Politics
Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again
Now that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has said that he will not seek charges against Karl Rove, will Truthout.org rethink their affiliation with reporter Jason Leopold?
By Paul McLeary Tue 13 Jun 2006 03:37 PMWe wonder if the folks over at Truthout.org are rethinking their affiliation with reporter and serial fabulist Jason Leopold. Leopold, you may recall, is the freelance reporter who was caught making stuff up in a 2002 Salon.com article, self-admittedly “getting it completely wrong” in pieces for Dow Jones, and had his own memoir cancelled because of concerns over the accuracy of quotations.
Leopold’s latest addition to his application for membership in the Stephen Glass school of journalism came on May 12 of this year, when he got what appeared to be the scoop of a lifetime. Now writing for Truthout.org, Leopold reported that Karl Rove “told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials,” that he was about to be indicted in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case, “according to people knowledgeable about these discussions.”
Leopold claimed that multiple sources “confirmed Rove’s indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove’s situation.”
Well, today we
Oops.
Truthout’s executive director Marc Ash originally stood by Leopold’s story — even as no other news organization could confirm it, and Rove’s attorney vociferously denied it. On May 18, Ash wrote that the site had “additional, independent sources,” and that “additional sources have now come forward and offered corroboration to us.” But just a day later, Ash issued an odd “partial apology” for “getting too far out in front of the news-cycle,” on the story — a note which smelled a bit like a preemptive backtrack.
But Ash again changed course on May 25, when he wrote for Truthout that he now had “three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about.”
After all this certainty comes Ash’s latest version of the story, published yesterday, where he writes that Truthout based its 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.” Ash makes no mention of those “three independent sources” who were “in a position to know” that he trumpeted less than three weeks ago.
Now that we finally have a look at what Leopold and Ash have been working from, it looks pretty thin. Ash 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.”
So much for what Ash knows. Apparently, Ash 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.” (Once again, Ash’s “three independent sources” are nowhere to be found.)
As for what you should believe about Leopold’s story, it’s worth looking at his background in more detail.
When Leopold’s story was first called into question a few weeks ago, Salon’s Tim Grieve reminded readers of Leopold’s checkered history with the publication. 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. Leopold’s response? A hysterical rant (linked above) which claimed that Salon’s version of events was “nothing but lies,” and that “At this point, I wonder why Salon would go to great lengths to further twist the knife into my back. I suppose the New York Times will now release their version of the events. I can see the headline now ‘Jason Leopold Must Die.’” In other words, people are out to get him, and it’s not his fault.
Fast forward to March 2005, when Leopold’s memoir, Off the Record, was set to be released. In the book, according to Howard Kurtz, Leopold says that he details his own “lying, cheating and backstabbing,” and comes clean about how he got fired from the Los Angeles Times and quit Dow Jones just before they fired him because, as he said, it “Seems I got all of the facts wrong” on a story about Enron.
But the book was not to be. Rowman & Littlefield, the book’s publisher, cancelled production just before it went to press after one of the book’s sources threatened to sue. That source, Steven Maviglio, who was a spokesman for California Governor Gray Davis, said that Leopold “just got it completely wrong” when recounting how he allegedly told Leopold that he “might have broken the law by investing in energy companies using inside information.”
True to form, Leopold blamed his publisher for the controversy, claiming the allegations about Maviglio were not in his book, and, as Kurtz summarized it, “the company’s publicist took that and other material from his book proposal, not the finished manuscript.”
If there is one common theme that emerges from all of Leopold’s journalistic snafus, it’s that none of it seems to be his fault. We probably won’t have to wait long before we hear the same tired refrain from him about the Rove story.
But we wonder when editors will finally figure out his game, save themselves the trouble, and just stop publishing him.
1 | 2
Subscribe Today
Johnnypotatoes
Tue 13 Jun 2006 05:46 PMLeopold was able to do this because of only two things: his ideological stance and the Internet. If not for those two things, he would have been another Stephen Glass, only less interesting. But people -- not very bright people -- insisted on believing everything he wrote, even when he was repeatedly proven to be a liar and a plagiarist. They did so because the simply believe everything bad that's written about Bush and the right wing. This, even though there is plenty of TRUE bad stuff written about them every day.
If it weren't for the Internet, he would never have been hired by anyone, or at least not by anyone who would have distributed his nonsense all over the world. There is something to be said for barriers to entry. On the other hand, it is mostly thanks to blogs that this latest lie was seen as such by all but the most vacuous ideologues pretty much right away.
In the meantime, Mr. Leopold and Mr. Ash have done more than anyone I can think of to harm the reputation of blogs as a whole. This isn't fair, of course, but this kind of nonsense is exactly what most people think of when they think of blogs.
It's time for both Mr. Ash and Mr. Leopold -- who are equally to blame for this -- to get the hell out of the business, for the sake of everyone.
Johnnypotatoes
Tue 13 Jun 2006 06:01 PMAsh and many of the readers of Truthout, amazingly, incredibly, are still standing by the story. This is a jaw-dropping combination of lunacy and a lack of self-awareness....
http://salon.com/politics/war_room/
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/6/13/104836/605
sirshack
Thu 15 Jun 2006 04:02 PMLeopold sure went out in a blaze of glory. Clearly the awe and adulation a story like that could bring he and Truthout.org was more important than actually doing any real reporting.
PJ-Comix
Thu 15 Jun 2006 05:10 PMDon't forget about William Rivers Pitt. He was the Third Man in this TruthOut Troika fraud. As of yet neither Pitt not Ash nor the serial faubulist, Leopold, have admitted error in this Fraud of the Year story.
BTW, Leopold & Pitt are also known as Leopold & Lib.
Find MORE updates on the unfolding Fitzmas Fraud scandal at the DUmmie FUnnies:
DUmmie FUnnies
Expatriate
Fri 16 Jun 2006 02:23 AMIt's just one story, and it's not like the fate of the nation hangs in the balance -- unlike, say, the NYT stories peddling MONTHS of Bush bullshit on the Iraq war.
Jesus, sometimes I just don't get the the hyper-frenzied world of the blogosphere, especially the way the "left" eats its own, and abets the MSM in marginalizing dissent.
How many millions of things has Drudge gotten wrong over the years -- and he's still quoted in the fucking MSM as a reliable source?
It seems to me that even in the worst-case scenario for the Leopold story, all you would have is that an investigative reporter got burned by his sources. This happens to every reporter; even Sy Hersh has been burned spectacularly on a few occasions. Again, the level of anger and personal animus at Leopold is incomprehensible to me. If the sources were wrong, either unwittingly or deliberately, then the story was wrong.
This is an occupational hazard of journalism.
Why this should result in such vitriolic personal attacks on Leopold is something I can't fathom. Even from here - the alleged bastion of American Journalism.
Every single element of the Plame story and the Fitzgerald investigation has played out very slowly, with the truth emerging only months, even years later.
Why should we assume the word of Luskin, Rove's lawyer, simply settles the matter? He won't release the actual document according to TMPmuckraker. Fitzgerald has made no comment yet. Note the smelted language in Luskin's press release.
Why not let it play out and see what happens? Why this rush to pillory an investigator just because his story made some very powerful people uncomfortable for a minute or two?
JasonLeopold![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Sat 2 Jun 2007 02:49 AMPAUL MCLEARY IS A LIAR.
I have challenged CJR and Paul McLeary for libeling and defaming me by knowing using statements that are completely untrue.
For those who care about balance my attorneys sent CJR and Mr. McLeary this legal letter when they refused to correct the story.
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,
David J. Brown
Attorney at Law
Egerman & Brown, LLC.
Henrik Steen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Tue 26 Jun 2007 08:55 AMOn April, 23, 2007, a federal agency launched an extensive investigation into the activities of the White House's political operation and its architect, Karl Rove.
In this perspective, how would Paul McLeary comment on that?
Henrik Steen
Oslo, Norway
howardkurtz![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Fri 15 Feb 2008 11:43 PMTo the readers of this article, I am the media reporter for the washington post and I can tell all of you, unequivocally, that Mr. McLeary has been taken to task on numerous occasions for his sloppy journalism and for making up quotes. His hatchet piece on Mr. Leopold has less to do with Mr. Leopold's reporting, which has since proved reliable and trustworthy, and more to do with the fact that Mr. McLeary was put up to this article by senior editors at Salon who Mr. Leopold wrote about unflatteringly in his book, News Junkie.
This is a fact and should be kept in mind when reading this awful, incorrect story.
In his rush to smear Mr Leopold Mr. McLeary got the basic facts of his story wrong as can be seen by the correction at the end of his piece.
Mr. McLeary is a terrible reporter and committed his own journalistic crime by not disclosing his relationship with individuals at Salon or attempting to contact Mr. Leopold for his side of the story. For CJR to fail that basic journalistic requirement speaks volumes about Mr. McLeary's reporting.
AhmNee![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Wed 20 Feb 2008 03:44 PMAnd the fact that you have been the focus of McLeary's articles on multiple occasions on this site has little to do with your extremely late entry to this article's comments, Mr. Kurtz?
For my own sense of curiosity, what do we have besides your word that any relationship exists with individuals as Salon?
Clint Hendler![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Wed 20 Feb 2008 04:47 PMFYI: We’ve checked with Howard Kurtz, and, not surprisingly, he says he’s not the author of the above comment.
Clint Hendler
Assistant Editor, CJR
AhmNee![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Thu 21 Feb 2008 11:19 AMGah! Fell for the troll.
Really, we aught to be setting out traps. There seems to be an infestation.
Let's see ... who could the mystery troll be ... it would have to be someone who's not above using misinformation and flawed logic ... someone who has particular issue with Paul McLeary.
I wonder who it could be.
padikiller![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Thu 21 Feb 2008 07:33 PMAhmNee seems to have a rather unhealthy fixation on me...
More than a little creepy...
And, for the record... I haven't posted any comments on this post until now.
padikiller![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Thu 21 Feb 2008 10:49 PMSo a Howard Kurtz impersonator's comments are allowed to stand in stark violation of CJR's Orwellian commenting policy against impersonation...
But when I simply and fairly criticized Nick Lemann's front page piece, my comments were snatched off the board lickety split by the CJR censors.
Such is life in the gulags of McLearyland...
AhmNee![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Fri 22 Feb 2008 11:22 AMHow interesting you assume I was talking about you.
You're so vain. I bet you think this post is about you. Don't you? Don't you? Don't you?
Heh heh.
padikiller![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Sat 23 Feb 2008 02:45 PMAhmNee wrote
...it would have to be someone who's not above using misinformation and flawed logic...
padikiller wonders
Perhaps like someone who ignorantly claimed here that the Pilgrims sent smallpox infested to the Indians after celebrating the first Thanksgiving in triumph over subjugating them?....
Or like the guy who stupidly claimed that the UN was running the (NATO-led) war in Afghanistan?....
Or the dude who made a fool out of himself by claiming that the high unemployment in Baltimore (in reality, significantly lower than the national average) justified the voluntary underemployment of a Volvo-driving, home owning middle-class couple who used the spare time they garnered through "intermittent" employment to pimp their kid for welfare?...
Or the absolute nut who claimed that Danny Pearl wansn't tortured?.....
AhmNee![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Fri 7 Mar 2008 02:31 AMYou are an absolute hoot.
Though when you put it that way, I guess I can see how you thought I was talking about you. That's about all you had in any of those discussions was misinformation and flawed logic. I'll happily re-debate any of those topics with you. You couldn't make your case the first time around, I doubt you will fare any better a second time at bat.
You'll have to refresh my memory on the Afghanistan claim, however. I have no recollection to what you're referring to there.
Perhaps we can find someplace better suited for such a rousing discourse as well. Rather than a thread rapidly approaching the 2 year old mark.
padikiller![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Fri 7 Mar 2008 05:01 PMWhat makes you think I was talking about you?
Funny how you want to run away from here now, since you're the one who started the discourse...
AhmNee![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Fri 7 Mar 2008 06:00 PMBecause you've specifically sited conversations we've had in the past. Don't try to turn my own words against me, Padi. You're not good enough at it.
I'm not trying to 'run away from' anywhere. I simply think that going completely off topic in a 2 year old thread is hardly the place for this debate. And as you'll remember, you were the one who identified yourself as the 'subject' of my earlier post when "someone who's not above using misinformation and flawed logic ... someone who has particular issue with Paul McLeary" could refer to several people who visit here not the least being the subject of the OP, you just happen to be our most frequent flyer.
padikiller![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Fri 7 Mar 2008 09:35 PMAhmNee Blithered
I'm not trying to 'run away from' anywhere. I simply think that going completely off topic in a 2 year old thread is hardly the place for this debate...
padikiller wonders
Then WHY did YOU "go" in a direction that's "completely off topic" here?...
HUH?....
You went down the rabbit hole on this one, Sport....
AhmNee![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Mon 10 Mar 2008 01:31 PMAre you blaming me for your tangent?
howardkurtz![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Fri 14 Mar 2008 02:12 AMJune 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.
Jack![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Sat 15 Mar 2008 05:06 PMHoward,
What's your point in this triple play? So Leopold is claiming to be defamed. What else is new? Oh, you've negelcted to refer to your own article on this issue written in March, 2005 noting, "Now the former Los Angeles Times and Dow Jones reporter has written a book, "Off the Record," that criticizes journalists as lazy. Oh, and by the way, Leopold says he engaged in "lying, cheating and backstabbing," is a former cocaine addict, served time for grand larceny, repeatedly tried to kill himself and has battled mental illness his whole life."
So which is it Howard? Is Leopold being mercilessly defamed, or was you're '05 piece more accurate?
Jack![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Sun 16 Mar 2008 09:04 PMHoward, Just in case you have trouble finding and referring to your own earlier work in regards to the quality of Leopold's journalism the link is noted below.
This is the best part, "The release fleshes out a troubled career. Leopold says his grand larceny
conviction in 1996 was for stealing compact discs from his employer, a New York music company, and reselling them to record stores. He says he was fired by the Los Angeles Times "for threatening to rip a reporter's head off." Leopold says he quit Dow Jones Newswires in a dispute over his beat but later learned the news service was planning to fire him because of a correction to one of his Enron stories: "Seems I got all of the facts wrong."
Leopold now says he was "brutally honest" in the book and admits to making "many mistakes. . . . I was hoping it would allow me to find some sort of redemption."
://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18624-2005Mar8.html
TDC![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Tue 18 Mar 2008 10:56 AMJack, thats not Howard Kurtz. Leopold is well known for using sockpuppets to post things on the internet.
howardkurtz![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
Fri 18 Apr 2008 11:46 PMJune 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.