The issue now is to stop the coverage of them, because these journalists all source each other and cover coverage now instead of doing investigation.

What is happening NOW is that WSJ has a link up to their "dead story" (so characterized by a WSJ letter to Laura Gross, cited in DFA blog comment by Laura today) ON THEIR HOMEPAGE RIGHT NOW, 2 links linking readers to this high traffic volume "dead story."

Dean is being swiftboated.  It's what they do.  We must all object to this, and keep fighting non-truth.

The first 2 minutes are even entertaining although it has nothing to do with the discussion.

Let it also be said that this is a greatest use of "rapid response" podcasting I have seen/heard this far.

Even "casey" the head of canine outreach for the Dean campaign is heard on the subject.

Tim

Will the WSJ to retract a story because it had no factual basis?

Clue:  

Whitewater

You will survive this easily I'm sure, and your readership will grow because of it.

But right now I'm sure it can't be much fun having your reputation questioned, especially over completely bogus charges.

Hang in there and keep up the good fight. It would seem the whole blogosphere is behind you and Markos.

Comments and Feedback
We welcome your comments and suggestions about the Online Journal features and content. Contact us at feedback@wsj.com:

To react to something you've read in the Online Journal or comment on our news coverage, email newseditors@wsj.com:

Editorial
To contact the staff of the Journal's Editorial page, please send an e-mail to wsj.ltrs@wsj.com.

To send an article to the Journal's Editorial page for consideration, please get guidelines at http://opinionjournal.com/guidelines.

Press Releases
To submit a press release, please e-mail it to nywireroom@dowjones.com.

Contact top editors and managers
The Wall Street Journal Online

Bill Grueskin
Managing Editor
b.grueskin@wsj.com

Jamie Heller
Deputy Managing Editor
j.heller@wsj.com

Terri Cullen
Assistant Managing Editor
t.cullen@wsj.com

Dave Pettit
Deputy Managing Editor
dave.pettit@wsj.com

Jason Fry
Assistant Managing Editor
j.fry@wsj.com

All emails:
feedback@wsj.com, newseditors@wsj.com, nywireroom@dowjones.com, b.grueskin@wsj.com, j.heller@wsj.com, t.cullen@wsj.com, dave.pettit@wsj.com, j.fry@wsj.com

Regards.

:See Glenn's additional posts here, including notes from Jerome that he quit blogging during this time and responses from Kos. Here's Zephyr's folo. : On Lehrer's show, I made something clear I'll make clearer here: Kos and MyDD didn't do anything wrong (one put up a disclosure, the other stopped blogging). That's not the point of the discussion. If anybody did anything wrong in this, it could be argued that the Dean campaign did by trying to buy the voice of the bloggers (even though they already had their strong support). But that's not the real point, either. The points that Zephyr raises about our opportunity to define our culture and how the expectations of our public are what interest me. That's worth discussing (without all the brickbats back and forth from the various partisans here; I'm separate from that because I never backed Dean and you couldn't have paid me to).

Specifically, seems to alter her accusation slightly, to say the issue is they paid you guys 'not to go to Clark'.  Says there were conversations to this effect and you confirmed recently over IM that these took place.  
So, the issue seems to be, does 'going to Clark' mean saying positives about Clark, making Dean/Clark comparisons that favor Clark ... or doing netroots technical consulting work and networking/contact sharing with Clark ... or making such knowledge generally available, including to Clark.

I have no knowledge of it all, but how does the following sound as a possible summary of what went on:

Armstrong/Zuniga(A/Z) had respected internet voices as bloggers, as well as having particular technical knowledge (about software, web sites, traffic building, advertising, linking, human networking) needed to make blogging successful.  They were also reform Democrats who had become Dean enthusiasts.

Dean people wanted A/Z on the campaign team.

Dean people wanted this technical expertise to themselves, in order to define their campaign as the most netrootsy, and to leverage the net for fundraising, organizing, rapid response, etc.  They did not want other campaigns to get ahead in this field.
Some Dean people felt that getting this team on board, meant convincing A/Z or keeping A/Z convinced or praying that A/Z would not become unconvinced of the superiority of Dean.  Some Dean people may have felt that with one fell swoop of hiring A/Z as technical gurus, they were also bonding with them, bringing them into the family, honoring them as net/blogging gurus, and that this would perhaps also encourage A/Z to stay connected with the aliveness/excitement of that campaign and to continue to trust/believe in the viability of Dean as a reform Dem candidate.  Ie, A/Z would see first-hand that Dean was about a truly netroots campaign.  A/Z would be given the exciting opportunity to help build the world's first netroots campaign and get paid something for doing this (not much but more than lowly campaign staff).  Dean would get world-class net consulting.  

These Dean folks may have also felt that A/Z would by osmosis somehow bring about good net communication outcomes to the Dean campaign, although A/Z were not hired to actually write, edit or review writing for the campaign, were not integrated into in any campaign message roll-outs, were not fed talking points (though of course A/Z were aware of all campaign's talking points), were not brought into campaign message strategy planning sessions, etc.  There was perhaps a feeling that something about how one relates to website visitors, how one presents the site, would result in a friendly relationship between Dean and the netcentric populace.  Thus transfer of successful communication skills and style were part of what was hoped for.
A/Z were not told what to say, not scolded or encouraged for what they were saying or not saying about Dean or his policies.
A/Z as bloggers, were not political voices for the Dean campaign.

On the other hand Kos of A/Z did keep blogging, with a disclosure, during this time.  And he had been previously, was at that time, and continues to be today, a fierce advocate for reformist Dem positions.  Many of these positions were also advocated by Dean, his campaign, but also by Greens, Independents and a variety of non-Dean Dem primary candidates.  Thus Kos was an ideological fellow traveller with many folks in the Dean campaign, and was blogging about the same political issues, from that ideological position.

However, there is no evidence whatsoever, of a single instance of Kos blogging any differently than he had been previously or did subsequently to A/Z working for Dean.  He continues to this day, with the same general political point of view, that he had before, during and after the gig.  He evolves like any other writer/thinker, but there was no noticeable shift around the edges of the gig.  Dean as a candidate has come and gone, Kos as a commentator remains.

The final possible question seems to be, had the A/Z gig with Dean not existed, might Kos not have strayed from Dean affinity more significantly during those particular months?  In other words, did that income flow or contract cause him to be less fickle?
One would have to read all his posts and get inside his thinking at the time, maybe a biographer can do it someday!  Available evidence suggests that he calls em like he sees em, and does not think much of ossified social conventions.  Thus one would suspect he would have said whatever he wanted, and if necessary would even have walked from the contract, if he had felt encumbered.

What's left, is Kos could describe his thinking at the time.  A/Z could talk about whether they were aware of the 'don't go to Clark' thread, to what degree, and how much it seemed to matter to themselves, or from their perspective to the Dean folks.  For one thing, seems like even if such talk had not happened, it would still have been reasonable to assume that any campaign would want exclusivity, and would be praying for positive blogs from well-known bloggers.  A/Z could address, did Z and A discuss these issues amongst themselves, and did A think Z should better not blog?

Although this episode is sad and painful and largely pointless, it could be used as an informative starting point for addressing how netcentric individuals, who often do have technical, political and literary strengths, can or should navigate these waters.  Not necessarily with a moral code or a law, but just within their own minds.

Says she's writing a letter to WSJ editor!
:)