CBS vs. FOX

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
Wow.

You really believe it was careless? C'mon.. I know you don't really believe that.

OK. Reality time.

If it isn't true, and that still is "if" until someone proves otherwise, you can bet that is was a mistake on CBS's part whether careless or not.

I've said this before, and I can't emphasize it enough, CBS owns TV stations which make a lot of money. Those TV stations are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (which is run by Colin Powell's son Michael).

There is NO WAY they would jeopardize those TV stations licenses by fabricating a story like this.

If the story is proven to be wrong, you can bet they will appologize.

[The1calledTKE]

And Republicans don't lie? lol

[Rudey]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
And Republicans don't lie? lol

The topic is Democrats lying

-Rudey
--You know if you boys weren't so ruthless with the attack machine on GC, I think I'd probably relax a little myself

[Kevin]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
OK. Reality time.

If it isn't true, and that still is "if" until someone proves otherwise, you can bet that is was a mistake on CBS's part whether careless or not.

I've said this before, and I can't emphasize it enough, CBS owns TV stations which make a lot of money. Those TV stations are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (which is run by Colin Powell's son Michael).

There is NO WAY they would jeopardize those TV stations licenses by fabricating a story like this.

If the story is proven to be wrong, you can bet they will appologize.

So far, according to the 60 minutes website, they haven't backed down from this.

So it's one of those "Our experts vs. their experts" situations.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by ktsnake
So far, according to the 60 minutes website, they haven't backed down from this.

So it's one of those "Our experts vs. their experts" situations.

You've got to assume that to go that far out on a limb, they're pretty sure of their sources. Can you imagine how tough it would be to get this past the legal department? If this is a hoax, someone has done a damn good job of setting it up.

[Optimist Prime]

FOX is also same network that brought you Married dot dot dot with children and Temptation Island etc. Are they really conservative? Nope. They're just cashing in on advertising revinues.

[AXO_MOM_3]

Originally posted by KellyB369
Exactly! I was just telling my coworkers at lunch today that the Democrats should not care what Bush did or didn't do. Skipping out all together didn't cost Bill Clinton the presidency.

I so agree! Did Clinton recently tell Kerry to stop bashing Bush over this and start campaining on the issues?

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Optimist Prime
FOX is also same network that brought you Married dot dot dot with children and Temptation Island etc. Are they really conservative? Nope. They're just cashing in on advertising revinues.

OP,

You've fallen into a common trap here.

With the exception of common ownership (Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., a global media conglomerate), there is really no connection between Fox NewsChannel and the Fox Television Network. The differences are huge.

Fox NewsChannel is a full time CABLE news channel, headquartered in New York. Fox TV network consists of ON AIR TV stations -- some of which are owned by Fox (called owned and operated stations or O&O's in the broadcast business), but most owned by other people/groups and only affilliated with Fox. It is headquartered in Los Angeles. You will notice that most Fox O&O's and on air affilliates may do a local newscast -- but don't have a national show like NBC Nightly News, etc.

All of the major networks consist of a few O&O's and many more affilliated stations.

The Fox Television Network is purely entertainment driven.

There are also other divisions including Fox Sports and the regional Fox Sports Channel regional cable networks.

It's confusing, but as I said above, there is common ownership, but they are run as totally separate entities.

[The1calledTKE]

CBS says their experts say its real.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in641481.shtml

Fox's say its not. Time to get some independant group from out side the US to be the judge.

[Kevin]

1. Dan Rather's Defense, Memos "Could" Be Authentic, Grows Lamer
Dan Rather's second effort Monday night to defend the authenticity of the memos supposedly about President Bush's National Guard record was even lamer that his first attempt on Friday night, though after having denigrated his critics on Friday as "partisan political operatives," on Monday's CBS Evening News he at least conceded that "some" of the questions about the documents "come from people who are not active political partisans." Rather began his defense by highlighting a shot at Bush from a Kerry operative at a DNC press conference and ended by recounting how "CBS News asked the White House today to give direct answers to a number of questions." Of course, CBS News has so far refused to pose any such direct questions to John Kerry or provide any "direct answers" as to the source or agenda of whoever gave them the supposed memos. Rather provided a low standard of proof as he relayed how document analysts "strongly insist" that the documents "could have been created in the '70s." Amongst his defenses, that overwriting MS Word's automatic superscripting is cumbersome, as if a forger wouldn't make the effort!

2. Olbermann Lays Out Right-Wing Conspiracy Behind Faked Memos
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann sees a grand conspiracy in "how the documents came to be so quickly and thoroughly refuted on a right-wing Web site not two hours after they were first revealed on CBS." Picking up on how a FreeRepublic.com poster, "Buckhead," had first suggested a 1970s typewriter could not have produced the memo showcased by 60 Minutes, on Monday's Countdown Olbermann ran through the blogger's resume and concluded, ever so ominously: "So the Killian documents come out and are almost immediately questioned by a lawyer with Republican ties and are distributed to other news organizations without comment by the White House and they suddenly have one of their principal endorsers retract his endorsement. How many rats do you smell?"

3. Killian Colleague Calls Memos "Absurd," Experts Doubt Signature
FNC on Monday morning brought aboard retired Colonel Earl Lively, who ran the Texas Air National Guard operations in Austin during George W. Bush's tenure, and he declared that the memos from his former colleague, Jerry Killian, put forward by CBS News are "absolutely absurd. Anybody that knew anything about the Guard in that period can just read those memos and see that they are completely unrealistic." He also explained how Bush did not jump to the front of a long waiting list. Later in the day, FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume highlighted two document experts who doubted the authenticity of Jerry Killian's signature on the CBS memos as Jim Angle pointed out that CBS's handwriting expert, Marcel Matley, who validated the Killian signature, wrote in a professional journal a couple of years ago that signature's cannot be confirmed from photocopies, which is all CBS has.

4. CBS Expert Denies Authenticating, WPost: Likely Word Processor
In what should be a devastating blow to CBS News and Dan Rather, the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz reported on Tuesday that "the lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard," Marcel Matley, "said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves." On Friday's CBS Evening News, Dan Rather had declared: "Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real." The Post duo concluded that an analysis "shows that half a dozen Killian memos released earlier by the military were written with a standard typewriter using different formatting techniques from those characteristic of computer-generated documents. CBS's Killian memos bear numerous signs that are more consistent with modern-day word-processing programs, particularly Microsoft Word."


(the above are summaries, the full text of these 4 articles can be found at the link below)

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberal...20040914.asp#1

[chideltjen]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
You've got to assume that to go that far out on a limb, they're pretty sure of their sources. Can you imagine how tough it would be to get this past the legal department? If this is a hoax, someone has done a damn good job of setting it up.

And has a lot of time on their hands...

*sigh* Someone please remind me what old military records have to do with upcoming elections and current issues?

I find all of this rediculous.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by chideltjen
And has a lot of time on their hands...

*sigh* Someone please remind me what old military records have to do with upcoming elections and current issues?

I find all of this rediculous.

We're not sure, but Kerry thinks his 4 months of service as well as any lies he can spread about Bush right now since he hired Carville have something to do with the upcoming election and current issues.

-Rudey

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by Rudey
We're not sure, but Kerry thinks his 4 months of service as well as any lies he can spread about Bush right now since he hired Carville have something to do with the upcoming election and current issues.

-Rudey

Exactly. Lets not forget how Kerry started the Dem Nat'l Convention...."This is John Kerry reporting for duty" **while saluting**

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
Exactly. Lets not forget how Kerry started the Dem Nat'l Convention...."This is John Kerry reporting for duty" **while saluting**

Not to mention the way he showed all his old Vietnam videos in that Spielberg produced movie.

[AlphaSigOU]

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6, quoting Fox News ...The Defense Department released Bush's pilot logs this week under pressure from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by The Associated Press. The logs do not explain why Bush was flying T-33s or why he twice needed multiple approaches to make landings.

It's not unusual for pilots to maintain currency flying different aircraft. The T-33 (also known as the T-Bird) was quite a common trainer aircraft at the time, especially in Guard units. Pilots must fly a minimum of five hours a month to continue receiving flight pay.

As for the multiple approaches... it was probably for maintaining instrument proficiency, not because of his piloting skill. Had his skills come into question, they woulda yanked his wings faster than anything.