Is "In These Times" a valid source?

they're running an article today stating there's proof Bush knew there were no WMDs. How valid a source are they?

so I imagine he knew something about them and they at least had enough cred to afford ads on ieamerica radio...

I always got the impression that they did their homework. They're a serious investigative journalist outfit, so I'd say they're pretty reliable.

Whether or not they are valid is something I won't get into, but as a skeptic, I can tell you that In These Times, while slightly better received than commondreams or counterpunch, is still considered to be questionable.

I would be hesitant to use it as a source to send to swing voters you are trying to convince.

All IMHO.

With all the completely unsourced rumors that get E-mailed around the Net, it's difficult to understand why someone wouldn't use this source in discussion, especially when RW sources are used at will.

The piece in question is incredibly well sourced. Find me anything in mainstream media that sources its information this well, and then we can talk about cynics and credibility.

go for it. use this as a source all you like. if on the other hand you wish to actually convince those who are on the fence right now, it would probably be a better idea to use this article as a confirming source to something in a traditional news outlet, rather than as a primary source.

but hey that's your call. People love to point to Faux News as an example of a right-wing propaganda arm without actually acknowledging that it is a VERY effective propaganda tool. They manage to convince a lot of viewers that they actually are "Fair and Balanced." In These Times does not make that pretense.

Either you've never read In These Times, or you are purposely being misleading.

someone else did, I followed up by basically saying that more people knwo and trust Faux News than know In These Times and that while they may be accurate this does not make the "credible"

If you point a moderate to In These Times as a credible source and they then proceed to read it closely, there are two possibilities, they are swung over to the left but the good reporting and good sourcing or they compare it to other better known news outlets and decide it is crap.

When I see anything come from Faux News I am automatically skeptical of it because I know they are right-wing biased, when I see anything from In These Times I am skeptical because I know it is left-wing biased. In order to make a clear judgement on the matter ar hand I will look for additional sources.

If they were entirely credible I wouldnt need additional sources. And I'm a friggin left wing nutjob loony minus the buy in to most major conspiracy theories.

The question was if they are credible. And the simple answer is that to the majority of people out there, In These Times is less credible than Faux News.

Note: I am using the PRIMARY definition of credible:
Capable of being believed; plausible.

Rather than:
Worthy of confidence; reliable.

I think In These Times meets #2 but for the vast majority of people it would come up short on both #1 and #2 due to its obvious (and unhidden) bias and its status as a relatively unknown news outlet.

Frankly, most people WOULD lump it into the same category as a commondreams or a capitol hill blue.

In the future please refrain from putting words into my mouth. I realize that we are used to people lying to us and using propaganda to discredit sources of information damaging to Bush, but I'm not doing that and am more concerned with ousting Bush. In These Times is only useful in that the story may be picked up by mass media. It is not credible enough to use as a source for the uninformed swing voter.

I'm guessing you'd lump them all together with Faux news as well. Mother Jones, while 'left leaning', has broken numerous major stories through their investigative journalism.

The Progressive has done so as well -- such as when they exposed Pakistan's nuclear program long before Tom Brokaw ever mentioned it.

In today's media environment, if you decide to wait until a 'mainstream media outlet' finally gets around to investigating a story, you're going to be waiting a very long time.

However, there have been a number of stories recently that were originally broken by a lesser known outlet, and were only covered by the 'mainstream media' due to the buzz created by the original story. Heck, Iran/Contra was broken by a weekly paper in Lebanon!

If you never pass on information reported by one of these lesser known outlets, they stories never WILL hit the mainstream -- you can bet on that.

Now that's funny. So, if I use a well-researched, well-documented piece of journalism, you equate that with Faux news or what's become of The National Review? Oh my.

No one is saying that Faux news isn't an effective propaganda tool. Still, your claim that "In These Times" is less credible because it doesn't follow the Huxleyan prediction come true known as Fox news by repeating the same lie over and over about being Fair and Balanced doesn't wash. Anyone still on the fence can and does see through Fox's nonsense.

Besides, I guess you haven't figured out that most people (including so called fence sitters) don't trust any news outlet, including what were once considered traditional news outlets.

But, hey, thanks for the hyperbole.

I said it wasn't a credible source to give to swing voters. Credible means plausible, meaning believable. In order to be credible, you must a known, trusted source. In These Times does not fit this bill, no matter how much you may want it to. If i walk down the street in downtown Cambridge MA, one of the single most liberal cities in the US and asked everyone i met if they had heard of In These Times, i would get maybe 1 out of 100 who would say yes. If I then followed up and told them that In These Times has an article alleging that Bush *knew* there were no WMDs they would look at me funny and ask why it hadn't been reported in the Globe.

When I say Faux News is more credible to the American public I mean just that. I did not say Faux News is more accurate. And if you think people don't trust the news you are spending WAY too much time on DU. If people really didnt trust the news do you think Bush would still be polling in a statistical tie with Kerry?

This is as believable a source as any to most people who sit on the fence. Folks don't trust the press, period, anymore. In regard to Faux news, once again, it is credible only to those who are already in the Bush camp, not to those who are still on the fence. People still on the fence are more likely to think about what's in the piece and where it was sourced from. "In These Times" sources its information far better than The Globe or Faux or any of the so-called "mainstream" news outlets that have no more credibility with the public in this day and age than some bloody E-mail rumor that gets spread around the Net. These are all pieces to the puzzle that you seem to want to ignore.

But, hey, doubt the intelligence of your fellow humans. It's none of my business.

now that's rich coming from someone who honestly believes that the average American would believe In These Times over Faux News. It's not about the intelligence of my fellows, it is about the effects of repeated constant exposure to multiple media outlets (CNN, MSNBC, Faux, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NECN, NYTimes, LATimes, WaPo, etc etc etc) which tell them that Bush was the "victim" of poor intelligence.

As much as you like In These Times and consider them to be a valid news source, the vast majority of Americans have never even heard of it and Americans do not trust the unknown.

You are pulling out a viewpoint that might have been viable 20 years ago, but no longer resembles reality. Basically, what you've just admitted, is that we might as well give up, that the so-called "mainstream" sources aren't going to offer an accurate picture, and that no one would ever believe a well-sourced and documented piece by a small publication, because they're so entrenched in the Brave New World's propaganda that they can't think for themselves. All while trying to say that you aren't underestimating the intelligence of those on the fence. Meanwhile, you continue to ignore reality: Americans don't trust the known news sources. On the other hand, many continue to trust Internet E-mail rumors. Somewhere in between are small publications with well-documented pieces that actually do change minds. Quite often, in my experience. I choose not to underestimate the intelligence of others, while admitting the slant of the publication in question, regardless of the publication in question. And, amazingly, I have incredibly constructive conversations with folks on all sides, as we share a variety of sources, while discussing the validity of those sources. And, more and more, validity comes from being open and honest about documentation, something the mainstream press does less and less.

Oh, by the way, you might want to go back and read my first post on this issue. You have misjudged my stance on In These Times to suit your needs.

My entire point is that In These Times may or may not be accurate (i tend to find that it it), my point is that people are distrustful of the media at large but not to the degree that something they are totally unfamiliar with will be a credible source of information. The story in this case would need to be picked up by other more mainstream outfits before it can be effectively used as a tool for mass education of those who are swing voters.

If this story is sent out randomly to swing voters in some email it will be treated just like the swift vets thing. Right-wingers will dismiss it, left wingers will buy it up and the middle will simply scoff at the "partisanship"

I have argued hundreds of times here at DU that to simply assume that people can't be educated is to give up, and have argued that if the conspiracy theories are true than nothing short of armed insurrection could possibly stop the "cabal"

I don't buy into the notion that there is no hope, but i also don't simply latch onto every single story that pops up as if it is gospel simply because it makes Bush look bad. When I work towards someone's vote I want more than some little known investigative journal as ammunition because people don't and won't trust this type of source without corroboration from other venues.

When you source and document your piece well, my experience has been very different, especially in a day and age where no one trusts any news source, especially folks on the fence. People are crying out for well-done, well-documented information. Holding back, in hope that some untrusted "mainstream" source will eventually carry some skewed version of the story, minus the documentation doesn't serve any good end. It keeps information from those who can, and often do, use it.

Goodbye.

once they are source from multiple places. I don't think anyone is going to claim that In These Times doesn't have a strong bias and if one points a moderate at In These Times, that moderate will be scared off by most of the content contained in the magazine/site. If I'm looking to convince someone of fault in the Bush administration, i can point to hundreds of sources in mainstream news organizations that they have heard of and that don't contain obviously leftist rhetoric that typically scares away moderates in the same way that newsmax does.

This story may be accurate and most likley is, but I certainly won't be sending it to my cousin as a great example of how Bush lies because he'll react very negatively to it, even though he has come a long way on the Bush front.

And frankly though Fox news is obviously biased to those who pay attention, there are many who are duped by the methodology they use and the fact that they attempt to hide their bias. In These Times makes no pretense.

http://www.skeptic.com/

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/

They Knew...
Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned before the war that its Iraq claims were weak
By David Sirota and Christy Harvey

<snip>


They knew Iraq posed no nuclear threat

There is no doubt even though there was no proof of Iraq’s complicity, the White House was focused on Iraq within hours of the 9/11 attacks. As CBS News reported, “barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq.” Former Bush counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke recounted vividly how, just after the attack, President Bush pressured him to find an Iraqi connection. In many ways, this was no surprise—as former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and another administration official confirmed, the White House was actually looking for a way to invade Iraq well before the terrorist attacks.

<snip>


They knew the aluminum tubes were not for nuclear weapons

To back up claims that Iraq was actively trying to build nuclear weapons, the administration referred to Iraq’s importation of aluminum tubes, which Bush officials said were for enriching uranium. In December 2002, Powell said, “Iraq has tried to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes which can be used to enrich uranium in centrifuges for a nuclear weapons program.” Similarly, in his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush said Iraq “has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”

But, in October 2002, well before these and other administration officials made this claim, two key agencies told the White House exactly the opposite. The State Department affirmed reports from Energy Department experts who concluded those tubes were ill-suited for any kind of uranium enrichment. And according to memos released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the State Department also warned Powell not to use the aluminum tubes hypothesis in the days before his February 2003 U.N. speech. He refused and used the aluminum tubes claim anyway.

More at the above link

David Sirota. He's on Al Franken's show all the time as a guest commentator. Al doesn't tend to use sources that aren't rock solid.

anyone else having trouble with it?

Don't know why...excess traffic maybe?

Lean left but very credible.

Everyone who writes for them or has written for them is a highly regarded journalist or published author. They're not a propaganda organ, and 'Capitol Hill Blue', they ain't. Unsung, better known in Chicago, but they're quite good.

...that covered what the Reagan/Bush administrations were doing in Central America.

Lots of very solid journalism in In These Times.

Does he still write for them??

I just let my subscrip lapse, so I didn't get that one

hard to say how reliable their sourcing is, but whenever I've seen things discussed elsewhere, they're checked out

Arundati Roy writes for them fairly frequently, FWIW, as does Kurt Vonnegut, if you like him

they certainly pull no punches

"In These Times" went after Bush 1 in the late 1980s. They've been 100-percent accurate, which is why TIME magazine and the rest of Corporate McPravda denigrate it.. Got a link to the article?

Authors are writing, working for it,, CAP is quoting it in today's newsletter.
The content is based on well known, main stream sources, all I archived at the time. Not news, but solid essay.

I read his blog sometimes. He's extremely reliable. Yes, he has a strong point-of-view, but he does not make things up. You can put him in a class with Josh Marshall and Joe Conason.

I do, however, agree with some of the comments above about In These Times. An on-the-fence voter would probably be turned off by the magazine's strong leftist views. I've read it occassionally for a couple of decades and have always liked it, but it's too partisan for those that think CNN goes too far with its' supposed liberal bias.

I've also read ITT off and on over the last 20 year. ITT and the Village Voice were all that kept me sane through college in the late 80s. I'd trust them over almost any other lefty news publication out there.

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df08042004.html

Send it around.

Their commentary is not always sound, to my view, but they are honest and dilligent in their presentation of facts.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

They do not tiptoe through the tulips and hand out little bits of truth like Halloween candy. They dump the truth like a pile of sh*t in front of you and say, "There it is. What are you going to do about it."

If they lean left, that's fine with me. Candor is becoming near extinct in journalism and ITT has plenty of it.