Nobody owes anyone an "apology"...

What you choose to buy here or anywhere else is at your own choosing. The old maxim, "caveat emptor", let the buyer beware, is applicable to "information" just as much as it is to a new car that is a "lemon". Nobody forces anyone to believe one story over another. There were no sources to back up the original story, so that alone, should have been reason enough to hold off on all the celebratory "high-fivin'".

Those that are looking to blame someone else for being "misled" are looking in the wrong direction. We should have all been more skeptical and questioning about the entire Rove affair. That said, my opinion is that the most like scenario is that he made a "deal" with the prosecutor at the last moment. But, don't take that as gospel. I have no sources. That is only my opinion.

People are quick to believe things they WANT to believe.

it's a prickly rhetorical question -- but, whether or not anyone "believed" L's story (i would argue) hasn't changed anyone's life.

whether or not i believe in phreneology or phlogiston doesn't change the fact that i operate in a world dominated by neuro-psych and newtonian physics.

so yeah, we believe things that are sometimes proved wrong. BUT it really doesn't make much difference in our lives.

The term "reality" gets misused.

...an apology is the right thing to do. Sad that TO will probably never do the right thing in this instance.

...should acknowledge some personal and/or professional responsibility. That includes, IMO, apologies for lapses in judgment.

Reporters and journalists make mistakes all the time and the proper thing to do is apologize if you want to have any shred of credibility going forward.

Demanding one is somehow self righteous, or like trying as hard as possible to play the victim.

It would be one thing if people were paying to read those stories, but last I looked DU and Truthout are free.

:shrug:

They are "better" than "MSM :eyes:" (ie: corporate media) ... yet it now appears that accuracy and accountability is now optional.

Seriously though... In my opinion, that make makes them NO BETTER than corporate media. It's one thing to be wrong, but quite another to not take responsibility for it... to claim some sort of exemption from being held accountable ... and to criticize corporate media at the same time.

That's all I am saying. People are demanding he apologizes and I see nothing here that warrants a demand.

I'm with you on this one. I don't need an apology...

Not sure why others are demanding one.

"Does Leopold personally (and literally) owe me an apology?" then the answer is, of course, "no".

But that's *not* to say that he's not without any obligation to take responsibility for his own mistake and to make a "general apology" to everyone for having been wrong and for having been so stubborn in standing by his original story as written. (Well I suppose "as-written" wouldn't be entirely correct considering his stealthy "correction" with nary an editor's note, postscript, or comment.)

He needs to own up, come clean, admit his error (or gullibility, or not double-checking his "facts", for trying to weasel and post-edit his story, etc etc etc) and an *apology* is part of that process.

This strawman defense of Leopold not literally owing me (or any one individual) a personal apology is completely absurd. Stop it.

I just wonder how come people think they are *that* important that they demand an apology from someone who wrote some story on the internet.

"He needs to own up, come clean, admit his error.." I don't understand why he *needs* to. I'm not trying to piss anyone off, I was just agreeing with the OP that Leopold doesn't owe anyone here anything. Sure it might be the honorable thing to do and maybe a lot of people would get a warm squishy feeling inside if he did, but I still don't see any legitimate reason that he must do what people here want him to do.

I'm not on anyone's side really, I just think that too many people think that the world spins around their ass.

<< I don't understand why he *needs* to. >>

This is the same type of argument you were making earlier. He doesn't *need* do do anything. He's under no obligation to do anything he doesn't want to do. This is not the point.

However, if he desires to retain any shred of credibility or respect, then indeed he DOES need to do these things. If he does not care what his reputation is, then (as you say) he really does not NEED to do anything at all.

<<...but I still don't see any legitimate reason...>

I think that's a completely legitimate reason. It may not be a very COMPELLING reason (as far as he's concerned) for him to WANT to do anything, but it's certainly LEGITIMATE.

I was responding to the OP with all of this. I agree with what you are saying to a degree, but my point was that he doesn't *owe* it to anyone but himself maybe and anyone he may have said things to personally. And honestly, do you think that if he apologized, all will be forgotten? I seriously doubt that at this point.

<< And honestly, do you think that if he apologized, all will be forgotten? I seriously doubt that at this point. >>

Probably not forgotten. Does anyone EVER forget?

I think the more relevant question is "would he be forgiven?" and "are people willing to move on?".

Unfortunately, I think that both of those things will be impossible unless he comes clean and offers some form of an apology, some sort of mea culpa, and some acknowledgment that he was wrong, duped, not thorough in his fact-checking, etc.

In the meantime, the hostility and feelings of ill-will continue to flourish as the Pitt/Leopold/TO toadies continue to defend their heroes and (in the face of the abundant body of evidence before them) the continue to defiantly and stubbornly insist that the story is "true" and that we need to only "wait-and-see".

Until the time that Leopold acknowledges and admits his error... and indicates some form of regret (or however you want to define "apology")... until he reveals his source/s, then it's unlikely that either side (and there ARE sides) will be willing to call a truce.

... responsibility.

Freedom and responsibility go hand-in-hand together.

And if a responsibility is not lived up to, an apology may be owed.

I'm not saying whether or not one is owed in THIS case (what are we talking about anyway? lol) - just that an apology MAY be warranted, even in the presence of freedom.

Freedom and responsibility are NOT antithetical - they are complementary - neither could exist without the other.

Anyone can say anything they want. It is up to each person to believe it or not and if you actually bet your life on a story that was on the internet, then I would say it is more your problem then it is the person who wrote the story.

It would be nice if everything everyone says is the complete truth and no one told fibs, but that isn't reality. I would hope that the people here would know that by now. I would be a little more in the "demand apology" column if I paid money for a service and it wasn't what I paid for, but I don't think that demanding an apology for something you never asked for in the first place is a little weak.

But to say that because we didn't pay to read the story, we shouldn't give it much credence, or that the journalist somehow has less responsibility to investigate their sources... I do take issue with that.

If I believed everything I have read in my life, I would believe that man never landed on the moon, the widows of 9/11 are jumping for joy over their husband's death, Elvis is working at a Burger King in Kalamazoo, mental illness can be cured by Scientology and george bush won both elections fair and square.

If people want to believe everything they read, that is fine by me. I just think that they shouldn't expect everything to be 100% accurate. Well, they could *expect* it, but that is foolish.

they have no credibility! :)

I was gonna go there, but I held back. :)

who wrote it. A lot of people have been oppressed and killed and royally fucked up because of what some of them wrote there. ;)

from a source that has been consistently accurate... I certainly expect many people to believe at least some of it. Otherwise, we shouldn't believe anything at all... ever. Maybe the Holocaust didn't really happen either.

Huh?

You are comparing one of the most tragic atrocities in the history of the world with a rumor of Rove being indicted?

Have to scratch my head on that one.

No, dear, I'm not comparing the Holocaust to Rove's indictment. That would be insane.

I say not to believe *everything*. This is about whether Leopold owes an apology, and I agree with the OP that he really doesn't owe us here at DU anything.

But that's not what I was responding to. I was responding to you insinuating that free journalism should somehow be held to a lower standard than something one pays for.

I am going to blame this on my lack of communication skills. What I originally intended to mean is that people chose to read the story and no one made them pay for it or demanded they read it.

Truthout and DU are free sites to read and by choosing to read them, you choose to believe or not believe what you read. I just think it is wrong to *demand* something from people who are giving you something. And as I said, I would feel differently if a person paid money for a service that was promised, and the seller didn't come through with the service as expected.

Maybe that makes more sense. Not that you agree or not, but as to what my original post was intended to say.

someone would think that journalism that doesn't "cost" anything should be expected to be less accurate than journalism that does. There is falsehood in both. And there is truth in both. That's my point. I'm not sure why you think I should identify a standard.

a standard, regardless of cost.

simply because it is free. And Leopold is just as responsible for what he wrote as someone reporting for the NY Times would be.

to "get the scoop."

you got that everyone out there in Hard Journalismland? Stop trying to get The Scoop...


can we stop beating him up now?

time. (Read it on a thread here at DU.) Wonder if that was... oh well... never mind.

A lot of us were/are very skeptical of internet rumors.

And yes, that's all this was, when it came down to it. Internet rumors.

Those of us who get our hard news from real journalists at real news organizations never bought into any of this bullshit.

That being said, the fact that people got duped by some internet rumor monger on DU and elsewhere is an inside-the-blogs story that 99.99% of Americansn will never hear or care about.

The entire thing is a non issue, except, hopefully, it may serve to bolster those who condemn rumormongering in the future and reduce, ever so slightly, the amount of tinfoil hat idiocy that occasionally rears its head here.

...and "real" news organizations also...Perhaps even more so. Personally, I still prefer the information on the Internet over the "real" news of the propaganda networks.

confuse advocacy with journalism.

Writing a fictitious story making things up about a Bush administration official getting indicted is not journalism. It's advocacy/rumor mongering. It has nothing whatsoever to do with real news reporting.

maybe it's a fuzzy science by nature.

but, by all means, lets all pile on Leopold and make sure no one ever advocates the left ever again.

but it is not hard journalism.

And critical thinkers here should be cautious about discerning the difference between advocacy and journalism.

does "hard" mean "difficult?"
does "hard" mean "New York Times?"
does "hard" mean "infallible?"


critical thinkers should also know that "journalism" isn't a "hard science." there is no universal truth when reporting on HUMAN EVENTS. we aren't "billiard balls writ small" -- news isn't matter in motion. it's fluid. things change. people get things wrong.

but make no mistake -- Leopold did not INTEND to get this wrong. He didn't INTEND to injure the left's position. he was acting in GOOD FAITH. to pile onto him is divisive and BAD FAITH -- unless, of course, everyone of his detractors have a spotless record of producing "hard journalism." Even Dan Rather couldn't live up to that.

And neither can the NYTimes or the Washington Post...

:)

I very much agree with your statement! It's up to each one of us to use discretion when sifting through all of the available information. I can't count how many times the mainstream press has published blatantly false propaganda, and yet, they're rarely called on it. I believe Leopold was sincere, and let's face it, if you wrote for a blog and someone with credentials gave you a huge scoop, what would you do? The odds are, he had more than one source of info. I'd probably run with it.

Rule of law is the first to go.

The T.O. Editor KNEW who Leopold's sources were/are.

Not so much trying to find fault with your post really, just sayin'.

Despite what other DU'ers think, Leopold and TO followed/follow responsible journalism.

We have a winner.

We, meaning ME/I, need to stop guessing at what will happen and just hammer home what has happened.

The bots are out in force today. I guess that's part of the plan.

There is a system established to protect people when it comes to material goods because there are some things that are too dangerous to not be regulated. Of course there is little danger here with these stories, except that no one will believe us again, even if we are right.

is it really a "material good?"

do you really want to hold people responsible for IDEAS? should we punish people for "bad ideas?" or for being "wrong?" should it be a fine? imprisonment?

I just mean that we shouldn't just blame the reader, we should also blame the writer for writing a false story.

:)

slipping down the slope right there with ya.

:rofl:

I agree, I should have made more sense. :rofl:

:)

Freedom of the press is important even when the press is wrong. Hell...helf of what you learned in American history class is wrong and I don't see anyone filing class action suits to get refunds on their history books or compensation for time spent being misinformed.

In the long run, we all need to weigh information.

As far as no one ever believing us again, Rathers' story about Bush was factually correct but got discredited anyway.

with here.

what if Leopold got his "facts" right? what if his source was ROVE himself?

because the right wing has *cultural hegemony* -- or, a dominant position in the media -- Leopold is being treated like a TRAITOR. as if he alone has sunk the entire left wing of the press. holy crap! you'd have to be a crazy person to want to report for "our side" after this episode.

we are being very bad... eating our own... we need to reflect on this and be absolutely sure that we are prepared to face the consequences...

That's why when someone reports that a person will be indicted in a case where the proscutor has tight lips, they buy it.

That's why when someone reports a person WON'T be indicted in a case where the prosecutor has tight lips, they buy it.

Will Pitt behaved badly in his defense of this story when he posted a certain thread one night in a rage, and some want blood.

this is part of the maturing of the Internet as a "news" source for many here and millions of other Americans. It is good to recognize the mistakes and the foibles and learn from them. I think most people have learned from this "incident". And we will be more skeptical of stories such as these in the future. That is a good thing, imo... It has not made us weaker - it has made us stronger. But, I am an eternal optimist... :)

the Rovegate affair. It is a perfect example of how even we can watch the carrot too closely.

Like reading and listening everyone does at their own peril. This is a learning experience for some, but for others this is old hand.

You should only measure the actual prison time they serve, everything else is B.S.

Journalists have a responsibility to report the truth.

Journalists have a responsibility to report facts. Journalists have a responsibility to research their sources and determine the credibility of those sources. Journalists have a responsibility to report that which is newsworthy and not sit on it.

All the facts are not in on this issue yet.

I recall back in the 80's, Robert Parry taking a severe hit on his career for reporting that there were mass graves in central America during the war. He was discredited for that story and it was the beginning of the end of his career in the MSM.

Just so happens it took over 15 years for those mass graves to be uncovered. Back in 2000, the mass graves were reportedly uncovered with barely a peep from the MSM.

There is one and only one fact in this case: an indictment having been filed on May 12th.

The story was ridiculous the day it was published. It's been totally discredited now.

No indictment from May 12th is going to magically spring forth.

but many of the documents in this case are still sealed and the prosecutor is not talking. The indictment story could have been a manipulation by either side of this case as both would have reason to do so.

To my knowledge, the prosecutor has not confirmed Luskin's letter and Luskin has not produced it, unless I missed it.

Also, someone owes the American people an apology for blowing the cover of her firm and her contacts.

Also, someone owes the American people an apology for turning bright people away from serving in the government, because why would anybody with even half a brain serve "leaders" who would so casually betray them...Now, we'll be "lucky" to get the caliber of people like good old Brownie.

Oh, and we also deserve an apology for the coup of 2000, 2002, 2004. And Sept. 11. and on and on.
I'm not holding my breath, tho.

On Iraq, he admitted no error: "We have no excuses to make for it."


http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sidney_blumenthal/2006/06/the_liberation_of_karl_rove.html