Doug Thompson & Capitol Hill Blue EXPOSED PDF
Tuesday, 24 July 2007
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 .
Capitol Hill Blue claims to be “the oldest political news site on the web,” published continuously since 1994. Today it’s a sensationalist rag (including entries by Thompson himself sporting titles like “What they found up Bush’s butt ”) ridden with banner ads and annoying pop-ups (altogether we counted at least ten banner ads, a search box, text ads, and a pop-up window). Somehow, CHB has even managed to get listed in Google News .
A< quick Google search of Thompson and his site reveals countless screw-ups, deceptions, and backpedaling. We can’t list them all without hiring a legion of investigative reporters, and other critics have done excellent work chronicling some of these debacles and exposing CHB’s fraud, but here are a few whoppers:
*
Meet Terrance J. Wilkinson, a man who does not exist . When his story on Iraqi WMDs was called into question and his source exposed as a fake, Thompson claimed he was “played” for 20 years by an imposter. Here's the obvious thought process:
Step one: establish 20 years of trust with a third-rate reporter who may one day have a website, by creating a totally fake identity. Step two: feed him a bogus story about the president. Step three: laugh, it was worth the effot! Delusions of grandeur, anyone?
*
Remember the “story” where President Bush said the U.S. Constitution was just a “goddamned piece of paper?” Funny thing about that: it never happened. CHB’s source didn’t exist! You’d think the Wilkinson scandal would’ve taught Thompson a lesson, right? Instead, he started accepting quotes from a self-proclaimed professor and former Nixon/Reagan appointee he never met (and never bothered to check out). It took a blogger doing Google searches to realize something was up, but the “award-winning ” Thompson was totally fooled. Says Thompson:
“I should have learned from that [Wilkinson] mistake. I didn’t and it came back to bite me again recently.”
*
Plagiarizing the San Francisco Chronicle is a slick move .
*
“Hi, I’m Bill McTavish, the new boss here at Capitol Hill Blue.” Now I’m fired . Now I’m not. Now I (Doug Thompson) will admit that it was all a fraud.
The Crusade against Rep. Ron Paul
[Disclaimer: Capitol Hill Blue has deleted or modified many of the stories they published pertaining to Ron Paul, as well as their subsequent comments. CHB has not responded to our repeated requests for full disclosure, and much of the information referenced below was pulled from the Google cache and third party websites, and is now being hosted on our server to preserve the factual record.]
Perhaps CHB’s most shocking behavior, which initially brought them to our attention, was their series of escalating attacks on presidential candidate Ron Paul (R – TX) . What began with veiled jabs at the longshot-candidate’s electoral prospects escalated to allegations of corruption, then campaign disinformation, and finally racism. Capping it all off was a bizarre taunt in which an anonymous CHB source claimed that the FBI was notified after Paul supporters complained in disgust.
“Memo to the Paul propaganda posse: That knock on the door is not Dominoes Pizza,” [sic] CHB published in a since-deleted diatribe.
From the beginning, these articles seemed unbalanced and biased against the Paul campaign. Some were written by Thompson himself, while others were attributed to no one. In many cases, the anonymous articles would provoke numerous comments, including Thompson personally defending (and even extending upon) the particular article’s assertions.
As Thompson has chosen to delete many of these articles and edit others, and CHB has not responded to our requests for information, the following list of articles may be incomplete.
05/18/07 Ron Paul’s propaganda posse and spam squad: Subverting the ‘Net to promote a fringe candidate (by Doug Thompson) status: deleted
06/18/07 A relative problem for Congress (by Doug Thompson) status: edited (all references to Paul were removed , but we have the original version! )
07/04/07 Reality bites the Ron Paul campaign (unsigned) status: deleted
07/06/07 Ron Paul’s fundraising falls short of claims (unsigned) status: deleted
07/07/07 Spam Squad (unsigned) status: deleted
07/07/07 My bad (by Doug Thompson) status: edited several times, version unknown
Ordinarily we would be tempted to conduct a point-by-point critique of CHB and Thompson’s shoddy work, but these articles speak for themselves. From weasel words to ad hominem attacks to cryptically referenced (and quite possibly nonexistent) sources to statements that have been proven to be out-right lies; CHB’s campaign had it all.
In fact, it’s hard to think of a journalistic “no-no” that CHB didn’t commit.
But perhaps most interesting of all was how it ended. Thompson “re-emerged,” denied primary responsibility, and tried to sweep the disgraceful material under the rug.
Wrote Thompson on an online forum:
“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'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.”
Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain
It is tempting to be intellectually lazy and accept Thompson’s explanation that a rogue editor went too far. Were that the case, the entire incident would represent a significant black eye for CHB (and Thompson by extension), and it would be just the latest in a long line of scandals for a website which should now be considered a total laughingstock.
At best, it is clear that Thompson and his “staff” aren’t to be taken seriously. Repeated instances of phantom sources, disappearing articles, admitted bias, arrogance, and appallingly tasteless hit pieces don’t add up to a respected news source.
If only it were that simple. We wish could write off Thompson as aloof and CHB as a benign amateur endeavor. However, our analysis of the situation leads us to believe that, in all likelihood, Thompson was directly responsible for the entire series of events. Consider three aspects of this saga.
First, the attacks were not out of the blue. They were an extension of Thompson’s earlier harsh criticism of Paul (and his supporters). Thompson’s May 18 article, in particular, shows his thinly veiled contempt for the 71-year old Texan. While the subsequent anonymous attacks included some new details (e.g. forceful claims of racism and anti-Semitism), they were similar in tone and repeated many controversial claims (e.g. recklessly tying Paul in with the John Birch Society ).
Even putting aside the more repugnant attacks contained in the anonymous articles, Thompson’s original June 18 article on politicians who employ relatives contained a number of vitriolic cheap shots that are unbecoming of a principled journalist . Thompson labeled Paul a “rabid John Bircher,” a “laughable GOP candidate,” and accused Paul of arranging a corrupt, “fundraising Ponzi scheme .”
Thompson even managed to get in a jab at Paul’s supporters, dubbing them, “the cult of the gullible.”
The article made no attempt at balance and, while it cited raw data from Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington , it failed to substantiate any of the highly negative attacks leveled at Paul – one of 72 members of Congress who employs (or contracts entities owned by) relatives.
Second, Thompson’s tacit support and defense of the earlier anonymous articles (through comments left shortly after the articles were posted), seems to run counter to Thompson’s claim that they were not what he “would have written (or approved).” Thompson admits to writing columns during that time, commented supportively after the first controversial anonymous columns appeared, and voiced strikingly similar opinions on Paul in previous weeks. Conveniently, Thompson’s purging of these articles has made it easier for him to claim ignorance while hiding his supportive comments.
Finally, arguably the most convincing evidence of Thompson’s complicity is his own history of deception. We’re not just talking about fabricated sources , which is bad enough. CHB has utilized phantom staff members and a contrived, ongoing soap opera meant to deceive readers as to the true identity of the site’s writers, editors, and owners!
This deception goes as far back as 2003, when Thompson announced that he had sold CHB and was turning it over to new management. Apparently Thompson had already left CHB to "pursue new opportunities." No mention of this "sale" could be found at CHB, and it appears to have been largely forgotten.
Thompson later “resigned” from CHB in July 2006, and has created fictitious individuals to run the site. Keeping with Thompson's modus operandi, his farewell message – like so much of CHB’s dirty laundry – has since disappeared.
This humorous drama is too extended to cover in detail here, but Eric over at Classical Values has done an excellent job delving into the mystical world of CHB’s rotating staff. For a good laugh, check out this chart that explains the hierarchy over at CHB (he even manages to include the fictional source George Harleigh).
The evidence uncovered by bloggers that CHB has deceived its readers with regards to who runs the show is fairly convincing. But you need not rely on that evidence (unless you’re seeking a good chuckle). Thompson himself pulled a mea culpa and ‘fessed up to his part in the deception and his sordid enjoyment of it all .
He even acknowledged that his actions were patently unethical. He turned over the reigns to a pseudonymous figure conveniently named after his own family. He maintained this person exists, but confessed to lesser ethical violations (including lying about "firing" that person), writing:
“To cover his identity from his mainstream bosses, we made up a name out of a Scottish surname that is, in fact, the origin of my family. We thought letting himself be called ‘McTavish’ was a great inside joke and fun. So was ‘firing’ him from time to time. It wasn't. It was dishonest. We both realized that too late.”
Apparently, after decades as an award-winning journalist, Thompson (and his "mainstream" colleagues) were unable to wrap their minds around their ethical obligations. Repeatedly. Then Thompson has a few more rebirths and relapses, and we're supposed to believe that this elderly character has finally had a religious experience and is to be trusted.
If we are to believe that Thompson has seen the error of his ways and now aspires to act with journalistic integrity, why does he refuse to come clean about the identity of the “fired” editor behind the Paul hit pieces? If that information is being withheld to protect the author’s reputation, Thompson is once again demonstrating a lack of scruples. The Paul hit pieces were not “mildly inappropriate.” They weren’t juvenile hijinx or reminiscent of a journalist who just needs a bit more experience. They were the work of an individual so lacking in professional standards that s/he should be forever blacklisted.
Given all the facts in this saga, it is difficult to accept Thompson’s unsubstantiated fingering of an anonymous staffer. Even if Thompson was not the author of the articles that appeared on his site, he owes it to the journalism community to reveal who was so that individual never again has the opportunity to spew their vile filth as a member of the professional press.
The Final Scorecard
To make it easier to digest all of the nonsense coming from Thompson and CHB, we’ve broken things down into three categories:
the scandals everyone (including CHB) admits to,
the scandals CHB denies/ignores but which have been thoroughly documented,
and actions that a reasonable person would agree don’t pass “the smell test” (but which cannot be proven decisively).
1. Everyone seems to agree that:
*
Thompson and CHB have allowed the publication of substandard articles on numerous occasions throughout the years, with no end in sight.
*
Thompson and CHB ran numerous articles with quotes from at least two phantom sources (Harleigh and Wilkinson ). If we are to believe that Thompson and CHB were, for some reason, the victims of multiple elaborate hoaxes (in Wilkinson's case, Thompson claims to have been “played" for 20 years by a con artist), they failed to do even the most basic research on the legitimacy (or even existence!) of their sources.
*
Over 300 CHB articles have been deleted or significantly edited in recent years due to serious issues such as bias, phantom sources, etc. In many cases, no apology or public admission of wrongdoing is ever proffered – CHB simply attempts to “disappear” the articles in question. Other times, someone apologizes and explains how they were “tricked” or otherwise erred. Occasionally the scandal results in some degree of behind-the-scenes, imaginary fall-out, with a “reporter” or “editor” being “fired.”
*
Thompson has admitted to concocting (and enjoyed perpetrating) a fraudulent back-room soap opera in which fictitious reporters and editors were hired, fired, etc.
These incidents alone justify Thompson’s permanent exclusion from the realm of credible journalism. His site should be ignored and de-listed from Google News. And anyone considering citing – or even believing in – anything posted on CHB should be forewarned of its track record with ear-shattering alarms and police caution tape.
Offenders like Thompson are the violent sex offenders of the journalism world. Their misdeeds are so repugnant and their likelihood of recidivism so high that the community at large should be made aware for their own protection.
Make no mistake about it; any one of the above indiscretions would likely get a reporter fired from a real publication. Many would be so severe that the offender would never be able to work in journalism again. Together, these incidents of incompetence and deliberate ethical violations constitute a flagrant disregard for the values of professional journalism.
And that’s just what Doug Thompson and CHB are willing to admit to…
2. It’s evident, based on the facts, that:
*
Thompson and CHB plagiarized the San Francisco Chronicle.
*
Thompson and CHB used weasel words, ran unbalanced negative articles, and attempted to advance their own agenda.
*
CHB has run articles so preposterous that they constitute libel, even under the high threshold for “public figures” imposed by New York Times vs. Sullivan.
3. It’s highly probable that:
*
Thompson has made use of a variety of aliases to serve as sock puppets (some are willing to go so far as to question whether “Doug Thompson” is an alias). From Bill McTavish to Sandra Riley to Teresa Hampton – CHB has served as a merry-go-round of blame shifting. When something goes wrong, Thompson (or some other shadowy figure) is quick to “fire” the individual responsible. That person is typically anonymous, using a pseudonym, or so lacking in their digital footprint that critics question whether they even exist. When Thompson can’t blame someone else (e.g. when the stories carry his by-line), he frequently takes some level of responsibility and occasionally “resigns” to turn over control of the site – ostensibly to someone in his self-described “consortium of journalists.” Inevitably, Thompson returns. Thompson’s history of “getting played” by phantom sources in baffling (and repeated) fashion, and his admission that concocted a series of fraudulent regime changes at CHB, paint a picture of someone who’s more than willing to deliberately deceive readers as to the true nature of his publication.
*
That Thompson himself was behind the beyond-the-pale Ron Paul attacks. While there is no way to definitively prove this beyond Thompson coming clean; Thompson’s own vitriolic articles, his refusal to name the person responsible, and his history of deception all suggest that he was likely responsible.
*
That Thompson / CHB knowingly used phony “expert” sources (like Dr. Stephanie Crossfield). Several of these individuals, who are allegedly well-educated professionals, have no internet presence whatsoever outside of their use as sources for CHB stories. At minimum, it would appear that Thompson / CHB plagiarized themselves by re-using (almost verbatim) quotes from Crossfield in two distinct stories.
Conclusion
There is nothing CHB or Thompson can do at this point to redeem themselves. It’s been one scandal after another, and they simply do not deserve another opportunity to establish credibility. It’s time for CHB to be shut down and Thompson to stop calling himself a journalist. With their respective track records, it’s safe to say that you can’t teach old dogs new tricks.
Someone claiming to be a journalist once wrote:
“The credibility that any journalistic endeavor - print, broadcast or 'Net - enjoys with its readers is fragile at best. We are all just one mistake away from oblivion.”
That someone was Doug Thompson , who long ago stopped caring about credibility or journalism. Given his actions over the past few years, oblivion may be too posh a home.
Welcome to Hackville, Doug. You’ve worked hard to get here.
Hackville is a regular feature compiled by Journalisnt.com contributors which addresses journalism's most ethically-challenged individuals and outlets. Per our Editorial Policy , we welcome replies from the subjects of our articles and will publish them for our readers.
Last Updated ( Thursday, 26 July 2007 )
[ Back ]
Advertisement
Copyright (C) 2007 Journalisnt.com |
