Posted on 09/22/2004 3:11:11 AM PDT by Liz
As we asked yesterday: What did Dan Rather know?
And when did he know it?
And that was even before it was disclosed that CBS News' dubious source for those phony National Guard memos insisted on being put in touch directly with John Kerry's campaign — apparently as a condition for turning over the documents.
As USA Today reported in detail yesterday, CBS producer Mary Mapes arranged for Bill Burkett (who provided the forged documents) to speak with Joe Lockhart, the former Clinton press secretary who's now a top Kerry campaign adviser.
CBS claims hooking Burkett up with Lockhart "was not part of any deal" to get the memos, which producer Mapes had spent five fruitless years in search of.
Burkett, however, insists that the contact was indeed part of an "understanding" — without which he would not turn over the documents.
At this point, neither Burkett nor the network have much standing in the credibility department.
But even taking the network's claim at face value undercuts Rather's claim that using the documents — which he now says he regrets — was "an error that was made . . . in good faith."
Not to mention his insistence that this story was part of the "CBS News tradition of investigate reporting without fear or favoritism."
Simple common sense would have mandated that — faced with a demand by their source to involve the Kerry campaign — Rather and Mapes say flatly, "No way."
But they were so eager to get their hands on what they believed were explosive memos — supposedly proving once and for all that George W. Bush received special treatment in getting into the Air National Guard and then avoiding his full service obligation — that they agreed to anything Burkett wanted.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
No it won't. Liberal's support for the war on terror didn't last long (as I predicted) and the press' new-found objectiveness won't last long either.
In any event, USA Today did one of the fastest 180s in the history of journalism. Apparently, the editorial checks and balances work better at USA Today than at CBS News, although I should point out that the paper has never apologized (nor explained) its original hit piece. It is also debatable how quickly USA Today would have changed its tune had the Jack Kelly scandal never occurred.
But here's the real bottom line for American journalism. Why did no one in the media challenge the memos until the bloggers and the FReepers pointed out the obvious deficiencies in the CBS documents? The MSM was quite willing to let CBS News air a fraudulent story, and would have dismissed Republican questions about the stories as partisian rhetoric. As Sean Hannity (and others) have pointed out, the carefully contrived ANG story was designed to turn the election--and it might have, without the new media, including FR.
You could fire half the liberals at the NYT, Washington Post, Newsweek, et al., and they'd still be hopeless causes. They're dinosaurs, and the ice age has already begun. Americans are voting with their feet, their pocket books and their remote controls and the MSM is (thankfully) in its death throes...
They are just about crude enough for that to be believable; what kind of forger uses a word processor in its default setting, and doesn't research the format of typical 1972 TANG memos?
And, of course, what kind of journalist who hopes to maintain a reputation "without fear or favor" goes to the wall on the basis of forgeries so obvious that you could cite a different, independent reason to call them frauds every day for the next month.
Dan doesn't seem to know anything, even yet. He still believes the memos are real.
60m@cbsnews.com
UH-UM !
"But here's the real bottom line for American journalism. Why did no one in the media challenge the memos until the bloggers and the FReepers pointed out the obvious deficiencies in the CBS documents? "
Geeeeeee - I wonder how many other times the Liberal MSM has misled the American Public ...?
Yeah, kinda hard to do when CBS is fellating every Dumbocrat in sight.
(Sniffle) Like all good liberals, Dan is so "tolerant and compassionate" (sob).
Part of what this story PROVES is that most of the networks and especially CBS do not know what concerns people. For example, paying for college when profs are not even in class-but their salary is up 30%. Paying for taxes on things we don't care about and wish the government would leave alone - HIPPA. These are the real problems of today not 35 years ago when the world was different.
What else is CBS hiding?
My question, what other CBS "NEWS" stories are false?
If you've watched "60 Minutes" in the past, you might conclude that nearly all of CBS's stories are at a minimum, sensationalized, and more typically, false. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and the like have had a free reign to produce whatever they want and present it as news regardless of its accuracy.
The other media didn't challenge CBS because they couldn't believe they could be so stupid. I recall feeling that way and saying so right here.
It took a lot of clever people to bring this one down, and major news organizations employee journalism graduates, not 20 year National Guard veterans and computer science guys.
The simple fact is that with 100,000 members, FR is going to have someone with expertise on just about anything. If there's really something wrong, we will sniff it out.
Someone young enough they don't remember the world before wordprocessers and computers? I am 40, and I did have a typing class in high school, so I would look for someone 30'ish or younger.
I am a little confused on one Mapes issue. Did Mapes physically go to Burkett to speak with him? If she did, I think that would make a HUGE difference in the issue of "buying" the forgeries aka Lockhart connection. If she was physically with Burkett, why would he need to fax them to her? Unless he waited for the payoff (phonecall) and then faxed them.
Regardless of the MSM's intent, they didn't have time. We beat them to this story (and continue to).
CBS, responsible and thorough, seeking only unimpeachable non-partisan sources, announces they are still checking their sources on the alleged rape of Juanita Broaderick.
Well, at least we know that if Kerry is elected, there are already grounds for his impeachment.
Nice deconstruction.
Bill Burkett has told friends he was one of the sources for Michael Moore's latest movie. I would not be surprised if he was Kitty's source as well.
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.