Reliability of "The Smoking Gun" website

Factual Questions
1

In light of this story, how reliable a source is this site?

Thanks,
Grim

2

I don’t know much about the story. But for what it’s worth, I’ve never seen any claims that they post false information. I’m not sure why this particular story makes you think they might be faking, they’ve posted lots of other interesting bits also.

3

Now it’s on AP citing them.
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/12/09/jackson_case/index.html
"The memo from an administrator with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services was based on an investigation last February and was leaked to the Web site thesmokinggun.com, which posted it Tuesday. A source familiar with the document confirmed its authenticity to The Associated Press. "

4

They only post scans of documents, which seriously helps their credibility IMO. I have never once seen it alleged that they have faked things. That is a pretty good track record if you’re on the internet.

5

I’m not familiar with the site at all (apart from the occasional mug-shot linked to from MPSIMS), so when I saw the story, with what seems a fairly explosive story and an exclusive leaked document, I began to wonder whether all was above board, but all appears to be so…

Thanks for the responses.

Grim

6

The Smoking Gun never makes up its items and I don’t think anyone has ever challenged anything they put up. They deal with potentially libelous information all the time, but have never been sued.

It might be possible that someone fakes a document and fools them, but from what I’ve seen, they do a solid job of confirming their sources.

7

Since TSG doesn’t analyze the things the post for the most part (just the occassional joke it seems), this leads them to be wide open for abuse by spin-doctoring lawyers and such. So stuff gets posted all the time that looks like it decides the issue one way or another when it fact it’s mainly something released for smoke and mirrors purposes.

There has already been one immensely misleading such posting in the recent MJ scandal. This one is only slightly misleading. Note that it dates from last Feb., and that reports are now surfacing about peculiarities in the investigation. I.e., that it may have been a complete whitewash and not a real investigation at all.

You should assume that in many such cases, that there is some attempt to mislead one way or another by releasing such information. Selective releasing of information can work just as well, or better, than lying.

E.g., X murders Y today. A video tape turns up which has Y praising X yesterday as a great person and swell friend. Lawyer for X claims that therefore X couldn’t have killed Y. Bullhockey. But for the overwhelming majority of people, they actually believe the videotape is proof of innocence. Amazing stupidity. Lawyers and other of that ilk know that people are like this and so set up spins to make certain people look better/worse than they really are.

So the link in the OP was most likely released by a pro-MJ creep in order to sway future jurors. If these people really believed MJ was innocent, all they would have to do is release everybody from all those non-disclosure agreements they’ve been forcing people to sign all these years. Yeah, like that will happen. Selective release of information, you see.

8

<OT>

To avoid confusion, can we agree to continue letting MJ be Michael Jordan? We can call the other guy WJ (for Wacko Jacko), or NJ (Nut Job), or BJ, or something else. Not to be picky, but Michael Jordan is already widely known as MJ and is leagues apart from Jackson in terms of character, humility, role model standing, and everything else (except maybe ball-handling ability…ouch)

“Who’s bad?”

</OT>