29 Comments

1. BigFire:

The kind of bias from CBS have made it the only channel that I actively try NOT to watch.

Jan 10, 2005 - 11:16 am 2. heather:

Completely off topic, but Roger is the only person around who I think could answer these questions:

1. I LIKE caper movies, starring wise cracking beautiful people. I was looking forward to Oceans Twelve with George Clooney and Brad Pitt, etc etc. Now. What happened here, between ‘concept’ and the movie itself? It was terrible, with an incomprehensible story line, NO wise cracks, and only one funny scene (the guys dragging Julia Roberts through the museum). All that money, all that talent… and a frankly very lousy movie. Why?

2. Troy. THERE WERE NO GODS. Think. Peter Jackson and New Line made a BILLION dollars, showing us trolls and witch kings and The Shire. Yet some bunch of idiots hung the whole Trojen War on the shoulders of a buff Brad Pitt, and dumped $300 million dollars into the nearest dustbin. Think how they could have done this, with Aphrodite and Mars and Hera and Zeus wandering around the battle field! Why didn’t they?? What happened to imagination and vision anyway???

Jan 10, 2005 - 11:20 am 3. Kevin P:

Roger:

One of the important aspects of this story is to shatter the illusion that anchormen are reporters. They are news readers, or news personalities. The fact that Rather initially used his history of “accurate” reporting to vouche for the story but now the investigation puts little or no blame becuase in reality he did little to no actual reporting. He read mary Mapes story. It would be the same as a actor who reads the audio version of a book claiming to be a author. Jennings, Rather, and Brokaw and their replacements are readers, not reporters.

Jan 10, 2005 - 11:52 am 4. Michael Babbitt:

This CBS explanation is clearly a whitewash. The fact that they have had to admit the little they do and take the actions they have taken shows the public just how bad the truth really must be. To say that getting the story out first was the main motivation for their myopia — instead of getting the story out in time for the election — is a lie that any fair-minded non partisan person can easily see. These stooges lie even in the midst of a so-called full disclosure. Trust them for the truth? Sure….ly NOT!

Jan 10, 2005 - 12:17 pm 5. Terrye:

They can say what they want we know the truth.

My guess is most journalists will give them the benefit of the doubt in regards to bias and most bloggers will not.

Jan 10, 2005 - 12:26 pm 6. Ben:

When will we hear an honest and sincere (and public) apology to President Bush? The network has apologized to its viewers, but I am not prepared to trust it again until there is an apology to the person that was intended to be hurt by CBS’s irresponsibility.

Jan 10, 2005 - 12:31 pm 7. David C:

I wouldn’t come down too hard on the panel’s “bias” conclusion:

“The political agenda question was posed by the Panel directly to Dan Rather and his producer, Mary Mapes, who appear to have drawn the greatest attention in terms of possible political agendas. Both strongly denied that they brought any political bias to the Segment. The Panel recognizes that those who saw bias at work in the Segment are likely to sweep such denials aside. However, the Panel will not level allegations for which it cannot offer adequate proof.”

Remember, this is the report of a lawyer, and thus:

1. it’s saying something very precise and specific – no more, no less. It’s not necessarily an exoneration.

2. it’s a “prosecutorial” approach, as is evident throughout the report, and here from the word “proof.” What I think Thornburgh is really saying is something like “If ‘politically-motivated reporting’ was a federal crime, I wouldn’t be able to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt here.” You could draw such a conclusion (and the recitation of facts makes it pretty hard not to), but there’s no real *evidence* to point to that can’t hypothetically be portrayed as just excessive journalistic zeal, at least not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jan 10, 2005 - 12:33 pm 8. Roger:

Good points, David C.

Jan 10, 2005 - 12:48 pm 9. Dan-O:

Uh oh. Someone better tell the geniuses over at http://www.cbsmarketwatch.com to stick to the storyline issued by the poobahs at Black Rock.

The sub-headline on the Memogate story at Marketwatch reads ” Four staffers and execs lose jobs over story based on faked memo.”

“Faked memo?” Yikes. They still can’t get the story right!

Jan 10, 2005 - 12:54 pm 10. klrfz1:

If the underlying reason for the 60 Minutes TexANG fraud was competitive zeal, the quest for ratings, where a scoop equals more viewers equals bigger profits, then isn’t that an insult to a committed liberal like Rather? He did it for the money not for love of humanity? Dan “Enron” Rather? Lying to the American public just to increase profits?

I hope someone asks Rather if he abused his power at CBS to try to take down a sitting President just for the money! I think he’s too proud of being a liberal to agree.

Jan 10, 2005 - 12:59 pm 11. MikeH:

It’s interesting that in the Moonves memo, that “The Anchoress” shows (linked to by Roger), Moonves keeps referring to “handwriting experts” like those type of experts were key; not document preparation experts, etc. It’s like the old boys like Moonves still don’t get it about the “memos.” As everyone has already commented, “how could any handwriting expert be relevent to a story involving copied documents, and not originals”, anyway? Interesting peep hole into a Pleistocene mind set.

Jan 10, 2005 - 1:12 pm 12. Ron Wrght:

Roger,

Do these folks actually get paid for all this smoozing and distorting the facts? Don’t they realize the important significance of the Blogos here to independently fact check what in the past has been the MSM’S sole perogative as to what the news is?

Mapes and Rather were “outed” for running a story that was an attack piece on President Bush (doesn’t mater who you were rooting). They wanted to believe this so badly, they ignored all the red flags along the way. This is what makes con games so successful. The marks want to believe and lose their common sense. The only thing is that they got caught with their hands “red handed” in cookie jar and exposed their true motives.

As for the source of the forged documents, my monies is not on either the left or the right but some bright imaginative sole in or related to the military. Keep in mind the source of the Abu Ghraid story. While this is something that shouldn’t be done, when run day after day by the MSM (YES, THE NY TIMES even ran it in the food section) without context to the horrors that Saddam committed on his own people, Abu Ghraid is put on par with Saddam.

Some computer techie military type made the letter and got it into CBS’s unreliable source knowing it would be taken straight to “Borg Cube” (Sorry TREK Reference) but would be shredded by the Blogos.

The important lesson is the emergence of a new medium of human thought that has the power to transcend political boundaries and filtering of editoral and congolomerate boardrooms. This medium is almost free and does not have to pander for readers and audiences by senstationalizing the news which inherently causes it to be out of proportion and perspective.

Case in point “Iraq the Model” as we all know reports from the ground in Iraq a much different story than the MSM is reporting for consumption here.

Now here’s my challenge to the Blogos. Here’s a much bigger story that needs to be reported to the American people and let them decide what the is the truth and/or fiction.

The MSM is sitting on this story and not reporting it because they are too scared to put their foot in the water. Go figure you’d think they would be all over this like flies on poop!

THERE IS DIRECT FORENSIC EVIDENCE THAT AN ADDITIVE IN THE DOD’s ANTHRAX VACCINE IS THE CAUSUL AGENT FOR GULF WAR SYNDROME.

FURTHER THE DOD’S LIL SHOPPE OF HORRORS, ALONG WITH THE NIH, AND THE PHARMA INDUSTRY ARE RUNNING EXPERIMENTAL CLINICAL TRIALS ON OUR BRAVE MEN IN WOMEN IN UNIFORM WITHTOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE.

In my book this is nothing more than premeditated murder. Oh well what do I know?

OK bloggors go and prove me wrong. This could affect everyone of us in that the vaccines we depend upon to protect against real pathogens like “smallpox” will be compromise:

Link Here

Ron Wright

http://www.hspig.org

Jan 10, 2005 - 1:31 pm 13. David C:

One of the Appendices (”Exhibit Appendix 2″) is interesting and pretty funny, about document analysis.

According to the panel, (I’m using a bit less sugarcoating in my paraphrasing) there are basically two main schools of document analysis, and they hate each other. The primary basis for divergence is acceptance/rejection of “graphology,” or “graphonomics,” which is a woo-woo pseudoscience that analyzes handwriting to determine personality characteristics. And it’s bunk.

http://skepdic.com/graphol.html

The other school just looks at handwriting to answer questions like “Who signed this?”

Now, just take a wild guess. Which school of document analysis do you think each of CBS’ “experts” subscribe to? There are some particularly amusing comments by Marcel Matley here.

Jan 10, 2005 - 1:40 pm 14. Rick Ballard:

David C.,

Why should the standard of proof for what is, after all, just an internal investigation be “beyond reasonable doubt”? Just because Thornburg is an attorney doesn’t mean that he needs to apply criminal standards of guilt in reaching a conclusion. Why not a “preponderance of evidence” standard? Where is the ’slam Kerry’ story that might give credence to the Rather/Mapes contention of lack of bias?

I can’t fault your logic but I believe that moving the discussion to the “beyond reasonable doubt” level lends more credence to the Rather/Mapes assertions than is warranted. Rather remains the ‘Queen of the Space Unicorns’ as far as I’m concerned.

Jan 10, 2005 - 1:45 pm 15. Terrye:

I think it is obvious that if the memos were not faked they would have been reproduced on the fabled typewriter by now and the fact that CBS can’t just say the word fake is amazing.

Jan 10, 2005 - 1:54 pm 16. David C:

Rick,

I don’t necessarily disagree, just pointing out that Thornburgh and Boccardi seem to be applying such a standard.

Was that the correct approach? I dunno. I actually lean toward thinking, yes, it was. Report the facts, report the conclusions that *can* be proved decisively, and let people make up their own minds on the rest. It’s the factual chronology that’s most damning, I think. Reading between the lines, they’re saying “hell, yeah, this was the product of political bias,” without actually saying so.

Jan 10, 2005 - 2:04 pm 17. Jamie Irons:

This “investigation” leaves rather (forgive me) a lot to be desired.

“No conclusive evidence of political bias”?

Maybe so. But when the audience starts to stay away in droves, as seems to be happening already, standards of “proof” will be entirely beside the point.

The public always seems to know when something just plain smells bad.

Look at the box office receipts for the most recent Oliver Stone film. And Stone, giving further evidence of his genius, blamed the public for not liking the film.

Reminds one of the reaction of the Democratic Party to our last election; as the Guardian lamented, “How can 59 million people be so dumb?”

Gee, could all of these phenomena be somehow related?

Jamie Irons

Jan 10, 2005 - 2:20 pm 18. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

In an interview in American Spectator, Tom Wolfe explains what an anchorman *really* is:

“The anchormen really are primitive versions of the old linotype machine. The anchor’s voice converts material written by others into a form that is easily consumable by the audience–that’s what the linotype machine did.”

Jan 10, 2005 - 3:42 pm 19. Mark Poling:

Seems to me that the authors of this had to keep in mind the question of legal liability for CBS. If the memos are fake (pretty much a given, and any decent lawyer should be able to convince a jury of that) and CBS knew they were fake (or even possibly failed to apply “professional due dilligence”) it strikes me that they would be at the very least vulnerable to a very strong civil suit.

I also wonder how the whole fiasco meshes with FCC rules and regulations regarding the Public Trust. If Janet Jackson’s nipple is worth a fine of x, what kind of fine would be appropriate for perpetrating a self-admitted fraud through the broadcast spectrum?

I’m not being rhetorical; I honestly don’t know what legal ramifications go with CBS admitting that Rathergate was a top-to-bottom fraud. But give CBS credit for some housecleaning, if nothing else.

Jan 10, 2005 - 3:53 pm 20. Assistant Village Idiot:

I like David C’s take on this. I had interpreted the document as CBS pleading guilty to a lesser offense in hopes that it would go away, but my mind is changing.

It is fascinating that they did an excellent job of examining, summarising, and consequating every problem but the main one.

Jan 10, 2005 - 3:58 pm 21. Terrye:

I got the impression re Mapes that there is at least some indication of hanky panky with the Democrats. If that is the case what would be the legal ramifications?

Jan 10, 2005 - 4:12 pm 22. Rick Ballard:

Mark Poling,

The end result of this “house cleaning” is going to be more expensive than any lawsuit verdict. David C.’s logic and rationale are unassailable but the end result is actually worse than the result of the Blair investigation and Raines firing at the NYT.

A verdict of “we don’t have evidence beyond reasonable doubt of bias” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) is going to leave the majority of American voters with a nasty taste in their mouths. I’ve read Terrye’s comments concerning her trouble with her brother today and I can hear her brother (and thirty million others) regurgitating the verdict – “See, an independet report said the documents weren’t forgeries and CBS isn’t biased. And Dan Rather sticks by the story and therefore…”

“The public always seems to know when something just plain smells bad.”

Jamie is absolutely correct. This report and CBS continue to smell bad (as does the NYT). Fortunately, an ever decreasing number of people are going to be putting up with the stink.

Jan 10, 2005 - 4:27 pm 23. ms anne:

hardball just called dan rather’s response of “i wuz busy and didn’t know what was going on but i stand by it impeccably” the TED BAXTER defense! luv that. cbs looks both stupid and fraudulent.

i think the narrow investigation and response leaves room for more serious and far-reaching investigations. the story makes more sense if cbs is part of what hardball referred to as “a conspiracy” to bring down bush, a concerted effort by anti-bush forces in the media and politics. if i were writing this as a thriller I would track back these cats:

1. was cbs coordinating their coverage with the dnc and its “fortunate son” campaign–which forced rather to stonewall criticism and uphold his area of attack while the kerry forces hit another area of the field?

2. were the memos created by the texas democrats and camp followers, close allies of rather, to boost the story?

3. were the memos created by pro-bush operatives to lure rather and mapes into committing to the story they’ve chased for five years. this leaves them and their network, proud of their abu ghraib scoop, shown to be shoddy, biased journalists with zip credibility?

Jan 10, 2005 - 4:50 pm 24. Charlie (Colorado):

Okay, Ron, I’ve sort of wondered before f you weren’t basically spammng the comments, and now I’m really about convnced. Especially with multple paragraphs of all caps slant bold nterjected nto a thread to which t’s completely rrelevant.

You’ve got a blog of your own: why don’t you take t and your tnfol hats over there?

Jan 10, 2005 - 4:51 pm 25. Terrye:

Rick:

My brother would say, “It aint nothing compared to lies the Bushies tell.”

“Why” he would say “I know this guy who grew up In ElSalvadore back when Raygun was sending out the goons to kill the freedom fighters and he talks about what REALLY went on…..”

But this ain’t nothing new he would say… they all lie.

He fancies himself a Micahel Moore, Howard Stern, Bill Maher kinda hip… cool…. can’t fool him…kinda guy.

Dumbass. I can’t believe we are related. I hope it is not genetic. He has daughters.

Jan 10, 2005 - 4:53 pm 26. richard mcenroe:

The report proves one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. Les Moonves is absolutely qualified to be the president… of UPN…

Jan 10, 2005 - 5:25 pm 27. Ben:

With respect to 99% of the decisions I make in my life, there is not “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that I am making the right decision. I submit that if I decided that I could make no decision absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I would spend most of my life looking for proof which, in many cases, simply does not exist. The fact of the matter is that most of us lead our lives and make routine decisions on the basis of whether a given thing is more likely than not to be true.

The upshot: Insisting that there must be proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a convenient way of dodging a lot of tough issues. The fact is CBS ran a hit piece on the eve of a major election that was designed to hurt a particular candidate. CBS has a lot to answer for, and saying that there is not sufficient proof to show bias won’t cut it. (For starters, if it isn’t about bais, how do you explain CBS’s lack of interest in SBVT?)

I’m not sure CBS is consciously baised. OTOH, I think there a preponderance of evidence shows at least that CBS officials were biased against GWB and in favor of JFK. Anybody who was alive during the 2004 campaign would have a hard time arguing that the coverage of the two candidates was equally skeptical in the MSM. Failure to deal with this dodges the most important issue: if news coverage is suppposed to be factual and unbiased, how can the MSM in general and CBS in particular avoid these kinds of problems in the future?

Jan 10, 2005 - 8:08 pm 28. WichitaBoy:

As someone pointed out on a previous thread, there is a significant distinction to be drawn between bias and political advocacy. CBS jumped over that line with both feet at a critical juncture in our nation’s history. They are now playing damage control. All of this points to only one conclusion: they have no integrity. The only rational response of any concerned citizen is to treat CBS as what it truly is, second cousin to the National Enquirer. Just turn it off.

Jan 10, 2005 - 9:12 pm 29. Ron Wrght:

Charlie,

I’m sorry you feel that way. I would be more than happy to wear my tin hat if it would make a difference.

This thread is more related to this breakdown of the MSM’s journalistic reponsibility, then you may know.

It is, we the people, who gave the MSM the freedom of the press not for some secular business interest but to serve as a watchdog on our government that, we the people, choose to govern so that, we the people, can hold our government accountable.

Don’t misunderstand, I strongly support this administration in its shift in our strategic foreign policy in the region and the WOT. This is a war we cannot afford to lose. See our site for further info on this.

Here

As in Rathergate the Blogosphere was able to “out” this story for the charade it was. The Blogos is a newly emerging collective human consciousness. A vast neuro network of intelligent nodes of dendritic/synapses interconnecting at an exponential rate. This network has mega processing power to do distributive parallel processing on research questions presented to it(e.g. SETI).

That’s all I’m trying to do here is to initiate the Blogos to fact check what Gary Matsumoto has reported in his new book, “Vaccine-A.” (see discussion board at http://www.vaccine-a.com).

All I’m asking is for the intelligent folks in the Blogos to come online and search for the truth.

Read More Here

There’s no one else watching out for the safety of our brave men and women in uniform taking this war to our enemy in their Homeland.

It boils down to the common bound that all street cops and soldiers have between them – “Cover my back.”

That’s my bottom line. I’m sorry if you feel I’ve spammed this thread.

Nanoo, Nanoo, Live long and prosper.

Ron Wright, Moderator

HSPIG Forums Site

http://www.hspig.org

Jan 10, 2005 - 9:58 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: