CBS - hahahahaha

"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."

"...re-examine" so they examined them once and found them authentic and legitiamte, right? Then why the re-examine?

"And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

And boy did we pray alot during those days!

"Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically."

Um.... 'vouching for them journalistically'???? So they would vouch for them otherways? Legally? Morally? Realistically? Virtually? Why the special descriptor?"

"I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers."

How could they have been misled on a question? Wouldn't the answer have been misleading? Weren't THEY asking the questions? And what does source have anything to do with authenticity? Instead, they shift the blame to a 'confidential source' when they should have authenticated the documents right from the start.

"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."

"...raised in the public..." change to read: Those damn blogs and that cursed Internet!

"...as it was aired..." Right. We would have still have talked about the documents, but we would have had a 3pt arial font display a standard legal disclaimer following the show's closing credits.

"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. "

Did I read this right... that the error was made in the tradition of CBS News? And that last bit, "without fear". So what was the producer's thought right before he aired the bit... "I'm not scared of anyone's rebuttal... we're C-B-Friggin-S.


"Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. "

... except of course for breaking a story that supports our liberal beliefs!

And what's up with 'fairly' and 'favoritism' being used. Making a false acusation can be a crime. This has nothing to do with fair. It's the proliferation of a lie that attempts to manipulate a federal election.

I just hope this is the end of these stories. OK, OK, we get it. Kerry probably wasn't the hero he portrayed himself as, and Bush wasn't the slacker/dodger he was portrayed as.

I support Bush because of his CURRENT stances and politics, not what happened 30 years ago. If he'd spent the Vietnam War hiding in Canada instead of serving in the national guard, I'd still support him as long as his policies are sound and his views more-or-less align with mine on the important stuff.

(I do like your commentary, BTW, Nuts. Bernard Goldberg would be proud. :))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]The Beast

I just hope this is the end of these stories. OK, OK, we get it. Kerry probably wasn't the hero he portrayed himself as, and Bush wasn't the slacker/dodger he was portrayed as.

I support Bush because of his CURRENT stances and politics, not what happened 30 years ago. If he'd spent the Vietnam War hiding in Canada instead of serving in the national guard, I'd still support him as long as his policies are sound and his views more-or-less align with mine on the important stuff.

---

Unfortunately, as long as Kerry keeps insisting on portraying himself as a war hero, this issue will not go away and does need to continue to be addressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [AK]Hylander

Unfortunately, as long as Kerry keeps insisting on portraying himself as a war hero, this issue will not go away and does need to continue to be addressed.

---

That is true, Hy--I actually went into more detail on this subject on my blog (linked because I don't want to type the whole entry again).

But this needs to stay in the spotlight. CBS's attack on Bush was clearly coordinated with Moveon.org's attacks on Bush's military record. The timing of both coming out at the same time was a bit much. It looks like an awful lot of the media had stories waiting in the hopper about Bush's guard service. The CBS scandal has knocked them all off balance.

People need to be reminded of the lies CBS has spread, and to question every bit of "reporting" that comes out of this organization. CBS needs a couple dozen more kicks in the teeth to knock them back in line.

The fake documents were bad enough ... then Dan tried to prop them up with office rumors and hearsay from an 86-year-old Bush-hater (her politics were something he neglected to mention when he interviewed her). The "fake but accurate" defense of the documents, based on the secretary's recollections of Killian's office discussions, did not hold water. Now that it's come out that the documents came to CBS via a known crank with an anti-Bush vendetta, CBS has a lot of explaining to do. What they have said already is not nearly enough. Heads need to roll - specifically those of Mary Mapes and Dan Rather.

That CBS went forward with the story under those circumstances means actual malice was present against Bush, not just journalistic carelessness. They were so stumblingly eager to attack George W. Bush that all concern about ethics and truthfulness was discarded. The public needs to remember CBS's attack on the president - and vote with their advertising dollars.

Quote:

---

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

---

Let's have a show of hands. Everyone who had trust in CBS even before this story was aired, please raise your hand.

Anyone?

Anyone?


Network news investigative reporting: Bringing you quality reporting like side mounted gas tank exposes everyday.

If only there wasn't freedom of press and speech.. we could fry these people.

But without Freedom of the Press ... we never would have found out about their duplicity. Of course, I bet Dan Rather doesn't think Freedom of the Press should include weblogs right now. :-)

Super-sensitive microphones pick-up secret whispers at CBS Headquarters!

http://www.billandiris.com/ftpd/cbs.jpg

ROFL! Yeah... I really want to yell at Democrats, and kids to tell them how retarded they are... The reprocusions(sp?) of Kerry getting elected would be crippiling to our current Campaign against terrorism and we would effectively become the french(or at least Kerry would have it seem that way)..

I'm still a kid, I can yell at my own right? :tongue:

No one ever answered the last time I asked this question so here I go: Is it a criminal act to forge documents and if it is why not make CBS give up its source who released the records. I want to know who was behind this! Does that even matter anymore?

Out of all the chaos the one thing that is nice to see is that the networks are finally being held accountable for what they air.

I don't know if there is an actual crime in the midst of all this drama. It's really, really, really hard for someone to slander or libel an elected official. The law provides broad protection for freedom of expression where elected officials are concerned. You can call your hometown mayor almost anything, and he won't be able to win a slander suit against you. :-)

I'm certainly not saying this should be covered up, not run, or not thoroughly investigated. I'm just tired of what did or didn't happen thirty years ago over and over again as the central focal point to a presidentila campaign. It would be nice if both would issue one final blanket statement and move on. My memory isn't that short--it's been noted; I'm just more concerned with what the candidates will do rather than what they have done, especially now that it's clear that both served the country in their own way. There are more important issues in America today.