Is Leapold's career over if this story is false?

[YEM]

Didn't he have to retract a Salon story a couple of years ago? I will be so dissapointed if this story is false. I spent all weekend extra "chipper" because of his story. I'm starting to wonder though...

[AngryAmish]

1. There is no evidence it is false

Just wait.

[movonne]

33. How much crap has drudge put out that has been false and it has

not ruin his career..

[Gato Moteado]

47. good point!

nt

[heartofthesiskiyou]

50. Thank you

My first impression was it's unfair flame bait.

After reading some of the responces, I rest my case.

A couple people nailed it pretty clearly. Barring anything like an out and out fabrication, which I serously doubt, TO is on the team.

Time spent pestering MSM might be time more well spent.

[wtmusic]

2. No -- he will start a restaurant franchise with Jayson Blair

called "Scoopers"

[insane_cratic_gal]

8. Scoopers and Dupers? has a nice ring

Although we have 72 hrs before we roast Leopold he still has time to become the beloved on DU

[wtmusic]

24. perfect

"Scooper Dupers"...they owe you a lifetime supply of Buffalo Wings for that one!

:rofl:

[Seabiscuit]

27. Or... maybe a career selling "Pooper Scoopers"?

[BuyingThyme]

19. Ice cream?

I like ice cream.

[sabra]

3. let's see how things play out this week...

[YEM]

6. I've been perusing the Freeper boards...

We are being mocked right now. "I thought today was Fitzmas?" Saying things of that nature.

[sabra]

15. I am pretty sure most here aren't too concerned about the Freepers...

[LSK]

41. 2 words Freepers have no answer for: Brewster Jennings

I have never even seen them try to tackle that subject.

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. We should be mocked

The 500+ post celebration thread was an embarrassment, and it will be the laughingstock of the wingnut internets should Mr. Leopold's story prove wrong. It is a legitimate reason for mockery.

[RandomKoolzip]

63. All too true.

James Thurber once warned of "counting one's boobies before they're hatched," and Du would do well to take his advice once in a while.

We got played like chumps on this one.

[Oak2004]

81. What amazes me is how so many people think any of this matters

It matters only a little bit if this is true, because it is not information that we can act on. It will be a feather in the cap of the relevant reporters and editors, but no more.

It matters hardly at all if this is false, because it is not information that we can act on. There will be no failed policies and no erroneous activism. It will not be a big deal for the relevant reporters and editors, because every news outlet gets things wrong every now and then.

It matters not at all if freepers mock or don't mock anyone here. Most people in America don't even know what a freeper is. Pride and ridicule are ephemeral things, and at most, ruin a few people's emotional state for a day or so.

What does matter?

* Contacting your representatives and making it clear that you believe that our democracy is in danger and that you expect them to act.

* Contacting your party's senate and congressional leadership and make it clear that you believe that our democracy is in danger and that you expect them to act.

* Contact your state representatives and ask them to introduce (or support) an impeachment resolution.

* Writing your local newspapers and making it clear that you believe that our democracy is in danger and that you expect them to act.

* If you've written these letters a week or two ago, then it's time to write another set of letters.

* Talking to your family, neighbors, co-workers, and others to educate them on the dangerous situation. Encourage them to write the above letters.

* Drawing up and/or finding and having printed flyers on the crisis, and getting out onto a streetcorner this evening/weekend/next moment of your free time and get out the work about this crisis of democracy.

* Organizing a neighborhood meeting on the current threat to American democracy. Find somewhere to hold the meeting, or have it as a potluck in your home. Get the word out in some appropriate way (flyers, invitations, classifieds, whatever). Prepare a program, perhaps including an appropriate video. Encourage your neighbors to write/join you in educational leafleting. Be sure to welcome former Bush supporters who now see the light: the more people we have, the more powerful we are.

* Finding yourself a candidate strong on the issues that matter to you, and donating your time and/or money

* Organizing a local demonstration for democracy.

* etc. Use your imagination.

I'm unfortunately not in a position to do most of this today, as I'm laid up with a bad knee and am going to be operated on this Thursday. But I already have concrete plans for what I'm going to do that does make a difference as soon as I'm physically able to (probably early-mid June).

[Chimichurri]

4. If it's true, he'll become a legend

We'll just have to wait and see.

[Teaser]

5. This could have been ratfucking

Think about it. Rove gets someone to leak that he's been indicted and then it's not true.

Why do you think the denial went right to the right wing outlets? It's the pattern they used for the Rathergate memos. Rove's done this again and again.

[ContraBass Black]

7. No, but his name will be a ball&chain.

If it's true, however...

[genieroze]

9. Let's say Rover is indicted this week and wasn't on Friday, then the story

will have been false.

[stop the bleeding]

10. Question should be...

if this turns out to be true, will all of the naysayers change their tune?

Will everyone judge JL by this or will they simply keep bring up old skeletons/salon busniness?

Will JL get the credit that will be due? - when this comes to a conclusion?

[ContraBass Black]

11. Some will, some won't.

That's teh way of things.

[YEM]

14. I will call him a hero if the story is true.

In the same breathe, if the story proves false...

[glitch]

12. Nah, because he'll out the stooges who gave him the false info.

And we will either have a couple more names of who not to trust OR a couple of people who will spill everything they know in order to regain their good names.

Anything that puts light on the cockroaches is good, IMO.

[diamondsndust]

37. AMEN! .............

I couldn't have said it better. People shouldn't be trying to trash anyone who is trying to get the truth out to us in this time of peril for our Country. I personally think that the fact that he will out his source if the story is false should speak volumes for his integrity & character. Sometimes investigative reporting requires you to come in contact with some unsavory characters who will lie, just like a confidential informant for law enforcement.

Also take into account that trying to get the truth out of anyone involved with this misadministration is kinda like throwing spears at airplanes... a noble, yet fruitless effort.

[Ksec]

13. Why should he be held to a higher standard than other media?

Track records havent been good for a decade. For all of media.

Im still believing . I honestly think its going to happen. Call me starryeyed.

[Harper_is_Bush]

16. I keep seeing this point being made, but it's baseless

other media would be discredited as well.

Look at Dan Rather...discredited just because one of his documents was forged. He stood behind his story and it was a good story, but he was taken by a false document and reported it and was discredited.

ALL MEDIA is held to the same standard.

[Beelzebud]

57. Because some don't want more of the same...

Why bother going to an alternate media if they're just as bad as the mainstream press?

Now, I'm not saying this story is inaccurate. I just think your line of reasoning is highly flawed. The appeal of alternate media, to me, is because they're held to a higher standard. I'm not looking for a "Drudge For Me".

[Last Stand]

17. Is MSM's career over for the lack of WMD's? Come ON!!! n/t

[hwmnbn]

70. welcome to DU, Last Stand .....

:hi:

[Sammy Pepys]

18. For two reasons....

First, the obvious.

But secondly, if he does give up his sources as promised if the story is discredited, he has two potential problems:

1) His sources are so weak that it calls his seriousness and work ethic into question. A double whammy if the story is false.

2) Other potential sources will take note and won't give him the time of day and will make his job that much more difficult.

[Jigarotta]

21. couldn't his sources just deny everything?

unless he has a recording or something tangible to prove what they said.

[Sammy Pepys]

32. Sure....

..but then it boils down to who you believe.

Still, if it shows a willingness on Leopold's part to out his sources, no one is going to want to talk to him anymore.

[Jigarotta]

36. that threat will be very damaging to JL regardless

of the outcome of his story.
He should never have made that statement. If push came to shove he could have followed through when need be.

[Sammy Pepys]

42. Something that just came to mind....

...was that if he thought the story was airtight, there'd be no need to threaten his sources with outing. He's the one who ran the story ultimately. If he thought there was any problem with their story, he shouldn't have gone public. Now he's trying to say if the story's not right he's going to punish his sources? That kind of stinks if you ask me....chances of anything good coming out of that for him are slim to none.

[SoCalDem]

20. It's sad that each news procurer is MOST interested in

"who was first".. The news is what it is, no matter when it's reported. Substance is always more valuable than style when it comes to news.. Rushing leads to loss of credibility and is actually quite "Bushian".. He's always recklessly promoting stuff he cannot achieve and then backtracking and blaming others for his own missteps.

If an indictment IS forthcoming, it will be at the prosecutor's discretion and timetable. Wishing for christmas does not make it happen on Dec 22.. Sometimes we just need to be patient, and wait :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Assuming it's false, I'd say yes.

Assuming that 1) it's false, and 2) Leopold had much of a career to begin with.

[LaPera]

72. I agree.

[survivor999]

23. I know nothing about career paths in the media business...

But, could somebody tell me what's the obsession with publishing something on a certain topic 24 hours before it becomes public news anyway (if true)? Does it show that the reporter who does it is particularly skilled at securing certain sources? I assume it's good for the reporter's career. What difference does it make if we know it today or tomorrow, when the details become public (if true)? Just wondering...

25. You seem to be asking a lot of silly questions

Is Fitzgerald meeting?

Is Grand Jury meeting?

[bluestateguy]

26. It should be

He really stuck himself out on a limb here.

But if he is wrong, I'm sure there will be a faction of people here who make excuses, or blame the MSM, or Diebold or anybody other than the person who claimed to have a major scoop.

Alternative media sources should not escape the same level of scruntiny that we hold to other media.

[Malikshah]

28. No. Only when it's shown that he eats small children. Now, when

that comes out...

OK-- folks. At least try and be subtle here.

These threads are soooooo TANG-tastic.

[karlrschneider]

29. Most likely, and it's now almost 3 p.m. in Washington so it looks like

his "facts" are nonexistant. Unless somebody declared today some kind of holiday and I missed the memo.
:eyes:

[Poll_Blind]

30. No, but there was a person from TruthOut who came here...

...and posted a very strongly-worded message. The exact words were "For those who have been waiting for this, here it is. For those who still doubt, well, I guess this is the big throwdown." This message was intended to whip up excitement about the article and to more widely publicize it. Because of the poster's notoriety many who had already been burned before by news reports of action againt the Bush government felt that this story had been vetted and by someone they trust the judgement of. Well, when the "24 hours" was later clarified to "Monday, it's 24 business hours" and then clarified furter to respresent "24 business hours meaning 3 business days", folks started asking questions.

We've all been on this emotional rollercoaster before and each time it crashes I think it's reasonable to state that all of us who were on the ride vow never to get on it again unless it's the Big One. Anyway, the questions kept on coming and there developed a backlash against them- with some folks perceiving the skeptical as something a a bit more than merely Democrats who didn't want to be emotionally burned agian.

Then it got worse- by Sunday night I was watching threads where expressing (truly) basic questions about whether this story was true or not were met, openly and with a great deal of malice, with charges that those expressing reasonable questions were gutted for being conservatives in disguise. This is a very ugly charge to make at Democratic Underground.

Then after those threads had been locked the original poster who originally whipped up the frenzy in the first place started at least one thread, in what appeared to be an intoxicated state, claiming that has helped root out secret conservative trolls at Democratic Underground and that as gratefulness for such a service DU ought to pay him "cold hard cash". Of course, he didn't appear to be serious. What he did appear to be was very abusive, condescending and personally helping to stoke the fire between the two sides.

At no time did I ever see Mr. Leopold participate in any of this. I do not blame Mr. Leopold for any of the fallout from this behavior. Mr. Leopold merely wrote the article. However, I beleive it's fair to say because of the way this article was promoted by the poster referenced above that he will suffer consequences as a journalist. The original poster implied that this article would make or break TruthOut and Mr. Leopold.

It did neither, at least in my opinion. The way he handled this was make or break for himself and he came up sorely wanting. The poster whipped up a frenzy at DU, personally attacked those critical of the information presented, fed an atmosphere of absolutism and polarization and then, drunkenly, posted that we should all be very thankful for his behavior.

I find this behavior loathsome and certainly beneath the potential for the poster. Mr. Leopold, who may suffer greatly career-wise because of the way this was handled on DU had no direct part in it. This appears to be related entirely to someone who, I feel, has shown that they should sit on the sidelines next time something like this comes to light.

PB

[karlrschneider]

40. You wrote exactly what I've been thinking but was too lazy to

post.

[Poll_Blind]

45. Thanks, we aren't the only ones either. Not by a long shot! n/t

PB

[Bluebear]

62. To be even agnostic about the story was not tolerated.

And that is a shame.

[sheelz]

53. A voice of reason

and I thank you for posting this. Well said!

[Last Stand]

58. Nice post. Leopold's cred shouldn't be under indictment for ONE article.

His body of work is his statement, just like Dan Rather. He never said this was his defining moment and just because the story is an emotional one for us doesn't mean his career rests on it.

[Beausoir]

60. Agreed. This whole story seems to be about a few fragile egos here.

Meanwhile, I'll wait for the person who has REAL answers, Patrick Fitzgerald, to make his case.

[leftstreet]

66. Very well said

[Maddy McCall]

84. Thank you for this post. It's dead on. Everyone should read it...

because it's the truth about what has happened at DU over the past couple of days.

Excellent post, Poll_Blind. :thumbsup:

[Poll_Blind]

87. Thank you all for the comments...Have you seen the one-act play...

...I wrote about the whole mess? It's very short, maybe not so sweet, but it expressed how dispondant I was feeling last night after every poison sac had been squeezed dry: Right here.

Again, thank you all. I really expected to get excoriated just for mentioning the flat facts of the matter and you've bolstered my faith- which really needed it. :)

PB

[stevenleser]

31. No, but if it turns out to be false, he should burn his sources...

... I doubt that he made any mistake intentionally. If he is wrong it is because he was misled intentionally but some one or some group. That is my belief and what I stated in my Op-Ed.

[Sammy Pepys]

35. But being a media guy...

Don't you believe it's a bit of a gamble to out your sources if something like this goes the wrong way?

First of all, Leopold shouldn't even have to be making that threat....if he has doubts about his sources, than he shouldn't have run with the story....correct?

Secondly, as stated in this thread before, if he outs his sources and they turn out to be weak...then he looks like a fool....especially if they were sources that any reasonable person could tell would be less than reliable.

Thirdly, agaion as states here, if he outs his sources in a very public way no one will ever talk to him again in a reporting capacity for fear of being outed themselves.

[stevenleser]

49. No, sources who lie and hang you out to dry are not protected...

... in general. Of course it all depends on how the information was presented. IF someone says, from what I have heard... that is not a source you burn, nor is it information you present as fact.

This story seems like more of one that was presented as a stone cold fact. If I were running it I would have made sure my sources said they were sure and I would bet Jason did too. It is an unwritten rule that yes, a reporter will protect you if you are honest with them, but if you lie and try to roll them, all bets are off.

[Sammy Pepys]

51. I just think it's a dangerous gambit for Leopold....

...Unless these sources were very high up and "legitimate" (in which case why Leopold and not David Gregory or Helen Thomas or whoever), I think Leopold runs a huge risk outing them.

[sheelz]

68. Just threatening to out sources is foolish.

And it does damage to potential whisleblowers and further damage to Democracy.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

78. I agree with you, this "if bogus I'll out the sources" doesn't come across

very positively.

First, if the guy is truly confident in his story, why say something like this? It'll be a moot point because the world will know Rove is indicted in days. Even if there were a little doubt, you might THINK this and plan on doing it, but why say it? The threat comes across like the statement of someone who is finding their story to be increasingly shaky.

Secondly, even if JL was duped and lied to for whatever reason (to ratfuck/discredit the left blogosphere or whatever), it in no way salvages his credibility to out the sources and say "See? they lied to me!" Bottom line, the story has his name on it. If his sources were bogus, then he needed to find more credible sources, or be less credulous himself. You publish news that is supposed to inform, the responsibility is on you to be as certain as possible that the information is good. That's the simple hard reality. That is why Fox News has no credibility with half the country or more, and only has cred with their "captive audience" that will believe them no matter what, no matter how many stories they get wrong, because they whisper to that audience the sweet wingnut nothings that they want to hear.

Third, if JL was lied to by multiple sources about this for whatever reason, if he "outs" the sources what makes anyone think they will hesitate to lie about speaking with him? Unless there are documents, tapes or video to corroborate, it will simply be multiple shrubco operatives' word against his.

None of this is to say that JL should be held to either a higher or a lower standard of credibility than any other media or source of news. I'll reiterate that I hope the story is true, but am skeptical.

As a result of the NY Times, Washington Post etc. taking "dictation" from shrubco on WMD, I can't accept any war drumbeat propaganda on Iran from them with any seriousness, because they abused trust before. I grew up with the reporting of NYT and WaPo and trusted them. I certainly didn't do so with JL and don't give him any more slack than I did with those papers.

[Maddy McCall]

85. Burning his source will have one result for Leopold. He'll never work...

in DC in journalism again--or anywhere else. No one will ever trust him again--no one will ever give him information, even if it's about a wedding reception.

I hope he takes a breath, ponders journalistic standards and his responsibility to uphold them, before he does something so stupid.

[Poll_Blind]

39. Burn his sources? Maybe. Fire his PR-guy, DEFINITELY.

See here.

PB

[0rganism]

44. And how will we know he's "burning" his real sources?

Heck, Leopold could be on Rove's payroll, and falsely finger someone inside the special counsel's office to compromise the grand jury proceedings, for all we know.

Anyway, it seems to me that it's really Leopold's credibility that has to take the hit here. If he published unconfirmed from unreliable sources, that's his responsibility.

[stevenleser]

52. I would just hate to see that...

... that is why I came out so strongly in his favor in my Op-Ed today. He has been right on on every article I have read of his up until now. I'm still not convinced he isnt right on this indictment. I'm willing to give it until Wednesday, but at the same time, I think it appropriate discuss what might have gone wrong if in fact it did.

If he was deliberately fed disinformation, it should be a crime. Governments should not be allowed to feed journalists disinformation to discredit opposition parties and editors. That is antidemocratic in my humble opinion.

Sigh, all this waiting and not knowing is frustrating.

[Balbus]

34. Career - no.

Credibility - yes.

[BlooInBloo]

38. O sheesh - he's already got a history of false stories?

Crikeys - I'm done with the matter - it's false in my eyes until proven otherwise.

IF that's true, that he's got a trail of false stories behind him...

If that's not true, then I'm happy to be agnostic.

[stevenleser]

54. From what I have seen, at least one of the major accusations against him

...was false specifically the reason he was let go at the New York Times. Apparently Krugman went to his defense absolutely sure that his sources were legit. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

[Jim Warren]

43. You might look here

for a possible answer.........
http://en.mimi.hu/fishing/trolling.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. I don't know if it will be, but it SHOULD be

Moreover, the entire truthout organization will have taken a mjor credibility hit.

The 500+ post DU celebration thread will be the laughingstock of the wingnut internets.

[MelissaB]

55. I don't understand why this thread has been nominated.

Is it news worthy? Is this something we don't know, but should?

[Renew Deal]

56. Is Fox "News" still on the air?

:shrug:

[walldude]

59. Were any of these careers over?

Gathered here are some of the most notable media comments from the early days of the Iraq War.


Declaring Victory

"Iraq Is All but Won; Now What?"
(Los Angeles Times headline, 4/10/03)


"Now that the combat phase of the war in Iraq is officially over, what begins is a debate throughout the entire U.S. government over America's unrivaled power and how best to use it."
(CBS reporter Joie Chen, 5/4/03)


"Congress returns to Washington this week to a world very different from the one members left two weeks ago. The war in Iraq is essentially over and domestic issues are regaining attention."
(NPR's Bob Edwards, 4/28/03)


"Tommy Franks and the coalition forces have demonstrated the old axiom that boldness on the battlefield produces swift and relatively bloodless victory. The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly shattered skeptics' complaints."
(Fox News Channel's Tony Snow, 4/13/03)


"The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals, and a few people here in Washington."
(Charles Krauthammer, Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 4/19/03)


"We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the country and brought the military back."
(Newsweek's Howard Fineman--MSNBC, 5/7/03)


"We're all neo-cons now."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)


"The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war."
(Fox News Channel's Fred Barnes, 4/10/03)


"Oh, it was breathtaking. I mean I was almost starting to think that we had become inured to everything that we'd seen of this war over the past three weeks; all this sort of saturation. And finally, when we saw that it was such a just true, genuine expression. It was reminiscent, I think, of the fall of the Berlin Wall. And just sort of that pure emotional expression, not choreographed, not stage-managed, the way so many things these days seem to be. Really breathtaking."
(Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly, appearing on Fox News Channel on 4/9/03, discussing the pulling down of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad, an event later revealed to have been a U.S. military PSYOPS operation--Los Angeles Times, 7/3/04)


More quotes here:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2842

[SeveneightyWhoa]

61. If one bad story is enough to kill a career..

..then the entire mainstream corporate media would've been DEAD years ago.

[Turn CO Blue]

64. Cheer up! Rove IS going to be indicted, now or eventually.

Never give up.

[BlooInBloo]

65. Hope does not a justified news story make, unfortunately....

... which is what this brouhaha is about to me at least...

[Turn CO Blue]

82. The OP was actually talking about personal disappointment

not just about this newsstory. I understand that this is more about Leopold to most people on this board. Well, this is mostly about Karl Rove versus Justice to me.

I am leaving Leopold out of this and I just concentrate on Fitz' actions. Go back and re-read the briefs about Official A.

The indictment is going to happen because of Fitz and his careful case, not because of anything that Leopold writes or doesn't write.

FITZ, not Leopold, will present his evidence to the Grand Jury and request indictment ( or already did) -- and it will happen because Rove repeatedly perjured himself (and obstructed justice) to FITZ and the Grand Jury (not to Leopold).


SlimeRove is not going to get away with anything, because FITZ has built a careful case proving those lies. You just don't lie to Fitz. And if you do, you just don't get away with it. Check his case histories.

[althecat]

67. No.

[Stand and Fight]

69. Some people are so transparent.... n/t

[LaPera]

71. No just the validity of those who bring these unchecked stories to DU!

[Ksec]

73. Am I missing something here?

Are there forces at play here that Im not aware of? Politics or grudges? It seems this Leopold isnt real popular here for some reason . I hope its just because of this story and not something else that may have happened.

[BlooInBloo]

76. I have NO ax to grind with him - never even heard of him...

... before all this broke out...

My view is that I've been presented with a claim that has EXACTLY ZERO evidence that can be independently verified at the moment.

And moreover, one piece of the story has been shown to be incorrect - the 24 hours bit. So they've changed the story - "depends on the meaning of 24 hours", as it were. Fuck that - I know what "24 hours" fucking means.

That's enough to approach the story with cautious skepticism, in my book. Other books may differ :)

[lies and propaganda]

74. i dont think its false....

just another episode of the internets breaking the news that the fucks wont.

good luck, Leopold! You made me real happy all weekend!

[in_cog_ni_to]

75. The story's true. I don't think He needs to worry about his career.

Geezuz.

[Canuckistanian]

77. If so, he's taking his sources down with him

He said he'd name names if this turns out to be bogus. Then we'll see what the REAL source of the lie is.

[RagAss]

79. Let's hope it's true...it's been a rollercoaster ride all weekend....

I am willing to give it until Tuesday, since the correction of the original story stated business hours(which I never really heard before when the term "24hrs" is used)and not one day. Tuesday. After that my hope will fade and the mockery of this site by our enemies will make this a "weenie site"....

[Festivito]

80. Resulting story of sources and bloggers should be interesting.

I just wonder if outing the sources will prove as interesting to us as the use of the Rove arrest has been to some others such as persons at the Michigan Governor Granholm fundraiser with Hillary.

If those sources chuckle at being outed, the blogger path might prove an interesting story.

Until then, I'll be enjoying .. :popcorn:

[happydreams]

83. Has he been "Ratherized"?

[flyarm]

86. then tweety would have to be the first to resign..because he spilled the

the beans first on friday morning!

[Radio_Guy]

88. IF, and this is a HUGE if, Leopold's story is false

Then his career is over as far as I am concerned. This is one heck of a screw up if it is wrong. But I have seen no evidence to show the story is wrong. So let's not call up the lynch mob just yet. Be patient. Fitzmas is right around the corner.