Skip to main content

View Diary: Do you want to help Scott Prouty? UPDATED (154 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Romney Admits Using Chinese Slave Labor" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, Texknight, raincrow, RUNDOWN

    That was actually his title to his first (I think) diary on this. Romeny did not do that. He was plainly describing how horrible the conditions in a factory he saw were.

    I love the guy - he did our country very, very good. But he started off wrong here.

    •  He has accurate transcript. We screwed up. Period. (39+ / 0-)

      Let's not make excuses.

      Scott posted the entire transcript of the 'China' video. In it, Romney describes the slave-labor conditions of the factory he was buying for Bain:

      As we were walking through this facility, seeing them work, the number of hours they worked per day, the pitance they earned, living in dormitories with little bathrooms at the end of maybe 10 rooms. And the rooms they have 12 girls per room. Three bunk beds on top of each other.
      That sounds pretty much like the diary's title, "Mitt Romney admits using Chinese slave labor @ Bain," no? Then Romney goes on to tell this staggering whopper of a lie:
      Around this factory was a huge fence with barbed wire and guard towers. And we said 'Gosh! I can't believe that you keep these girls in!' They said, 'No, no, no. This is to keep other people from coming in. Because people want so badly to come work in this factory that we have to keep them out. Or they will just come in here and start working and, and try and get compensated. So we, this is to keep people out.'
      So not only does Scott document his diary's title, with Romney himself describing the near slave-labor conditions, he then exhibits how incredibly callous and/or stupid Romney is.

      Good blogging, like journalism, isn't easy, and we don't always get it right. We screwed up in the other direction in the Anthony Weiner scandal. We screwed up with the Dan Rather AWOL memo, although in that case the 'hoax' presumably masked the truth that Bush did go AWOL. And we screwed up here.

      Let's apologize to Scott, thank him, and -- especially for those who HR'd him or even encouraged the mob-mentality against him (it's all on the record) -- let's *donate* to his fund! :-) Heck, even $10 would be a nice gesture, more if you've got it.   Sure, maybe we were 'right' by some fine parsing of the DailyKos site rules, and we had the right to be cautious, and he didn't reply much, and he posted a lot of short blurry videos, and we coulda been wrong, and yadayadayada, but we were *wrong*. Period. It doesn't take much to admit it, let's be big. Scott seems like a smart, good guy, and America should be grateful for him. (I hope he doesn't have too many battles ahead of him, from right-wing haters.)

      •  Good journalism is very difficult. (14+ / 0-)

        There are some hard and fast rules for a reason. Dan Rather went down because he didn't check a source. The much more important and factual information in that program was lost in the uproar.

        This is what journalist's, with a reputation like Corn's especially, do before they put something like this out.

        Meet Scott Prouty, the 47 Percent Video Source  {Emphasis added.}

        But as we neared publication, I said I had to know his name. Do you really need it? he asked. Yes, I replied, explaining I could not publish the stories without knowing his identity. I vowed I would keep it a secret.

        I had waited until the final moments to press him on this. I realized there was a chance that he might decline to identify himself, and the story would die. He asked once more if it was necessary. I said it was and held my breath. There was a long silence. "Scott," he said. "Scott Prouty." Thank you, I replied. Then we moved on to other details.

        I have a cousin who has written nationally at Village Voice and technical journals. We had a conversation about reactions to published articles which she had some experience with. Mine was as a FP writer for a small but respected blog, '05 - 07.

        As carefully as you write something, the RW distortion machine will tear it apart and stomp it in to the ground. This clearly had potential to be Really Important. It needed to come out as verified as Corn had done it.

        Making those calls is a gamble. As you pointed out, worse stuff has been done here. The system, the autoban and lack of a moderator who can be alerted to problems, sets up the problem. Even if those were fixed, we would still lose some.

        "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

        by Ginny in CO on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 02:35:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Corn explains in the article (10+ / 0-)

          the other work he and the MoJo crew had done to verify the tapes. It had taken weeks. I also am speaking about the comments I made and the gist of what I read.  Because the diaries kept going up, various members went on to the new one and didn't necessarily see the nasty comments made after we left.

          They happen to members. I know that from experience too.

          I appreciate the donation idea very much.  Like 'a few' other Kossacks, I'm not in a place to do anything. A thank you and apology for the problems in his encounter here seem like the right thing to do. We have a petition program, it could be used for that.

          "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

          by Ginny in CO on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 02:52:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i also think what happened here is something (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            that has been a problem for a while now - and that is the "pile-on".  a poster makes a nasty allegation (unproven) and then friends or allies in thought of that poster start piling on,

            the HOS meme is one of the most egregious actions i see around here.  some poster decides that another is not "legitimate" and makes the claim that everyone should simply HOS that person instead of letting others make up their own minds independently.

            i very very rarely use the hr feature - and always explain why when i do.  when it becomes censorship because of a suspicion or dislike of another poster's position, writing style, idea, etc., then it is being used incorrectly.

            scott got unfairly slammed and when looking at those who did the slamming, it is a familiar group of names throughout all the diaries.  that's a shame.  really a shame.  for the site, for those who drove the biggest political story of this election out of here. for themselves.

            i hope all of us on this site learn from this.

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 01:09:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I haven't been following the hide comments (0+ / 0-)

              It was not a good experience and I am trying to get to the root causes instead of broad brushing all the people involved. The fact that this stuff goes on among members that are not brand new indicates there are other issues that made the difference here.

              I'm usually in a fair number of diaries, including gun issues. I had been away mid Sept - early Jan while off internet service and heard when I got back that the rox/sux and gun control wars had been really ugly and a lot folks left.

              I have not seen the issue you are talking about on HOS. It is supposed to be illegal. I also explain my HRs and  am back on really rare use. To me there is a clear difference between intervening in the posting of an unverified story by a stranger and not being civil in the comments to the point of inappropriate HRs. As I said, some comments may have been made after I and others left the diaries.

              I am not sure how you can expect this site to vet a story like that in no time, when it took Corn 2 weeks, after Carter had been working on it. I was concerned about what I have explained at length in my comments.

              My problem with the situation is that some people here are so consumed with making the site more notorious they don't think it is reasonable to avoid taking risks that could backfire. My ugly experience at the other blog included the nasty internal wars as well. They are a problem and have been reviewed, discussed, etc. ad nauseum. Unfortunately too many accept the incivility as part of being on a blog. Some may do it in person as well.

              "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

              by Ginny in CO on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 01:39:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i have no problem with people giving hr's that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                alice kleeman

                are explained - what bothers me is the repeated hr'ing of the same person rather than making the case and letting others then step up to the plate to join or defend the poster.

                i missed the original posting of these clips - but on viewing them without reading the comments made here, it is very blatantly romney speaking and his words are exactly what should be judged.  the clips show him talking to a group of people without knowing he is being recorded.  that is damning - not of the poster but for the speaker.

                we, on this site, often cry for more "transparancy" - more cameras at protests (even though i have been one to state often that things are not always what they appear to be) - but that was mitt romney in multiple clips saying things that were damning.

                that the poster was new was immaterial, imho.  that the poster took the risk to come to one of the largest political blogs that is, to post on a self-proclaimed democratic site should have been reason enough to view the clips and see if they were as they appeared - NOT to simply drive away the messenger.

                whether or not the posting "backfired" isn't really a concern for me - it has been around long enough to weather multiple attacks and it - this site - is strong enough in voice to counter any attack made.

                even the nephew didn't do "harm" in any real sense.  he brought out the best in people who offered to help - he made some money - he manipulated emotions - but he didn't cause people to do HARM - he showed this site to be filled with compassionate and caring people.  so, he was a liar, a fraud.

                so what?  are we harmed by being compassionate?  by caring?  the only harm the nephew did, imho, was make some people hardened to caring for others in need.  that is really sad.

                the internal wars can only be stopped by the community.  when enough people say "enough!", then they will stop.  when people don't engage those who try to pick fights, don't argue with ad homs and actually walk away from those who are seeking attention, the problems will lessen.

                it is up to each of us to simply shut down the keyboard when others are being disruptive.  don't participate!  that is the real key.

                just as i don't and won't engage with rude people in real life, i refuse to do so on a blog.  my blood pressure is much happier with me that way.

                the last thing i am thinking today is that this is just a blog - an important one where i've made real life friends and online friends and filled with many people i really care about - but it is a blog.  it isn't the end of the world if someone thinks badly about "it" - it is what i personally think about this site that matters - and, right now, as i have for many years, it is worth consuming a great deal of my time and life.  if and when that changes (hopefully not), then i will be elsewhere and continue doing other things.

                it isn't up to any of us to "protect" the blog from itself or "outsiders" (of which we all were, once - except markos, of course) - it is up to each of us to make it better and participate in a way that contributes to the successes the GOS has shown.  the GOS will survive, i am quite sure.  

                EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                by edrie on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 03:41:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  About the only reason I hide rate (0+ / 0-)

              Is because someone calls for violence on another person.

              Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

              by splashy on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 05:10:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed. Moderation in all things. (21+ / 0-)

          Good blogging, like good journalism, is hard. No-one is saying we should have featured those anonymous videos on the front-page and certified their authenticity before there was proof. But it's not a boolean, dichotomous choice between Rec'ing versus Hide-Rating. If we're not sure, we do not need to accuse someone of (these are all direct quotes):

          being a HOS troll, spamming, rat fucking [twice], crap, hoax, "Kindly to be fucking off now, spammer," bullshit, Go 'way, desperate for attention, a troll or an honest fool, not what we're looking for at Dkos, Big fat waste of everyone's time, really fucking annoying, etc.,

          And lets give credit to the many Kossacks who got it right (like AWhitneyBrown), or who read it and simply didn't comment, or who cautioned us to be patient, and/or urged anneonymous670/Scott to take his video to a trusted mainstream media source -- which is what he did!

          What I don't get are the Kossacks who HR'd him (or egged it on) and now are so defensive about it, rather than just owning-up that we screwed up, apologizing to Scott, praising and thanking him, maybe donating to his legal-fund to lead-by-example, and moving on.

          We certainly had the best of intentions. Those of us who doubted had good reasons for it. Yes, process and procedure are important. But we screwed up. We're not perfect. Why is this so hard for some people to say? With a real apology, not a GOP non-apology. Without excuses. Without being defensive. Full stop. End-of-comment.

          Even kos weighed in on this -- see his diary, here, ever-so-lovingly called "Crap community behavior":  E.g., selections:

          For reasons that I cannot fathom, a bunch of you autobanned this user. Here is a goldmine of Mitt uncensored, and a bunch of you zapped him/her? I get that s/he was kind of spammy, but the content that was being posted was incredible. [...] Skepticism is always warranted, but skepticism doesn't mean you ban someone. It means you seek verification. That whistleblower/leaker never had the chance to try and verify. [...] "it's not fair to get mad at the community for trying to protect the site's reputation." I'll admit that I'm persuaded by that. It's hard trying to differentiate the The Nephew's from people who are genuinely well-meaning, but kind of clueless about community norms. [...] It's always good to be skeptical. And the line between being too tolerant of a genuine troll, and not tolerant enough for the well-meaning but blundering new user is impossible to define.
          Moderation in all things... Aristotle was ahead of his time.  ;-)
          •  I think I've mentioned Kos' comments on this. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            edrie, sydneyluv

            I think he missed the full picture as well. I do not condone nor do I make comments like those. Edrie points out above this is an ongoing problem, within diaries between Kossacks who should know better.

            More than anything that reinforces my arguments on getting to the root causes of this particular situation. Those of us trying to get Scott to understand the issue of verifying were getting nowhere, unfortunately others weighed in with ugly negatives.

            We clearly have a long standing problem with that kind of behavior. Maybe we need a rule that my mom identified about a neighbor's swearing. "John swears at things, not people." Swearing or using epithets towards a person or their ideas is not allowed in some sites. They often have a flag option to get a moderator's attention. To allow some venting of frustration, it could be applied to making them to the diarist or commenters. (I am pretty sure we would never eliminate the multitude of derogatory GOP comments ;).

            I have suggested for some time that the comment in the box below the preview, to the left of the Post button, should say "IF this is true and kind and necessary, click Post:"  "If not, please take time to make changes below and Preview again. Or Cancel the comment."

            There was plenty of ugly in the comments of too many towards Prouty, which may be why he did not pay attention to the concerns about vetting. I am not trying to make excuses for them. It is why I have been advocating our very excellent admin writers to craft a heartfelt apology and thank you, that the petition program should work to use for our signatures.

            This was a key point for me in Kos' comment.

            It's always good to be skeptical. And the line between being too tolerant of a genuine troll, and not tolerant enough for the well-meaning but blundering new user is impossible to define.
            Given a very scientific upbringing, I reluctantly admit that the traits of my astrological sign fit me to a T.  Libra, balance. Moderation is a key component to achieving that. So is understanding what I think Gandhi said.

            "Moderation in all things, includes moderation." ;-)

            The nurse in me does not appreciate extreme sports. The animal lover abhors any abuse of them. I lived in Alaska 14 years, got to understand the Iditarod, had a vet who volunteered for the checkpoint exams, read articles from reporters who checked on the mushers year round and personally met a few of them. I'm still following #45 thru 54, who are slowly making their way to Nome. #54 has a minimum of 36 hours to go before he accepts the Red Lantern. Until then, I will go to the website at the time when I expect specific mushers to have reached their next checkpoint. {For anyone interested.
             Iditarod site, vet section.  Mushing with P.R.I.D.E.} Time to check on #45.

            A quote I mangled a bit when I wrote it in my bible:            
              'Accept the illogical, irrational imperfection of the complex human soul.'

            I am advocating that we go beyond acceptance here. Apologize graciously, thank profoundly, and reinvest ourselves in diminishing as many of the causes as possible. We certainly can be better than what happened with Scott.

            "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

            by Ginny in CO on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 03:38:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  what a great post! and you cover so many things (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              alice kleeman, sydneyluv

              that should be read over and over.

              oh, and i'm a libran, too - with five planets in the house of libra AND the moon - talk about only seeing the middle as it ZOOMS past WHEEEEE!  

              and, as for the idtarod - i have had samoyeds since 1970 and am currently waiting for a friend's girl to have puppies to have my next one.  (my last chance at my age - for a baby one - otherwise, they'll outlive me).

              but, best of all you have said here - we all need to apologize graciously for our treatment of this young man - we owe him that.  if we all can't learn from our mistakes, we are bound to repeat them.

              to scott, i am so very sorry for your treatment you received by our site.  i hope you'll not judge us all by our mistakes - and you'll join us and share your wisdom with us.

              and, scott, thank you SO much for saving this nation from a sure disaster - and, yes, i DO think that your actions saved this country!

              we are forever in your debt!

              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 04:07:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Chased off the site (8+ / 0-)

      By ill-advised HRs:

      This video is authentic. (0+ / 4-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      absdoggy, Timaeus, IndieGuy, Nica24
      I'm the source and it's real.

      by anneonymous670 on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 10:20:06 AM EDT

      [ Parent ]

      Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. You step out of line, the man come and take you away. - S. Stills

      by ask on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:03:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So Wrong (0+ / 0-)

      No. Romney did describe the conditions as horrible. Then he described how he was told by the factory managers that those conditions were so attractive to the surrounding area that the barbed wire and security was to keep them out, stop them from looking for those taken jobs.

      Romney was describing a paradise - for the 1%ers he was talking with. Describing prison factories where the people are dying to get in, every ubercapitalist's dream.

      Even after the tape was made public, did Romney point out that his presidency would stop such abuses? That he'd protect US labor from descending to those conditions? Of course not.

      Even after all we've seen of this story, even after it was paired with Corn's extensive article documenting that factory that dovetailed with the compelete release of the 47% video, you're still getting it wrong. So wrong.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 10:20:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site