In a ridiculous segment, The Newshour last night featured Terence Smith, a former CBS employee, discussing Dan Rather's forgeries with Susan Tifft, a press aide for the 1980 Democratic National Convention and speechwriter for the Carter-Mondale campaign and Ken Auletta, a liberal writer for The New Yorker who claims that PBS is right-wing. The introductory taped "package" actually altered the typography and format of CBS's forged memos, displaying computer-generated documents different from the ones on the CBS website. So misleading, so transparently dishonest, one had to laugh--the producers perhaps realized that showing the actual documents, as they appeared on sites like Powerlineblog.com or LittleGreenFootballs would illustrate that they are obvious fakes.
The discussion was as ludicrous as the backgrounder. In response to Smith's softball questions, Auletta and Tifft soft-peddled the CBS fraud, clinging to a "Fake but Accurate" line. For example, Auletta's explanation: "Sometimes you race too fast. You don't pin your facts down."
But according to The Wall Street Journal, CBS was working on this story for several years, and had contacted multiple document experts.
Thus, Auletta's explantation is false. Yet, Smith didn't question it, even though as a CBS News veteran, he ought to know better. All he did was go to Tifft, the former paid Democratic party operative, who supported Auletta's line: "I think it's important to think about the atmosphere in which this occurred, which is obviously very partisan atmosphere, but as Ken said, there really has been a race and rush on this story."
So, instead of a balanced debate between two sides, The Newshour offered rationalizations and excuses from partisans on the side of Dan Rather and CBS. It was simply laughable, and can't be taken seriously. A fraud,itself--transparently not balanced, not objective, and not true.
To save his own reputation, and that of his program, maybe Jim Lehrer might invite one of the pajama-clad bloggers on the show to talk about how he discovered the fakes, instead of CBS apologists and political operatives? Or if that is a bridge too far, an articulate commentator who knows something about the internet side of the story, like Andrew Sullivan or Glenn Reynolds?
Until something like that happens, PBS's Newshour reputation is damaged goods, victim of self-inflicted wounds.
Friday, September 17, 2004
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Dan Rather and "Credo Quia Absurdam"
How can people believe things that are clearly false?
The Dan Rather story led us to this article by Robert D. Sider on Tertullian. Although renowned for the phrase, apparently Tertullian didn't really say "credo quia absurdam" (I believe because it is absurd), rather "certum quia impossibile" (I am certain because it is impossible).
Either phrase is about the power of religious faith to overcome logic, as in the case of miracles.
That is what the CBS forgeries represent in the faithful mind of Dan Rather--the documents are miracles from on high to destroy the "Evil Bush." They have provided the 'smoking gun' of Bush's guilt in shirking National Guard duty. Like a relic of the Holy Grail, to doubt them is to challenge an entire faith. Thus, to preserve their own faith they must ignore the facts of this case. This religious impulse to believe the absurd is what lies at the heart of Rather-gate. Rather is a true believer. And in a form of religious fanaticism he places his faith in things which are clearly impossible. The greater the absurdity, the greater the faith. Thus, Dan Rather is demonstrating his fideism by sticking to his absurd story.
However, unlike Rather, Tertullian actually accepted the authority of reason--Logos:
"In the second and third centuries Christians of both East and West generally accepted a common mythos about God and the world. They believed that the world was rationally ordered, because it was created by God through his reason, his Logos. The same Logos spoke to man through rational terms in the Revelation embodied in the Bible and in Jesus. Even apart from Christ, men have caught glimpses of the truth, whether borrowed from the Bible or gathered from the order of nature. Unfortunately, the demonic, in one form or another, has entered to distort the vision of man, so that pagan philosophy never attained the wholeness and integrity of truth. Such integrity can be found only in Christ, the Logos; but because he is the Logos the integrity of truth implies the necessity of rational perception. Differences in apologetic aims, in individual style, and in personal temperament led to formulations of the relationships between faith and reason, and Christianity and philosophy which undoubtedly varied in tone and emphasis, but the common commitment on the part of all the major Christian thinkers of the second and third centuries, including Tertullian, to a belief in Christ, the Logos, eliminated fideism as a possible mode of Christian self-understanding."
Dan Rather's actions in this case reveal that he doesn't recognize the authority of Logos, only Mythos.
The Dan Rather story led us to this article by Robert D. Sider on Tertullian. Although renowned for the phrase, apparently Tertullian didn't really say "credo quia absurdam" (I believe because it is absurd), rather "certum quia impossibile" (I am certain because it is impossible).
Either phrase is about the power of religious faith to overcome logic, as in the case of miracles.
That is what the CBS forgeries represent in the faithful mind of Dan Rather--the documents are miracles from on high to destroy the "Evil Bush." They have provided the 'smoking gun' of Bush's guilt in shirking National Guard duty. Like a relic of the Holy Grail, to doubt them is to challenge an entire faith. Thus, to preserve their own faith they must ignore the facts of this case. This religious impulse to believe the absurd is what lies at the heart of Rather-gate. Rather is a true believer. And in a form of religious fanaticism he places his faith in things which are clearly impossible. The greater the absurdity, the greater the faith. Thus, Dan Rather is demonstrating his fideism by sticking to his absurd story.
However, unlike Rather, Tertullian actually accepted the authority of reason--Logos:
"In the second and third centuries Christians of both East and West generally accepted a common mythos about God and the world. They believed that the world was rationally ordered, because it was created by God through his reason, his Logos. The same Logos spoke to man through rational terms in the Revelation embodied in the Bible and in Jesus. Even apart from Christ, men have caught glimpses of the truth, whether borrowed from the Bible or gathered from the order of nature. Unfortunately, the demonic, in one form or another, has entered to distort the vision of man, so that pagan philosophy never attained the wholeness and integrity of truth. Such integrity can be found only in Christ, the Logos; but because he is the Logos the integrity of truth implies the necessity of rational perception. Differences in apologetic aims, in individual style, and in personal temperament led to formulations of the relationships between faith and reason, and Christianity and philosophy which undoubtedly varied in tone and emphasis, but the common commitment on the part of all the major Christian thinkers of the second and third centuries, including Tertullian, to a belief in Christ, the Logos, eliminated fideism as a possible mode of Christian self-understanding."
Dan Rather's actions in this case reveal that he doesn't recognize the authority of Logos, only Mythos.
Rush Limbaugh: Rathergate is Media's Gettysburg
From RushLimbaugh.com:
"All right, now something interesting is happening with this CBS story, the Forgery Story, beyond what CBS is going to do today. Nobody really has any idea what they're going to say, but the Wall Street Journal, as I say, says that CBS is going to offer further evidence here of what they believe to be true. Uh, you just... There's a part of me hates to see this and another part of me that loves to see this. I mean, it's just an amazing thing to watch these giant institutions tumble. You might be able to say, ladies and gentlemen, that we are in the midst of re-fighting the Civil War again here in terms of the left versus the right and the media and this CBS may represent Gettysburg for the mainstream press. "
"All right, now something interesting is happening with this CBS story, the Forgery Story, beyond what CBS is going to do today. Nobody really has any idea what they're going to say, but the Wall Street Journal, as I say, says that CBS is going to offer further evidence here of what they believe to be true. Uh, you just... There's a part of me hates to see this and another part of me that loves to see this. I mean, it's just an amazing thing to watch these giant institutions tumble. You might be able to say, ladies and gentlemen, that we are in the midst of re-fighting the Civil War again here in terms of the left versus the right and the media and this CBS may represent Gettysburg for the mainstream press. "
Hugh Hewitt Calls for Congressional Hearings on the CBS-Dan Rather Forgery Scandal
In theWeekly Standard:
"...all we need are some timely Congressional hearings, best conducted by the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, or the Subcommittee on Communications of the Senate's Commerce Committee, chaired by Senator Conrad Burns of Montana. CBS president Les Moonves would be a wonderful witness, as would Rather, and while the subject of 'sources' would be a touchy one, either subcommittee could provide some information on the workings of a major broadcast network confronted with a juicy story that has been discovered to have been cooked.
"Hearings such as these would benefit the Bush campaign, just as the forgery scandal has, because it brings into sharp focus the ethics of the Bush opponents and the anti-Bush bias of the mainstream media. If a Deep Throat or two were to develop from within CBS, the revelations could be explosive, and the ratings for the cable shows wouldn't be bad either. The sacrifice of a few execs, producers, and, of course, Rather might be good for the industry all told. Certainly very, very few people have rushed to Rather's defense, and those few are just now finding convenient excuses to leave the front lines.
"The hearings would serve one additional important role beyond immediate accountability, a role far more crucial than any played by the Howard Stern-Janet Jackson hearings, or even those hearings which conducted the post-mortem on the election night network fiasco of calling Florida for Gore in 2000. Hearings now, immediately, would signal broadcasters and news executives everywhere that partisan maneuverings under the guise of news gathering--especially those that occur late in an election season--would be subject to close Congressional scrutiny..."
"...all we need are some timely Congressional hearings, best conducted by the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, or the Subcommittee on Communications of the Senate's Commerce Committee, chaired by Senator Conrad Burns of Montana. CBS president Les Moonves would be a wonderful witness, as would Rather, and while the subject of 'sources' would be a touchy one, either subcommittee could provide some information on the workings of a major broadcast network confronted with a juicy story that has been discovered to have been cooked.
"Hearings such as these would benefit the Bush campaign, just as the forgery scandal has, because it brings into sharp focus the ethics of the Bush opponents and the anti-Bush bias of the mainstream media. If a Deep Throat or two were to develop from within CBS, the revelations could be explosive, and the ratings for the cable shows wouldn't be bad either. The sacrifice of a few execs, producers, and, of course, Rather might be good for the industry all told. Certainly very, very few people have rushed to Rather's defense, and those few are just now finding convenient excuses to leave the front lines.
"The hearings would serve one additional important role beyond immediate accountability, a role far more crucial than any played by the Howard Stern-Janet Jackson hearings, or even those hearings which conducted the post-mortem on the election night network fiasco of calling Florida for Gore in 2000. Hearings now, immediately, would signal broadcasters and news executives everywhere that partisan maneuverings under the guise of news gathering--especially those that occur late in an election season--would be subject to close Congressional scrutiny..."
AndrewSullivan Says "Off With Their Heads!"
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. "
"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. "
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)