From www.AndrewSullivan.com:
"RATHER AND HEYWARD MUST GO: I have to say that the risible statement given by CBS News last night finally did it for me. Who do these people think they are? They have failed to find a single expert who will back the authenticity of the memos; their own experts say they warned CBS not to go with the story; Killian's secretary thinks they're fakes ... and yet Rather and Heyward say they stand by their story and will continue to investigate the provenance and dubiousness of the forgeries! This beggars belief. How do I put this to Rather: it doesn't matter if the underlying story is true. All that matters is that CBS's evidence is fake. Get it? End of story. For what it's worth: I believe Bush got into the Guard because of his dad's connections. I believe he probably didn't perform his duties adequately in his final two years. When I first read the CBS story, I thought the docs were 'devastating.' I'm not backing this president for re-election. But all that is completely beside the frigging point. Journalists are supposed to provide accurate evidence for their claims. CBS didn't. And its response to the critics is to stonewall and try and change the subject. The correct response - the one they'd teach you in kindergarten journalism class - is immediately to check the authenticity of the documents as best you can, and if the doubts persist, to apologize immediately and yank the story. Can you imagine what CBS News would do if a government official found to be peddling fake documents refused to acknowledge it? And kept repeating his story nonetheless? They'd be all over it. But, you see, they are above politicians. They are above criticism. And they are stratospheres above bloggers who caught them red-handed.
THE COUP DE GRACE: And then this astonishing statement from Rather to Howie Kurtz:
'If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story. Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, 'Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.''
Memo to Rather: you can't break that story, because someone else in pajamas already did. Check the frequency, Kenneth. You are so far from being out front on this, you are leagues behind in the dust. Have you heard of the Internet? You can find it on that weird machine in your office they call a computer. All this proves is the fathomless cocooning of Rather and Heyward. They still think this is the 1980s. They have no idea what media world they are living in. Like Howell Raines, they are so out of it, they don't even know they're finished. Above all, they are not acting as journalists. They are acting as political operators, determined to win a news cycle, to inflict as much damage on their opponents as possible, while stonewalling on their own glaring, obvious errors. So this is a test of the blogosphere. We have to keep at these guys day and night to force them to live up to the most basic ethical requirements of their profession. After all this stonewalling and arrogance, an apology and retraction will no longer suffice. These guys have to resign or be fired. "
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Protein-Wisdom's Humorous Take on Dan Rather's Forgeries and CBS's Cover-Up
A friendly reminder to the folks at CBS and their apologists...:
"If they were done in Word, your defense is absurd...
"If the reporter is Rather,
then the news is pure blather....
"Rather lied...
CBS died ."
"If they were done in Word, your defense is absurd...
"If the reporter is Rather,
then the news is pure blather....
"Rather lied...
CBS died ."
Power Line's Class Act
They've shown a lot of class in their responses to Dan Rather and CBS. Here's a sample fromPower Line:
"Every morning another batch of op-eds credits us, along with other bloggers like Charles Johnson and the Freepers, with bringing down the CBS News empire. I'm told that tonight they were showing screen shots of Power Line on the NBC Nightly News. That's fun and gratifying, of course, but we don't want you to think that it's going to our heads. I was on the Hugh Hewitt show tonight, and Hugh asked whether I was surprised at the hate we were getting from the establishment media. I said not at all; on the other hand, I was surprised at how much credit we were getting from so many sources. Too much credit: as I told Hugh, the real credit belongs to our readers, not us. We knew nothing about military protocol, type fonts of the '70s, when General Staudt retired, and so on. The power of the blogosphere (more properly, the internet) does not lie in a handful of bloggers with well-read sites. It resides in the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of smart, well-informed, engaged readers who, collectively, have amazing knowledge and expertise in just about any area you can think of. What is new is the ability to bring together these disparate sources of knowledge, analyze them, and disseminate them in real time. We help to do this, but on a big, fast-breaking story like this one, the real impetus comes from our readers--a point we make in every interview we give.
Along with the thanks, an apology. Over the last week, we have been absolutely inundated with emails. This was great, and we were able to use some of them to push the CBS story forward. But they overflowed our inbox, and at times stopped coming in until we could clear out more space. We tried to read them all, but I'm sure we missed some, and we couldn't begin to respond to more than a handful. Our site was actually down, briefly, yesterday because of the bottleneck in our email account. So please don't be offended if you've emailed us and we haven't responded; it just hasn't been humanly possible. At the same time, don't stop sending us your thoughts and information, as emails from our readers are where we get lots of our best stuff.
So, thanks again to the people who make the blogosphere the powerful force it has become: our readers."
"Every morning another batch of op-eds credits us, along with other bloggers like Charles Johnson and the Freepers, with bringing down the CBS News empire. I'm told that tonight they were showing screen shots of Power Line on the NBC Nightly News. That's fun and gratifying, of course, but we don't want you to think that it's going to our heads. I was on the Hugh Hewitt show tonight, and Hugh asked whether I was surprised at the hate we were getting from the establishment media. I said not at all; on the other hand, I was surprised at how much credit we were getting from so many sources. Too much credit: as I told Hugh, the real credit belongs to our readers, not us. We knew nothing about military protocol, type fonts of the '70s, when General Staudt retired, and so on. The power of the blogosphere (more properly, the internet) does not lie in a handful of bloggers with well-read sites. It resides in the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of smart, well-informed, engaged readers who, collectively, have amazing knowledge and expertise in just about any area you can think of. What is new is the ability to bring together these disparate sources of knowledge, analyze them, and disseminate them in real time. We help to do this, but on a big, fast-breaking story like this one, the real impetus comes from our readers--a point we make in every interview we give.
Along with the thanks, an apology. Over the last week, we have been absolutely inundated with emails. This was great, and we were able to use some of them to push the CBS story forward. But they overflowed our inbox, and at times stopped coming in until we could clear out more space. We tried to read them all, but I'm sure we missed some, and we couldn't begin to respond to more than a handful. Our site was actually down, briefly, yesterday because of the bottleneck in our email account. So please don't be offended if you've emailed us and we haven't responded; it just hasn't been humanly possible. At the same time, don't stop sending us your thoughts and information, as emails from our readers are where we get lots of our best stuff.
So, thanks again to the people who make the blogosphere the powerful force it has become: our readers."
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Wall Street Journal v. The New York Times
From OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today:
"All the News That's Fake but Accurate: Today's New York Times has an update on the scandal over Dan Rather's use of fraudulent documents in last week's hit piece on President Bush. Oddly, the Times piece lacks a byline, but it has what may be the greatest headline ever: 'Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says.' Fake but accurate! If this is the New York Times' new standard of journalism, does it apply to all stories, or only the ones that seek to make President Bush look bad?"
"All the News That's Fake but Accurate: Today's New York Times has an update on the scandal over Dan Rather's use of fraudulent documents in last week's hit piece on President Bush. Oddly, the Times piece lacks a byline, but it has what may be the greatest headline ever: 'Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says.' Fake but accurate! If this is the New York Times' new standard of journalism, does it apply to all stories, or only the ones that seek to make President Bush look bad?"
Andrew Sullivan on Dan Rather's Forgeries (cont'd)
From www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish:
"RATHER IS GOING DOWN: This new story seems to me to show reckless indifference to the truth in the pursuit of political pay-dirt. Honestly, you can't make this stuff up. If a couple of years back, someone had predicted that a) Howell Raines would be brought down by a fabricating affirmative action hire; b) the BBC would lose its director-general because of shoddy anti-war propaganda tarted up as journalism; and c) that Dan Rather would flame out over forged documents designed to wreak revenge on the Bush family; then I would think it was Brent Bozell having a wet dream. But it's all true. Bernie Goldberg, pour yourself a drink. Eric Alterman, just go home and cry. "
"RATHER IS GOING DOWN: This new story seems to me to show reckless indifference to the truth in the pursuit of political pay-dirt. Honestly, you can't make this stuff up. If a couple of years back, someone had predicted that a) Howell Raines would be brought down by a fabricating affirmative action hire; b) the BBC would lose its director-general because of shoddy anti-war propaganda tarted up as journalism; and c) that Dan Rather would flame out over forged documents designed to wreak revenge on the Bush family; then I would think it was Brent Bozell having a wet dream. But it's all true. Bernie Goldberg, pour yourself a drink. Eric Alterman, just go home and cry. "
Jim Lehrer and the Weakness of the Blogosphere
Jim Lehrer just reported the CBS forgery scandal--apparently taking the side of CBS. After quoting Laura Bush saying the documents are probably forgeries, he concluded by saying "the memos" did something or other. But they are NOT memos if they are forgeries. By calling them "memos" rather than "alleged memos", Lehrer sided with Rather--even though they are obvious forgeries; yet Lehrer did not report any evidence that showed that they were forgeries. Plus, he reported the fraudulent claims of the forged memos as fact. Shame, Shame Shame. Jim Lehrer should know better.
This is the type of story that Terence Smith the "media correspondent" would normally cover. He's a former CBS News producer, and should know where the bodies are buried. Let's see how long it takes for him to host a segment...
Frankly, this all shows not the strength, but the weakness of the blogosphere. Keith Olbermann's MSNBC performance, documented by the Media Research Center (scroll down for link), showed that it is possible to ignore the facts and repeat ad hominem insults directed at bloggers, as host of a major news program on a cable network--owned in part by Microsoft, which should in principle be on the side of bloggers, simply because bloggers are more likely to make the purchasing decisions about computer software than CBS anchormen--rather than deal with the facts, that Dan Rather has been defending a crude and unconvincing forgery. Here's the Olbermann quote, from the MRC website: "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?"
Well, the only rat I smell is Keith Olbermann. But don't look for any negative consequences to his career for joining in a smear job against the blogosphere. He can see which way the wind is blowing in media land. It was Dan Rather, on CBS, who called characterized bloggers and their supporters as "partisan political operatives," on Monday's CBS Evening News, according to the MRC. And after five days, CBS has still not corrected the record. Of course, PBS has not done any independent reporting on this controversy, either.
So, when Jim Lehrer sides with Dan Rather--and nowadays Lehrer is perhaps the most trusted anchor in America, filling the shoes of Walter Cronkite--what does this mean? Even PBS, which by law must be fair, balanced, and objective in all matters of public controversy, in the most balanced program on PBS, cannot report the truth; namely that Dan Rather peddled forged documents on the evening news to smear President Bush. The major media are able to ignore the facts, and hunker down till it all blows over. That doesn't show the strength of the blogosphere, rather that the major media, including PBS, plan to marginalize "guys in pajamas" as right-wingers who can be ignored.
Will CBS and its supporters in the maintream media succeed? So far,they have. Even the Washington Post today, which basically admitted the facts of the case prove forgery, didn't criticize CBS. The next move will have to take place outside the blogosphere or the media, the issue taken to a higher level...
UPDATE: Here' the transcript, which I just made from the RealPlayer file on the Newshour Website:
On Monday, First Lady Laura Bush dismissed National Guard memos reported last week by CBS News. She said they probably are altered, and they probably are forgeries, as some experts maintain. The memos said Mr. Bush ignored orders to take a physical exam and keep his pilot statuts.
Note it is only Laura Bush's word and some unnamed experts against CBS News. Lehrer is clearly siding with Rather, coming back to the fraudulent contents of the forged documents, treating them as legitimate.
Pathetic.
This is the type of story that Terence Smith the "media correspondent" would normally cover. He's a former CBS News producer, and should know where the bodies are buried. Let's see how long it takes for him to host a segment...
Frankly, this all shows not the strength, but the weakness of the blogosphere. Keith Olbermann's MSNBC performance, documented by the Media Research Center (scroll down for link), showed that it is possible to ignore the facts and repeat ad hominem insults directed at bloggers, as host of a major news program on a cable network--owned in part by Microsoft, which should in principle be on the side of bloggers, simply because bloggers are more likely to make the purchasing decisions about computer software than CBS anchormen--rather than deal with the facts, that Dan Rather has been defending a crude and unconvincing forgery. Here's the Olbermann quote, from the MRC website: "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?"
Well, the only rat I smell is Keith Olbermann. But don't look for any negative consequences to his career for joining in a smear job against the blogosphere. He can see which way the wind is blowing in media land. It was Dan Rather, on CBS, who called characterized bloggers and their supporters as "partisan political operatives," on Monday's CBS Evening News, according to the MRC. And after five days, CBS has still not corrected the record. Of course, PBS has not done any independent reporting on this controversy, either.
So, when Jim Lehrer sides with Dan Rather--and nowadays Lehrer is perhaps the most trusted anchor in America, filling the shoes of Walter Cronkite--what does this mean? Even PBS, which by law must be fair, balanced, and objective in all matters of public controversy, in the most balanced program on PBS, cannot report the truth; namely that Dan Rather peddled forged documents on the evening news to smear President Bush. The major media are able to ignore the facts, and hunker down till it all blows over. That doesn't show the strength of the blogosphere, rather that the major media, including PBS, plan to marginalize "guys in pajamas" as right-wingers who can be ignored.
Will CBS and its supporters in the maintream media succeed? So far,they have. Even the Washington Post today, which basically admitted the facts of the case prove forgery, didn't criticize CBS. The next move will have to take place outside the blogosphere or the media, the issue taken to a higher level...
John Kerry Reaches Out to Business
By John Kerry, from The Wall Street Journal:
"As I travel across this country, I meet store owners, stock traders, factory foremen and optimistic entrepreneurs. Their experiences may be different, but they all agree that America can do better under an administration that is better for business. Business leaders like Warren Buffett, Lee Iacocca and Robert Rubin are joining my campaign because they believe that American businesses will do better if we change our CEO."
"As I travel across this country, I meet store owners, stock traders, factory foremen and optimistic entrepreneurs. Their experiences may be different, but they all agree that America can do better under an administration that is better for business. Business leaders like Warren Buffett, Lee Iacocca and Robert Rubin are joining my campaign because they believe that American businesses will do better if we change our CEO."
German Report Charges Syrians Provide Poison Gas to Sudan
It's in German, somehow appropriate for a story about mass killings with poison gas, this time in the Sudan. Syrien testet chemische Waffen an Sudanern. If the report is true, one might ask: Where did Syria get these Weapons of Mass Destruction? Iraq, perhaps?
Bloggers on TV Talking about Dan Rather's Forgeries
You can read transcripts of Powerline with Brit Hume and Instapundit with Paula Zahn ondoubletoothpicks.com. A very interesting explanation of what blogging is about, from two very big bloggers...
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
CBS Was Told Documents Were Fake Before Broadcast
From Jim Geraghty:
"Just when you think the story couldn't get any more devastating for CBS, it gets worse. A round of applause to ABC's Brian Ross, who ate his Wheaties today and got the most stunning story of this entire scandal, the revelation that CBS ignored experts who said the documents were fake before the initial broadcast."
"Just when you think the story couldn't get any more devastating for CBS, it gets worse. A round of applause to ABC's Brian Ross, who ate his Wheaties today and got the most stunning story of this entire scandal, the revelation that CBS ignored experts who said the documents were fake before the initial broadcast."
John Kerry's Vietnam After-Action Report
Via Matt Drudge, from NewsCentral.tv. Note the reference to "spider holes".
Andrew Sullivan on Dan Rather
From The New Republic:
"What's riveting has been the reaction of CBS. Like Howell Raines and the directors of the BBC before him, Dan Rather seems to believe that journalism is some kind of caste profession, a calling that no amateur blogger can aspire to."
"What's riveting has been the reaction of CBS. Like Howell Raines and the directors of the BBC before him, Dan Rather seems to believe that journalism is some kind of caste profession, a calling that no amateur blogger can aspire to."
Canada Declares War on US (sort of)
From The Diplomad:
"One of our Diplomads attended a Canadian National Day reception, July 1, at a major hotel in a large city in the Far Abroad. It was a standard evening dip reception, to wit, carved ice swan, gummy canapes, warm drinks, and lots of inane banter among several hundred milling guests. Canadians are generally gracious hosts and traditionally hard to distinguish from their southern neighbors -- until they say "out" or "house," that is. But of late, and certainly at this event, they seem determined to ensure that there is no confusion, that the definition of Canada is "We're not the USA." At this reception, our Diplomad got cornered by a slightly tipsy Canadian aid worker (CIDA) who proceeded to give a weird version of US-Canadian relations which involved an apparently widely held Canadian view that Canada has defeated the United States in war, "We are the only the country to have defeated the United States in two declared (sic) wars." Our Diplomad, being a diplomat, held his tongue and didn't get into the details of these wars, such as noting that, yes, the Americans and British on several occasions fought battles in what is now Canada, and, yes, Americans lost some but won others, and in the end the Americans gained their independence (The Revolutionary War) and then successfully kept it (War of 1812.) Our noble Diplomad didn't launch into a description of Perry's victory on the Great Lakes over a "Canadian" invasion fleet or Old Hickory's victory over the "Canadian" army at New Orleans. Our Diplomad -- gracious, as are all our Diplomads -- limited his riposte to the ever polite, "Any time you want a rematch, let us know.""
"One of our Diplomads attended a Canadian National Day reception, July 1, at a major hotel in a large city in the Far Abroad. It was a standard evening dip reception, to wit, carved ice swan, gummy canapes, warm drinks, and lots of inane banter among several hundred milling guests. Canadians are generally gracious hosts and traditionally hard to distinguish from their southern neighbors -- until they say "out" or "house," that is. But of late, and certainly at this event, they seem determined to ensure that there is no confusion, that the definition of Canada is "We're not the USA." At this reception, our Diplomad got cornered by a slightly tipsy Canadian aid worker (CIDA) who proceeded to give a weird version of US-Canadian relations which involved an apparently widely held Canadian view that Canada has defeated the United States in war, "We are the only the country to have defeated the United States in two declared (sic) wars." Our Diplomad, being a diplomat, held his tongue and didn't get into the details of these wars, such as noting that, yes, the Americans and British on several occasions fought battles in what is now Canada, and, yes, Americans lost some but won others, and in the end the Americans gained their independence (The Revolutionary War) and then successfully kept it (War of 1812.) Our noble Diplomad didn't launch into a description of Perry's victory on the Great Lakes over a "Canadian" invasion fleet or Old Hickory's victory over the "Canadian" army at New Orleans. Our Diplomad -- gracious, as are all our Diplomads -- limited his riposte to the ever polite, "Any time you want a rematch, let us know.""
New York Will Rise Again
Says Vartan Gregorian:
"NEW YORK--When I first arrived in New York City in 1956 (by way of Tabriz, Iran, where I was born, and via Beirut, Lebanon, on my way to Stanford University), the New York I encountered was awesome as well as mind-blowing--even if that term hadn't been invented yet. I wrote to my sister in Tabriz that this city was a gigantic magnet attracting everything and everyone, every idea, every bit of energy, every scrap of power. It still is.
"The past several days have seen many commemorations of the terror attacks of three years ago. These events focused on the grief, the calamity and the slaughter of innocents. This was entirely appropriate, for we should never forget what happened that day.
"But we shouldn't lose sight of the other side of 9/11, either: the tremendous strength, dynamism and resiliency of New York. This is a proud, self-confident, busy, determined and impatient place that simply cannot be cowed or bowed. Within hours of the attacks, there was little question in anyone's mind that soon the city would be back about its business."
"NEW YORK--When I first arrived in New York City in 1956 (by way of Tabriz, Iran, where I was born, and via Beirut, Lebanon, on my way to Stanford University), the New York I encountered was awesome as well as mind-blowing--even if that term hadn't been invented yet. I wrote to my sister in Tabriz that this city was a gigantic magnet attracting everything and everyone, every idea, every bit of energy, every scrap of power. It still is.
"The past several days have seen many commemorations of the terror attacks of three years ago. These events focused on the grief, the calamity and the slaughter of innocents. This was entirely appropriate, for we should never forget what happened that day.
"But we shouldn't lose sight of the other side of 9/11, either: the tremendous strength, dynamism and resiliency of New York. This is a proud, self-confident, busy, determined and impatient place that simply cannot be cowed or bowed. Within hours of the attacks, there was little question in anyone's mind that soon the city would be back about its business."
Islam Has No Answers for Modern Iraq
From Zeyad, in Healing Iraq:
"Waiting for clerics and leaders of Islam to condemn violence might take forever. The reason is that there is no ONE Islam that all Muslims today adhere to. There is a multitude of sects, cults and groups that constitute what we call Islam, the followers of which can range from tens of millions to a few thousands. Even within the same sect there can be fundamental differences in interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith. Rival clerics from the same sect can hold highly contradicting opinions on a matter as simple as washing yourself before prayers.
"Muslim jurists over the last 14 centuries have gone into every small detail of life that one could imagine without ever attempting to address the fundamental or controversial differences. Hundreds of thick volumes have been written about what is najis (filthy) and what is not, which hand you should use to wipe yourself with after defecating and which one to use when eating, whether it is acceptable or not to kiss a woman when she is menstruating, whether to wash one's hands again after touching the robe of a non-muslim before prayers (there are actually two answers to that depending on whether your hand was wet or not), and so on. Muslims to this day ask these questions, seek answers for them, and fear the consequences of not following them properly. Such a sad waste of time and resources.
"In fact, one can lead a completely normal life without ever learning these irrelevant minor details, probably because they were originally intended for a society that existed centuries ago. One would certainly be regarded with scorn today if he took a few stones and some sand with him to the toilet. So, Islam is NOT a universal religion for all times no matter what Muslims say, neither is Christianity or Judaism by the way. Islam does not have the answers for many things which is why Muslim clerics over the last century were speechless about modern technology and scientific discoveries. Eighty years ago in Iraq it was considered blasphemy to say that rain was originally steam and some people were actually killed for doing so. Mullahs struggled hard to prevent people from sending their children to primary schools or to teach women to read and write. Every new and strange device was considered 'evil' and a work of the devil. Telegraphy, telephones, radios, cameras, televisions. In Saudi Arabia people went to the local telegraph office to ask them where they are hiding the Jinn that brings them news from the other side of the kingdom. They were incredulous to the fact that a message would travel in seconds a distance that took many days or months on camel back."
"Waiting for clerics and leaders of Islam to condemn violence might take forever. The reason is that there is no ONE Islam that all Muslims today adhere to. There is a multitude of sects, cults and groups that constitute what we call Islam, the followers of which can range from tens of millions to a few thousands. Even within the same sect there can be fundamental differences in interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith. Rival clerics from the same sect can hold highly contradicting opinions on a matter as simple as washing yourself before prayers.
"Muslim jurists over the last 14 centuries have gone into every small detail of life that one could imagine without ever attempting to address the fundamental or controversial differences. Hundreds of thick volumes have been written about what is najis (filthy) and what is not, which hand you should use to wipe yourself with after defecating and which one to use when eating, whether it is acceptable or not to kiss a woman when she is menstruating, whether to wash one's hands again after touching the robe of a non-muslim before prayers (there are actually two answers to that depending on whether your hand was wet or not), and so on. Muslims to this day ask these questions, seek answers for them, and fear the consequences of not following them properly. Such a sad waste of time and resources.
"In fact, one can lead a completely normal life without ever learning these irrelevant minor details, probably because they were originally intended for a society that existed centuries ago. One would certainly be regarded with scorn today if he took a few stones and some sand with him to the toilet. So, Islam is NOT a universal religion for all times no matter what Muslims say, neither is Christianity or Judaism by the way. Islam does not have the answers for many things which is why Muslim clerics over the last century were speechless about modern technology and scientific discoveries. Eighty years ago in Iraq it was considered blasphemy to say that rain was originally steam and some people were actually killed for doing so. Mullahs struggled hard to prevent people from sending their children to primary schools or to teach women to read and write. Every new and strange device was considered 'evil' and a work of the devil. Telegraphy, telephones, radios, cameras, televisions. In Saudi Arabia people went to the local telegraph office to ask them where they are hiding the Jinn that brings them news from the other side of the kingdom. They were incredulous to the fact that a message would travel in seconds a distance that took many days or months on camel back."
Dan Rather: Destroying CBS News to Save John Kerry
That's the thrust of this article by Stanley Kurtz in National Review:
"Why were we so wrong? Why did Dan Rather and CBS News, against all expectations, impeach their own credibility to defend the authenticity of memos that are almost certainly forgeries? The obvious answer is that they did it to save the faltering Kerry campaign from a final and decisive blow. If CBS were to admit that the documents were forgeries, it would have no grounds for protecting its sources. In fact, CBS would have a positive obligation to do everything in its power to expose the malefactors behind the forgeries. If the trail led back to the Kerry campaign, president Bush's reelection would be assured. Dan Rather has been at pains to derogate those who are interested in where the documents came from. This sounds suspiciously like Rather is concerned about what a revelation of his sources might mean. Certainly, if Rather personally received the forgeries from a Kerry operative, it would be a disaster for Rather. That alone might seem to be sufficient to explain CBS's refusal to admit its error. (It now appears that CBS News may well have received the documents from a partisan and highly questionable source.)
"And even if the trail leading back to the forgers does not pass through the Kerry camp, an admission by CBS that the documents are bogus would be a huge embarrassment for the senator's campaign, which has so aggressively seized upon the story to attack the president. It would also be a fiasco for Dan Rather and CBS, whose credulity on a story harmful to the president would be exposed, and pointedly contrasted to their treatment of the Swift-boat veterans.
"But surely it would have been better for Rather and CBS to cut their losses and admit their error. Yes, they would have taken a hit, but they would also have won kudos for honesty and professionalism. Americans are forgiving of those who admit error. By standing behind a story that is so obviously flawed, Rather and CBS News are setting themselves up to become laughing stocks. That is why the reasonable assumption I -- and many other folks -- made was that CBS would attempt to salvage its reputation by repudiating the memos. And that is why many now assume Dan Rather and CBS News have sacrificed their reputations in order to protect the Kerry campaign."
"Why were we so wrong? Why did Dan Rather and CBS News, against all expectations, impeach their own credibility to defend the authenticity of memos that are almost certainly forgeries? The obvious answer is that they did it to save the faltering Kerry campaign from a final and decisive blow. If CBS were to admit that the documents were forgeries, it would have no grounds for protecting its sources. In fact, CBS would have a positive obligation to do everything in its power to expose the malefactors behind the forgeries. If the trail led back to the Kerry campaign, president Bush's reelection would be assured. Dan Rather has been at pains to derogate those who are interested in where the documents came from. This sounds suspiciously like Rather is concerned about what a revelation of his sources might mean. Certainly, if Rather personally received the forgeries from a Kerry operative, it would be a disaster for Rather. That alone might seem to be sufficient to explain CBS's refusal to admit its error. (It now appears that CBS News may well have received the documents from a partisan and highly questionable source.)
"And even if the trail leading back to the forgers does not pass through the Kerry camp, an admission by CBS that the documents are bogus would be a huge embarrassment for the senator's campaign, which has so aggressively seized upon the story to attack the president. It would also be a fiasco for Dan Rather and CBS, whose credulity on a story harmful to the president would be exposed, and pointedly contrasted to their treatment of the Swift-boat veterans.
"But surely it would have been better for Rather and CBS to cut their losses and admit their error. Yes, they would have taken a hit, but they would also have won kudos for honesty and professionalism. Americans are forgiving of those who admit error. By standing behind a story that is so obviously flawed, Rather and CBS News are setting themselves up to become laughing stocks. That is why the reasonable assumption I -- and many other folks -- made was that CBS would attempt to salvage its reputation by repudiating the memos. And that is why many now assume Dan Rather and CBS News have sacrificed their reputations in order to protect the Kerry campaign."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)