Anyone see Leopold's wikipedia entry?

[quinnox]

Controversy

In 2002, Salon.com retracted an article by Leopold which had implicated Bush administration official Thomas White in the Enron scandal after it could not verify that the contents of the article were accurate. Afterwards, Leopold and Salon.com's editor engaged in an online debate over the incident with Leopold sticking to his story and the Salon.com editor accusing Leopold of a separate plagiarism incident. <1> <2>

Prior to writing News Junkie, Mr. Leopold had written a book entitled Off the Record. The book's release was permanently cancelled, however, following legal threats from one of the subjects of the book.<3> In that book, Mr. Leopold planned to reveal many secrets of his life as a journalist such as a prior drug addiction, bouts with mental illness and suicide attempts, breaking journalistic rules, and lying to employers about a criminal conviction. <4>

On May 13th, 2006, Mr. Leopold falsely proclaimed the indictment of Karl Rove had taken place. The incident made waves online when Will Pitt echoed the conjecture on a progressive website to thousands of gullible partisans. However, it quickly became apparent that the story was fabricated.


This doesn't sound like a guy to put much credibility in I'm sad to say.

[dennis4868]

1. So you are someone....

who believes everything you read about a person?

[quinnox]

4. no, but when the subject says

he had mental problems and admits lying about false stories it does make you wonder.

[Coexist]

We will never know, since the book was never published.

I could make up lots of stuff that was supposedly in the book, too. Would you believe me?

[Coexist]

2. "falsely proclaimed" Has this been proven? "gullible partisans"

Oh yeah, the person who posted this smear job is a much better journalist than he.

:eyes:

[Canuckistanian]

8. Yes, WTF are they talking about?

Nothing has been "proven" one way or the other.

And we're far from being "gullible". Indeed there's been healthy skepticism about this issue here.

[wakeme2008]

3. wonder what freeper wrote that

wikipedia for something is a waste of bandwidth....

[kstewart33]

5. Most of the above has been reported by other sources but...

the claim that the May 13 story and the stories thereafter are false, is to this point, not proven.

My sense is that we've all agreed to just wait and see. No more debating about whether Jason is correct or not, let's wait and see.

[boobooday]

6. When did it become apparent that the Rove story was fabricated?

Do you have evidence for that? I didn't hear it, and would like to know.

[SmokingJacket]

11. Anyone can edit Wikipedia.

That's its great advantage, and its greatest flaw.

[boobooday]

13. It looks like a Freeper edited it

I just wondered if the poster of the article here knew something I didn't know.

So it hasn't been discredited, nor confirmed . . .

[treestar]

15. The fact any such freeper would take the time is interesting.

[Avalux]

21. Yes, it is interesting, isn't it?

That's what I thought last night as I'd remove their crap and then it would reappear. Why put forth that sort of effort?

[boobooday]

24. It's almost like they are getting paid . . .

But no . . . the Bush Administration would never pay people to plant information . . .

Young Roviators on the Internets . . .

[Roon]

7. Whoa!

That is correct, he was wrong before, I forgot all about that.

[Bill McBlueState]

9. do we have reason to believe that the wiki article is NPOV?

Wikipedia has a lot of strengths, but objective articles on politics isn't one of them.

[lonestarnot]

10. Red Rover is the one you should wikipedia not Leopold. Just into

killing someone? anyone? the messenger perhaps?

[Avalux]

12. Someone's messing with his bio. I edited some of it out last night -

It is easy to write whatever you want in wikipedia and last night someone wrote that Leopold and Pitt were child molesters. I removed it. Please don't believe what's written there.

I've been watching the edit history and there are clearly folks out there intent on smearing both of these guys. Once the bad stuff's removed, it reappears.

[Coexist]

16. thank you for being so diligent.

[Avalux]

22. You're welcome.

I am very curious as to who would be writing that crap - it's more than one person from several different IP addresses at least. Why put forth such effort to smear Leopold and Pitt?

[Coexist]

25. they seem to be coming out of the woodwork

Every time big news hits, they appear.

[treestar]

14. Oh please. Having mental health issues or even past drug

addiction does not make you a liar automatically. And it doesn't mean you can't recover.

This kind of dirt is stupid. Those who don't get treatment and deal with such problems are worse. Cheney and Rove have no mental health issues? So they tell the truth all the time? Shrub has no mental health issues because he never got any treatment for any? No addictions, because he has never admitted to them?

Overly simple way to judge people.

[PATRICK]

17. Interesting

That reminds me of the author of "Favorite Son" except that he took pains to list his own sins before casting stones because he knew what to expect in return. When a person attempts to make a life confession that would hurt his reputation one might say this is a ploy to pre-empt and thus restore that reputation, but that is not common or even so likely, especially for a totally untrustworthy individual. What it sounds like is a healthy fear of what would come as an attack. It presupposes an ad hominen attack that suggests the other information cannot be attacked(or at least is too hot a topic to even discuss). That then suggests that pre-empting the personal attacks a bit by stating them up from is a very serious challenge to have someone look at the book's investigative stories very seriously. Far from discrediting the writer it implies he desperately wants the subject matter to be looked into if anyone is to attack the book.

When "Favorite Son" came out Rove was a treacherous source. They let it be published and discredited it easily and airily. Then they destroyed the author, or his own shortcomings turned in on themselves and he committed suicide. In the BFEE Reich suicide is often spelled "suicide".

This book "Off the Record" was kept off the presses. And what is spoken of only? His revelations about himself that never made it into print. That process does not automatically convince me that the stuff we were not allowed to read were useless lies against the administration and its pals. Salon, I hear, has its own problems with credibility and choices. In this society liars get noticed with utter respect all the time. So someone broke into that circle to do what? Speculative mischief that truth will bear out or actual investigative reporting behind a teasing bannerline?

Thankfully, whether Rove is indicted actually or not will not rise and fall on the arguments concerning the fastest messenger.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

18. What's the profile of the editor say

That should be a clue to who the liar is.

[Avalux]

20. Anyone can edit. It logs the IP addresses of the editors -

The two I traced last night who were responsible for smear info were from Canada and Atlanta GA, but that's all I can find out.

[Catherine Vincent]

19. Try this one...

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00063.htm

[BurtWorm]

23. Doesn't sound like a terribly objective entry writer there.

I'm inclined to be skeptical of the Rove indictment story, but that's a slanderous entry.

[Clark2008]

26. Well, at least that entry can be debated on Wiki

Check it now.

[insane_cratic_gal]

27. But believing that National Review is okay?

and the guy spoke with Rove's PR guy?

*cough* bullshit