Skip to comments.CBS's memo becomes a free pass for Bush
Posted on 09/20/2004 11:07:47 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Way to go, CBS.
Thanks to your rush to kick off a new season of 60 Minutes II on Sept. 8 with big ratings, your bungling of what the pro-war blogosphere has dubbed "Memogate," your hesitation to admit the error of your ways and your blinkered eye on the bottom line, you carpet-bombed the U.S. presidential race with bluster and blather about proportional spacing, nuking what little remains of serious political discourse in the U.S. and making the Kerry-Edwards campaign collateral damage.
Meanwhile, the Bush-Cheney Jedi Mind Tricksters what consortiumnews.com called them yesterday laugh again, as the media underplay an ever-burgeoning budget deficit, a damaging internal intelligence report warning of an Iraqi civil war, Britain's impending withdrawal of troops from the "coalition," another lie by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the state and size of Iraqi security forces and just about any story that might damage George W. Bush's run for re-election.
Does nothing stick to this guy, who has yet to come clean about his alkie, Vietnam-evading past? After all, the basics of the CBS story were true, reported five years ago by Greg Palast and other real don't-just-play-one-on-TV reporters.
It's easy to imagine what Don Hewitt, the octogenarian executive producer who launched 60 Minutes in 1968 and who helmed it until CBS pushed him out last June, must think of all this. In 1998, when the network announced that it would extend his profitable franchise to a second night, he complained to me that, if it "had a Lucille Ball or a Jerry Seinfeld," it wouldn't be seeking to plug the schedule with a low-cost spinoff.
Concerned that the under-resourced second hour would "tarnish" the reputation of the original, he said, "News divisions, which used to be charged with finding news, are now charged with filling time."
As for all-news channels, filling time is all they do. Which is why, for the past six weeks or so, TV news has focused so much on side issues such as whether Democratic nominee John Kerry bled red-white-and-blue enough during and after his service in Vietnam, or if superscripted letters existed on typewriters in the 1970s.
The joke is, CBS's biggest critics including bloggers, who now claim victory for killing the MSM (that's mainstream media, to you reading this column on paper) still complain that the "legacy'' old media are "liberal media," an evil cabal hell-bent on bringing Bush down.
So how come then, if the Democrats have such a huge media advantage, Americans haven't heard much about, say, Bush's big April flip-flop on attacking Fallujah or his flip-flop last month on winning the war on terror as they have about Kerry's supposed flip-flop on voting for attacking Iraq?
FACT: U.S. Marine Lt.-Gen. James T. Conway, the outgoing commander in western Iraq, told reporters on Sept. 12 that he protested what seemed to be a political decision to attack Fallujah last spring. But he followed orders, sending the troops in. Three disastrous days later, with hundreds dead, another decision, apparently originating in the White House, was made to pull out. Conroy opposed that too but to no avail.
How much did you heard about that in this "liberal media" fuss over IBM Selectrics?
FACT: Last month, Bush told NBC that the war on terror could not be won. Then he clarified himself, by saying this was an unconventional, different war. And then his spokesperson Scott McClellan clarified the clarification, explaining that, while the U.S. couldn't "win," it could "prevail" against terror.
How much have you heard about that in this "liberal media" focus on copies from Kinko's?
FACT: In 2002, Kerry voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam but only, as he said then, "To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies."
Ask yourself if you've heard that elucidated in this "liberal media" crush to crucify CBS anchor Dan Rather who, a week after 9/11, got behind Bush on David Letterman's show, saying, "Wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where."
Now, of course, conservative pundits and their acolytes in the cybersphere are calling for Rather's head, because he has destroyed his credibility.
Frankly, he did that long ago, even before he told BBC two years ago that fear of political reprisal "keeps (American) journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions," adding "I do not except myself from this criticism."
So thanks, Dan. You've fixed it so that even fewer journalists will stick their necks out now.
As for credibility, consider that journalists (eg. the New York Times' Judith Miller) parroted the lies of now-disgraced Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi, who sold them on victory parades with flowers and sweets. The White House and its cyber-dupes engineered that con job. But are they apologizing for that? Nah.
So thanks CBS. Thanks for being "liberal" and all your good investigative work. Now please don't do us any more favours. Additional articles by Antonia Zerbisias
Brit's show did a segment on this last evening. The town is split on this memorial. The people thrive on tourism and it has one half of the town against the other half.
NELSON, British Columbia (AP) -- U.S. draft dodgers who fled to Canada are finally getting some recognition -- in Canada.
Artists and activists in this picturesque lakeside town have announced plans for a bronze monument and festival to honor them.
"This will mark the courageous legacy of Vietnam War resisters and the Canadians who helped them resettle in this country during that tumultuous era," said Isaac Romano, director of Our Way Home, a celebration set for 2006.
Dennis Klein, a sculptor and teacher at Kootenay School of the Arts, and artist Naomi Lewis have been chosen to make a memorial depicting Canadians embracing the hands of American resisters.
"I've met so many draft resisters over the years and some of them are local peers of mine that are artists and others are a part of the community," Klein said. "It would be nice to honor them and all those that actually took a step toward peace."***
Liberals, they always have excuses for their loss and it's never about their candidate being a bozo. It's always someone else's fault.
Ooh, Bush is a "mind trickster" now. But I thought he was a dummy? Now I'm all confused again.
They're always "victims."
Great quote. I think I may have a blind side because I am a reformed libbie (sorta) myself. I have to keep reminding myself why I migrated to the right--because all of my "caring" leftist buds were all talk, no action, and , frankly, more interested in "caring" about people they'd never meet than in dealing with the people right in their neighborhood who they might actually be able to help, if they'd stop talking and DO something.
I pray that they stop attempting to disrupt our defense efforts or they can watch their town dry up and blow away, the sooner the better...
Anyone reading the questions asked to President Bush will clearly see he was asked if they'd win in 4 years.
The 4 year win was the context of his response.
Precisely. Something about you can't scam an honest person?
Hey, Toronto Star: Rove tricked the morons :)
How can anyone defend this joke of a candidate (Kerry)? With everything that we know about him now and the way that he carries himself, how can a reasonably intelligent person even admit without getting embarrassed that he has any qualities (or his wife for that matter) for the white house? Maybe you Canadians would like him, take him please.
Not very comfortable with nuance, are we? (Not to mention basic communication skills...)
Somebody remind me what, besides maple syrup, Canada exports that I can refuse to purchase ever again.
Canada's redeeming qualities can be listed in one screenful of a Newton PDA:
Everything else Americans need to know about Canada can be learned from The South Park Movie.
The left turned to the dark side with all that ABB nonsense. "Fear is the path to the dark side, Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering"
"Does nothing stick to this guy, who has yet to come clean about his alkie, Vietnam-evading past? "
This read just made me laugh!!! Boy are these people angry and mean!!!!! But the Vietnam-evading part (if it were true) should make them proud. Arn't they going to
have a day to celebrate the draft dodgers sometime soon.
The lefties around the world and here at home have done nothing but throw dirt on Bush for 4 years and he just keeps on working and smiling.
These Democrat failed attempts to smear G.W. always remind me of the Road Runner cartoons where all of the sneaky tricks attempted by Wile E. Coyote backfire on him.
Loony Tunes Crash Course
I love the beep-beep roadrunner cartoons!
OReilly: "I want to ask you flat out, do you think President Clintons an honest man?"
Rather: "Yes, I think hes an honest man."
OReilly: "Do you, really?"
Rather: "I do."
OReilly: "Even though he lied to Jim Lehrers face about the Lewinsky case?"
Rather: "Who among us has not lied about something?"
OReilly: "Well, I didnt lie to anybodys face on national television. I dont think you have, have you?"
Rather: "I dont think I ever have. I hope I never have. But, look, its one thing-"
OReilly, jumping in: "How can you say hes an honest guy then?"
Rather: "Well, because I think he is. I think at core hes an honest person. I know that you have a different view. I know that you consider it sort of astonishing anybody would say so, but I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things."
Rather: "Yeah, I do."
OReilly: "See, I cant. I want my government to be honest across-the-board. I dont want people lying."
And he would have gotten away with it, if is wasn't for those meddling kids. ;)
Lying is OK as long as you don't get caught. Is what Rather is saying. Notice my new tagline!
Lying is OK as long as you don't get caught. Is what Rather is saying. Notice my new tagline!
You've got THAT right!
Once the liar no longer knows they are lying, they are lost.
Anyone care to bet what would happen if some reporter/newsperson here in the USA were to write some screed against some news-reader who appears regularly on Canadian TV?
My bet is that there would be howls of indignation from our neighbors in the Great White North.
So, Antonia, why don't you mind your own business, and write about the Canadian Press and the Canadian media?
LOL, there's Lockhart with that 'intelligent' look on his face!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.