Talk:Jason Leopold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This article is clearly written with a bias, especially the last paragraph. I don't think you can rightly claim that Leopold "famously" claimed that Rove had been indicted, and whether or not the story was true remains to be seen. Had the author(s) of this piece read the story, they would know that news would still be forthcoming. The claim that is was fabriacted, offered with no citation whatsoever, is irresponsible and clear evidence of a negative bias in this article. Also, to call readers of Will Pitts' blog "raging partisans" is a ridiculous slur and further evidence of a strong and pervasive bias. This entire paragraph must be rewritten.

Or deleted; it adds nothing to the article; I deleted it. Craig3410 13:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The announcement of the Karl Rove indictment is perhaps the most newsworthy act in Leopold's life thus far. Several major organizations accepted his story as demonstrative fact and it remains to be seen whether Leopold 'scooped' the press or was taken by misinformation. As such the associated paragraph should remain but needs further rewrites to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards. Kershner 18:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

How it is currently works perfectly; good call. Craig3410 21:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I know of no news organizations other than Truthout that have accepted Leopold's story re: Rove indicted May 12. Evensong 20:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about Pitt posting Leopold's article on democraticunderground.com since it doesn't add anything to the article. I'm sure plenty of people posted Leopold's article all over the liberal blogosphere. I'm not sure what makes Pitt's posting notable or relevant. Maximusveritas 21:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Evensong 21:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
An argument in favor of the Pitt notation is that it was Pitt's reiteration that added credence to the original article. Pitt clarified that Leopold had sources and provided some clarification to the nature of the claim. Pitt's article sparked as much if not more of the internet resonse than the initial article. Kershner 01:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Pitt is definately part of the controversy. But is the controversy or current event yet encyclopedic? And if so, should it have it's own page? If yes to those questions, then that is where Pitt should appear. Evensong 03:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to wait a while until we know for sure what the story is here. If it comes out that Leopold or his sources were lying, then it probably will be a big controversy with its own page and something about Pitt should go in there. If Leopold was right all along though, then it becomes less of a controversy and Pitt is less notable and relevant to the story. The facts probably point toward the former case at this point, but we shouldn't jump the gun on that. Maximusveritas 07:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


I Replaced Mr. Leopold's photo with one from his publisher's press kit. The prior photograph was not attributed and had no copyright information, it would have been automatically deleted in a week. This picture does not have similar problems. David Traver 13:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the article are essentially bare assertions. They may or may not be true. What is missing are citations or supporting links. So, I changed the language of some of the assertions to indicate that they lack support. The lack of substantiation for the first two paragraphs suggests point of view or vanity issues with that portion of the article. I could have easily changed more, but more editing without providing citations could have suggested editorial bias in another direction. David Traver 13:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Rove not to be charged

Jason Leopold is fucked... like, badly. Whatever credibility he had it's now fucked beyond any fix. How's he gonna handle this?

Well, In othe news local crack cocaine dealers see spike in sales Mineralè 16:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
hehe that's a bit cruel...

[edit] Splitting Out Rove Story

Just a thought, but given the continuing length of the controversy over the Rove story written by Leopold, what does everyone think of turning that section into a timeline with one-line per date and including the entire content (including in favor and against on the story as well as information on who bought into it and when, etc) in its own article? Kershner 07:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that this is no longer a current event, and with the revelations about Richard Armitage, the whole section does not look encyclopedic with all that detail. It should be reduced to one or two summary paragraphs describing how Leopold put out a story, truthout backed it up, none of the claims panned out, truthout backed away. -- Jibal 13:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Except that truthout did not actually back away, and we don't really have enough evidence to determine whether the claims have "panned out."--csloat 00:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The e-mail is not authentic

Some versions of this page have a line re: the Thomas White affair saying "The e-mail later proved to be authentic." But the only cite for this is Leopold's own tired claims to that effect. He has never produced an authentic copy of the e-mail in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.176.17.107 (talk • contribs) 23:06, August 28, 2006 (UTC)

Can you please indicate where the information about this is coming from? If the article says the email was authentic, it should stay in. If it is leopold's assertion, add that information to the article. I reverted your changes as they looked like vandalism. If you have something to add, add it, but do not delete sourced material. Deleting the citations as well, as you have been doing, is especially problematic, which is why it looked like vandalism to me.--csloat 03:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the claim that the email was authentic, as there appears to be no basis for that claim. Whether the email (which was an electronic transmission, not a physical object) was authentic is not knowable to us, and so the article now says nothing about that. The article said that Salon could not authenticate the email; I modified that to say that Salon claimed that it could not authenticate the email, so as to remain NPOV between Salon vs. Leopold.
P.S. Charges of vandalism violate WP policy of assuming good faith and no personal attacks; vandalism is defined by WP, and the changes by 24.176.17.107 don't fit the definition. -- Jibal 13:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Whoa - just saw this. Calm down. (I'm sure you have, since a month has passed, lol)... I said that I had reverted him because it looked like vandalism, which it did. I stand by that claim. But it looked that way before I read his comments here, which suggest that it was not vandalism. I did not call the guy a vandal, and I don't believe I violated any wikipedia policies in truthfully stating that when I saw an anon change, unexplained, that substantially distorted what was previously stated on the page that it looked like vandalism to me.--csloat 00:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial?

I changed the opening paragraph of this entry to read that Leopold is a controversial, as opposed to an award-winning, reporter. I think the fact that he is a very polarizing character is a more noteworthy characteristic of Leopold than any particular awards he has won. -- Jinks1 - 2 October 2006.

That fact is already noted later in the article. Calling someone a "controversial" anything in the intro is kind of silly - if there is controversy, it will be noted. If he is most noted for that controversy, that should be stated clearly in the intro rather than just using the vague word controversial as one would use an adjective like "Japanese."--csloat 00:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think it is a silly edit. The awards are also noted, as well as the controversy. I would say Leopold is much more well-known for his controversies than for his awards. I've changed it back to controversial until you provide a less arbitrary reason why "award-winning" should be preferred to "controversial." --User:Jinks1:Jinks1 - 2 October 2006.
I did. "Award-winning" has a specific meaning. "Controversial" does not. Everyone is controversial in some way. But I'll concede that "award-winning" doesn't belong there either.--csloat 05:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
But what he's known for is being "controversial", and it's common for us to mention that in the intro of articles. It has no official definition, of course, but that's why we have humans writing the encyclopedia rather than computers. For Wikipedia precedent for this wording in the introduction, see e.g. Samuel P. Huntington, Piss Christ, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, etc. --Delirium 11:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
That may be why you know who he is but that is not "what he's known for" to many. It's certainly not an objective fact. I agree that the word should be removed from the Huntington article as well; I'm not really sure about the other two. csloat 19:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia Journalism Review

The Columbia Journalism Review, considered one of the more heavyweight meta-journalism publications, paints a considerably more negative view of Mr. Leopold than our article does. Whether that means our article is wrong or not, I don't know, but it's worth looking at their article and considering whether we ought to edit ours and/or cite them as a source. --Delirium 11:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

it's a smear job and Leopold challenged the magazine with a legal letter



June 19, 2006


VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Evan Cornog, Publisher

Columbia Journalism Review

Journalism Building

2950 Broadway

Columbia University

New York, New York 10027


Re: Jason Leopold / "Three Strikes, You're Out – Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again" by Paul McLeary

Dear Mr Cornog:

I am writing on behalf of our client, Jason Leopold, with respect to the article written by Paul McLeary and published by Columbia Journalism Review on June 13, 2006. The article contains a series of false and defamatory statements concerning our client, Jason Leopold.

We request that Columbia Journalism Review, CJRdaily, Paul McLeary, and the University of Columbia School of Journalism ("CJR"):

Issue an immediate written correction and retraction of those defamatory statements and publish such correction and retraction in substantially as conspicuous a manner as the original defamatory publication(s), in a regular issue thereof published or broadcast;

Immediately remove, and cease and desist from publishing any further defamatory statements concerning Mr. Leopold; and

CJR immediately identify in writing any and all media, editors, and publishers to whom CJR has sent the subject article, including via email, and immediately advise all such media of the correction and retraction demanded herein.

The defamatory statements concerning Mr. Leopold in the subject article are as follows:

"Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again"

The statement that Mr. Leopold has been caught sourceless on multiple occasions is untrue.

"We wonder if the folks over at Truthout.org are rethinking their affiliation with reporter and serial fabulist Jason Leopold."

The true facts are that Mr. Leopold is not a "serial fabulist".

"Leopold, you may recall, is the freelance reporter who was caught making stuff up in a 2002 Salon.com article, and had his own memoir cancelled because of concerns of the accuracy of quotations."

"But the book was not to be"

The true facts are that Mr. Leopold was never "caught making stuff up in a 2002 Salon.com article"

The true facts are that Mr. Leopold's book was not only published but was on Los Angeles Times Bestseller List at the time this article was published. While it is certainly fair to note that Mr. Leopold’s first publisher did not publish Mr. Leopold’s book, it is not acceptable to defame Mr. Leopold with the false claim that his book was cancelled because of concerns over accuracy or to imply, as the article does, that the book was not to be, and was never published.

"Leopold’s latest addition to his application for membership in the Stephen Glass school of journalism came on May 12 of this year..."

Stephen Glass is know for being an admitted liar and fabricator of stories. The clear implication is that Mr. Leopold is also a fabricator is stories. Mr. Leopold is not a fabricator of stories.

After all this certainty comes Leopold's latest version of the story, published yesterday, where he writes that he based his original article "on single source information and general background information obtained from experts. The conclusions we arrive at should be considered carefully, but not taken as statements of fact, per se."

The true facts are that Paul McLeary falsely puts these quoted words in Jason Leopold’s mouth making it appear that Mr. Leopold’s work is improperly sourced and otherwise unreliable. These words were never stated or written by Mr. Leopold, but rather appeared under a byline by Mark Ash, the Executive Director of Truthout.

Leopold says that he knows "for certain" that there exists a federal indictment called "06 cr 128" which he refers to as "(Sealed vs. Sealed)" since neither party's name is on the document. He also knows that this indictment "was returned by the same grand jury that has been hearing matters related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation."

The true facts are that Paul McLeary falsely puts these quoted words in Mr. Leopold’s mouth making it appear that Mr. Leopold’s work is improperly sourced and otherwise unreliable. These words were never stated or written by Mr. Leopold, but rather appeared under a byline by Mark Ash, the Executive Director of Truthout.

So much for what Leopold knows. Apparently, Leopold is a very religious man, because he "believes" quite a bit about the alleged indictment. He believes that it "is directly related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. That's based on a single credible source." He goes on to list several other things he "believes" to be true, all fed to him by, in his words, the "same single credible source."

The true facts are that Paul McLeary falsely puts these quoted words in Jason Leopold’s mouth making it appear that Mr. Leopold’s work is improperly sourced and otherwise unreliable. These words were never stated or written by Mr. Leopold, but rather appeared under a byline by Mark Ash, the Executive Director of Truthout.

"Salon removed Leopold's August 29, 2002 story about Enron from its site after it was discovered that he plagiarized parts from the Financial Times and was unable to provide a copy of an email that was critical to the piece."

The true facts are that Mr. Leopold was able, and did in fact; provide the aforementioned email to Salon.com. Salon’s concern had to do with authenticating the email.

The above statements are unprivileged and defamatory per se, in that they tend directly to injure Mr. Leopold in that they are an unprivileged and expose Mr. Leopold to "to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation" Cal. Civ. Code § 45.

Surprisingly, Mr. Leopold was never contacted for comment on this article. Quotes were wrongly attributed to Mr. Leopold and then used by the author to bolster the attack on Mr. Leopold’s credibility. A basic investigation into Mr. Leopold reveals that his book was published and is available. Further, Mr. Leopold’s book is cited with a link on every story he writes for Truthout, including the ones Paul McLeary cites in his article. McLeary ignores those facts and gives the impression to CJR's readers that Mr. Leopold's book was never published and is not available.

The article has caused damage to Mr. Leopold and continues to cause him damage. Mr. Leopold is currently promoting his book. This article is harming his ability to secure interviews and otherwise harming him professionally. We demand that you immediately take steps to mitigate the damage your defamatory actions are causing.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss the matter.


Sincerely,

[edit] "hours" versus "business hours"

How about including the backtrack of "Rove will be indicted in 24 hours" to "Rove will be indicted in 24 business hours"?

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/60/19780

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1186820 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.132.53.190 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

why? What is that supposed to prove? Has anyone even bothered reading the stories coming out of the trial as of late? It confirms all of Leopold's prior reporting. I advise EVERYONE to read the truthout archives to familiarize yourself with his reports before opining or pontificating. For example, Leopold was the first reporter to report about Cheney's involvement in the case, a fact that has been proven by Fitzgerald himself.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/s/Talk%7EJason_Leopold_61ac.html"