the thoughful comment and contribution.

[MrBenchley]

52. Exactly so....

As far as I can see, Thompson pulls "facts" out of his ass and puts them in the mouth of anonymous sources....

He's basically sniveling because Will Pitt pegged him so accurately.

[salin]

31. forgive me but...

:popcorn:

Cross alt media forum flame-war. (Sorry but I find the exchange - esp Thompson's need to respond - rather interesting.)

[IndyOp]

32. I clicked around over there for a few minutes and ran into

about 6 opinion pieces (no named sources) and 1 article that did have named sources -- they seem to post a lot of pieces that rehash blow-by-blow events that were in Congressional Press Releases. That is fine. It is also hardly a bastion of top notch journalists.

Thompson lost my serious consideration at this point in his article, "Our award-winning series, America’s Criminal Class: The Congress of the United States, used named sources. So did our investigative report on teen model web sites, another award-winner."

Generally if it is a well-respected award - the name is mentioned. If the name is mentioned people can check the winners list. I'm not saying he didn't win something important (like a Peabody, maybe?) - I am just saying that it seems unlikely and the way it was mentioned makes Thompson seem small-time.

[jim3775]

34. I have a few problems with this article

I suppose this is just nitpicking, but I will pick away.

I don’t pay much attention to the patter on Internet bulletin boards – particularly extreme partisan boards like Free Republic (on the right) or Democratic Underground (on the left).

He certainly liked free republic in the past.

He taught English lit and journalism at some trendy private school near Boston and his father is chairman of the Democratic Party in Louisiana.

This is just more bullshit bashing of the "intellectual elite".

We raised questions about the Iraq war when 84 percent of the lemmings out there waved the flag and chanted the pro-war chorus and most of the members of your own party voted to give George W. Bush the authority to wage that war.

Yeah and so did Will Pitt and a lot of other people, does he actually think questioning the war makes him special.

Never quoted a source by name? We’ve published more than 25,000 stories since going online on October 1, 1994, and 99 percent of them are based on named sources.

When I was looking through the archived copies of CHB one thing became clear; there was little to no original writing. Most articles were wire service reprints and copied articles of Ann Coulter and Maureen Dowd. The only original writing was his rants. It wasn't until about 2000 when he started writing things himself.

Pitt's buddies at Democratic Underground, doubted the story but it has since been picked up by a whole bunch of the mainstreamers

I don't know what "mainstreamers" printed the wilder claims in Mr. Thompson's articles. Also, the moonie times doesn't count as a mainstreamer.

Dr. Justin Frank, a prominent Washington psychiatrist and author of the book, Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, provided us with much needed insight for our earliest stories on Bush’s mental condition.

He wrote a book which he said was speculation. Mr. Thompson writes articles that are supposed to be fact. You cannot use prior speculation to support stated facts.

Some of those stories used anonymous sources as well because the Clinton administration had a long history of retribution against its enemies yet a number of women came forward and allowed use of their names in stories about sexual harassment. We also identified former state troopers and campaign workers who told stories of misdeeds.

A real journalist would have said "hmmm, maybe those troopers were paid off?" or "is Juanita Broderick full of shit?" instead of printing article after article and rant after rant about Clinton's "rapes" and "sexual violence"

Our award-winning series, America’s Criminal Class: The Congress of the United States, used named sources. So did our investigative report on teen model web sites, another award-winner.

What awards did those articles win?

[MarkTwain]

37. Thank you....

... I am sure that both the Messrs. Pitt and Thompson will find your post very content rich for further debate.

[NMDemDist2]

44. re: Clinton and the troopers-- did he never read "Blinded by the Right" ??

David Brock debunks the troopers "reports" throughly

Excellent job Jim, thanks for taking the time to do so.

[Zen Democrat]

64. Brock "debunked" his own original writings on the troopers.

Brock was the penultimate right-wing shill before he saw the light.

Frankly, I don't particularly like to see people excoriated because they had wrong opinions in the past. Otherwise, why are we trying to educate people to the lies of the right-wing? If they wise up, does this taint their opinions forevermore?

If so, then Brock is not to be believed. This is bogus reasoning. David Brock has been invaluable to truth-telling the last few years.

I don't know much of the history of CHB, but I can't argue with the fact that Thompson has hit the nail in much of his recent rants and articles.

I'm getting the feeling that there is a lot of personal stuff going on here that is beyond my knowledge base.

[NMDemDist2]

79. that was my point-- If you had read Brock's book you'd (CHB) would

know the trooper stories were bogus from the get go

[Elidor]

139. re: Clinton's "rapes" and "sexual violence"

Did CHB do that? I was not aware of it. It one thing to be wrong now and then, but to publish stories built around batshit-crazy conspiracies is pretty far beyond the pale. Trying to justify them years later is even worse.

Thompson claims not to keep up with Pitt, but certainly wants to present himself as an authority on Pitt's life and leanings. The contradiction calls both points into question. The crack about his birth, and the jabs at his education and professional experience are the awkward lunges of a small man who wishes he could inflict some kind of hurt or embarrassment. "Oooh, the man was a teacher!" That's a badge of honor in my book. Pitt has his faults, but he also has a lot of credibility. And he doesn't write crazy shit. And comparing him to Novak??? Gimme a break. That's just over-the-top stupid.

Thompson should be able to do better than this, if he's as good as he thinks he is. Apparently he's not.

[davsand]

38. I distrust absolutes in journalism.

Never is a word I hate to see any journalist, including Will use. Frankly CHB, IMO, is just about at the level of the National Enquirer only it is maybe a bit less creative...

I've known Will a hell of a long time and CHB can piss and moan all they want to--Will usually is pretty accurate with his observations.

As far as the charges that you can't be a good reporter if you are political, I would submit the observation that CHB just pissed on MOST of the "mainstream media." The big difference is that the guys like Will have the honesty to stand up and admit they are partisan in their views. It is a shame our "big media" names lack Will's integrity in that respect.



Laura

edited for clarity

[H2O Man]

39. Regarding Will Pitt ......

Several of the very best articles about the Plame scandal were authored by Mr. Pitt. One finds them referenced in Ambassador Wilson's book.

Mr. Pitt does not attempt to disguise his beliefs. He does not feign objectivity on issues where he is subjective -- such as Cindy Sheehan's journey.

[MrBenchley]

50. Here's that fuckwit's "story" about temper tantrums

The primary source for his story is "one White House aide"....everything else in the story are quotes cribbed from REAL journalists' writings.

"Truth is non-partisan."
Which is why Thompson rarely has any at all in his rag....

[mikelewis]

58. Who would Murrow read?

When Edward R. Murrow covered World War II from the front lines in England, was he offering non-partisan commentary? Did he ever characterize the Germans in any other light other than that of an evil empire dedicated to the idea of complete European domination? No, he did not. He was a partisan through and through.

When Murrow took on McCarthy and showed the country what a paranoid lunatic McCarthy was, was Murrow being non-partisan? No he was not. Murrow is famous not for his accurate reporting or his charm, he's famous because of his partisanship.

When Will writes something, I read it and agree with a lot of it. Sure he's said somethings with which I don't agree but his reporting gives me a better understanding of the greater forces involved. In Will's documentary in Crawford with Cindy Sheehan, he was clearly supportive of Cindy's cause and because of his support, I have a good understanding of what happened. I was also inspired to support that kooky stunt. In all seriousness, sitting out in a ditch outside the Presidents ranch is not a news story that requires round the clock coverage. The story was why so many people went to Crawford. They went to Crawford for partisan reasons and it was Will's reporting that brought that event into my home. It was Will's coverage of that protest that I shared with my wife and Friends. To this date, I have yet to refer to anything CHB has reported because I feel there is no meat on that bone. What it boils down to is style and I support Will's reporting because he performs the task of filtering out the garbage for me in a way I agree with. CHB may be your preference and that's good that they provide you with what you want from the media. I just don't prefer that sort of journalism. I think news should not only report but inspire and Will does just that, at least for me.

Furthermore, if CHB believes journalist should not be partisans then why would he waste time with Will? Why isn't he going after Fox news or CNN? Why isn't he bitching about the partisan National Review or Wall Street Journal? I don't care that Will is presenting a partisan viewpoint, in fact, that's why I read what he writes. If he stopped reporting on mainstream Democratic thinking, I wouldn't waste my time reading him. Incidentally, that's why I don't read CHB.

[MarkTwain]

126. Well said and regarding what I believe is Thompson's own hypocrisy

...specific to "partisan" journalists, please see my post number 124, below.

[WilliamPitt]

62. For someone who pays no attention to forums

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

Two words, sir: Terrance Wilkerson.

Oh, and this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jim3775]

67. "Yet another rape of Juanita Broaddrick"

Here is a real journalist in action.
:sarcasm:
http://chblue.com/rant.asp?offset=40&ID=873

Like all stories of Clinton's rampant
sexual abuse of women, the Broaddrick case stirred
little interest in the mainstream media and died
quickly. This publication has documented more
than a dozen other cases where the man who is
now President assaulted and abused women, but
the assaults, like so many of Clinton's other
crimes, will go unpunished.


But Bill Clinton is a man driven
by vengeance against his enemies. Anyone who reveals
his true nature must be punished, so Broaddrick
now faces an IRS audit.


The IRS claims the audit is not
politically motivated, which is bullshit. The
agency has been one of the Clinton administration's
primary tools of retribution.


Just ask Joe Farah, publisher of
WorldNet Daily. Before he turned the publication
into a successful commercial enterprise, Joe published
WorldNet Daily through his not-for-profit
foundation, The Western Journalism Center. The
White House told the IRS to challenge the foundation's
tax exempt status (the Clinton spinmeisters claim
they merely passed on a complaint from a "citizen,"
but the "citizen" turned out to be both
a supporter and financial contributor to -- you
guessed it -- Bill Clinton).

Here is an article where he says he is biased against Bill and Hillary

http://web.archive.org/web/20051120095349/http://www.capitolhillblue.com/rant.asp?ID=1453

Those who don’t usually start their missives with something along the lines of “listen, you low life SOB” or suggest that I attempt a sexual act that is anatomically impossible.

One email regarding a recent column expressing glee at Salon.com’s problems felt I believed that everyone in the world was biased except me.

Wrong, computer breath.

...

But this is only the tip of my iceberg of personal biases. Others include:

...
+ Bill and Hillary Clinton and all other con artists of their ilk.

BTW, I own that book.

[AuntPatsy]

72. Point and match.

[MarkTwain]

76. Regrets. Much as I respect Mr. Pitt...

... and have seen and believe that he does more original work than does Mr. Thompson and I agree with more of his work than I do with Mr. Thompson, it's but a game.

Not a set nor the match. As with any engaging debate, it appears to me that both participants are selecting those balls whose trajectory they find easiest to return over the net.

[AuntPatsy]

77. True, in the end it is but a game, therefore, point and match is

an accurate discription until I read your response to Mr Pitt, and I promse you, I will read it from beginning to end and compare..

But as of now, without your response, it becomes point and match.

[WilliamPitt]

78. Then why did you start this?

If Mr. Thompson started by "selecting those balls whose trajectory" he finds "easiest to return over the net," why did you start this in the first place? You have as much as admitted that your OP is worthless.

Once upon a time, Twain, I thought we were friends. I'm not sure exactly where I rubbed you wrong...unless your real name is, in fact, Thompson. Beyond that, I'm at a loss.

[MarkTwain]

80. Will, you well know that...

...as a journalist, a man of intellectual precision, and a man who has chosen as his life's work, the art of the debate, that each party to that debate will first select those arguments which are the easiest to refute or deflect with the hope of enjoying the upper hand from the start of that debate.

I don't fault that tactic, I merely point it out as a fact of intellectual life.

My original post is worthless in so far as Mr. Thompson's content, arguments, and challenges are worthless since I have not said that his thoughts necessarily reflect my own. As I have frequently stated herein, I believe that he has raised a number of interesting points which might 1. be of interest to those who engage in arenas political and journalistic, and 2. deserve thoughtful commentary from our community here at DU.

I truly hope that you, Will, are not - as many others have done in this thread - lowering the level of your discourse to a chase against the poster who posts and his personal motivations. You would be hard pressed to find any personal animus on my part directed toward you either in the last five years or in this thread.

Although my motive for this thread is not important since I believe that Mr. Thompson does raise a number of general journalistic considerations that are (sans a discussion about you) worthy of comment, my motives were twofold:

1. If you did, indeed, charge that CHB has never used a named source, that is patently untrue. I found Mr. Thompson's citation of that charge by you to be remarkable, to say the least. As readers of CHB: you know that. I know that. They have many times cited named sources in their original work.

2. I also found Mr. Thompson's reference to his periodic work on the "sanity" of George Bush to be particularly cogent. There are always many on this board who crawl out from under their rocks whenever CHB is mentioned or referenced. They deserve to admit now that he has had it right - from his first work over a year ago on this matter (albeit without named sources - see my post above for a more than adequate explanation). Work that is now, finally, being echoed and reflected in the more main stream media.

Yes. We are friends. You are a good man. But I do think that we have to agree that, although I have not followed this from the beginning, according to the article by Mr. Thompson, you have thrown the first punch in the debate - indeed, by your own reference, some twelve of them in separate posts.

Finally, I do find CHB relatively legitimate. As legitimate, thoughtful, or profound as the content on TruthOut, TPM, AmericaBlog, or Atrios? No. But legitimate yes. And if you have "taken on" CHB in various posts or in other formats and Mr. Thompson has now decided to answer, I believe that you being the man of merit that you are would want an opportunity to respond.

Hence, this thread.

A good holiday week to you and your family.

[AuntPatsy]

95. I don't think that was your objective, to give William Pitt a voice

to respond to these allegations you have repeated here...

You have admitted to not likeing Du and find it a bit beneath you, so in essence, your initial post asking DU to involve themselves in this personal vendetta was a worthless task for DUrs when so much more is going on that needs to be addressed..

It is obvious whoever you are that your mission was to put William Pitt in a bad light..

I have no personal interest since I am not a good friend of Mr Pitts nor do I have any close ties whatsoever to the gentleman in question other than I do enjoy his commentary and though I do not always agree with certain points he might make, he still has my respect until I find he doesn't deserve it, your little parlor game did not change that respect and for one find your childish attack and that is exactly what it is unworthy of someone who calls himself a friend.

Whatever your true motives might be, my last advice is to William Pitt, if this who he says he is, if I were you, I would choose my friends more wisely.

[MarkTwain]

98. Dear Aunt Patsy....

...your powers of perception, analysis, and motivational assessment are so obviously wanting - to the extreme.

I defy you - yes defy you - to quote one line in this thread where i have "childishly" attacked Mr. Pitt. I won't hold my breath.

To the contrary, you are welcome to review this thread and find, at least, four excerpts where I have praised and acknowledged him as a man who truly contributes to the dialog of the progressive community. You are well advised to take his lessons in that regard.

Thank you.

[AuntPatsy]

108. Ah yes, the old tactic of smiling in one's face as one pulls the trigger..

You defy me? Is this a courtroom that I find myself in? I have reviewed this thread sir and even for those with unlimted perception as you have labeled me, (by the way, and very old tactic used in debating another in an attempt to egg the other into defense mode) it is quite easy to see what your desire was in beginning this little parlor game...

Your only desire was to attempt to bring William Pitt down a notch in Dur's eyes. Failing that, you then attempt to bring a bit of a self righteous billegerant and condescending tone that begs those reading to believe you are being misunderstood..

Sorry Mr Twain, I understand perfectly...

Your personal vendetta is best held elsewhere...

[MarkTwain]

111. Auntie...

.. your continued hysterics in regard to me and my motives provide not one wit of evidence nor of substance to your assessment of my motivation or of my intent.

Just because you scream the same tired bull does not mean that it came from but the hind end of the cow.

Regrets that you are not up to the debate. Regrets that you could not find any of the examples I requested. Glad I didn't hold my breath; I don't look too good in blue.

Continue own with your fixation on me and my motive. It's becoming kind of funny. And it's easier to fling ad hominem than to respond to Mr. Thompson's article, itself.

[Laurab]

144. Well said AuntPatsy, I agree

I too have reviewed the thread, and commented in the same vein as you have, and was labeled "simple minded" by a poster I have never, ever had any kind of discussion with before. I was also said to have posted a "nanny" post.

I simply feel the OP's personal vendetta should be held elsewhere, too. However, I've come to believe he is enjoying his ability to argue, and personally insult each of us who have suggested the same thing, in the guise of defending his post. So, perhaps it is not just Will Pitt he has a vendetta with...

Prior to today, I have only been attacked on DU by people who have had very short stays here. It's kind of interesting.

[MarkTwain]

151. Let us note that never once...

... did I throw the first punch, launch the first ad hominem, or dispatch the first insult in any of these exchanges.

I responded only - after the fact - to those who called me names, impugned my motivation, or referenced me in a nasty or mean manner. I maintain my right to continue to do so regardless of your contrived, misplaced, and highly errant feelings of being inappropriately put upon.

You feel violated? Then I respectfully suggest that you not be the first to violate.

Further, if the characteristics of your post are deserving of being labeled that of a nanny, then a nanny so it shall be. If the nastiness reflected in a post directed at me is simple minded, then so be it simple minded.

Again, it would be novel if all of the energy which was spent on this thread in attacking me personally for even being so bold as to be the OP was actually spent in a meaningful debate over the premise and the elements of Mr. Thompson's article. Hope springs eternal, even for me.

[Laurab]

155. Actually you did throw the first punch

and have continued throwing. As far as I can tell (from your posts about yourself only), you are smarter, more sensible, and possibly the only person in this "discussion" who has said anything intelligent.

Me violated? No. I see other people violated, and I don't like it. And not only the first person you set out to attack, but for the subsequent posters you attacked in almost every one of your responses, in cute little "respectful" answers. I guess you were having a slow night, or were REALLY angry at Will Pitt about something, but you really didn't want to debate anything.

As someone stated below, it is a waste of time to argue with fools, so I'm through with this little debate (although it's not really a debate, and never was - it was an attack plain and simple). We don't need to argue over who the fool is, you have your opinion (the correct one, of course) and I have mine, and I'm quite sure they're different. Have fun - this "simple-minded" "nanny" poster is off to do something worthwhile now. Enjoy your attacks.

[MarkTwain]

157. "Actually you did throw the first punch..."

... please cite and link where I threw that first punch. Like the rest of the hit and run types who have been challenged to produce such evidence in this thread, you will be unable.

Why? Because my posts have always been in a reply to attack, never to initiate it.

Spare us the hubris of shared victimization. It does not play. Unless of course, one is in the role of a nanny protecting their charges as I have previously suggested.

I am not, nor have I ever been, angry or critical of Will Pitt. If you truly read my posts without that cloak of arrogant resentment you wear so well, you would see that I have applauded him and his participation here. Indeed, in my post 124, I have been critical of Mr. Thompson for being hypocritical at the start, the title of his article.

Regrets that you find healthy debate so alien to your sensitivities and that your capabilities to engage in respectful exchange is so limited.

And a good night to you as well.

[Senator]

96. As someone who perhaps has and will "crawl out from under..."

...certainly not "whenever CHB is mentioned or referenced" but on occasion, I feel no need to "admit" anything.

The reason I choose to post about CHB is to tell others, particularly those who have no experience of it, that it is not legitimate. We're all making such judgements all the time and I think any help we can provide each other is useful.

CHB simply got things wrong a lot. So it hasn't been worth anyone's non-leisure time in years. I would hope someone would tell me that about any site I might appear to be trusting.

Now, avoiding whether or not legitimacy is a matter of opinion, I would opine that the phrase "relatively legitimate" strike me as curious at best (oxymoronic at worst).

And I'd also suggest that legitimacy is certainly not something easily "acquired" (particularly once lost). Just as the bushkid did not "become legitimate" after 9-11 (or after the 2nd election theft), as some have tried to tell themselves, CHB simply does not have that option.

Oh, and since this is about facts and options; Will put your "friendship" in the past tense, so you don't really have the unilateral option to re-instate it.

(back under rock - blaming bush for the high moss prices)

---
www.january6th.org

[MarkTwain]

100. If the following is true:

"Oh, and since this is about facts and options; Will put your "friendship" in the past tense, so you don't really have the unilateral option to re-instate it."

Then that will be Mr. Pitt's, not my, loss - since first, I have done nothing more here then to bring a debate, which Mr. Pitt acknowledges having started in the first place in his twelve posts, to the table today and second, I have not once said anything untoward or critical of Mr. Pitt other than to question the claim that Mr. Thompson attributes to Mr. Pitt about the latter's supposed claim that CHB has never once had a named source.

However knowing Mr. Pitt, I don't believe that his use of the past tense was indicative of anything meaningful. We all know Will to be above such petty recriminations over the fact that some member posted what is the continuation of a debate which Will, himself, apparently began.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. He began it but there is a smsall group here

that has a personal issue with CHB... not only here but also Koss... it seems that the man could not evolve from his clinton years... and that does not bode well for the country.

The first thing that needs to die is the idea that there is no bias in the press, there is one, clearly... there has been one and there will be one... and netiher Thomson or Pitt are above it.

The second thing is, as much as I love and respect Pitt's writing, he did throw that rock... and now it is comming back through the glass house...

Overall it is time people raelize that they need to take ALL sources they read with a grain of salt, all of them... even cultural heroes or board heroes.

;-)

I raise my glass to you for having the guts to take on DU...

[Senator]

117. Then it is also true that...

...as like with the "friendship" issue, you also have no unilateral option to define what would, or would not, be Will's "loss."

And leaving aside what you "have done nothing more" than, and for that matter whether or not what you brought actually qualifies as "debate," I find it hard to believe that many would consider Will's dropping your presumed friendship to be a "petty recrimination."

Particularly since you seem to think you can define which things he says are, or are not, "indicative of anything meaningful."

With friends like that...

---
www.january6th.org

[MarkTwain]

119. Sorry to be so blunt...

... but could you possibly edit that so that it makes some sense and that it might even open and close with a readily definable point or two?

Some logical flow would be a plus, as well. Thanks.

[Senator]

120. That's not too blunt...

...just dismissive.

Did you have a specific question?

---
www.january6th.org

[MarkTwain]

122. Probably.

If I understood the post.

[Senator]

136. Well, as I quoted you directly...

...four times in the space of three and a half sentences, I would be hard pressed to clarify the issues that you in fact initiated.

---
www.january6th.org

[MarkTwain]

137. You can give a monkey...

... four fragments from sentences of another monkey, but that doesn't mean that the first monkey is going to (or did) place them into comprehensible, logical, or meaningful thoughts of his own that the second monkey, or the rest of the zoo. would understand or to which they could respond.

[Senator]

138. Feel free to bring in any Zoo animal...

...you'd like in for comment.

Just don't forget to clean up the cage.

---
www.january6th.org

[tavalon]

159. Are you always such a snark?

Or just having a bad day?

I've not seen such consistent condescension in a long time.

[MarkTwain]

163. Only when having been snarked at...

... in the first place.

And I wish I could say that I've not seen such consistent and vitriolic attacks launched against an OP for merely posting an article and inviting reasonable and healthy debate here at DU, but I would be lying. It's becoming all too common to attack the individual member of DU and avoid having to deal with the actual content of his or her post.

[progressivebydesign]

63. Frankly, I've found plenty true at CHD.

And I find some particluar "experts" here at DU to be full of whiskey, words, and fluff.

[thebigidea]

71. ah, so you're calling him a drunken blowhard without REALLY doing so, eh?

Classy.

[MarkTwain]

74. Touche' .

[fishnfla]

87. So a snarky comment is only viable when it swings your way huh?

and your idea of intellectual debate is to let others call someone a drunk?

edited to add "let others"

[MarkTwain]

103. If it quacks like a duck...

... It is (you know the rest).

[OnionPatch]

75. BS....How many journalists are "non-partisan"?

Sometimes I trust the non-partisan journalists less because almost everyone leans one way or the other. The worst kind of journalist is the one who claims to be non-biased and uses that claim to further partisan lies and warp the truth. Insidious. I'd rather hear from the ones who are honest about which way they lean, then you know where they're coming from and can check out sources and facts from many sources before deciding where the truth lies.

Journalists can't be partisan? Yikes, there goes all the heart, soul and passion from journalism. There go many wonderful journalists down the drain.

What drivel.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. None and that is exaclty the point I made to Will the other

day, he took offense to it... and if I can find an email for Mr Thonsom, I will make it to him as well. Lack of bias is just an ideal that does not exit in reality.

[stevietheman]

82. I'll take Pitt over the shitrag any day n/t

n/t

[Pam-Moby]

129. I agree with you stevietheman.

I love truth out and Pitt is my news source. I go to his site often. The only time I go to hill blue is when I am on overload with what is happening to our country and I need a escape from reality.

[K-W]

85. "thoughfulness and cogency"

Right...

[earth mom]

86. Sorry, but gotta go with Thompson here...

I'm not a journalist but the snip from Thompson below is how I feel too. Sure, I'm a far left leaning dem on just about everything. But we can't let partisanship blind us to the truth. Frankly, I just don't think we're going to get anything EVER from our elected officials if we don't expect and demand the truth and integrity from them first and foremost.

<snip>

"I don’t like liars. I don’t like elected leaders who deceive the country they have sworn to serve. I’ve found in more than 40 years of journalism that most elected officials are dishonest and put their own political interests above what is best for the nation. It doesn’t matter if they are Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, left-wing or right-wing. If an anonymous source will help us expose liars of any political stripe I’ll use them. I'll use them as often as it takes to get the truth out.

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

Journalism is best served by those who follow the story wherever it leads and don’t let political or philosophical bias sway their course.

<snip>

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. I applaud yuo for dong this

for it is time people realize that ALL journalism embelishes to use one term. All journalists have a bias in their writing... ALL OF THEM... and it is the job of the reader to scry the bias to get the nuggets of truth that might be found.

CHB is excoriated by a group here, why? They got on the bandwaggon during the Clinton years... so? can people evolve and grow? Aparently not in the case of Mr Thomson. Will he get on the next band waggon, likely yes... doesn't all the pres do that?

But Mr Thomson has been way ahead of the curve when it comes to the Bush story... way, WAAAYYYY ahead of the curve.

Do I take my news with a grain of salt? Absolutely, for all news sources,. whether it is Truthout, CHB, the NYT or the WaPo. Do all news sources have bias? Absolutely.

So yes, this needed to be aired...

Bravo

[MarkTwain]

124. Thanks and I agree...

... that CHB and Thompson have been way ahead of the curve.

I just wish that this thread had dealt with the challenges in Mr. Thompson's thesis about a partisan being a journalist more than it turning into a shit-fest over me, my writing style, or my own motivations.

My critics in this thread will find it a challenge to their perceptions of me and my motives to know that I happen to find Thompson's own title to be hypocritical.

Anyone who has read any of Thompson's recent rants about George Bush knows that he "hates" him. Indeed, he did an entire column justifying his use of the term "hate" vis-a-vis George Bush. If that isn't partisan then I don't know what is.

Pot. Kettle. Doug?

[KarenS]

89. For me the difference between William Pitt & Doug Thompson is

I read what William Pitt writes,,,, and nothing from those excerpts makes me want to read anything else from Doug Thompson,,,,,,,

It's kinda like the difference between Randi Rhodes & Rush Limbaugh.

[Cha]

90. EXCUSE ME! All things "republican"

ARE BAD, NOW! Just our Luck ..we're living in this time in history.

Yeah, we're "par-ti-sans" over here at Democracticunderground and we look for the truth ..so don't go lumping us in with neanderthals or it shows how much you don't know.

Oh and yeah, the Truth is really "Extreme" these days..my bad.

[in_cog_ni_to]

92. Uh, Doug? ALL things Repuke ARE bad!

I would think you know that by now.

[many a good man]

94. Journalism and our "fact-challenged" society

1) Partisan warfare flares when both sides can't even agree on what the facts ARE. I think too many Americans are unable to distinguish between what is Fact and what is Opinion. This creates an environment that is ripe for sleazy journalists, politicans, and other con men.

2) The myth of a totally objective, unbiased, non-partisan news media is a relatively recent development in American history. Prior to corporatization and concentration, writers were honest and forthright about where they stood. Good writers dug up facts, analyzed the facts, and argued their case. They made a name for themselves based on the strength of their writing skills and ability to make a point.

3) Will Pitt is a very good writer based on the criteria mentioned above. Comparing Will to Novak is laughable. Thompson and Novak are both dangerous because they propagate this myth of a fair and unbiased media. Will stands head and shoulders above both men BECAUSE HE HONORS THE TRUTH.

[frazzledmom]

101. Well for me I enjoy Will's writings the way

I enjoy any opinion writers. I don't really view him as a journalist because he is Left biased and makes no bones about it. I also enjoy reading CHB in the same way I do the Weekly World News. Might be true, might not, at least it's amusing. IMHO Will is more honest because his bias is out in the open, where Thompson seems to be insulted that his site is equated with a gossip rag. If the foo shits...


BTW this is Walldude posting on my wife's 'puter so don't get mad at her if you don't like the post... ;D

[Joe Chi Minh]

104. Does Mr Thompson merit being taken seriously on DU,

or indeed, anywhere? I think not. And furthermore deplore the time and energy expended here in response.

[MarkTwain]

110. An obvious question...

... then, why did you respond?

[Joe Chi Minh]

112. The obvious answer: "Wake up. To discourage further

dignification of young master Thompson's oeuvre".

[MarkTwain]

113. Why would anyone, least of all...

... a member of a progressive community, where all ideas are presumed to be open for discussion, challenge, and debate, want to silence anyone or keep them from specific media or forums?

Remind you of the tactics of anyone we know - or have known since 1939?

[Joe Chi Minh]

114. You mutt! This is not an arty-farty, ivory-tower academic

community!These people are fighting a bunch of cynical low-lifes to regain possession of their country. There can be few exercises as progressive as shutting down neocon propaganda.

[MarkTwain]

115. Ja, Mein Kommandant

(from the "give them enough rope" department....)

[Joe Chi Minh]

116. Reverting to type so soon? You do all our work for us!

[MarkTwain]

118. Your stridency obviously...

... precludes your ability to understand or to appreciate sarcasm or to even comprehend its direction toward yourself.

The reference was to you and your own political strategies (of there being few exercises "as progressive as shutting down neocon propaganda") which is not, at all, unlike those policies of media containment of Germany of 1939, McCarthy of 1950, and now Rove of the present.

You might benefit from a chill pill while you travel in, shall we say, such "interesting" company.

[Joe Chi Minh]

133. My, my, we are pedantic, aren't we?

I suspected you might respond with a laboured explanation of your purpose, but couldn't believe you'd be so dim.

However, I should have realised a certain level of intelligence was necessary for you to realise your intended drolerie had been turned back on you! What's that they say .... arguing with a fool, only makes two fools?

You'd have preferred Hitler's opponents, pre-Patriot -type "legisation", to have argued in the most civilised tones with Hitler, wouldn't you, you twerp? Well, they'd have avoided the concentration camps and death probably, but that wasn't their primary aim.

McCarthy was reduced to the nothing he truly was, by an old man who took the gloves off, remember? You probably do, but like the Bourbons, you remember everything and learn nothing. And he shut down McCarthy's vile propaganda but good! As Churchill said, the Nazis are either at your feet or at your throat, so you have to stamp on them.

Now go back to sleep and don't pester me any more. I need to take my own advice.

[MarkTwain]

134. The only fool seen here...

... is the one who argues for media or information containment, which is precisely what you did in both your original and supporting posts of this part of the thread.

Restricting or prohibiting the exchange of ideas, or calling for the ignornal of information, is beyond contempt in a progressive community. You own that label, not me, Herr Goebbels. And metaphors - no matter how vivid nor how cute - are a poor excuse for reasoned argument or debate.

Yes, for the saving of your own face, I agree that you should take your own advice and ignore my "pestering." We all eagerly await to see if you can. Anyone willing to give odds?

[tavalon]

161. That's the word I had been looking for!

Pedantic! And pretty unsufferable but also like a train wreck.

[MarkTwain]

168. Unsufferable...

... only to those that presume I will lie down and take the personal attacks and ad hominem without benefit of response.

Bad move on their part.

Moreoever, from the private EMails which have been sent to me over this thread, not everyone here shares your assessment.

[sendero]

146. Let me be clear..

... for all your pedantic wordplay, you are nonetheless a $%^&$%^ %^&%^.

[MarkTwain]

149. When someone can not debate...

... the issues, they revert to their last vestige: calling names and hurling insults - albeit with little humor and not too clever.

Thanks for continuing that well developed element of this thread and an ever growing tradition here at DU.

[sendero]

150. Ah yes..

... I don't debate because I've, at about 2/3rds down this thread, realize that you haven't a point.

But hey, I was really interested the first half. And at the beginning I even thought Mr Thompson might have a point.

But congratulations, you've succeeded in divesting me of any of those notions!

[MarkTwain]

153. I never claimed to have an absolute point...

... indeed, if you truly have reviewed this thread, I have been critical of Mr. Thompson, myself. (See post 124.)

Most of my time has been wasted in this thread by dealing with attacks on me for being the OP and for supporting the concept of an open and free exchange here at DU specific to the points of Mr. Thompson's article.

These attacks have been neither all that clever (reference your own such post) nor at all accurate in their assessment or characterization of me or of my motives.

Your congratulations are noted but if such is the case, you are easily divested. Pity.

[tavalon]

162. As opposed to what you're doing?

Continuing the fine tradition of making GD insufferable, are we?

[MarkTwain]

169. An amazing development...

... in the world of IT!

Not every thread requires that you click onto it, nor even that you take the time to further the insufferable flame which so repulses you and reply to it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. Mind tellin me exactly why you like Media Matters then

both thomson and this other person have had their evolution. Just because Thomson has not come out and published blinded by the right does not mean he has not seen the light, as a Mr Brock has...

Moreover, progresives are OPEN to ideas... and care to tell me exactly how Mr Thomson is characterized these days at Free Republic? Replace Neo Con propaganda with Lib'ral rag and you will get it.

[tavalon]

160. Godwin's Law

Debate over. Not that you were ever debating in this thread. As far as I can tell, you were just scoring points for your ego.

[MarkTwain]

166. I consistently maintained that the article in my original post...

... was offered for the community to debate. However, much of this community elected to attack me for the just posting the article in lieu of any meaningful discourse specific to Mr. Thompson's article.

My ego notwithstanding, you have continued that strategy now in two posts. Congratulations for reinforcing my point..

[Joe Chi Minh]

106. Self-deleted.

[katinmn]

107. I agree with the statement that partisans can't be journalists

if we are discussing people who claim to be totally objective.

That doesn't mean there aren't great partisan writers. Some of my favorite columnists are partisan. I think Will Pitt is a great writer, but because of his association with DU and PDA he may rightfully be viewed as partisan by anyone who does not consider themselves a Democrat.

Would you consider people who espouse the values of the Republicans, Greens, Socialist, or Communist parties as objective journalists or would you believe they would give just a little bit more leeway to their party's point of view?

Yes, there are a lot of hacks who pretend to be objective journalists that work for AP, NYT, and in every newspaper, magazine, TV and radio news outlet in the country. We're all too familiar with who they are.

Accepting that fact, we still must hold journalists to the highest standard. They need to gather the facts, present them, and leave it to us to draw our own conclusions.

They must avoid even the perception of being involved in a political party.

[dalaigh lllama]

121. My take on CHB vs Will Pitt

First off, the contention that partisans cannot be journalists. I have no trouble with a self avowed partisan doing political commentary. If Will Pitt were writing for AP and reported on, oh, let's say the Downing Street minutes hearings for example, and started his non-partisan, unbiased report with a title like "The Democrats Play House," then I would cry 'foul.' It is the journalists who are undeclared partisans that I object to.
Secondly, the only stories from CHB that I have seen are the ones various DUers have posted here regarding *'s secret troubles in the WH. Granted, they're amusing, but with such a National Enquirer feel to them, I'm hardly likely to go there for in-depth reporting. Perhaps Will overspoke when he said CHB never sourced their stories, I neither know nor care at this point if they do. There are too many other reliable blogs for me to go to without wasting time at one that indulges in idle, unsourced gossip.

[grasswire]

123. what's needed is a ruthless EDITOR

Any writer calling himself/herself a journalist (as opposed to a columnist or other kind of writer) ought to be able to submit to the oversight of a ruthless editor.

As an editor, I can say that I have read both the work of Thompson and Pitt with occasional horror. Thompson sometimes makes stuff up; Pitt sometimes gets ahead of the facts through hasty remarks (adorable though he may be). There is a difference. I think Thompson's lapses could be part of intentional political strategy. I believe that Pitt's lapses are merely a matter of hotheaded haste.

An editor would tolerate neither.

Let's look at another "journalist" -- someone writing under the name Jeff Gannon. He is the extreme insult to the profession, not Pitt or Thompson.

So what is to be done? Perhaps we ought to drop the term "journalist" because no one can come up with a fitting definition in this world of blogs and talking heads and Internet content. Perhaps we could call people who report news "reporters." And people who write opinion about the news could be "columnists." Something like that ought to work. Is Pitt a reporter? Is Thompson? If they don't claim that distinction, then we allow them some hyperbole and know that we must be monitors and judges of their content.

I broke the story on DU and on my blog of Jeff Gannon's seat in the White House press room years before it came to public attention. Does that make me a journalist? No. I'm not even a reporter. Just call me a seeker of truth. As one, I'm gonna jump on anyone who writes false material here on D.U.

And let me close with my favorite joke:

Every editor needs a pimp for an older brother so he'll have someone to look up to.

Thank you. I'll be here all week.

[katinmn]

125. That is the best post I've read all day.

:thumbsup:

[MarkTwain]

127. Agreed.

[Senator]

130. Disagreed.

Not to single out the poster personally, but I think a ruthless editor might have a thing or two to say about the post.

Specifically, it conflates "making things up" with making "hasty remarks" as things an editor would not allow. True enough I suppose (though I can't confess to having a very clear understanding of what is meant by "hasty remark" or "hotheaded haste"). But then to go on to treat them as equal "offenses" to be purged is a bit hasty itself.

The distinction between reporter and columnist is also a true enough point to make, but even columnists are not entitled to be "making things up." Just ask Mike Barnacle (or perhaps everyone but him).

If the "haste" the poster identifies refers to speaking loosely or in generalities, that would be something expected of a columnist. Objection to that would be unduly pedantic.

I did enjoy the joke though. Very funny, thanx.

--
www.january6th.org

[grasswire]

135. ah.....

....but I didn't equate them. I spanked both Pitt and Thompson, but for different reasons. To say one person sometimes makes things up for political reasons and that another sometimes speaks with haste implies differing moral judgments.

But I did need an editor to spank me, too. On reflection, I fear I may have considered Pitt's extemporaneous remarks on DU as part of his body of writing. Perhaps the impression of hotheadedness or haste is partly due to those remarks, not strictly what he's put into print.

More later. I'm off.

[nadinbrzezinski]

140. AGREED.... Editors are needed

and for the record not only for journalists...

[Taxloss]

156. Hear hear. n/t

[Exiled in America]

128. I don't trust CHB, and I didn't need Pitt to help me on that one.

Simply following their journalism for yourself with an objective mind, rather than one simply eager to hear anything that sounds good to my one's sensibilities, is all it really takes to figure it out.

[H2O Man]

131. "Round Two" .....

If this were indeed a boxing match, it would be stopped. The winner, by a second round TKO, Will Pitt.

[jsamuel]

132. Your fatal flaw is that the truth can often become partisan...

As Lou Dobbs says,

The truth is often neither fair nor balanced.



It affects one group more than the other. For example if one Democrat lied, it is the truth. He lied. It isn't "fair" or "balanced" as the story doesn't report about a Republican who lied. But that is the truth, neither fair or balanced.


PS - You claim that this board is partisan beyond all truth or reason, however, if we were as partisan as you suggest we would have embraced your stories about Bush from the very beginning, but we didn't. That is a testament to our ability to weed out things that "we want to hear" from what is the truth.

[Generic Other]

141. What I see is a classic deflection argument on the part of Mr. Thompson

Will Pitt accuses CHB of tabloidy journalism in not naming sources of gossipy items, and instead of refuting or defending, CHB chooses to mount a personal attack of Pitt full of details of his personal life anyone could glean from a search of DU archives.

I, the average reader, must conclude that Will Pitt's criticism has stung Thompson enough that he has lost his journalistic objectivity in favor of ad hominem arguments. Ergo, next time I read a tidbit of info in CHB with an unsourced quote, I must decide how trustworthy the reporter who shares the tip.

Will Pitt wins this round.

[Neil Lisst]

142. Mr. Thompson's writing skills are sorely lacking.

What ever happened to journalists who know how to write properly?

I judge media by the quality of the writing, the quality and timeliness of the information, and the legitimacy of the sources.

My impression of CHB is that it loves to traffic in the salacious, and will do so with little basis for doing so. It's a tabloid.

Will Pitt clearly labels himself a partisan. Whatever differences one may have with his point of view, he's not unclear on that point.

The problem with CHB is its insistence on pushing stories that seem to have little or no substance, or appear to have been lifted from other media and presented as if CHB has some additional source or information.

I don't think CHB is any closer to the Bush White House than the average DUer.

[Domitan]

145. The bottom line: I am entertained

I've followed the CHB postings here by numerous DUers who look to Thompson's articles for vicarious pleasure of seeing more ammo against Bush or to lambast Thompson for being a rag-maker. Debates have raged on for days between those with differing views on CHB. Now I see a real crossover between CHB and DU. Oh this is good! I look forward to seeing where this ends up.

Hmm, could we see a Lou Dobbs vs DU episode? Or better yet, see a real crossover battle between NYT or Wash.Post vs DU/DailyKos/AmerBlog/Atrios?

Now, this is no mere idle entertainment. It's not like seeing a babyoil fishfight between Jessica Simpson and your local prom queen. It's dealing with real issues that can affect us. We are no longer mere bystanders or spectators. We don't have to be part of some mindless entertainment shows like Big Brother for the so-called Warhol 15 minutes. We now can participate much more in the media and politics. More than entertaining, it can be mind-opening and maybe impacting.

[Walt Starr]

147. And some say CHB should not be banned at DU

:eyes:

[Neil Lisst]

148. So censorship is your answer? I don't think so.

I do not understand those on the left who advocate censorship.

When did we have the meeting and vote to become worse than the rightwingers on freely exchanging ideas? I must have missed that meeting, because I could swear we're the side with the ACLU and the first amendment groups.

Discussion is better than suppression.

[Walt Starr]

152. Lin king to a lot of sites is already banned at DU

I just propose adding one more shit site to the list.

[Neil Lisst]

158. I would suggest those are different from CHB.

And linking them is different then merely mentioning them.

People know what CHB is. If they want to read, want to cite it, why not? It's not as if anything specious goes unchallenged.

[Walt Starr]

172. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion

You have yours and I have mine.

[MarkTwain]

154. Elegantly stated....

"When did we have the meeting and vote to become worse than the rightwingers on freely exchanging ideas? I must have missed that meeting, because I could swear we're the side with the ACLU and the first amendment groups."

[Neil Lisst]

164. Thanks for the kudos.

I'll infer other good things from your choice of screen name.

[AuntPatsy]

165. Predictable to the last drop.......

[nadinbrzezinski]

171. That has been my point regarding this discusion

but aparently some people are having a problem with that concept. today CHB, what will be the target tomorrow? Maybe you or me beause we are not pure enough?

Mind you, I take all I read with a huge grain of salt... and by the way, Lord Vader is less evil than Chenney

;-)

[Renew Deal]

167. This is not coherent.

Pitt a Democrat is doubting a story by Thompson a republican that says Bush is nuts is true. Yep, that's partisan hackery by Will. Are we in Bizarro world? Thompson sure is.

[AuntPatsy]

170. Which is why I wish it would drop out of site, and here I go again

putting it up there, last one for me...sheesh...

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

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

[insane_cratic_gal]

174. Not be Crass, but are you done yet?

I half enjoyed your wit and intelligence, but now i've gone cold listening to the dribble. I'm tired of trying to decipher your motive.

Was the point of this thread to bring about a challenge to Mr. Pitt or not?
Or were you offering him the chance to respond to some childish debate from Mr. Thompson?
Or were you just merely curious to see how many bees you could stir with lobbing insults toward Du's patrons?

I feel like I'm stuck in a rather unfunny Jane Austin book, just draw and shoot one another already or shake and be friends.

[Ellipsis]

175. .

:thumbsup:

[calimary]

176. Well, Will - sounds like you've arrived.

Congratulations! You're being dissed by name now. And he even spelled it correctly!

Hey, take it as a compliment. Especially from those of us who rather enjoy seeing a leftward slant in news coverage for a change - after a long dry-spell of 24/7 wrong-wing shilling for years now.

[The Magistrate]

178. Locking

Flame-bait, followed by a flame-war that can only get worse.