Theory: Leopold was wrong. Dead wrong. And then he backpedaled.
With Will Pitt holding his handlebars for him.
The fact that there are so many apologists out there on DU is frightening. Why are people so afraid to say that there is a serious problem with journalistic integrity here? Why are so many people taking the dittohead approach and just blindly following and pledging unwaivering allegiance? How does that make you any different from the Freepers that watch Faux News?
which is just legally silly. There is no difference between "24 hours" and "24 business hours" in the law, but when it didn't happen in 24 hours, they tried to make it 72 hours. I consider that backpedaling. Perhaps that may not be the best term for all.
But IMHO, the central claim of Leopold's story was the fact that Rove was already indicted, and he has not backpedalled on that. If he's fudged on the 24-hours thing, it does make the credibility of the entire story suspect. But ultimately Leopold will be judged on the central claim -- whether Rove was indicted last Friday.
So I would have no problems in saying Leopold was wrong if there is no announcement of an idictment this week. And even if there is an indictment announcement, and it turns out Rove was NOT indicted last week, I would have no problems saying JL was wrong on that as well.
I don't believe that is correct about an edit. I seem to remember "this week" being a part of the original story and the 24 hours always referring to the time Rove had to get his affairs in order.
I am going by memory and indicated it might be wrong from the get go. On a side note, too bad we don't have the original somewhere to compare it to since they just changed the original rather than adding and addendum.
59. "Jason Leopold will only be vindicated if Rove was *already* indicted"
If and when Rove is indicted, I think that that single statement is the most important thing that people who are taking sides on this need to remember.
Having said that, let's say for sake of speculation that Rove gets indicted sometime in the near future. Will it then become public knowledge whether or not Rove had indeed already been indicted or not in the manner Leopold asserted?
Maybe he wasn't. Maybe he was had. Maybe he knows something you don't. Why is giving him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise the dittohead approach? He wasn't spouting an ideology masquerading as an opinion or fact.
Not having FACTS would make me as Bad as Leopold and his sloppy ass writing, poor PR skills, etc.
Most people here keep insisting they don't NEED FACTS to believe, well then neither do I, unless you want a whole boatload of Leopold's "career" decisions made for him by Judges, Editors, and others who told him to take a hike.
70. Not sticking my nose in the original question, but as
a former reporter (for 12 years), I'd like to say that:
A. The writing was NOT sloppy. It remains to be seen whether the sourcing and investigation was or wasn't. I'm not beating that dead horse - just pointing out that the WRITING was fine - it was a well-WRITTEN piece. B. Reporters don't NEED PR skills. Who cares about their public relations? As long as they ferret out the facts and report accurately, I don't care if the public likes them or not. Big deal.
Please, don't mix reporting and public relations - no matter than most schools teach them as simultanous courses (I was a reporter and am now in marketing/pr, for example). The fact is that reporters and public relations people DO NOT LIKE one another. They're two sides of a coin.
Remember that the original article said "24 hours" and that he WAS indicted. The 24 hours has passed long ago. Then they changed the article to say "24 business hours" which is a bullshit legal term that means nothing, but they claimed that gave them until Wednesday. Still no indictment. They were wrong. QED
10. Loyalty and faith facilitate development of unchallengeable beliefs
Edited on Thu May-18-06 09:05 AM by HereSince1628
and you really cannot argue rationally about things which are held to be true by such belief. When ideas get internalized as such personal conviction, people take any criticism of the idea as a personal affront and get very emotional about it.
Sound like the last 5 days on DU? It's human nature. It's led to considerable sectarian strife and violence in western civilization.
People are claiming to be critical readers not "G-damn Journo Police"
This _IS_ a discussion board. Credibility, not loyalty or faith, is the big issue on DU. That is why some "newsy sources" are banned from being linked to here. They didn't get that way without critical reading and discussion.
48. No, I disagree this has gone far past a critical discussion
there are several people out there who have been judge, jury, and executioner on this matter about TO instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to see how this plays out. They(TO) could have retracted the story on Monday but they didn't, in fact the ratcheded it up a few more degrees by putting themselves out further with interviews and articles since. So lets wait and see instead of this malarkey.
It seems to me like he started reinterpreting the details ("business hours" for example) to keep his story "correct."
What bothers me more and more is all the talk about these new sources coming forward, including people in the media. I just don't buy that all these people would know but no one would break it....and I don't believe the story about the media bosses quashing it.
I welcome the opportunity to be thoroughly bitchslapped on this if it all ends up to be true.
I used your link and found myself on page one of the DU General Discussion Board. A quick, unscientific and cursory review of the post headlines found this thread that seemingly attacks the "journalistic integrity" of everyone on DU (whatever that means)and also labels any person not willing to savage the reputations of Pitt and Leopold an apologist. I also found your post attacking the 15 hour aspect of Leopold's story. I found a thread from Gato in Costa Rica that offers to buy Pitt and Leopold a beer of they come down there to visit. Judging by the posts on that thread, everyone (including me) wants to visit. Lastly, I found a thread that offers that Leopold might have been correct and then the circumstances changed. I guess we will someday definitively know the truth of Leopold's claim. On that day, I expect a bit of fur to fly around here.
I read what was alleged to be a Will Pitt post in which he states that the indictments were delivered in the 24hr defined by Leopold. The indictement documents, if and when they are released, according to Pitt will be dated within that 24 hr. period. Do you know if Pitt is incorrect about this? Is this an impossible scenario?
Also, I read that Fitz could have served Rove but neither is bound by law to reveal that fact immediately. Do you know if that is correct?
I heard him on Ed Schultz. He is still sticking with the information given by his sources (plural). His editors also confirmed it. One of the main reasons he believes these sources is because they have provided credible information in the past. He also said other news outlets (ABC, MSNBC) have the story, but they're not going with it because they all have a single source at this point.
There's probably an audio of the interview at Schultz' site www.wegoted.com
On a similar note...What about Sy Hersch's piece? He said that Bush/Cheney wouldn't take the nuke option off the table. That several high level military officers would be meeting with Bush in two weeks (from the time the piece was published) and that there would be lots of resignations if it didn't get taken out of 'The Plan' to bomb Iran.
We're all aware right now what has occured. You're not providing any new information and frankly, I'm tired of listening to the bitching about it. If you feel that you can't trust these individuals any longer then ignore what they post. But keeping the pot stirred just to keep it stirred is in my opinion pointless.
What's the purpose other than to keep things stirred? It's either true or not true and we should find out soon enough. Does that mean Jason is not truthful across the board or can never be trusted if he got it wrong after multiple confirmations?
39. It's pretty obvious that Leopold got it wrong...
and has been pretty obvious for some time now. I'm a big fan of Truthout and Leopold's work, and a bigger fan still of Pitt's work. I'm sure there's more to the story -- Leopold isn't dumb enough to just claim something that is wildly untrue without having some reason. Whether Leopold was duped, or misinterpreted some quote or legal paper or whathaveyou, the point is, he was wrong. He is wrong. For him to be right, while no other journalist on the planet confirms the story, is simply absurd. It defies rational thought.
I'm a professional journalist myself, and I even did actual, serious news before moving into the gonzo world of rock criticism. Back when I was covering courts and cops for a daily paper, there were plenty of times when sources would go back on what they said, or else offer ambiguous background statements that could easily be misinterpreted. Point being, while I think it's obvious that Leopold got the story wrong, I don't agree that he just made up what he wanted to believe out of whole cloth. He's not an idiot, and he would have known that doing that would prove disastrous. I'm sure that there's some plausable excuse for this indictment error, but in the end, Leopold will either have to fall on a sword or burn his sources to make this right. If I were him, my actions would depend on the accuracy of the information fed to me by said sources.
Just those that pledge to believe Leopold "100%" regardless of what the facts are.
You are pretty sure that I am going to be one that has to eat my words. What about the "24 hour" claim by Leopold. He was wrong about that. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Even if you go with his bullshit business hours claim, he was WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG about 24 hours. Nobody seems to be eating their words about that. Nobody is posting, "Gee, all you people who thought Leopold was full of it, I'm sorry I doubted you. TruthOut was wrong about the 24 hour time frame. Please forgive me."
49. Don't sweat it. We "know" we can count on the M$M to keep
us updated with the "TRUTH" about everything that's going on. We don't need any journalist or reporters trying to dig for news.....we have plenty. They listen, take notes and type what they're told very well. Just turn on the TEEVEE. :sarcasm:
Using sources and going out on a limb with bits and pieces of a story is so, so ......70's. :*
53. It is too early to know,,,, If there is an indictment announced,
what counts (with me, anyway) is the date on that indictment. If that date is Friday May 12th, then in my mind TruthOut got it right. Until an indictment happens or the unsealing of the indictment, I am keeping an open mind about this.
Bottom line is I want to see Rove (and Cheney and Rumsfield and Bush and on and on) indicted, impeached and imprisoned ~ I don't care when and I don't care how.
68. Of course, I care that Fitz has his facts right,,,, but that's his M.O.
I simply said that I will wait until this plays out until I decide for myself ~ who is right and who is wrong and who is lying. Even when the this plays out, I am certain that all of us here will not agree on the final analysis.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.