« Gannett's new distribution strategy in Mississippi | Main | Tuesday Deadline Linkdump: the REVISED Rove edition »
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Tuesday Deadline Linkdump: the duped by Rove indictment edition
On Saturday, Jason Leopold at Truthout.com reported that Karl Rove has been indicted. But has he? Well, um, no. At least, it doesn't look like it. Yet.
Peter Daou of Salon.com questions Leopold's reporting:
My concern - and the reason I write this - is that Leopold's ubiquitous
reporting has set expectations very high in the blog community. We're
at a moment when blogs are under assault
by prominent media and establishment figures. I wouldn't want to see
him used as a cudgel to flog the progressive netroots as a bunch of
conspiracy nuts. There's enough of that already. We don't need to
provide ammo to our opponents.
So which Vermonters fell for the story wrote about the story as if it might be true?
Vermont Daily Briefing
Cut to the Chase
Flaming Grasshopper
Green Mountain Daily
Carpetbagger Report also weighed in with a hopeful albeit skeptical post.
UPDATE; Odum from Green Mountain Daily objects to my post and says I'm throwing "a stinkbomb" his way. Well, maybe. But this Rove story and the way it was circulated is the real stinkbomb, I think.
Even so, I probably should have mentioned that Odum's post was skeptical about the story. Here's what he wrote toward the end of his post:
So is it true? If so, why haven't we seen it anywhere else like, say CNN? MSNBC? Unfortunately Jason Leopold and Truthout are not sources we can feel confident about, and the blogosphere is abuzz as to whether he should be believed or not. If it's true, you can say you read it at GMD first. If it's not, maybe I'll just be tacky and delete the diary...
May 16, 2006 at 12:13 PM in VT Blogs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b91969e200d83429f6a253ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tuesday Deadline Linkdump: the duped by Rove indictment edition:
» Mother's Day for the two mommy family from Julie Lerman Blog
[Read More]
Tracked on May 16, 2006 4:21:11 PM
» The Perils of Blogging from Alphecca
Both righty and lefty bloggers have been guilty of perpetuating rumors. Here's what can happen when several liberal ones get their hopes up.... [Read More]
Tracked on May 18, 2006 6:06:06 AM
Comments
I BEG your pardon.
The very TITLE of the Green Mountain Daily Post was "Rove Indicted (Or Not)?" It was highly skeptical, closing with the statement:
So is it true? If so, why haven't we seen it anywhere else like, say CNN? MSNBC? Unfortunately Jason Leopold and Truthout are not sources we can feel confident about, and the blogosphere is abuzz as to whether he should be believed or not. Guess we'll find out soon. If it's true, you can say you read it at GMD first. If it's not, maybe I'll just be tacky and delete the diary...
In fact, my post was noted in a posting on DailyKos as an example of appropriate skepticism:
Odum, with his healthy scepticism, has a good take on the Leopold situation here. Note the timestamp - 10:25 pm Saturday. Jaaaaaaa-sonnnnnnnnn........I think you got some 'splainin' to do.........
Okay -- fess up Cathy -- did you even read the post, or just see GMD on a Google search?
Posted by: odum | May 16, 2006 3:00:56 PM
...in fact not a one of the blogs you linked to actually "bought it." Vermont Daily Briefing expresses skepticsm from the get-go, FG simply says "word has it" (the most definitve statement of the lot, but still uncertain at best), and Cut to the Chase's equally brief post was entitled "Has Bush's Brain Been Indicted?" (note the question mark), concluding only that "Truthout says so."
Seriously -- after posting a quote from Daou referring to "conspiracy nuts" and then following with your own Vermont nut menu is seriously disrespectful to the bloggers you indict as nuts. I think everyone in the blogosphere depends heavily on word-of-mouth reputations, and it is deeply unfair to throw a stinkbomb into my, Philip's, Jonathan's and Katherine's reputations like that without checking your facts. I'm really, really surprised by this.
Posted by: odum | May 16, 2006 3:16:44 PM
Google search? Why would I Google search your blog instead of reading it?
Odum, I did read the post. And I guess it was unfair to infer that you weren't skeptical. The passage you quoted from your post *does* show skepticism.
I'll amend my post to note that.
But here's what Philip said:
"Just finished a quick check around the news outlets, including the real leading edge sites, and no confirmation so far. But Randi sounded pretty convinced.
How appropriate that the news would come out on Mother’s Day weekend.
Lord knows Rove is the biggest mother of them all."
If that's not buying into the story, it sure comes close to making a down payment.
But at least Philip updated his blog to reflect the reality of the situation. The other two blogs linked to the story with a teaser that suggested it was true. And as far as I could tell when I wrote the post, neither one of them had corrected the record.
If there's a stinkbomb being thrown, it's this Rove story.
Posted by: cresmer | May 16, 2006 4:19:38 PM
And if he was, in fact, indicted, I will gladly update my post and do some embarrassing thing like eat a stinkbomb. Or something.
Posted by: cresmer | May 16, 2006 4:34:05 PM
I appreciate the mea culpa, but disagree with your assessment of Philip's quote as a "buy-in." All it states is an attempt to confirm that was unsuccessful. Obviously the implication (if not an outright statement) was that no conclusions could yet be drawn, followed by glee at the coincidental timing of the report. That was certainly the impression I was left with after reading it at the time, and I'll wager virtually every other reader as well.
Again, the title of his post, which on a blog post often serves as a sort of thesis statement, is "Breaking Rove News — Sort of". Hardly definitive, and clearly suggesting that the poster is unconvinced himself and letting us no right up front.
And in fact, if you quote the following to back up your thesis:
Just finished a quick check around the news outlets, including the real leading edge sites, and no confirmation so far. But Randi sounded pretty convinced.How appropriate that the news would come out on Mother’s Day weekend.
Without including the next, and final sentence of the post...
It’s 7:37 pm, May the 12th, 2006. And VDB’s fingers are now officially crossed.
...obviously making no conclusions, and expressing hopeful skepticism.
Please, Philip is no dummy. He could tell it was questionable, and that it was causing serious blogosphere buzz. His post was appropriate, and appropriately skeptical. He clearly did not "fall for" anything, and was just as he said, "keeping his fingers crossed" and inviting his readers to do the same, rather than go off popping the champagne corks.
Posted by: odum | May 16, 2006 4:34:51 PM
and now-now...
I guess it was unfair to infer that you weren't skeptical.
You imply, while I infer.
Of course on the other side:
clearly suggesting that the poster is unconvinced himself and letting us no right up front.
Uhh... that should have read "know," so who am I to correct...
Posted by: odum | May 16, 2006 4:51:52 PM
Come on Cathy – You are way out of bounds here.
Vermont Daily Briefing was reporting on what Randi Rhodes said. He was clear to say he had, "NO CONFIRMATION SO FAR."
Green Mountain Daily was reporting on what Truthout said. He was clear to say, "Jason Leopold and Truthout ARE NOT SOURCES WE CAN FEEL CONFIDENT ABOUT.”
Neither blog reported this rumor as fact.
They reported it as a rumor. They were clear that it was a rumor.
You are misrepresenting the reality of this.
Posted by: natkinney | May 16, 2006 6:08:48 PM
By the way, the MSM is speculating that Rove could be indicted soon too. There is noting irresponsible about it. In fact it would be irresponsible to not report on this.
Read the front page story of the Washington Post from May 8, 2006, “Rove's Time in Limbo Near End in CIA Leak Case”
Many accomplished and respected reporters are reporting on the fact that Rove is under investigation and suggesting that he is very close to being indicted.
It's too bad that you've misrepresented what VDB and VDB wrote.
Posted by: natkinney | May 16, 2006 6:21:19 PM
This is fun!
Vermont's first real blog controversy! We've made it!
Disclosure: I spent about two hours with Cathy for a little Friday Coffeeblogging session with Cathy, Bill Simmon and evening last week. And I had lunch with Philip Baruth a few weeks ago. Philip, odum, Cathy and Bill Simmon have all linked to my blog.
That's what's so great about it!
While I don't want to claim any status in the Vermont blogosphere with only a month under my belt, here's what I propose:
Let's have all Vermont political blogs just exclusively write about each other and then we can make comments on those that allow them, or send emails to Philip.
I know that sounds sarcastic, but I really mean the opposite.
And for the record, I agree with odum and was also a bit surprised at the characterization of Vermont bloggers' reaction to the Leopold story (which, still, by the way, is not necessarily a complete fabrication.)
I think it was especially unwelcome to odum and others because of the recent blogger assault coming from some members of the big establishment media -- a topic which came up during Friday Coffeeblogging.
But it looks like opinions have been expressed and a fairly good mutual understanding has emerged.
And, look!
We're all so interconnected here in Vermont.
There's a lot of power in that.
Neil Jensen (aka Vermonter)
Posted by: Vermonter | May 16, 2006 7:18:45 PM
This is *so* not the first Vermont blog controversy.
Posted by: cresmer | May 16, 2006 7:34:11 PM
Touche, Cathy...
I should have said the first blog controversy that I tried to insert myself in to...
Posted by: Vermonter | May 16, 2006 7:38:51 PM
Ok, so I've taken your comments to heart and issued a revised post. Sorry if I offended folks.
I'm not removing the first post, in the interest of posterity.
I do question the value of spreading that Rove story, though. I know everybody wants to see him indicted, but let's wait until there's actually something to report. I mean, if he's really getting indicted, it's not going to be some secret thing. We'll all find out about it eventually.
Posted by: cresmer | May 16, 2006 8:03:22 PM
< but let's wait until there's actually something to report >
I think you're making a fundamental mistake about the difference between blogs and the print media. In the blogosphere, a rumor is very much "something to report" -- it just should be reported as such (these are "web logs" after all -- we can "report" on our favorite recipes if we want!).
In fact, it's part of the beauty of this "new media" -- the capacity for self-policing. If you do a quick web-search, you'll see that a gazillion blogs reported on it and the overwhelming majority reported the same skepticism that the Vermont blogs did -- in other words, the blogosphere rather organically contextualized the rumor against the established lack of credibility of the reporter. In the days of Bill O'Reillys and John Gibsons spewing garbage as fact, largely unchallenged (within their own media) and in fact emulated (see CNN's hiring of that Beck guy), it makes me proud to see that we could report on the buzz while calling it for what it is with our eyes wide open.
Posted by: odum | May 16, 2006 9:34:24 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.