Yes, spreading controversial, unsubstantiated reports IS dangerous

1) It fosters a misinformed public. And if you don't think that's dangerous, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to Fox News. Or to Judith Miller's WMD reports for the NYTimes.

2) The endless and pointless speculation engineered by unsubstantial reports distracts people's attention from other matters -- matters which we already know for a fact aren't part of the unconfirmed, speculative world.

3) Ever discovered that the person you trusted to be "right" turned out to be a person who was instead very "wrong"? Boy, don't you feel stupid! And who do you believe now? Certainly not that person in question.

4) Is there a reason, a point, or something beneficial for the public to gain by broadcasting unsubstantiated stories? How does it benefit the public to be led by the nose, tidbit-by-tidbit, with hints and clues about what 'may' or 'may not' occur?

Lost track of my plurals.

Your application to "this case", I think, is not appropriate. We must always consider context, the particular population in question, and a myriad of other factors that limit principles that may otherwise be generally accurate.

Just my humble opinion.

ask David Bossie

ask Chris Ruddy

ask Ted Olson

ask John ONeill

ask Emmett Tyrell

ask Newt Gingrich

ask Dick Cheney

go ahead...ask em

focus on more than one thing at a time so I certainly take issue with your #2, actually I find your OP, in total, to be "endless and pointless speculation" which you have posted in more than one thread but, hey, if some aren't able to multi-task and obsess over one thing and one thing only, I can but feel a wee bit of sympathy for them, only a wee bit, mind you.

That's why good journalists check their stories with multiple, independent sources. Like Jason Leopold did.

as long as its sources remain unnamed.

Who are Leopold's sources?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/13/bush_weighs_use_of_guardsmen_at_borders/

Bush weighs use of Guardsmen at borders
President to speak on immigration
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | May 13, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Monday will announce plans to help seal the nation's borders, including the possibility of expanding the role of the National Guard, a senior administration official said yesterday.

The official said that Bush is considering making federal aid available to states that use the National Guard to patrol US borders and allow border states to use guard troops from other states to supplement their ranks.

...more...

"The official" in this story is not named. Does this mean the speech isn't happening?

Sources remain unnamed all over journalism. Deep Throat, the release of the Pentagon Papers, the leaker of the NSA spying issue, the leaking of Abu Ghraib...all from unnamed sources.

Stagger towards a basic understanding of the work you criticize, next time, before opening your mouth.

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

Mm. Good to see this isn't personal for you.

:eyes:

None of your business. Who the heck are you to demand to know Leopold's sources? If you were a journalist you would understand the need to protect your sources, particularly sources located in the White House.

Are you asking Will Pitt the same question? He's Leopold's senior editor for Truthout...do you think Will would have personally posted anything to the DU boards without doing a thorough fact-check?

How about Larry Johnson? He posted that Leopold had multiple sources on this story, which backs up Leopold's story. Don't know who Larry Johnson is? Do a Google search and find out for yourself.

1) It fosters a misinformed public. And if you don't think that's dangerous, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to Fox News. Or to Judith Miller's WMD reports for the NYTimes.

The report is unsubstantiated insofar as it has not been reported by the very media apparatus you, in your own words, disdain. The report is substantiated insofar as it has been cofirmed for truthout by several independent sources, sources that do not know who the other sources are and don't have any way to do some kind of coordinated disinformation burst.

2) The endless and pointless speculation engineered by unsubstantial reports distracts people's attention from other matters -- matters which we already know for a fact aren't part of the unconfirmed, speculative world.

Speculation like this, you mean? Speculation that truthout is wrong, that Leopold is wrong?

3) Ever discovered that the person you trusted to be "right" turned out to be a person who was instead very "wrong"? Boy, don't you feel stupid! And who do you believe now? Certainly not that person in question.

Indeed. If this were Texas Hold 'Em, the truthout report on Rove's indictment would be an "all in." But that's the thing, see. We trust our writer and our sources, else we would not have run the story. This is the difference between actually taking risks, actually sticking your neck out, actually putting the work in, and sitting on a web forum playing at guesswork with other people's labor. Which category do you see yourself fitting into?

4) Is there a reason, a point, or something beneficial for the public to gain by broadcasting unsubstantiated stories? How does it benefit the public to be led by the nose, tidbit-by-tidbit, with hints and clues about what 'may' or 'may not' occur?

Yes, there's a reason: it isn't unsubstantiated. We have several sources. Once again, it is only "unsubstantiated" because the mainstream media hasn't reported on it yet. They will...and when they do, you can look deep within and discover to your horror that you are as much of a lapdog for the corporate press as any other Fox-watching sucker. You're up on your hind legs, right now, begging for scraps from their table.

The real journalists like Mr. Leopold, in the meantime, are doing the real work. I'll expect your gracious thank-you to him when the time comes.

Are you saying that Leopold took a risk in reporting that Rove has been indicted? If the story is true, then what is the risk?

If I've mis-stated your meaning, please explain.

means going after the stories the mainstream won't touch. Publishing anything controversial means risk. In the end, it will play out as advertised, but in the meantime, "taking risks" also means having your name and reputation savaged by people who don't seem to know what unnamed sources and sealed indictments are about.

Question: When does one realize that an individual might be talking more because he/she likes the sound of his/her own voice than to pass on any important information?

or maybe...

Question: When do you know when you've found a real-life example of apparent swellheadedness, vainglory and egomania?

-----

Seriously, if you want to correspond about something I've stated, you really should attempt to keep it in the same thread. (Or is that not attention-getting enough for you?)

and all the other propaganda machines how they do it. REAL news comes from places like DU, Bradblog, Truthout, Bartcop, Consortium News and for some tension relief try The Onion.

The Daily Show

I forgot THE most reliable source for news! Ack! Yes true, we would be UNHEARD on the MSM without Jon Stewart and Steve "I roasted Bush" Colbert! Thanks for pointing that out Gabi Hayes! :hi:

...all over the hijacker story since the day after 911.

1) It fosters a misinformed public. And if you don't think that's dangerous, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to Fox News :thumbsdown: . Or to Judith Miller's WMD reports for the NYTimes :puke: .

2) The endless and pointless speculation engineered by unsubstantial reports distracts people's attention from other matters (:sarcasm: like the lost White Woman of the day:sarcasm: )-- matters which we already know for a fact aren't part of the unconfirmed, speculative world.(:sarcasm: or the faith based world gw insists we live in with him :sarcasm:)

3) Ever discovered that the person you trusted to be "right" turned out to be a person who was instead very "wrong"? Boy, don't you feel stupid! And who do you believe now? Certainly not that person in question.(The Judith Millers of the world and FAUX NEWZ sure do destroy your faith don't they?)

4) Is there a reason, a point, or something beneficial for the public to gain by broadcasting unsubstantiated stories? (:sarcasm:like Judith Miller's WMD reports,
KKKinda Sleaze's Mushroom clouds or VP Cheney's bulletproof depots of WMD North East South and west of Tikrit :sarcasm:)

How does it benefit the public to be led by the nose, tidbit-by-tidbit, with hints and clues about what 'may' or 'may not' occur?

I say you are correct when will the republiKKKans stop their deceit?

this is how it is. How to change it?

This is flamebait.

Thank you.

DU Moderator.