New Journalism 101

Journalist develops a series of inside-the-room sources regarding administration affairs. Development of these sources and establishment of mutual trust takes a long time and a lot of earnest work.

Journalist is informed by one source of an important story.

Journalist immediately contacts all other sources for confirmation. Several of these sources are totally independent of each other, and are not in any way part of some coordinated disinformation campaign. Again, several totally independent sources confirm big story independently.

Journalist publishes story, based on several solid, independent sources.

Journalist is mildly surprised that the so-called mainstream media has not reported on his story or confirmed it. Then journalist remembers a few things:

1. 99% of the problem in America these days is the lazy, well-fed, cocktail-clubhouse nature of the so-called mainstream journalists;

2. They don't have his sources;

3. His story broke on a Saturday night, and it will take time for these so-called mainstream journalists to sober up from the cocktail party they were at in Georgetown the night before and get to work confirming the story;

4. The courts are closed on the weekends, so no documents will be publicly available until at least Monday.

Journalist is content to wait. He trusts his multiple, independent sources, and cannot concieve of any kind of Machiavellian scenario that would have all of them feeding him disinformation independently, as the sources do not know the names or positions of the other sources.

Journalist walks away from his computer and contemplates a brave new world, where important stories are winkled out by independent reporters, and where the American people do not have to wait to be spoon-fed overspun tidbits from a self-contented major network or newspaper.

And I look forward to this.......

"......... a brave new world, where important stories are winkled out by independent reporters, and where the American people do not have to wait to be spoon-fed overspun tidbits from a self-contented major network or newspaper."

networks did not cover the story until Monday. I heard about it on the internet. I thought all the reporters must be off on the weekend.

not until they all came back from opening their holiday presents andrealized we were going to other outlets to get the news. The mainstream media is the mainstream media because they don't want to be first unless it supports their narratives and corporate motives.

Everyone should be at work on Christmas, especially reporters.

rather than the ad nauseum on how much we were spending.

been working, anyway.

And, when I was reporting, someone always worked holidays. We took turns and those with seniority picked first. I always worked July Fourth so I could cover the boat parade - from the boat. LOL.

when I first saw it mentioned here on DU the day the tsunami happened. This is where there "magic" really happens--the web.

;)

:)

If he is correct, his cred will be massive, and deservedly so. If he cried wolf, the smackdown will be equally epic because his audience is anything but dispassionate about Rove's fate. Monday will tell the tale, presumably.

I think it's a bit unfair to suggest that EVERYONE in the media other than Jason Leopold was out swilling at the trough on Saturday-- more likely anyone who doesn't have access to solid sources but realizes the bombshell nature of this is terrified of hanging their credibility out as far as Leopold has hung his. That too is understandable under the circumstances.

It was made clear in the article that no time has been set for an announcement of any kind.

So if DU desides to have a dog-out-Leopold party on Monday, and the announcement comes Wednesday, a lot of people are going to look and feel pretty bad.

...speaking of credibility...

Three days? A week? More?

...compelling as they become more convergent over lengthening time. I mean, many folks predicted six months ago that Rove would be indicted over the Plame affair, and it remains just as likely that he will be (or already has been). Leopold's story is little more than a curiosity and another in a long line of assertions about Rove's legal risks if it cannot be confirmed. If it is confirmed then his credibility will certainly be salvaged, even if it does take a beating in the interim, but "I told you so" isn't the way any journalist wants to relate with his readers.

For what it's worth I believe it-- I have the utmost respect and admiration for Truthout and don't believe that ya'll would chuck this out as a hail mary.

that Rove was indicted. Doesn't really matter when it is announced. What matters is the date on the indictment documents, which should reflect May 12 or prior.

The big question is Rove indicted or not. That's the story.

I really do.

The work that truthout does is too important to be torpedoed in this manner.

I have made some posts about likely errors in the Leopold story, particularly with regard to the "serving" of an indictment, which I think would be almost an impossibility for a sealed indictment.

But as the morning has gone on it has become more and more apparent to me that a lot of the criticism is personal, perhaps born of old flame wars at DU, perhaps jealousy, who knows?

In any event I think I'll stay out of it from now on until we see what actually transpired. I think just about everything that can be said about the article has already been said anyway and I don't want to be played as a pawn in some personal feud.

is one of the ways the corporate media is manipulated. Let's not fall into it ourselves.

What ever happened to corrections, updates and developments? Not wiggle room for accuracy but rather room for the unfolding of the story.

I guess I'm all done being "understanding" of the pressitutes like those at the NYT who just this week noticed we have a problem with Diebold machines. That's not caution, that's coma.

...of Leopold in all of this because in fact I believe him. Nonetheless, there is a vast journalistic gulf between saying that an event might have happened pending further developments and asserting that it is already history. The former is a developing story, while the latter is a journalist's credibility being tested.

hard to retrieve the rest of the language. :)

In reading the Truthout article and seeing this:

"...instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning."

I liken it to my power company sending me a final notification that I have 24 hours to pay my bill or they will shut me off. Does that mean they show up 24 hours and 5 minutes later to do that, no, they may not arrive until 3 days later, all they 'promised me' was that they would not shut me off for that 24 hour period but after that, at THEIR convenience, they will cut my power off.

and I doubt he would take such a risk UNLESS he was sure of his sources and the validity of the story. Personally, as an open-minded person I am leaving some room for some skepticism - it's at about 2% for me, based on the history of Truth Out, Leopold, and of course Will Pitt. Which means I am 98% convinced the story is true.

As for everyone wondering why the M$M isn't covering this if it's true, considering all the bitching and moaning about the Corporate Whore Bush-enabling Media done on this board and all the times before they ignored important stories, why would anyone be surprised they're not reporting it? :shrug:

correct on the details, that's it? He will NEVER again be taken seriously? I wish someone with time on their hands could pick about 2 dozen of the best known MSM journalists/investigative reporters and calculate their accuracy rate with breaking stories. Since many of them never even try to break a story, the population from which to draw from may become increasingly small. Nonetheless, I can't imagine that any of the best investigative reporters have not flubbed some detail or some major news break at some time in their career. Surely we should look at patterns rather than single incidents-- even major ones-- before ALL credibility is forever gone?

Why are we so much tougher on our own?

On edit, I'm not implying Leopold is wrong at all. In my gut, I'm betting he is right--especially on the big points, if not the timing. Only commenting on the building mob mentality suggesting the need to tar and feather if one of our own is proven to be wrong on a major story.

Please provide a bit of comment and context. I suspect we are working from the same page, actually. :shrug:

a "stolen election payoff check" story that turned out to be false. I haven't heard any of his stories quoted since.

What about Dan Rather? Even though the NG secretary verified that Bush erceived special treatment, all anyone remembered was that she said she didn't type the memo. Where is Rather now?

I never said anything about 100% of the details, but I'm sure that Jason knows that if he didn't cross his t's and dot his i's, it could be quite disastrous to his career. As it has been to many other journalists despite their previous work.

carefully one approaches the verification prior to submission. And, yes, in some cases, even a long history of integrity (Rather) could not counter balance against a massive attack against him by those with an agenda.

I guess my point is that we need to prevent other "RATHERING" incidents by defending those media oulets who courageously try to break a story against a background of integrity--even if they have a rare "flub." But, the trend of support through thick and thin" which will enable other news groups to tackle the risky breaking story, starts here.

this administration that actively targets the integrity and careers of journalists that report news the admin doesn't want reported, as opposed to diputing the story itself.

Of course, my original point was that I believe that Jason Leopold worked hard to substantiate the story and would not have broken it if he had any doubt in the story' validity.

If the story does not turn out to be 100% true, I personally won't stop reading Truth Out. It's still an excellent source. However, many will.

Which is one of many reasons why I believe the story to be true, despite the lack of coverage in the MSM.

When I was very green in the newsroom, a local veterans group brought in a photo. It was a picture of some local guys renacting the Battle of Iwo Jima. As I said, I was new and very frightened of making a mistake. I grabbed my trusty AP Style Book to look up the correct spelling. For reasons still unknown to me, I found "HiroShima" and put that in the cutline. The editors missed it and it ran the next day.

Needless to say, I was humiliated. The veterans came in and gave me hell over it. My coworkers gave me a different kind of hell over it. There was nothing I could do. It was the talk of the local press association until roughly a year later when another young journalist ran a front page article, "Town gives plague to oldest resident." There was a lovely photo of the oldest resident with the City Council and Mayor handing over the plague (plaque).

Interestingly enough, I went on to have a successful 10-year career as a journalist. To my knowledge the plague-man is still working a beat.

That only underscores how much we learn from our mistakes--if we are allowed to. I think it is critically important to have some degree of tough correction, but long term forgiveness if we are to renew the press' role as the 4th Estate.

KARL ROVE HAS BEEN INDICTED.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1179819

Intrepid Journalist who breaks a large national news story and continues to be cited by a defense attorney as credible will steadily gain influence and spark envy in the corporate psuedo-journalists. Said journalist will learn patience as the corporate psuedo-journalists descend like a pack of starving wolves on three day old information feeds, while intrepid journalist provides updates that are widely admired by the smart and savvy. A legend is born...

on tv about her gradeschool teacher who was arrested for smoking crack in his car in the school parking lot.

She just couldn't believe it til it was on the 6:00 news.

That happened years ago on Long Island and her quote stuck in my head.

Weird, how we need validation from a corporate news source that has gone out if its way to mislead and misinform us all along.

I think we should all just wait until this issue is undressed by Newt Gingrich when he delivers his unbiased opinion on The O'Reilly Fractured on Fox News. They are "fair and balanced." Their ads even say so. They have been fair and balanced on everything so far. We will all be a little bit safer if the only thing that is "underground" is our heads. The sand will help filter out those things that make us feel anxious or uncomfortable. Our country wouldn't be in the mess it is in today if Truthout hadn't taken vowels out of public schools -- no wonder Johnnie can't read.

I think we should all just wait until this issue is undressed by Newt Gingrich when he delivers his unbiased opinion on The O'Reilly Fractured on Fox News.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You know I had been hoping that as the lid is blown off the lies & corruption we might be able to get much closer to the truth of:

JFK Assassination
Watergate (we don't know the 'haf of it, IMHO)
Iran-Contra (and the other 249 military and CIA interventions since WWII)
JFK Jr's death
Paul Wellstone's Death
Theft of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections

But if you suggest we should be patient and wait until Newt covers it on the O'Really Factor -- well, I guess we should just be patient.

Lots of people suffering and dying in this world because of these SOB's - but I'll ignore risk-taking, ground-breaking journalists and wait for Newt.

...that said you MAY both get burned-in real life sometimes even the diligent get hosed...in any event,I'll take a reporter who backs his sources over a timid stenographer who eagerly awaits his partisan feed and then hails it as a "scoop"....Posters have declared themselves into two camps-I tried to stay out of it-it tends to be divisive,however I cannot stand by while two sources I respect are accused of "guessing" and "making it up". I back you fully and should ridicule come your way I'll take my share....I'd rather lose on a side with integrity.Regards,Cat.

was going to break with Rove. He said it was going to be a "busy day and weekend" for him at MSNBC.

Other DU'ers saw this and had the same reaction I did that Tweety was salivating in anticipation that something would be forthcoming. So, they know...but they are waiting for some reason (Bush put the "lock down" on...or the Bosses told them to shut it down?) :shrug:

It will be interesting to see how the MSM handle this given that many of us believe that Leopold had the scoop on this. Why did MSM put the "hold" when they had reporters dogging everyone who appeared before a Grand Jury during Clinton. This behavior by MSM would be considered very odd if we weren't dealing with a Secretive/Manipulative P-Residency who has the ability to control the news that isn't out here on the Net.

I can sort of tolerate them. Sort of.

It's when you post Truthout articles on LBN that makes me want to hit "alert".

a thread in LBN where I posted anything from truthout.

Anything at all.

I mean me, not someone else.

I'll wait.

your other unconfirmed report threads posted on LBN:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=708884&mesg_id=708884

the one I got from the TV news here? The one with the updates posted throughout?

Dig deeper, friend. Maybe you'll find something better, something to satisfy your need to paint me as a bad source of information. You had to go back almost two years to get that one. Pretty funny, actually.

And sad. Hobbies are good for the bored and the bitter. Keeps those hands busy.

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

If you don't strike out occasionally,you just ain't swinging....almost two years ago,while monitoring various news feeds he linked to a local station that was covering a story that would of been huge-therefore allowing thousands of us to follow what could have been the story of the year??? And you equate a local on-the-fly breaking feed with a different investigative blog???Someone here is reaching....

and 100% accurate. Your point?

Do you people compare notes before trying this? You should.

vs. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=656340

You didn't specify "an LBN thread from the last two years" or "a specimen of journalistic impropriety", but I apologize for the misunderstanding.

It seems as though you have some personal grudge going...

If they (Truthout/Leopold and by extension Will Pitt) were to be proven wrong on the major facts of the story (and not simply the timing details), they will take a hit on credibility, just as all news outlets do when a story is flubbed. It is a risk they take with a major "break" of a story. I honor and respect their courage in pursuing a major breaking story. As long as they have done everything possible to verify before submitting the story, I think that is all that can be asked. I also believe there is no major respected journalistic outlet that hasn't occasionally been wrong. A pattern of dysinformation (or intent to mislead) is quite different (aka Fox Faux News) than a rare flub of a major story against a background of ethical coverage, IMO.

:applause:

former (out of work) reporter here

99% of the problem in America these days is the lazy, well-fed, cocktail-clubhouse nature of the average American observer. We need the exposure to effect the change in attitude we want.

I wonder how the larger media's reaction to Jason's story compares with other such bombshells? I imagine they are having a hard time getting the same corroboration from their own sources.

Would Jason try to share his sources with others to some degree? That might get it rolling. Has he?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=winkled

Dictionary - Thesaurus - Encyclopedia - Web

Top Web Results for "winkled"


1 entry found for winkled.

win·kle2 P Pronunciation Key (wngkl)
tr.v. Chiefly British win·kled, win·kling, win·kles
To pry, extract, or force from a place or position. Often used with out.

:toast: :evilgrin:

Not pointing a finger at you, Will. I can understand, given certain recent events, why you might be wishing to rub a few noses in it. As the saying goes, however, living well is the best revenge. I hope you take full advantage of it and rise above.

I think part of the problem is the mindset of the American people (which, like it or not, includes many here at DU). We've been somehow convinced a news article must appear on the front page of the nearest daily newspaper before it be deemed credible. Ironically, those same individuals are also quick to caution others not to believe everything they read in the paper.

Let me ask you something: If the information Will has provided turns out to be incorrect, how will you personally suffer from his mistake? At the end of the day, won't it be Will and Jason who take the credibility hit if the report has errors and have to walk away with their figurative tails between their legs?

Quite frankly, everyone here at DU should be falling over themselves to thank those individuals who are willing to stick their necks out for the rest of us. Yup, you read that correctly. You should be thankful that someone else is willing to get out and do the investigative footwork for your lazy ass instead of leaning back in your easy chair and criticizing what was posted, where it was posted and how it was posted.

No one is forcing information down your throat. No one is telling you what you should or should not believe. The same is true for TruthOut as is true for RawStory as is true for the Washington Post: Individuals are doing their very best - in a very hostile climate - to bring you information. Sometimes those individuals are the bearer of bad news and they are shunned. Sometimes those individuals bring good tidings and they become everyone's best friend. Sometimes they get it wrong (yep, even those 'mainstream' media types everyone seems to need)... sometimes they get it right. All the time, however, they are out there working to get the information (which is probably more than 99% of DUers can say for themselves).

If you are reading an article by the Associated Press and you aren't fact-checking it before believing it, you're already in a world of hurt. If you are reading a blog and taking everything posted there at face value, then you deserve the disinformation you'll probably be receiving. You see, 99% of those who watch FOX believe the 2004 election was fair.

Listen and read the news where ever you might find it, but be willing to do some investigation on your own. Will and Jason don't believe themselves gods. They aren't asking you to bend over and worship at the TruthOut alter. They are, however, nice enough to offer information to you. Why spit on them?

"Let me ask you something: If the information Will has provided turns out to be incorrect, how will you personally suffer from his mistake?"

You believe that being misinformed is harmless? Then FOX News has got some advertising space it would like to sell to you...

Obviously, if the TO report is found to be false and I have read it... well, my eyes will simply rot and fall out of my head. Give me a freakin' break!

The worst that can happen to me is that I'll have to admit I wasted a few minutes of my time reading something erroneous.

You go right ahead and keep blaming the media for the overall ignorance of the American people. You keep shoveling that sweet little lie right down their throats and watch them grow fat on it.

"Oh, poor me, the newscaster told me Saddam funded the 9-11 attacks."

"What did you expect me to do? All the news media said I should shake my baby when he cried."

"Horror of horrors! The reports on CNN and MSNBC don't match!"

I'm not sure about you, Brent, but some of us actually take responsibility for what we believe and how we came to believe it.

is for the times that a messenger gives bad news...not provides incorrect facts. It's unfair to blame the messenger for giving correct news, even if unwelcome news. Blaming a messenger for incorrect news is a different kettle of fish.

Me, I've never thought anyone should get their panties in a bundle over rumors around Fitzgerald's grand jury, and have received a smackdown from none other from WilliamPitt hisself for being such a cautious wuss in saying that I was waiting for a real indictment. It seems that the blame lies in both the messenger and the receivers thereof for being insufficiently cautious about a secret legal proceeding run by a guy who really wants to keep it secret, namely, Fitz.

It always was a dangerous thing to report about without a fistful of caveats, and a fairly worthless thing to speculate about, because it's either going to happen or it isn't, in it's own sweet time.

Now, between the posts, modifications, and apologia, there's about five threads on the Greatest Page not worth a fart. Bad day for DU, IMO.

from erroneous reporting, in the vacuously hypothetical event that it occurred here? Further down the line, Fox News could probably use its influence to get you a position selling newspapers on a street corner. Career-wise, I don't think you should be aiming too high.

Of course a piano isn't going to fall from above and land on you. But consequences? They are aplenty. Care about the quality of your drinking water? How about clean air to breathe? Do you care about being brought into a war on a pack of lies? Do you care about our government getting involved in yet another needless war? Do you care about the possibility that your son or daughter may get drafted to fight in one of these wars in the future? Do you care about drilling in ANWR? Do you care about corrupt politics and the need to bring to justice corrupt politicians and political operatives like Karl Rove?

All of these issues are reported on by the press. Americans have the right to expect responsible reporting on these issues, so that they can become an informed electorate. Journalists have the duty and responsibility to report the facts of these issues. Without responsible reporting, an "anything goes" atmosphere is fostered and, in some cases promoted. Reports end up becoming nothing more than an editorial. Leave the editorials to editors. I expect my news stories to contain facts. How does it hurt me, if stories are not factually correct? It allows for misrepresentation of issues, which can alter public perception of an issue. It is the difference of how Americans percieve and digest issues such as domestic wiretaps. If we allow the press to continue to tell us erroneously that this administration only wiretaps overseas calls, then a large segment of Americans look at the issue in a different light, than if we are told that the government has obtained the phone records of millions of domestic calls from AT&T. When this story is reported one way, many Americans are okay with it. When the facts come out, and the story is put another way, Americans who jealously, and rightfully guard their privacy get all up in arms, and an appropriate backlash ensues.

This is just one of the many issues that I raised, as to how erroneous reporting can hurt us. It goes to the question of public perception, and what the public ultimately allows or rails against what our leaders do. And if you cvannot understand this, then nothing else I could say will help to enlighten you.

the American public to be able to trust that what we are reading happens to be the truth. How does reading misinformation harm us? All you have to do is ask John Kerry that question. Americans lost a chance at real leadership by a man who could have turned the direction of this country around, all because of the villainous "swift boat" lie that passed as a story. Many people believed the misinformation, in part because they were willing to believe it, but in large part because it was so widely reported by unscrupulous media outlets, intent on placing sensationalism over journalistic integrity. So, how have Americans been harmed? Four more years of Bush. Isn't that enough proof for those who ask how can we personally harmed by misinformation? Hell, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity have made themselves rich and famous by spreading disinformation. Too many people who are willing to allow these bozos to do their thinking for them have also allowed Bush to wreak havoc throughout the world.

The press is all us Amnericans have to find out what the powerful are up to. And the only stock in trade that reporters have is their credibility. I, for one have absolutely no reason to doubt Will Pitt. If he is willing to put his credibility and reputation on the line to vouch for Jason Leopold, then that is good enough for me. As some here have said, it is them who will suffer the most, should Leopold's story turn out to be a red herring, printed in haste to get a "scoop." But we also will suffer greatly, because that will prove Truthout to be one less credible news source that Americans who are hungry for the truth will have to depend and rely on for important information.

For those who sneer at skeptics, and who ask how in the world an erroneous report hurts readers, I say wake up. Erroneous reports harm us in many ways.

We need the Will Pitts and Jason Leopolds of the world. Without them, we would most assuredly be living in a "police state" lockdown right now. But it must always be in the uppermost part of reporters minds that they respect and follow the important rules of responsible journalism.

Will, I will always be for you, until you prove yourself to be undisciplined and unreliable. My thanks to you for the work you do is my continued reading of your insightful articles.

on Faux "News" every minute of every day. These people you are so quick to trash are out there busting their butts to get you information. They are not, as Faux is, attempting to misinform you.

I think it's mirror time, sir. You are getting way too irate over a situation that hasn't even finished playing itself out. Is this somehow personal for you?

a gracious host.
;-)

BTW I agree with you entirely.

Those that haven't just boggle my mind. To turn such a story as this, that should have us all collectively jumping for joy, instead turns into some stupid bitter negativity battle. I'm all for questioning sources and being open minded to ensure accuracy, and not just swallowing any little pill brought our way, but most I've seen belittling the article did not come off as doing so due to wanting to be responsible and patient and making sure it's accurate. Instead, many of them (not all, mind you) came off as just simply bitter, attention seeking, jealous or in the mood to start trouble, and that perplexes me greatly when something that should be this exciting instead brought that side out of some.

Questioning the article legitimately and inquisitively is fine. But smearing it just for sake of some petty personal vendetta is just plain worthless to me.

(disclaimer: to those that did question it with integrity, good intention and with the spirit of due diligence and accuracy, I have no qualms with that and salute you for it.)

but in the interim, where Jason is the only one running with it, there is a need for corroboration by other outlets who, I assume, are certainly as interested in reporting this as he is.

It's really just Jason's story standing alone at this point. Hard for me NOT to wonder about its validity as it remains exclusive, no matter HOW much I respect and trust the sources.

I really don't understand the vitriol from some against those who have not accepted the report as fact. I like the patient explanations of the rudiments of journalism. It's correct that there is a process which is affected by many variables and obstacles.

But, those of us outside of that process should be applauded for asking for some accountability of journalists' claims as they are being asked to accept what is written as fact. Disbelievers and doubters should not be denigrated as jealous, petty, or traitors to independent journalism. The best way for 'independent' journalists to achieve respect and deference is through accountability. There really is no other way.

They should more than welcome the opportunity to defend the credibility of their story, understanding that most of us who share their concerns aren't priviliged to the same access to 'sources' they enjoy. Realistically, we never will have that access. That requires an endless defense of integrity if one expects to be acknowledged as credible and reliable.

It doesn't take much to damage that credibility. It's not a trivial thing.

As shown in Several lines of my post, I agree with that sentiment and when done so in that spirit I'm all for it, and in fact saluted those who do so. Maybe you missed all those parts in my post. I dunno.

What I also made clear is that many weren't questioning the article in the responsible open-minded manner you describe, or in a rational tone, but instead were tearing it apart with a bitter unexlainable irrational type of tone that perplexed me greatly, as T.O. doesn't deserve that. So yes, I agree with your sentiment. But if you were acting in a manner consistent with your sentiment than you wouldn't fall into the other category I described, and therefore may have missed the point of my post to begin with.

go with the territory. And, this is from the friendly crowd here at DU. I see a lot of frustration from folks who share the sentiments in Jason's efforts.

I think that the exclusive nature of the story requires a bit more tolerance of dissention than a more corroborated one. I hope the patience of the contributors in defending their effort holds out.

many I've read were not questioning it with a tone of 'I hope to hell it's right but let's be patient and reasonable'. Instead, I found many to question it with a tone portraying almost bitterness and a hope that this exclusive story would turn out to be bogus just so they can stick up their noses. Not because their freepers, but because they seem to have an irrational bitterness towards Jason, Will, or Truthout. I find that unacceptable, especially with a story this big. I'll repeat, questioning it is fine, reasonable and appropriate. But doing so with a tone of 'please let it be wrong so I can be smug' is sickening to me. We've waited a long time for this story. Of course some are going to take pause with believing it right off the bat before there is legitimate corroboration. I welcome that. But it is pretty easy to see that some have done so with a personal bitter agenda, and not with a genuine concern for accuracy. That pisses me the fuck off, sorry.

where did someone say they hoped it was bogus to stick it up someone's nose? I missed that.

I think you may be mislabeling intentions. I'm not saying that there aren't some here like you describe, but I don't see those as comprising the bulk of the skepticial and reserved.

There's also a whining tone from some of the defenders of the report which begin with that type of defense, ie: folks are jealous, etc. It's seems self-serving without providing any further accountability other than their own belief in, and faithfulness to, the story's providers. And it mostly alienates those who might be inclined to reserve ultimate judgement, and will be needed in future efforts to recieve and disseminate news.

Some efforts to focus on those who have extreme objections to Jason, his story, or the providers seem to only serve as a deflection from legitimate queries. There's a tone that may discourage some from responding with legitimate questions at this point. Those who responded so vehemently here to the dissent bear some responsibility for that.

I think Jason's report would be better served by a fact-based defense without a whole lot of questioning of the motivations of the questioners.

Hey, let's keep making the same points over and over and over and over.

If you don't see the pattern of bitterness some posters have shown, then I can't help you. It was those voices that were the initial ones getting the momentum for getting the dissent going. I'm glad you think almost everyone questioning it was sincere, but my perception has noticed quite a few of the same old posters using their same old tired tactics. Yes, many were sincere. But yes, many were not, and I have every right to focus on them because I find the behavior shameful. That's all for me in this circular discussion. Our points have been made.

:shrug:

for quite some time during Watergate.

I'm glad you are confident. Confidence comes from arrogance or from knowledge. And I know you are not the prior, but the latter.

There are seasoned journalist on DKos who are questioning this. And seem to have their well founded reasons for questioning Leopold. As you know, I am one of those who is fairly uneducated in anything but math and machinery. So I follow your lead. But just to watch this period of time, this journalism transition, is something I can appreciate. We're in a neutral zone, where the tide is neither ebbing nor flowing. I love it. I think it means change.

I'm really glad for you Will. It has been a gift to be able to share in this experience, as dark and painful as it has been.

Monday. Just waiting for a Monday. For us, but for those in Iraq.

:rofl:

and chasing the sightings of the story of which there were pretty much none. The story is probably true but it's also a letdown so I sort of wish, given how strongly we all feel about the issue and how easily we get excited, that the story was a bit less breathless... That should also probably be New Journalism 101.

"99% of the problem in America these days is the lazy, well-fed, cocktail-clubhouse nature of the so-called mainstream journalists"

The party is a mirage that fades away to reveal
lazy, force-fed, drug-cocktail corporate chickenhouse squawkers
crammed in too tight in the dark,
with vestiges of wings and eyes
that no longer function

DOH!

:thumbsup:

No reason to become a Doubting Tomas now or ever.

Gee...Will and Jason have been arguably wrong on certain occasions...unlike the MSM??? Anyone remember that "Dewey Defeats Truman"???
Here's a challenge-I've read perhaps a hundred articles by the pair.All have come out with facts not yet reported by the MSM and over 90% proved to be true.So instead of carping or name calling, print YOUR breaking news and if neccesary "guess" or "make it up"...
After your first hundred posts we will check percentages...
We have a couple private citizens here that do more to inform us than all the talking heads on 24hr cable news shows and that make the major network talkers look like neo-victorians....and a contingent that devotes more time to squelching them than they do taking the "real" media to task....and that is sad.

On Edit:Good Lord,my spelling sucks!!!

be met until next week for some people. They may as well just wait.

an emotional one?

certainty with what we have yet. So they would just have to wait for next week. The posts demanding to know why no one else has it are not just waiting. They're venting. So I meant coming on the board to vent frustration that it is not certain to them yet. Maybe trying to be convinced.

to be reported in major mass media?

Will, your research has seen through this crazy political fog before. I don't see why it won't this time. Thanks for the scoop. I can't wait for Rove to start paying for his slimy betrayals of the truth.

If the Spinmaster is busy, the actors may have to wait for their script. We must then wait for their performance.I'm getting comfy in a good seat.
I have extra comfy chairs. Sit a bit and have a cup of tea with me and let me say thanks again for doing your job so well.

Then you can see about the Cheny connection. Sorry you know your work is not done. Freedom is always left to us on the left to protect.

I'd better turn on the TV and check.

Corporate media gave only tiny inklings that anything was amiss in the leadup to the Iraq war. Readers of Truthout knew before it happened that the intel was being fudged, that the diplomacy was being purposely undermined, that the planning and intel were being stovepiped, that the State Department was being sidelined, and that there was a disaster coming.

People who learned if from the CM learned it far, far too late.


Monday, Tuesday...it doesn't matter when it's confirmed; JL reports that Rove received an indictment on Friday, May 12, 2006. Even if it's not made public til Wednesday or later, JL and his editors will still have been correct.

After all, I've only been here two years, my post count is low because I tend to read and not comment, and I'm not a journalist. I'm just a programmer.

But I'm also a poster here, and I have to say that the perpetual whining from both sides on this Rove/Truthout thing is really annoying. Can you all give it a rest for just a couple of days? (I thought about making this comment into a post in GD, but then I realized that I would just be adding to the noise.)

This is one article on one website. It's perfectly reasonable for people to be skeptical about it until it's confirmed. The reporter who wrote it could be getting bad information from his sources, and in that case the reporter is making an honest and honorable mistake which can and will be corrected when new information comes out.

It's also perfectly reasonable for people who know this reporter to have a good track record to accept this report immediately. The reporter who wrote it says he has multiple sources all saying the same thing, and as soon as the story breaks in the wider media he'll be appropriately lionized for getting the scoop several days before everyone else.

view the media. In the 1950s, if a news announcer said something it was trusted. The media has since expanded and diversified and there are interesting effects. Like they've become bloated, corporate outfits that don't really deliver.

The MSM is a big corporate conglomerate that needs busting by the up and coming new media that will deliver a better product. TO looks like a great break-in to that, if they can get around the MSM to get to the true story it will be very good news in America.

what they do. They just need to hang around the local "Liar's Bench" in their city or town and just learn from some pros, how to lie with a straight face. If they learn to lie like a used car salesman and to read the emails from Karl, they are ready for prime time.

EDIT...There is nobody on the planet, who would be anymore glad than I would be, if the story the OP is talking about turns out to be right on the money.

Kentucky governor was busted for money laundering, drugs---my highschool classmate and friend is an investigative journalist who broke the story. Do you realize that some brave journalists put not only their reputation on the line, but their life. Before she broke the story, she was urged by other journalists not to expose the corruption, that it would damage her, she would not have access to political biggies. She did it, because that was her job. There were press whores then, but there are many more, now.

It gets more like pre WWII Germany every day in America. Hitler couldn't have caused a war that ended up killing 60 million people worldwide, without his corporate propagandists.

...imagining the damage control going on behind the scenes...

Who knows, there might even be hail-mary deals being rejected...now tell us the rest of what you know about Mr Cheney's involvement, pleading guilty to a lesser charge...but all to no avail as Turdblossom knows the laws of the BFEE require that he must maintain the sacred Code of Silence...knowing that his only hope is to enlist the big Repug donors to take care of him...sweat breaks out on Turdblossom's brow as he makes nonstop calls on secure phones...lawyers frown while papers flutter...the White House spins, selecting lies as easily as tomorrow's necktie...sleeping pills and anti-depressants and champagne corks are being popped all over DC

Meanwhile the MSM waits in the wings like vultures, zipping all their little black bags and cases. Despite the appearance of following protocols and the necessary deference to Bushco, they lust after the story. David Gregory and Helen Thomas try to contain their smirks. Charging their palm pilots. Pretending to get ready for the big immigration speech on Monday. Tweety positively foams at the mouth, whirling so hard his rotor almost falls off. Mary Matalin gargles. Bob Novak and Judy Miller pour another drink. Scooter Libby makes popcorn. Contrary to popular belief, the Washington media is not out partying, wanting to keep their edge. Don't want to appear to get out too far in front of the story but chafing at the bit. They know it's already buzzing on the Net. La de da Happy Mother's Day :)

Based on what Jason said, I bought a bottle of champaigne yesterday. It's sitting in the fridge now, nice and cold, ready to go. That's Trust.

I'll pop the cork (or not) based on what Fitz says (or doesn't) this coming week (or whenever). That's Verify.

In this case the MSM is in no position to verify anything, because they haven't been covering the story, so of course they haven't put in the legwork to develope any sources. Surprised?

Jason HAS done the legwork. He's actually been WORKING on this story, for a long time. Remember when reporters used to do that?

That's Will's point...

I'm NOT a reporter. I've always liked Truthout, and if a Journalist is willing to stick his neck out after checking multiple sources, after from what I understand doggedly following the case and facts, I'm willing at least to give benefit of the doubt. So until proved otherwise, I'm still gonna be doing a weekend happy dance at the prospect of a Rove indictment. I consider it an Mother's day present today. Tommorrow, I'll still be celebrating. I'm willing to wait as well.
Rove, by all that's lawful, SHOULD be fucking indicted. It makes perfect sense even in a extremely imperfect political climate.

"Journalist is mildly surprised that the so-called mainstream media has not reported on his story or confirmed it. Then journalist remembers a few things:

1. 99% of the problem in America these days is the lazy, well-fed, cocktail-clubhouse nature of the so-called mainstream journalists; and the few at ABC News, New York Times, or Washington Post who aren't lazy are probably afraid to dig too deep for fear of being watched by the government."

There. That's better.

-MR

The journalist's editors risk becoming a laughingstock behind the story.

Just sayin'...

When you stick your next out, even with the best of intentions, there are folks waiting with axes to chop it.

:thumbsup:

None of them are reporting this story.

so far i see the double zeros, but no numbering.

:D

teams employed by the criminals in the administration of George W. Bush.
Then this shouldn't be too surprising, given that context.

Who Owns What
(maintained by Aaron Moore PhD.)
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/