Howard Kurtz - Watch that flying Glass

[Coexist]

The glee you express at debunking Truthout's story wouldn't be linked to the mistakes the blogosphere and alternative news have exposed at the Post... Nah... couldn't be - could it?

from your column - regarding Ash's partial apology:
"Um, what exactly does that mean? That the story was wrong? That they're not sure whether it was wrong? That it was right but published too soon?"

I don't know - maybe they got all marble-mouthed from the wording of the folks at the Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/10/DI2006011000885.html?nav=left

Howard Kurtz: Howell's column Sunday said that a number of Democrats "have gotten Abramoff campaign money." That was inartfully worded. I believe what she was trying to say, and I have not discussed this with her, is that some Democrats have received campaign cash from Abramoff clients, and that this may have been orchestrated by the convicted lobbyist.

Ah, yes, "inartfully worded." That is clear as mud, dude.

But on to sources, a credible bastion of journalistic integrity like the WaPo has never had to deal with issues of sources, have they?

http://www.regrettheerror.com/2005/09/kurtz_criticize.html
Unreliable Source

The Washington Post, like many news organizations, says it is trying to crack down on the use of anonymous sources. But the paper allowed a "senior administration official" to spin the story of the slow response to Katrina -- with a claim that turned out to be false.

On Sept. 4, the paper cited the "senior Bush official" as saying that as of the day before, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco "still had not declared a state of emergency." As The Post noted in a correction, Blanco, a Democrat, had declared a state of emergency on Aug. 26.

Liberal bloggers have unloaded on The Post.

Did you begin to harbor a secret resentment at the blogosphere by then, Mr. Kurtz? You know, one would think that you would have a little sympathy for them, since your huge company full of professional journalists with the best sources can fuck up too, huh.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051601262.html
Newsweek, which is owned by The Washington Post Co., said Sunday that its brief item was based on an unnamed senior U.S. official who now says he can "no longer be sure" of the information provided to reporter Michael Isikoff.

McClellan said the story "appears to be very shaky from the get-go" and rests on "a single anonymous source who cannot substantiate the allegation that was made." Isikoff said Sunday that "there was absolutely no lapse in journalistic standards," noting that the Pentagon declined an opportunity to challenge the story before it was published.

WHAT?! The MSM "journalists" get bad information from sources and run with the story? NO FUCKING WAY?!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24015-2005Apr3.html
Talking Points (Cont'd)

The flap about a Washington Post report on an unsigned strategy memo in the Terri Schiavo case, which the paper said was "distributed to Republican senators," isn't going away.

It turns out that The Post's news service put out an early version of the March 20 story -- published by numerous other papers -- that said the talking points, which touted the Schiavo case as a political opportunity, were "distributed to Republican senators by party leaders." GOP congressional leaders say they never saw the document, whose author remains unknown. Post reporter Mike Allen, who was unaware the news service had distributed the earlier version, said last week that the paper was careful not to say it was "a Republican memo."

Kate Carlisle, the news service's managing editor, says Allen's report was sent out at 9:07 the night before and "we weren't notified that changes had been made to the story after we got it." Despite criticism from bloggers, and Allen's request for a correction, Carlisle said no correction was warranted. Late Friday, the news service sent out an "advisory" saying: "The version of the article published by the paper did not specify the authorship and noted that the memo was unsigned. The authorship remains unknown." The advisory did not retract the assertion that "party leaders" had given out the memo.

I guess you can see everything more clearly from that glass house of yours.

Howard Kurtz - give me a fucking break.

[The Witch]

1. nice work, k&r.

[Supersedeas]

6. i'll second that, great job!!

[Spazito]

2. Wow, excellent work!

:thumbsup:

Recommended.

[redqueen]

3. I wonder how many people are still fooled by their shenanigans.

Let's hope it's hardly any by this fall.

[robbedvoter]

4. FlDem - you Rock! Wa-Po - from Watergate to "10 days in September"

talk about fall and decline. Now, on Rove' s orders trying to take down internet news! Speaking power to truth!

One correction: their "clarification" of the Abramoff&Democrats lie was still a lie!

[Coexist]

8. nice title. "From Watgate to 10 Days in September"

wonderful stuff!

[DesEtoiles]

5. [e-mail]

[fooj]

7. I hope that you sent this to the asshole.

Peace.

[Coexist]

28. think he would read it?

[fooj]

30. It's worth a shot, imo.

:hi:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

9. So, what's the latest from Jason Leopold?

That indictment still sitting around, gathering dust?

Or has he owned up to writing a bullshit story?

Has truthout retracted it yet, or are they waiting for the indictment's first birthday?

What a shame, what a blow to the newly-aborning credibility of the blogosphere. That it might be compared to errors made in the regular press doesn't make any of it better.

The regular press has been around a lot longer and got a lot more things right - I remember the Post and Watergate, I'm that old, and their incredible bravery in taking on the Nixon Administration, mostly due to the courage of Katharine Graham and Ben Bradlee - but, to think that some errors made by anyone at the Post in any way counters the shameful nonsense put out by Jason Leopold and truthout is to compare apples and oranges.

It just doesn't hold, and it surely doesn't make truthout or Leopold look any more credible, simply because they are not.

[Coexist]

10. you are welcome to visit Truthout to find out the status of their story

I seem to recall your telling us to do our own research on certain issues.
;-)

and this was in response to Kurtz's column. A reaction to the fact they the MSM has gotten LOTS wrong due to sources (WMDs, Curveball, ring a bell?). People have died because of trusting untrustworthy sources.

The Leopold tar-and-feathering done by those here is worse than what Kurtz did, but I am addressing him instead of starting another flamewar with fellow DUers.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

11. What a grand idea!

Thanks. If I had any respect for truthout, I would, but, hey, they've established themselves as an unreliable source, so, OK, thanks for the answer.

The Post, though, captured the essence of truthout and Ash and Leopold very well, I thought. As did CBS online. Their call for greater transparency was brilliant, I thought.

And there is nothing sadder than a defense that is composed entirely of trying to make an outside party look wrong. It's really sad.

[Coexist]

12. trying to make an outside party look wrong - or pointing out their similar

mishaps?

I guess we see it differently.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

13. Yeah

I see it clearly.

Thanks again.

[lala_rawraw]

14. Why bring out the right wing big guns

for Jason... this is what is driving me nuts. Rove's talking head called Kurtz and told him to do the piece, why?

[Coexist]

15. I have no idea. my premise (obviously) is that the MSM

is giddy over being able to "get back" at the blogosphere and alternative news outlets.

But they have strangely enjoyed roasting Jason and TruthOut. Even though they have other blogo-gates - no mention of Drudge's retraction, or other bullshit, but they are on this like white on rice.

[lala_rawraw]

16. Not so... the MSM has actually shown restraint...

It is the left leaning blogs, right leaning blogs, right wing talking bobble heads and two alternative publications. just seems odd given that TO was being eaten by their own on this.

[Coexist]

18. Really - I was surprised that both the WaPo and CBS news

would have bothered dirtying their gloves with this. Yet they did.
That was where my head was.

That said - it is amazing how vicious people have been to Jason and anyone who even tries to defend or support him.

Question since you may know - on Truthout - there is an update. It reads like the one from Sunday, but is dated today. Do you know what has changed between the last update and this one? I can't find any specific details that are different.

I think that this is changed - but I can't quite say how:
"We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about."

Were there two sources listed last update? Also, is the "early morning... 13th" new?

[lala_rawraw]

25. what I don't get is the almost dead silence on the Iran/Jews/Uniform

bullshit piece... that is something that I could see everyone going after the writer for and demanding a retracting or proof... where is the outrage... but instead, everyone is flipping out on if/when/how Rove will/has/been/might/be indicted. or Iran and that no one in the MSM is covering the goings on other than me, Hersh, and the foreign press. i could go on, but why bother... i just don't get the level of bile on the one story and against the one writer/publication and almost dead silence on any of the stories that are serious and in some cases a matter of life or death. i throw my hands up.

[Spazito]

26. I think I can explain that one in the context that they have the ...

excuse it was not the US media that sent that disgusting piece of propaganda around the world. It was the Jeruselem Post and Canada's right-wing rag, the National Post. It is not a good excuse for them but it would be one they would use nevertheless, imo.

[lala_rawraw]

31. because the DOD cannot plant a story in the US...

they did so in Canada, then it came threw and was made all legal like:(

[Spazito]

32. Exactly!

Now that we have a right wing government, for the moment only I hope, the National Post is going all out. It was once owned by Conrad Black who is best buds with the likes of Perle and Kissinger and the outfit that now has the National Post are also best buds with all these assholes.

The upside of what happened is that they were forced to take it down almost immediately but the damage was done, sadly.

[Coexist]

27. I wish I had an answer for you Lala...

but you are more plugged in than I, so I should be asking you that question!

[lala_rawraw]

36. I have never been interested in the front end sell

of this story, that is, WH > journos and cover-up... my interest has always been with regard to the actual crime and I have been doing Iran stories for a few months now, with the exception of that Rove cooporating by providing emails story, but nothing else on it. Plus, I have not reported that Rove will be indicted thing at all as I am focused on the connections and motives behind the scenes. So really, in terms of the latest in the case, I have not been in the loop for a few months and have not even been working on getting in the loop. So no, I am just as lost as you, minus one thing maybe, that is I understand the dynamic of a source/journo relationship and how 11th hour changes can move a story in a whole new direction.

looks like we wait together:)

[Coexist]

37. Lala - check out this thread, and this sub-thread in particular

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1265572&mesg_id=1269765

and please let me know your thoughts.

[lala_rawraw]

38. I saw that when it came out

It shows that they are very carefully watching the reporting on this case. Consider that the other journalists named are all part of the story in some way. Jason is reporting on the story, so his mention is quite clear that they are very aware of his work and the work of Pitt as well.

[DemReadingDU]

34. Comments have been posted today, 5/23/06, on Truthout

I'm not sure that the actual blog changed, just that more comments were added.

[Coexist]

35. thanks for that clarification. It was moved back up to the top

of the page too, so I thought he added some stuff.

[Spazito]

17. It's a very good question, imo!

Not only what they are doing but how they are doing it. Instead of focusing on the article Jason wrote and proving it false, they use the controversy over the article to slime Jason personally. There seems to be a VERY concerted effort, inside DU and in the mainstream media, to discredit Jason well beyond that of having written an article with factual errors and one has to wonder why. If, in fact, Jason was in error, and I am still waiting for Fitzgerald's action on this before I make any judgments, the disgusting rhetoric and trashing goes way beyond anything that makes sense to me.

[lala_rawraw]

19. Right... this is odd and this is what is bugging me

and why I am wondering if there was a set=up... consider that Byron York had his little wee wee ready to go within a few hours, and WSJ that Monday. also, both publications were using Luskin as the source, not Fitz' office, nothing other than Luskin says no. wtf? they need not believe the article, that is fine, they could simply ignore it... but as you say, they made a point of attacking Jason as a drug addict and a criminal, something he has never denied and does not find joy in either. i guess we can have a drug addict criminal for President, but not a journalist who has had a drug problem (and paid for it by lifting CDs) in the PAST. welcome to Amerikaka

[Spazito]

20. Here are some interesting quotes from Howie, interesting because,

to me, they show Howie doesn't read what he writes nor, given this posted piece of trash in the OP, does he believe what he writes:

For his part, Kurtz says that the rise of millions of bloggers—many of whom delight in kicking him and others in the media around—is healthy. “One of the reasons I think there’s so much resentment toward the mainstream press is that people think that we’re arrogant, remote, and reluctant to admit mistakes, and there’s a lot of truth in that. To the extent to which bloggers and others have helped fill the vacuum, it’s taken the mainstream press down a peg, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.”

“What I’m not, and this seems to disappoint people on both the left and the right, is a super-opinionated ideologue who is going to tear down news organizations because they don’t see the world as I do,” Kurtz says. “I think that most people appreciate that I try as best I can to do my job straight down the middle, not lean to any ideological side or another, and while I’m not perfect, I make an honest attempt to hold journalists accountable.”

Hmmm, can anyone point me to Howie's critique of Drudge's false stories that were posted in the last few days which, I am sure, given he "can do my job straight down the middle, not lean to any ideological side or another". Should I bother to keep looking for it? I suspect it would be a lost cause.

[Coexist]

21. Has he mentioned that Glenn Beck is a recovering addict?

If and when he ever criticizes his reporting, I will be interested to see if he feels it is important to mention that.

Could this smearing have something to do with what is in Leopold's book? They are quick to mention the book deal going south every time they mention the drugs.

[Spazito]

22. Another good example of his lack of being "non-partisan"

not to mention his direct conflict of interest re his ridiculous CNN show "Reliable Sources". You will not see Howie say anything negative about Bill Bennett and his hypocrisy about morals or, as you pointed out, Glen Beck and his personal problems.

You have a good question re the book. There certainly seems to be something beyond an article that may contain factual errors that is driving the frenzy to totally trash Jason and TO.

[robbedvoter]

23. How about his girlfriend working for Arnuld's campaign?

Objective Howy wrote quite a bit on the subject and never disclosed that little connection. But that was maybe because Arnuld himself was a "straight down the middle...Republican, non? O8)

[Spazito]

24. Her name is Sheri Annis...

She has a media consultant company called "Fourth Estate Strategies". Here's her bio from her company site:

Biography




Tuesday, May 23, 2006



Sheri Annis is a political commentator and media consultant whose clients range from California to Washington DC. She was the spokeswoman for Arnold Schwarzenegger during his first political campaign in 2002. She was chief spokeswoman for California's Proposition 227, the successful measure to eliminate California's failed bilingual education programs. In addition, she played a major role in California's Proposition 209 campaign, which eliminated race and gender-based preferences in government hiring, contracting and education.

As president of Fourth Estate Strategies, she provides media training and communications strategy for high-level candidates and executives and works with prominent think tanks. She has been the media voice for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association's effort to protect taxpayer rights in California. Her professional interests also include free market advocacy, race and gender issues, tort reform, the "living wage," tax policy and fiscal responsibility.

Ms. Annis has written for National Review and has been quoted by news outlets such as the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post. Her television appearances include NBC's Today Show, CNN's Inside Politics, Fox & Friends, MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann and the long-running ABC show Politically Incorrect, among others.

Sheri Annis is a native of Los Angeles, California and now resides in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

http://www.fourthestatestrategies.com/html/biography.html

I found it noteworthy to see what issues she has worked on, they sure look like progressive, liberal issues, NOT.

Edited to add: She is his wife, they married early in 2003, while she was working on Arnold's campaign.

[sendero]

29. Well done...

... and a point that not only the MSM could stand to heed.

[Rex]

33. It's funny watching the circus try to out due their rage at TO

TO is still batting waaaaaaaaaaaaay better than anyone in the MSM. 'So does that mean you have blind faith in TO'? Maybe if you're a moran. :eyes: