TPM's Josh Marshall continues anti-Edwards Erroneous Headlines...

[Blackhatjack]

As a matter of courtesy I previously emailed Marshall about the erroneous Headline on his site before posting here, to give him a chance to correct the misleading and erroneous headline

"Yepsen: Edwards' Iowa Support Collapsing" with a link to an article.

If you follow the link to arrive at http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13703.html you get an article titled "An Edwards collapse in Iowa?" (Note the ? mark) where the following paragraph is erroneously offered as a factual assertion attributed to Yepsen:

"The Des Moines Register’s David Yepsen, arguably most respected political voice in Iowa’s media, has been closely monitoring the first caucus state’s landscape and noted one surprising trend: John Edwards’ support is collapsing. (via Ron Chusid)"

Now the erroneous and false conclusion is printed as a factual attribution to Yepsen. It also fails to note that the three(3) excerpted paragraphs were 'cherry-picked' from a Fox News interview with Yepsen, and none of the the three(3) even support the conclusion. The actual comments were in response to Bill Richardson's chances in Iowa.

So how does www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com get to the erroneous conclusion? It includes "(via Ron Chusid)" at the end of the assertion with a link to his site http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2417

So who is Ron Chusid and what does his site say?

Ron Chusid is a physician engaged in the practice of internal medicine. His site is filled with 'his comments and his opinions' of what others say. OPINION not facts. And he gives plenty of coverage to Repub Ron Paul. And there are no shortage of anti-Edwards pieces there.

The lead for his opinion piece is "Yepsen Predicts Possible Edwards Collapse"

So now we come full circle. Josh Marshall is the Editor of TPM.

An anti-Edwards poster writes an opinion piece with a headline that includes "Possible Edwards Collapse", which is used as a supporting link for an erroneous conclusion at www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com which leads with "An Edwards collapse in Iowa?"(with a question mark), to www.talkingpointsmemo.com which headlines "Yepsen: Edwards' Iowa Support Collapsing."

I have read www.talkingpointsmemo.com on a daily basis for years, and for the most part have agreed with their reporting and their attempt to be taken seriously in regard to accuracy in reporting the facts, and insightful with their opinions and analysis. However, there is no room for allowing misleading headlines to be posted which falsely denigrate any candidate.

This is not the first time this has happened.

Hopefully, Josh Marshall will realize that we do read and verify what they print as facts, and that corrections and retractions are in order when false headlines are posted as fact.

[petersjo02]

1. In any case, Yepsen isn't a reliable source

He keeps being quoted as "the" political expert in Iowa, but he is a right wing hack. I quit reading his drivel probably 15 to 20 years ago because he is wrong most of the time. He spouts his opinion, not any real facts gleaned from real reporting.

[progressoid]

14. Yep, he gets way to much credit.

[Beaverhausen]

2. Edwards is going to surprise a lot of people with a big win in Iowa

Josh Marshall can kiss my ass!

[Clark2008]

24. God, I hope not.

I would assume Iowans would know snakeoil salesmen when they see them.

[Blackhatjack]

28. Iowa isn't the only place 'snakeoil salesmen' appear to peddle their wares....n/t

[Catchawave]

31. Probably why Clark isn't running ?

Sorry, couldn't resist. I like Clark, how is he helping Hillary again?

[sendero]

32. If they don't want to vote for snake oil....

... that rules Obama and Clinton out. So who do you WANT them to vote for?

[weeve]

3. Just like Cheney.

This sounds just like what Cheney did with the NeW York Times in their pimping for war with Iraq. Have your mole write a bogus article, then refer to the very article in your speech ("sorces say").

This just shows how worried people are about Edwards, and why he's likeley the best most progressive candidate able to win. They're threatened, hence resorting to tactics like this.

Go JOHN GO !!

[Blackhatjack]

4. TPM changes Headline Critical of Edwards ... Still Inaccurate...

TPM has changed its headline from "Yepsen: Edwards' Iowa Support Collapsing." to a new headline of
"Yepsen: Edwards' Iowa Support Falling Fast" which is also inaccurate.

I guess recognition that the earlier headline was inaccurate gives us hope that they will eventually get it right.

It is hard to justify such a headline from the following Yepsen quote:

"Yepsen: “I think if you’re John Edwards, you’re thankful this is going to be over with on January third. John Edwards has not been doing well lately, he’s slipping a little in these numbers. That’s not a good trend line for him. He’s got to get this thing over with fast.”

[itsrobert]

5. Josh Marshall in firmly in the Clinton Camp

I'm sorry to say, because I usually regard him with the utmost respect. But for some reason, his journalistic integrity is not what it once was.

[MidwestTransplant]

10. I don't think he is in anybody's camp personally. Plus there are a number of reporters on his site.

[Blackhatjack]

12. There are a number of reporters, all reporting to Josh Marshall, Editor. n/t

[MidwestTransplant]

27. I guess you know that they aren't independent in their reporting.

[Blackhatjack]

11. Well don't email him pointing out inaccuracies unless you are prepared for an 'unhappy' reply...

Some reporting is either factually correct or it is not.

THat is an easy call.

Once acknowledged, fixing the error should not generate such responses.

[Blackhatjack]

6. Well I got a response from Josh Marshall ... he is NOT HAPPY with me.

I asked him if he would mind me posting his email reply to me, but I have not heard back from him regarding my inquiry.

Suffice to say, he was not happy about my challenging the headline as misleading and inaccurate in attributing a quote to Yepsen that does not exist.

How a news organization addresses its own reporting mistakes can either increase its integrity or expose a lack of same, depending upon how they handle them.

[petersjo02]

15. I sent him an e-mail, too

It bounced back to me as undeliverable?????

[Blackhatjack]

19. I just used the email 'contact us' link on the TPM site and my emails obviously got through...

... because I got a response back from Josh Marshall.

(However, you might want to see if you can borrow Hillary's asbestos pant suit first before doing so.)

[petersjo02]

22. That's the link I used.

I'll just leave it alone since the story's gone. You got burned, but obviously you got your point across. He just doesn't want to acknowledge he was wrong.

[yodermon]

16. ask him when the tectonic plates are going to shift n/t

[madfloridian]

7. The day of the caucus, Yepsen said Dean would win.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3754036

And Ron Chusid is one who despised Dean and attacked him constantly. Kept the pot stirred.

Guess he is doing the same to Edwards...just like he did about Dean.

[Moochy]

9. Can't have the electable one getting any traction

The Big Tent is clearly too big, either that or there is no security at the right-wing entrance to the tent.

[Clark2008]

25. Electable?

:rofl: :rofl:

His flip-flops would make Kerry seem stable in the minds of voters.

[Moochy]

26. Yes

"In the minds of voters" polluted by lies that people like you love to trumpet, regardless of the truth.

Kerry *was* stable in the minds of voters I would venture. You believe the voting machines in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006. Do you want to buy a bridge in brooklyn?

[karynnj]

17. I do not think it fair to say that he despised Dean - from what I heard

he was a strong Dean supporter until he saw more of Kerry. It would be better to attack the substance. Here, on the part of both Yepsin and Ron, they are posting mostly opinion, not fact - and labelling it as such.

[Blackhatjack]

21. While that is true --Yepsen did not make the statement attributed to him.

The factual attribution of this statement to Yepsen was incorrect, inaccurate and misleading --especially since he never made the statement in the first place.

[madfloridian]

23. Yes, it is quite fair.

He really was after Dean in a very negative way.

[Blackhatjack]

8. Now the Ron Chusid link in the carpetbaggerreport.com link is not working...

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2417

Which is the site which I referenced with proof to back up the allegations in the OP.

Hmmmm... wonder what that is all about?

(Saved the cached version at Google)

[Blackhatjack]

13. The Fox News Interview Yepsen quotes were in response to the question ... LINK

"Specifically, we wanted to know what the top four Democrats in the race had to be thankful for in Iowa."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312505,00.html

[petersjo02]

18. Just checked in at TPM

That story is gone now. Josh may not have liked your e-mail, but the story is gone, nevertheless.

Edited to add: great job, blackhatjack!

[Blackhatjack]

20. It would have been better if they admitted the mistake. Thanks. n/t

[DefenseLawyer]

29. It may just have been sloppy

but, if you don't give him the benefit of the doubt, that is certainly right out of Matt Drudge 101: Post an outrageous unsupported story, wait until it garners attention and then "erase" it. The story is gone but the seed is planted. A reputable journalist would issue a correction.

[Blackhatjack]

30. Well the first headline was dead wrong. The 2nd reinvented headline was inaccurate also...then gone.

I think that indicates more than just 'sloppy' work.

THe failure to admit that you errored by reporting a false attribution is disconcerting. It either was accurate or it was not.

One thing we do know, there was not explanation given to the readers at TPM.