Reply #47: It got big play in the blogosphere? As in where and was it supportive? [View All]

The MSM is turning another meme into "fact." (Like "everyone thought there were WMD's in Iraq.")

Most of the blogs and news sites I usually check out either didn't mention the "Rove indicted" story at all, or mentioned it briefly and let it go, and some said they were only mentioning it because people kept emailing about it but didn't give it much play or credence. And when the story was mentioned, it was generally at arms length and they were not uncritically supportive. In fact, rather than embracing the story I'd say the responses of the "lefty" blogosphere of note generally ranged from cautious to dubious to witheringly scathing. As we know, the TO story and Leopold have been raked over the coals on the "lefty" blogs and sites and the dissenters cannot all be categorized simply as RW'ers or freepers.

RawStory didn't touch the "Rove indicted" story, didn't even link to it as I recall. HuffPo had as I recall one person's blog article going does anyone else have anything on this and that was it. FDL didn't touch it until people kept bringing it up and then said they were dubious about the story. Next Hurrah apparently didn't have a great relationship with Leopold dating to a previous exchange months before and apparently it didn't get better after the Rove story. Needlenose/Swopa had been dubious about Leopold's reporting for months at least. Kos was a bit of a battleground and last I saw my understanding was that Leopold was relegated to the status of a not credible source. Just to name a few spots I saw. Also TPM, Steve Clemons and some others.

Maybe I just normally only look at the more cautious lib blogs, but I had to search to find places that were covering the Plame case and find mention of the TO story. And what I did find was not particularly overwhelmingly supportive of Leopold's reports. Yet, if one were to believe the Rovian spin, one would assume Leopold's stories received nothing but adulatory uncritical belief from the "left." And that was not the case. And certainly not the case at DU (which is not a blog but a discussion board, just to be picky).

The TO/Leopold story "broke" into the MSM because it was FED to the MSM. Look at where it started appearing, the authors and their sources, the NRO, NY Sun, WaPo's Kurtz, WSJ: traditional outlets for the Rove/Libby talking points. Now why and how would that happen? Or do we think Howie Kurtz stumbled on the nonexistent "blogosphere firestorm" all by himself and then thought, hey maybe I'll give a call to Rove's spokesman's guy, that uh Mark? fella, maybe I can get some copy out of this? (As it was, Kurtz had an article as I recall that seemed to copy portions of a Talk Left article word for word without direct attribution. Sheer coincidence? Or was he directed to the blog aticle or sent a copy and then didn't even bother to hide a cut and paste job.)

Please don't just accept and repeat the meme the corporate media has been fed by the Rove team and in turn perpetuates to the masses. The "Rove indicted" story wasn't that BIG in the lib blogosphere; to the extent it was mentioned it generally was regarded with skepticism when it wasn't actually attacked. Which is why it's interesting that the Rovian spin want to suggest/claim that it was BIG.

As we've seen the nonmonolithic Left doesn't take second place to anyone in criticism of itself. For those who are credulous and apparently would believe anything they read on the net if it confirms their views, there are many others who will critically examine, take it apart and declare it BS if it appears dubious, not credible, unsubstantiated or actual disinformation.