How do you react to a non-story?

ABC News The Note:

The Wall Street Journal's story about Jerome Armstrong (www.mydd.com) and Markos Zuniga (www.dailykos.com) being paid by the Dean presidential campaign strikes us as slightly overblown in the sense that the two had already disclosed, on their Web sites and in person to reporters and others, their affiliation with (and for) the former Vermont governor during the presidential campaign.

Not to say that Zephyr Teachout's concerns about blogger ethics is unwarranted at all, just that Kos and Armstrong are not necessarily the poster boys for the problem [...]

During the campaign both gentleman openly discussed with ABC News the work they did for Dean, based largely (at first) on admiring him and then, consulting on his Web-based campaign.

Columbia Journalism Review's (non-partisan) Campaign DeskM:

Sometimes a story is so good, so rich in context and so revealing in detail, that it virtually leaps off the page as something special.

Other times, only by leaving out context, burying important information, and emphasizing misleading details can a reporter dress up a non-story into something that resembles a legitimate article.

They hand out Pulitzers for reporters who track down the former. Alas, William M. Bulkeley and James Bandler, the Wall Street Journal reporters responsible for the latest example of the latter, are going to have to settle for something a bit less prestigious.

Let's call it the "Lipstick On a Pig Award" -- the LOPA for short.

In other words, that piece was so bad that CJR had to invent an entire award for the authors.

Dan Gillmor, tech journalist (non-partisan) [and until recently tech] columnist for the San Jose Mercury News, writes:

The WSJ fell into what I call the "lazy equivalence" trap in this story today about two bloggers who got paid as consultants by the Dean presidential campaign. The article seeks to connect these payments with the vastly more serious Armstrong Williams payola scandal, in which the Bush administration paid the right-wing commentator more than $240,000 to promote an education policy.

There's are differences, big ones. Such as: One of the bloggers shut down postings when he moved to Vermont to join the campaign, and the other prominently (on his homepage) disclosed that he was consulting.

Media Matters takes on Novak for lying about the episode:

In announcing on the January 14 edition of CNN's Crossfire that former Vermont Governor Howard Dean's presidential campaign had hired two political bloggers "to say positive things about Dr. Dean," co-host Robert D. Novak failed to note -- when co-host Paul Begala raised the issue -- that one of the bloggers shut down his site while working for the campaign and the other fully disclosed his financial relationship with Dean.

Novak, of course, is a non-disclosure king, lauding Regnery which has employed his son as director of marketing and publishes his newsletter.

I've gotten word that O'Reiley himself has been making hay of the story using it to smear Howard Dean without noting that the arrangement was completely above board.

You might want to drop the WSJ a line:

James Bandler
Co-author of the piece
[e-mail].

Bill Bulkeley
Co-author of the piece
[e-mail]

Jeanne Cummings
Co-author of the piece
[e-mail]

Melinda Beck
Marketplace editor, where the piece ran
[e-mail]

Bill Grueskin
Managing Editor
[e-mail]
 
Jamie Heller
Deputy Managing Editor
[e-mail]
 
Terri Cullen
Assistant Managing Editor
[e-mail]

Dave Pettit
Deputy Managing Editor
[e-mail]

Jason Fry
Assistant Managing Editor
[e-mail]

Update: Simon Rosenberg weighs in on the matter:

The internet and blogs represent a new way to communicate ideas and talk to voters, and as a party, we need to embrace these opportunities. I have invested a great deal of time and effort work to increase participation in politics through the Internet, starting in the mid-1990s and continuing through this campaign. While there may be only 447 DNC members, my campaign - which includes bloggers, I am proud to say - is using the Internet to open up the process to the increasing number of citizens who are going online to learn and participate in our politics.

Now, some on the right are cynically using the work of bloggers who have helped open up the democratic conversation to try to excuse the actions of Armstrong Williams. It's stunning to me, as someone who has worked in TV news as a producer and writer, that Williams can be talked about in morally equivalent terms to Markos Moulitsas, who was transparent about all his business relationships, or Jerome Armstrong, who shut down his web site to prevent any conflict of interest. Williams was paid with taxpayer money to propagandize for a corrupt Republican party leadership, and what happened deserves a full investigation in which the involved parties are held responsible.

Ultimately, however, we cannot lose sight of what is truly at stake. Williams is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the vast power commanded by the corrupt and radicalized Republicans that control our politics, and to some extent, our media. The power the right can bring to bear on any issue because of its investments in communications and intellectual infrastructure needs to be matched, and exceeded.

The Washington Post and Associated Press came sniffing around, wondering if there was a story here. Tomorrow we'll find out their verdict.

•  You don't.

  Just make sure they spell your name correctly and get the link right.

  by Tom Kertes on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:44:03 PM PDT

  •  Go On The Attack!

    Kos & Jerome:

    How do you react to a non-story as it cycles through the Republican spin machine?

    You go on the attack.

    You attack John Thune and the RSCC for paying bloggers in South Dakota.

    You attack the mainstream media and the conservative noise machine for not picking up the Thune story when it broke months ago.

    On the pages of a major newspaper's op-ed column, you attack the Wall Street Journal's decision to publish a non-story that equates your actions with those of Armstrong Williams'. Then, in letters to the editor, you attack each and every media outlet that picks up the "story."

    You attack Armstrong Williams, using the "story" about you as a platform through which to keep the Williams story -- and the White House's related efforts -- in the news.

    Do you both have a more-than-credible defense? Yes. But is a good defense enough? No.

    Attack, attack, attack.

    "Dean Democrat"

    P.S. Did a good defense enable John Kerry to turn back the Swift Boat Veterans? No. Did a Kerry campaign that relied upon policy rather than character attacks defeat George Bush? No. Attack, attack, attack.

    by Dean Democrat on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:05:09 PM PDT

    •  You ask Zephyr to recant

      Please ask Zephyr to recant her dishonest story.

      by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:27:22 PM PDT

      •  Agreed

        But, sadly, corrections get substantially less ink that "stories."

        And I don't expect Fox News, WSJ, and other members of the Republican noise machine to run corrections to their initial commentary.

        Asking Zephyr to recant is a great defensive step. (And she should oblige).

        But Jerome & Kos need to do more than defend. They need to attack.

        by Dean Democrat on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:41:57 PM PDT

        •  I myself,,,

          
          had trouble from the beginning understanding how this at all related to the A. Williams incident...the two don't seem comparable to me...

          by ContrarianAlexis on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:45:08 PM PDT

        •  Here's the thing

          The next time someone writes about it, they have no basis - the source recanted.

          by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:45:47 PM PDT

      •  Just my opinion.

        Instead of a polite request, make it an assertive demand.

        by Street Kid on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 09:14:12 PM PDT

    •  Non-Story

      I agree with Dean Democrat! I'm a big Dean fan myself and I realize that we love him without having to be paid to! You and Jerome have done nothing wrong, but you do have to go on the attack! Polite discourse is not what makes the O'Reillys, Novaks, Hannitys and Coulters go away. We're here to rally round the "Kos" and kick some ass. We're awaiting our instructions.

      by Madmomma on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 09:53:50 PM PDT

  •  Kos is doing an excellent job of non-reacting.

    Silence can make a powerful statement when expressed with confidence at the property time and place.  

    by bryanb on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:08:35 PM PDT

    •  Nope

      Kerry didn't react to the Swift Boat Vets until it was too late.

      The DailyKos is too robust for any one smear campaign to sink the site. But there is no need to see Jerome & Kos have their credibility questioned when they did nothing wrong.

      Further, the liberal blogosophere should use this opportunity to our favor. Jerome & Kos should use the spotlight to attack Bush, Williams, and the Republican noise machine.

      by Dean Democrat on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:16:31 PM PDT

      •  I agree

        This give Markos a window like no other. Even though Novakula is a disgusting vile creature, he has done us a favor.

        Everyone will want to know who are the two unnamed bloggers. Kos gets a platform, and can then question the bonafides of every RW blogger and psuedo journalist out there.

        There is nothing to lose, as they hate and fear us anyway. Might as well stoke that fire...drive the day of reckoning ever closer. Make it a duck pit day to remember.

        by SnarkyShark on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:48:21 PM PDT

        •  Fear

          "There is nothing to lose, as they hate and fear us anyway."

          They also feat DEAN. Just like they feared him facing off against Bush, they fear him running the DNC.

          by political on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:59:57 PM PDT

          •  My two diary entries

            that I posted earlier today picked up on the same theme:

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/14/124747/840

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/14/193137/914
            

            by Progressive on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 08:09:24 PM PDT

    •  Except he has reacted forcefully

      Not sure I follow you.

      by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:26:43 PM PDT

      •  Too little, too late

        Kerry reacted forcefully, but days after the fact.

        If Jerome & Kos act now, they'll be quoted in attack mode in the major publications. If they aggressively pursue op-ed columns, they'll have an attack column published in a major newspaper or two. If they instruct Kossacks to go after media outlets that pick-up the story, they'll turn a negative, a "story" about liberal bloggers "on the take," -- into a positive, an opportunity to attack John Thune, Armstrong Williams and the mainstream meadia.

        by Dean Democrat on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:37:56 PM PDT

        •  I meant kos

          by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:42:11 PM PDT

          •  Got it.

            Kos has reacted forcefully. But his initial reaction was to attack Zephyr. And to continue hammering Williams.

            A fine beginning. But not enough. Demand the stage. Ask to go on CNN, Fox News, etc. Ask to pen an op-ed in the Post. Or the Times.

            Use this opportunity to keep Williams' payments in the news. (Particularly important given Bush's recent decision to push for expansion of NCLB to high schools).

            by Dean Democrat on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:44:17 PM PDT

            •  Not ask, demand

              As in, demand a public, abject retraction or, better, the opportunity to respond on air.

              I'm in the camp that says this is outright libel, and Kos should not be shy.  He should demand the retraction, and he should use the "L" word

              by sharman on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 09:32:39 PM PDT

      •  Imagine, for example

        if a day after Swift Boats hit the air, the Kerry campaign funded a "Purple Heart Veterans for Truth" ad attacking Bush for failing to fulfill his national guard duties.

        Or a satire, a "Yacht Boat Veterans for Truth" that noted Bush's activities during the war.

        by Dean Democrat on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:39:35 PM PDT

        •  It'd have taken five to seven days to produce

          At which point the blogsphere would have already been complaining that Kerry was doing nothing, and what a douchebag he was, etcetera.  Anyway, otherwise, I agree with you...

          by stephdray on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 10:07:53 PM PDT

    •  How is Kos non-reacting

      with his front page blogs above that are read by thousands of people.

      I'd call that a reaction.

      by Agathena on Sat Jan 15, 2005 at 12:28:18 AM PDT

  •  Not in this case

    With this kind of attention, IMHO we should have Kos, Armando and anyone else from this community who wants to booked on political talk shows, for interviews, etc. taking maximum advantage.  We should be using this to discuss exactly what the right wing does that's so unethical, and use the contrast with Kos to drive that point home.

    I think this is an opportunity we're missing.

    by Jonathan on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:47:17 PM PDT

    •  Agreed

      Seize the day.

      Attack, attack, attack.

      by Dean Democrat on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 08:37:32 PM PDT

•  Gee, Markos

  You're just like Armstrong!

  </sarcasm>

  Novak:  ASSHOLE.  But we knew that.

  Page:  Sucks at letter-writing, but will try to write something subtle yet venomous and constructive to the Wall Street Urinal.

  by Plutonium Page on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:44:17 PM PDT

  •  I meant Armstrong WILLIAMS

    Sorry.  Not Jerome Armstrong.

    by Plutonium Page on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:48:28 PM PDT

    •  Everytime I try to write an email about this...

      I find myself getting confused about who I'm talking about once I start proofreading.. damn the double Armstrongs (and who the hell has Armstrong as a first name anyway?  Maybe it should be William Armstrong and the birth certificate got messed up?)

      Eventually I decided to refer to them as Kos, Jerome and Williams.. seems the easiest way :)

      by ragnark on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:06:43 PM PDT

•  Matts

  links to Zephyr's half post in reaction.  it is short and she is waiting until emotions have subsided until she fleshes out a more detailed response.

  it seems like things are settling down, thank goodness.  no more name calling, pleease.  lets stick to what we do best, break down arguments and swap information.  great follow up post kos.

  by juls on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:46:26 PM PDT

  •  Seriously

    No point in trying to clarify the situation while assholes like Novak and O'Reilly are jumping all over it.  Let emotions cool a little bit first.  Maybe she'll explain herself in a few weeks.  That would be dandy.  There will be time enough to wash away the right wing slime.  

    by johnny rotten on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:48:31 PM PDT

    •  Blogger Ethics

      How about: if you create a mess, you clean it up.  None of this bugging out or pussyfooting around.  She needs to make a full disclosure, now.  

      by johnny rotten on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:56:31 PM PDT

  •  Well.......

    That may take a while.

    Because she's persona non grata as far as I'm concerned.

    by stevegilliard on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:49:34 PM PDT

    •  man

      have you noticed that you are more pissed off than the man that was at the center of this shit storm?

      i would hate to be in a relationship with you.  this is a non-story.

      could you imagine saying that to her face?  when you are pissed off, as jsmdlawyer says, take a minute to look at what you just wrote, get it out of your system, then contemplate the delete key.

      by juls on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:55:56 PM PDT

      •  Keep repeating that

        maybe your wish will come true.

        "This is a nonstory, this is a nonstory, this is a nonstory"

        by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:04:38 PM PDT

        •  note the title of this post

          it is a non-story because it is based on false information.

          what i mean by settling down is that the emotion appeared to be subsiding.  well at least it was in kos's post and his now revised original post.  unfortunately, the name calling and silly threats of ignoring Zephyr appear to be continuing in the comments and in the diaries.  that bothers me. i think it is because i have a therapist for a mom.  stick to the facts.  the fact is, this is a non-story.  the best response to a non story...what kos asked is worth discussing.

          by juls on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:11:20 PM PDT

          •  The Best Response to a non-story

            that the right wing slime machine has created and blown out of all proportion is to take them head on.  And to tell the bumbling, naive people on your own team to clean up the mess they have created.  

            by johnny rotten on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:15:58 PM PDT

            •  Zephyr

              is playing the useful idiot for the right wing slime machine. She needs to clean up her mess now.  That is why everyone is so damn angry at her.  People's reputations are being smeared, and she seems more distracted by her stupid ethics seminar.  Some ethics!

              by johnny rotten on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:19:45 PM PDT

            •  Spot on...

              Zephyr got played and this is for a reason.

              Novak et all didn't pull this out of their ass for no reason.

              They are trying to defang Kos from talking about Williams, and softening the ground about payola and discrediting liberal blogs (with dKos being the number one read).

              Mitch Gore

              Wanna win in '08...?

              Put your money where your mouth is.

              by Lestatdelc on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:29:41 PM PDT

              •  And they're also

                trying to paint Dean as a crook, because they know that he's likely to be the next Dem Party chair.

                by greenknight on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:32:57 PM PDT

                •  Yep...

                  there are multiple reasons and layers as to why this is being made into something by the MSM and the Firght-Wing^TM (Novak et all).

                  Mitch Gore

                  Wanna win in '08...?

                  Put your money where your mouth is.

                  by Lestatdelc on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:35:43 PM PDT

                  •  naive

                    It just shows there are far to many Dems who don't know the score yet, even after claiming to, even after working for barn-burner Dean as Teachout did. Their attitude is one of defeatism.

                    The right is engaged in full scale psychological combat.They care about propaganda, nothing else. Sensitive discussion and "compromise" is not possible with the current leadership.  

                    by bigbay on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:52:27 PM PDT

              •  Luckily

                Kos is no fool and he's not going to let the false controversy keep him from taking on the wrongwingers.

                by Unstable Isotope on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:42:33 PM PDT

            •  Exactly

              Didn't we learn for like the 500th time from the SwiftLiars episode that ignoring it doesn't make it go away?  Take it to them, full on.

              by Unstable Isotope on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:41:37 PM PDT

          •  So whas Kerry faking his purple hearts

            Did that stop the story from being used by the MSM and the WH to politically kneecap someone where they (their target) are strong and they (themselves) are weak...?

            Wake the fuck up.

            Mitch Gore

            Wanna win in '08...?

            Put your money where your mouth is.

            by Lestatdelc on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:17:06 PM PDT

        •  I was gonna call you on this claim . . .

          thinking how profoundly trivial this really is, but then the creepy feeling came back; how long, exactly, until the damn mercenary thing is brought up again? And then where does it go, in this feeding frenzy context?

          Kos, keep your eyes open, and be careful about where you talk and who you talk to. Right now, there are plenty of people who wouldn't like anything better than to finish you off, I would guess.

          Not that you need any of our advice here, but . . . we need to keep your back.

          by chrississippi on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:18:24 PM PDT

          •  There you go n/t

            by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:41:09 PM PDT

        •  MAKE it a story

          Ask why the chorus from the right wing has come down on the same two bloggers on the same day. Are all the pundits incapable of original thought on the matter, or is it coordinated? (We know the answer).  

          Demand to know of each of Kos' critics whether they have received payments for their opinions from government organizations or candidates or party organizations.  That's the sin they're accusing Markos and Jerome of--let's find out if they'll cop to doing the same.  And ask if any such links were disclosed at the time--ask for proof.

          Ask CNN and any other secondary purveyors of this "story" whether they bothered to look into the important non-equivalences between the bloggers' situation and Armstrong Williams.  Ask why not?  Were you shilling for the Republicans or are you really that incompetent (Judy Woodruff...)?

          Finally, demand an investigation into all links between government and candidates on the one hand, and media figures on the other.  Talk this up as a dare...look into the bloggers, but look into the networks and the print media and the opinion leaders.  How did Rush pay for all that Oxycontin, anyway?

          If they want to continue this story, oblige them.  Let's blow it up as big as we can.  My LTE's are written and sent, how about yours?

          by Dallasdoc on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:33:08 PM PDT

          •  here are the letters I sent

            I blasted these off and it felt great. Put these so-called journalists on the defensive. I e-mail to myself and then paste these e-mails in the bcc

            To:
            [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

            You guys at the Wall Street Journal are really pathetic and these reviews about your recent effort to to downplay the shameful Bush administration payola scandal sum up your work perfectly.

            Columbia Journalism Review

            Sometimes a story is so good, so rich in context and so revealing in detail, that it virtually leaps off the page as something special.

            Other times, only by leaving out context, burying important information, and emphasizing misleading details can a reporter dress up a non-story into something that resembles a legitimate article.

            They hand out Pulitzers for reporters who track down the former. Alas, William M. Bulkeley and James Bandler, the Wall Street Journal reporters responsible for the latest example of the latter, are going to have to settle for something a bit less prestigious.

            Let's call it the "Lipstick On a Pig Award" -- the LOPA for short.

            -------------------------------

            Dan Gillmor, tech journalist

            The WSJ fell into what I call the "lazy equivalence" trap in this story today about two bloggers who got paid as consultants by the Dean presidential campaign. The article seeks to connect these payments with the vastly more serious Armstrong Williams payola scandal, in which the Bush administration paid the right-wing commentator more than $240,000 to promote an education policy.

            There's are differences, big ones. Such as: One of the bloggers shut down postings when he moved to Vermont to join the campaign, and the other prominently (on his homepage) disclosed that he was consulting.

            To:
            [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

            Dear Journalists.

            You all need to take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are really any longer capable of carrying the responsibility that we the public have invested you with.

            It is truly shameful that the media is letting the lunatic right wing fringe get away with making an equivalency comparison between Armstrong Williams' outrageous selling of Bush propaganda and the completely legal, fully disclosed and privately funded Dean promotion by a couple of internet bloggers.

            Get a grip on yourselves. Are you even capable of recognizing the truth anymore?

            by mnguitar on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 08:47:13 PM PDT

      •  Look where this is going...

        ...they are trying to polluted the waters and dilute the Armstrong Williams scandal with this made-up shit, neatly supplied by the fucking idiocy and inflated ego of Zephyr's crappola.

        Mitch Gore

        Wanna win in '08...?

        Put your money where your mouth is.

        by Lestatdelc on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:06:39 PM PDT

        •  so do what kos

          asked go contact the WSJ and CNN.  they fucked up.  Zephyr wrote a crappy post, that started a shit storm.  now we need to clean it up and that sucks, we didnt cause the problem.  in-fighting does us no good.  taking action does.

          go post it on your blog, sing it loud and far.  calling Zephyr names does nothing.

          by juls on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:14:59 PM PDT

          •  I have contacted those so far listed...

            ...and I will post from home later.

            And your "stop calling names" is not only strawman BS, but fucking pathetic.
            

            Mitch Gore

            Wanna win in '08...?

            Put your money where your mouth is.

            by Lestatdelc on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:18:38 PM PDT

          •  we need to clean it up

            No, SHE needs to clean it up.  

            by johnny rotten on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:22:22 PM PDT

        •  and...

          it might be possible that they are trying to shift the ground as the DNC starts working on who is going to be the next Chair.

          by kredwyn on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:28:29 PM PDT

      •  How do you know he's more pissed off?

        Maybe, because he isn't Kos, he's simply in a better position to vent his righteous indignation.

        The non-story is what Zephyr processed into a bogus story to slander Kos and Armstrong, probably to get at Howard Dean but possibly just to get attention. Either way, it's inexusable.

        But you're right that Steve doesn't mince his words:

        http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/01/see-what-you-did.html

        That's one reason why some of us read him.

        by Sirocco on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:12:26 PM PDT

        •  my only way of knowing the state of kos'

          mind is watching his transformation after a story that gets his ire.  he usually goes off, swearing and calling names.  usually this gets him in trouble.  then a couple of people chime in, saying calm down.  he thinks about it some more and edits his posts, making note of it at the bottom.  then sometime later he writes a rational and insightful post.

          if i am totally off here kos about your current state of emotion towards this please chime in here.  i suspect he is annoyed with Zephyr but royaly PO'd at the WSJ an CNN.

          by juls on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:18:49 PM PDT

          •  I cannot imagined he doesn't feel

            what Steve wrote.

            He is using a different strategy to manage the situation.

            by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:40:24 PM PDT

            •  good for him

              he is showing some class. and not saying as one person did tonight that Zephyr "needs a slap in the face".

              by juls on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:46:20 PM PDT

              •  He's smarter than most of us

                I'll be honest. I am very angry.

                But all is forgiven IF she recants!

                by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:29:11 PM PDT

                •  i am angry too

                  questioning of ethics is a very personal.  it goes right to your morals and personal integrity.

                  i hope we learn from this.  zephyr certantly will.  hopefully we can have a good productive discussion about blogging ethics.  something good should come out of such nastyness.

                  by juls on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:35:39 PM PDT

                  •  But She must RECANT

                    something she has NOT done.  That must happen first.

                    by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:47:38 PM PDT

                    •  will it matter?

                      this shit storm is already out of the barn -- you think Bill O'Lilley and the WSJ are going to report the recantation?

                      by Hprof on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 08:17:16 PM PDT

                    •  armando, seen this yet?

                      http://zonkette.blogspot.com/2005/01/some-context.html

                      to me, looks a little like a half-ass, cover-your-ass type of thing.  Not enough, imho.

                      by georgia10 on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 08:25:33 PM PDT

          •  More than annoyed with Zephyr

            I was willing to give her a chance to make good, but hiding away for a week wasn't cool.

            by kos on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:43:20 PM PDT

            •  Do real ethicists hide?

              Here's a blogger ethics question for you.

              Let's say you're a key advisor to a presidential campaign, and you formulate a secret policy to buy some positive coverage by bloggers. So secret, in fact, that you don't even discuss that plan with the bloggers themselves.

              Then, one day, after the campaign ends, you yourself decide to start a blog.

              The question is: Are you bound to respect the campaign's confidentiality and its expectation that you'll keep internal strategy in confidence?

              If there's no statute of limitations on the need for disclosure she imposes on you, then surely there's no statute of limitations on her obligation to keep the campaign's internal strategy -- if such even existed -- secret.

              by Kagro X on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 08:53:49 PM PDT

      •  Excuse me

        It is an honest response. And frankly, the right response. People need to get MAD at Zephyr Teachout so she might do the right thing -RECANT NOW!

        I rated your post marginal because you wrote it was a non-story.  That is ridiculous.

        by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:39:40 PM PDT

      •  not just about kos or jerome

        this story isn't just about kos or jerome...
        in the very very short term it affects the democratic party ... particularly the reform segment of the party.

        It is not only democratic congress members that must stay on message.  The grassroots must as well.

        What on earth was ZT thinking working with the WSJ?   Is she really that naive?  I think that is what makes people seriously question her motives.
        

        by JoelK in AZ on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:57:14 PM PDT

      •  Are you kidding?

        Unlike some people, I can say it to her face and plan to. Why would I write something I wouldn't do?
        I paid good money to learn to write exactly what I thought and say it in public. Which, of course, the Internet is. I usually don't back down from my comments.

        Of course I'm more pissed than Kos. He's a nice guy, I take this shit personally. Because it's growing like a fucking virus for no reason.

        You're talking to the wrong person here. Visit my blog and see if I'm just being pissed in print.
        

        by stevegilliard on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 10:24:56 PM PDT

  •  Not settling down

    O'Reilly called Kos "corrupt" on the air.

    Zephyr should issue a full abject apology, withdraw her bs accusations against Kos and Jerome, and submit it as a letter to the editor of the WSJ (to be cc'd to DailyKos and MyDD.

    by pontificator on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:49:42 PM PDT

    •  All right!

      A 4 from Carl Nyberg!

      When you get a 4 from Carl, you know you deserved it!  :-)

      by pontificator on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:02:48 PM PDT

      •  I also

        received my first 4 from Carl 'Russian Judge' Nyberg on a comment below. Don't think I didn't notice!

        This is indeed an honor, Carl. (not being snarky)

        I'm secretly hoping that now I will gain access to the secret, online dkos VIP cyberlounge.

        by chicagochristianleft on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:20:47 PM PDT

    •  More 'Falafel' O'Reilly

      O'Reilly had some dopey looking guy on as a guest.  I think his name was Hugh Hewitt, a radio talk show host from CA.

      O'Reilly said
      

      • It reminded him of when DJ's were paid off to play and promote songs during the 1950's.
        
      • Implied that Kos never disclosed this arrangement for "nobody knew about it."
        
      • Air America, Center for American Progress, and other such activities were being financed by George Soros, a "crazy, leftwing nut."
        
      • He'd experienced the wrath of bloggers for here's how it works on the internet: accusations are made ----> passed on to the Today Show ----> Good Morning America -----> Radio talk shows -----> Cable tv shows -----> Mainstream media.
        
      • Blogging needs rules, parroting what Zephyr Teachout wrote in the WSJ.

      Well, I just report, you decide!  

      by JekyllnHyde on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:08:36 PM PDT

    •  Haha

      O'Reilly called Kos corrupt?  Falafel.

      by Unstable Isotope on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:44:42 PM PDT

    •  Kos should go on O'Reilly

      He's always talking about how people are too scared to go on his show. I mean, Kos could run circles around this guy.

      by Diego on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:02:40 PM PDT

      •  Jerome should do it

        Why Jerome?

        Because O'Reilly is the master of Changing the Subject.  

        Markos would get 6 seconds to state how O'Reilly was material incorrect in his allegations... before O'Reilly would dredge up Markos' remark about the Fallujah mercenaries and go into Full Indignant Dudgeon Mode, and commence a solid shouting down of Markos on this completely unrelated topic. In a fair fight, my money would be on Markos vs. Bill Falloofa, but when Fox controls the mikes... it's not exactly a level field.

        Jerome, as far as I know, doesn't have such a high-profile "controversy" like that for Mr. "No-Spin Zone" to grab on to.

        Still, going on their shows only encourages them.

        by Malacandra on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 10:44:47 PM PDT

  •  Don't Link to Zephyr

    Why put up links to her blog?  She will get a shitload of hits that she doesn't deserve.  Let her page go unread; it's the appropriate response.

    by James Earl on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:54:33 PM PDT

    •  that is a childish response

      to a situation that needs more communication not less.  are we more informed if we ignore what she has to say and hold a grudge?  she does not have ads on the site and does not appear to be making money off of it in anyway.  so traffic up or down doesnt mean jack.

      by juls on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:59:01 PM PDT

      •  She needs to retract

        and say she was wrong in what she said and NOW.

        by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:03:21 PM PDT

        •  that goes to the

          more communication part of my post.  everyone, especially kos and jerome deserve a further explanation and an apology for not being clear about what she was trying to say.  the WSJ and CNN need to apologize for their slander.

          by juls on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:06:12 PM PDT

          •  It STARTS with Zephyr

            It is her false accusation that must be wiothdrawn immediately.

            by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:28:04 PM PDT

            •  Armando is right

              juls, put a PR hat on.

              Zephyr absolutely must retract in a letter to WSJ.  She made an accusation that was essentially false.  The story started with HER, and to end it, she must come out with a statement and apologize to kos and Jerome Armstrong.

              by Newsie8200 on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:46:33 PM PDT

              •  right

                she needs to respond much more fully and in the response she should applogize to kos and jerome. which is what i said.  waiting a week probably would not be a good idea.

                the AP story (i know they were working to contact her) and the WaPo should give us more information.  but she really needs to put out a full lengthed detailed, reflective and appologetic post.

                by juls on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:01:10 PM PDT

                •  Well, in waiting a week,

                  to issue an apology she becomes as big of a culprit when I put my PR hat on.  She is not an innocent party.

                  It's about integrity. A retraction should have been out this morning, end of story. There are no excuses.  She is in the wrong.

                  I'm not giving the media, particularly the WSJ, a free pass.  I'm just saying that anyone who portrays Zephyr as an innocent party is totally in the wrong from a PR point of view.  I suppose we could argue about Zephyr own ethics in how she has handled this (I think she's clearly in the wrong in this aspect, too...again, b/c her apology should have been issued this morning), but believe me, there is no one who does PR who would not say that Zephyr is a part of the PR problem.

                  by Newsie8200 on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:12:03 PM PDT

      •  Enough already

        I have read down this thread and seen a bunch of your comments.

        they are assine. Have you been asleep for the last 2 years ?

        Make nicey nice ? Uh-huh. I guess Kerry shoulda met with the smear boat liars for bush too huh and made nicey nicey.

        ZT is a fool or a tool, or maybe both. If she had any ethics of her own, she would have retracted the whole thing by now. The fact she is still playing coy speaks volumes of her intentions and her character or lack of. She needs to go fuck herself.

        by Pounder on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:10:03 PM PDT

        •  yeah he should have

          he should have met on TV and debated.  and brought the people that actually served with him on the air.

          no, i am wide awake and watching the progressive blogosphere canabilize one of its own for posting a shitty post she thought nobody would pay attention to. dumb.  

          guess what, now it is being used to slander others on cable TV.  the whole thing reeks and pisses me off.  and i will do everything in my power to spread far and wide knowledge of the atrocious false statements that the pundits have made.

          BUT calling her names does nothing. it just gives the freepers wet dreams.

          by juls on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:44:15 PM PDT

          •  Zephyr can recant

            and ALL will be forgiven. Until then . . .

            by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:46:38 PM PDT

          •  hmm

            a shitty post no one reads...in the WSJ ? LOL

            ok.

            Going after her does EVERYTHING. First it puts her right on the defensive where she ought ot be.
            Second and most importantly, it plants a marker for others on the left. a DONT GO THERE marker if you even THINK about stabbing one of your own in the back. We have had far far too much of that in the past. Its time we stop.

            the enemy isnt the Democratic party, its the extemists who have coopted the republicans with the oligarchic, theocratic wing.

            by Pounder on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:51:09 PM PDT

            •  no

              she posted on a blog that she set up to be able to place writings for a conference she was going to. zonkette is not her usual blog.  

              but bloggers started to notice the post.  then the WSJ did a crappy misleading story that seems to have caught the attention of the cable news.  now the AP and WaPo are chiming in.

              by juls on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 08:01:23 PM PDT

              •  so she didnt talk to the WSJ then ? n/t

                by Pounder on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 08:10:26 PM PDT

                •  i dont have a WSJ

                  subscription to go check the original article, but the part that kos quoted only had a quote from her blog.  go read her initial response, she never indicates that she talked to them and i have never read anywhere that they have interviewed her.  the only statements from Zephyr we seem to have are her two posts on zonkette.

                  by juls on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 08:13:53 PM PDT

                  •  hmm

                    seems like she has even more explaining to do then.

                    Lets see all that before we kiss and make up. Of course, wont ever trust her again.

                    by Pounder on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 08:17:33 PM PDT

      •  Because this is serious

        It's now to the point where Beltway pundits are calling him a paid shill. I don't know about you, but I'd take that real serious like.

        This is Kos's living. If he loses the trust of people, his income goes out the window. It may be a non-story to you, but this is a big deal. Having someone attack your credibility and honesty should always be met with a violent response.

        She made have thought it was no big deal, but she's wrong.

        What's even worse is that he's a fundamentally honest, decent person and does not deserve this.

        by stevegilliard on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 10:28:40 PM PDT

  •  Are you fucking watching some other planet?

    This is ramping up, not settling down.
    

    Mitch Gore

    Wanna win in '08...?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    by Lestatdelc on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:05:04 PM PDT

  •  Really

    I don't care what she says.  What could she possibly say now that I would be the least bit interested in?

    by Unstable Isotope on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:39:56 PM PDT

•  Sue for libel.

  I'm serious. Someone should call these assholes on their lies. If you need a legal fund, I'm sure everybody at dKos would be happy to chip in.
  

  by Frank on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:46:50 PM PDT

  •  Abso-fuckin'-lutely

    by Plutonium Page on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:48:55 PM PDT

    •  step one

      Ask for a retraction/correction to run at the same time/same manner/placement as the original publication.

      by rugged individual on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:51:41 PM PDT

      •  Step two.

        Be frustrated when step one is ignored.

        by ElizabethJames on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:48:42 PM PDT

        •  Step Three

          Bang your head against the wall when a non-correction is published three months later on page 32.  

          by johnny rotten on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:59:45 PM PDT

          •  Which

            would be a miracle itself.

            by ElizabethJames on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:05:36 PM PDT

            •  Then sue them...

              by rugged individual on Sat Jan 15, 2005 at 10:58:30 AM PDT

  •  A little more publicity never hurts,

    see if you can make it a multi-news cycle "trial of the century" ordeal.

    by Tom Kertes on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:50:59 PM PDT

    •  That's the ticket

      Use it to increase Kos's visibility and profile.
      You're nobody till O'Reilly calls you corrupt.

      And what the fuck is Teachout talking about? She "paid for airtime," but Jerome shut down his blog while he was working for Dean. Somebody is full of shit.

      The facts are entirely on our side. I want to see Kos's face on every channel.

      by HeavyJ on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:11:11 PM PDT

      •  Make lemonade!

        by Coldblue Steele on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:14:56 PM PDT

    •  would probably be bad publicity

      Nobody likes attacks on free speech.

      by Delirium on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:24:15 PM PDT

  •  Agreed.

    by Predator Saint on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:55:06 PM PDT

  •  Nothing was libelous

    Zephyr says the following in her original post:

    "On Dean's campaign, we paid Markos and Jerome Armstrong as consultants, largely in order to ensure that they said positive things about Dean. We paid them over twice as much as we paid two staffers of similar backgrounds, and they had several other clients.

    While they ended up also providing useful advice, the initial reason for our outreach was explicitly to buy their airtime. To be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment -- but it was very clearly, internally, our goal."

    It seems likely that Kos and Jerome were not aware of this and thought they were being hired solely on thier experience and to give advice, etc. (or whatever the heck consultants do).

    However, nobody else from the Dean campaign has said diddly about this, AFAIK.  That is, nothing points directly to Zephyr's statement being untrue.  That is, the WSJ piece was factual, Novak's comment was factual (although misleading), nobody has lied, so there is no libel.

    Confirmation could be made if Zephyr could tell us which two staffers she was refering to and thier salaries (which are probably public record anyways), and compare that to what Kos and Jerome received.

    by Geotpf on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:56:20 PM PDT

    •  Not Zephyr Teachout..

      What she said was stupid, but not libelous. However, Novak and O'Reilly are spreading lies.
      

      by Frank on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:57:59 PM PDT

      •  What were thier exact quotes?

        I don't watch much TV and just got home a few minutes ago.

        by Geotpf on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:58:51 PM PDT

        •  asdf

          Novaks exact quote is in my diary here

          I'm trying to get the O'Reilly transcript.  But having seen it, i can tell you that he repeatedly used the words "corrupt," "on the take," and "payola."  He also slammed Dean, Air America, and Media Matters.  And did you know that he's really a victim?

          by pontificator on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:04:51 PM PDT

        •  Via Atrios

          NOVACULA: Howard Dean is running for Democratic National Chairman the same way he ran for President-- as the squeaky clean candidate. Well, he may have been squeaky, but he wasn't so clean. Zephyr Teachout who was head of internet outreach for the Dean campaign has revealed the campaign hired two political bloggers to say positive things about Dr. Dean at the price of $3,000 a month-- that's play for pay. Meanwhile, one of the great former DNC chairmen, Bob Strauss, has endorsed one of the candidates, and it is indeed former Congressman Martin Frost, who, like Strauss, is a moderate and a Texan. Will the DNC members be that smart?

          BEGALA: I don't know. First, if in fact people were paid to flak Howard Dean and didn't disclose it, that's reprehensible. We talked about that earlier with Armstrong Williams, and the same standard should apply to liberals.

          by joejoejoe on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:06:50 PM PDT

          •  The Traitor Bob Novak

            Remember, everyone.  That is the correct spelling of his name - all four words. Why isn't he in jail?  I mean real jail... I mean "buying yourself off the b!tch block with cigarettes" jail.

            by Demetrius on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:14:47 PM PDT

          •  Nothing libelous

            Begala just sounds like he doesn't know shit (which isn't illegal), and Novak just repeats what Zephyr said.  The net result is slimy, and hurts our side, but there is no libel lawsuit there, not by a million miles.

            Now, pontificator says Zephyr's point that the campaign hired Kos and Jerome, and that it's bad for them to take the money, are contradictory.  He's right, of course.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen, either because the person who had the final say in hiring them was somebody other than herself, or that she has a change of heart in the past year.

            If Zephyr did lie about this, Kos and Jerome certainly would have a case for libel.  But, unless some other Dean insider contradicts her, the true reason why somebody was hired is unprovable.  She can also defend herself by producing the names and pay stubs of the two staffers in question (that were paid less than half that Kos and Jerome were).

            by Geotpf on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:19:44 PM PDT

            •  Novak directly contradicts

              Teachout's account:

              Novak: "...has revealed the campaign hired two political bloggers to say positive things about Dr. Dean at the price of $3,000 a month"

              Teachout: "to be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment -- but it was very clearly, internally, our goal."

              by HeavyJ on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:06:33 PM PDT

              •  In context

                she implies that they did act that way.  Sorry no sale. It doesn't work that way.

                Zephyr must RECANT.

                by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:35:00 PM PDT

                •  If Zephyr must recant....

                  ...the Armando must learn to read what's written in black and white.

                  Teachout: "to be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment -- but it was very clearly, internally, our goal."

                  by Romberry on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 11:05:02 PM PDT

                  •  Yep

                    that's the only thing she wrote right?  My gawd, after today, you stick to that line?

                    by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 11:41:52 PM PDT

            •  Doesn't matter if you can win...

              Sue Novak to get media attention, use it to talk about Novak's Plame involvement instead of this case.

              --

              by furiousxgeorge on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 08:12:49 PM PDT

            •  Perhaps they were paid double

              because they were consultants and not staff.

              I did consulting work for a company I previously worked for. Nearly the same stuff I did before, but they paid me double what my salary had been. I was working for myself, I was handling my own overhead, etc. The double money is NOT a big deal, though it's being made to sound like it.

              -5.88, -6.82

              by Debby on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 11:14:30 PM PDT

          •  Setting Frost up for Chair?

            It sounds like the Right is drooling to have ABD for the DNC.

            BTW, does Begala ever get tired of being a prison bitch?

            by Ascendent on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:28:57 PM PDT

      •  sorry

        Zephyr was libelous.  Actionable?  Reckless disregard/actual malice are hard to prove.

        by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:06:16 PM PDT

        •  libel

          It must be provably untrue to be libel.  She claimed that Dean hired the bloggers in hopes of keeping them from going over to another candidate.  Is there evidence that this is false?  Circumstantial evidence suggests that it was more than a mere "technical consulting" contract, as they were paid double what the other technical consultants did—if Dean just needed help setting up a website, there's any number of people who he could've hired to do that.

          by Delirium on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:23:17 PM PDT

          •  Well

            The words need not be read literally - what message did she convey and intend to convey. That's the standard.

            by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:51:01 PM PDT

            •  she conveyed that Dean was buying influence

              She implied, and indeed outright stated, that Dean was trying to buy influence among bloggers by keeping them on his side with payments, although not doing so outright.  It's going to be hard to prove that's false.

              by Delirium on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:19:15 PM PDT

              •  She conveyed

                that kos was on the take and has done nothing to correct that misimpression.  She must RECANT.

                by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:33:45 PM PDT

                •  no, she didn't

                  She implied that the Dean campaign hired them to keep them on the right side, not that Kos knew he was being hired for that reason.

                  by Delirium on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:45:05 PM PDT

        •  That's true too

          Even if she did lie, her subsequent statements have been all moronic naivete-things like "It was a private website that has been misused".  What the fuck is a private website?  In any case, she could be setting up a defense in the "no malice intended" type, or she really could be that stupid.

          by Geotpf on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:24:48 PM PDT

  •  Yes.

    Robert Novak needs to be taken down.  Sue the fucker.

    It's so perfect that he would get on a soapbox to talk about journalistic ethics and lie while doing so.

    by ignu on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 05:57:40 PM PDT

  •  Normally I would vote no

    But it is something to contemplate I think.

    by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:05:30 PM PDT

  •  Kos, you have me at your disposal

    for what it's worth.  Which is probably not much.

    But if you do decide to pursue legal action, just say the word and I'll research the hell out of it.  I'm not a lawyer yet, but I would be more than happy to help out with the grunt work.

    And now, I'm off to write CNN and the WSJ some letters...

    by georgia10 on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:29:23 PM PDT

    •  Good job

      Let's bury them in letters.

      by Unstable Isotope on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 06:50:59 PM PDT

    •  Sounds like libel to me

      There's nothing illegal, corrupt or immoral about paid advertising.  The illegality comes in solely when the financial arrangement is not disclosed.

      If indeed O'Reilly or Novak said the relationship with Dean was not disclosed, that's a lie, that goes to the heart of the wrongdoing Kos is accused of, and sho looks like libel to me.

      Couple more comments here:  

      How about Rush Limbaugh consulting for the Bush campaign (tho I don't know if he was paid)?  Didn't see O'Reilly wring his hands over that.

      As Randi Rhodes ably pointed out, Novak repeatedly flogged the Swift Boat liars, without disclosing his kid's financial interest in their book.  That's paid advertising without disclosure.  We should start a complaint campaign to the FCC

      And finally:  The Dan Rather angle.  Dan is crucified, four people are fired, for being taken in by forged documents.  Kos discloses his relationship with the Dean campaign on his friggin' home page, and O'Reilly can't do that much homework?

      Oh please please please please sue

      by sharman on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:10:01 PM PDT

    •  how's this letter?

      Dear Mr. Novak,

      I am amazed that, at the distinguished age of 74, you still have not learned the difference between truth and fiction.  

      Allow me, at the young age of 22, to teach you the difference:

      FICTION:  You stated on January 14th that the Dean campaign "hired two political bloggers to say positive things about Dr. Dean at the price of $3,000 a month -- that's play for pay."

      TRUTH:   The one blogger, Jerome Armstrong, couldn't "say positive things about Dr.Dean" because he completely shut down his website while he was consulting for Dean.  The other blogger, Markos Moulitsas, posted a clear disclaimer on his website (view it at http://web.archive.org/web/20030623112413/http://www.dailykos.com/).  If you had bothered to research this story before you repeated this fiction on air, you would have realized that the DailyKos was by no stretch of the imagine a shrine to Dean's candidacy.  Far from it, actually.  Allow me to quote Mr. Moulitsas:

      I never claimed to be free of bias. But I've always been able to see past such biases to do what I love to do -- analyze the political landscape. For example, I'm biased against Gephardt, yet have had no problem slapping him in first for the Cattle Call. My approach to writing will remain unchanged. I won't turn this into a rah-rah for Dean site. That's just not my style.

      That, Mr. Novak, is how someone with ethics operates.  And yet, you did not even bother to use the click of a mouse before you so gleefully spread your fictions on air.

      A lifetime of journalism experience and this is what it comes to? Unfounded --possibly libelous-- accusations are made because you do not have the desire or ethics to check out a story before you open your mouth?  This is a new low, even for you, Mr. Novak.

       You're now caught in the crossfire of your own journalistic incompetence and your willful ignorance of the facts.  The result?  You're stripped of any semblance of credibility you may have had and remain a partisan hack, a shell of a journalist, and a mockery of the concept of "truth in media."  

      Congratulations, Mr. Novak.  Your conduct with this, and with your many other ethical "mishaps" over the last few years has sent your lifetime of journalistic experience down the crapper.

      Enjoy the twilight of your career, and try and remember as much of it as you can--I doubt anyone else will.  

      Sincerely,
      Me

      **
      too much? :)

      by georgia10 on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:11:27 PM PDT

      •  Bravo!

        Excellent letter.  

        by The Truffle on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:28:49 PM PDT

      •  How about one to Zephyr

        asking her to recant?

        by Armando on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:32:28 PM PDT

        •  should i be nice or not so nice?

          I haven't read Zephyr's work before or know exactly her(?) reputation.  Just want to know how to proceed here.

          by georgia10 on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:34:55 PM PDT

        •  ok?

          Dear Zephyr,

          I am writing to you as a member of the DailyKos community.  I am asking you to recant statements you made which implied that Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong were paid to write positive things about Dr. Dean during his Presidential Campaign.

          I won't try to discern the intent you had in making those statements, but there is one thing I do know.  Your statements provided the right with just the escape trap they needed.  Instead of talking about the $240,000 paid by the President to Armstrong Williams, they're talking about $3,000 which were fully disclosed on a political website.  Instead of talking about using almost a quarter of a million taxpayer money being used as a bribe by the head of the Executive Branch, they're interpreting your words as Dr. Dean "buying influence."

          Your comments, as long as they remain out there, undermine all your tireless work for the left.   They will be misread, misconstrued, taken out of context and used against you and those who stand side-by-side with you.  

          There comes a time when all of us wish we had said something differently, or not said something at all.  All of us make mistakes.  What separates us from the right is that we're willing to admit them with humility, correct them, and move on.  

          Please recant your statements.  They've provided the right with enough cannon-fodder for the day, and enough distraction from the real problems plaguing our democracy.

          Sincerely,
          me
          

          by georgia10 on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 07:59:06 PM PDT

          •  bleh, typos

            Don't worry, not sent yet. :)

            by georgia10 on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 08:00:06 PM PDT

            •  Good letters!

              They both strike the right tone. That one to Novak is beautiful.

              -5.88, -6.82

              by Debby on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 11:10:33 PM PDT

          •  steve gillard has a letter for her too...

            http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/01/see-what-you-did.html

            by georgia10 on