I’ve been careful so far to compare the two different ‘fact checks’ that are being alleged here: PL’s failure to follow more than a single source, and Gage’s editors failure to re-call Gage’s sources. I think i’m aware of whats going on.

One of the factors that is involved is whether or not the person sought the public spotlight. That could be a major factor in most Blogs. Most Bloggers are trying to make a large public splash.

Bloggers and commenters on this wonderful new medium, will live better if they have a tough hide.

Or they shouldn’t pretend to be some knowledeable or trustworthy source. I don’t, and I don’t hide it either. I said before in another thread that I think a good ethical standard for blogs would be to hold them accountable to the extent that they are bringing things to the fore which wouldn’t otherwise be noticed.

So I or PL or Lashawn should be held accountable — ethically, not legally — to the extent that we are saying things that would otherwise not be known. PL is trying to bring to the fore a FAIR allegation that we don’t know about, that isn’t widely known. I’m talking about Suskind’s article which I assume just about everyone has heard about. Something which was in the NYT magazine as opposed to something that was in a lesser known place.

The raison d’etre of Sandbag Camille’s screech in the Strib is that bloggers like you should fact check before posting.

Of course not. Thats how blogs work. Don’t see me getting all haughty.

I have no idea why that aide would sue suskind. I can see how putting words into someone’s mouth might make for actionable libel, but we don’t know who it is, so how are we to say there has been an injury to his reputation?

Afterall, we all know that Suskind’s creditbility is suspect, not to mention the NYT’s penchant for not fact-checking the articles they produce.

Maybe the unnamed aide could sue Ron for putting words in his mouth. Hmmm?

Accusation after accusation. Allegation after allegation. When will you lefties stop. One hit piece after another from you.

That’s ok. We’ll keep increasing our numbers because of your pattern..

In discussing law, and for the sake of our understanding for the future, we often engage in hypotheticals. We weren’t discussing whether he had a case or not. We discussed “if” one was filed, what level of bad acts would he be required to prove: mere negligence, or actual malice. We can discuss what standard he needs to meet without getting into whether he actually meets that standard. This doesn’t seem so complicated to me, but I am at a loss as to why you don’t understand the words ‘hypothetical’ and ‘if.’ Maybe you just don’t understand it, but the question of what level of intent bloggers need to show is a generally important one.

In my mind: Gage reported what we all know, that bloggers like PL don’t fact check; and that he single sourced a story to FAIR which is different than the current investigation; and PL is trying to basically ‘tu quoque’ Gage but missing and hitting her newspaper editors for failing to double check Gage’s op-ed.

In any argument I try to set a foundation of facts because you are all over the place.

The foundation I’m trying to set is whether or not you think there was something for Powerline to report on or whether or not Gage’s allegations had factual merit.

You are all over the place becuase HOW IN THE WORLD can you be talking about whether or not Powerline has a libel case or not if you can’t even agree that Gage did make FALSE ALLEGATIONS.

In my mind she did.

In your mind Gage was accurate.

That is the difference. While you want to dabble here and dabble there and then accuse others of not sticking to the debate at hand you basically lose the argument. I’m done.

Back? baklava, it left in your mind. I think there is reason for gage to think that the voter irregularity sourced to FAIR isn’t the one that is being acted on.

OK. Now the debate is back on then is what you are saying. You actually believe that there was reason for Gage to be incensed at that there was no voter irregularity…

You either concede the point that there was or wasn’t voter registration irregularities. Look at Powerline’s LAST PARAGRAPH of the post on this topic. Do you dare look Actus?

So Gage made a good accusation is what you seem to be saying….

So you want to continue on with the accusation that Powerline’s story was bogus….

And every other allegation that you’ve perpetrated over the last few months.