My Unwitting Role in the Rove 'Scoop' (Wapo)

Talkleft's take on this article
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015104.html

My Unwitting Role in the Rove 'Scoop'

By Joe Lauria
Sunday, June 18, 2006; Page B02

The May 13 story on the Web site Truthout.org was explosive: Presidential adviser Karl Rove had been indicted by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald in connection with his role in leaking CIA officer Valerie Plame's name to the media, it blared. The report set off hysteria on the Internet, and the mainstream media scrambled to nail it down. Only . . . it wasn't true.

As we learned last week, Rove isn't being indicted, and the supposed Truthout scoop by reporter Jason Leopold was wildly off the mark. It was but the latest installment in the tale of a troubled young reporter with a history of drug addiction whose aggressive disregard for the rules ended up embroiling me in a bizarre escapade -- and raised serious questions about journalistic ethics.

In his nine-year reporting career, Leopold has managed, despite his drug abuse and a run-in with the law, to work with such big-time news organizations as the Los Angeles Times, Dow Jones Newswire and Salon. He broke some bona fide stories on the Enron scandal and the CIA leak investigation. But in every job, something always went wrong, and he got the sack. Finally, he landed at Truthout, a left-leaning Web site.

I met Leopold once, three days before his Rove story ran, to discuss his recently published memoir, "News Junkie." It seems to be an honest record of neglect and abuse by his parents, felony conviction, cocaine addiction -- and deception in the practice of journalism.

much more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601754.html

and look how good he turned out.

why the emphasis on the drug thing anyway?

Because Jason Leopold writes about his own drug use/addiction and compares it to his drive to scoop news in his own book "News Junkie" (the title doesn't just mean he is a fan of the news).

Per Joe Lauria's article: "Leopold says he gets the same rush from breaking a news story that he did from snorting cocaine. To get coke, he lied, cheated and stole. To get his scoops, he has done much the same. As long as it isn't illegal, he told me, he'll do whatever it takes to get a story, especially to nail a corrupt politician or businessman." {Emphasis mine}

You don't have to believe me or Lauria, you can read Jason Leopold's own words in Chapter 2 of "News Junkie" (PDF) for yourself. Then again, who can tell how much of that book is true and how much is self-aggrandizement: just like the rest of his writing. I won't call any of it "journalism".

More on "News Junkie" from the publisher here.

Especially Chapter 2.

Did you read the whole thing? Leopold's got some serious problems.

Leopold says he gets the same rush from breaking a news story that he did from snorting cocaine. To get coke, he lied, cheated and stole. To get his scoops, he has done much the same. As long as it isn't illegal, he told me, he'll do whatever it takes to get a story, especially to nail a corrupt politician or businessman. "A scoop is a scoop," he trumpets in his memoir. "Other journalists all whine about ethics, but that's a load of crap."

...Merritt had called Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department spokesman who is now privately employed by Rove. She reported that Corallo said he had "never spoken with someone identifying himself as 'Jason Leopold.' He did have conversations Saturday and Sunday . . . but the caller identified himself as Joel something or other from the Londay Sunday Times. . . . At one point . . . he offered to call Joel back, and was given a cell phone number that began with 917. When he called the number back, it turned out not to be a number for Joel."

A chill went down my back. I freelance for the Sunday Times. My first name is often mistaken for Joel. My cellphone number starts with area code 917.

I called Corallo. He confirmed that my name was the one the caller had used. Moreover, the return number the caller had given him was off from mine by one digit. Corallo had never been able to reach me to find out it wasn't I who had called. He said he knew who Leopold was but had never talked to him.

I called Leopold. He gave me a profanity-filled earful, saying that he'd spoken to Corallo four times and that Corallo had called him to denounce the story after it appeared....

Wow. No ethics. Like a Republican....

It would be a big improvement, from a professional perspective, if Truthout's writers/representatives/defenders were required to deal with comments, questions or criticisms without resorting to cursing at people.

This story seems to confirm what a bunch of us here have been saying about Jason Leopold's 'Rove Indictment' story: it was a fantasy from the beginning.

I'm anxious to read the update to the 'Rove Indictment' saga that TruthOut promised last Wednesday, "Expect a more comprehensive accounting of this matter on Monday, June 19". Do you think Ash et al will finally own-up to the fraud? Or will they be reluctant to admit any guilt, perhaps because of liability concerns?

K&R for the Truth. TinMan over and Out.

1. They said they spoke to leopold's sources and their own as well.
2. Leopold being a nut case isn't really their problem unless he screws them. Because they said they spoke to the sources they can't say he screwed them.

The only thing this proves is Leopold is a lying scumbag.

that Corrallo, a man employed by Rove, is just as capable of making up a bunch of bullshit as Leopold is. More cabaple, probably. Joe Lauria I know nothing about. But why is it automatically assumed that someone EMPLOYED BY KARL ROVE is above board on this?

I guess that will be my only comment for now... just one big "ouch!"

worth defending :sarcasm:

but there is more to this than we can see right now. Too many smear campaigns have been waged against the innocent by the Rove crew. I will wait and see.

I am in complete agreement with you

Some very ODD circumstances and events

We are not seeing "the big picture"

Many of the pieces to this puzzle do not seem to fit...

what am I missing?

This is so similar to that it's crazy.

There is no indictment.

There was draft dodging and cocaine abuse.

Not even close.

That's what you are missing.

I don't know Jason Leopold from a hole in the wall, but I believe Will.

Something does not add up....

He's a freelance journalist whose primary beat is the UN. A snip from a recent posting at HUFFPO by him--he's not following the talking points here, by any means:

So for the New Jersey Republican Party state chairman, Tom Wilson, to attack Bob Menendez today, who I distinctly recall hearing on the radio at the time delivering a brilliant speech on the House floor explaining why he was voting AGAINST the resolution giving Bush the power to invade, shows willful ignorance.

Wilson said:

" ... This moment also provides a clear and compelling reminder of why Bob Menendez should not be sitting in the United States Senate. If Bob Menendez had his way, Zarqawi would still be leading a campaign of car bombings, assassinations, suicide attacks, kidnapping and beheadings in order to make Iraq a safe haven from which al Qaeda could continue its war against freedom and the American way of life. If Bob Menendez had his way, Mr. Zarqawi would be alive and plotting the next attack on America, Great Britain, Canada or who knows where."

Wilson completely misses the point. Had Menendez's position prevailed and there were no invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi would still be the petty, obscure thug he was before March 2003.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/nj-chairman-wrong-to-atta_b_22665.html

And if you read the original cite in the first post, Lauria initially expressed sympathy for Leopold. That sympathy turned sour when he found out the guy had stolen Lauria's identity and reputation to try to get a quote.

That's just WRONG, no matter how you try to slice or dice it.

it totally unethical! Not to mention a bald-faced lie.

"I met Leopold once, three days before his Rove story ran, to discuss his recently published memoir, "News Junkie ."

It would have been out there in the public eye that they had spoken if he did.

...there's no grand urgency there. Given the circumstances, I'd abandon that effort if I were Lauria. How can you possibly review a book whose author co-opts your identity and reputation in such unethical fashion?

by smearing the messenger. Same old same old.
Not that I believe he was indicted (personally I'd rather see him testify at Libby's trial).
He may just be trying to make everybody sick of following the story, so when his fate does finally come out people will just roll their eyes.
I am sure they have some cute name for this type of perception management maneuver.

edit: by vulnerable I mean with a shady past, like Jim Hatfield. Or a shady present for that matter.
Someone it wouldn't take much effort to discredit.

A lot of folks believe that Dan Rather was taken-down by a Rovian plot in 'Memo-gate' just prior to the 2004 elections (my personal take on it: I'm leaning in that direction). Does Dan Rather have a shady past I'm not aware of?

Perhaps Rather was a special project, not quite the throw-down that Hatfield was. Definitely a rovian move though. And a twofer, since they silenced Barnett(Burnett?) with it.

Yeah, besides being somewhat of a strange bird at times, Rather has had a long and interesting career: from covering the breaking story of the JFK assassination on live TV, to singing his favorite 'train songs' on Letterman; from sneaking into Afghanistan to travel with the Muhajedeen as they fought the Russians, to being duped in the Memogate scandal in the run-up to the 2004 election. And not to be forgotten, that infamous muggering on the streets of NYC, in which his assailants demanded to know, "What's the frequency, Kenneth?".

A wild ride, for sure.

the jury is out in my view.

Did you go to talk left? Ms. Merritt virtually confirms all this as she was in on much of it.

yet they published a badly written story chock-a-block with inconsistencies as fact.

That would suggest to me (a journalism graduate who has worked in the media although I no longer do) that Leopold believes that the ends justify the means.

Hell, I worked on the features section of a major metropolitan newspaper and if I had done anything like Leopold did, my ass would have been run out the door.

I left because the grass was greener and the paycheck higher elsewhere.

I'm sure that's what happened to Jayson Blair as well.

How about getting it the MOST RIGHT instead of getting it first?

Damn, I'd rather read an accurate story a day later than read an inaccurate one, or a sloppy, hurried one.

Angling for the scoop has destroyed or at least harmed the credibility of otherwise good news organizations.

"A Million Little Indictments"

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl:

:eyes:

... A Million Little Indictments!!! A ha ha ha ha! (Oh my sides!)

:D

"a million little lies"

Raises Leopold's credibility, far as I'm concerned, and I was never on "his side".

You think that was a hatchet job? Which part that isn't a quote from his own book?

What about this....

"We may never know what really happened. Most mainstream news organizations have dismissed the Leopold story as egregiously wrong. But even if he had gotten it right and scooped the world on a major story, his methods would still raise a huge question: What value does journalism have if it exposes unethical behavior unethically? Leopold seems to assume, as does much of the public, that all journalists practice deception to land a story. But that's not true. I know dozens of reporters, but Leopold is only the second one I've known (the first did it privately) to admit to doing something illegal or unethical on the job."

off course they're gonna pile-on a leftist internet journalist...

maybe the question needs to be "what value does journalism have if it promotes disinformation unethically?"

Because that is what the whores on the right do every day and you don't see them getting hung out to dry about it.

Leopold is a 'leftist'?

credentials sufficient to gain entry to Bush's press briefings? No. But all of a sudden he is being put in the same category as these people who would otherwise dismiss him. The fury with which he was attacked here and elsewhere on the web, as well as the hatchet job from this particular "reporter" all seem like overkill. The attack dogs have been let loose. The question is, WHY? Why so much wrath for such a pion on the wacky web? Obviously, Leopold came in contact with someone or something that threatened the right wing. If Leopold is of the same stature as the WaPO, then so is Larisa Alexandrova, Will Pitt, etal. Let's see how widely the doors of the MSM open up to all of them since the Web is now so "mainstream." Furthermore, where is the author's responsiblity for not vetting the story that he printed? He takes no responsibility and then tears down his "source." It's utter bullshit and that takes nothing away from the fact that Leopold was wrong.

You aren't dealing with reality. Do you know ANYTHING about this reporter? Look him up.

While you're at it please reflect on this Ash quote....

"There is no indication that Mr. Leopold acted unethically."

Laurie IS a 'leftist', Leopold...not so much.

The guy used the author's identity--his name, his paper, even 9 of the 10 digits of his phone number. I'd be pissed off, too. And I can't even BELIEVE the people on this thread who can still say "the jury's still out on the story" after all this. Face it, people: this kid has admitted to manipulating people to get stories, to misrepresenting himself and the facts to his sources and others. This was a gambit to gain attention for himself and he took all of truthout's readers for idiots. Because of him, t/o will have to work to regain any of its former credibility. Any breakthrough story that comes labeled with their name will now meet raised eyebrows and grain-of-salt attitudes from other news outlets.

revealed. I want to know what's uncovered. Why does the method of uncovering the story necessarily compromise the facts obtained, especially if they can be further cooraborated. That's the weakness of Jason's story, no cooroboration from the prosecutors office, not HOW he got the story. We still don't know HOW he got it, so it's strange to be focusing on some notion that he lied to the sources associated with THIS story without any proof of that.

Funny how the folks here complaining about journalistic ethics don't seem to give a damn about providing FACTS to support their theories about Jason's dishonesty regarding the Rove piece.

He has revealed ZERO VERIFIABLE FACTS regarding this story. NONE.

Now he is trying to take previously presented "facts" off the table.

He is also burying Ash and Pitt a little more every time he opens his mouth or puts pen to paper.

Sealed vs Sealed basically called Pitt and Ash liars yet they stand by their man. 'Till the death, of truth out, it seems.

Sad.

either his story will be substantiated or not. As of now, it remains unsubstantiated by actual facts yet to be presented from the prosecutors office.

The rest is a hatchet job. In my opinon, this article has the same mix of innuendo and distortion that the author pretends to be so concerned about.

The part about getting 'the sack' could apply to quite a few journalists. Jason's quote, "A scoop is a scoop," doesn't imply that he would forward anything he didn't believe to be true. It's a reflection of his zeal, his passion.

TL makes the stretch, though, to paint his Rove story as false. All they have is what the rest of us have. A cryptic, incomplete , second, third-hand account of what Fitz supposedly told Rove's lawyer over the phone; sourced entirely by Rove's lawyer. WITHOUT ANY CONFIRMATION AT ALL! But, that's what Jason's detractors, and TL are using as pretext to put a nail in Jason's story.

That's as dishonest as anything. Without relevant facts from the prosecutors office, most everything disscussed so far (outside of the obvious fact of Rove's apparent freedom), is speculation. To take this man's life and dissect it to prove him a liar - without relevant, supportable facts on the subject of the article in question - is sleazy journalism. To see this from our side, directed toward one of our own writer warriors, is sickening.

Please read the link in my post #10 above for Leopold's own words on his own journalistic methods, drug use and being sacked. It is only one chapter from his book, but it should give you the gist.

Once you finish reading it, I would be interested to hear if it changes your definitions of "dishonest", "sleazy journalism" and "writer warrior".

that was taken out of context to prove this story false. No where has Jason said he makes stories up, lies about them.

What's in your past that I should judge your opinion and credibility on?

Once again, please go read what Jason Leopold wrote about himself. The link is in post #10. Only Chapter 2 is available online, but it's an interesting read. Only 18 pages.

EDIT: if you have any difficulty opening PDF documents, I'll be happy to help.

I've RE-READ Jason's piece and NOWHERE does he say that he falsifies stories. The zeal he speaks of relates to sources and scoops. He NEVER says he would forward a story he knew was false.

That's the only thing relevant to the Rove story. Perhaps it implies that Jason might have too much trust in his sources, but that's it. The rest that you and Lauria are pimping is your own interpretation, stretch, that Jaspn's zeal indicates that he would lie, especially on the Rove story, for the rush he describes. NOWHERE in Jason's account does he say this.

that's all.

What reason would he, and Merritt have to make this up? Rather than assuming that Lauria, The Washington Post, TalkLeft, and Corrallo are lying about this, doesn't it make more sense to think that Leopold was the one who was lying? He's apparantly used this method before.

with the law? Dam I guess that makes me a piece of shit too. :(

I was a journalist for 25 years. No credible journalist impersonates another journalist to get a story.

:thumbsup:

And thank you.

I don't give a shit HOW they do it. If that makes them bad journalists in someone's eyes then so be it. A reputation may be a wonderful thing to nurture and hold, but criminals and liars don't usually make their actions available for scrutiny on demand.

The Bush regime should be pushed hard. Their clique should be infiltrated and exposed. I. for one, don't care HOW anyone goes about nailing these criminals in print, as long as we get the goods.

I completely agree with you that their cabal should be exposed, but you need to look beyond the feel-good moment of catching them with their pants down and forward to the moment when a reporter is called before a grand jury. As journalists, our credibility is the only thing we have to sell, and as human beings, our ethics reflect not only on us, but on those who hire us and the people whose voices we raise.

the rest is for critics, not *on folks really concerned with the information TO is trying to provide.

I don't know squat about how some of the major stories have been uncovered. Look at Woodward. He's slime. Look at the way he put together his Clinton and Bush books with his 'interviews' that he says are truth because the 'facts' he asserts aren't refuted.

But, Watergate . . . didn't he say he talked to Casey when he was in a coma? How DO you separate the methods used to obtain a story from information that bears out? If Woodward, who I think has the worst type of journalistic standards imaginable, breaks a fact-based, supportable story about the Bush regime, should it be cast out because of past transgressions?

Where DO we banish these productive folks whose zeal outpaces their ethics? Should we? They won't just dry up and die because we criticize them. They do produce. Maybe not now, but there could be a moment . . .

Besides, what DO we really know about how Jason went about getting this story besides the possibility that he used this man's name? Does that really negate the story? That's what my primary interest is, as an outsider. Is Rove, was Rove, in the jeopardy described in Jason's article or not? FACTS still haven't resolved that question.

edit:*

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

They use their own names, but it's still an impersonation.

Also, Leopold denies that this is what happened, and if Lauria did indeed do some kind of interview or book review of Leopold's memoir that was published it would just be positively Rovian for it to be spun this way by Corallo just for the pure hell of it.

I repeat: CORALLO WORKS FOR KARL ROVE. This is KARL ROVE we are talking about, people.

do we?

He got fed false information. Gee, where have we seen this before (pounding head)? Think, think.

Oh well...

Hey on another subject did you see that Dan Rather is getting the final heave ho from CBS?

need him?

since rumours had been flying for months and months about a potential Rove indictment, Leopold let his imagination get the better of him, convinced himself that there was a big scoop to be had, and perhaps had an unreliable source feeding his imagination along the way.... so he was keen to jump on a non-story and present it as fact even though he - and his editors - knew that they had not a single piece of paper to support the story.

I think that they (Leopold and his TO editors) were hoping they were right even though they should have known they could just as likely be dead wrong, but they were willing to take a chance on a big scoop without putting the time and effort into actually ascertaining the facts.

That's not good journalism no matter how you slice it.

It was bad enough that the initial story was so poorly written in the first place and so rampant with internal and external inconsistencies that it was impossible for any discerning reader to imagine that any writer worth his salt could make so many errors or that the story could have been factual on its face. It clearly was not. It's worse, though, that truthout wanted people to believe the nonsense so badly that it not only backed the ludicrous initial story but its editors added that "a dozen eyes" reviewed the story (according to a TO editor who posted same here on DU) before it was published and every one of those dozen eyes also managed to miss all of the glaring errors and inconsistencies in the initial story.

(never mind the 24 hours/24 business hours bit, which truthout went to great pains to try to explain via other websites like DU about the fact that they had edited their story on their own site, without ever acknowledging the edits on their own site - prettty strange, that.)

Since then, truthout has published "partial apologies" and "clarifications" and "standing down" announcements over the past 5 or 6 weeks since they first published the bogus story, and a couple of days ago, they said that they are going to provide something further on Monday, June 19th (following the widespread news on June 12 and 13 that Fitz does not intend to indict Rove (and by necessary implication, the reality that he had never been indicted in the first place).

So, stay tuned.

More bullshit is sure to follow.

where are your facts? where is your proof that Jason deliberately fowarded a story he knew was false?

How does your innuendo and conjecture comport with your high journalistic standards?

Do you want people to believe the nonsense about Jason lying so badly that you are willing to just make shit up?

Did you miss the opening words of my post? They were "my guess is..."

Look up "guess" in the dictionary if you don't know what it means.

Did you also miss the fact that I never said that Leopold "deliberately forwarded a story he knew was false"?

Did you also miss the fact that I never said that Leopold was "lying"?

What's with the false accusations? Do you work for truthout or something?

That the story was poorly written is obvious. That it did not comport to journalistic standards above those of, say, the National Enquirer, is equally obvious. That truthout and its editors have been skating ever since, trying to cover their butts for having run the badly written, internally and externally inconsistent story is the first place, is also obvious.

Contrary to your assertions, I haven't made anything up. I expressed my opinion, and set it out as such. You, on the other hand....

Sad in a head-shaking kind of way, and funny in an eyes-rolling kind of way.

Sad and funny... but mostly sad.

Get in line, arwalden!

;)

I don't get it, either.

If you think all scoops don't have to be agressively pursued then you're kidding yourself. Of course, there are degrees, but all of the tongue-clucking is pretty funny considering that we don't have any idea HOW most journalists collect the scoops we sometimes trumpet, including Jason's.

When did the "cause" become more important that THE TRUTH?

<< If you think all scoops don't have to be agressively pursued then you're kidding yourself. >>

Strawman. To my knowledge, nobody has suggested such a thing... yet you act as if someone HAS. --- So you're able to knock over the strawman you've created and pretend to score valuable "points". Eh?

<<... we don't have any idea HOW most journalists collect the scoops we sometimes trumpet, including Jason's.>>

As far as the Rove "indictment" is concerned, we can assume with a great degree of certainty that he either a) made it up based on sketchy evidence and a vivid imagination, or b) his eagerness to get a "scoop" made him gullible to believing false information, or c) he just doesn't care enough to verify the information before running with it.

Regardless of which one of those things it is... one final thing is abundantly clear: that when it is abundantly clear that Rove was NOT indicted (as had been claimed) Leopold refused to reveal his sources (as he said he would do) and we have yet to hear a retraction, or an apology, or any sort of sincere mea-culpa.

Instead they merely "defer" to the traditional news media. (Not an admission of actually being wrong, mind you... they are--in effect--saying that they still maintain that their story was/is correct... but that they are "outgunned" and so they will stop trying to make their case any longer.

It's positively ASTOUNDING that there are people on DU that still (STILL!) defend those jokers. They are so caught-up in their fantasy that they just can't let go. They were so convinced that a Rove indictment would have been the linchpin that would tie and hold-together all the elements of this complex case... that they refuse to accept the reality that he's not going to be indicted for lying to the grand jury.

Why are people not holding progressive journalists (and news sources) to the same standards that we demand from traditional news sources? When did it become acceptable for progressive journalists to become the same as the journalists that we despise?

I smell hypocrisy. You hear a wooshing sound.

the rest may be subject for an editor's/writer's symposium, but having relevant, supportable facts uncovered are MY main concern. The 'sources' use deception to hide information, keep it from being uncovered and revealed, used by any other than their precious clique. It should be clear to everyone that sometimes reporters have to use unsavory methods to pull the facts out of reluctant, secretive 'sources'. The supportability of product is what determines acceptability.

Sometimes methods of uncovering a story are important where there is no supportable evidence, but in the case of the Rove story, I don't see the connection between Jason using the guy's name and the credibility of the 'scoop'. The rest is subject for some ethics symposium. It hasn't been shown, by you or anyone else, that some lack of journalistic ethics rendered Jason's Rove article false.

<< Either the 'scoop' bears out, is supportable by other facts, or it doesn't >>

It almost sounds as though you believe that there's still some doubt as to whether Leopold's story about Rove's "indictment" is false. It's as if you're still waiting (hoping) for Leopold to be vindicated.

<< sometimes reporters have to use unsavory methods to pull the facts out of reluctant, secretive 'sources'. >>

The available evidence thus far suggests that Leopold's "unsavory method" was to "pull the facts out of" ... HIS ASS!

But, assuming that he did obtain his information from "reluctant" or "secretive" sources... it certainly doesn't say much for the (ahem) journalist who barrels ahead with no confirmation or verification.

What else does it say about the "journalist" who assures that he would reveal his sources if the story were false, and now, one month later, has still not done so?

<< It hasn't been shown, by you or anyone else, that some lack of journalistic ethics rendered Jason's Rove article false. >>

What are you talking about? What point are you trying to make? It looks like you're trying to create another strawman argument. Someone's abundance-of-ethics or lack-of-ethics does not make a story true or false.

In your mind, what exactly what DID "render" Leopold's article false? (I mean... assuming that you actually agree that the story *is* false.) --- The phrase that first pops into my mind is "journalistic incompetence".

How can progressives hope to hold traditional media sources to high standards of BOTH ethics AND competence when so many of us are too willing to give free-passes to progressive writers and alternate news sources? That's hypocrisy.


PS: Do you know "Jason" personally?

I just think the same standards that detractors expect from Jason should be applied to whatever conjecture they make about the facts, the sources, or whatever assertion they put forward. That's why I can't just independently conclude the story is false. There is no PROOF beyond what ROVE"S LAWYER told the press. They swallowed it whole, so did many of Jason's detractors.

FACTS. Independently, target oriented, supportable facts. That's what Jason's story lacks now until some revelation comes from Fitz. That's what the detractor's claims that the story was made up lack with their written and verbal assertions. Same missing element. Supportable facts.

edit: "strawman" The article in the OP clearly wants the reader to believe Leopold must have lied about the substance of the story. The author does this by using someone else's quote and piling on the innuendo, but the inference is clear. If not, it's still sleazy journalism.

Oh FFS!! :eyes: How much MORE "proof" do you actually NEED? :shrug: What would satisfy the hangers-on and convince them that Rove has not been indicted?

<< see how YOU project my argument into 'belief' in the story? >>

That's not my doing. You're demonstrating that you're perfectly capable of doing that all by yourself.

But I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by asking you directly and giving you the opportunity to correct my impressions. You certainly seem to be one that believes Rove was actually indicted as Leopold's story said... so I asked you a simple, direct, and straightforward question.

Are you a believer? Do you think that Rove was indicted? Do you think that Leopold's story is true and correct?

<< The article in the OP clearly wants the reader to believe Leopold must have lied about the substance of the story. >>

There are two clear possibilities:

1) Leopold knowingly lied or played-the-odds by concocting a plausible but unconfirmed story that he hoped would turn out to be true. He looked at the circumstantial "evidence" that was available: the comings-and-goings, the meetings, the calendar, the ticking-clock, as well as his personal hopes. He rolled the dice, and lost.

Or 2) Leopold is an incompetent or gullible "journalist". So eager to get the "scoop" that he would believe anything from anybody and not bother to verify or confirm the information. Nor was he willing to consider the reliability of the sources (if there were any).

Neither one of those rational possibilities is terribly flattering for Leopold. Which one do you think is the most accurate? --- Or is there a rational third option that I'm not considering?

<< If not, it's still sleazy journalism. >>

And Leopold is a "victim"? A saint? It would appear that Leopold has nobody but himself to blame. He's brought much of this on himself.



PS: I'm interested in why you refer to Leopold as "Jason"? Do you know him personally? Are you on a first-name basis with him?

I don't have enough FACTS to declare Jason's story false.

I also.don't have enough FACTS to conclude Fitz said ANYTHING to Rove's lawyer. Have YOU have chosen to believe that Rove's lawyer's 'scoop' is whole truth and refutes the assertions in Jason's story? If that's the thread you hang your criticism on then it doesn't stand to scrutiny, simply on the nature of the 'source' (Rove's lawyer) itself.

You don't have any more than the rest of us as to the true nature of events surrounding Fitz's ongoing investigation, including no more info than the rest of us on the underlying issues in Jason's article. We still don't know all of the FACTS surrounding Rove's involvement with the prosecutor, outside of the FACT that they have met several times for several hours.

We can speculate, but to assert those speculations as fact, without supportable evidence does not comport with the journalistic standards detractors claim they are concerned about with Jason's article.

Should I refer to you as MR. Arwalden, or will arwalden do?

<< We still don't know all of the FACTS surrounding Rove's involvement with the prosecutor, outside of the FACT that they have met several times for several hours. >>

But we have Leopold's story that Rove was indicted. Isn't that enough for you? :eyes:

<< We can speculate, but to assert those speculations as fact, without supportable evidence does not comport with the journalistic standards detractors claim they are concerned about with Jason's article. >>

What are we speculating about? Are we speculating that Rove was not indicted? What about that statement is "speculation"?

How can any rational person consider the statement "Rove-was-not-indicted" to be merely "speculation" that lacks facts or evidence? :shrug:

Based upon what we know now, it's clear that the only person who was doing any speculating was Leopold. Whether it was a lie, or a colossal exercise in indifferent negligence and gross incompetence is up for debate. Either way, it certainly doesn't look good for Leopold or for his groupies and defenders.


<< Should I refer to you as MR. Arwalden, or will arwalden do? >>

Now you're being evasive and silly. Obviously this is your response to my question asking why you primarily referred to Leopold in the familiar by using just his first name. My question was an honest and sincere one. Of all the cast of characters in this story, Leopold appears to be the only one that you consistently refer to by his first name.

Frankly, I think that's peculiar and I was wondering if there was any particular reason for it. When you refer to him primarily by his first name, it suggests to me that a certain personal familiarity with him actually exists. I was was curious if this was true, and if so, what is the nature of your friendship or acquaintance with Leopold.

( BTW... Since you asked... you may call me "Sir". :eyes: )

So much inference drawing. It creeps when folks you don't know want personal info. Who I know or don't know is none of your business. Stick to the argument at hand. The rest is silliness.

Either you can support the assertions you are making with evidence or not. I need to know whether something may have happened to derail what seemed to many, a certain indictment. Jason's account was similar to others at the time. What actually happened in between, if anything, is still not clear. Without the chronology of events behind the scenes, without knowing the true nature and reliability of Jason's sources (TO vouched for them), without an account from the prosecutor, there is no way to separate FACT from innuendo and conjecture. That goes for Jason, TO, AND their detractors.

Last word to you, sir, if I may.

The incredible shrinking source list
Leopold's latest Schultz interview
Sealed vs Sealed
Target letter
Rove informs White House

ALL TOTAL COMPLETE BULLSHIT

Here's what I want from a believer...

Please link me to Jason's progressive articles.

Not his fictitious crime beat reporting but something actually progressive that we should give a shit about this guy.

to toy with

go reread this post of yours.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=364&topic_id=1450312&mesg_id=1454527

The story was fabricated, false, and Leopold is a serial fabulist. The only question remaining is when the TruthOut trio will come clean.

My bet is 24 business hours.

<< So much inference drawing. >>

So much for question-evading. :thumbsup: :silly:

<< It creeps when folks you don't know want personal info. >>

"It creeps"?? :shrug: Personal info? Either you know him or you don't.

<< Who I know or don't know is none of your business. >>

Finally... an answer that reveals all. A response that Frank Burns could not have delivered any better. Sometimes it's not WHAT you say, but HOW you say it that gives away the answer. -- I understand now.

The only way you could have been any clearer would be if you had come right out and said: "To be honest, I really don't know him personally. I just wish I did. I refer to him as 'Jason' because he's a real person and it makes me feel closer to him. He's my hero. I'm his fan."

<< Stick to the argument at hand. >>

I am. My observation and resulting question were not irrelevant. Whether or not you actually know him, or if you're just a starry-eyed groupie is important in helping me to understand WHY someone exert so much effort in denying the obvious truth.

What better way for me to "stick to the argument" than to be able to understand where the other person is coming from so that I can present my arguments in a way that they would best understand and relate to.

<< The rest is silliness. >>

Yes... cult-like personality worship is rather silly. It's clear to me now that there are many here who are not at all interested in anything other than blindly defending the gladiator journalist... not because he's talented; not because he's competent; and not because he has integrity. --- Obviously, none of those things matter. The only thing that matters is that he's fighting for "the cause".

<< Either you can support the assertions you are making with evidence or not. >>

It's one of two things. Either Leopold lied, or he's gullible and incompetent. Pick one.

<< I need to know whether something may have happened to derail what seemed to many, a certain indictment. Jason's account was similar to others at the time. What actually happened in between, if anything, is still not clear. Without the chronology of events behind the scenes, without knowing the true nature and reliability of Jason's sources (TO vouched for them), without an account from the prosecutor, there is no way to separate FACT from innuendo and conjecture. That goes for Jason, TO, AND their detractors. >>

When people say things like that, it makes me think that they want to hear is a fairy tale that will exonerate Leopold. Or they want to uncover some vast right-wing conspiracy between the Bush administration, Fitzgerald, and every traditional news outlet in the country.

I have to wonder if folks like that honestly believe that anyone in the Bush administration considers Leopold or TruthOut to be of SUCH importance (or such national influence) that they would go to all this trouble to set him up? All this to embarrass one little-known "journalist" and one minor progressive blog?


<< Last word to you, sir, if I may. >>

You may. :eyes:

It was HIS story. He came up with it, he wrote it, he published it, he supported it. He bore the burden of proof to show that the story was TRUE, when no one else was reporting same. He failed. Don't blame other people because they can't prove a negative--the event he claimed happened simply DIDN'T HAPPEN. Hence, story was phony.

... and he intends to use it on his enemies. Until you provide evidence that this is NOT the case, then we shall just assume that it's TRUE!



:rofl:

ONE MILLION DOLLARSSSS. ;)

class act

you and your clown friends can talk to yourselves. Ignore is my friend tonight.

<< Ignore is my friend tonight. >>

... it would appear that "ignore" is your hiding place. :shrug: :hi:

Because you can't respond to a grown-up argument, you're having a temper tantrum and calling people names?

Please.

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

:shrug: :silly:

adult than continuing to attack. Plus, I'm not so sure you and yours are always attacking the fairy tale; sometimes it apears you are attacking people who don't believe the falsehood, but rather are calling you and yours on your tactics.

<< but rather are calling you and yours on your tactics. >>

:eyes:

<< But ignoring the fairy tale is far more adult than continuing to attack. >>

I'd rather think that accepting reality is "far more adult" than continuing to believe the fairy tale. It's "far more adult" than continuing to defend, prop-up, idolize, and make excuses for incompetent and irresponsible "journalists".

Do you also endorse the notion that progressive writers and progressive news sources should be given a free pass and held to a LOWER standard? If we're allowed to lower-the-bar for "our own" then what right do progressives have to hold accountable the journalists who report for traditional media outlets? Is "the cause" now more important that the TRUTH? Does that whiff of hypocrisy bother your nose?

When Leopold's story was still new and the 24 "business-hours" had not yet passed, his claque of defenders and cheerleaders were demanding a pound-of-flesh from anyone who doubted or questioned the story or the secret editing of it. Yet NOW those same sanctimonious toadies are telling us to "get over it" (among other things.)

Isn't THAT amusing? :eyes:

<< Plus, I'm not so sure you and yours are always attacking the fairy tale; sometimes it apears you are attacking people who don't believe the falsehood, >>

"Apearances" can be deceiving. If you feel that any rules have been broken, then you should alert until your heart's content.

<< but rather are calling you and yours on your tactics. >>

Um... a casual glance up-thread would indicate that your hands are not as clean as you'd have others believe.

"Do you also endorse the notion that progressive writers and progressive news sources should be given a free pass and held to a LOWER standard? If we're allowed to lower-the-bar for "our own" then what right do progressives have to hold accountable the journalists who report for traditional media outlets? Is "the cause" now more important that the TRUTH? Does that whiff of hypocrisy bother your nose?"
Nope. I don't fucking trust any media outlet. I don't believe anything until it is cross-referenced about 80 times, and the general public has bought in. That's why I never got my panties in a bunch about TO. I didn't believe it. So, sorry, no hypocrisy here.

""Apearances" can be deceiving. If you feel that any rules have been broken, then you should alert until your heart's content."
Nice catch. I hate it when I make typing errors. On the other hand, I think alerting is something to be reserved only for freepers. Otherwise, I think we can handle anything each other can say, so getting stuff deleted by the mods isn't one of my favorite pastimes.

"Um... a casual glance up-thread would indicate that your hands are not as clean as you'd have others believe."
I have no intention of pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. I don't know why that post was deleted, but I will admit to getting quite pissy about you and yours (I have a nice little list in my head - you all may not be connected overtly but there is certainly a connection in spirit amongst your core group of flamethrowers) acting like a-holes. I'd love to see some of you post on issues that matter, but the only time I've seen certain names in the last month has been on TO threads. It's the only thing I come back to these threads for, hoping the haters will chill out. It's a sick fascination, I know.

I just don't see what damage has been done by TO/JL/Pitt, so I don't understand the mental masturbation going on with the haters. Call me crazy. Like I said before, some of you don't sound rational right now. I'd say changing a sig line to represent one's obsession with the issue is pretty emblematic of that. I'll leave you alone as soon as you quit obsessing. Otherwise, we're probably going to keep this craptastic little dialogue up for a while.

Why? :shrug:

<< I have a nice little list in my head >>

Keeping a list? Oh brother! :eyes:

<< I just don't see what damage has been done by TO/JL/Pitt, >>

Really? :shrug: Go figure.

<< so I don't understand the mental masturbation going on with the haters. >>

What "haters"? Where? Who? :shrug:

<< Call me crazy. >>

No thank you, name-calling is against the rules. But if that's how you want to self-identify, then you'll get no arguments from me.

<< I'll leave you alone as soon as you quit obsessing. >>

Stalking and making threats are against the rules.

<< Otherwise, we're probably going to keep this craptastic little dialogue up for a while. >>

You wish! :rofl:

Do you care about politics at all, or is this just a way for you to waste some time?

edited for grammar

... and it is not I who is wasting it. :rofl:

:shrug:























:rofl:

Why do you have such an axe to grind with JL? You change your sig line to address JL? I just don't get it. Did he hurt you somehow? It just looks like you want to attack DUers more than anything else.

<< Did he hurt you somehow? >>

And, more generally, we criticize our enemies for taking a position for their own benefit that runs contrary to all known evidence. Hypocrisy.

Let's hope that if that happens, snopes doesn't include DU among the purveyors of the hoax.

...I had no (or very little issue) with Truth Out OR Leopold. It was their self-appointed PR "man" at DU that I saw as the problem. Though Leopold had a self-confessed checkered past I didn't really consider it worth weighing against his story: Reporters are just people and if I turn down the Truth just because it comes from the mouth of someone who has done bad things in the past, I am doing a disservice to myself. Bringing Bush, Rove, et al. for their crimes is of paramount importance and I will entertain news from a variety of sources because it's too-important an issue.

After hearing about this, though, I can't say I have as much faith in Mr. Leopold as I did before. So, I've been actively turned off by the actions of the above mentioned self-appointed PR man and now Leopold. I still believe in TruthOut. Kephra used to do great work for them and when I think of TruthOut I still think of Kephra.

He was driven as anyone who knew him or saw his work, knows. TruthOut was and is still a place where investigative reporters can go to break their story and help bring the Truth to light. But it seems also to bring in its share of insects, attracted to the flame of notoriety. I think this is an unintended and perhaps unavoidable aspect of the beacon it represents.

I would ask that TruthOut not be categorized by the shady actions of this reporter. I would really like to see Mr. Leopold get a second chance but after reading this...his credibility has dropped in some measurable amount.

PB

Is this part 3 of "Colbert wasn't funny"?
Dows anyone find this "outing" similar with BFEE zeroing on the Wilsons (as far as trying to kill a fly with a cannon aspect) Is anyone creeped by this at all - or the destruction aspect is too much fun for ya to wonder about these things?

he made the whole fucking thing up

Just that the dude might not be the most reliable person in the world. Still doesn't mean that the info couldn't have been leaked to him on purpose knowing his background.