Full Version: Truthout.org
On May 13 Truthout.org broke the story that Karl Rove will be indicted on charges of perjury and lying to investigators.
Link to Original Story
Now it turns out that there was no truth to this story.
On May 19, Truthout.org issued a 'partial' apology. What is a partial apology anyway?
Question for Debate?
1. Even though these are merely internet blogs. Should they be able to be held liable for possible libel and slander on breaking false stories such as this one.
Answering my own question...
I don't believe we can hold sites/authors of blogs libel for false stories like this. If this were the case then you would be able to hold a poster in the forums of many of the tens of thousands of message boards all over the internet libel as well for the slander they commit on a daily basis.
Link to Original Story
Now it turns out that there was no truth to this story.
On May 19, Truthout.org issued a 'partial' apology. What is a partial apology anyway?
Question for Debate?
1. Even though these are merely internet blogs. Should they be able to be held liable for possible libel and slander on breaking false stories such as this one.
Answering my own question...
I don't believe we can hold sites/authors of blogs libel for false stories like this. If this were the case then you would be able to hold a poster in the forums of many of the tens of thousands of message boards all over the internet libel as well for the slander they commit on a daily basis.
I'm not sure about liability as I doubt they were being negligent, but truthout defintely got burned by their sources. The sheople over at D.U.M.B. (democratic underground message boards) had some fun with it, but truthout made a lot of people look like idiots.
Wayne Masden apologized completely. Truthout took the coward's way out with a patrial apology. That hurt their credibility more than help them.
But there were a lot of people backing this up, including Larry Johnson. Supposedly, we're supposed to hear more details noon pacific time.
Or is that 24 business hours?
Wayne Masden apologized completely. Truthout took the coward's way out with a patrial apology. That hurt their credibility more than help them.
But there were a lot of people backing this up, including Larry Johnson. Supposedly, we're supposed to hear more details noon pacific time.
Or is that 24 business hours?
well, they came pretty clean compared to the other sides boards- matt drudge comes to mind with totally wrong stories- remember the kerry affair stories? Never apologized!
But this will always be a problem with blogs and such- because they are not "mainstream" news with thier very deep confirmable sources- however, as DR pointed out- they had a pretty dang good source! But, I think the "anti-GW" side needs to be more ethical than the right wingers these days, and DR is correct that it hurts future credibility, and they should have made a complete apology. the right wing bloggers and pundits since Clinton have never really bothered with anything close to the truth, and that is the truthout type sides strength- The rush limbaughs and such don't stick with the truth at all, and those that don't buy everything the right spew in this country, and only half of what the other side says, are very skeptical.
I guess what I am trying to say- the GW apologists automatically give thier side a pass on everything, question nothing, so they are pretty much preaching to the choir in all thier postings and broadcasts, while organizations like Truthout is trying to convert others to thier side- so they have to take the high road, and this was a big stumble on thier part.
But this will always be a problem with blogs and such- because they are not "mainstream" news with thier very deep confirmable sources- however, as DR pointed out- they had a pretty dang good source! But, I think the "anti-GW" side needs to be more ethical than the right wingers these days, and DR is correct that it hurts future credibility, and they should have made a complete apology. the right wing bloggers and pundits since Clinton have never really bothered with anything close to the truth, and that is the truthout type sides strength- The rush limbaughs and such don't stick with the truth at all, and those that don't buy everything the right spew in this country, and only half of what the other side says, are very skeptical.
I guess what I am trying to say- the GW apologists automatically give thier side a pass on everything, question nothing, so they are pretty much preaching to the choir in all thier postings and broadcasts, while organizations like Truthout is trying to convert others to thier side- so they have to take the high road, and this was a big stumble on thier part.
1. Even though these are merely internet blogs. Should they be able to be held liable for possible libel and slander on breaking false stories such as this one.
If we are to start policing internet blogs for slander and libel.....we might as well stop all other pursuits for the next decade or so. The sheer amount of lying and innuendo that passes for faux journalism on blogs from the right and the left would swamp any effort to counter it.
I could almost believe that the unnamed 'high level source' was a plant. The way that liberals on the internet did a collective pee-pee dance at the prospect of democratic enemy number one being indicted, followed by an embarrassing silence......it was almost too entertaining not be scripted.
I suppose if Rove doesn't get indicted, then it will prove that liberal blogs are by and large cut from the same ideological mold as they claim that right wing blogs are......not sticking to the truth and all...........
If people get their hopes up from something uncorroborated posted on a blog, they are just gullible. But it does not warrant an 'internet police'.
If we are to start policing internet blogs for slander and libel.....we might as well stop all other pursuits for the next decade or so. The sheer amount of lying and innuendo that passes for faux journalism on blogs from the right and the left would swamp any effort to counter it.
I could almost believe that the unnamed 'high level source' was a plant. The way that liberals on the internet did a collective pee-pee dance at the prospect of democratic enemy number one being indicted, followed by an embarrassing silence......it was almost too entertaining not be scripted.
I suppose if Rove doesn't get indicted, then it will prove that liberal blogs are by and large cut from the same ideological mold as they claim that right wing blogs are......not sticking to the truth and all...........
If people get their hopes up from something uncorroborated posted on a blog, they are just gullible. But it does not warrant an 'internet police'.
1. Even though these are merely internet blogs. Should they be able to be held liable for possible libel and slander on breaking false stories such as this one.
The thing is that yes, everyone can be sued for libel and/or slander, no matter what the medium. However, it isn't practical to bring suits against people who don't have enough assets to make it worthwhile. Also, bringing a law suit against someone or some organization could generate more harm than good, depending on the situation.
I doubt that the average blogger has anything to worry about. Apologizing for publishing something that turns out not to be true is typically what newspapers do to cover tush, so that shows a measure of integrity. It's okay to admit to being wrong. Happens all the time.
Judging on how many publications get away with baldfaced lies, the tabloids for example, libel/slander are not easy things to prove.
The thing is that yes, everyone can be sued for libel and/or slander, no matter what the medium. However, it isn't practical to bring suits against people who don't have enough assets to make it worthwhile. Also, bringing a law suit against someone or some organization could generate more harm than good, depending on the situation.
I doubt that the average blogger has anything to worry about. Apologizing for publishing something that turns out not to be true is typically what newspapers do to cover tush, so that shows a measure of integrity. It's okay to admit to being wrong. Happens all the time.
Judging on how many publications get away with baldfaced lies, the tabloids for example, libel/slander are not easy things to prove.
To be successful thought, doesn't there have to be an intent of malice?
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ May 21 2006, 08:33 PM)
1. Even though these are merely internet blogs. Should they be able to be held liable for possible libel and slander on breaking false stories such as this one.
If we are to start policing internet blogs for slander and libel.....we might as well stop all other pursuits for the next decade or so. The sheer amount of lying and innuendo that passes for faux journalism on blogs from the right and the left would swamp any effort to counter it.
If we are to start policing internet blogs for slander and libel.....we might as well stop all other pursuits for the next decade or so. The sheer amount of lying and innuendo that passes for faux journalism on blogs from the right and the left would swamp any effort to counter it.
I agree.
QUOTE
I could almost believe that the unnamed 'high level source' was a plant. The way that liberals on the internet did a collective pee-pee dance at the prospect of democratic enemy number one being indicted, followed by an embarrassing silence......it was almost too entertaining not be scripted.
I mostly agree.
I noticed that truthout was the only source for this story. My thought was that if this turns out to be true, it'll make one hell of a debate on
. Otherwise, I don't think starting a thread based on one source would have been wise.I think Rove should be indicted and I hope he is indicted. I think Patrick Fitzgerald thinks Rove should be indicted. Whether or not Rove is indicted depends on whether Fitzgerald thinks he can make a case that meets "the beyond reasonable doubt" standard.
QUOTE
I suppose if Rove doesn't get indicted, then it will prove that liberal blogs are by and large cut from the same ideological mold as they claim that right wing blogs are......not sticking to the truth and all...........
I disagree.
A misstep by one blog doesn't begin to cover the stench of blogs like the Drudge Report. QUOTE
If people get their hopes up from something uncorroborated posted on a blog, they are just gullible. But it does not warrant an 'internet police'.
I agree.
This is the "beer frame" of your entire post. If or until blogs place accuracy rather than being first as the standard, this statement hits the nail on the head. Being first and right on some questions and first and wrong on others does not create a favorably balanced journalistic equation.Pretty good DTOM, we agree on three of your four statements.
More
QUOTE
Even though these are merely internet blogs. Should they be able to be held liable for possible libel and slander on breaking false stories such as this one.
The answer to that is simple enough. If the mainstream media is held accountable for all the lies they told about Iraq, then yes the blogs should be too. But as far as I can see, the mainstream media continues to issue flase stories. How do we know they're false? Because much of it is paid for by the Pentagon!
Even though these are merely internet blogs. Should they be able to be held liable for possible libel and slander on breaking false stories such as this one.
I don't think the standards should be different for blogs. It's hard for a public figure to prove libel in the U.S. anyway. Truth is an absolute defense against libel charges in the U.S., and as CruisingRam suggested, a public-figure plaintiff has to prove the alleged libeler had actual malice.
For those who don't think bloggers should be held liable for libel, imagine this: you or your spouse is a teacher, and is falsely accused of child molestation. That's the kind of accusation that ruins careers, and has forced people to leave town. Only now, it's on the Internet, stored in archives and search engines forever, ready to pop up the next place you apply for a job. Shouldn't the false accuser bear some responsibility for that?
Here's a non-hypothetical example: For about 48 hours this week, Peace Films hosted a video of a man named Jessie Macbeth, who claimed to have been a "Special Forces Ranger" in Iraq, where he had, under orders, slaughtered hundreds of Iraqi civilians. This was a lie. Fortunately, many military bloggers immediately spotted problems with his story (and his uniform), and at least one called the Army and learned that Macbeth had never even been in the Army. The interview is no longer available on Peace Films' website, but it's now circulating on YouTube and Google Video. It's already been the basis of a story on uruknet.info, a popular site with people already inclined to believe the worst about the U.S. military.
If this becomes a big story, people will get killed because of it. People got killed over the bogus "flushed Koran" at Guantanamo. This is a lot worse. From a legal perspective, it's not really a libel case, but shouldn't Macbeth be held responsible for his lies somehow?
For those interested in the original Rove/Leopold story, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz has a couple of stories that are worth reading. The rest of the media has been sensibly quiet.
I don't think the standards should be different for blogs. It's hard for a public figure to prove libel in the U.S. anyway. Truth is an absolute defense against libel charges in the U.S., and as CruisingRam suggested, a public-figure plaintiff has to prove the alleged libeler had actual malice.
For those who don't think bloggers should be held liable for libel, imagine this: you or your spouse is a teacher, and is falsely accused of child molestation. That's the kind of accusation that ruins careers, and has forced people to leave town. Only now, it's on the Internet, stored in archives and search engines forever, ready to pop up the next place you apply for a job. Shouldn't the false accuser bear some responsibility for that?
Here's a non-hypothetical example: For about 48 hours this week, Peace Films hosted a video of a man named Jessie Macbeth, who claimed to have been a "Special Forces Ranger" in Iraq, where he had, under orders, slaughtered hundreds of Iraqi civilians. This was a lie. Fortunately, many military bloggers immediately spotted problems with his story (and his uniform), and at least one called the Army and learned that Macbeth had never even been in the Army. The interview is no longer available on Peace Films' website, but it's now circulating on YouTube and Google Video. It's already been the basis of a story on uruknet.info, a popular site with people already inclined to believe the worst about the U.S. military.
If this becomes a big story, people will get killed because of it. People got killed over the bogus "flushed Koran" at Guantanamo. This is a lot worse. From a legal perspective, it's not really a libel case, but shouldn't Macbeth be held responsible for his lies somehow?
For those interested in the original Rove/Leopold story, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz has a couple of stories that are worth reading. The rest of the media has been sensibly quiet.
And to kick Truthout once again while they're down or to put another nail in their coffin - you choose the phrase, it now stands that Rove has been cleared and vindicated in the Plame case.
Rove won't be charged in CIA leak case.
Rove won't be charged in CIA leak case.
QUOTE(jleavy @ Jun 13 2006, 10:54 AM) 
And to kick Truthout once again while they're down or to put another nail in their coffin - you choose the phrase, it now stands that Rove has been cleared and vindicated in the Plame case.
Rove won't be charged in CIA leak case.
Is it truthout's coffin? Or are we kicking merely this one story? Again? When judging "news" entities (does anyone treat truthout as such?), it should be the percentage of inaccurate versus accurate stories, or coverage, which we measure. As others have mentioned, truthout is not the worst, compared to other sites of its kind.
If it were this easy to dismiss an entire organization or institution, there would not be one which were still alive, by jleavy's standards. Not one.
truthout is apparently standing by their story...
Jason Leopold is saying that Rove was indeed indicted the week of May 10th. Then, the indictment was sealed, renamed the as "Sealed v. Sealed." And he's the only one with the story, and / or the media are too scared to run with it.
Even liberal Kevin Drum doubts Jason's "multiple sources" on this.
Jason's prior defense was that he was "out in front of the news cycle" which is frankly, an instant classic. Let's remember what Howard Kurtz wrote about this "journalist" who writes for "truth"out.
It's just unlikely that Jason Leopold is the only one in the country who has this story right. He, Joe Wilson and a Lyndon Larouche supporter named Ray McGovern are singing similar tunes and of them seem to be obsessed with getting Dick Cheney.
Even though these are merely internet blogs. Should they be able to be held liable for possible libel and slander on breaking false stories such as this one.
I think that blogs and online publications should be held to the same standards as other electronic media, but I don't know enough about what those standards are to comment further.
QUOTE
I reached Truthout editor Marc Ash on his cel phone this morning. "I wasn't aware that he had said that," he said of Luskin's announcement, but insisted that Truthout was "absolutely" standing by its earlier reporting.
"We've done a lot of work on this story, we've talked to a lot of people," he said, "and some of the people who provided information for the story are absolutely in a position to know."
So if Truthout's reporting -- by correspondent Jason Leopold -- is correct, is Ruskin lying? "Robert Luskin's allegations are in the best interest of his client, not necessarily the press," Ash said. "I think that the information he is providing is directly contradicted by the information we have."
"We've done a lot of work on this story, we've talked to a lot of people," he said, "and some of the people who provided information for the story are absolutely in a position to know."
So if Truthout's reporting -- by correspondent Jason Leopold -- is correct, is Ruskin lying? "Robert Luskin's allegations are in the best interest of his client, not necessarily the press," Ash said. "I think that the information he is providing is directly contradicted by the information we have."
Jason Leopold is saying that Rove was indeed indicted the week of May 10th. Then, the indictment was sealed, renamed the as "Sealed v. Sealed." And he's the only one with the story, and / or the media are too scared to run with it.
Even liberal Kevin Drum doubts Jason's "multiple sources" on this.
QUOTE
I, of course, have no way to judge the truth of either side, although it continues to be strange that Leopold claims to have multiple sources on this story and no other media outlet has even one. In any case, there’s damn little wiggle room left here. One side or the other is wrong on a truly spectacular scale and is now set up for an implosion of credibility on a galactic scale. Stay tuned.
Jason's prior defense was that he was "out in front of the news cycle" which is frankly, an instant classic. Let's remember what Howard Kurtz wrote about this "journalist" who writes for "truth"out.
QUOTE(WaPo)
Leopold acknowledges in a new book, "News Junkie," that he is a past liar, convicted felon and former alcoholic and cocaine addict. An earlier version of the book was canceled by publisher Rowman & Littlefield last year.
Salon retracted a 2002 piece by Leopold involving Thomas White, then secretary of the Army. The online magazine apologized, saying it had been unable to confirm the authenticity of an e-mail that Leopold attributed to White. Leopold, a onetime reporter for the Los Angeles Times and Dow Jones, accused the online magazine of being "wimpy" and caving to pressure.
"Jason is a character, but he's been straight with me and I've checked him out very carefully," Ash says.
In an interview with liberal radio host Ed Schultz, Leopold said his sources had given him "detailed information" about the alleged marathon meeting at Luskin's law office that he said was attended by Rove and a Secret Service detail. Leopold said that while "I totally look like I'm wrong," he still believes the indictment story is true.
Salon retracted a 2002 piece by Leopold involving Thomas White, then secretary of the Army. The online magazine apologized, saying it had been unable to confirm the authenticity of an e-mail that Leopold attributed to White. Leopold, a onetime reporter for the Los Angeles Times and Dow Jones, accused the online magazine of being "wimpy" and caving to pressure.
"Jason is a character, but he's been straight with me and I've checked him out very carefully," Ash says.
In an interview with liberal radio host Ed Schultz, Leopold said his sources had given him "detailed information" about the alleged marathon meeting at Luskin's law office that he said was attended by Rove and a Secret Service detail. Leopold said that while "I totally look like I'm wrong," he still believes the indictment story is true.
It's just unlikely that Jason Leopold is the only one in the country who has this story right. He, Joe Wilson and a Lyndon Larouche supporter named Ray McGovern are singing similar tunes and of them seem to be obsessed with getting Dick Cheney.
Even though these are merely internet blogs. Should they be able to be held liable for possible libel and slander on breaking false stories such as this one.
I think that blogs and online publications should be held to the same standards as other electronic media, but I don't know enough about what those standards are to comment further.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.