Rather dumb
Find a Conversation
Rather dumb
| Mon, 09-20-2004 - 1:42pm |
Dan Rather just apologized for using FAKE documents to attempt to slander the reputation of our sitting president in wartime in an attempt to sway the election. Maybe he didn't use those words, but that's the way it shakes out.
He did NOT say that he and CBS were going to persue and expose the perpetrators of this act. Wonder why not? Their credibility is shot. Their only hope at restoring ANY credibility in the future would be to turn on their source and rat him out. Unless, CBS is the source... Or John Kerry's campaign...
The only way I could see CBS recovering from this would be to fire EVERYONE on the CBS Evening News and start over.

Pages
He DID? Can you post a link to that please?
<>
Oh....perhaps you can post what he actually DID say. I don't particularly appreciate the editorializing.
I know you weren't addressing this to me, but here it is:
http://drudgereport.com/
EXCLUSIVE // Mon Sep 20 2004 11:58:02 ET
STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:
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.
Rather "apologized" and attacked Republicans for catching him.
Works for me.
Yes, I see now. Reading it closely and squinting very carefully to read between the lines, I can see how this statement:
<>
can be reinterpreted to mean that it really was
<<...to attempt to slander the reputation of our sitting president in wartime in an attempt to sway the election.>>
and here I was thinking that it was merely the usual journalistic attempt to get a juicy news story....oh dopey me!
When two of their experts raised severe concerns, CBS didnt bat an eyelash, and continued on with the story.
When they interviewed the Killian family, who gave a list of several other people to contact with regards to the story, CBS did not follow up with these people.
When every other news organization began to question the memo's and CBS's failure to do a thorough job investigating the story, CBS rounded the wagons, so to speak, and stood by the story, even though they could not produce one person to authenticate the documents on which the entire story was based.
This was extremely shabby journalism, that a first year reporter would get fired for, and just went to the bias of Dan Rather.
Are you aware that Rather did this before with Vietnam Veterans, back in 1988?
His entire story was exposed for the fraud it was, and CBS to this day never issued an apology, or an acknowledgement that the story was based on a complete fraud.
Kerry supporters will believe whatever they want to so obviously Rather shouldn't have apologizied. By stonewalling for 2 weeks, Rather made sure that the die-hard Kerry fans will continue to believe the "truth" or whatever Rather tells us is the truth today.
But even though the documents are fake, CBS was deceived so well that they only felt they had to ask one person, on the phone, whether or not they were true. But the content was true, even if the documents were false. Wait, that can't be it. They were true before they were proven false, but they weren't proven false, they just weren't proven to be authentic. But they're true.
Thank you for helping to clear that up, suemox!!!
Obviously both sides are putting their own spin on it, one wonders why you seem to be accepting Dan Rather's spin without question. Doesn't the fact that two document experts said they raised questions before the story aired and were ignored at least give you pause? (I know, CBS denies their claims, ever ask yourself why on earth two separate experts would choose to make that up? Bush operatives, perhaps?).
Like I said in another thread, I don't think Rather put out documents he knew for a fact to be false, but he certainly left a lot of obvious stones unturned before bringing this story to broadcast. Is that okay with you as long as it was just for purposes of getting a juicy news story and not an overt attempt to sway the election? This isn't the National Enquirer we're talking about, network news purports to be completely impartial and fair, and exhaustive in their reporting. Doesn't seem like they were even close in this case.
I'll just jot down the medical report from that Swiftie that claimed to have treated John Kerry's first wound...use some medicalese...forge a signature....and here ya go. I've made his claim false! This could be handy.
(five minutes later...) I've just forged documents and thus falsified the preamble to the Constitution, Einstein's theory of relativity and last week's football scores. This works GREAT! Thank you Liberal Idiot!
Pages