Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Continued Interest in the Rove Indictment Story by Marc Ash

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 09:26 PM
Original message
The Continued Interest in the Rove Indictment Story by Marc Ash
Edited on Tue May-30-06 09:47 PM by cat_girl25
The Continued Interest in the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

Tue May 30th, 2006 at 03:58:17 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation
(13 comments, 13 new)

We are still getting a high volume of email inquiries on our Rove indictment story from May 13, 2006. We greatly appreciate your interest, and are well aware of the right of all Americans to know what is happening here.

So again, for the record: We stand by the story. TO's staff is treating this story as our highest priority and will be following up with additional information as it becomes available.

Clearly the question is: "If Karl Rove has been indicted, why has there been no official announcement?" Right now we have only general indicators as to why an announcement might not be made when an indictment has been returned. And even though these indicators do exist, we need to more clearly understand exactly what is happening in this case before we can report on them.

This a unique situation, and frankly a stressful one. We would like to thank all of those who have offered their support during the course of this ordeal. We fully intend to press on.

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
director@truthout.org

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/30/155817/1...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. I imagine it really really is stressful for all concerned...
Regardless how one sides on the whole controversy, surely we can acknowledge how difficult this must be. This, too, shall pass, I suppose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm starting to wonder if Cod Peace is playing a
national security card on this thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. Be prepared for all the sarcastic remarks upcoming.
I really haven't weighed in one way or the other on this issue. I was a reporter for 12 years and have been out of the business for five years now. I can see both sides pretty clearly.

However, some of the comments made, particularly by some who think the rest of us don't know squat about the legal system (when we clearly do), have been beyond brash.

Just saying...

But thanks for the updates. It's all been very interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kansasblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
4. some Patriot act get out of jail free card ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PuraVidaDreamin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. Why didn't we learn about Haditha for4-6 mths?
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Halliburton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
6. wow what an understatement
<snip>
And even though these indicators do exist, we need to more clearly understand exactly what is happening in this case before we can report on them.
<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #6
25. Rumsfeld couldn't have expressed himself any more murkily.
You gotta hand it to them.

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. They're still
standing by their story..interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. I posted this on another thread in response to a question...
The silence of Pitt, T.O. and Leopold speaks volumes at this point in
time, IMHO. They knew of Leopold's lack of credibility in the past, and they are still standing by his story in spite of their current loss of credibility, as exemplified by Google and Yahoo news, and most recently, being lambasted by Maurie and Connie on MSNBC. Why is this? Why are they still supporting Leopold? It is suicidal, if there were not a great deal of credibility in Leopold's original story. I posted an opinion about a week ago, on the possibility of Leopold being "Hatfielded" and/or "Rathered" by his sources. This is such a Rovean tactic, to spread disinformation through an unreliable news source, so that no one believes the bearer of the news, and the true content of the story is lost and/or forgotten. I could try to repost the original, because it was soon locked, but I found out yesterday that it is against DU policy to 'repost' a locked thread!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
9. Thanks for posting; you beat me to it. I wish the people at T.O. the
best!

:kick: & R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
10. Oh, now it's an ordeal for them
Pity, that.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. Well at least you guys can still beat that dead horse.
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. I don't understand why it's a "dead Horse"
for anyone that disagrees with Leopold or TO, but if someone agrees then it's just fine to post and post and post..

Are WE not allowed an OPINION on a Discussion Board?

And can we agree that if TO keeps posting "apologies" or whatever all this bizarre stuff is, that it's NOT OVER?

or is TO "beating a dead horse"?

The dead horse thing does not help the "wait and see" meme much does it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. The issue itself isn't a dead horse
Edited on Wed May-31-06 10:43 AM by cat_girl25
But the slams and sarcastic remarks from the anti Leopold/Will Pitt crowd are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. I don't think anything new is being said on either side
or can be said on either side, until something else happens. YMMV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. So the wait and see crowd
is not beating a dead horse when they keep posting updates from Marc ASH, but if we comment then WE are ANTI Leopold and ANTI Pitt?

How about PRO TRUTH, PRO JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS?

Why is that such a bad thing, to want factual material for the Left Wing that we can use to battle the right, or should we throw half apologies at them instead? yeah, that will make them cringe..

We want standards, no more no less. It appears that you're wielding a pretty large Brush there, painting any who disagrees as ANTI..

I've said many times not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, that TO has done some fine work in the past, does that get Ignored?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. Pro truth and Pro journalistic standards?
Maybe from you but haven't seen that from the other anti Leopold/Pitt crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #15
29. I prefer it with mustard, actually
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
11. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-30-06 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
16. How embarrassing
They're just following Leopold off the cliff, it looks like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. I don't think it's embarrassing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. That's OK
:) I think it is, a little, because it's so clear at this point that it isn't happening. And the touchy-feeliness of the update was a little annoying - yes, it's stressful for them to publish a story that didn't pan out, & it's nice to get support, but aren't they in the business of providing facts? If the facts were incorrect, they ought to just say so. If they just made a mistake, I'd be the first to say move on & let it go. But they still won't even admit making a mistake, & that just seems arrogant to me & disrespectful to the readers that believed them. The story might've hurt creditibility some, but I think it's the continuing refusal to retract it or explain it that's really dragging Truthout's reputation down at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
22. I can't wait until Truthout, Leopold and Pitt are able to say,
"Told ya so!"

It'll be a sweet day indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Me too
it would be very sweet for them.. except for the fact that there are an awful LOT of discrepencies in the stories, how much is okay with you, just that Rove WAS indicted on that very date?

Won't matter that the Law firm wasn't shut down for 15 hours, no SS there, etc?

How much truth can we handle? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. I do believe in fairies, I do believe in fairies...
and then Tinkerbell comes back to life.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
28. Speaking of Journalistic standards
Anyone notice any Infractions by the Leopold story? THIS is how the LEFT needs to be in order to be able to HOLD the right wing Media's Feet to the FIRE.

We can't use half apologies to demand the TRUTH from them, can we?


Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
Always question sources' motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.
Never plagiarize.
Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.
Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
Balance a criminal suspect's fair trial rights with the public's right to be informed.
Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:
Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov 13th 2019, 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

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.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC