« I Got Rather-Man Fever, It's Driving Me Crazy* | Main | Unbelievable »

Real Rather News [updated]

Oh, you wanted real news about Rather, not dreams? Why didn't you say so? For real news by hard-working, non-pajama wearing (though I can't be certain about that and photographic proof would be nice) bloggers, read both Ace's and Allah's latest. The wagons are circling and the circle is getting narrower by the minute. Also, CBS will be making some kind of announcement at noon. As far as I can tell, no one had today in the pool. My prediction for the statement: Look! Over there! Iraq is burning! Update: Other thoughts: If CBS goes on record to say they were duped and they now realize the memos were not authentic, and then go on to say that it doesn't matter because the AWOL issue still remains, then they just don't get it. The public deserves nothing less than a public apology from both Rather and CBS. Also, someone needs to accept responsibility for going on record with the memos knowing full well that there were doubts about their authenticity. Which means, someone needs to get fired over this, or all apologies and posturing about being responsible are null and void. The public, the media, bloggers and CBS/Rather must realize that the major issue here is not if Bush fulfilled his duties. It stopped being about the very second someone spotted the inconsistencies in the memos. It's about credibility, respectability and being honest about what your agenda is. Dan Rather needs to come clean. CBS needs to come clean. And the rest of the media, rather than wagging the AWOL stick in our faces, need to denounce the methods that CBS and Rather used to get this story on the air. I feel like that larger issue is getting lost in all the back and forth about the content of the memos. If you want to deal with that issue, then deal with it on a separate plane. Let's not miss the sharpest point here; that Rather and CBS are culprits in a potential case of fraud perpetrated on the the people of America - a possible fraud that was - to these eyes at least - designed to sway the opinion of the undecided voter, just two months before the presidential election. That's just criminal. Well, if not, it should be. [And if you keep reading Allah's updates, you'll see why this goes so much deeper than two superscript letters on a memo - the deceit that went into this is frightening] UPDATE A very reliable source tells me that CBS may not make the noon deadline.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Real Rather News [updated]:

» Why Did CBS Withhold Certain "Documents" From Their Experts, as Well as the Public? from Ace of Spades HQ
Must read, especially the updates. Devastating. Hat tip to A Small Victory, who actually tried to wean herself off political blogging -- but everytime she tries to get out, they keep pulling her back!... [Read More]

» This is Not a Partisan Thing from Ilyka Damen
Some guy in a comments thread today asked something like, "What about FOX News?" I think he was essentially claiming that, in order to be upset about Dan Rather and CBS and those so-obviously-fake-they-make-my-eyes-bleed documents, one first had to jus... [Read More]

Comments

I can see it now, the USS CBS developed a starboard list last week when the forgery was revealed. Capt. Rather, in accordance with the reposnibilities of his position, has piloted the vessel even as it takes on more water. Now, all that is left above the crest is the rear flight deck, upon which the Capt. stands, saluting. What an oblivious asshole.

LMAO!

I'm afraid that just won't work.

Maybe the announcement is that Dave Letterman is going to ABC, so he can complete his career at the last "major" network.....

OT: Is Talk like a Pirate Day still Sept. 19?

Is proper dress code Eye Patch and Jim-Jams?

Time to get the word out.

Arrrrrr matey, Aye, 'tis indeed!

Whatever the announcement, I'll bet they use a real hefty amount of doublespeak.......

The "larger issue"? Excuse me, Michele, but the larger issue here is that both Kerry and Bush campaign supporters have decided to cross swords over who is more qualified to defend our country, based ENTIRELY on the candidate's (Bush's or Kerry's) military record. If you want to prosecute CBS or someone on the Left who duped CBS, then why aren't you advocating for Regnery Publishing to be prosecuted for issuing their book full of lies and distortions? Why do you focus entirely on one side of the debate to the avoidance of the other side? And while I'm at it--commenting on a blog I thought I'd never comment on again (and which you promised all of us you had abandoned until October at least) why don't you question-- why do you not question the blantantly obvious and incontrovertible fact that Bush avoided combat via his family connections. Recall that the original focus of the CBS story was Ben Barnes, not Jerry Killian. You wanna argue that Ben Barnes is a liar? You're effectively defending a chicken hawk President and Vice President (Cheney, like Clinton, got a draft deferment--and said he had "other priorities") who have sent our men and women into combat with no plan whatsoever to win the peace. When will you wake up?

Brad,
When has anybody in the Bush camp ever said that Bush is the best candidate because of his ANG record? Citations please.

Bringing up Barnes isn't a good idea, Brad. This is a guy who was promised a spot in the Kerry adminstration, a guy who has raised millions of dollars for Kerry. I'm supposed to not question his honesty in all this? Please.

Brad, you really need to stop telling me what to write about. I'm covering the angle I wanted to cover -that of the credibility of mainstream media. If you want me to cover your specific requests then start paying me. Otherwise, go whine on your own blog and stop bugging me.

And where was Brad when it was discovered that Clinton pulled the same kind of strings?

And where was Brad when Bob Dole, a real war hero, was being attacked?

In that second paragraph of your update, you sound like you want to see Rather in the unemployment line. And I don't think the big issue here is credibility. It may be a medium sized issue, but the big issue is who should be president. Granted, CBS/Rather made asses of themselves, and it has been proven that these memos have nothing to do with who should or should not be president. However, the whole hubub of who forged documents and who brought them into the limelight shouldn't precede who we vote for. It should actually have nothing to do with it. Maybe we should completely ignore the media, in hopes that they might forget that we're here. But that's just a suggestion.

I long ago stopped caring about either Bush's or Kerry's 30 year old problems. For me, the only thing this has to do with the election is that Rather was trying to insert his opinion into what was supposed to be a factual piece about the president.

Vietnam no longer matters to me, in regards to this election. I'm more concerned about the here and now, and that's why the AWOL part of this means crap to me.

Good point. There are those who think the "AWOL" story means something. Fine, let them carry it, the fools. But CBS has to stop acting like partisans and admit that, for them, the most important issue is winning back the trust of their audience.

Unless, of course, they have looked at the demographics and figured out that the audience for CBS News is indistinguishable from the MoveOn crowd and just wants them to keep sticking it to Bush. But I doubt that is the case.

One other note on Barnes, didn't he sign an affidavit around 1999 stating he didn't help?

My original point was that both campaigns have stupidly taken the path of least resistance and rehashed old history rather than address current issues. But here we are, relishing the mud. Mud is just so much more fun.

Yeah, the AWOL part means crap to you, but the question of whether Kerry lied about being in Cambodia in 1968 sure did get your attention, didn't it? If you're gonna have a public blog, Michele, then you have to expect to be called to account for your inconsistent focus. I didn't have a blog in 1992--nobody did--so I couldn't call Clinton to account for his inconsistencies. Bob Dole, by the way, has inconsistently called Kerry's war record into question after never doing so for 30 years. Same with Zell Miller.
These politicians are total hypocrites. Only John McCain, whom the Bush campaign smeared 4 years ago (in a fashion very similar to what we're seeing now from the Swifties) has refused to go down that dirty road with respect to Kerry's record--but that doesn't save him from being inconsistent either by the simple fact that he supports the candidate who's advisers elected to smear him in South Carolina.
As far as Ben Barnes--he wasn't signed on to the Kerry campaign in 1999, when his admission was first brought to light in the London Observer by Greg Palast. The fact is, Ben Barnes pulled strings for George Bush. And Bush then decided not to take his annual physical in '72, for which he was suspended from flying. Now a professor of Bush's at Harvard has come forward to back up Barnes's claim--do you want to disbelieve him too? here's the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/13/bush.professor/

Or do you really not want to read anything that doesn't confirm your narrow beliefs about the man you think is best suited to protect America?

Well, Barnes sort of flip-flopped on that issue - he said he pulled strings and then he said he didn't pull strings. So how can I trust his word?

Also, I posted ONCE about the Cambodia issue and it was a satire piece.

For me, this whole CBS-uses-fake-memos story has always been just that. It's not about Bush or Kerry at all.

It's about a reputable news organization that told a story on national TV, using obviously fake documents to buttress the case. And it's about how volunteer citizen journalists called attention to the lie. And it's about how that "reputable" news organization is sticking to its story, at great and increasing expense to its reputation.

Also, I posted ONCE about the Cambodia issue and it was a satire piece.

It seems to have seared, SEARED itself into some people's memories, though.

Michele, allow me to correct you again--You posted at least twice about the Cambodia issue specifically, on August 11 (your "Holiday in Cambodia" post) and then on August 12. On August 23 you then wrote a general post in which all the military arguments about Kerry were wearing on you and you were basically gonna rise above it: your exact words were, "I'm just filtering out those things that don't need to get in and people may think I look dazed and confused but, like my daughter before me, I'm taking in only what's necessary"

Taking in only what's necssary, indeed.

The August 12 post is what got me though--you were responding to the Left's response to the Swifties by arguing that, were the shoe on the other foot, the "left attack machine would be in full-frontal assault mode."
As if the Left's attacks on Bush as so much worse than the Right's attacks on Kerry. Then you wrote, "So here we have a guy - Kerry - who, according to sources that were present with him - lied about his service in Vietnam"--so you actually BOUGHT the Swift Boat lies, hook line and sinker, and repeated them to your audience. If you had done a little more research you would have realized that not a single SBVT claim has stood up--and that none of them served with John Kerry.

Barnes didn't exactly flip flop. If you read Greg Palast you might begin to understand:
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=365&row=0

"In that second paragraph of your update, you sound like you want to see Rather in the unemployment line."

Yeah, he probably doesn't have enough money to retire on.

Michele, how dare you post on a major news organization airing obviously phony evidence in an effort to influence a presidential election, and continuing to defend it even after everybody with half a brain has figured out it's as authentic as an Irishman's promise to "cut down on the boozin' a bit"? SHAME!!!

Brad, I'd love to discuss this with you further (really, I swear), but it should be painfully obvious to you at this point that this post is not about that. You have a tendency to come in here and harp about what I'm not blogging about, as if I owed you or my readers something. I'm a blogger, Brad. Not a fair and balanced reporter. And I have no responsibility to be fair and balanced, until somebody pays me to do so.

And Brad, you seem to have this silly notion that I can influence people and you sort of rail against me for using that influence in a negative way.

Funny, you don't seem to have much to say about Rather when it comes to that.

CBS will blame spies from AIPAC.

Gee, Brad. I recall you commenting that you would never comment on michele's blog again. A man of your word, I see.

You have no right to demand michele write anything. Or present any other point of view than her own.

Go troll your own blog.

Ok, then let's discuss media credibility, or lack thereof. Let's talk about Fox News.

Well, michele, you shouldn't use the /mindcontrol html code when blogging. It has a hypnotic effect.

Whrrr. Click. Must Obey Michele.

;-)

(...and Brad has a brilliant "new" tactic: "Um... um... ignore CBS, look at FOX!")

Something to think about is that Rather, at this point in his career, is probably just a talking head. The producers run down and write the stories and he reads them.

For myself, I don't think CBS News is involved in some kind of media conspiracy against Bush. Rather (no pun intended), some producer probably got "duped" by a bad source and CBS rushed the story to beat the competition. That's usually what's at work when these things occur.

At the end of the day, the TV news business is about moving units for advertisers. Sure, a journalist may not be personally objective, but the bigger news decisions get run up the flagpole to the business side. Unfortunate really, because that's what really determines what news gets reported and what news doesn't get reported.

Brad, look before you dive in, man. You dont touch bottom here.

My god, Brad. You can't really be that dense, can you?

"some producer probably got "duped" by a bad source and CBS rushed the story to beat the competition. That's usually what's at work when these things occur."

I'd like to believe that. And that's what the more responsible folks on the right keep saying. But I just can't reconcile that position with CBS's actions in the wake of the devestating evidence. CBS chose to 'lawyer up' instead of 'opening up'. Those that have suspicions, like me, are well justified.

The problem is, CBS didn't rush. They supposedly had the memos for at least 4 - 6 weeks.

And they didn't vet the memos until a couple of days before? The documents they base their accusations on?

They thought it was a sure thing.

CBS just announced they "can't be sure if the documents are real or fake."
ROFLMAO.

Okay: First what I originally meant to comment about--

Which means, someone needs to get fired over this, or all apologies and posturing about being responsible are null and void.

Agreed, but we don't exactly live in the age of accountability, so I won't hold my breath. I'm thinking of how long it took to get rid of Tenet, among other things.

Well, it would have been nice to stop there, but then there's Brad:

And while I'm at it--commenting on a blog I thought I'd never comment on again (and which you promised all of us you had abandoned until October at least)

Brad, people here might take you more seriously and respond more respectfully if you did not let slip, at every opportunity, the fact that ultimately you think Michele owes you something. That is the part that annoys, okay? That is what gets everyone rolling her eyes and thinking, "God, this guy's a dick."

You saying that by Michele having a public blog she opens herself up to folks like you is every bit as retarded as saying that a girl wearing a short skirt opens herself up to rape, okay? You just don't make a very welcome debate participant--not because of the issues you raise or the positions you stake on 'em, but because everything you write screams, "Listen to me. Listen to ME. You OWE ME." It's the attitude, Brad. It's this "the whole world owes me a fair hearing" attitude.

And the sad fact of the matter is, she don't owe you shit--nor does any other blogger. This is a personal weblog, not Metafilter or a message board.

Are you bummed she came back earlier than October?--Here, then. Come sit next to me and have a big frosty mug of too fuckin' bad.

"Are you bummed she came back earlier than October?--Here, then. Come sit next to me and have a big frosty mug of too fuckin' bad."

He apparently fears her mighty pen/keyboard.

Why else would he spend some much time on her?

To Michele...damn I missed you and I'm glad I checked before I deleted this bookmark

Oh, you don't know the half of it. He sends me emails, as well.

Folks, here is something that many of you may not know about Brad and which makes his behavior here seem even more inexplicable. Brad has his own blog which can be reached by clicking here. His comments on this site give a fairly accurate picture of the contents of his blog. It is not by any means a balanced news site, which is his entirely legitimate choice, rather his blog presents his own opinions together with news items to reinforce these opinions. Interestingly, A Small Victory is not even on his blog roll.

Brad had his own forum for his opinions on the web. Indeed, he has exactly the same kind of forum as Michele. Given this fact, it appears that he complains here not because his ideas are not being expressed on the web, but rather because other people, in this case Michele, are expressing ideas that he does not like.

"Brad had his own forum for his opinions on the web. Indeed, he has exactly the same kind of forum as Michele. Given this fact, it appears that he complains here not because his ideas are not being expressed on the web, but rather because other people, in this case Michele, are expressing ideas that he does not like."

I think that's close. I would add that I think it burns his ass that he has ZERO commenters at least on the page you whiel Michele enjoys a regular readership and has grown beyond the simple blog(see Command Post).

You could cut and paste Atrios on Brad's page and not know the difference.

gee, I'm so impressed that Average Joe was able to find out, through obviously very difficult detective work, where I blog from and what I'm all about.

And that he has discerned that I am an apparently unique entity--a blogger who actually visits other blogs and makes contrarian comments. Gee whillikers! Alert the media!

I will admit I'm quite envious of the fact that Michele has so many visitors who are willing to attack contrarians ad hominem, rather than attack their ideas. How'd you do it, Michele? Do you pay them a salary?

Brad, people talk about what they want to talk about, and it's a waste of breath to argue with that.

***On topic:
Rather has had too much power for far too long, and he so richly deserves this takedown. Viva the revolution!

Shorter Brad "pay attention to me!"

Oh yes, no one could possibly disagree with Brad. Why, they must be getting paid to say things disputing his views.

Grow up.

On Topic again--from The New Republic:
(http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=demos091504)

"Dan Rather may have indeed been duped, but even if that is the case, his mistake was far less problematic than the offenses against journalism perpetrated daily by Fox News and other unabashedly conservative media outlets. CBS News may be many things, but it is not the left-wing equivalent of Fox News. And we ought to be much more concerned about the willful journalistic contortions of the latter than the alleged sloppiness of the former."

Discuss...

Brad, we're still waiting for you to discuss Rather and the memos.

Not how this relates to Fox News. Tell us, Brad: Do you think the memos are real? Do you trust Dan Rather? Do you think Barnes has a conflict of interest? Do you care at all that Rather was using false documents to further an anti-Bush story?

Stay with us here, Brad.

And never, ever, ever try derail my comments into a discussion about what you want to talk about. I'll start charging you for my bandwidth, Brad.

Moral equivalency is not an answer to the above questions, by the way.

Don't lecture me, Michele. You want get pissed about discussions running off topic--tell it to Patrick Chester, Ryan, Val, Average Joe and ilyka, who all chose to change the topic from Dan Rather's ego to mine. You're welcome to ban me again and you can even block me from emailing you privately, if it's giving you nightmares.

Do I think the documents are fake? Yes. Does Ben Barnes have a conflict of interest? Yes, but I believe his story is true despite that. You can do someone a favor and then later betray them--happens every day in politics.
Should Dan Rather be fired? If accountability goes all the way to the top, yes, he should lose his job, and so should Donald Rumsfeld for Abu Ghraib. Whoops--change of topic! Or is it?
Moral Equivalency. You accuse me of always engaging in a "the Right does it too" defense. But where does ANY political figure on the Right--and specifically in the Bush administration--set a higher standard for behavior when it comes to this "He Said She Said" game? Dick Cheney tells a Senator to "Go Fuck Himself" and the RiIght applauds him. Bush calls a reporter a "major league asshole" and mocks the last words of a woman whose execution he signed off on, and the Right applauds. Rush, Sean, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and the whole sick crew at the Washington Times engages in smear campaigns and no one on the Right calls them on it. In the words of Lynyrd Skynyrd, "Does your conscience bother you? tell the truth."

Thus Spake Brad.
tell it to Patrick Chester, Ryan, Val, Average Joe and ilyka, who all chose to change the topic from Dan Rather's ego to mine.

Apparently, they are similar in nature so it's easy to get confused.

You're welcome to ban me again and you can even block me from emailing you privately, if it's giving you nightmares.

Something tells me annoyance is the most you can aspire to. Unless it degrades to stalking.

You accuse me of always engaging in a "the Right does it too" defense.

Well, not always but it really wasn't a good idea for you to make that protestation and then bleat with:

But where does ANY political figure on the Right--and specifically in the Bush administration--set a higher standard for behavior when it comes to this "He Said She Said" game?

IOW, you're trying to say that the right... does it... too?

Since you apparently consider me part of the "right" one might wonder if dragging me in for "off-topic" comments made in response to your antics is yet another example.