Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/14/2004 7:43:12 AM EST
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
The End
The Washington Post has run an article which practically humiliates CBS and Dan Rather. It begins with a repudiation of the Killian memos by the 60 Minutes chief document expert, Marcel Matley. The Post then pronounces on the documents themselves: they are fake.

A detailed comparison by The Washington Post of memos obtained by CBS News with authenticated documents on Bush's National Guard service reveals dozens of inconsistencies, ranging from conflicting military terminology to different word-processing techniques.

The 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.

It continues unmercifully by citing the evidence of electronic typesetting expert Joseph M. Newcomer who declares "I am personally 100 percent sure that they are fake". The Washington Post goes on to detail numerous factual and formatting errors in the CBS documents, mentioning among other things, word processing characteristics, wrong addresses, styles, inconsistencies in dates before introducing the additional repudiation of key 60 Minutes source Bobby Hodges. Deserted by its original document expert, CBS is then reported to rely on a new consultant called Bill Glennon who says 'IBM electric typewriters in use in 1972 could produce superscripts and proportional spacing similar to those used in the disputed documents' before admitting that he was 'not a document expert, could not vouch for the memos' authenticity and only examined them online because CBS did not give him copies when asked to visit the network's offices.' To set against poor Mr. Glennon, the Post enters the contradictory testimony of the Adobe Company into the lists.

Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts for the Adobe company in Seattle, which helped to develop the modern Times New Roman font, disputed Glennon's statement to CBS. He said "fairly extensive testing" had convinced him that the fonts and formatting used in the CBS documents could not have been produced by the most sophisticated IBM typewriters in use in 1972, including the Selectric and the Executive. He said the two systems used fonts of different widths.

It is an unmerciful public flogging; the kind one would not wish upon a donkey. Whether or not Stanley Kurtz's theory (see the previous post) is correct, it is hard to see how CBS can maintain their story a single day longer.



# posted by wretchard : 3:35 AM 18 comments
The Truth Shall Set You Free
Stanley Kurtz at the National Review is attempting to understand why CBS will not admit using forgeries as the basis of a 60 Minutes story even when overwhelming evidence of their fraudulence is staring them in the face. His theory is that a market segment of liberals now make up the bulk of CBS's audience and it must please them at any price.

The divisions in the country are too strong. What's more, the cycle of division is self-reinforcing. First came the of the movements of the 60s. Then the media was captured by the Left. Then the conservatives started to exit, building up alternative outlets as they went. As the fundamental cultural and political issues dividing the country sharpened, more and more people started flooding to the alternative media. This self-selection process began to turn the mainstream audience into a self-consciously liberal audience. So even as complaints about liberal media bias escalated, the mainstream media was bound to become more liberal, not less liberal -- because that's what was happening to its audience. What all this means is that, given its audience, CBS News is no longer concerned about preserving it reputation for fairness. On the contrary, CBS now wants and needs to preserve its reputation for liberalism.

If Kurtz's theory is correct, then outlets like CBS are in the process of offering liberalism a cup of poison. The function of news is to provide its readership with reliable information about their own society and the events that effect it. It gives readers a way of determining effects so they can alter causes. But any information system which throws data quality checks overboard or worse, inserts fraudulent data into its stores, is creating a catastrophe for its consumers. It is axiomatic in database applications that it is better to have no data than the wrong data. By insisting on the authenticity of fraudulent documents, CBS is asserting that it is better to have wrong data than no data.

The consequences of that policy -- if Kurtz is right -- will be soon in coming. No corporation or military force can long subsist on a diet of fraudulent data because information consumers will inevitably make wrong decisions. This is traditionally what happens to dictators surrounded by toadies and sycophants. When defeat comes, they are the last to know. This danger of refusing to face the inconvenient is an equal threat to conservatives and indeed, to groups of any ideology. But conservatives have been protected from self-deception, to a certain extent, by the monumentally lucky decision to exit the Mainstream Media and create alternative outlets based on the Internet. Glenn Reynolds provides the key insight.

The Internet, on the other hand, is a low-trust environment. Ironically, that probably makes it more trustworthy.

That's because, while arguments from authority are hard on the Internet, substantiating arguments is easy, thanks to the miracle of hyperlinks. And, where things aren't linkable, you can post actual images. You can spell out your thinking, and you can back it up with lots of facts, which people then (thanks to Google, et al.) find it easy to check. And the links mean that you can do that without cluttering up your narrative too much, usually, something that's impossible on TV and nearly so in a newspaper.

(This is actually a lot like the world lawyers live in -- nobody trusts us enough to take our word for, well, much of anything, so we back things up with lots of footnotes, citations, and exhibits. Legal citation systems are even like a primitive form of hypertext, really, one that's been around for six or eight hundred years. But I digress -- except that this perhaps explains why so many lawyers take naturally to blogging).

You can also refine your arguments, updating -- and even abandoning them -- in realtime as new facts or arguments appear. It's part of the deal.

This also means admitting when you're wrong. And that's another difference. When you're a blogger, you present ideas and arguments, and see how they do. You have a reputation, and it matters, but the reputation is for playing it straight with the facts you present, not necessarily the conclusions you reach. And a big part of the reputation's component involves being willing to admit you're wrong when you present wrong facts, and to make a quick and prominent correction.

Viewed from this angle, it is easy to see the role the alternative media has played in the conservative movement. As a "mouthpiece" or "propaganda organ" the Internet is, as Stanely Kurtz points out, still largely inferior to the Mainstream Media. But as an organ of accurately understanding the world, it is vastly superior. This has allowed conservatives to outmaneuver liberals time and again, to understand, for example, that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were Vietnam; to see that the United Nations was a sham, among other things. In many ways the Mainstream Media is a liability to the liberal cause, a profoundly effective way of deceiving themselves. The Killian memos are fakes. "And that's part of our world."


Link Posted: 9/14/2004 7:51:08 AM EST
Liberal pollicy: keep telling a lie & it will become truth...
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 7:51:08 AM EST
What else does Dan Blather(Rather) & CBS(Communist Broadcasting System) have besides their reputation? Their creditability as news organization is on the line, at least in short-term, until the sheeple forgets about it. The once vaulted CBS news being the laughing stock of the news reporting industry, now that hurts.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 7:51:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/14/2004 7:52:41 AM EST by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 7:52:58 AM EST
Why does CBS refuse to admit that the Bush Memos are a fraud? Pure Nixonian stonewalling, that's why. Utter irony of ironies, if you remember how- or rather, over whose body, Dan Rather got to be a news star.....
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 7:54:50 AM EST
This is why I laugh at the attempts in the Media to panic people over the AWB repeal. They are swollowing the poisoned kool aid.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 7:58:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
If CBS and Dan Rather admit the memos are FRAUDULENT then there is no legitimate reason NOT to IDENTIFY the SOURCE of those FRAUDULENT MEMOS!

There is no reason to protect a source that is providing you with tainted or fraudulent information.

So long as they maintain that the MEMOS are genuine, they MUST protect their SOURCE!

Hmmmm?

Makes sense in a liberal-azzed sort of way!

Eric The(Blatant)Hun



Yes.

If CBS admits the documents are forgeries then huge pressure will build for CBS to reveal the source of the documents.

If this source turns out to be a high placed Democrat, DNC member, or someone in the Kerry campaign the damage to Kerry is irreversible and probably terminal.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:00:35 AM EST
Dan Rather's credibility is about as high as his ratings...
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:02:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
If CBS and Dan Rather admit the memos are FRAUDULENT then there is no legitimate reason NOT to IDENTIFY the SOURCE of those FRAUDULENT MEMOS!

There is no reason to protect a source that is providing you with tainted or fraudulent information.

So long as they maintain that the MEMOS are genuine, they MUST protect their SOURCE!

Hmmmm?

Makes sense in a liberal-azzed sort of way!

Eric The(Blatant)Hun


Once thing for sure, their super secret source sure played them for a patsy.

CBS' attitude is "I feel that the documents are real," "I feel that the documents are real;" and poof! they are real.(but the emperor has no clothes)
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:04:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By squeezecockerp7m8:
Dan Rather's credibility is about as high as his ratings...



Its not just Dan Rather and CBS. This is just the LATEST in a string of media frauds. You have to stop considering this to be a new thing and realize that this has been standard operating procedure for the big TV networks and papers for years. Perhaps as far back as Vietnam. The whole industry is corrupt. But in the face of the internet they are just marginalizing themselves.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:04:50 AM EST
Because they are a bunch of left-wing nuts who hate President Bush so much they can't think right.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:15:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By squeezecockerp7m8:
Dan Rather's credibility is about as high as his ratings...



Its not just Dan Rather and CBS. This is just the LATEST in a string of media frauds. You have to stop considering this to be a new thing and realize that this has been standard operating procedure for the big TV networks and papers for years. Perhaps as far back as Vietnam. The whole industry is corrupt. But in the face of the internet they are just marginalizing themselves.



Time Magazine had a Reporter/Staffer in Saigon who was VC (Pham Xuan An, who retired at the rank of General)



Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:15:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/14/2004 8:17:17 AM EST by lippo]



Dan Rather...[Nixon impersonation]"I'm not a crook!"[/Nixon impersonation]



Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:18:04 AM EST
The source must have Rather by the balls.

Why take so much heat when he could (and would) point the finger elsewhere.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:25:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Groovinator:
The source must have Rather by the balls.

Why take so much heat when he could (and would) point the finger elsewhere.



I'm guessing that the source is highly placed and that CBS suspected they were a fake and ran with them anyway.

If they got them from Hillary, the entire DNC will implode. If CBS intentionally used them after discovering they were fraudulent, what little credibility they ever had would go out the window. If they go public and admit the fake, they will have to do it in a Jimmy Swaggart fashion, passionately imploring virewers to forgive them with simulated tears streaming down Dan Rather's face. Then will come the big question...where did it come from?

I SAID WHERE DID IT COME FROM?! ANSWER ME DAN!
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:28:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Groovinator:
The source must have Rather by the balls.

Why take so much heat when he could (and would) point the finger elsewhere.




Who could wield such power and have such a viselike grasp???

<­BR>



Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:31:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/14/2004 8:32:52 AM EST by Max_Mike]

Once thing for sure, their super secret source sure played them for a patsy.

CBS' attitude is "I feel that the documents are real," "I feel that the documents are real;" and poof! they are real.(but the emperor has no clothes)



I don’t believe for one minute Dan Rather was played for a patsy. I suspect Rather played CBS for the patsy.

Ben Barnes the central “witness” in the 60 Minutes allegations against the President is a personal friend of Rather’s, he has been for years. Ben Barnes is one of Kerry’s top money raisers and highly involved in the Kerry campaign. Rather has attended and spoke at Democratic Party fund raisers in TX that Barnes and his family have hosted. I find it hard to believe that if CBS knew this they would have let Rather front this story, CBS would have given it to someone else.

Rather got these memos from somewhere and there are indications some of his people told him the documents were suspect and that you cannot authenticate copies of documents. Did he pass this up the food chain?

Rather knew exactly what he was doing the question is did his bosses. Rather has done this kind of thing before and got away with it, ten years ago he would have gotten away with this. Rather operated the way he always operates… this time he got caught.

If Rather got these memos from a high placed Democrat my guess is he would rather and try and ride it out or even go down that admit the truth and open up that hornets nest. It is very likely a case can be made it is a felony to knowingly used forged documents to try and influence a federal election.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:32:11 AM EST
Why not admit it?

1) Many journalists hold the concept of source-confidentiality as a bedrock principle of the profession. Revelation of the memos as false will call the source into doubt, which gives CBS one of two detrimental choices: to reveal the source, and crack the bedrock principle as well as their own credibility, or keep the source confidential, which will then create a breach of trust in future dissemination of information from 'confidential sources, as well as damage their own credibility.

2) The undertow war between the 'mainstream media' (MM) and 'alternative media' has been ongoing for quite some time now, especially with some of the comments (pajamas anyone?) made by the luminaries of the MM against their alternate bretheren (or bastard red headed step children, if you're a member of the MM). To admit that the documents are fake is more than just admitting that the MM erred....it will be MM admitting that alternative media not only can do their job, but can do it better, and faster. It is exactly the sort of ammunition that will further damage their credibility.

3) I believe this part was covered in one of the blogs quite well (I think Instapundit), but the mainstream media stands to lose just as much as the Democrats if Bush is re-elected. Bush does not have the level of respect most in the mainstream media feel a Preseident should have for the 'fourth branch of government' (or is that fifth column?). He has openly attacked on several occasions the viability and credibility of the MM as a necessary part of the political process. Four more years of this will further erode the 'power' the MM believes it has over the events that shape this nation. A Kerry presidency will, in essence, return things to 'the way they're supposed to be'.

To sum most of it up......CBS is going to stick to it's guns as long as humanly possible because to admit it screwed up with be the first step of admitting itself out of a job.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:32:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By rn45:
Originally Posted By The_Groovinator:
The source must have Rather by the balls.

I SAID WHERE DID IT COME FROM?! ANSWER ME DAN!

ANSWER ME! WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY? WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY, DAMMIT? ANSWER ME DAN!!!

gawd I love watching CBS squirm... guess now they know how it feels to be on the receiveing end of an investigative "probe"

Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:35:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Once thing for sure, their super secret source sure played them for a patsy.

CBS' attitude is "I feel that the documents are real," "I feel that the documents are real;" and poof! they are real.(but the emperor has no clothes)


If Rather got these memos from a high placed Democrat my guess is he would rather and try and ride it out or even go down that admit the truth and open up that hornets nest. It is very likely a case can be made it is a felony to knowingly used forged documents to try and influence a federal election.


I would like othing more than to see guy in prison stripes(figurtively speaking of course) instead of pin stripes; in reality discredited and with a felony conviction.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:44:40 AM EST

To sum most of it up......CBS is going to stick to it's guns as long as humanly possible because to admit it screwed up with be the first step of admitting itself out of a job.



I cant agree with that. If CBS managment stood up, apologized, and fired Rather and his staff then they could prolong their life as a viable entity, fighting is only going to accelerate their irrelevence.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:48:01 AM EST
In the immortal words of the great George Kostanza:

"It's not a lie...if you believe it."
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:50:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By The_Groovinator:
The source must have Rather by the balls.

Why take so much heat when he could (and would) point the finger elsewhere.




Who could wield such power and have such a viselike grasp???



Could that viselike grip be Hillery's hand on Rathers family jewels???
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:57:06 AM EST
They're looking for a fall guy. It will never land on a grand dragon of the DNC.
The documents look like they were photo copied way too many times. I bet a test could be done to see if the exact same photo copier did all the renditions through a chaos theory behind the image readers pixel spread.
It would be way too complicated for the average person to understand.

Not to mention the signatures don't match up.
-Steve
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 10:00:28 AM EST
Legal ramifications. They are in big legal trouble over this and their lawyers are no doubt working overtime looking for a way to minimize damage. CBS suffers both ways--if they let the story stand they suffer but if they fire Rather and his producers they can sue (as the worthless CNN producers did when Peter Arnett ran the bogus story about the Green Berets using nerve gas in Laos).

GunLvr
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 10:21:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By The_Groovinator:
The source must have Rather by the balls.

Why take so much heat when he could (and would) point the finger elsewhere.




Who could wield such power and have such a viselike grasp???

They're holding the vise that tight because they can't let go...It's like hanging on to a tiger by its tail. If they let go, and are denounced, the entire Broadcast News Industry will be tainted once and for all. And now for the 1st time there is a genuine alternative to the broadcast media...The internet news blogs, w/it's 100k's researchers, lack of censors, it's self correcting biases, etc. The broadcast media may just shrivel up and die. So in essence the entire broadcast media want CBS to hand on. The pressure to hang on must be INTENSE.

<­BR>


Link Posted: 9/14/2004 10:27:38 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 10:28:22 AM EST
I think the memos are SO fake that this doesn't really make sense.

Unless.

Unless the DEMOCRATS WANT the memos to have been found to be forged and the WANT to have it land on Kerry.

Anyone remember Torrecelli/Lautenberg back in '02?

Torrecelli was in trouble over ethics stuff, and was polling badly.

Kerry is polling badly.

In '02 the Democrats figured out a way to "replace" the Torch on the ballot.

In '04 have they done the same thing?

Is Dan Rather taking one for the team, standing as a patsy so as to give Kerry the hook and let someone else jump on the Democratic ticket for '04. (HRC anyone?)

Ok, I'll take off the tinfoil now. But it is just astounding how fake these are!

Link Posted: 9/14/2004 10:32:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 10:35:04 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 10:39:32 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 10:43:49 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 10:44:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/14/2004 10:58:01 AM EST by W-W]
I'll bet the memos were done by some young (Post Microsoft age) DNC staffer(s) who had a "bright" idea. He/She/They will eventually take it in the neck. They likely ran it thru a Senior DNC Staffer and an Exec level staffer who then gave his/her (verbal) approval to release it to CBS. The senior DNC'er will likely skate and the executive DNC'er who ultimately approved it will ABSOLUTELY get away with it.

The exec who ran this scam will ulitmately wind up on Hillary's staff in '08 as payback.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 10:53:37 AM EST
I've been sending feedback to CBS calling for Rather's resignation.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 2:30:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/14/2004 2:31:22 PM EST by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 4:28:03 PM EST
I think the situation is this:
CBS got scammed.
In order to be scammed, you have to WANT something to be true, and CBS/Rather have had a case against Republicans in general and Bush's in particular.

CBS probably got the documents from somebody they knew and trusted. Somebody they never dreamed would pass phony papers.

They desperately WANTED the documents to be true, and simply accepted them without doing adequate checks.
CBS wasn't engaged in any wild conspiracy, they were just predisposed to believe something like this, and it meshed nicely with their prejudices.

Caught, CBS/Rather tried to stonewall and fog the whole thing away, which hasn't worked.

CBS now finds itself in this situation:
They have impugned and questioned the honesty and integrity of a sitting president, during an election.
They used documents they failed to INSURE were true, likely COPIES, NOT originals which is just plain stupid.

They had the documents "verified" by two "experts" who now turn out to be a totally unqualified New Age psycho-babble signature "interpreter" and (honest to God) a typewriter REPAIRMAN, as it turns out.

Called on it, CBS/Rather incredibly says it's NOT up to them to prove the documents are real, it's up to others to prove they're NOT.

If you make charges like this against a sitting president, you HAVE to be ready, willing, and able to furnish absolute PROOF positive.
Copies and "experts" won't cut it.

Having stonewalled and fogged for so long, if CBS now admits they were hoaxed, there is no way they can't NOT tell who gave the documents to them.
Remember, keeping sources confidential only holds for GOOD sources. Scammers and hoaxers are "outed" as a matter of principle. They give up confidentiality when they take advantage of the hoaxee.

This is the key: WHO.
Likely, the guilt party or parties is someone traceable back to the Democratic party, or even to the Kerry Campaign.

If either is the case, Kerry's campaign collapses, and he couldn't get elected dogcatcher.

I think CBS is trying to keep the lid on in order to keep from being forced to expose the source, which in turn will put CBS/Rather in the position of having sunk Kerry and re-elected the hated Bush.

CBS is now trapped, caught "betwixt and between".
They can't sustain the story, but they dare not admit they were hoaxed and expose the hoaxer.

CBS/Rather will continue attempting to fog, divert, and bait and switch the facts.

When the CBS management announces a non-partial investigation, you'll know the jig is up, and some kind of retraction is coming.

However, DO NOT expect Rather to be fired, and I don't expect him to quit.
Nor should you expect a genuine apology to Bush.
CBS/Rather will simply try to brass it out.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 4:39:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By faris:
I think the situation is this:
CBS got scammed.
In order to be scammed, you have to WANT something to be true, and CBS/Rather have had a case against Republicans in general and Bush's in particular.

CBS probably got the documents from somebody they knew and trusted. Somebody they never dreamed would pass phony papers.

They desperately WANTED the documents to be true, and simply accepted them without doing adequate checks.
CBS wasn't engaged in any wild conspiracy, they were just predisposed to believe something like this, and it meshed nicely with their prejudices.

Caught, CBS/Rather tried to stonewall and fog the whole thing away, which hasn't worked.

CBS now finds itself in this situation:
They have impugned and questioned the honesty and integrity of a sitting president, during an election.
They used documents they failed to INSURE were true, likely COPIES, NOT originals which is just plain stupid.

They had the documents "verified" by two "experts" who now turn out to be a totally unqualified New Age psycho-babble signature "interpreter" and (honest to God) a typewriter REPAIRMAN, as it turns out.

Called on it, CBS/Rather incredibly says it's NOT up to them to prove the documents are real, it's up to others to prove they're NOT.

If you make charges like this against a sitting president, you HAVE to be ready, willing, and able to furnish absolute PROOF positive.
Copies and "experts" won't cut it.

Having stonewalled and fogged for so long, if CBS now admits they were hoaxed, there is no way they can't NOT tell who gave the documents to them.
Remember, keeping sources confidential only holds for GOOD sources. Scammers and hoaxers are "outed" as a matter of principle. They give up confidentiality when they take advantage of the hoaxee.

This is the key: WHO.
Likely, the guilt party or parties is someone traceable back to the Democratic party, or even to the Kerry Campaign.

If either is the case, Kerry's campaign collapses, and he couldn't get elected dogcatcher.

I think CBS is trying to keep the lid on in order to keep from being forced to expose the source, which in turn will put CBS/Rather in the position of having sunk Kerry and re-elected the hated Bush.

CBS is now trapped, caught "betwixt and between".
They can't sustain the story, but they dare not admit they were hoaxed and expose the hoaxer.

CBS/Rather will continue attempting to fog, divert, and bait and switch the facts.

When the CBS management announces a non-partial investigation, you'll know the jig is up, and some kind of retraction is coming.

However, DO NOT expect Rather to be fired, and I don't expect him to quit.
Nor should you expect a genuine apology to Bush.
CBS/Rather will simply try to brass it out.




+1000
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 4:42:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By captainpooby:

Originally Posted By faris:
I think the situation is this:
CBS got scammed.
In order to be scammed, you have to WANT something to be true, and CBS/Rather have had a case against Republicans in general and Bush's in particular.

CBS probably got the documents from somebody they knew and trusted. Somebody they never dreamed would pass phony papers.

They desperately WANTED the documents to be true, and simply accepted them without doing adequate checks.
CBS wasn't engaged in any wild conspiracy, they were just predisposed to believe something like this, and it meshed nicely with their prejudices.

Caught, CBS/Rather tried to stonewall and fog the whole thing away, which hasn't worked.

CBS now finds itself in this situation:
They have impugned and questioned the honesty and integrity of a sitting president, during an election.
They used documents they failed to INSURE were true, likely COPIES, NOT originals which is just plain stupid.

They had the documents "verified" by two "experts" who now turn out to be a totally unqualified New Age psycho-babble signature "interpreter" and (honest to God) a typewriter REPAIRMAN, as it turns out.

Called on it, CBS/Rather incredibly says it's NOT up to them to prove the documents are real, it's up to others to prove they're NOT.

If you make charges like this against a sitting president, you HAVE to be ready, willing, and able to furnish absolute PROOF positive.
Copies and "experts" won't cut it.

Having stonewalled and fogged for so long, if CBS now admits they were hoaxed, there is no way they can't NOT tell who gave the documents to them.
Remember, keeping sources confidential only holds for GOOD sources. Scammers and hoaxers are "outed" as a matter of principle. They give up confidentiality when they take advantage of the hoaxee.

This is the key: WHO.
Likely, the guilt party or parties is someone traceable back to the Democratic party, or even to the Kerry Campaign.

If either is the case, Kerry's campaign collapses, and he couldn't get elected dogcatcher.

I think CBS is trying to keep the lid on in order to keep from being forced to expose the source, which in turn will put CBS/Rather in the position of having sunk Kerry and re-elected the hated Bush.

CBS is now trapped, caught "betwixt and between".
They can't sustain the story, but they dare not admit they were hoaxed and expose the hoaxer.

CBS/Rather will continue attempting to fog, divert, and bait and switch the facts.

When the CBS management announces a non-partial investigation, you'll know the jig is up, and some kind of retraction is coming.

However, DO NOT expect Rather to be fired, and I don't expect him to quit.
Nor should you expect a genuine apology to Bush.
CBS/Rather will simply try to brass it out.




+1000



Thing is they are not just destroying CBS's credability, but all of the TV networks.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 4:50:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By redpine:
Liberal pollicy: keep telling a lie & it will become truth...



Like watergate? Oh yeah, that was a republican.....

Look, I have been known to be uncertain who I was going to vote for this Nov., at this point I am leaning toward GWB, but EVERYONE lies, libs, cons, neocons, libertarians, republicans, democrats, and Ross Perot. And Dan Rather. I am convinced CBS knows full well they totally screwed up, and now are intentionally covering it up, but don't attribute the willingness to lie to liberals lest conservatives be painted with the same broad Nixonian brush.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 5:00:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tortfeasor:

Originally Posted By redpine:
Liberal pollicy: keep telling a lie & it will become truth...



Like watergate? Oh yeah, that was a republican.....

Look, I have been known to be uncertain who I was going to vote for this Nov., at this point I am leaning toward GWB, but EVERYONE lies, libs, cons, neocons, libertarians, republicans, democrats, and Ross Perot. And Dan Rather. I am convinced CBS knows full well they totally screwed up, and now are intentionally covering it up, but don't attribute the willingness to lie to liberals lest conservatives be painted with the same broad Nixonian brush.



And Rather was around when they were crucifying Nixon, was he not?

The 60 minutes team has righteous indignation whenever anyone else lies, but when they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar they do the very thing that they would annihilate a victim subject of a 60 Minutes piece.

They are liars and hypocrites and they had the stones to run Laura Bush stating that she thinks they (the forged NG memo) were "probably fakes"

Way to go CBS, go after a guys wife when you have to divert attention from yourselves (they made no mention of experts all over, including the WashPost denouncing the memo as a total fake)

What a bunch of cowards.

(and isn't it odd that they investigated & questioned the hell out of the Swift Boat stories veracity, yet ran with this college freshman level fraud when it suited their agenda)

Link Posted: 9/14/2004 5:24:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/14/2004 5:25:10 PM EST by PaDanby]
Rather got scammed (at best, at worst he participated), so let's assume he isn't stupid enough to do this himself. He knows that CBS would crucify him to save their skin.

But now his ego is standing in the way.

As far as protecting a source, that goes for a source that is providing valid information. A Source that is purposefully giving you bad info has no expectation of being protect and shouldn't be protected. Now what you have is a situation that will cause any future anonymous source to have instant credibility problems for all media. They have to give him/her up to show they value the valid source and discourage future sources that purposefully try to manipulate them

I agree that the source and divulging it will be a disaster for the Kerry camp. They already have crdibility problems, and this , well there isn't any but the most died in the wool Bush haters that will trust them anymore.

Nah, it ain't Hillary or her camp. But somebody tied into the DNC and one or more of the 527s, now that I would believe.

And no legal liaability, they really didn't slander the President in any way actionable.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 5:28:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Thing is they are not just destroying CBS's credability, but all of the TV networks.



Considering that the major TV networks (and big media in general) have always liked to portray themselves as some sort of unimpeachable arbiter of the truth, how is destroying their credibility a bad thing?

The rest of the networks and media outlets will try to distance themselves from this episode, but it will make most of their viewers/readers less likely to blindly accept their view of the world.

God, I love the internet.
Top Top