From Power Line, on links between Joe Lockhart, Burkett, and CBS:
"Okay, Joe, did Burkett tell you what they said? Okay, Mary, is CBS an adjunct of the Kerry campaign?"
Monday, September 20, 2004
Sorry He Got Caught...
Here's the transcript of Dan Rather's non-apology from tonight's CBS News, which followed a red-herring "interview" that seems scripted and fake, itself, from the Mudville Gazette:
But even this "apology" is a fraud, because CBS knowingly presented forged documents as the basis of a false story. Remember, while they were standing by their story last week--a delaying action designed to buy time to get all the principals on the same page for a cover story--they publicly declared that CBS had a system of "checks and balances" and "careful vetting." That was what separated their network news operation from "bloggers in pajamas." Remember also, CBS admitted that the producers asked experts to vouch for the authenticity of the documents.
The charade continues. Rather has not admitted his documents are forgeries and is still treating them as authentic, although not "authenticated." He did not report that they have been exposed as crude forgeries, easily detected when compared to original documents of the period. Rather didn't ask any tough questions of Burkett, either. He didn't ask for the original documents, or explain why CBS doesn't have them, or didn't seem to want them at any point. He didn't ask Burkett to reveal his sources. He didn't seem interested in pursuing the story at all, with good reason. He doesn't have to do any further investigation, for Rather knows exactly what happened, because he was at the center of the fraud.
The interview's supposed news content, that CBS came to Burkett rather than the other way around, makes no material difference. It is a red herring, designed to distract people from the real story: Dan Rather is perpetrator of a fraud, a peddler of forged documents, and is now orchestrating a cover-up. Like Watergate, there is probably "hush-money" involved. No "independent investigation" answering to Andrew Heyward--so far, one of the unindicted co-conspirators, to continue the Watergate analogy--is going to get at the truth.
This isn't an apology, it is an insult to the CBS audience. Especially all the viewers who believed that CBS News was an honest outfit, at least once upon a time.
From this interview, as Richard Nixon might say, Dan Rather has made one thing perfectly clear: The only thing Dan Rather is sorry about is getting caught.
RATHER: The failure of CBS News to do just that, to properly, fully, scrutinize the documents and their source, led to our airing the documents when we should not have done so. It was a mistake. CBS News deeply regrets it. Also I want to say personally and directly, I'm sorry.
But even this "apology" is a fraud, because CBS knowingly presented forged documents as the basis of a false story. Remember, while they were standing by their story last week--a delaying action designed to buy time to get all the principals on the same page for a cover story--they publicly declared that CBS had a system of "checks and balances" and "careful vetting." That was what separated their network news operation from "bloggers in pajamas." Remember also, CBS admitted that the producers asked experts to vouch for the authenticity of the documents.
The charade continues. Rather has not admitted his documents are forgeries and is still treating them as authentic, although not "authenticated." He did not report that they have been exposed as crude forgeries, easily detected when compared to original documents of the period. Rather didn't ask any tough questions of Burkett, either. He didn't ask for the original documents, or explain why CBS doesn't have them, or didn't seem to want them at any point. He didn't ask Burkett to reveal his sources. He didn't seem interested in pursuing the story at all, with good reason. He doesn't have to do any further investigation, for Rather knows exactly what happened, because he was at the center of the fraud.
The interview's supposed news content, that CBS came to Burkett rather than the other way around, makes no material difference. It is a red herring, designed to distract people from the real story: Dan Rather is perpetrator of a fraud, a peddler of forged documents, and is now orchestrating a cover-up. Like Watergate, there is probably "hush-money" involved. No "independent investigation" answering to Andrew Heyward--so far, one of the unindicted co-conspirators, to continue the Watergate analogy--is going to get at the truth.
This isn't an apology, it is an insult to the CBS audience. Especially all the viewers who believed that CBS News was an honest outfit, at least once upon a time.
From this interview, as Richard Nixon might say, Dan Rather has made one thing perfectly clear: The only thing Dan Rather is sorry about is getting caught.
Why Americans Hate Foreign Policy
P.J. O'Rourke says it is because Americans are all foreigners themselves. [hat tip, DiploMad]
Memo to the RNC: CBS Didn't Apologize...
From RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie Statement on CBS:
"We accept CBS's apology for a breach of the journalistic standards that provide the American people confidence in news organizations, but some disturbing questions remain unanswered."
Actually, Rather is sticking to his guns, and has not apologized for peddling forgeries, or misleading the public, so there isn't a real apology for the Republican National Committee to accept.
This kind of weak and bureaucratic response by the RNC is pretty good evidence that the bloggers who discovered Rather's forgeries were not working for the RNC, which would do much better to stay quiet than give Rather an "exit strategy" with his "limited modified hangout."
"We accept CBS's apology for a breach of the journalistic standards that provide the American people confidence in news organizations, but some disturbing questions remain unanswered."
Actually, Rather is sticking to his guns, and has not apologized for peddling forgeries, or misleading the public, so there isn't a real apology for the Republican National Committee to accept.
This kind of weak and bureaucratic response by the RNC is pretty good evidence that the bloggers who discovered Rather's forgeries were not working for the RNC, which would do much better to stay quiet than give Rather an "exit strategy" with his "limited modified hangout."
From Our Great Minds Think Alike Department...
HughHewitt has also just called Rather's statement a "limited, modified hangout."
Rather's "Modified Limited Hangout"
Under stress, Dan Rather appears to be morphing into Richard Nixon. For evidence, just take a look at Dan Rather's Statement on Ernest Miller's website:
The tone is pure Nixon. "Mistakes were made." Sanctimonious self-righteousness combined with self-pity and the portrayal of himself as a victim, ending with an outrageous howler that the CBS fraud was perpetrated "in good faith" based on "our commitment to report fairly and truthfully." And Rather's mother was a saint, too, no doubt.
Tactically, it looks like Rather is using Nixonian damage control strategies taken directly from the Watergate playbook, as well. This means the above statement may be classified as a "Modified Limited Hangout." This was Nixon's next step after "Stonewall" during Watergate. Rather even seems to have his own "Palace Guard" (aka Haldeman & Ehrlichmann) in CBS News executives Andrew Heyward and Josh Howard, who will say or do anything to protect him, no matter how absurd or dishonest it may seem. The next step, if Rather follows Nixon's footsteps a little longer, will be to release a partial set of documents while claiming it is full disclosure.
Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question--and their source--vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.
Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where--if I knew then what I know now--I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.
Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.
The tone is pure Nixon. "Mistakes were made." Sanctimonious self-righteousness combined with self-pity and the portrayal of himself as a victim, ending with an outrageous howler that the CBS fraud was perpetrated "in good faith" based on "our commitment to report fairly and truthfully." And Rather's mother was a saint, too, no doubt.
Tactically, it looks like Rather is using Nixonian damage control strategies taken directly from the Watergate playbook, as well. This means the above statement may be classified as a "Modified Limited Hangout." This was Nixon's next step after "Stonewall" during Watergate. Rather even seems to have his own "Palace Guard" (aka Haldeman & Ehrlichmann) in CBS News executives Andrew Heyward and Josh Howard, who will say or do anything to protect him, no matter how absurd or dishonest it may seem. The next step, if Rather follows Nixon's footsteps a little longer, will be to release a partial set of documents while claiming it is full disclosure.
CBS's "Smoking Gun"?
It is a truism from detective novels that every criminal leaves a piece of self-incriminating evidence. Reading Ernest Miller's summary, one comes across this quote from CBS spokesperson Kelli Edwards on September 8th:
Note the phrases: "individuals who had seen the documents," "at the time they were written," and "reflect his opinions at the time the documents were written." These are evidence of the "accurate but fake" line taken by CBS and its apologists, that the documents were concocted at a later date to illustrate opinions that Killian supposedly held. CBS does not state the documents came from the author, does not give a date certain (say 1972) for the creation of the documents, and has the peculiar weasel-words about "reflecting opinions."
The attitude towards the White House reaction to the forged documents, expressed by producer Josh Howard in the New York Times today, is a proper response only to a premeditated a confidence trick. Why, if CBS did not have an ulterior motive, would executives point to the White House's acceptance of the documents as evidence of anything at all? Had the White House denounced the documents as the forgeries they are, CBS would not have accepted that statement. They admit to pre-recording an interview with a so-called "expert" to rebut such a claim. So, it would have proved nothing.
Likewise, that the White House responded to the forgeries faxed to them, proved nothing--other than that the press secretary doesn't have a licensed document examiner on staff. There is no way the President could know what a private individual had in his personal files. It is not up to the victim of a hoax to prove fraud.
Accounts of CBS's broadcast have referred to a "rush" to put the program on the air. But why the "rush"? One reason would be to put fraudulent documents on the air before the trick could be discovered. This is why CBS never really confirmed the authenticity of its own documents from an examination of the originals, since it never had any originals--as there were no originals. The documents could not be confirmed as genuine by any credible examiner, and CBS knew it, before, during and after the broadcast.
A "fake but accurate" defense fits into this scheme, as it treats the forgeries as a "reconstruction" or later documentation of a prior state of mind, so their authenticity is not relevant. And that only makes sense if they were concocted in the first place, to smear the White House. It also indicates that CBS News as a corporate entity was deeply involved, and that executives of the network approved the fraud prior to air.
The scheme might have worked, had CBS News not posted the fake documents on the internet, for no one might have checked them. That the crude forgeries didn't work, was due to the efforts of bloggers, who pointed out the fraud.
These forged memos, utilized by CBS as a "smoking gun" against President Bush, turned out to be a "smoking gun" all right--proving that CBS perpetrated deliberate fraud.
'CBS verified the authenticity of the documents by talking to individuals who had seen the documents at the time they were written. These individuals were close associates of [Bush commander] Colonel Jerry Killian and confirm that the documents reflect his opinions at the time the documents were written.'
Note the phrases: "individuals who had seen the documents," "at the time they were written," and "reflect his opinions at the time the documents were written." These are evidence of the "accurate but fake" line taken by CBS and its apologists, that the documents were concocted at a later date to illustrate opinions that Killian supposedly held. CBS does not state the documents came from the author, does not give a date certain (say 1972) for the creation of the documents, and has the peculiar weasel-words about "reflecting opinions."
The attitude towards the White House reaction to the forged documents, expressed by producer Josh Howard in the New York Times today, is a proper response only to a premeditated a confidence trick. Why, if CBS did not have an ulterior motive, would executives point to the White House's acceptance of the documents as evidence of anything at all? Had the White House denounced the documents as the forgeries they are, CBS would not have accepted that statement. They admit to pre-recording an interview with a so-called "expert" to rebut such a claim. So, it would have proved nothing.
Likewise, that the White House responded to the forgeries faxed to them, proved nothing--other than that the press secretary doesn't have a licensed document examiner on staff. There is no way the President could know what a private individual had in his personal files. It is not up to the victim of a hoax to prove fraud.
Accounts of CBS's broadcast have referred to a "rush" to put the program on the air. But why the "rush"? One reason would be to put fraudulent documents on the air before the trick could be discovered. This is why CBS never really confirmed the authenticity of its own documents from an examination of the originals, since it never had any originals--as there were no originals. The documents could not be confirmed as genuine by any credible examiner, and CBS knew it, before, during and after the broadcast.
A "fake but accurate" defense fits into this scheme, as it treats the forgeries as a "reconstruction" or later documentation of a prior state of mind, so their authenticity is not relevant. And that only makes sense if they were concocted in the first place, to smear the White House. It also indicates that CBS News as a corporate entity was deeply involved, and that executives of the network approved the fraud prior to air.
The scheme might have worked, had CBS News not posted the fake documents on the internet, for no one might have checked them. That the crude forgeries didn't work, was due to the efforts of bloggers, who pointed out the fraud.
These forged memos, utilized by CBS as a "smoking gun" against President Bush, turned out to be a "smoking gun" all right--proving that CBS perpetrated deliberate fraud.
Mark Steyn on Dan Rather's Forgeries
From the Chicago Sun-Times:
"By now just about everybody on the planet also thinks they're junk, except for that dwindling number of misguided people who watch the ''CBS Evening News'' under the misapprehension that it's a news broadcast rather than a new unreality show in which a cocooned anchor, his floundering news division and some feeble executives are trapped on their own isle of delusion and can't figure out a way to vote themselves off it."
"By now just about everybody on the planet also thinks they're junk, except for that dwindling number of misguided people who watch the ''CBS Evening News'' under the misapprehension that it's a news broadcast rather than a new unreality show in which a cocooned anchor, his floundering news division and some feeble executives are trapped on their own isle of delusion and can't figure out a way to vote themselves off it."
Sunday, September 19, 2004
EDITORIAL: Until Dan Rather Apologizes, Bush Should Not Cooperate With CBS News
Simply as a matter of human decency, the White House might refuse to do business with CBS News until Dan Rather apologizes on the air for peddling his crude forgeries.
There is no reason to do business with con men or fraudsters. It would set a good example for the rest of the country, indeed the rest of the world, if the White House declares CBS News off-limits until this matter is resolved.
Once apologies are made, and measures taken to guarantee this sort of thing never happens again, normal relations could resume, with lessons learned on all sides.
There is no reason to do business with con men or fraudsters. It would set a good example for the rest of the country, indeed the rest of the world, if the White House declares CBS News off-limits until this matter is resolved.
Once apologies are made, and measures taken to guarantee this sort of thing never happens again, normal relations could resume, with lessons learned on all sides.
Ernest Miller on Dan Rather's Forgeries
A fascinating, detailed recap of the major events, by a US Naval Academy and Yale Law School graduate, Ernest Miller, on his Corante blog The Importance of...:
"By this past Monday evening, however, the story had clearly become one involving serious questions about the future of news reporting and I decided to join the conversation on this blog. This story is important because the blatant flouting of basic and fundamental journalistic practices by one of the largest and prominent news organizations in the country is undermining the credibility of journalism as a whole. Jay Rosen has asked how the press can 'win' during this election season (Campaign Puzzler: How the Press Comes Out with a Win). Well, I think that right now, the press is falling farther and farther behind in points. If major news organizations think that their credibility is not tarnished by a rogue CBS, they are sadly mistaken.
"It is disappointing to me that the major media has been mostly silent in their condemnation of CBS's response to this scandal. Even granting, against reason, that there remains a serious debate about the authenticity of the documents, and that CBS's 'checks and balances' for vetting this story were sufficient, the response of CBS to its critics has been outrageous. Where are the outraged calls for more transparency on the part of CBS News from the editorial boards of the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune or Wall Street Journal? Why haven't anchors of the other networks called for CBS to establish an internal, or better yet, an external investigation into the issue? Any profession that won't police its own when members egregiously violate the fundamental tenets of that profession will very quickly lose all credibility.
"More importantly, the press plays a vital and critical role in forcing transparency on government. How effectively will the press be able to play that role if it adopts the stonewalling tactics of the government when it is subject to criticism? If our watchdogs cannot even watch themselves, the Fourth Estate will become ever more ineffective.
"Many of my most important criticisms aren't about content, but about process. Many stories will lead to valid disagreements over nuance, omissions, and etc. However, there are fundamental aspects of process that virtually all can agree upon. CBS News has violated many of these. And, even where I criticize CBS News content, it is generally with the belief that a news organizations should be especially fair and even-handed in responding to criticism.
"I should also note that this isn't about Dan Rather. I couldn't care less about Dan Rather. This is about CBS News as an organization. Although Dan Rather has been the focus for attention for many, the majority of my criticisms are directed at CBS News as a whole.
"Whether you agree that the documents are forged, clearly credible and legitimate questions about their authenticity have been raised. CBS News has not responded to criticisms with transparency and responsibility we should expect from any news organization, let alone such a large and important one.
"The following is an analysis and timeline of CBS's response to their critics. It is abundantly clear that CBS's actions when questioned about the validity of their reporting are a breach of what should be fundamental journalistic practice. Either that, or CBS News is hopelessly incompetent."
"By this past Monday evening, however, the story had clearly become one involving serious questions about the future of news reporting and I decided to join the conversation on this blog. This story is important because the blatant flouting of basic and fundamental journalistic practices by one of the largest and prominent news organizations in the country is undermining the credibility of journalism as a whole. Jay Rosen has asked how the press can 'win' during this election season (Campaign Puzzler: How the Press Comes Out with a Win). Well, I think that right now, the press is falling farther and farther behind in points. If major news organizations think that their credibility is not tarnished by a rogue CBS, they are sadly mistaken.
"It is disappointing to me that the major media has been mostly silent in their condemnation of CBS's response to this scandal. Even granting, against reason, that there remains a serious debate about the authenticity of the documents, and that CBS's 'checks and balances' for vetting this story were sufficient, the response of CBS to its critics has been outrageous. Where are the outraged calls for more transparency on the part of CBS News from the editorial boards of the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune or Wall Street Journal? Why haven't anchors of the other networks called for CBS to establish an internal, or better yet, an external investigation into the issue? Any profession that won't police its own when members egregiously violate the fundamental tenets of that profession will very quickly lose all credibility.
"More importantly, the press plays a vital and critical role in forcing transparency on government. How effectively will the press be able to play that role if it adopts the stonewalling tactics of the government when it is subject to criticism? If our watchdogs cannot even watch themselves, the Fourth Estate will become ever more ineffective.
"Many of my most important criticisms aren't about content, but about process. Many stories will lead to valid disagreements over nuance, omissions, and etc. However, there are fundamental aspects of process that virtually all can agree upon. CBS News has violated many of these. And, even where I criticize CBS News content, it is generally with the belief that a news organizations should be especially fair and even-handed in responding to criticism.
"I should also note that this isn't about Dan Rather. I couldn't care less about Dan Rather. This is about CBS News as an organization. Although Dan Rather has been the focus for attention for many, the majority of my criticisms are directed at CBS News as a whole.
"Whether you agree that the documents are forged, clearly credible and legitimate questions about their authenticity have been raised. CBS News has not responded to criticisms with transparency and responsibility we should expect from any news organization, let alone such a large and important one.
"The following is an analysis and timeline of CBS's response to their critics. It is abundantly clear that CBS's actions when questioned about the validity of their reporting are a breach of what should be fundamental journalistic practice. Either that, or CBS News is hopelessly incompetent."
Power Line on the Washington Post on Dan Rather's Forgeries
Power Line:
"What jumps out at me is that Dan Rather, Mary Mapes and the 60 Minutes staff behaved not as objective journalists, but as opposition researchers for the Kerry campaign. They had been trying for years to dig up dirt on President Bush so as to prevent his re-election, and were beside themselves with glee when Bill Burkett, or whoever it turns out to be, gave them the opportunity to use forged documents as a pretense to air their anti-Bush story."
"What jumps out at me is that Dan Rather, Mary Mapes and the 60 Minutes staff behaved not as objective journalists, but as opposition researchers for the Kerry campaign. They had been trying for years to dig up dirt on President Bush so as to prevent his re-election, and were beside themselves with glee when Bill Burkett, or whoever it turns out to be, gave them the opportunity to use forged documents as a pretense to air their anti-Bush story."
Saturday, September 18, 2004
Friday, September 17, 2004
Scott Johnson on Dan Rather on Fox News
From Johnny Dollar's Place:
A transcript of a Fox News program with Powerlineblog's Scott Johnson, who says: "And CBS now has gone from being perhaps the willing dupe of a hoaxer to a participant in a fraud."
A transcript of a Fox News program with Powerlineblog's Scott Johnson, who says: "And CBS now has gone from being perhaps the willing dupe of a hoaxer to a participant in a fraud."
Meet Alexander Fainberg, People's Poet of Uzbekistan
From Ferghana.ru [thanks to Registan.net for the link]:
"Alexander Fainberg, author of 12 books of poems, 4 scripts for full-length movies and 18 cartoons, translations of Uzbek poets into Russian, publications in Uzbek, Russian, American, and Israeli media became a People's Poet of Uzbekistan. This correspondent met with Fainberg, the patriarch of Tashkent poetry extremely popular with the Russian-reading general public in Uzbekistan for the last 25 years or so, on Saiilgokh Street, the so called Tashkent Broadway, in company of his friends - local journalists."
"Alexander Fainberg, author of 12 books of poems, 4 scripts for full-length movies and 18 cartoons, translations of Uzbek poets into Russian, publications in Uzbek, Russian, American, and Israeli media became a People's Poet of Uzbekistan. This correspondent met with Fainberg, the patriarch of Tashkent poetry extremely popular with the Russian-reading general public in Uzbekistan for the last 25 years or so, on Saiilgokh Street, the so called Tashkent Broadway, in company of his friends - local journalists."
PBS Covers for Dan Rather
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.
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.
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..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)