The Post’s Curious Interest in Leopold
3 Comments Published by admin June 23rd, 2006 in Jason LeopoldBy Marc Ash,
Wed Jun 21st, 2006 at 06:42:38 PM EDT ::
Sorry for the confusion, yes Jason Leopold categorically denies identifying himself as Joe Lauria. Other hysterias will no doubt evolve by morning and we’ll do our best to address them as they surface. Good night folks.On Sunday, The Washington Post published an article titled, “My Unwitting Role in the Rove ‘Scoop’” by Joe Lauria. It’s a hit piece, plain and simple.
For the record, Jason Leopold is not acting alone on the Rove indictment story. All of TO’s senior editors are participating in interviewing sources, verifying facts and vetting every sentence published before the story goes live.
We find it curious that The Washington Post has taken such a keen interest in Jason Leopold and TO. The Lauria piece is only the latest in a series of pieces published by Post editors attacking – in a very personal manner – Jason Leopold and TO. But there has been no critical assessment of the facts we have reported. Why? Who is directing this smear campaign at the Post and why?
A Rather Backhanded Assault
The Post published Lauria’s article as an opinion piece, but Lauria used that platform to present fact – fact without documentation. In reference to our report that a grand jury has returned an indictment of Karl Rove (a report that we do stand by), Lauria writes, “The report set off hysteria on the Internet, and the mainstream media scrambled to nail it down. Only … it wasn’t true.” He is stating – as a fact – a premise that he does not even attempt to document or substantiate, and the Post is a willing host.
The basis for Lauria’s complaint is that Jason Leopold reportedly used Lauria’s name to get Karl Rove’s spokesman Mark Corallo on the phone … according to, you guessed it, Corallo. For the record, I think Mark Corallo is doing a brilliant job of representing Karl Rove’s best interests as his interface with the media. I also think it’s fair to say that The Washington Post is being way too cooperative – unless they, too, are beholden to Mr. Rove? Everybody hold your breaths waiting for a response from the Post’s ombudsman on that one.
For the record, since the entire basis for Lauria’s story is a poorly defined, and factually uncorroborated version of events promulgated by Karl Rove’s public relations contractor, I think Lauria’s getting a free ride to notoriety from the Post. Apparently Lauria recognized that there was a hot market for hit pieces on Jason Leopold and TO. The Washington Post was buying, and Lauria was all to happy to cash in.
We urge The Post and Lauria to meet the same standard that we have been held to these past weeks – account for your statements, please.
And for the record, Mark Ash does a fine job of providing yet again a fine sense of situational ethics. While maintaining that the story is “fake but accurate”, potentially fabricated to support a belief system unimpeded by reality, he casts aspersions on an article that actually documents the sources behind the story for others to check.
But he predictably fails to live up to that same standard in not making public the sources of the information claiming Rove had been indicted, the methods of substantiating the original Leopold sources (was that 5,3, or one independant source, BTW?) despite the moralistic call “We urge The Post and Lauria to meet the same standard that we have been held to these past weeks – account for your statements, please.” – if he would reveal his own sources to the same extent that the Post has, then and only then would that have some resonance.
How’s that crow tasting, anyway?
“We find it curious that The Washington Post has taken such a keen interest in Jason Leopold and TO.”
The Post is the only paper that has taken an interest because all others have long ago decided that you were such a joke that you did not even merit the attention.
The hypocrisy on this site (combined with the holier-than-thou shouts at the hypocrisy of others) is truly outrageous.
YOU PROMISED YOU WOULD REVEAL THE SOURCES. After it was shown that they lied, you WENT BACK ON THAT PROMISE. However sound your reasoning it, it shows you willing to promise things that you cannot and will not deliver, and we should not believe those who promise what they hope, not what they know.
Well, well, well.
No Rove indictment. None, Nada, Zip.
Fitzgerald’s investigation wrapping up empty, save for a very weak indictment of Libby.
Civil suit filed by Lyin’ Joe and his sooper-secret CIA wife, and will be eventually dismissed for lack of evidence (in a civil case, Lyin’ Joe’s side has the burden of proof).
How’s that old roadkill of a crow tasting these days?
I’d expect that it should be pretty ripe after all this time.