Is Rolling Stone a valid source?

[Rum_Pirate]

Normal you asked about info on wrongdoing so you might be interested in reading this, then again you might not.

DNC Leak Shows Mechanics of a Slanted Campaign
Documents released by Wikileaks detail how the DNC worked with the Clinton camp to downplay a key story about questionable fundraising
Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned as DNC chair after the Wikileaks release of DNC emails. Patrick T. Fallon/Getty

By Matt Taibbi
16 hours ago
As is sadly the case with most political stories these days, whether or not you care about the so-called "DNC leak" probably depends on which candidate you supported in the primaries.

If you supported Hillary Clinton, it probably won't bother you that the Democratic National Committee is revealed in these documents to have essentially acted as an arm of the Clinton campaign during the contested primary season.

Most people guessed at this anyway. But it wasn't until these documents were dumped last week under mysterious circumstances that the extent to which the party both advocated for Hillary and against her opponent Bernie Sanders was made plain.
Nowhere is the discrepancy on greater display than in an episode involving the DNC's reaction to a May 2nd article by Politico reporters Ken Vogel and Isaac Arnsdorf, which itself pointed at a backdoor advantage for the Clinton campaign.
The exchanges over this Politico story were barely mentioned in the wake of the DNC leak, except by right-wing media that shortsightedly dinged Vogel for submitting a draft of his piece of the DNC before publication, suggesting "collusion."
Vogel maybe shouldn't have sent a whole copy for review, but his intent wasn't to give the DNC or Hillary a break – far from it. It seems pretty clear that he wanted to make sure he didn't miss with a piece full of aggressive, original reporting that took on a very powerful target.
. . .
But down the road, someone will have to address the problem of a Democratic Party structure that effectively had no internal advocates for a full 43 percent of its voters. As we've seen with the Trump episode on the other side, people don't much like having to fight against the party claiming to represent them.

For the rest (too large to C&P completely) visit:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows-mechanics-of-a-slanted-campaign-w430814

[Ian McColgin]

Re: Is Rolling Stone a valid source?

On this sort of reporting, Rolling Stone is good.

Everyone attempts to downplay bad or embarrassing news and play up the good. That's why we need an independent press. Since most of the press is either mainstream (an advertising medium) or partisan or both, we have a hard job finding important things in a timely way.

That said, anyone who did not understand, as Sanders and all mature participants in his campaign understood from jump, that the organizational odds were against a progressive sweep - - - any such person was just plain stupid. And probably too thin skinned for elbows up politics.

An important part of the Putin-leaks that people are not getting is that the establishment managed to refrain from active dirty tricks, like the campaign smearing Sanders as an atheist. There's an idea that got an email chuckle and no real world traction.

[Norman Bernstein]

Re: Is Rolling Stone a valid source?

Normal you asked about info on wrongdoing so you might be interested in reading this, then again you might not.

Interesting, but I still don't see a smoking gun. As of just one month ago, Bernie and HRC had each raised very roughly an equal amount of money for their campaigns... but Hillary also raised PAC money, Bernie did not. The 'money trail' referenced in the RS piece, which quotes a Politico piece, doesn't provide any hard evidence... just supposition. The emails talked about definitely DO demonstrate a partisan bias towards Hillary, which is probably to be expected, and neither unethical nor immoral... political parties are not now, and have never been, democracies, and as millions of votes testify, HRC drew more votes and clearly had more appeal than Sanders during the campaign.

I still think that the most credible observation on all of this came from Sander's own campaign manager, who stated clearly that he didn't think that any party leadership bias was responsible for Sander's loss. Bernie is an interesting guy, and he ran one hell of a campaign... but he just didn't have the 'juice' to win. My own opinion: he lost because he promised things that he couldn't possibly have delivered on, considering the political polarization of the country. It was a case of the candidate promising the least, having more credibility. When the country is bitterly and divisively split, nearly evenly, it's NOT the time to move left or right.... it's time to stay closer to the center.

[Gerarddm]

Re: Is Rolling Stone a valid source?

Normally I am confident in anything Matt Taibbi puts out. He is a combination of Seymour Hersh and Hunter S. Thompson.

[David G]

Re: Is Rolling Stone a valid source?

RS is a fairly reliable source of investigative journalism. Not impeccable. They've been caught out over their skis a bit a few times. But I'll read anything Taibbi offers. Don't always agree... but he's not a dingbat.

[Norman Bernstein]

Re: Is Rolling Stone a valid source?

RS is a fairly reliable source of investigative journalism. Not impeccable. They've been caught out over their skis a bit a few times. But I'll read anything Taibbi offers. Don't always agree... but he's not a dingbat.

I admire Taibbi as well, but I HAVE seen him do some questionable pieces, so I can't consider him an always-reliable source.