If it isn't reported by another source that Rove is indicted by Wed. AM...

[BurtWorm]

[LeftNYC]

1. If there is no indictment, or an explanation, this will look very bad

for Leopold and TruthOut. But lets be patient. Rove is giving a boring speech, not saying anything new. This could be the strong face they are putting on this. Remember, Libby has a new job at some righty think tank.

[mike_c]

2. Robert Fisk delivered a blistering critique of the state of American...

...journalism on Democracy Now last month (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/07/144219) in which he repeatedly denounced the practice of relying on the word of "unnamed sources" in journalism-- ah, here's the quote:

"...I find that an awful lot of my colleagues are quite happy to go along with stories planted or otherwise. You’ve only got to see the number of times on the front page of the New York Times or the L.A. Times or the Washington Post when the phrase “American officials say” appears, particularly the L.A. Times. I can give an example of that, in which a whole story is repeatedly sourced, after 2003, when we know there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction, when we know the press was misled totally in the United States and went along with the war party.

Still we see everything being sourced and re-sourced back to American officials, as if the U.S. administration is the center of world truth. I’ll give you an example. I was actually doing the book tour in Los Angeles, picked up my morning L.A. Times. Here’s a story about Zarqawi, who may or may not exist, of course. “U.S. authorities say,” “U.S. officials said,” “Said one Justice Department counterterrorism official,” “U.S. authorities say,” “officials said,” “U.S. officials said.” It turns to page B-10. It gets worse and worse. Look. “Several U.S. officials said,” “those officials said,” “U.S. officials confirmed” -- stop me when you want -- “American officials complained,” “U.S. officials stressed,” “U.S. authorities believe,” “Said one U.S. senior intelligence official,” “U.S. officials said,” “Jordanian officials said” -- Amy, see, there’s a slight difference here -- “Several U.S. officials said,” “U.S. officials said,” “U.S. officials say,” “say U.S. officials,” “U.S. officials said,” “The American officials said,” “One U.S. counterterrorism official said.” Welcome to American journalism today in Iraq. This is what’s wrong."

He's speaking specifically about coverage of the war against Iraq, but the point is that the press is being manipulated as an instrument of propaganda on the one hand and being played like a fiddle to keep the credibility of honest reporting questionable on the other. Fisk suggests that the solution is to rely on hard evidence rather than the anonymous sources which seem to have become the mainstay of journalism, especially political journalism. I tend to agree with him about that.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

3. What about the entry for

The press would't report Rove being indicted and frog-marched in an orange jumpsuit so what the media reports or doesn't report is meaningless.

I have no doubts it's true. And it's too bad people are so willing to believe drudge and the rest of the whores Rove owns.

[PATRICK]

4. See H2O Man's

thread "Of Reason and Knowledge". Leopold could be mostly accurate in the facts and less so in the implications and expectations. Being discredited for how a complex deal process might be executed in fact is quite possibly not fair. Nothing wrong with wait and see since that is all one can do, but then look at all the facts and the only thing "wrong" about Leopold might be taking the exact date and form of the end process for granted. And he will be most criticized by people doing the exact same thing.

Leopold can still be rock solid on the story and eviscerated for the future result that doesn't meet simplified expectations. I agree with H2O man and think the story is solid as presented barring any actual proof of lying on his part. And Leopold has a lot more to lose than to gain than anyone with the story. If I were to make a speculative gamble with a career under a cloud I would do it with something very solid to back it up- and of course knowing there could still be a lot of risk and not much benefit.
Nor, on the paranoid side, would I fall on my sword to take down TruthOut a notch for Bushco. They are going to give you a lifelong pension or not reveal something not already revealed in Leopold's confessional auto-biography? Push the argument as you like, the leaked story reporting seems honest in intent.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. It doesn't matter if it's "honest in its intent"

If it is not true, that's piss poor journalism, regardless. I'm not sure being a fool is particularly preferable to being a liar in this case.

[BurtWorm]

6. I tend to agree with you on this.

Either Rove has been indicted or he hasn't. If he hasn't been, then the Leopold story was incorrect. There doesn't seem to me to be any wiggle room there.

It's not a good sign when a news story becomes the story.

[PATRICK]

7. Yes that is the point

Someone jumps ahead of the story and no one else would even want to dare even with impeccable sources. This is not a healthy journalistic environment. It may be a small point, but one which is still valid, that a reporter, however motivated, actually did his job and is getting punished for it before the story is yet resolved. This is CBS news all over again. Did the reporter blunder? becomes bigger than the report. Say the story itself fizzles a bit, but in its main facts whether true or not the damage and attention is placed upon the "renegade".

I think what H2O Man was trying to point out is that the indictments can very well be really there already but that there is still some give and take with Rove and others going on. So judgment on Leopold, if it comes down to that, is not so simple either, him being in a hurry and not a legal expert or crystal ball gazer. As with Dan Rather, the story could be right, the process bad and the end result a net loss for the messenger. Could be. Sigh. What a waste of time. Which itself still shows the WH profits from the
journalistic state of affairs a great deal.

[BurtWorm]

8. The story last Friday was that Rove *was* indicted

and had 24 hours to get his effects in order. Even if Rove is formally indicted this afternoon--in which case, every DUer will be beside him/herself with glee--the bottom line is that the Friday story was wrong. Of course, if Rove is indicted, Leopold's story may be swamped into oblivion. Or it could be held up as a brave piece of journalism that was out there before everyone else. But that wouldn't change the fact that its facts were wrong.

[quinnox]

9. other

I will be expecting this, yet another story that didn't pan out. There has been so many, and it has been disappointing. I guess sensationalism isn't limited to the right wing news sphere.