"Sitting in for Dan Rather tonight..."
Posted on 09/17/2004 11:50:35 AM PDT by khp0129
In the Eye of the Storm: Riding it Out with Dan Rather
by Karen Pittman 17 September 2004
No matter what those celluloid talking heads say, I rather doubt Dan Rather and CBS got “snookered,” as Bill O'Reilly, the biggest blubbering head of all, bloviatingly opined. I rather doubt they got “had,” as those babbling TV brains like to claim. Rather, I am persuaded they were at least in some measure in on the whole wretched hoax. I say it’s rather more likely than not that Dan Rather and CBS were complicit in airing those forged documents whose sole purpose was to show that George W. Bush received preferential treatment while serving in the Texas Air National Guard.
That's not to say they authored the memos. That's not even to say they know who did. They do know who their source is, however, and whether or not he or she is reliable. They know, for instance, whether their informant is a Kerry operative.
But that is to say that Dan Rather and CBS likely realized they were gambling when they ran their story on 60 Minutes II. They likely realized those papers they exhibited as evidence were likely falsified (who could not?), but they just as likely didn’t give a damn. Discrediting President Bush at the crucial hour was more important. Discrediting the President trumped journalistic integrity; it trumped reputation and ratings; and most disquieting of all, it trumped the truth.
Who’s discredited now?
After all, Rather and his cohorts at CBS were in search of a bigger kind of truth. They were in search of a more noble, lofty, Platonic Idea of Truth, which, in their morally relative, relatively immoral philosophical alter-universe, apparently trumps the plain Aristotelian Truth any old day.
In other words, Dan Rather and CBS were only too eager to contaminate the pre-election well with these four dubious, strategically-leaked, drab poison-processor drips -- so eager, in fact, that they gave themselves unprecedented journalistic license, sufficient even unto undoing due diligence. They, in their enthusiasm, in their greed, rushed to judgment -- and then to put their sloppy segment in the can. And because the needs of the candidate they sought to serve were infinitely more urgent in their minds than their sense of obligation to create clarity in a cloudy clime, they willfully disregarded their cautionary instincts.
And in airing, they erred.
And now that the Eye has blinked and finds itself staring squarely into another kind of eye, a much angrier kind, it is unbelievably slow to open up.
Dan Rather and CBS are only now, some six days after going to press on September 10, distancing themselves from the controversial documents, even as they swear the story itself is accurate. Only now is CBS writing its own CYA memos. In so doing, the anchorman and the network are arbitrarily, and far too long after the fact, dismissing the significance of the very credentials they themselves touted in the first place -- papers purporting to prove the validity of a tale whose truth they now contend no longer requires the support of a carbon-copy buttress (also known as “a lying buttress”).
What self-serving, circular reasoning! Why should the astute viewer be any more inclined to accept this latest CBS spin as gospel than he was willing to accept those fabricated documents as fact? Why should he do as Dan wants and credit his underlying thesis as credible, when the only putatively irrefutable corroboration of that thesis the network has to date proffered is clearly neither clearly credible nor irrefutable? If CBS fudged to advance its anti-Bush agenda, then surely it would fudge to save face. Its fallback position would inevitably be to stick to its story that even if the memos are fake, the portrait they paint of the young, callow, silver spoon-fed George Walker Bush is undeniably a true-to-life John Singer Sargent original.
But the question remains: What portrait? If there is no legitimate, confirmed artist, how then can there be a legitimate, confirmed work of art?
Well, on second thought, I take that back. What we have here, folks, is a genu-whine work of art, all right -- courtesy of the copiers at Kinko’s.
Besides, even if the narrative on which these sham memoranda are based is true, CBS stupidly fails to comprehend that its broadcasting of them is itself a bigger story, with broader implications for the country as a whole and for this election in particular, than the matter of George Bush's military record some thirty-odd years ago in the National Guard is, has been, or ever will be.
So what if CBS says the substance of its story is true? How can the network know that? Because Marian Knox and Ben Barnes say so? Knox is known to have anti-war leanings and Barnes is often called a criminal. And anyway, their statements are rank hearsay, and, as such, would never bear up in a court of law -- and, as such, should never be permitted to stand as the last words underpinning a serious news piece.
Furthermore, in the wake of this hurricane, how can the public whose interests CBS is supposed to serve henceforth place any credence in anything the Eye professes to see? If these documents, which the network vetted as its only tangible, admissible proof of the allegations it leveled against President Bush, are demonstrably false, then CBS has no evidence, period. After all, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian is twenty years dead. And his survivors either refute the network’s charges or largely contradict one another. And the testimony of both Barnes and Knox is nullified by their bias.
Besides, you can’t just buy the truth at your corner copy mart for quarters. You can’t reproduce it on a Xerox.
Face it, Dan Rather and CBS: It’s wrong to tell a story. Those documents were the story. And without them, you don’t have a story.
Now, instead, you’re the story.
Karen Hathaway Pittman, a freelance writer and poet, is regularly featured on Opinion Editorials, ChronWatch, Men’s News Daily, Renew America, and Bush Country.
I don't believe that was the sole purpose. I believe the sole purpose was to lay the groundwork for the release of the outrageous allegation that the reason Bush skipped the physicial was because there was a drug test and he was doing coke. Such claptrap has been part of the lib boards for almost a year.
Revealing the documents as forgeries derailed the whole strategy even though Kitty Kelly managed to sneak it in to one interview I saw and Harkin came close with his "If he skipped the physical, why did he skip it!!" crap. Even Juan Williams was at it on H&C one night with the "Why did he miss the physical?" talking point.
"Sitting in for Dan Rather tonight..."
Dan Rather must br fired!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
This is a career ender for everyone who failed to heed the warnings, and for everyone who OKed the stonewall. It's also a network ender. CBS will be sold and reconstituted in order to save the name.
What a great line. How about this?
To air is to ere.
Dan Rather 9/8/04
Excellent!!!!!!! Great piece!!!!!!!!!
No question. All this stuff is orchestrated. The DNC, the Kerry campaign, the big publishing moguls, and the editors get together and plan it all out.
"This week we're going to hit Bush with being responsible for the Enron scandal. We want full-page headlines for six days, and then we'll take it from there."
or,
"This week we'll break the forged national guard documents, and when we've played that for four days, we'll drop in the drug angle."
Anyone who thinks these things happen at random or by accident just hasn't been paying attention to media behavior for the past ten or twelve years.
Cic,
I just found this story on Rathergate (in a New Zealand paper, of all places). It makes your point about media and DNC putting their heads together.
Oh, and it mentions FR in glowing terms.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=&storyID=3592355
Even that won't be enough. CBS has to get out of the news business. Ala Arthur Anderson. CBS News as an institution is beyond salvage. Other outlets can pick up the slack and feed unresearched pablum to the masses.
What is the likelihood that his own daughter is his source??
Excellent, and BTTT.
"What a great post" BUMP!
Has Kitty Kelly's book been delayed, and if so, why? I heard a rumor that her book has the CBS memos in it. I'm betting that the Dems have gotten the book delayed because it's bad timing politically.
It's down to Rather saying loudly:
"Who you gonna believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"
Cognitive Dissonance...
Actually the forged documents were all about making old discredited information into "news."
We all need to start thinking like "journalists" (quick let me in that shower I feel dirty!)
The Bush Fortunate Son arguments of privaledge and lack of commitment to the guard are not news. They were old acusations that the lady 60 Minutes producer had wanted to run in the last Presidential campaign to help Al Gore.
Someone working either for or as a shill for the DNC & CBS wanted to run the whole Fortunate Son ad campaign. They wanted to use both CBS, ABC and NBC news footage, plus cuts from MM 9/11 film in the Fortunate Son ad.
To get the CBS footage they needed two things. The first was a "newsworthy" story on this topic. They knew CBS was interested in how Bush got in the Guard and in how he got out of the Texas Guard form the work the producer had done 5 years ago.
The only way to get CBS to air a live TV segement so that the DNC could get the CBS news footage it wanted was to make the old story into "NEWS." The excuse CBS needed to separate old information from "news" was the forged documents.
The purpose of the forged documents was to provide "new" evidentuary information that just came to light and allowing CBS to do the old story as "news" and to do the TV footage that the DNC needed for its attack ad campaign.
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.