The difference between Mensch and an actual news source...

[Gravitycollapse]

There seems to be two sides to this debate. The first side dismisses her as a conspiracy theorist who occasionally gets something right but, for the most part, feeds people her personal unsubstantiated opinion. The second side views Mensch as a independent investigator with a lot of connections that give her advanced access to inside information before other major news outlets.

I think the reality is that Mensch does not have any special access to insider information. She probably receives the same kind of tips and leaks as any other news source. The difference is a reputable news source will spend a good amount of time attempting to verify the information rather than working to guarantee they've scooped everyone else. If a tip does not possess enough factuality to publish, news agencies will sit on it until more information comes to light. A reputable agency is much more willing to risk being scooped than publish questionable news.

Mensch runs on the notion that all scooped news is good news. Her attention is given to making sure that she can hastily publish any tips she gets before any other source.

She sacrifices reliability for notoriety. That is not the mark of a true journalist.

[jesskirablue42]

1. you make a good point

a real good journalist waits for the big picture and verifies sources, much like a scientist has a hypothesis but tests results.

[tazkcmo]

2. What ever she is

It's not a journalist nor do I think she presents herself as such. She doesn't work for a news outlet nor posses a degree in journalism. As for her sources, she does have sources in British government that she made when an MP. As with any other information source, her tweets gain deserved credibility when corroborated by other sources and do not when not. I don't consider her a "news" source but rather an occasional informant as far as Russia-gate is concerned. I don't care about much of anything else she has to say.

What I find most fascinating about Mensch is her ability, seemingly without even trying, to raise the ire of people who then expend all sorts of energy and time to comment, ridicule and criticize her often accompanied by dire warnings not to believe anything coming from her. She must be relishing the power she has over these people.

[Gravitycollapse]

3. She absolutely presents herself as a journalist. That's why people are mad.

She's lazy and opportunistic and brings a lot of nonsense into meaningful political discussions on the left; especially on this board.

[mhw]

7. Lazy opportunistic...wow! And you can say this because....

Well since some have such a strong personal bias twards Mensch & Taylor then I advise them all to continue never actually following them.

There are many here on DU who do indeed appreciate what she offers in outing Trump/Putin.

Out of respect for those fellow DUers perhaps don't insult us by untrue name calling of one blogger out of thousands that some here do appreciate.

Thanks.

[Gravitycollapse]

9. It is not my job to make you feel better about your personal choices.

She's not just "one blogger" she is a prominent pseudo-journalist.

[mhw]

16. We don't refer to her as a journalist. You do.

You object to 1 blogger out of thousands, sharing what her sources give her, in order to out the criminal trail of Trump & Putin.

That's what Mensch does.
Its not my job to clarify it for you.
Don't like her? Don't comment on her.

I'll support every single small independent sleuth out there digging for something that leads to our further uncovering the criminal in our WH.
What's more American grassroots than that

When they hit a dead end lead, I appreciate there effort to continue their mission to out Trump.

I'll just have to ignore those who have some personal agenda because I cannot understand anyone objecting to the work those like Mensch & Taylor et al are doing however large or small.
Whatever

[Gravitycollapse]

18. She's dangerous to our cause. I will speak freely against her whenever I wish.

I don't like people claiming to be journalists constantly taking stabs in the dark and buying wholesale into conspiracy theory just to try and get one in on the enemy.

[mhw]

21. Hmm.. Dangerous to what cause!

She's danger woman?

So louise is now a danger to "our cause", by outing the criminal trail of the Trump crime family. Which is what she does.

I won't even ask what "our cause" is.

"Our Cause"??
This is the end of our conversation.
Ignore is 'ON'.
Bye

[Gravitycollapse]

25. The Democratic, progressive, leftist cause.

[mhw]

30. Appreciate including "democratic".

So she's hurting this cause by outing the Trump/Putin crime spree.
Okay.Sure.

Enjoy your day.

[HopeAgain]

55. Do we know that?

Someone who claimed BLM was funded by the Russians? Someone photographed with Milo? A former conservative MP?

[tazkcmo]

72. How is she dangerous to our cause?

also, again, when/how/where has she claimed to be a journalist? I noticed you changed that to "psuedo journalist" but the questions still stand: How? When? Where?

Any examples to back up your claim that she presents herself as a journalist? While your at it, please give us examples of how she has endangered our cause. Again, how, when, where? You mentioned she does it "right here on this board" so it should be rather easy for ou to supply this evidence that she endangered our cause "right here on this board".

Your hatred for Mensch has you making claims about her actions that you do not back up with any examples or evidence how ever flimsy they might be. I hope you see that you have given her power over you to consume precious time and energy to discredit her while in reality you discredit yourself by making these assertions with out backing them up.

[tazkcmo]

71. How so?

What news organization is she affiliated with? Does she hold press credentials? Does she travel with a press pool? Do you have any quote where she describes herself as a journalist? Do you have anything at all that indicates she represents herself to the public as a journalist or is this just your opinion? It's fine to have an opinion but as a good journalist would tell you, it's important to identify your claims as opinion because facts require supporting evidence to be actual fact.

[mhw]

5. They do spend a lot of time singling out 1 blogger out of the thousands online.

It does seem odd doesn't it.
She has a few good sources & reports what they give her.
Call her whatever one chooses, she's often reported a trail that gives her readers the curiosity to question further, the endless path of the Putin/Trump criminal organization.

What could be so wrong about that effort?

You are indeed correct that she has acquired some unexpected power of her own.

What news org hasn't had to put out a retraction on something they previously reported on.
I'm pretty sure that has happened.

I really don't get where the ridicule for her comes from.
Its almost something deeply personal & grudging & its gotten sort of weird actually.

Nonetheless, she has gained in followers by all the attention.

[OnDoutside]

12. +1 Even if those here don't believe her, they SHOULD be happy that she's getting under the skin

of Trump. That they aren't, or can't just ignore anything related to her, is indeed, odd.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Without taking sides...

Without taking sides when we predict things that never happen we look silly.

[mhw]

6. Without taking sides....

Glad you aren't referring to the topic of this thread.

Those who have followed her know she's not just aimlessly making predictions.
Much of what her sources give her indeed leads to further sleuthing out the trail of the ruin of our nation, by the corrupt Putin/Trump criminal organization.

Why would anyone object to such an effort?
Kudos to those who step up to give us more than the scripted evening news.

[madamesilverspurs]

8. Whatever she is --

she's preferable to Fox News. Period.



.

[Gravitycollapse]

10. I don't follow your argument.

Just because something is not as bad as something else does not make it good.

[AgadorSparticus]

69. It is better...

[roamer65]

11. It's an information war.

Anything that causes damage to Dump and his ilk is a good thing.

It's a political demolition derby, folks. Last one running, wins.

[Gravitycollapse]

13. Winning by any means necessary is not a moral political position.

I won't debase myself by stooping to the level of farce just to score a political win. If you want to go that low, be my guest.

[roamer65]

14. It's a war.

Nothing moral or clean about it. Mensch is a tool of the GCHQ and MI6. I side with the Brits on this one.

[Gravitycollapse]

15. You realize there are international laws and treaties governing combat, right?

I don't think you've thought this analogy through.

Generally speaking, I don't want someone on my side who throws morality out the window because they lost an election. That probably means you had no morals to begin with.

[roamer65]

26. I'm not on your side.

LOL.

[Gravitycollapse]

27. That's probably for the best since you possess no morals.

[roamer65]

29. Ok. Whatever.

Go pick ur fight elsewhere.

[womanofthehills]

17. So, she gets a tip and puts it out there - I say good for her

It might inspire others to check it out - Sometimes she and Claude Taylor get the same tip from different intel sources and put it out jointly. One tip was put out jointly by Claude, Rick Wilson, and Louise - all claiming different intel connections with the same info. Why are you picking only the woman here? Why are you so sure she has no intel connections? She has been right about 80% of the time and she and Claude will post with apologies if they are wrong. Getting Trump out is a priority and we even hear that she is getting under Trump's skin. "Moral political position" - Ha Ha

[Gravitycollapse]

19. If you read my original post, you would see that I agree she has connections.

I think she has the same kind of connections that other journalists have. The difference is she doesn't have the journalistic integrity to verify the information before posting it.

When journalists post unverified information, they aren't just giving us information for us to investigate--which is reminiscent of Fox New's "We report, you decide" BS. It's the job of a journalist to ensure the veracity of a claim before giving it to the public. That's why she has the connections and that's why she's a journalist. She has a strategic ability to verify or discredit information that the general public cannot do on their own. That's why journalism exists.

[womanofthehills]

22. I see nothing wrong with her putting info out there and letting others verify it

She has a quarter of a million followers - she must be doing something right.

[Gravitycollapse]

23. Donald Trump has 30 million followers.

One's intellect or trustworthiness cannot be measured in number of Twitter followers.

[mhw]

24. True. Not bad for 1 online blogger on a mission to out Trump.

I'm just not convinced by those calling their disdain for Mensch & Taylor a morality thing.

I've seen that some of the same adversaries who criticize Louise & Taylor's "lack of moral political positions", will quote & link to commentary by the likes of Joe Scarborough.

Moral man Joe S.
Its makes zero sense.
Oh well.

[NBachers]

58. I will debase myself by stooping to the level of farce just to score a political win.

[JNelson6563]

28. I notice she has as many tweets bickering with

competition and/or critics as she does with her news reports. Kinda Trump like actually, doesn't scream confidence to me.

[MedusaX]

31. A huuuuge shoe must be about to drop..otherwise no need to keep abusing this long deceased equine

[underthematrix]

32. I read Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor several times a day but

do not follow them. What's interesting about their reporting is that it eventually ends up in the New York Times, Washington Post and/or Wall Street Journal as well sourced articles.

I see Louise and Claude as whiffers. Their reporting points to the stench and then traditional journalists report on the actual source of the stench.

[Gravitycollapse]

33. I think they probably receive the info at the same time as MSM outlets.

The difference is, as I pointed out in my OP, outlets like the New York Times take the proper precautions to vet the information. That takes time and energy that people like Mensch are unwilling to expend.

I don't buy into the argument that Mensch is somehow unearthing leads that other outlets then take up.

[GliderGuider]

34. Outlets like NYT and WaPo have immense resources compared to a single blogger.

MSM outlets typically assign several reporters to each story, which allows multiple aspects of it to be pursued in parallel. That allows greater depth and more cross-checking, Louise can stay in the game because of her ADHD. I'm amazed at what she does, all on her own.

[Gravitycollapse]

35. That pretty much demonstrates the value of outlets like NYT over someone like Mensch.

She should join a reputable news agency if she wants to do real, reliable investigative journalism. I suspect, however, that she's less interested in doing investigative journalism and more interested in gaining notoriety.

[GliderGuider]

36. both are valuable. Like Pathfinder bombers in WWII

The main bomber force did the damage, but the Pathfinders marked the target. That's how I see Louise and Claude.

[Gravitycollapse]

39. Like I said, I doubt she gets the info before other media outlets.

She publishes rumor and lets outlets like The New York Times do all of the leg work verifying the information. At the end of the day, the only contribution she makes is reporting a rumor that later turns out to be true. We could learn just as much by paying attention to outlets like NYT or WaPo.

[GliderGuider]

43. And I think she does. But in truth, neither of us knows.

Neither single bloggers like Claude and Louise, nor MSM like NYT and WaPo identify anonymous sources. She publishes first, however, which implies that she does get the info quite early.

On the other hand, you and I don't have any sources at all - just opinions and hot air. I'm not sure we're well equipped to judge Claude and Louise.

[Gravitycollapse]

46. We should doubt a source until it proves reliable.

That's the only way to consume news content. Mensch has proven repeatedly unreliable and has at various points espoused conspiracy theories that are completely unsubstantiated.

I cannot over stress the point I'm trying to make here. It's very much possible that Mensch reports early because she doesn't bother to properly verify the information. That would make sense given the fact that she reports a lot of nonsense.

[GliderGuider]

48. Q: How come you're not after Claude? nt

[Gravitycollapse]

49. I know nothing about Claude.

I actually only came across Mensch as I was trying to investigate the history and sources for the Patribotics blog.

[GliderGuider]

51. You should slag him off as well. You'd look less misogynistic. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

52. From the looks of his Twitter, he seems equally dubious.

Seems like most of the facts he presents come from anonymous sources. The critique of Mensch applies equally in this circumstance. The only difference is I don't know enough about Taylor's work to have a firm grasp on the reliability of his claims.

[Me.]

57. Thatr's What I'd Like To Know

It's always Louise...again and again...and it's poutrage at it's best. Why, just her?

[GliderGuider]

62. I think her attitude rubs some people the wrong way

She's an aggressive, cocksure, gives-no-shit self-promoter. I think some people take an immediate dislike to her because of that. Then they go looking for reasons to justify their dislike, which is largely based on her personality. It's also one reason why Claude Taylor doesn't draw as much friendly fire - he's lower key than Louise.

[Me.]

73. But It's Not Just Claude

There's also Dworkin and John S. (?) and none of the three men get the amount of grief that's rained down on Louise.

[underthematrix]

38. I agree with your observation that they're probably getting the info at the same time

possibly from the same source. I think traditional news outlets do the heavy lifting (verifying sources and information) because they have the resources to do so. Louise and Claude have helped Americans began to think about the reality that we have an international crime family in the WH who are also Russian assets. In other words, America you in danger girl.

I'm just not invested in maligning them. As a mature responsible adult, it's my job to read and use my critical thinking skills to assess the veracity of information from any and all sources.

[Gravitycollapse]

40. How are you going to verify questionable claims?

Investigative journalism is an enterprise for a reason. Journalists have resources that the general public do not possess. Most of the important information about the Trump administration has come from seemingly anonymous sources. The only way we can be at least comfortably sure those sources are real and reliable is by ensuring they are reported through trustworthy media outlets. That's why I have more regard for news coming from WaPo, for instance, than from Fox News. Of course, it's important to triangulate stories amongst reputable outlets, but Mensch is clearly not a reputable source. In fact, she seems superfluous at best and detrimental at worst.

[icymist]

37. She says what people want to hear. Then, some on the Left use it as truth!

All I have to say is that when dealing with Louise Mensch is verify, verify, verify. I mean, this is a reporter that has said she is Right Wing, has some unsavory friends just six or seven months ago from the Right Wing/Alt Right, and suddenly she is changed? Come on!
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029115635

A self-described conservative, Mensch calls herself a “pro–national security partisan” and “a patriot in the service of the intelligence community.” If she despises the Republican Party, it is because she thinks it is abetting a hostile foreign power. Mensch’s rightward tilt doesn’t stop left-wing readers from ingesting her hatred like a drug. The technical language and the “multiple sources” imply that a real doctor prepared the dose.

https://redux.slate.com/cover-stories/2017/05/louise-mensch-and-the-rise-of-the-liberal-conspiracy-theorist.html

[R B Garr]

41. Doesn't she mainly use Twitter? If so, fitting news

into 140 characters isn't really the goal. Does she have a formal platform (I haven't Googled her yet and only see the Tweets here).

I give her the benefit of the doubt if she is using a truncated platform like Twitter. As others have pointed out, some of her Twitter rumors have been accurate.

[Gravitycollapse]

42. She has her own blog.

I won't link to it because I find it to be an unreliable source. It's called Patribotics.

[GliderGuider]

44. I'll link to it so you can make up your own mind.

https://patribotics.blog/

[R B Garr]

61. Oh, okay, that's the blog that has been questioned

here. Thanks for the link. It is almost easier to go by the Tweets, lol.

I'll still give her the benefit of the doubt and use it as another trove of names to keep track of. If she's British, then that might explain her misuse of some nomenclature and a different frame of reference for agencies. All of this has been so unbelievable that her input almost seems normal now.

I realize that comment was more for the thread than your post.

[alwaysinflux]

45. Has she ever admitted she was wrong?

Say about the Weiner 15yo girl "hoax?" I just don't see her as somebody who will acknowledge her mistakes.

[GliderGuider]

47. Yes, she admitted to that error, in detail.

https://patribotics.blog/2017/02/14/the-carolina-conspiracy-putin-catfished-weiner-louise-mensch/

Corrected And Updated in Light of Weiner’s Crime:

It is very important to correct things that are wrong. I have two major corrections to make to my theory, articulated in this story, following Anthony Weiner’s guilty plea to one count of transferring obscene material to a minor and also of “attempting” to do so.

The first is that Weiner did indeed, by his own account and that of prosecutors, transfer sexual material to a minor. The plea deal document said this happened ‘in 2016’. Therefore, all the following must be true, and I was wrong about them: Weiner did sext with a minor; the case was not invented, there was a real crime, with a real girl.

That is a fact. This article was a theory, written as such. And that theory has been proven partly wrong by the facts, which I must acknowledge with prominence. There was a real crime and a very serious one.

No 15 year old girl should ever have to undergo abusive contact by a predator like Weiner. Nor is she in any way whatsoever responsible for any actions by other adults. She is a pure victim.

The second thing I want to correct in this story is my blame on ADA Dana Boente. President Obama removed him from the line of succession. This now appears to have been a clever and successful feint into trapping Trump into reappointing Boente. He clearly has the trust of Director Comey and DUSA Rosenstein, and therefore has mine. I apologize fulsomely to him.

[alwaysinflux]

50. Thank you!

I'm quite surprised! Perhaps this will make her a little more circumspect in her future "theoretical" posts...

[GliderGuider]

56. Louise has published four corrections to her stories:

Two corrections, as I described above, were in connection with her story on Weiner:
https://patribotics.blog/2017/02/14/the-carolina-conspiracy-putin-catfished-weiner-louise-mensch/

One was in her story on Alfa Bank and Cambridge A, that involved misidentifying the Baltic state that provided intelligence to the US. she originally said it was Estonia, then corrected it to Lithuania:
https://patribotics.blog/2017/04/01/alfa-bank-trump-tower-and-a-social-media-impeachment/

The final correction was of the misidentification of the court that triggered the dispatch of the Marshal of the Supreme Court to the WH over the "Muslim Ban":
https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/23/exclusive-marshal-of-the-supreme-court-warned-trump-over-muslim-ban/

That's four corrections in 31 published stories, and one correction (Estonia/Lithuania) was frankly trivial. the rest of her published information, whether fact or theory, has not been shown to be in error.

She's actually doing pretty damned well for a solo act.

[Ellipsis]

53. She's a lot more reliable then a lot of people who posit stuff here on DU

So when has she been wrong? ... not accurate in some respects sure but wrong?

[Eyeball_Kid]

59. She posted a story about the aftermath of the Comey firing...

... in which her sources told her that, immediately after the Comey firing, a Team Trumper opened up Comey's office computer, copied data from the computer onto a "device" (thumb drive?) and handed the data over to Russian agents. But Comey, says the article, had installed surveillance software onto his computer and others within the office vicinity, so the FBI knew that a device was plugged in and data was copied. The FBI then tracked down the Russian agents and were able to retrieve the device. The data reportedly never left the US.

I posted a link to the story on DU and subsequently received a "warning" of sorts from DU editors/administrators for posting irresponsibly. I'm now waiting for a follow-up by Mensch that includes some kind of verification of her story. It hasn't happened yet.

[Ellipsis]

60. I am aware of the story.

...did they lock your thread? Or delete your post? Who the fuck cares about warnings... You mean opinions?

[GliderGuider]

63. But it hasn't been shown to be wrong. So the worst we can say is it's unverified.

Sure it sounds over the top, but what aspect of this clusterfuck doesn't? Even the parts that are verified by named sources are hair-raising.

[L. Coyote]

65. Not one Mensch critic on DU is willing to point out when they scooped the MSM.

Because not one of of them ever has or would even know where the hell to begin. All critic and no journalism worth even bringing up means STFU in my book. Pony up with a real story instead of criticizing those who do.

Where would we be on #TrumpRussia without the people being so energetically criticized. Nowhere. And that is why they are being attacked so vigorously, they are the threat to those overthrowing democracy. People need to decide which side they are on, the overthrow of our society and of the truth, or resistance to the destruction of everything we have built as Democrats and progressives. we should be thankful there are a few conservatives willing to step up instead of just being Good Germans.

[GliderGuider]

66. Mensch's track record is extremely good.

She has been proven wrong on four facts in 31 articles over the last five months. One of those was misidentifying Estonia as Lithuania. One was laying erroneous blame on dana Boente. Two others were serious errors - one was misidentifying a court, the other was over the identity of the girl involved in sexting with Weiner. She has acknowledged each error in detail in the blog post where it occurred.

Those people criticizing her are doing it for reasons other than her reporting errors.

[L. Coyote]

68. It is the information war at work, with intentional and unwitting warriors.

Basically, the asshole liars and the misled or beguiled.

Why waste a post:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[6000eliot]

54. Don't listen to her, then.

Who do you think you're going to convince?

[GliderGuider]

64. I don't mind if her opponents keep posting.

It gives those of us who support her a chance to introduce others to her work, in a positive way.

[justiceischeap]

67. The other point to this is that pro journos have the resources

and wherewithal to check or know when they're being fed propaganda/fake news (except, apparently, Maggie Habberman). Hence the need for multiple sources and checking out the quality of the "tip."

[DeltaLitProf]

70. Examples?

I'll wait here for your response.