Capitol Hill Blue Exposed: Plagiarism, Sock-Puppetry, Fake Sources, and Bias

[thewhammy]

Article at http://www.journalisnt.com


One Man, Two Phantom Sources, a Few Fictional Friends, and Zero Credibility

Doug Thompson isn't Santa Claus, but his sources are often make-believe

Make no mistake about it: the web is swarming with quasi-reporters, self-styled pundits, and fly-by-night websites masquerading as news outlets. There’s no shortage of garbage out there that is worthy of criticism.


But we wanted to sure make our first inductee into Hackville -- our new Hall of Shame for ethically challenged pseudo-journalists -- was someone really deserving and moderately well known.


This site’s “spectacularly hateful” and flagrantly unprofessional attacks on a presidential candidate got our attention recently (more on that in a bit), and some further research revealed a picture of a man who somehow retains a degree of credibility and readership despite years of arrogance, incompetence, fraud, and bias .


Doug Thompson and Capitol Hill Blue’s escapades over the past few years have provided enough material to fill an entire graduate-level course in journalism ethics , making them our first official residents of Hackville...

[Kuldebar]

The one cited example of the attack article on Ron Paul was retracted...so this it's kind of weak to use that...


But, I don't want a bunch of "professionals" writing news on the net, ethics would be great but let people decide where to get their information.

[angelatc]

Its not weak to use that. Thompson has a history of putting prattle out there then retracting it. That's his MO.

[Spirit of '76]

Very interesting.

[Kuldebar]

I'd say, don't get your information from sources you don't respect or value.

Screw the idea of gatekeepers, individuals should be an authority unto themselves when it comes to their own minds and thoughts, and be held accountable for being so.

Express your disapproval, but don't encourage the quelling of any voice.

[Spirit of '76]

My arguments were quite simple:

To the SPJ, I suggested that they may want to think twice about allowing someone who so clearly violates their stated code of ethics to remain a member in good standing (ie. a recognized "Professional Journalist") in their organization.

Likewise, to the NPPA and WCP&J, I merely suggested that they may want to think twice before allowing someone so clearly unethical to mentor and lecture young and impressionable journalists under their organizational auspices.

I still believe that these are reasonable suggestions.

[thewhammy]

The one cited example of the attack article on Ron Paul was retracted...so this it's kind of weak to use that...
1. Nothing was "retracted." They just took articles down to avoid controversy. They never issued a retraction.

2. Even if it was "retracted," that doesn't excuse it. Perhaps it minimizes it. But when you accuse

3. It wasn't one article. It was at least five articles, plus forum posts.

4. CHB's backpedaling made no sense, and no one's calling them on it. Thompson thinks he can just say "someone else wrote it" and everyone will smile and nod. But Thompsonwrote two of the articles himself, and made claims ranging from calling Paul a "Bircher" to accusing him of running a "fundraising Ponzi scheme."

This wasn't an instance of a single innocent mistake. This was a deliberate campaign over several months, that highlighted the need for someone to take a comprehensive look at this so-called "news site." I know the alternative media allows you to take some chances that you can't take at the Washington Post, but there are still standards. If you just look at a few of the jaw-dropping stunts Thompson has pulled, you'll see he had no integrity/credibility to begin with, regardless of "retractions."

[Kuldebar]

1. Nothing was "retracted." They just took articles down to avoid controversy. They never issued a retraction.

2. Even if it was "retracted," that doesn't excuse it. Perhaps it minimizes it. But when you accuse

3. It wasn't one article. It was at least five articles, plus forum posts.

4. CHB's backpedaling made no sense, and no one's calling them on it. Thompson thinks he can just say "someone else wrote it" and everyone will smile and nod. But Thompsonwrote two of the articles himself, and made claims ranging from calling Paul a "Bircher" to accusing him of running a "fundraising Ponzi scheme."

This wasn't an instance of a single innocent mistake. This was a deliberate campaign over several months, that highlighted the need for someone to take a comprehensive look at this so-called "news site." I know the alternative media allows you to take some chances that you can't take at the Washington Post, but there are still standards. If you just look at a few of the jaw-dropping stunts Thompson has pulled, you'll see he had no integrity/credibility to begin with, regardless of "retractions."

Being vindictive isn't needed or necessary here. These forums certainly aren't the best place for it. In my eyes Doug Thompson redeemed himself regarding his site's treatment of our Candidate. For other matters, that's not the focus we need to get Paul elected. And, by the way Ron Paul thinks highly of the John Birch Society.

The smear attacks were removed by the Editor because such things didn't meet his standards or guidelines set forth by him. He posted on these very boards about the matter. If that doesn't rate as a RETRACTION, I don't know what does.


Capitol Hill Blue Retracts Controversial Negative Ron Paul Piece (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=6128&highlight=Doug+Thompson)

Capitol Hill Blue apologize (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=6003&highlight=Doug+Thompson)s

Something Has to Be Done About Doug Thompson (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=5838)


I have modified the post and explained that they were irresponsible slams against the Ron Paul campaign. I believe it would be detrimental to repeat what was actually said in those articles. I felt they were not appropriate, have said so, and have apologized.

I've also explained to our readers that the editor who tried to be cute by claiming the FBI had been called in was irresponsible and is no longer an editor on my site. Longtime readers of Capitol Hill Blue know that I hate the FBI with a passion and would rather be in Gitmo than ever get involved with them and give them any access to anything that I do.

But please understand:

1--No pressure was brought by any advertiser of Capitol Hill Blue or by any organization to which I belong or participate in. If a complaint was filed, as was suggested elsewhere on this forum, it has not been brought to my attention.

2--The articles were removed because I felt they were inappropriate and not because of any drop in traffic. In fact, the three articles tallied the highest number of visits for the past week and our traffic was up, not down. Removing the articles will, in reality, reduce our traffic because the links no longer work. Traffic is not a concern at CHB. We've been on the web since 1994 and the site is a labor of love for all involved. It is not a commercial venture. All ad revenue is donated to our campaign reform foundation, The Campaign for Our America.

My thanks to Kent and others for bringing this to my attention.

Doug Thompson (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=56471&postcount=20)
Capitol Hill Blue
Reply With Quote

[Spirit of '76]

Being vindictive isn't needed or necessary here. These forums certainly aren't the best place for it. In my eyes Doug Thompson redeemed himself regarding his site's treatment of our Candidate. For other matters, that's not the focus we need to get Paul elected.

For the most part, I agree. I feel that the situation was resolved satisfactorily, and I see no reason to reinstate hostilities at this point.

[thewhammy]

It's not about vindictiveness. It's about principle.

I don't understand how eventually doing the right thing when faced with overwhelming scrutiny qualifies as "redemption." Logically it strikes me as someone who didn't just cross a line, he obliterated it. People pointed out the obvious: CHB was out of line. Thompson could've held his ground and we'd all be in agreement that he's a malicious hack. Instead he found himself under fire and decided that since he can't beat 'em, he'd join 'em in condemning the articles.

That doesn't change what he wrote. Agreeing to stop sticking your hand in the cookie jar doesn't constitute "redemption," it constitutes an attempt at preservation.

If Jayson Blair says, "I'm sorry." Do we forget his indiscretions and treat him as a credible journalist?

If Bush ends the domestic wiretapping program he started, do we hail him as a hero and ignore his underlying offense?

I understand how you think the Capitol Hill Blue issue is no longer important from a Ron Paul defense standpoint. I don't disagree. It's not about defending Paul (or vindictiveness, as you put it), it's about valuing principled journalism. I'm a journalist. It's what I do.

[Kuldebar]

I support the idea of civil society, free discourse and criticism is part of that, I understand this and support it.

I think journalism will eventually come of age, and it will be determined that everyone is, or can be a journalist. Wiser voices, hopefully would prevail over the shriller ones, but ultimately these things are self correcting.

"By their works ye shall know them"

This applies to all human endeavors. Once the barriers and screens of political society are stripped away, the burden of responsibility, and yes, blame, is much more easy to place upon the shoulders of the deserving.