We've all probably heard about the scandal surrounding Dan Rather and 60 Minutes.

For a brief recap see : Statements by CBS News President Andrew Heyward, anchor Dan Rather

Kerry adviser denies role in CBS report on Bush

CBS to investigate producer Mapes

Basically, 60 Minutes ran a story about Bush's National Guard service using forged documents to back up portions of the story. Dan Rather stood behind the memos, calling the source "unimpeachable" and not backing down. It turns out they were forged.

Meanwhile, the producer on the story, Mary Mapes, referred the "source" of the documents to the Kerry campaign, since that was a part of the deal.

There seems to be a cottage industry springing up around this scandal.

http://www.rathergate.com/

CBS's ratings have taken a fairly sizable hit due to this scandal.

Questions for debate:

Should Dan Rather, as Managing Editor of CBS News, resign over the handling of this situation?

Should Dan Rather be fired over this?

Was Rather unfairly treated by other media sources during this "scandal"?

What will the fallout of this scandal be for CBS News and for the Election Coverage?

Should Dan Rather, as Managing Editor of CBS News, resign over the handling of this situation?

Dan Rather has lost credit as a managing editor; however, he has yet to prepare anyone to take his place. I bet he resigns because he's 72 years old, needs to spend more time with his wife, child, grand child, whatever the case, it will never be due to 'rathergate.' And on a side note it should be memogate rather then 'rathergate.'

Should Dan Rather be fired over this?

Nope, but someone should.

Was Rather unfairly treated by other media sources during this "scandal"?

He was treated no different then hos he treated Nixon during watergate.

What will the fallout of this scandal be for CBS News and for the Election Coverage?

CBS = joke.

I think the issue goes deeper than just this. It's more than a matter of reporting something that turned out to be be false (which is certainly bad in its own right). I think what will determine the ultimate outcome is whether or not convincing evidence turns up, besides just this, that Rather and Mapes had an agenda they were following. This would indicate that neither could then ever be perceived as the objective reporters they claim to be....with, I think, obvious implications to their career. If what is there now is all that is uncovered, I think the situation could be overcome...CBS might look worse getting rid of Rather than they would keeping him. But if it gets any worse, I don't think either Rather or CBS will have any choice.

Note--its not that Fox and others don't have an agenda. Its one thing though, to have an agenda and be very upfront about it, and quite another to have an agenda but hide behind a facade of objectivity.

I wrote local affiliates and expressed my dismay. There is no way I'll ever watch 60 minutes or any CBS News again until they resolve this. Shameful, particularly the hubris of Rather, just Tuesday in the Chicago Tribune said that he STILL doesn't believe those memos are forgeries. What planet is this guy on?

As for the fallout, I think that you forgot one potential scapegoat - The Kerry Express. The producer of the story put the 'unimpeachable source' in touch with Joe Lockhart and Max Cleland of the Kerry campaign, and both guys say that they didn't discuss the memos. Sure, they just talked about football and stuff. There is no question in my mind that this was coordinated with the DNC, and it will probably come out eventually.

"Fortunate Son" was launched by the DNC just hours after the story aired, with all of the Dems using talking points about Bush's guard service the day after the story aired. Democrats.org

edited to remove timing claims which were erroneous. My bad. The DNC was emailing during the CBS show, not 9 hours before. Rapid response indeed, though.
edited one more time to add - the online source for the "DNC knew" claim that I originally posted corrected their story in like 15 minutes, and posted an apology. Ironic.

I think the issue goes deeper than just this.

But without the proof of the depth, all one does it create rumors. Black army helicopter theory.

But yes, Rather lied or mislead the American people. For that the American people cane either forgive or not. But that is to the individual and not for rumors to dispell.

Well between the Rather fiasco, the $550,000 fine by the FCC for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" and the latest bomb TV show by Jason Alexander, it hasn't been a good week if you own CBS stock.

But let's look at it this way, if a journalism organization is to have any credibility it has to take the hit when it screws up as royally as CBS did. Does that mean Dan Rather should get the axe or at the very least be suspended?

Don't hold your breath. I grew up with Walter Cronkite and I never have warmed up to Dan Rather. As the ratings for the CBS Evening News drooped like daises in the autumn chill it became obvious I was not alone in that school of thought. At SLATE the author of this story doubts Rather will fall on his own sword because...well, because Dan is just a little bit nuts.

http://www.slate.com/id/2107006/

If Rather is the journalist he thinks he is then he has to know that for CBS to retain any shred of credibility on Election Night he can't be the first person viewers see when they turn on their televisions. His ego probably won't allow him to bow out gracefully in what may be a long night before a winner is declared (and if Rather could declare the winner first what a coup that would be).

The problem is would you believe what Dan Rather said on Election Night? I don't think I would.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2806444

If Dan were to call me I'd tell him that while he can survive being the face of liberal press bias he can't survive losing his credibility as a journalist. When people who run blogs do a better job of fact-checking than a television news operation then it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

It's time for the Managing Editor of CBS News (Dan Rather) to tell their chief correspondent (Dan Rather) to take the next 90 days off and then we'll see how things look after the sound and fury dies down. If he loves the profession of journalism don't do any more to damage it than he already has.

That would be my advice to Dan Rather.

For the purpose of showing to what extreme proportions this RatherGate issue has been carried, I have bolded certain changes to your premise. Please understand that I am basically a believer in NO politician. I think they are all liars and serve special interests but look at the comparision in the misdeeds:

The "altered" analogy: I think the issue goes deeper than just this. It's more than a matter of reporting something that turned out to be be false (which is certainly bad in its own right). I think what will determine the ultimate outcome is whether or not convincing evidence turns up, besides just this, that Bush and Tenet had an agenda they were following. This would indicate that neither could then ever be perceived as the objective leaders they claim to be....with, I think, obvious implications to their career. If what is there now is all that is uncovered, I think the situation could be overcome...Bush might look worse getting rid of Tenet than they would keeping him. But if it gets any worse, I don't think either Bush or the US will have any choice.

Note--its not that Bush and Tenet didn't have an agenda. Its one thing though, to have an agenda and be very upfront about it, and quite another to have an agenda but hide behind a facade of objectivity concerning documents about WMD's that put us and our troops in Iraq.

What is so strange is that the old "Liberal Media" chant is sounding VERY hollow these days. The Left won't give Bush a "Pass" on fake WMD documents that should have been examined much more closely any more than the Right will give Dan Rather a "Pass" on not checking those documents more closely.

It's come to this.

Personally, I feel the WMD documents had a FAR greater and more negative impact on this country than did the forged documents Rather obtained.

While we are on the subject of reporting false news, who should we hold accountable for all the News Reports regarding WMD before the war?

Those instances of false reporting are far worse than this Bush Document mistake.

Rather at least apologized. I haven't heard anyone that misled us about WMD's apologize. From within OR outside the media.

In the grand scheme of things, this is a minor blip on the false accusations radar. I for one think that there MUST be some truth to the documents or the President would have attacked the report on day one. He did not. That, to me, along with the fact that there are NO documents to prove that he did serve in Alabama, says that there is some truth to the documents.

Should Dan Rather, as Managing Editor of CBS News, resign over the handling of this situation?

No. Just as Bush won't resign for the handeling of the WMD's situation, which is much, much worse.
[B]
Should Dan Rather be fired over this?

No, just as Rumsfeld was not fired over the Prison scandal, which is much, much worse.

Was Rather unfairly treated by other media sources during this "scandal"?

Unfairly? It's all about ratings and money. Of course FOX would blow this up and make it appear worse than any misleading comments coming from the White House. Dan swallowed his pill.

What will the fallout of this scandal be for CBS News and for the Election Coverage?

Wasn't it CBS that first reported a Gore victory in 2000? CBS news is at the bottom of the barrel already in terms of news coverage. If it has an effect, it would have to be positive for CBS. There is no such thing as bad publicity.

What will the fallout of this scandal be for CBS News and for the Election Coverage?

Apparently, Dan Rather is not the only one who got it wrong. My hometown newspaper, The Fort WORTH Star Telegram posted this correction this morning. Could it be that the “Startlegram” as we affectionately call, it might have overlooked some as elementary as who was meant by “they.” Now that CBS is old news, maybe Kerry is a better story. On the other hand, perhaps someone at the paper has been watching too much Scarborough Country.

Does the correction, repair the damage or fallout for the Kerry campaign? Well, in Texas, we already know the outcome, so it probably doesn't matter.




http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/9759052.htm?1c

Here’s the link to the original story. (You may have to register.)

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/9748929.htm.

This whole story has been driving me batty from day one.

Should Dan Rather, as Managing Editor of CBS News, resign over the handling of this situation?

It might save them some of this fallout... see below.

Should Dan Rather be fired over this?

Certainly not. Rather has been doing credible journalism since most of Sean Hannity was in diapers, and a single use of non-credible documentation shouldn't end his long career. Yes it's a big breach of journalistic ethics to use a shaky source and call it credible, but it NO worse than what occurs on the cable news networks daily (or in FNC's example every few minutes).

Was Rather unfairly treated by other media sources during this "scandal"?

Hah! The cable news channels have had a feeding frenzy. What a way to get ratings for your news program. Is it not so obvious that this scandal exists ONLY because the major news media has chosen to make it one. This is nothing more than conveniently attempting to eliminate the competition, as well as draw viewers who are election issue bent.

What will the fallout of this scandal be for CBS News and for the Election Coverage?

Well obviously the stupid sheepish people who watch cable news and believe that it is all objective fact will be less likely to watch CBS, since it is now coated Liberal-Glo marking paint. I would much rather watch CBS's election coverage than CNBC, MSNBC, of FNC though, and I those who monitor the news for it's journalistic objectivity (a duty for ALL americans, not just the liberal ones) would agree.

It is not our media. It is their media.

Should Dan Rather, as Managing Editor of CBS News, resign over the handling of this situation?

Absolutely. I've heard that he and Mapps have been working on this story for five years. Was Rather in such a rush to smear the President before the election that he went forward with documents he couldn't authenticate? It certainly seems to be the case, as several of his "document experts" warned him that his documents couldn't be authenticated. Instead, Rather chose to rely on the document "expert" that was not "certified by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, has had no formal training in identifying either papers, inks, typewriters or photocopies, and has never been trained in a document lab or by any law enforcement entity." Link

Oh, but Rather's "expert" did begin his career by "trying to predict character traits through handwriting."



What will the fallout of this scandal be for CBS News and for the Election Coverage?

They will be the laughing stock of any Kerry/Bush coverage. I heard tonight that several newspapers are dropping his column, some stations are dropping CBS News and many people are calling for his resignation.

I've also heard this isn't the first time Rather has messed up, but I can't find any details. Was he the one that called Florida early?

It's interesting to me that in the thread (now closed) about the Republican ad about Democrats wanting to ban the Bible, some conservatives were quick to pull the 'redirection' bit - saying that well, after all the mudslinging of the Democrats, this was fair play. In this case, surely Rather should be held resposible. But where was the hue and cry (to adopt the tactic) of conservatives when Bush aired false documents about WMD? Why weren't conservatives upset when the news media used the flimsiest (or nonexistant) evidence to attack Clinton for pretty much eight solid years?

Partisanship creates a sad sort of hypocricy. I happen to think that Rather should bear the responsibility for this, and pay the price. Where I differ with these partisans, however, is that I wish to apply these standards universally, not just on people whose message I might happen to disagree with.

When David Brock finally came out and admitted that he had knowingly used fabricated evidence in his book The Real Anita Hill, and in many of his articles attacking Clinton, conservatives largely villified him, instead of applauding his telling the truth.

It may be too close to a one liner- but my answer is this: "if Dan Rather should resign over this forgery, shouldn't GW resign over the Nigerian yellowcake forgery?"- in Fact, isn't GWs using that forgery to start a war, in the scheme of things, far more serious? Why didn't conservatives be consistant and demand heads roll?

Edited to remove entire post, except last line.

Let's not fight the Iraq war on every thread

I think every journalist working today should resign when caught in reporting falshoods. That'll open the job market up to freelancers who actually check facts and sources. In fact, I think that using freelancers exclusively for reporting the news is a great idea. Freelancers don't respond to corporate pressure to bend stories. They leave that up to the editor and can refuse the business if the editor is too heavy handed.



Just replace "resign" with "get fired" in the above statement.



Not sure. TV has lost my interest. Big newspapers are losing it too. Bring in the freelancers, real journalists with attitude.



We won't trust their predictions? Eh, I'm not watching any TV, so for me it doesn't matter. And the 2000 election has already besmirched network coverage of elections. I'll read about it after the fact.

Without getting into a debate about Iraq- I just think it stinks to high heaven of hypocrisy that conservatives are calling for Rather's head about a document that they didn't research well enough, and then used it to bolster thier case- but give GW a pass on the same issue

http://www.sundayherald.com/35264

"There are an increasing number of claims suggesting Bush and Blair knew these documents were forged when they used them as evidence that Saddam Hussein was putting together a nuclear arsenal.

The truth behind claims that Blair's government 'sexed up' intelligence reports that Saddam could mobilise weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes may never be known, but the Niger forgeries lie like a smoking gun covered in Britain's fingerprints. At some point Tony Blair is going to have to answer questions about what the British government and MI6 were up to."


I mean, really, which was more serious? It is this continued double standard by those defending GWs lack of fulfilling his commitment that this whole story is about in the first place- not really about Dan Rather not vetting his story properly.

The premise of Dan Rather's story is solid- just one piece of evidence was weak.

If he should lose his job, GW certainly commited a far worse example of this!

Deciding Dan Rather's fate will ALWAYS be inextricably linked to similar treatment of WMD Documentation and the EFFECT that FALSE documentation had on our Congress, our Allies, our stature in the world, the deficit, the economy and the PROFOUND EFFECT it had on the lives of more than 100,000 U.S. troops and 25 million Iraqi citizens.

The Ultimate Question raised is how should RatherGate be compared to WMDGate since the player(s) in each situation blamed their decision to act on a reliance on faked, forged or false documentation. Each of the two blunders brought SERIOUS consequences but I doubt anyone could argue that the decision on whether or not to go to war was even in the same league as Rather's mistake.

It is the choice of many agenda-driven news outlets to keep RatherGate alive and at the front of the news. It helps blur other issues. Just yesterday, Joe Scarborough, was interviewing Bernie Goldberg the author of "Bias" and pressing him on the RatherGate issue.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6119944/

The extent some agenda-driven hosts will go to in order to insulate similar dealings by THEIR favorite politicians is ALSO BIAS.

Rather should keep his job as long as Scarborough or Bush. All three have agendas.

In my first post on this thread I took Rather's defense, but after reading the posts since mine my opinion has changed. It looks like Rather very purposefully smudged the line of journalistic integrity on this story. To present a lie, or even a half truth as journalistic fact is antithetical to journalism as a whole. For this, let the man burn. I hope he is fired, or resigns, or whatever he can do to get out of the lime-light and off the news.



Quarkhead has said everything else that I would want to say in his above post. Thanks for the even-minded judgment Quark.

I think PACPanzer correctly showed the connection between this event and the Bush whitehouse. They are remarkable the same. Bush uses fake documents as a basis for war, and Rather uses fake documents as the basis of a news article. Like Bush, however, the blame is going to get passed down to the document checkers.

I don't see why. Its not his fault. He was handed poor intelligence.

They should pounce on him to prevent any other news organization from making the same mistake. Its good that we have news networks not only watching the government, but also each other. We can be assured that whatever news were handed is true, because if its not the other media titians will pounce on them.

Sixty minutes might lose some credibility, which hurts it more than the same hurts the whitehouse. CBS will still be up, and I assume the same for sixty minutes.

Little to no effect on the election.

Should Dan Rather, as Managing Editor of CBS News, resign over the handling of this situation? Should Dan Rather be fired over this?
I think that if CBS wishes to salvage any shred of credibility before the election they should fire Rather or ask him to step down. Rather should know better than to report on things like this, I would expect something like this from Drudge or possibly the talking heads on Fox News, but not a program like 60 Minutes.

Was Rather unfairly treated by other media sources during this "scandal"?
I would say that he was treated exactly the way he should have been, he broke some very serious journalistic principles. However, the whole thing strikes me as a tad hypocritical when I make the comparison to Bush. Why should one person who had "bad evidence he believed to be true" be fired and the other one should get elected as President?

What will the fallout of this scandal be for CBS News and for the Election Coverage?
I think that unless they do something about it, ratings and credibility will severely suffer. After this episode, are you really going to watch CBS to see what is going on? I would really like to believe what Rather reported on and I probably won't even watch CBS.

I think that you are very deliberatly ignoring the implications of this friend. It is good that the news networks will eat eachother alive for giving false information, but remember that they do so not to protect the public or journalistic ethics, just to eliminate competition and draw viewers/readers.

Rather obviously crafted this story, he was not "handed" poor intelligence. He used questionable documentation to support a story that was presented as fact. This was deliberate. It was equally as deliberate as Bush and friend's use of the WMD information to misconstrue people to false conclusions.

I quote this again:

This is the most incredibly wrong and dangerous phrase I have ever seen written on AD. You can be assured nothing. If you assume anything, and still intend to vote, you not only chop off your own leg, but chop off mine too.

Is there some kind of liberal play book to compare this with the WMD argument. The HUGE difference in them is that the so called experts CBS used, nearly all of them came out and said they would not stand behind these documents or that they had reservations to the authenticity.

In the intelligence given to Bush by Great Britain and Russia, he was told by the experts of our intelligence and the intelligence agencies of GB and Russia was given the same intelligence.

One was intelligence backed by 3 major countries. The other was evidence not even fully backed by one hand writing expert. Yeah those are similar.

Edit to add: In fact they even told CBS "Don't run these documents, or you will be seeing questions about them the very next day". And that is exactly what happened.

I must have missed the meeting to draft that playbook

No one knows what really transpired when the intelligence was given and regardless of where it was collected from there are more than enough parallels to make a case that they are similar. Or does your conservative playbook preclude you from thinking beyond talking points Sleeper?

Rather is just as guilty of failing to check his facts, and wait for further information and confirmation to make his case as Bush is.

The funny thing about this post is that people in America have the uncanny ability to evade responsibility by pointing fingers in another direction. In this case, some of the previous posts discuss the war in Iraq and mention forged documents, of which an obscure and liberal periodical is used as a reference.

This is complete rhetoric and spin, and I am appalled that this made a post on this board. Usually the arguments are intelligent and objective.

Dan Rather is one of the most powerful journalists on the planet, with which comes a certain responsibility. I believe that Mr. Rather had to have known that this story had an air of instability, and he should've known that the sources were speculative (otherwise, they'd have been revealed by now).

With that in mind, Mr. Rather not only defamed the most powerful man in the free world incorrectly, yet he made a bad name for his network. CBS is known for "BUSH-BASHING", in that they break every "Guard" story possible,etc. When numerous people came forward stating that these were fake documents, Mr. Rather should've resigned. If I were CBS, I'd expect nothing less from such a seasoned and well tenured professional. He had to know...

In respect to GW and Blair and the information furnished in the original post, I'm not surprised. We all know if Mr. Bush intentionally used forged documents to begin the war in Iraq, your liberal media would've jumped on the chance to malign our president. Europeans everywhere would've been walking around with copies of the papers strapped to their chests, etc.

The reality is that something so high profile would've become public.
With that in mind, stick to objective and factual discussion, please.

Once again I will state "Comparing this to the WMD issue is lunacy"

Rather and CBS were advised to not use these documents.

Three separate countries, The United States, Great Britain and Russia provided the information to the Bush administration for the WMD case to be made.

One was about keeping our country and the wold safe.

The other was about trying to smear a man's reputation.

It doesn't matter as long as they do it. If they are not doing it, then the system fails. You would never get the Major news networks to care about their audience anyway. But as long as they are competing, we're set.

Its the same reason I'm not paying $2000 dollars for a television, competition. The media titians will always keep each other honest, or face the Rather treatment. Its the best we can hope for.

There are some that would argue that Bush did not deliberately use the WMD to lead people to false ends. I believe you jumped to that conclusion, along with your other conclusion that Rather necessarily forged this story.

Both seem pretty obvious to me, but your not allowed to jump to those kinds of conclusions based on what it looks like. Otherwise, your no better than Rather or Bush.

Really? Show me anywhere were a story has been fabricated by fox news. How about MSNBC? CNN? What stories have been outright fabricated by these media giants? Where have I been lied too?

And if you find anything, thats the exception, not the rule.

For all the flak Fox news gets, I've never seen any stories that weren't the truth. They can only do two things. Not show stories in adherence with there political bias, or have news commentators spin news reports by giving their opinions and instilling them in their viewers mind.

If competition between the news networks exist, I can be quite assured those agencies that spew out false reports will get attack by rival agencies, as we see with the CBS scandal. Competition and capitalism is the best "keep them honest" device we have. I can't think of anything better.

Sleeper, does this tactic surprise you? This is one of the truisms that conservative pundits point out constantly...the typical 'liberal' response to valid criticism is to redirect it to another, unrelated topic. This thread validates that generalization. For those here following this line of reasoning, I have the following question: Assuming the allegations against Bush are correct, does that justify then the actions Rather took? If not, this line of thinking is irrelevant--please deal with the issue at hand, as the other is unrelated. If so...please describe where you think this process stops...lies then just beget lies with no end in sight that I can see.

To deny the similarities between this case and the Bush case... is lunacy. In fact, I'm going to go as far to say that the underlying principle between the two incidents is the same. That principle being: Both used unsound documents as a basis for something, either a report, or a war.

In no means does this mean Rather gets off the hook because Bush did. That wouldn't be very thorough of us at all. However, maybe its possible, like Bush, that Rather believed the documents were true? Maybe Rather can't do his job correctly either if he receives invalid information. He doesn't find the intelligence, someone at CBS does. Likewise, Bush doesn't find the intelligence, someone at the CIA does.

The desire to oust Rather, therefore, bears an uncanny resemblance to the desire to oust Bush. Both were arguable duped and you have to leave it at that until you can find something more convincing.

So CBS and Dan Rather's handwriting expert had the same clout of 3 different countries?

Are you not reading this one simple statement. Read it slow... Many of the experts CBS used told them not to use the documents on the 60 minutes program because they had reservations about them. CBS was told, if you air these documents there will be questions raised the next day, and low and behold there were, and they were proven forged.

Russia and Great Britain did not tell Bush that their intel was bad. It was given with the full confidence that Iraq had the capability of producing WMD.

What would make this similar is if the US was the only source and other countries(ie. Britain and Russia) told the US "We're not too sure about this, we don't think they have any WMDs". But that is not what happened. Britain and Russia's intelligence both corroborated the US intelligence.

There are no similarities between this and CBS/Rather.

Obviously, there are some similarities. Both used documents that were later proved false. Thats a similarity right there.

I checked over the original post made by AM lord, and can't find that assertion in there. If you could point that out to me, I'd be grateful.

And, that still leaves open the question of Rather. If Rather was told overwhelming the documents were false, and that they would be exposed as such if he aired the show, then you have a point. But if Rather was left out of the decision of adding the documents or discussing there validity, he can still plead the "I didn't know" response.

Of course, if Bush was also given warning that his intelligence was fake before the war, then this matches up even more than I thought.

Not sure if it was referenced here, but you can find this in the Washington Post


Of course, just last night, CBS ran a story on how the draft is coming back, based at least in part on those hoax emails going around, in addition to their usual non-partisan schtick...

Which you can see here, in this photo of an anti-Bush sticker in a CBS van parked in front of CBS on September 20.

You see by calling it 'Rathergate' people have ignored the memo and are now attacking Dan Rather.

The following two topic questions are now invalid:

• Should Dan Rather, as Managing Editor of CBS News, resign over the handling of this situation?
• Should Dan Rather be fired over this?

People are no longer waiting for Dan Rather or CBS to make the decision. In commericals running during the CBS News, Doug Forrester is 'campaign' for a petition to remove Dan Rather. (Source: Petition) According to the advertisement "Dan Rather is a classic example of liberal media bias...It wasn't just sloppy journalism, it was political bias."

Was Rather unfairly treated by other media sources during this "scandal"?
Here is the internet, radio, and television band together through the selling of advertisement space to denounce Dan Rather and claim that he speaks from a bias point of view. Unfair or not, they are doing it.

No, unless he finds his continuing presence to be too stressful in the light of those making personal verbal and written attacks on him.


No. Dan Rather has been an asset to CBS News for many years. He is respected among other journalists. I like him, although I was surprised that he and his staff did not research these documents more thoroughly before declaring them authentic.


I think the other media sources could have been more professional in expressing their disapproval of the mistake Rather made. As an old saying goes, "Make your words pleasant--you might end up eating them." Any network could have made a similar mistake in its effort to "scoop" the other networks.


I am certain that there will be many who are not watching CBS News as a protest, but I am also sure that there is a loyal core audience that continues to watch it, and they will be the same people who follow CBS's election coverage.

Remember--aside from disproving the authenticity of the documents, the facts remain that there is a significant time period when Bush's service in Alabama cannot be authenticated, that Bush was indeed grounded from flying, that somebody highly-placed in government paved the way for Bush to get into the Champagne Unit of the Guard whether he or Daddy actually asked him to do so, and Bush failed to undergo a military physical examination he was ordered to undergo. These are still facts, and the White House has still not been forthcoming in documentation to fill in the gaps.

"Is there some kind of liberal play book to compare this with the WMD argument."

"Obviously, there are some similarities. Both used documents that were later proved false. Thats a similarity right there."

Allright everybody, quick political lesson from my perspective. Dividing all politics into two easy categories, liberal and conservative, if you watch pundits and news programs you will see both sides operating from a playbook. Politics as a job is the art of controlling public opinion through whatever means necessary. The difference between the usual arguments repeated by liberals and the usual arguments repeated by conservatives is this: Common Sense. Like the first quote here, obviously there are similarities... and yes, we (speaking for the entire liberal voice) are trying to attach Bush to the Rather scandal. It's politics, it's attemptig to suttly influence people's opinions. It certainly isn't unusual. You will notice many liberals repeating this assertion though, because it is a common sense conclusion, thus in a certain population of people, given all the facts, I think most of them would conclude the same.

Conservatives on the other hand tend to operate from the "message of the day," which is ingenious and extremely effective. Because all the pundits and anchors for FNC are networked so effectively, whatever the GOP GOD decides is important becomes important. Take for example Kerry's flip-flopping. The argument is, and has been shown to be ridiculous. Sure he's changed his opinion on a few things, but that just shows that he is capable of being realistic and reacting to new information. That is a good thing. However, because of the extremely effective manner in which conservatives communicate this ridiculous assertion has become an actual electoral issue. Never in the past of this country has a President been elected because he ignorantly refuses to consider any alternatives to his first decisions... until this year.

As for Rather and CBS being biased, all news is biased in some way, especially in America. Don't wine about it, expect it, and do some of your own research to find out the truth. There are very convincing studies and documentaries proving not only the conservative bias of FNC, but it's influence on the other major cable news channels as well. Additionally, Murdoch, owner of FNC, owns a massive media empire that is capable of reaching 80% of the population of the earth. Murdoch is un-ashameably biased. When we ask what liberal media, we mean it. And don't prove the existence of the liberal media by providing me a few links to Bush bashing stories or biased pieces. Show me a major study with convincing argumentation and factual numbers. I haven't seen it yet.

I don't know what you all expect out of the news media. I expect no different from the original intention of "Freedom of the Press." The press exists as a honest informative and objective source to bring voters in this democracy the truth. The press is free so that it doesn't get censored or controlled by the government so that it favors the government. If the press favors the government non-objectively (as is definitly the case with fox news) it greatly endangers the ability of the democracy to operate on an objective basis. Additionally, most of the news we consume today is FOR PROFIT, and in todays circumstance, to go rudely against the status quo, to greatly question the operation of washington, EVEN when they are doing ridiculously corrupt things, is to risk losing profit. So you should be able to infer the relationship between the for profit media and the "Fox Effect" that is conservatising for profit media.

CBS and Dan Rather made a mistake. The law has specific penalties that are enacted for these mistakes. The use of forged documents does not discredit the idea that Bush might have not been there for his country, it just shows that someone REALLY wanted to prove it. Bush is not a victim of the media. Or rather, every president should be a victim of the media.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If the media stops questioning, we stop questioning. If we stop questioning, and thinking (as a nation) objectively, we give up the democracy we so greatly prize.

I'm no Bush fan, but Rather should be bounced - pronto.

This was not "one mistake" as Brokaw stated recently. Rather has had it out for the Bush family for quite some time.

I couldn't believe the night I watched him interview Bush 41 on the nightly news and completely ambushed Bush. He went off topic and tried to get Bush to admit he was involved in the Iran-Contra scandal instead. It was wrong, over the top, and everyone but Dan Rather apologized for his behavior.

With these documents, he pulled a Bush 43 - get what you need to create a position and run with it. And he got busted.

Now, the effects are far-reaching. For whatever reason, CBS is considered a credible source for news. 60 minutes is the staple of this credibility, but now 60 minutes can't run the story on the Iraq/nuclear mess because it can't appear impartial anymore. This is a problem.

When Dan gets booted, CBS can run what it believes to be right. As of now, they can't or they will appear slanted. What's the point of keeping him? Besides, his rating suck so bad, you'd think they'd take advantage of this to get some market share back. He consistently places third when compared to the other two.

While this isn't 'hard news' with the rigorous checks of a CBS, the quote below appears on a center-left blog today. Michael Moore claiming that he was offered these fake memos back when working on F/9-11. Either Mikey's more familiar with MS Word than is Mr. Rather, or he has higher standards for sourcing. Interesting.

talkingpointsmemo

CBS Says Probe Results Unlikely Until After Election


Okay, so if it is was the Kerry Camp who gave it to CBS and people would think that Kerry is no good, this would interfere with the election?

Edwards said last night we, the American people, need to hear the truth. What is the truth? Is this a Rathergate or a Memogate?

Response:
Authorities consider probing National Guard memos given to CBS

May not have to wait until after election.