What it accomplishes is..
 

Rather and CBS are determined to try to smear GWB...the primary reporter on this has actually been working on this story since like 1998..what i proves more than anything was that there was no way Rather DIDN"T know these documents were forgeries..but he wanted to believe the story so bad...he decided to take this risk..:eek:

Re: What it accomplishes is..
 

How do you know what Rather knows? Isn't it rather presumptious of you to assume you can read the mind of a man you watch on TV?

This is a satire of ktsnake's argument

Dan Rather announced his new television show:

"Dan Rather's Believe it or Not"

-Rudey

Re: Re: What it accomplishes is..
 

Is this is an attempt to be funny?:confused:

The first show will cover how documents that are forgeries..actually contain accurate information..with special guest..an 80 year old Kerry supporter ;)

Re: What it accomplishes is..
 

Sorry, but that is so much Horsefeathers. It isn't uncommon for investigative reporters to work for years on stories. New evidence may be a long time coming, and it often comes when you least expect it. CBS still claims they believe their sources.

Listen carefully, I don't want to have to say this again. CBS owns TV stations which are regulated by the government. They can't afford to gamble with those licenses. They CANNOT knowlingly (unlike cable networks) take this kind of chance with the truth.

There is no way that the corporate managers and owners would allow the News Division to carry on some kind of vendetta. There are billions of dollars on the line with these stations. The owned stations make much more money than the network news or entertainment divisions do. And the networks are run by businessmen -- not journalists.

If they reported it, they believe it to be true. If it turns out it isn't, they will have to retract and have a lot of egg on their face.

That may happen or it may not, but to make the kind of charges you do shows more of a bias (or misunderstanding of the network reality) on your part than on CBS's.

Re: Re: What it accomplishes is..
 

Ok..so don't u think Rather (or other reporters) would have checked every possible source and checked it thrice before airing such garbage? Knox says their probably not authentic..isn't this the lady that typed the Lt's memos? THe family said they aren't authentic..namely because THEY have all of their fathers files... they didn't bother to show the other side of the story...which would have given the story some objectivity...but they still stand by their sources? :rolleyes: :confused: The only sources they stand by are the ones that agree with their viewpoints.

The Laughs at CBS keep coming..
 

Entire Article: http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=6836

VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE ;)

The litany of questionable professionalism and possible bias goes on and on. CBS News interviewed Lt. Col. Killian's son and widow, both of whom disputed the veracity of the memos, but CBS chose not to air their views in its story. CBS claims that it was told by its source that the memos came from the Lt. Col.'s personal files, but both his widow and son deny that he typed or kept personal files.

Though Lt. Col. Killian's secretary at the time, Marian Carr Knox, is still living, CBS elected not to interview her for the story. On Tuesday, September 14th, The Dallas Morning News did.

"These are not real," Mrs. Knox told The Morning News, pointing to numerous "telltale signs of forgery," including the fact that the typeface did not match either variety of typewriter in use at the time in her National Guard office. "They're not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him," she explained.

Mrs. Knox cannot be mistaken for a Bush supporter. She told reporters that she believed the president is "unfit for office" and that he was "selected, not elected." Most intriguingly, she also said that despite their being forgeries, she believed the documents "accurately reflect the viewpoints of Lt. Col. Killian." (To be fair to President Bush, it should be noted that according to the Washington Times, "Defense Department records show that in 1973 Col. Killian praised Mr. Bush's performance and approved his honorable discharge.")

The irony is compelling. If CBS had listened to its expert advisors and regarded the memos skeptically, it might well have sought out further expert testimony and Mrs. Knox's views. It could then have run the blockbuster story that a forger was apparently trying to skew a presidential election, while still being able to quote Mrs. Knox on Lt. Col. Killian's ostensibly critical views of then-1st Lt. Bush. Even if they had allowed their bias to get the best of them and omitted the fact that Killian is known to have praised Bush, hardly anyone in the major media would have batted an eyelash.

But CBS didn't choose this path.

Before these most recent revelations, it might well have seemed that Dan Rather and CBS News were guilty only of the relatively common journalistic crime of insufficiently researching a story that they wanted to believe. Today, that interpretation has collapsed. The 60 Minutes team is now alleged to have known that the memos had been challenged by their own experts and by Lt. Col. Killian's family, and it appears that "60 Minutes" deliberately chose not to make the public aware of these objections.

Partisan bias appears to have so deeply infected one of the nation's established news organizations that it has rotted from the inside. This will drive more and more people to seek out confirmation of "old media" stories in the open fora of the Internet, where the news is mercilessly, instantaneously and endlessly scrutinized by thousands of critics — all vying with one another to offer the most current, incisive, well-constructed analysis.

The era in which old media could publish only the news they saw fit to print is over. And we are left to wonder, what lies slipped quietly past us before the birth of Internet blogs?

Re: Re: Re: What it accomplishes is..
 

That's correct, but the only ones you stand by are the ones that disagree.

So, we have two "experts" figuratively pointing their fingers at each other. I have no idea which one is correct, and I don't think you do either.

NPR had a discussion of this issue this afternoon with a Journalism Ethics Professor from the Pointer Institute. What he said basically is that:

A) CBS has a right to make the claims.
B) CBS has a responsibility to keep checking it's sources due to the controversy.
C) The opposing side (Bush/RNC) have every right to disavow the claims.
D) That side also has every right to bring in their own "experts."

What we can't believe is the folks on the BLOG who apparantely started the controversy over the typeface, etc. So far, "experts" on both sides disagree on whether it was available in the 1970's.

As I said, I don't know what is true in this case, but I absolutely boil when anyone (either side) who is not directly involved in any case of this kind makes declarative comments that they can't back up. It's heresay. Opinions are fine -- it's the absolute statements that I object to.

That is so common in this election that I'm about ready to vote "NO" for president.

Re: Re: What it accomplishes is..
 

No need to talk down to people. Perhaps this is how is should be, but how can you say that you don't think that CBS and Dan Rather have a bias against Bush and are out to get him? If all they really wanted to do was break a story, don't you think they would have included all the evidence?

DeltAlum has more TV experience than everyone on this board combined. He's also probably the least partisan poster on this board. I doubt he was intentionally talking down at anyone, that's not his style.

the businessmen dare not interfere
 

"There is no way that the corporate managers and owners would allow the News Division to carry on some kind of vendetta. There are billions of dollars on the line with these stations. The owned stations make much more money than the network news or entertainment divisions do. And the networks are run by businessmen -- not journalists."
- DeltAlum

With all due respect to our moderator, the businessmen dare not interfere, suggest, lead, or influence the "news" division. There have been cases where "businessmen" interfered, and the newsmen rightly SCREAM, yell, go public, claim freedom of the press, and maybe even quit

Of course, Dan Rather (who participated in a Democrat fund raiser in the Texas county dominated by one of the lead sources in this affair) probably doesn't have the gonads to stand up. He just wants to hang on till retirement time in '05.

Thanks, but the fact is that I'm so PO'd at everyone on both sides in this campaign -- both on GC and about everywhere else -- that I probably am "talking down" in this case.

There is some truth -- and conversely some of the opposite -- in just about everything.

In this campaign it seems to me that everyone is so absoutely positive of his/her own point of view that they discredit anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I'm really sick of the way people are treating and talking to each other.

No matter what the "spin doctors" on either side say, the supporters of that side take it as the absolute truth. Anything the otherside says is an absolute lie.

Aren't we smarter than that?

This is politics. It's is built around what makes your candidate look good and the other look bad. Propaganda techniques abound. The absolute truth is secondary.

Jeez, a lot of you guys point at the media and call it biased. Have you looked in the mirror recently?

Re: the businessmen dare not interfere
 

Thank you as well for the respect.

However, with respect in return, this isn't a situation where ANY corporate board would allow ANY department to actively engage in any kind of known deception, which is basically what is being claimed. That goes beyond the scope of journalistic license or "freedom of the press". However, if the news division had a story it believed was true and the "suits" blocked it -- that's a different story.

The difference is between deception and a firm belief in your reportage. They are two vastly different situaltions in both the Newsroom and the Boardroom.

But, speaking of freedom, a word about Rather allegedly going to a Democratic Fundraiser or whatever. So what? When a person goes on TV does that take away her/his right to participate in the political process? Would this be an issue for you if he had gone to a Republican event? I actually think that Brokaw and Jennings have Republican leanings. Tim Russert admits to voting Democratic in most things but is an equal opportunity a$$hole when it comes to interviewing either side.

My guess is that most reporters have been around politicians so long that they are leary of both sides.

Of the major anchorpeople, I like Rather by far the least, but he is way to smart to tarnish what has been a distinguished career at this point.

So how come Democrats lie?

-Rudey