Latest Truthout Article---The Post's Curious Interest in Leopold and TO-

On Monday, The Washington Post published an article titled, "My Unwitting Role in the Rove 'Scoop'" by Joe Lauria. It's a hit piece, plain and simple.

For the record, Jason Leopold is not acting alone on the Rove indictment story. All of TO's senior editors are participating in interviewing sources, verifying facts and vetting every sentence published before the story goes live.

We find it curious that The Washington Post has taken such a keen interest in Jason Leopold and TO. The Lauria piece is only the latest in a series of pieces published by Post editors attacking - in a very personal manner - Jason Leopold and TO. But there has been no critical assessment of the facts we have reported. Why? Who is directing this smear campaign at the Post and why?

A Rather Backhanded Assault

The Post published Lauria's article as an opinion piece, but Lauria used that platform to present fact - fact without documentation. In reference to our report that a grand jury has returned an indictment of Karl Rove (a report that we do stand by), Lauria writes, "The report set off hysteria on the Internet, and the mainstream media scrambled to nail it down. Only ... it wasn't true." He is stating - as a fact - a premise that he does not even attempt to document or substantiate, and the Post is a willing host.

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/

for proof :crazy:

Shut up Marc. Just shut up.

Your "BS" I've only today been introduced to.

Do you think Karl Rove is secretly indicted and only Leopold and Ash know about it?

And Rove is targeting them through his shills at the Post because they know too much and speak truth to power?

You'll believe anything.

not a lot.

Here's another one..what do care what we believe? Huh? What's it to you?

and that includes rabidly anti TO posters at DU.

I'll still believe it when I see it, but I'm not going to fault anyone for getting punked by Rove and his criminals, if that is what has happened. It's not the first time, if that's what it is, and it won't be the last time.

happened....yet? Geez.

I still believe what they wrote. I believe Truthout before I believe the MSM. Isn't there a sealed indictment?

I was on vacation when the bullshit 'KKKRove will not be indicted' story came out. I suppose DU EXPLODED that day? ;)

shitlist.

Those who have read T.O. for years and truly know what they are far more likely to not act like outraged extremists without any real basis for the overdramatic rhetoric. And many on DU have read T.O., know what they are truly about and fall into the category of shock and utter disgust as to the swiftboating they've been dealing with. So I don't think they're on DU's shit list, I think they're on a bunch of individuals shit list.

I for one definitely still consider T.O. to be an honorable, reputable and valuable source of information that is an important member of the left wing community.

if it turns out to all be untrue, that NOTHING Leopold wrote was even remotely close to the truth in this case? Would they still be "honorable, reputable and valuable source of information"?

:-)

:)

Of course I do have to ask: So you don't mind being misled all this time? If it turns out to be untrue in its entirety then you will just shrug and say "oops" and wait with baited breath for the next Leopold "scoop"?

Pitt posted the "Rove has been indicted" article here but I didn't get that excited. I didn't hear about it on any other news outlet so I kept my cool. I took a wait and see attitude. And I'm still waiting and seeing. I believe their sources are people very close to the case. And I don't think they can reveal them because those sources could be in hot water. So I'm guessing these sources are a close relative/friend of a juror or a close relative/friend of Fitz's team.

And no, I will not wait with baited breath for their next scoop because I didn't wait with baited breath before.

I'll be damned if I let it take just one time when sources led T.O. astray to erase all the beneficial and worthy things for our cause they've done. I have enjoyed them for years and will continue to do so. I'll never hold anybody to such a high standard that they are unable to make one mistake or risk losing everything, as if I did I would have no respect in myself whatsoever and would never again be able to believe that I treat people fairly.

But don't take that to portray that I think they made that error. I'm still not convinced overall that they did.

"what would you say if it turns out to all be untrue, that NOTHING Leopold wrote was even remotely close to the truth"

See, you are assuming that TO and Leopold were misled by sources. I am asking you what would you say if it turns out there are no sources at all?

I ask this because so far not one word of that article has been "documented or substantiated", to use Marc Ash's phrase. We are TOLD there are sources. We have not seen any EVIDENCE of that. Not ONE thing they are supposed to have said has been proven accurate, so for all we know, they don't even exist.

Would you still believe TO are honorable, reputable and a valuable source of information, if it turns out the whole thing was untrue?

Both questions are absurd to me in their nature. Those that truly know T.O. know that the chances of ALL of them at T.O. flat out lying with bad intent this whole time is a one in a billion scenario, and not deserving of any real consideration. Now you may want to believe they lied, but I question your judgement of their character. But you can feel however you want.

And to answer the question: No, I wouldn't believe they were so honorable then. But you wouldn't want to be a democrat if you had to eat infants for fun either. But since both notions are ridiculous in reality, why waste time pondering them?

Firstly I never said everyone at TO would have to be lying. In fact the only people who have said anything about this at TO are Leopold and Ash. That's two people. One is the reporter who would get the fame, and the other is the managing director of the site that would get the fame.

Yet you tell me there is no way these guys could be lying? Well Leopold ADMITS to having done it in the past, and I have no reason to believe that Ash is incapable of it.

What I find interesting is that simply by reading TO, you seem to believe you know what kind of people these two are? Sure, if you actually know them personally I would be inclined to put more weight in your opinion of their likely behaviour, but just by reading their web site? Sorry but I don't buy it.

Oh and to answer your question - yes I'd still be a Democrat, but the people who ate infants wouldn't be.

And if you have been paying attention to this story you'd know that more than just Jason and Marc were handling it. It has been said multiple times that many at T.O. were involved. So no, I don't think T.O. as an entity has all of a sudden said "fuck the left, let's devise some big ruse to really get to them". That's what would've had to have happened in order for your sentiment to be true, and that's why I find the potential for that to be the case to be ridiculous.

As far as your answer to my rhetorical question goes, it was intended to mean that in order to be considered a democrat, you too had to eat infants for fun. That it all of a sudden was a requirement. But since you wanted to dissect a rhetorical question with an obvious conclusion, I'll offer a different one. Would you still put on clothes if it was discovered that every article of clothing you put on magically killed a child in a third world country? I would hope you wouldn't, but the notion of that being true some day is absurd. So would the notion of a billion other rhetorical absurd scenarios that you could put there instead. Parsing each one isn't the point. The question asked isn't what mattered. It was rhetorically made to show that your assertion that T.O. as an entity is lying and betraying our cause completly is equally absurd to me. Got it?

seperating CLAIM from FACT.

It has been said multiple times that many at T.O. were involved

Said by ASH!!! Of course if he were lying...

So no, I don't think T.O. as an entity has all of a sudden said "fuck the left, let's devise some big ruse to really get to them".

Umm, can you point to anywhere where I said anything like that? Can you not conceive of the possibility they may have lied simply for personal gain? Or that Leopold lied for personal gain but Ash is just tryiong to prevent TO going down the toilet because of it? You say that the ONLY way they could have lied is if they were out to destroy the "left". Is paranoia a requirment to be a TO supporter nowadays? If it's not claiming everyone who criticises TO is a freeper in the emply of Rove, its claiming that only if TO were out to "get" the left, would they dare lie!

It was rhetorically made to show that your assertion that T.O. as an entity is lying and betraying our cause completly is equally absurd to me. Got it?

See there it is again - I wrote "what if they lied", you read "what if they betrayed our cause". I think that is very significant.

In fact it could very well be why you are fighting so hard to believe TO - because for you if they lied it would be a betrayal of the cause. For me it would be just another asshole out to make a name for themselves by spinning a line of bullshit.

I'm just not that emotionally invested in TO and so I can look at what they say without fearing that I might find out I was betrayed.

Neither am I. But what I am emotionally invested in is defending anyone against unfair and irrational smears and attack. I will always stand up for those unfairly persecuted against and viciously attacked without due cause.

not worth it and this is a duplicate thread in any event.

After all, it was TO that attacked Rove by claiming he had been indicted. Of course no one wants to defend Rove, but making TO out to be the victim here is just plain bullshit. They brought this on themselves by publishing a story that had no supporting evidence and as far as anyone can tell has no basis in fact.

why they are not standing by Rove? :rofl:

"But what I am emotionally invested in is defending anyone against unfair and irrational smears and attack."

I see the word ANYONE, but obviously the poster doesn't mean ANYONE or they would have been defending Rove. In other words the claim is bullshit. The poster was not interested in defending ANYONE they were interested in defending TruthOut.

I mean Rove,he is such a liar, by his own words, he choked himself... He should of never even been involved with all of this.. Shows his bad character... Didn't he get fired by Poppy for some dirty underhanded thing??

Doesn't change the fact that TO brought all this shit on their own heads by publishing hearsay as facts and then failing in any way to prove their claims.

I mean seriously if you had seen all this but it was an article by a right wing site about John Kerry, would you still be defending that site? I doubt it. My point is - just because it is a site on our side of the line does not mean it should get a pass. Lies are lies.

fact that Rove has been dishonest from the beginning when he claimed he was not involved at all, that he never gave Plame's name to any reporter.. We know now, that is just not the case... I would prefer to concentrate on the bigger picture... Rove himself and his false actions, may not be criminal, but they are definitely lies...

But TO is the one that has created this farce. All they had to do is simply retract. Hell even a conditionaly retraction would have sufficed:

"We have been unable to confirm what we were told by our sources, and failing any future confirmation we have decided to retract this story."

Simple to the point yet still leaves a possibility of future information confirming their claim. Instead TO started making all sorts of bullshit excuses and claims. That is why this is still an issue.

the Bigger Picture in the end don't you think? And Rove continues to assault the party and that is why he is an issue for me.. He, in the long run, is doing more damage than anything...

There are no facts anywhere in this argument... nothing... nada... zilch...

who stated that he talked to Jason's sources too.

So you've got Leopold, Pitt, and Ash -- a real axis of evil, those three.

Good to know Pitt is not trustworthy after all .. *whew*.. I'm glad his book was a pack of lies, and, as I heard on Fox News this evening, Iraq really did have WMDs -- what a relief!

Go over to TO and find a link to a single word Pitt has said about this whole thing.

There isnt one. The last time Pitt said ANYTHING about all this was in the days immediately following the article, and Im pretty sure he doesn't want THOSE posts mentioned again. Since then silence. I wonder why?

for stories being, you know, actually true??


Silly us.

The WP puts out an article accusing them of wrongdoing and they're not supposed to respond?

Someone combine the threads, please.

3 minutes faster... damn Kpete is fast....

Hmmmmmm.....

Some arguments here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1473112&mesg_id=1473112

The Post published Lauria's article as an opinion piece, but Lauria used that platform to present fact - fact without documentation.

That's why it is called an "opinion" piece! LOL.

Lauria writes, "The report set off hysteria on the Internet, and the mainstream media scrambled to nail it down. Only ... it wasn't true." He is stating - as a fact - a premise that he does not even attempt to document or substantiate, and the Post is a willing host.

Ok Mr Ash, I see where you're going with this - this mainstream media guy, in an opinion piece, stated a "fact" but did not present any documentation of substantiation of it. So, may I ask where is your documentation and subtantiation for this:

Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators

We've been waiting weeks now to see it. At least Lauria named the sources for his claim in regards to Leopold using his identity. How about you guys over a TO naming some sources?

Finally, let me ask one simple little question. Where in that "article" does Ash, Leopold or anyone of TO's "senior editors" deny that Leopold used Lauria's identity. I mean it's one thing for Ash to demand that Lauria prove it, but a simple "I did not use Joe Lauria's identity" from Leopold would be better.

In fact check out the weasel wording:

For the record, since the entire basis for Lauria's story is a poorly defined, and factually uncorroborated version of events

"Poorly defined"? Well it seems pretty well defined to me, either Leopold claimed to be someone whose particulars were extremely close to Joe Lauria's, or he didn't. "Factually uncorroborated"? So Ash and Leopold need to see the evidence before they can tell whether the claim is true or not? Doesn't Leopold KNOW???

Why did Ash just not say "this claim, which Jason Leopold categorically denies..."? Could it be he DID do it, but they are playing a "you can't prove anything" game?

If he won't burn them, why don't they? Except that they uh, think they're still right? Um ok...

I don't see any demand for a retraction in truthout's latest proclamation.

Odd, since they insinuated in one of their earlier "uh oh" statements that a failure to ask for a retraction was somehow proof of the veracity of their claim that Rove had, in fact, been served with an indictment on May 12.

I believe it was, "We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone."

facts without documentation! :rofl:

truthout doesn't do satire?

:D

Classic. Did Leopold impersonate Lauria or not? Based on TO's failure to deny the allegation, we can probably assume that he did. So, if he did do this, why is TO complaining about the WP? Shouldn't they be upset about Leopold's journalistic practices instead? Guess not. How is it a hit piece if it's true? They talk a lot here about how their story is right, but they don't really address whether Leopold really did impersonate Lauria. Wasn't that supposed to be the whole point of this update? Instead, they'll go onto unrelated tangents & make insinuations about WP & Lauria's motives w/o, technically, denying the allegation. Another long-winded non-answer from TO. I really should stop reading these things.

Ash has choosen to jump in the cesspool w/ Leopold.