ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Mr. Kettle.. its Mr. Pot calling....

Truth Out (soon to be called Truth Not! -ed) last left us with a tease that they would be responding to the Joe Lauria article in the Washington post a short 16 "business hours" later, today at 5pm PDT. Well that time has come, and its a doozy.

In case your just jumping in, let me catch you up. As we commented on previously, on Sunday, Joe Lauria wrote an article entitled "My Unwitting Role in the Rove 'Scoop" where he detailed a curious circumstance of the whole "Rove indicted" story, namely, how Mark Carallo (Rove's spokesman) had received a call from someone purporting to be Joe, asking about the "scoop". In addition, Mark was given a phone number for Joe that was curiously 1 digit off of his actual phone number.

As I said, Truthout's response is a doozy.. It took them 2 days to come up with this nonsense?

The Post's Curious Interest in Leopold and TO
By Marc Ash,

Wed Jun 21st, 2006 at 06:42:38 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation

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?

Curious interest? You've been blasting the "commercial press" since Fitz let Rove know he was off the hook, and now that they've taken an interest in you and interviewed someone involved in the story, you just label it a hit piece. Good to know its not just Jason thats standing by this story. So you've all jumped off the deep end, got it. Here's a clue, just because they don't agree with you, doesnt' mean it is a smear campaign.

Here's where it gets real good:

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.

Wow. Just, wow. At least Joe documented who he talked to as his source, i.e. Mark Corallo. Unlike yourselves, who basically have come up with a bunch of wild theories, and the only substantiation you provide is to "point" to a sealed document, and one more more anonymous sources.

So whats good for the goose is good for the gander, Truthout. Name your sources so that we can judge their credibility, as you are obviously doing with Mr. Corallo.

And are you suggesting that the Post is involved in some sort of conspiracy to protect Karl Rove? The frickin Woodward and Bernstein, Watergate was our deal, Washington Post? Get real.

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.
And this is the really really funny part. Lauria's the one getting the free ride. At least he's backing up the story with names. Unlike yourselves, who have just either made up stuff out of whole cloth and hid behind fake anonymous sources, or were fed a line of bull and are protecting anonymous sources that lied to you.

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.

We urge you to meet the bare minimum standard of what Lauria has already provided. Name the sources you've talked to. Until then, it appears that Lauria is being more open and honest and dare I say, truthful, than Truth Out.

P.S. I noticed you didn't deny any of the charges that Mr. Lauria leveled. Just called it a hit piece and questioned why the Post would run it. But you didnt' address the meat of the issue. Did Jason call Mark and purport to be Joe? Did he leave a phone number 1 digit off of Joe's? Just issue the denial if the story is all made up.



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.

Sorry guys, but thats not a good enough denial. After all its Jason whose issuing it, and he's issuing it in the "non-commercial" press, so what are we to make of that? I'm afraid I'll need some documentation that he never identified himself as Joe Lauria. Perhaps Jason has the tape of the call?

Let's just speculate, that maybe he identified himself as Joel Lauria. Or something else.

Let's just make it simple, does Jason categorically deny talking to Mark Corallo 4 times? Does he have the phone records of those calls? Does he deny ever misidentifiying himself to any potential source? Does he deny talking to Joe Lauria after the story broke?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Comments (2)
Ayman said...

Hamid Karzai, Royals, World Cup now on the blog!

Brian said...

Wow blog spam. We've finally made it I guess....