Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again-(2006)

[Pryderi]

I'm sorry, but reading and believing Jason Leopold his almost like believing in Drudge.

Remember When?

http://www.cjr.org/politics/jason_leopold_caught_sourceles.php
Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again

Now that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has said that he will not seek charges against Karl Rove, will Truthout.org rethink their affiliation with reporter Jason Leopold?

By Paul McLeary

We wonder if the folks over at Truthout.org are rethinking their affiliation with reporter and serial fabulist Jason Leopold. Leopold, you may recall, is the freelance reporter who was caught making stuff up in a 2002 Salon.com article, self-admittedly “getting it completely wrong” in pieces for Dow Jones, and had his own memoir cancelled because of concerns over the accuracy of quotations.


Leopold’s latest addition to his application for membership in the Stephen Glass school of journalism came on May 12 of this year, when he got what appeared to be the scoop of a lifetime. Now writing for Truthout.org, Leopold reported that Karl Rove “told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials,” that he was about to be indicted in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case, “according to people knowledgeable about these discussions.”


Leopold claimed that multiple sources “confirmed Rove’s indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove’s situation.”


Well, today we learned that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said he would not seek charges against Rove.


Oops.

[Redbear]

1. This article is from 2006. n/t

[Dennis Donovan]

2. This is from over 2 years ago...

Why bring it up now?:shrug:

[CatWoman]

4. There's a method to his madness

preemptive strike on another Leopold story.

Not condoning, not agreeing.

Just stating.

[Pryderi]

6. Exactly. I posted this thread in response to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4919728

I would never cite Jason Leopold as a source for a story...I would've referenced the original Washington Post story.

[Dennis Donovan]

No offense, but you sure seem to have a bug up your butt about this...

:shrug:

[CatWoman]

8. well

I'm inclined to give Jason the benefit of the doubt.

[Pryderi]

10. I wish the original poster had just referenced the original Washington Post story instead.

Twice bitten, thrice shy.

[Goblinmonger]

41. Why?

What has he done to earn that? If someone on Fox had Leopold's track record for shoddy journalism and lying, that person would be a laughing stock on here. The fact that people continue to give Leopold a break, must less those that still defend his Rove story, amazes me.

[Dennis Donovan]

7. The Rove indictment story from 2 years ago was correct when it was written...

...even Shuster was reporting it. Rove wriggled out of it at the last minute.

I remember the Leopold wars well. At the time, it was apparent it was more against Will Pitt & Truthout than it was against Leopold.:hi:

[Pryderi]

9. Here's the original Washington Post Rove letter story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012602157.html

[Dennis Donovan]

11. Jason Leopold is not a banned sourse on DU...

Again, you seem to have a bit of an obsession with this.:shrug: If you don't like threads that reference Leopold, hide them.;)

[Pryderi]

12. I believe DUers who've joined within the last 2 years should be informed about tainted news sources.

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. Again?

Where is the "again" part? I didn't click on the link, but the excerpt is dated May of some undefined year. Is this just an out of the blue attack on Leopold?

[Pryderi]

5. Leopold made stuff up in 2002 and 2006.

[Ghost in the Machine]

13. and you're making shit up in 2009...

it's almost 3 years later, get the fuck over it already.... and quit making up phony headlines, too. :eyes:

[Pryderi]

14. I'm not making shit up. I'm pointing out facts. Unlike Jason Leopold.

[Ghost in the Machine]

15. If *you* had any integrity or honesty in you, you'd edit your headline to include (2006) in it

while you're still able to edit it. Do you possess the honesty and/or integrity to do so?

[Pryderi]

16. I just did it. Satisfied? I'm not even a journalist.

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. Thank you, but it's not about whether I'm satisfied or not, it's about how it makes *you* look..

It was a misleading headline that suggested that this was a new story, not one that is almost 3 years old. Being that I already knew about the 2006 incident, I wouldn't have clicked on the thread. I only did so because I thought it was something new that just happened.

:hi:

[Pryderi]

19. You're welcome. Do you trust Jason Leopold's reporting?

[Ghost in the Machine]

20. I believe Jason learned his lesson & uses more caution now...

[JackRiddler]

23. So what? Does that exonerate baseless claims & distortions?

[Pryderi]

25. You're calling Columbia Jounalism Review's story baseless?

[JackRiddler]

28. Very persuasive. I'm done for, now.

[Pryderi]

17. What I fear is that Leopold will work to reclaim his reputation for a couple of years and then

burn all of us when he gets lazy and wants to grab headlines.

[JackRiddler]

24. Those cunning, wily Leopolds! Strange, why do I fear the TV will do this... every day?!

[Pryderi]

27. Leopold befouled his reputation, not me.

[originalpckelly]

21. This story is 26,280 business hours old.

[Pryderi]

22. Maybe I should've made this a " In case anyone's forgotten." Thread. :eyes:

[seemslikeadream]

26. SFW?

GET OVER IT

[acmavm]

29. *snark* Politics — June 13, 2006 03:37 PM

Way to go! Amazing it wasn't posted in Latest Breaking News.

[Pryderi]

30. Are you arguing that we shouldn't discuss the past? Bush-Cheney would be happy to hear you say that

[acmavm]

31. You know damn good and well that's not the point, or the case in

point. You fucked up and thought you were really posting a HOT item.

You were WRONG. And worse, now you defend it.

Like I said *snark* Politics — June 13, 2006 03:37 PM.

[Pryderi]

32. Did you even follow the thread and read replies, or did you just want to *snark*? Maybe

you should read what's been posted.

[acmavm]

40. I did.

[Zodiak]

33. Wow...a one-poster crusade to bring down Leopold

I do not understand why some people have so much venom for him. He, like a zillion other reporters, made a mistake years ago....big deal. It not something I would start regular crusades over...nad hwne a person does it, it look an awful lot like an agenda.

[HereSince1628]

39. It would be good for you to discuss this with other mods and the administrators

Jason Leopold's reporting on the Libby case created considerable, shall I say...energetic discussions? And they resulted in alerts, tombstoning, and voluntary non-retentions that hadn't been seen since the days of Bev whose name shall not be further mentioned.


Personally, I think a "manual for mods" could use that entire episode as an introduction to things that can require moderation.

[Strong Atheist]

34. Has it been

24 business hours yet?

:rofl:

[Pryderi]

35. self delete

[Strong Atheist]

36. You misunderstand (I think).

We are in agreement...

:pals:

[Pryderi]

37. I guess I did. I'm just a little defensive after being attacked for

reminding people what happened during Plamegate reporting.

[Strong Atheist]

38. It's cool!

:pals: