Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Emotional Rather blasts 'new journalism order'
Brietbart.com ^ | September 19, 2005 | By Paul J. Gough, Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

Posted on 09/19/2005 8:36:17 PM PDT by aculeus

NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) - Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather said Monday that there is a climate of fear running through newsrooms stronger than he has ever seen in his more than four-decade career.

Rather famously tangled with President Nixon and his aides during the Watergate years while Rather was a hard-charging White House correspondent.

Addressing the Fordham University School of Law in Manhattan, occasionally forcing back tears, he said that in the intervening years, politicians "of every persuasion" had gotten better at applying pressure on the conglomerates that own the broadcast networks. He called it a "new journalism order."

He said this pressure -- along with the "dumbed-down, tarted-up" coverage, the advent of 24-hour cable competition and the chase for ratings and demographics -- has taken its toll on the news business. "All of this creates a bigger atmosphere of fear in newsrooms," Rather said.

Rather was accompanied by HBO Documentary and Family president Sheila Nevins, both of whom were due to receive lifetime achievement awards at the News and Documentary Emmy Awards on Monday evening.

Nevins said that even in the documentary world, there's a certain kind of intimidation brought to bear these days, particularly from the religious right.

"If you made a movie about (evolutionary biologist Charles) Darwin now, it would be revolutionary," Nevins said. "If we did a documentary on Darwin, I'd get a thousand hate e-mails."

Nevin asked Rather if he felt the same type of repressive forces in the Nixon administration as in the current Bush administration.

"No, I do not," Rather said. That's not to say there weren't forces trying to remove him from the White House beat while reporting on Watergate; but Rather said he felt supported by everyone above him, from Washington bureau chief Bill Small to then-news president Dick Salant and CBS chief William S. Paley.

"There was a connection between the leadership and the led . . . a sense of, 'we're in this together,"' Rather said. It's not that the then-leadership of CBS wasn't interested in shareholder value and profits, Rather said, but they also saw news as a public service. Rather said he knew very little of the intense pressure to remove him in the early 1970s because of his bosses' support.

Nevins took up the cause for Rather, who was emotional several times during the event.

"When a man is close to tears discussing his work and his lip quivers, he deserves bosses who punch back. I feel I would punch back for Dan," Nevins said.

Rather praised the coverage of Hurricane Katrina by the new generation of TV journalists and acknowledged that he would have liked to have reported from the Gulf Coast. "Covering hurricanes is something I know something about," he said.

"It's been one of television news' finest moments," Rather said of the Katrina coverage. He likened it to the coverage of President Kennedy's assassination in 1963.

"They were willing to speak truth to power," Rather said of the coverage.

Rather sidestepped the question of what should happen to the evening news in the expected makeover. "Not my call," he said. And he said he hadn't been asked, either.

"I gave it everything I had, I didn't hold anything back. I did the best newscast we were capable of doing," Rather said.

Nevins, who almost single-handedly has kept the art of the independent documentary on television, said the HBO documentaries show real life and do it with as little damage to the subjects as possible. She said the producers and directors "respect mostly the people on the other side of the camera."

Nevins said she didn't shy away from such R-rated topics as "G-String Divas" and "Taxicab Confessions" but noted that sex and passion have been topics of literature since Chaucer's day. "The most R-rated is a body bag, not a naked body," Nevins said.


TOPICS: Extended News; US: New York
KEYWORDS: 2004election; allthenetworksmen; brownshirtsforkerry; bullzogby; bush; cbs; chillwind; climateoffear; danrather; democrats; demonrats; dramaqueens; election2004; fraud; getbush; gungadan; howtostealanelection; journalists; liberalmedia; liberals; lyingliars; mediabias; nevins; newmedia; oldmedia; pajamapatrol; professional; rather; ratherbiased; rathergate; ratherstupid; rats; seebsnews; sheilanevins; thecryinggame; zogbyism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-274 next last
To: T. Buzzard Trueblood
Cronkite arguably invented tearing up schtick while broadcasting Kennedy's assassination. Along with everything else cry baby Rather stole Cronkite's tearing up schtick and made into his SeeBS signature.
201 posted on 09/20/2005 6:36:56 AM PDT by Milhous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: bad company

202 posted on 09/20/2005 6:47:10 AM PDT by wolicy_ponk (If we're not the mainstream, how come we nearly control all three branches of Government?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
He even took SKerry's "truth to power" line.

The only thing that would make the newrooms as safe and powerful as they used to be would be the end of the internet. We always knew they had an agenda and a viewpoint but now it doesn't go unchallenged.

203 posted on 09/20/2005 6:52:08 AM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
He did try to turn an election. But, being human and very ambitious, his principal motivation was to get a scoop, to be the first with the mostest. And he didn't report a falsehood. He made assertions which couldn't be adequately substantiated. Quite a different thing.
  1. First, since they weren't originals with original signatures, they would never have stood up in court. On that basis alone, proclaiming that the "documents" proved anything was not in the public interest.
  2. Second, the "documents" were not merely copies, but very poor quality copies - of the sort that are produced when the copy in hand is a copy of a copy of a copy, perhaps ten generations. That is suspicious because the "documents" turned up only in 2004, ten years at least after their publication would have been political dynamite. How strange that people obtained copies and made copies from them, over many generations - yet only in 2004 did they surface at CBS.
    • some of the "documents" purport to have been produced only for file and would have embarrassed their putative author "I'll backdate but I won't rate" if seen by other officers.
    • the family of the deceased putative author, who would have had the decedent's effects, deny having had those "documents" - yet they did not turn up until ten years after they would have been highly valuable to Bush's opposition. But in 2004, the "documents" turn up at CBS - with no chain of custody.
    • poor copy quality - and no original - is routine for forgeries.
  3. minor anachronisms such as old address for GW Bush when the current address would have been known and its use de rigeur; nonstandard formatting of memos and nonstandard usage within them. And a memo complains of undue influence by an officer who was already retired at the time to which the "memo" was dated.
  4. The "documents" match perfectly the results of keying the same text into Microsoft Word operating at its default settings. This is amazing because:
    • USAF stationary of that time was not 8.5 inches wide; a memo typed on narrower paper would naturally tend to be laid out differently than the same memo typed on 8.5 inch wide paper.
    • among all four memos there was not a single hyphenated word at the end of a line, as would be common with the use of a typewriter.
    • the memos contain centered text - and Microsoft Word centers perfectly, down to the pixel level whereas typewriters center down to only the character level - an odd number of typed characters is not truly centered in the same way as an even number of typed characters because that would require adding a half of a space in the line.
    • Microsoft Word not only assigns differing character space widths to various letters - "w" being given more space than than "i" - but actually nests adjoining characters together if (for example) the hook of a "j" can fit under the top of a preceding "T". This is impossible on a normal 1970's vintage typewriter.
    • Microsoft Word automatically superscripts "th" if that character couplet follows a numerical character without an intervening space; the "documents" have an example of a superscripted "th" couplet immediately after a numeric character. The "documents" also contain a "th" couplet after a numeric character but with an intervening space - in which case the "th" couplet is not superscripted. Microsoft Word would not superscript the couplet under that circumstance, either.
    The claim is made that "typewriters" capable of closely mimicking Microsoft Word existed in the early 1970s, but no example of a routine TANG document formatted in such sophisticated way has yet been produced. Since the National Guard tends to get hand-me-down equipment from the regular military, since a machine capable of that sophistication would have cost as much as a new car at the time, and since it would have been gratuitously tedious to operate at that level of sophistication for the sort of document which these "documents" purport to be, that is hardly surprising.

Mr. Bush was running, not as a former Lieutenant but as a sitting commander-in-chief, so from the Republican perspective thirty-year-old TANG memos are merely quint. But Senator Kerry wanted scrutiny of that history because he was running as a former Navy Lieutenant. CBS gave Senator Kerry a pass on an amazingly thin record as a politician in the past thirty years but pursued the merest possibility of evidence of mal/nonfeasance by Lt. Bush in the distant past in a way resembling nothing so much as Captain Ahab searching the Pacific for the great white whale. The story of "Lieutenant Bush skipped Guard Duty" collapsed under the weight of the evidence of the fraudulence of the supporting "documents."

At that point CBS reverted to the "modified limited hangout." CBS created an "independent commission" to make a show of investigating the matter - and to conclude that it was not possible to conclude that those patent forgeries were forgeries and to conclude that CBS's fanatical pursuit of the flimsiest "evidence" for the Democrat and against the Republican was not politically motivated.

So much for the good faith of CBS; with malice aforethought they aired a vicious, fraudulent hit piece in an attempt to manipulate the electorate and produce the election result they favored. And when caught, they stonewalled shamelessly. No objective journalist could fail to know that that is what happened. And no journalist who wishes to be considered "objective" by establishment journalism - including but not limited to CBS - dares to state the obvious truth.

Only a journalist like Rush Limbaugh - a journalist who is dedicated to the truth rather than to a staying in the good graces of go-along-and-get-along Establishment journalism - would tell the obvious truth of the matter. And the "conservative talk show host" journalists like Rush learned the obvious truth from the Internet. Ultimately, from Free Republic.


204 posted on 09/20/2005 6:52:47 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
Rather implies that it is the repressive/coercive Bush Administration that is responsible for the 'fear'. . .when it is simply the TRUTH that brings them to their knees. . .
205 posted on 09/20/2005 7:03:36 AM PDT by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: devolve

The insane liberals in California are very aware of what we did to Blather. When one of them with some left wing power starts lying around me, I smile and say they can end up just like their lying role model Blather for lying and spinning their hatred of GW.

It is like throwing cold water on them.


206 posted on 09/20/2005 8:32:35 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Jamie Gorelick is responsible for more dead Americans(9-11) than those killed in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

"Translation: We can't get away with lying anymore."

Use the Blather removal and your comment to any left winger with power after they lie, and watch them shut, and turn away or go totally insane.



207 posted on 09/20/2005 8:37:33 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Jamie Gorelick is responsible for more dead Americans(9-11) than those killed in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
You seem to have to have looked more closely at the evidence than I did. I gave up when the experts were arguing about what they saw at the microscopic level...and still couldn't reach agreement. Also, you present as proven things that were, and still are, under dispute such as the stuff about the "th" and whether or not the TANG could have afforded typewriters capable of producing the "memos".

CBS gave Senator Kerry a pass on an amazingly thin record as a politician in the past thirty years but pursued the merest possibility of evidence of mal/nonfeasance by Lt. Bush in the distant past

Generally true.

The story of "Lieutenant Bush skipped Guard Duty" collapsed under the weight of the evidence of the fraudulence of the supporting "documents

No it didn't. Quite the contrary...but proof that would stand up in court never surfaced.

My experience and reading tell me that whether or not clever young men serve in the armed forces and/or fight in combat is a matter of choice. That's even more true when the men are from rich and powerful families.

Viet Nam was a very unpopular war. All sorts of clever young men avoided service and combat. So when people tell me that young George obtained entry to a well-known rich-man's safe-haven, that he avoided duty when he felt like it and some of his officers refused to criticize him for it, and that he got out the same way - all through family influence I believe it. When some of the principals - such as the guy who claimed to have actually done the family's bidding and the former TANG secretary - confirm it, I believe it.

Nor was this kind of thing limited to VietNam. It occured in all wars. Sometimes it was blatant when people avoided service by buying substitutes to take their place. More often, the dodges were more subtle; 4-F, special assignments, vital national work at home, etc. I'm not fooled by any of them.

Only a journalist like Rush Limbaugh - a journalist who is dedicated to the truth rather than to a staying in the good graces of go-along-and-get-along Establishment journalism

That's hilarious since Rush presents himself as a partisan entertainer and always has.

Don't fool yourself. Being objective when reporting the news is probably beyond human capability. Some are much better than others, no doubt about it. But everyone is biased by self-interest and limited vision.

208 posted on 09/20/2005 8:50:12 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Milhous

Yeah, absolutely.
Rather clearly regards Cronkite's tearing up on air as being the pinnacle of anchormanship-he mentions the Kennedy assassination in the speech that this article covers. Rather has tried all his life to duplicate that moment, and the effect is always jarringly wrong. Cronkite (who I can't stand) was at least crying out of genuine grief. Rather cries to say, "look at me. I'm a man, but I cry, because I'm sensitive. Ultimately, Dan Rather is about Dan Rather.


209 posted on 09/20/2005 9:00:57 AM PDT by T. Buzzard Trueblood ("...there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." - Thomas Kean, chairman, 9/11 Commission)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: devolve

BTTT!


210 posted on 09/20/2005 10:15:35 AM PDT by dixiechick2000 ("Virtute et armis" - By valor and arms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig

I was hedging.


211 posted on 09/20/2005 10:36:53 AM PDT by Boiler Plate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
The story of "Lieutenant Bush skipped Guard Duty" collapsed under the weight of the evidence of the fraudulence of the supporting "documents
No it didn't. Quite the contrary...but proof that would stand up in court never surfaced.

My experience and reading tell me that whether or not clever young men serve in the armed forces and/or fight in combat is a matter of choice. That's even more true when the men are from rich and powerful families.

Viet Nam was a very unpopular war. All sorts of clever young men avoided service and combat. So when people tell me that young George obtained entry to a well-known rich-man's safe-haven

The specifics of history matter. Viet Nam became a very unpopular war after the Tet Offensive. It didn't really happen overnight and - though I've seen on FR a posting which purports to document that John Kerry was ambivalent about Viet Nam while he was still in college - it wasn't well started on that road (at least in the popular press) until after Tet.

That matters to me in the sense that since Kerry is a year older than Bush, they made their decisions on the military at different stages of that evolution. Had Kerry been a year younger than Bush, and thus had Kerry like Clinton been in college when the antiwar protests draft riots were in full swing, Kerry's choice might have been to go to law school instead of signing up for the Navy and ending up in Viet Nam. In such case Kerry very well might have availed himself of choices which would have kept him out of harm's way.

But in fact the time Bush entered TANG was a time when antiwar sentiment was further developed than it was when Kerry entered the Navy. Bush did not, and has at no time claimed any different, sign up for an active combat arm which would have been sure to have gotten him to Viet Nam.

But he did join an inactive combat arm. Training as a fighter pilot isn't the way to guarantee you won't be activated and sent into battle. In fact the training to get you up to flying status isn't just a Weekend Warrior thing - you have to go into effectively active status for a significant time in order to train enough to attain flight status. Training to be a fighter pilot is expensive and time-consuming, and when Bush joined TANG he could not have known that the military would not decide that it needed to activate him after he was trained. And there is such a thing as an "operational accident" to consider the possibility of before you sign on for fighter pilot duty, even as a reserve.

Bush became an operational reserve fighter pilot, and maintained flight status until US involvement in Viet Nam was wound down. At that point the USAF pulled a boatload of fighter pilots back home and deactivated them. Many of them loved to fly and joined the Air National Guard. And suddenly the paucity of ANG fighter pilots turned to a glut. Instead of being an asset to the Guard, Lt Bush was competition for limited flight hours among all those combat veterans.

So if you were the commander of Bush's TANG fighter wing, would you at that point exercise yourself to make sure that Lt. Bush maintained flight status? Or would you not in fact prefer that he leave flight status and do something else? If you were in Lt. Bush's shoes in that circumstance, might you not in fact choose to do something else, and feel free to commit to an out-of-state political campaign?


212 posted on 09/20/2005 10:48:31 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Only a journalist like Rush Limbaugh - a journalist who is dedicated to the truth rather than to a staying in the good graces of go-along-and-get-along Establishment journalism
That's hilarious since Rush presents himself as a partisan entertainer and always has.

Don't fool yourself. Being objective when reporting the news is probably beyond human capability. Some are much better than others, no doubt about it. But everyone is biased by self-interest and limited vision.

Exactly. Being objective is beyond human capability.

That being so, claiming to be objective is arrogant. And identifying yourself as an entertainer and as a partisan whose perspective has a name (and that name is not a virtue such as "moderate" or "objective") is actually an exercise of the virtue of humility.

Journalists who position themselves as being objective - or who claim objectivity outright - are the last ones you should beleive.


213 posted on 09/20/2005 11:04:17 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

They are afraid.

They're afraid because the unwashed masses that they spoon fed for years turned on them when given a chance. They're afraid because all of their cherished ideals and assumptions were found to be not as wide held as believed.

In short, they are afraid because they have had to face reality.


214 posted on 09/20/2005 11:31:39 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
you present as proven things that were, and still are, under dispute such as the stuff about the "th" and whether or not the TANG could have afforded typewriters capable of producing the "memos".
My professional career was in an office in a defense contractor. I saw tons of memos in my day. And before the advent of word processing I never saw a memo which could possibly have been confused with a product of Microsoft Word. Nobody was using a machine of the complexity which would have supported that sort of quality; if you had seen that sort of document back in the early/mid seventies you would have instantly taken it for the product of a print shop.

It would have been absurd to pay the price of a car for a "typewriter" capable of that, and it would have been absurd to take the trouble to operate such a complex machine for a memo. And some of these "memos" purport to have been written to file. Not meant to see the light of day, and yet they were made on the most complicated to use typewriter in the office that they had no reason to have in the office?

More likely than buying a white elephant like that, TANG might have gotten a hand-me-down typewriter from the USAF. And don't even think of trying to convince me that Killian typed those "memos" himself on such a complex machine. Killian's family says he didn't type - and my experience of such a meliu was that engineers didn't type either. I was one, and had taken a typing course in HS thinking it would help me in college. And I found that you "positioned" yourself in a bad way if you ever laid hand on a typewriter in the office. And a test pilot told me he had the selfsame experience, only worse.

On top of that, the Air Force used 8-inch wide paper back then. If you laid out a memo to look right on that size of paper, what would it look like when copied it onto eight-and-a-half by eleven paper? And wouldn't it be off-center?

Those "memos" were made on Microsoft Word, long after their putative dates. They were made by someone who had some experience of military correspondence but who was not immersed in Air Force culture circa 1973. They were not closely held for three decades, then suddenly copied promiscuously (as would be indicated by the poor quality of the copy) without reaching anyone but Bill Burkett. They were made in 2004 by Bill Burkett or someone he knows personally, and they were deliberately reduced in quality by repeated copying of copy of a copy, to obliterate any possiblity that experts could be certain that the signatures were bogus.

If TANG had had a machine capable of emulating Microsoft Word, the products of that machine would not have been limited to four memos about a lowly Lieutenant, however well-connected.


215 posted on 09/20/2005 12:35:45 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
The VietNam war was unpopular from its beginning. Certainly Kennedy was worried about it, and Johnson thought it would be the end of him. It was. I'm not sure how old you are but it seems you only read about it. I lived it.

As you point out Kerry was no different than Bush, morally. He didn't choose combat in the way Jimmy Stewart or Clark Gable or Bush the elder did during WWII.

216 posted on 09/20/2005 1:11:39 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Agreed.


217 posted on 09/20/2005 1:19:02 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Agreed.


218 posted on 09/20/2005 1:19:35 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

I can't argue with you about this. I don't have similar, relevant personal experience. All I did was read what "experts" had to say...and was unable to draw any definite conclusions.


219 posted on 09/20/2005 1:23:41 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
The VietNam war was unpopular from its beginning. Certainly Kennedy was worried about it, and Johnson thought it would be the end of him. It was. I'm not sure how old you are but it seems you only read about it. I lived it.
My first vote, and my third one, were for Nixon. I did indeed live through that era. I recall quite clearly that Vietnam was a topic of discussion during the Kennedy years but not a consuming one, because the number of military personnel in Viet Nam was orders of magnitude less than what it became under Johnson after Tonkin Gulf.

But I do remember that the Diem government wasn't good enough for the reporters of the day, which is why Diem was dispatched. It was infuriating to hear the claims of his widow, Madam Nhu, that the US overthrew and murdered him. Unfortunately, it was true. That was a month before JFK was shot.

To me as a conservative, the post-Tet media opposition to Viet Nam came pretty much out of the blue; as a liberal you may have been better tuned to ealier vibes along that line.


220 posted on 09/20/2005 2:11:18 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Here we see members of the OLD Red Guard Marxiststream Media commiserating at Gunga Dan's plight...

Lamestream Media is a Mastadon, stuck in the tarpit, complaining at the view!

221 posted on 09/20/2005 2:33:28 PM PDT by Itzlzha ("The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devolve
"A few words, a cartoon, a webpage - they turn into the little lying jerks they always have been"

The MSM will never be the same. And they know they are tired old dinosaurs in the final phase of decline. That's why they're so pissed.

222 posted on 09/20/2005 4:33:14 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Czar
"When a man is close to tears discussing his work and his lip quivers, he deserves bosses who punch back. I feel I would punch back for Dan," Nevins said.

Gosh, I didn't know I could projectile vomit 100 yards until I read this little diddy.

223 posted on 09/20/2005 5:47:37 PM PDT by right wing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Czar

In today's news alone, there were stories of cut-backs in the staffs of newspapers in PA and in Britain. Every year the number of papers dwindles. Their time has come and gone. They will not be missed except as bird cage liners.


224 posted on 09/20/2005 5:56:07 PM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

Did you read the analysis of Joseph Newcomer?

http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm

This guy totally, definitively nails it with no caveats, cavils or qualifications. He demolishes all comers at the bit level. And he ought to know. He is one of the fathers of computer typography.

CBS's own experts told them the fonts indicated forgery before they went to air. Mary Mapes' response to that was "Well, we can get an expert to say anything we need them to." Think about that for a minute, especially the use of the word "need."

And then she proceeded to air. She lied internally at CBS to get the story aired and to defend it after it aired. She hooked Burkett up with Joe Lockhart. The DNC "Fortunate Son" ad campaign started the next morning. Every major news outlet in the country had the story of the documents as a lead story the next morning. It was a cornerstone of the strategy to defeat Bush. Victory, not accuracy, was the prime directive.

The Thornburgh commission's expert, Tytel, also concluded the documents were forgeries, even though the report itself rather inexplicably did not. I am unaware of any legitimate expert opinion that the documents are not forgeries. I exclude here the bozo typewriter repair guy trotted out by CBS that week, and the various DU, Daily Kos barking moonbats out there such as Corety Pein at the Columbia Journalism Review. The guy at Utah State who came out and said they might be legit turned out to be so out of his depth it was kind of pitiful. Newcomer dismantled this guy so thoroughly they stopped the fight. Newcomer has not been refuted. There is a reason for that. He's right, the documents are fakes.

You relegate yourself to the company flat-earthers to insist that the forgery has not been proven. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are no circumstances surrounding them which support their authenticity, and literally dozens, nigh unto 50 or 60 discrete facts - only some of which have been enumerated by conservatism_is_compassion - indicative of forgery, some overwhelmingly so. A general who has been retired 18 months pressuring Killian over a rating. What a freaking joke.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but with respect I say to you this one is in need of correction.

Regards,


225 posted on 09/20/2005 6:33:16 PM PDT by Buckhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather said Monday that there is a climate of fear running through newsrooms stronger than he has ever seen in his more than four-decade career.

I guess I'd be afraid if my world were crumbling in around me.

226 posted on 09/20/2005 6:36:37 PM PDT by TankerKC (The Media turn each tactical victory for insurgents into a strategic victory for terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
To me as a conservative, the post-Tet media opposition to Viet Nam came pretty much out of the blue; as a liberal you may have been better tuned to ealier vibes along that line.

It's hard to re-create the mentality of that time. I can say that the young people I knew saw very little justification for fighting the Vietnamese.

Had we chosen a different strategy and avoided a massive draft that wouldn't have mattered. But we didn't and I doubt we could have.

227 posted on 09/20/2005 6:38:14 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Larry...I'm here to tell you, and you can quote me, the memos were fake.

Again...they were written in a format the the USAF (or Air Guard) did not adopt until the early 1990s.

228 posted on 09/20/2005 6:45:51 PM PDT by TankerKC (The Media turn each tactical victory for insurgents into a strategic victory for terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
They were made by someone who had some experience of military correspondence but who was not immersed in Air Force culture circa 1973

True. That is why they used memo formats that the USAF established in the early 1990s. Whoever wrote those things was unaware of the old formats that were used in 1972.

229 posted on 09/20/2005 6:50:03 PM PDT by TankerKC (The Media turn each tactical victory for insurgents into a strategic victory for terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
"dumbed-down, tarted-up" coverage

This sounds, Dan Rather, like an apt desription of the National Guard records you tried to foist on the American public in an effort to throw the Presidential election.

230 posted on 09/20/2005 6:54:12 PM PDT by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Had we chosen a different strategy and avoided a massive draft that wouldn't have mattered. But we didn't and I doubt we could have.
Well, for darn sure we didn't.

There are articles and books on the "woulda coulda shoulda" issue; probably someone other than Robert McNamara would have done differently. IMHO he was a tragic choice.


231 posted on 09/20/2005 7:03:09 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; potlatch; ntnychik; devolve; BOBTHENAILER; bitt; Blurblogger; pookie18; Buckhead; ...

232 posted on 09/20/2005 7:29:30 PM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: TankerKC
they used memo formats that the USAF established in the early 1990s.
Thanks for the corroboration; I never dealt with military memos but only with the contractor (Grumman) ones under Navy contract. But everything about the "memos" says that they were created by someone or some people who did a bit of research enough to have a lot of things right - but they were apparently too young to have really appreciated the difference between typing and word processing. It really wasn't a professional job of document forgery.

You OTOH would be able to make a forgery with far fewer anachronisms in it because you (presumably) dealt with the documents of the Air Force of that era. And it wouldn't likely occur to you to use Microsoft Word on its default font. But even so, it would be easy to forget some detail and slip up.


233 posted on 09/20/2005 7:30:40 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead
You, obviously, were more deeply involved in this issue than I. :)

Did you read the analysis of Joseph Newcomer?

I remember reading Newcomer and being deeply impressed. But there were others who seemed just as knowledgeable, just as highly credentialed, who disputed many of his points. I couldn't decide who was right...and had no desire to become an expert in the matter.

You relegate yourself to the company flat-earthers to insist that the forgery has not been proven.

Did I insist? I'm usually much more forceful when I do that. :)
I have no problem believing the documents were forgeries. I just can't say I've come to that conclusion on my own.

I remember that CBS's experts did not speak with one voice. Am I mistaken? Mary Mapes' mentality is typical of the world she belongs to - agressive, ambitious, cynical, unprincipled (Rosalind Russel describes the mentality beautifully in one of her '30s movies with Cary Grant). Not that different from practitioners of realpolitic. It's what you want in certain positions. I fault Rather for not knowing her limits, how to properly use her.

There's nothing wrong with the strong connection between the DNC and media people who support them (Both parties use the media to their advantage when they can. They'd be unprofessional if they didn't). The bottom line is that all concerned believed that Bush was guilty of the things they accused him of - they cut corners in the proof - and believing what they did they thought they were serving a noble purpose. It's a common conceit that gets lots of people in trouble.

Victory, not accuracy, was the prime directive

In politics? NO! Are you sure?

You relegate yourself to the company flat-earthers to insist that the forgery has not been proven

We're all there at some time or other on some issues. It's a risk that comes with taking a public position...or any position.

234 posted on 09/20/2005 7:34:08 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

Dan failed to mention both the internet and bias. That's odd. I wonder why he failed to detect those two forces as part of the "fear" felt in newsrooms across the nation? Could those two have anything to do with plunging ratings and more competition? Just a hunch.


235 posted on 09/20/2005 7:35:20 PM PDT by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
You should send that to 60 DNC Minutes, they'll probably do a story on it!!

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

236 posted on 09/20/2005 7:36:36 PM PDT by bray (Pray for the Freedom of the Iraqis from Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo


Careful Phil -

Danny-Boy cries so easily.......


237 posted on 09/20/2005 7:39:02 PM PDT by devolve (-------------- (--- under deconstruction ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay

And, btw - wasn't Dan a part of management over there at CBS land for a few years? I guess he worked in the make-up department and was partially responsible for all that tarting up. Nothing like failing to take responsibility.


238 posted on 09/20/2005 7:40:02 PM PDT by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Polybius; Impeach98; wagglebee; Mo1; kcvl; bd476; Boazo; PhilDragoo; Prime Choice; Registered; ...



COURAGE, DAN!
There are other tyrants you can still support...
I hear Robert Mugabe needs some positive press these days....no fear in his newsroom, only fear of starvation by all the peasants he's starving.

239 posted on 09/20/2005 7:40:58 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (SAVE THE BRAINFOREST! Boycott the RED Dead Tree Media & NUKE the DNC Class Action Temper Tantrum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
"All of this creates a bigger atmosphere of fear in newsrooms,"

Speaking of the 24hr news services I bet it does, along with FR I bet it scares the shite out of them.
240 posted on 09/20/2005 7:44:52 PM PDT by glaseatr (God Bless, My Nephew, SGT Adam Estep 2nd Bat, 5th Cav reg died Thursday April 29, 2004 Baghdad Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TankerKC
Larry...I'm here to tell you, and you can quote me, the memos were fake.

Ok. I believe it. :)

But they were never that important to me.

241 posted on 09/20/2005 7:45:08 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
LOL, Clinton and Rather keep turning up like two bad pennys!

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

242 posted on 09/20/2005 9:40:10 PM PDT by potlatch (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

CBS lied about what its experts had said. It subsequently developed that they had submitted the documents to 3 experts. Two to look at overall authenticity, one to look at the signature. The signature guy authenticated the signature, subject to the caveat that he was working from copies. He said nothing of the overall document, though CBS tried to claim that he did. The other two told CBS the documents were not right. The family told them the documents didn't sound right. Burkett himself told them they could not go with the docs unless they got them independently authenticated - he was not vouching for them. So, in the end, what did they have to support the documents' authenticity? Absolutely Nothing. Even the secretary who was the typist in that office said they used regular electric typewriters. Such machines are incapable of producing such a document - it is simply and definitively impossible. Her statement about content is of no help to CBS. Fake but accurate is not an argument for authenticity. It is an admission they are fakes, and the game is over.

As for parsing Newcomer vs. the others, whoever they might be, (and I know of no authoritative refutation), give yourself more credit. If you work through it, the conclusion is inescapable. These documents have features that were impossible to generate on contemporary typewriters. Tytel concluded the font in question was simply unavailable on typewriters at the time. Period. End of Story. This is just not that complicated.


243 posted on 09/21/2005 4:34:53 AM PDT by Buckhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry; Buckhead; CasearianDaoist; headsonpikes; beyond the sea; E.G.C.; ...
There's nothing wrong with the strong connection between the DNC and media people who support them (Both parties use the media to their advantage when they can. They'd be unprofessional if they didn't).
I have no problem believing the documents were forgeries. I just can't say I've come to that conclusion on my own.
As a teenager I had the experience of having demostrated something to Dad and having him criticze me for taking the chance. I replied, "It worked, didn't it?" Dad rejoined, "Once in a million!" My reaction was to repeat the (actually low stakes) stunt, which predictably (in my own recondite experience) worked again. Dad replied, "Twice in two million!"

The moral of the story is that:

You claim that you "have no problem believing the documents were forgeries" and yet you set the standard of proof to infinity with your rope-a-dope "I haven't looked at it" evasion. You have not looked at it, and you will not - because it's too clear that you could not sustatin your worldview if you did look at it.

From the fact that the "memos" are patent forgeries it follows not only that Mary Mapes was tendentious but that CBS as an organization was and is tendentious with its "independent commission" which was about as independent of CBS as your left eye is from your right.

As an impartial arbiter of truth, therefore, CBS News is rotten to the core. And what follows from that? All other news organizations know it - and do not say so. They do not say so, because Big Journalism is permanently in full go-along-and-get-along mode. Competition exists among the various organs of Big Journalism - but not ideological diversity. Big Journalism defines itself as "objective" journalism. But it is not objective; no human institution is. Big Journalism defines "objectivity" as not breaking the mutual admiration society pact.

I assert that there is no ideological competion among Big Media organs, even though I do not claim that they are all controlled by the Democratic Party nor even, as some would have it, Hillary Clinton. Big Journalism is a voluntary, ad hoc "organization." Big Journalism self organizes on the principle that "you never pick an argument with someone who buys ink by the carload." That is a principle which is at once arrogant and cowardly. Externally arrogant toward the general public, and internally cowardly among each other.

Each individual journalist is not able to control the course of journalism, any more than George Bush could with a breath have controled the course of Katrina. The individual journalist is not Big Journalism; the individual journalist is a mere celebrity among many celebrities. Movie stars are celebrities, not inherently qualified to speak authoritatively on farm policy for having portrayed farmers on TV or on law enforcement for having portrayed cops in the movies. And yet the Democratic politician - whether Hillary Clinton or any other - does not control Big Journalism either. All are entrained in the dervish of whirling motion, unorganized and yet systematic. All liberal celebrities, bound up in the one idea - that nothing really matters except PR.

Those who insist on any other principle, the PR Borg vociferously punishes with negative PR. They are "extreme right wing." Most of all they are "not a journalist, not objective." Thus a Bernard Goldberg can be a journalist - until he insists on a principle which is independent of, and therefore contradictiory to, the PR principle. Bernard Goldberg writes Bias, and he is an unmade man - "not a journalist, not objective."

What is the issue between those who call themselves liberals (or who, having run that word into the ground, insist on being called "progressive," or some other virtue) and those whom those "liberals" call conservatives? Conservatives, idealists that they are, have taken for granted that the issue was truth. But reality is different. The issue is not truth; the issue is whether the issue is truth. Whether, that is, the issue is truth or power.


244 posted on 09/21/2005 6:50:20 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Media bias bump.


245 posted on 09/21/2005 7:09:51 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Truth v. Power bump


246 posted on 09/21/2005 7:32:23 AM PDT by auboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
Thanks for the ping. I am coming late to the party and I have not read the thread. However, by my way of thinking, #244 is excellent.

All are entrained in the dervish of whirling motion, unorganized and yet systematic.

I have often wondered if the press and much of politics isn't subtly controlled by the Washington, New York, and Hollywood cocktail circuit, the same circuit that is fertile ground for gossip columnist. Just as all politics is local, all lives are ego, assuming for this discussion that ego is self.

We must remember that Communism is fantasy. It is the Big Lie. Under it all is an Earthly Paradise with no pesky God always annoying you about morals. It is an especially appealing place for the elite for not only are they not bothered by morals, that are not subject to the bubble, bubble, toil and trouble of the masses. It is a perfect fairytale where they can be nice without really having to go to that trouble. They need simply give allegiance to high-sounding ideals like social safety nets, equality for all, affirmative action to overcome slavery, day care, food stamps, welfare checks, free health care, guaranteed retirement for the elderly, and on through the liberal litany of programs. They only have to give lip service, make it all the law of the land and spend someone elses money to accomplish it. Then their world is complete and their job is done. Let someone else deal with the details and make it work.

The elite then meet for awhile once or twice a week at someone's mansion or at fancy hotels and restaurants and hug and kiss and assure each other how wonderful they are.

For someone to be rude enough to point out the emperor is naked, that all those wonderful sounding programs are doing more harm that good, is to become disinvited to the elegant orgies of goodness. Doing things to make society work takes work. That is not nearly as enjoyable as talking about it.

To try to shake people out of this reverie is to invite their wrath. Conservatives, the ones pointing out the emperor's nudity, are demonized, their reputations besmirched, their livelihoods in jeopardy. Regrettably, to understand, we must empathize with the left. They have created a beautiful world view. They are happy there. It is their reality. The only problem is human nature and facts keep spoiling the view. Conservatives are especially annoying that way. So is the Constitution. Destroying such a beautiful and satisfying reality is frightening to them, worse than death for some. So they strike back.

How do you defend a lie? With more lies, of course. That is what we see everyday in the media and on Capital Hill.

No, as you say, nothing nor anyone is objective.

The issue is not truth; the issue is whether the issue is truth. Whether, that is, the issue is truth or power

Conservatives seek truth as their guide, knowing fulfill all the work and responsibility that entails. The left seek power. That is the only way to keep the fantasy alive and to keep those pesky annoyances like morals and responsibility from intruding.

247 posted on 09/21/2005 7:54:48 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
You claim that you "have no problem believing the documents were forgeries" and yet you set the standard of proof to infinity with your rope-a-dope "I haven't looked at it" evasion. You have not looked at it, and you will not - because it's too clear that you could not sustatin your worldview if you did look at it

You're going off the rails here.

I looked at the evidence as best I could - given the time and energy I was willing to expend - and couldn't decide who was right. I said so.
I also said I believed George Bush behaved in the way he was accused of behaving whether or not the memos were forgeries - for the reasons I gave - and that's why I didn't care much about the memos. Another reason - strangely a version of one you advanced - was that what concerned me most was each party's proposed response to the Islamic threat, not the candidates behavior 30 years prior. I voted for Bush because I favored his approach...not because I believed he was a great guy or liked his policy or belief on other issues. I voted against Kerry because I feared the inordinate influence of political correctniks, not because I thought the Swifties had successfully discredited his performance in VietNam.

" Big Journalism self organizes on the principle that "you never pick an argument with someone who buys ink by the carload."

You may not realize it but that's a populist critique of capitalism, especially corporate capitalism. You're describing the behavior of the national association of manufacturers, the AMA, the lawyers guilds, etc, not just major media.

In fact, you're lamenting human nature. "Don't bite the hand that feeds you". You think that applies only to liberals or to the major media?

The founders solution to that was to realize that there are many hands...and to try to make sure that the law protected all of them.

All liberal celebrities, bound up in the one idea - that nothing really matters except PR...Conservatives, idealists that they are, have taken for granted that the issue was truth

Found your white knight, have you? You've been watching too many B movies.

248 posted on 09/21/2005 8:01:10 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Dan Rather said Monday that there is a climate of fear running through newsrooms stronger than he has ever seen in his more than four-decade career.

As it should be. Every one of us is in fear that if we don't do our job properly we'll be fired.
249 posted on 09/21/2005 8:03:24 AM PDT by uncitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
The aggressive attitude of the fighter pilot is captured in a sign in a fighter pilot's ready room:
I can beat any man
in any land
for any amount
that he can count.
The fact that Mr. Bush volunteered for fighter pilot training, albeit in the National Guard, is a marker of the kind of aggressive attitude which might, at a slightly earlier stage of American political history, have inspired him to volunteer for combat duty.
I looked at the evidence as best I could - given the time and energy I was willing to expend - and couldn't decide who was right. I said so. I also said I believed George Bush behaved in the way he was accused of behaving whether or not the memos were forgeries - for the reasons I gave - and that's why I didn't care much about the memos.
I noticed that you did not respond to my #212.
Bush became an operational reserve fighter pilot, and maintained flight status until US involvement in Viet Nam was wound down. At that point the USAF pulled a boatload of fighter pilots back home and deactivated them. Many of them loved to fly and joined the Air National Guard. And suddenly the paucity of ANG fighter pilots turned to a glut. Instead of being an asset to the Guard, Lt Bush was competition for limited flight hours among all those combat veterans.

So if you were the commander of Bush's TANG fighter wing, would you at that point exercise yourself to make sure that Lt. Bush maintained flight status? Or would you not in fact prefer that he leave flight status and do something else? If you were in Lt. Bush's shoes in that circumstance, might you not in fact choose to do something else, and feel free to commit to an out-of-state political campaign?

If John Kerry had faced the decision to join the military two or three years later - at the same time as Bill Clinton - there is certainly very little in Kerry's history to suggest he would have been determined to go to Vietnam and much to suggest that he would have been a protester like Bill. And little or nothing in if George Bush's record would make you believe that he would have become an antiwar protester if he had faced the decision to join the military a year or two later, when Bill Clinton did.

250 posted on 09/21/2005 11:20:10 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-274 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson