You do know of course that "Game Changer" is NOT sourced, don't you?

[CTyankee]

What does that tell you?

What it tells me is that this book is totally worthless for anybody writing political observations and analysis. It is of laughable quality and value to anyone who is serious about policy questions facing this country. And indeed, that is what its purpose appears to be: laughable, gossipy and bitchy.

Please keep this in mind if a repuke starts quoting this book to you as if it is god's own truth.

[Codeine]

1. And yet we gleefully latched onto the Palin

bits and are enthusiastically sharing them in thread after thread.

[CTyankee]

7. We had plenty of other reasons to believe she was unstable. Just watching her

on those interviews and seeing bits of her speeches around the country made people really uncomfortable that she could possibly be a heartbeat from the presidency. That was, indeed, a big reason that the ticket failed!

[Codeine]

14. Oh, I fully agree she's a fucking whackadoodle,

but it seems a bit disingenuous to cherry-pick what bits on which we demand sources.

[CTyankee]

24. And I agree with your point wholeheartedly. Source it all or don't print it. nt

[HipChick]

2. Authors were on this morning verifying their sources..

I suspect they will spend the rest of the week on every news outlet doing the same

[Captain Hilts]

3. Trying to verify their sources. nt

[CTyankee]

4. well, bless their little hearts...I don't care if they blabber on and on

the fact is that this is not a serious book and the authors must have a reason that they didn't source it. They are either too lazy or they don't have the sources, but will talk about them and later change their story. If it is in writing in the back of the book, they can't do that.

I think it is a mix of both. Halperin is the laziest minded commentator (or whatever he pretends to be) I've seen in a long time. Heileman is nearly as bad.

Hatchet jobs without sourcing are still hatchet jobs...

[HipChick]

10. and not unknown when selling books...which is why people are making less of the record remarks

[blogslut]

12. I thought it was adorable when they tried to redefine the word "gossip"

I think Lawrence O'Donnell told them their book was basically gossip and Heilemann actually said (I paraphrase):

"No. It's not gossip. Gossip is something that isn't true. Our stuff is totally true!"

The word "gossip" is not a synonym for the word "lie".

[Enrique]

5. who would unrec this thread?

is Mark Halperin a DUer? His publisher maybe?

:crazy:

[CTyankee]

8. Mark Halperin strikes me as the Unrecc-er type!

If you want to know how I envision secret Unreccers, just take a good look at Halperin...perfect!

[Bucky]

19. Knee jerk reaction from people who only know about the book for its antiPalin excerpts

About half the time "unrec" means "I don't like your facts."

[CTyankee]

25. Yes! nt

[DrDan]

6. did Reid deny anything?

[Enrique]

9. no, but people are eating up the non-Reid stuff too

stuff which sounds questionable to me, especially knowing who wrote the book.

[DrDan]

13. including the Palin stuff? "We" here at DU have no problem believing that.

[leftynyc]

15. Reid apologized

Speaking for myself, I don't think he would have done that if there wasn't something he felt he needed to apologize for.

[Enrique]

17. the Reid quote is certainly true

like you say, he apologized.

But people are eating up the non-Reid stuff too.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

21. I am anxious to see how President Clinton responds

to the claim in the book about what he said in referenced to President Obama.

[DrDan]

18. I agree

except for palin - I have not heard any denials

[DrDan]

34. here at DU, all of the palin stuff is sure accepted as fact

[CTyankee]

11. That wasn't my point, which was really going to the heart of this book being treated

as some sort of "journalism."

In fact, couldn't you say, why wasn't the book's quotes and assertions sourced, if they were all true anyway?

[DrDan]

16. you seem to be claiming that there is no validity in the claims they are making

Reid admitted his comments. No one else seems to be denying anything except palin.

"laughable"?????

[CTyankee]

26. Again, my question is why NOT source the material if, as you say it is true?

Not to source it seems to me as if the authors are either too lazy to do the work or they can't source them because while some things MIGHT be true, other things probably aren't.

And,yes, as a "serious" book in journalism, this book IS "laughable."

[DrDan]

32. obviously I cannot answer that . . . but as I said, except for palin,

no one seems to be denying anything.

And Reid has apologized.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

20. It was also written by a guy

that jumps at the chance to promulgate right wing memes and discredit Dems. every chance he gets. He was the one that said that after the economic crash in mid Sept 08 and after McCain had said that the "fundamentals of our economy are strong", that McCain had "won the week".

This guy is clueless and obviously has an agenda. It is telling that all of the tidbits from the book other than the Palin thing is about Dems.

[stray cat]

22. I suspect its more reliable than most of DU's sources - not saying much

but people seem to take themselves seriously here and even the stuff posted as well.

[cali]

23. Your post is NOT evidence that the book isn't sourced.

[CTyankee]

28. According to the NYT review today, it is NOT SOURCED.

By that I mean, there is no section of the book entitled "Source Notes," which is done to give credit where credit is due, while answering some questions that may arise in the reader's mind.

[Nye Bevan]

27. I would expect to see libel lawsuits over stuff that is not true

If nobody sues then I am inclined to believe the book.

[CTyankee]

29. Which is why authors source their material. The truth is the standard in

defeating libel lawsuits, is it not?

[Enrique]

31. I would recommend changing your standard

if that's your standard then you are going to believe a lot of lies.

[CTyankee]

33. I thought the truth was a defense against a libel charge.

Is that no longer true?

[Nye Bevan]

39. When someone publishes a damaging claim about a multi-millionaire

And the multi-millionaire in question not only does not sue, but does not even deny the allegation, then I think it's fair to assume that the allegation is largely truthful.

Do you have a counterexample to this theory?

[Enrique]

40. that's much better

originally you said the failure to sue suggests the rumor is true.

Now you've added failure to deny, which is better, but still not a good measure because some charges are so ridiculous that denying them would only get them greater attention.

For example, by your standard, Larry Sinclair is telling the truth because as far as I know Obama has not sued or denied it.

[Nye Bevan]

42. That article stated that Donald Young, the choir director at Obama's church,

was gay, and was murdered. Which is true.

That article also stated that someone had claimed that Obama was involved. This publication (The Globe) did not allege any wrongdoing by Obama.

[Enrique]

43. what about the book

it claims Obama had an affair with Larry Sinclair. Obama hasn't sued and he hasn't denied it. So I guess you believe it, right?

[Nye Bevan]

44. OK, fair point.

I don't believe that guy's allegations even though Obama has never denied them.

However, I do distinguish between allegations of some random nutcase versus those of a respected Time Magazine correspondent. If Time Magazine made allegations like these against Obama I don't think he would remain silent.

[CTyankee]

45. "a respected Time Magazine correspondent."

This is the sticking point for me. Halperin is as lightweight as an empty paper bag. His whole raison d'etre seems to be flitting around, repeated innuendo, gossip, little snarky factoids with a smirk. Since when do we "respect" that?

Personally, I have higher standards and expect more from a national magazine like Time. Sad to say, Mark Halperin was not placed on this earth to live up to those standards, so...oh, well...

[Greybnk48]

30. "laughable, gossipy and bitchy" about says it all

from the excerpts I just read. They should be embarrassed.

[Romulox]

35. A "Party admission" is admissible in any court of law--Reid apologized for the comments.

:hi:

[CTyankee]

36. I'm not talking about the Reid comment. nt

[Romulox]

37. OK, but at least one of its unsourced allegations is confirmed. nt

[Skidmore]

38. Of course it isn't. This reflects the efforts of a new "Arkansas Project."

[blondeatlast]

41. It tells me it's entertainment, just like CNN--and I recc'ed you, btw. nt

[CTyankee]

46. well, thanks, that was nice...