Wouldn't it have been better if truthout .com didn't defend itself........

[trumad]

with the Rove indictment story? Just post the story, let everyone go batshit over it, and when it comes true---sit back and enjoy success.

I think it would have been far more effective if truthout simply said, "we stick by our sources".

mhop

[movonne]

1. Well, I think I saw something like that on here...if you know how

to research it, maybe you can find it..I would help you, but I don't know how...

[texasleo]

2. when it comes true?

It is not their story to begin with. Their end is the "24 hours" situation.

[trumad]

3. You know what I mean.....

[Media_Lies_Daily]

5. Twenty-four BUSINESS hours. They're still on the clock,....

...it's still their story, and if proven correct, they'll still get the credit. And much deserved credit at that.

[BlooInBloo]

4. For me personally, someone like Hersch or Waas or the like....

... has enough cred to pull of that kinda thing evidence-free, and I'll go along with it. But someone I've never heard of, writing for an internet operation? Not without actual publically verifiable evidence.

Not that they're *wrong* - I have no idea about the actual fact of the matter - it's just that they don't have enough "credibility dollars" to cover such a large credence-promissory note. That's me. Others may differ.

I fervently hope that the facts end up bearing out what Truthout says - at least the part that's still up for settling (ie, NOT the "24 hours" bit - that boat has sailed).

[trumad]

7. I've heard of Pitt and that all I need....

[liberalhistorian]

9. Pitt isn't God, even if he's considered

that around here. I desperately hope the story is true, but until it's actually confirmed there's no way of knowing for sure. And people who legitimately express skepticism should not be trashed just because they dared to question Pitt and truthout, that's really uncalled for.

[Jacobin]

19. aaaaaa aaaaaccccccc cccccckkkkk kkkkk

He's not???


(I know what you mean. I think he's great. If the story of Rove having been indicted last Friday is wrong, then when its time, he'll admit it and learn from it.)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

20. IMHO, the majority of people expressing "skepticism" have not....

...done it in a professional manner. They have attacked the credibility of Leopold, Pitt, and Truthout, and they have done it in a way that can only be understood as personal attacks. That's what's been "uncalled for", IMHO.

[redqueen]

24. Hear hear! n/t

[liberalhistorian]

30. I completely agree that that is the wrong

way to express skepticism and is uncalled for. It's simply sufficient to say you want to wait until it's actually confirmed and verified before believing it, without calling anyone's credibility or integrity into question. I have seen people who've politely expressed such sentiments being trashed, however, and that's what I was referring to.

I don't doubt Will's sincerity, but we just don't know for sure. Knowing the WH, they could easily have been jacking truthout around.

Again, I desperately hope it's true and, if it is, I'll be the first to give credit where it's due.

[karlrschneider]

37. Whereas no DUer would -ever- make a 'personal attack' on

a wingnut pundit such as Limbaugh, et al. Got it.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

39. ???

[rodeodance]

49. no, i did not see the skeptics make the blanket kind of attachs you

write about. yes, some did but not all.

[BlooInBloo]

12. (a) My knowledge of Pitt is editorial-style stuff....

... which is substantially different from factual reporting... Don't get me wrong - I love his writing. But my love of Lebron James playing basketball doesn't imply that I'll agree with him about cooking...

and

(b) Um, Pitt didn't write this article. Do you similarly trust David Brooks because you know and like Krugman? (Just an example - I'm not saying the Truthout author is Brooks-like).

[Media_Lies_Daily]

31. Pitt is Leopold's senior editor at Truthout. Leopold's work is being...

...reviewed very carefully before it gets released online. Those reviews are focused primarily on fact-checking, and discussing the sources being used.

You obviously did not know their professional relationship at Truthout, did you?

IMHO, if you believe Jason Leopold is lying, then you have to believe Will Pitt is lying.

[BlooInBloo]

36. You're the only one saying anything about anyone lying....

The issue for me doesn't concern the actual truth or falsity of the truthout claims at all, in fact.

I'm only concerned with whether or not to give my assent to the claims made, or not.

And please don't skip over the fact that "not giving assent to" does NOT mean the same thing as "dissents with". Agnosticism is perfectly possible, and is, in fact, where I am, until actual evidence and/or independent corroboration are provided.

I do worry, however, along the lines of Peter Daou, about the consequences of truthout's claims not being borne out by actual fact. But at the moment, I freely admit that such worries are hypothetical.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

40. No, sorry...I'm not the "only one saying anything about lying"....

...Leopold has been the primary recepient of that charge since his story came out on Friday. Will Pitt has gotten some of that by having the audacity to defend a story he believes is true.

Sorry, but I don't have the time to deal with the rest of your comments.

[BlooInBloo]

46. Thought it was clear - my bad - I meant in OUR discussion....

I've never come even remotely close to saying anyone is lying about anything, I don't think.

About the truthout article, that is :)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

8. See my Post #5.

[BlooInBloo]

10. That's just changing the story.....

.... and treating me like I'm a fucking idiot. That's NO different from saying "depends on what the meaning of '24 hours' is".

Fuck that - I know what "24 hours" fucking means. If someone wanted to say 3 business days, they should've said something kinda like "3 business days".

Or is it in dispute about whether or not the story changed FROM "24 hours" TO "24 business hours". I thought that wasn't in dispute - if I'm wrong about that, my bad.

[karlrschneider]

13. If that kind of change WAS made, it just worsens the situation:

24 hours means precisely that, as you properly observe...which period is WAY past, like two days past. And if the 'change' was meant to equivocate, it's crap because the term "business hours" has no legal or pragmatic meaning, and as I've said before, no lawyer or reputable journalist would ever use it.

[BlooInBloo]

14. The only person I can think of who'd use that is......

... someone trying to not admit being mistaken.

It's entirely possible of course, that this is simply a lack of imagination on my part. When I start seeing legal documents with the phrase "24 business hours" liberally strewn through them, I'll acknowledge that my imagination had thereby been broadened.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

16. I guess you missed Will's follow-up on that issue.

[BlooInBloo]

17. Yuppers! Got a link?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. Look for it. Do a search of Will Pitt's posts since Friday.

[BlooInBloo]

26. (shrug) Sorry. Don't have search privileges, and am too poor to get em....

... I'll just have to take your word for it...

Since that seems to be the M.O. on this whole issue anyways... Why not here? lol

[Media_Lies_Daily]

28. Too bad for you.

[karlrschneider]

44. Check your inbox

...

[DancingBear]

22. No, I think most people saw it

However, some feel that it was a CYA closing the barn door after the horse follow-up, and are quite bothered by it.

Personally, I thought it was very weak.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. Personally, I thought it was a needed correction to...

...eliminate any previous confusion.

Is correcting a previous mistake now perceived as "very weak"?

I thought that was one reason why we hated about the MSM, that they never apologize for, or correct, previous errors.

[DancingBear]

32. To me, the problem lies not in the correction,

but the fact that "Rove was indited - has 24 hours" was sent out as gospel.

To think that that time line was missed to that degree is, as I said, very troubling.

However, the correction as it was issued kind of reminds me of the "Page B24" corrections that the MSM is so fond of - "see, we admitted our mistake!"

This was not someone captioning the wrong person's name - this was a VERY big mistake to make.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. Sounds like we agree to disagree. IMHO, there are too many....

...posters who are busily making mountains out of molehills instead of focusing on the content of Leopold's article.

All of this arguing back and forth about what was meant by "24 hours" detracts from the primary thrust of Leopold's article. IMHO, the primary thrust of the article is that Rove has been indicted, and that the news will become public very soon.

[DancingBear]

43. It just depends on what the meaning of the term "very soon" is

:) :)

Agree to disagree, and let's hope whenever it happens that it is only the start of many more good things to come.

[BlooInBloo]

47. Depends on the meaning of "good things"....

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

45. It's primary relevance for me is in establishing a pattern of behavior....

... That's important for me, because I have no prior knowledge of the article's author.

Now I know of that author that he thinks I'm such a stupid fucking idiot as to believe that "24 hours" is ambiguous.

I'm still agnostic about the more important parts of the article, but cmon - that's not an auspicious beginning for a author-reader relationship - ya know?

[karlrschneider]

35. You think that using an arcane, oblique, nonsensical term like

"business hours" eliminates confusion? I am now officially amazed.

[BlooInBloo]

41. That's a deliberately obfuscatory gerrymandering, IMO....

... that's can't plausibly be interpreted as anything but an avoid-admitting-error move.

I just asked a lawyer of 10 years and an accountant of 10 years. Both were rock-solid that "24 hours" is NOT ambiguous, and is NOT plausibly interpreted as "24 business hours". (Combined with my own knowledge and experience with the English language.)

That's not a typo, that's moving the goalposts.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

42. Whatever.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

15. If you sold your house to somebody who promised a down payment in 24

hours on Thursday, and then you didn't hear from them over the weekend, and when you called, they said "I meant 24 BUSINESS hours i.e. 3 working days" (something I've never heard of expressed in such a way), wouldn't you start to worry about ever seeing the money?

[BlooInBloo]

18. I can't imagine the judge not laughing that defendant outta the courtroom.

But like I said before, maybe it's because of a lack of imagination on my part...

[dogday]

21. If you work in a bank, you put

holds on checks, those holds are like 10 business days and we explain a business day is m-f when banks are open and working.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

23. Yes but I've never heard 3 working/bus. days expressed as 24 hours.

[liberalhistorian]

33. That's because, in legal documents,

including indictments, it is most definitely NOT expressed that way. Legal documents, including indictments, MUST be precise and that is drilled into lawyers and paralegals such as yours truly from day one. If they had meant three business days, that's what they would have said. That's what makes me so skeptical about all of this; just an occupational hazard of being a paralegal, I guess.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. Does Jason Leopold or Will Pitt work in a bank? Have you...

...never made an error that needed to be corrected?

[BlooInBloo]

50. Maybe I'm the only one, but I don't see that as a mistake...

... I see it as EXACTLY on a par with "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is".

Here, it's "depends on what the meaning of '24 hours' is".

What's the same in both cases is that "is" and "24 hours" ARE NOT AMBIGUOUS.

The only use of either locution that I can see is to cover-up a falsehood without admitting it.

And to my eyes, it looks absurdly weak in both cases.

In Clinton's case, I knew a lot about him besides that gerrymandering, so I was able to place it in the context of an overall-assessment of the person.

In the truthout article's case, that gerrymandering is ALL I know about the author - so it's too bad that what I know ain't good.

Not saying the article's false, or that anyone's lying, just saying that the author got our relationship off to a bad start by treating me like I don't know what the fuck "24 hours" means.

[sheelz]

6. Yes, that would be professional.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

11. Seems to me they tried to do that

And it was taken to mean that Leopold was a liar and that truthout regretted the story by their silence.

[Garbo 2004]

29. I think that's what Marc Ash, exec director TO, did. If you're talking

Will Pitt's posts over here, that's another matter.

[mdmc]

48. yes

time will tell