Originally posted by: MrPALCO
The difficult resposnsibility the President faces, Don Vito, is being the defender of the Constitution and the leader of all the people. It is all the people who must be lead to defend the Constitution.
It is not I that would call him out for the use of the nuclear option, it is you and your friends.
Originally posted by: MrPALCO
The difficult resposnsibility the President faces, Don Vito, is being the defender of the Constitution and the leader of all the people. It is all the people who must be lead to defend the Constitution.
It is not I that would call him out for the use of the nuclear option, it is you and your friends.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
heh Maybe I could call up cBS and tell them I have some docs on kerry(I'm pretty good with M$Word). You think they'd call Rove up for me and have him give me a call?
CsG
hahahahahaha[...]
Burkett has had little luck finding a lawyer to represent him. His first attorney, David Van Os of San Antonio, bowed out because he was involved in the initial negotiations with CBS and feels a conflict of interest. Quintanilla said he is suffering from severe back problems and cannot handle the deluge of calls and messages in an incident that, he said, has generated more conspiracy theories than the "grassy knoll" did in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. . . . .
And finally, Marshall Loeb presents us with an interesting lessons learned piece. Excerpt:NEW YORK - When CBS News named its panel of two independent investigators to examine the problems with its report on President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service, anchor Dan Rather learned their names on the same morning as everyone else.
It was an uncharacteristic slight given the deference with which Rather, CBS News' marquee asset for two decades, was usually treated.
But it may be emblematic of the every-person-for-himself atmosphere that has engulfed the news division since Monday, when the network admitted what many outside CBS had long believed: that the 1970s documents on which it based the Sept. 8 report had authenticity problems. . . .
Indeed.Avoid the rush
It's back to basics now, says Michael Hoyt, executive editor of the Columbia Journalism Review. "You don't go to press before you're ready. What was CBS' rush? Their proof was faulty. They don't know where the document they used to back their story came from. They've got bloggers out there ready to fact-check them. They're waiting for this kind of thing."
If ever a story should destroy the myth of liberal media bias, it is the flap over Dan Rather's flub. For CBS, the admission that it cannot verify the authenticity of documents used in a story about President Bush's National Guard service is a serious matter to be sure. People should probably be fired.
But the real and long-lasting lesson of this story lies in the amount of attention being paid to the apology, particularly in relation to another recent case of grievous media error.
Just four months ago, lest we forget, the New York Times issued its own mea culpa, acknowledging the repeated use of dubious information in its coverage of the run-up to the Iraq War and the Bush administration's repeated assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In the case of one story, the Times flat-out said it was duped, although it used the more decorous phrase "taken in."
The two media apologies have a lot in common. In both cases, the issues involved have major implications for the presidential campaign. In both cases, a well-known national news organization admitted sloppy reporting and acknowledged that critical information could not be verified. In both cases, reporters were overly credulous in dealing with sources who had a political interest at stake -- in the CBS case the former Guardsman who is a vehement Bush opponent, in the New York Times case the Bush administration officials defending the president's decision to attack Iraq.
The critical difference between the two stories is that the Times' mistake was actually the far more serious of the two. The suspect stories touched on a more substantive topic -- the reasons for sending American soldiers to fight and die rather than the service record of a single lieutenant three decades ago -- and the journalistic failures were more prolonged and repeated, involving multiple stories over a period of months rather than a single story on a single day.
Yet against all logic, the CBS mea culpa is getting much more ink and air time than the New York Times case. The Times itself is one example. The paper ran its own apology on Page 10, but, perhaps drunk on schadenfreude, played the CBS confession above the fold on the front page. Other papers showed similar judgment. The Los Angeles Times put the New York paper's goof on Page 10, the CBS one on the front page. Sad to say, The Chronicle did much the same thing: The Times story was reported on Page 2 in an unsigned note "to the readers;" the CBS gaffe merited two stories on Page 1.
Why? The answer lies in the political impact of each issue, and reveals much about political coverage in the mainstream media. The Times' apology, by acknowledging the flaws of the administration's claims, hurt President Bush. The CBS apology obviously helped him, casting a pall of doubt over the entire issue of whether young Lt. Bush did his duty during the Vietnam War. The difference in play given to each of the two apologies is only the latest evidence of a growing, and yet little remarked, conservative media bias.
Originally posted by: conjur
Interesting, but detailed, study of the documents and the fonts:
http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/index.htm
But, it seems more and more that Roger Stone is linked to MacDougald ("Buckhead"). Guess that part will never make the news, though.
Originally posted by: conjurBut, it seems more and more that Roger Stone is linked to MacDougald ("Buckhead"). Guess that part will never make the news, though.
More like the Pajamujahaideen ...Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Rather & Mape's stunt will earn a place in journalism texts for decades..., as will the delayed admission of guilt by CBS.
It'll be the chapter titled, "How Pajama Wearing Bloggers Brought Down a Network Anchor."
Originally posted by: conjur
Interesting, but detailed, study of the documents and the fonts:
http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/index.htm
But, it seems more and more that Roger Stone is linked to MacDougald ("Buckhead"). Guess that part will never make the news, though.
Thomas Phinney, Font Program manager for Adobe also wrote a series of pieces.Originally posted by: charrison
He contends an ibm typewriter did this, but yet does not specify a single model that would have been capable of doing this.Originally posted by: conjur
Interesting, but detailed, study of the documents and the fonts:
http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/index.htm
But, it seems more and more that Roger Stone is linked to MacDougald ("Buckhead"). Guess that part will never make the news, though.
A better article
This one talks about the fonts and the capablities of typewriters at the time.
Originally posted by: burnedout
Thomas Phinney, Font Program manager for Adobe also wrote a series of pieces.Originally posted by: charrison
He contends an ibm typewriter did this, but yet does not specify a single model that would have been capable of doing this.Originally posted by: conjur
Interesting, but detailed, study of the documents and the fonts:
http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/index.htm
But, it seems more and more that Roger Stone is linked to MacDougald ("Buckhead"). Guess that part will never make the news, though.
A better article
This one talks about the fonts and the capablities of typewriters at the time.
Phinney on the Adobe forum - keep scrolling
Phinney discussing the issue on "Creative Pro"
More from Phinney on a journalist's blog.
He was also cited by the WaPo, ABC News and a couple of others.
Yes, yes, of course. Let's see here.LMAO, nobody has proven the documents false. Opinions are just that, nothing but opinions. One side has their experts and the other side has their own. It proves nothing.
Originally posted by: burnedout
Yes, yes, of course. Let's see here.LMAO, nobody has proven the documents false. Opinions are just that, nothing but opinions. One side has their experts and the other side has their own. It proves nothing.
Opinion from a recognized computer scientist and digital typographic pioneer indicating the docs are forged.
Opinion from a font program manager at one of the most sophisticated digital imaging concerns on the planet implying the docs are likely forged.
Opinion from a leftist, internet pundit (poli sci, philosophy undergrad and law school grad) thinking the documents could be authentic.
Opinion from an English professor at a tier 2 university attempting to make a case that the docs could be authentic.
At any rate, "See BS" has their doubts. In this case, that's everything. Now, you can whine, bitch, snivel, beg, bleat and cry until the end of time for all I care. However, "See BS" doubts the document's authenticity. Case closed. You are dismissed.
So you are telling me that you accept technically inferior opinion? In other words, you accept the opinions from both a leftwing nutjob and an English prof over that from a computer pioneer and program font manager? And you profess to be an adult? Please.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: burnedout
Yes, yes, of course. Let's see here.LMAO, nobody has proven the documents false. Opinions are just that, nothing but opinions. One side has their experts and the other side has their own. It proves nothing.
Opinion from a recognized computer scientist and digital typographic pioneer indicating the docs are forged.
Opinion from a font program manager at one of the most sophisticated digital imaging concerns on the planet implying the docs are likely forged.
Opinion from a leftist, internet pundit (poli sci, philosophy undergrad and law school grad) thinking the documents could be authentic.
Opinion from an English professor at a tier 2 university attempting to make a case that the docs could be authentic.
At any rate, "See BS" has their doubts. In this case, that's everything. Now, you can whine, bitch, snivel, beg, bleat and cry until the end of time for all I care. However, "See BS" doubts the document's authenticity. Case closed. You are dismissed.
You stated that they were "false allegations". You are the sniveling whiner here, not me. LOL
Then why has "See BS" backed away from their claim? Don't worry, I won't wait around today for yet another lame answer. However, you may begin at any time.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Opinions are nothing but educated guesses. Both sides have experts that have different opinions. They're all just guessing.
Originally posted by: burnedout
Then why has "See BS" backed away from their claim? Don't worry, I won't wait around today for yet another lame answer. However, you may begin at any time.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Opinions are nothing but educated guesses. Both sides have experts that have different opinions. They're all just guessing.
Rather: "Have you forged anything?"
Burkett: "No sir."
Rather: "Have you faked anything?
Burkett: "No sir."
Rather: "But you did mislead us."
Burkett: "Yes, I misled."
Rather: "You, you lie, you"
Burkett: "yes, I did."
Rather:: "You lied to us. Why would I, or anyone, believe that you wouldn't mislead us about something else?"
Burkett: "I could understand that question. I can't. That's gonna have to be your judgment and anybody else's."
Burkett still insists the documents are real, but says he was in no position to verify them.
Burkett: "I also insisted when I sat down with your staff in the first face-to-face session, before I gave up any documents, I wanted to know what you were gonna do with them. And I insisted they be authenticated."
The failure of CBS News to do just that, to properly, fully scrutinize the documents and their source, led to our airing the documents when we should not have done so. It was a mistake. CBS News deeply regrets it. Dan Rather also said personally and directly on the evening broadcast, "I'm sorry."
CBS News President Andrew Heyward has ordered an independent investigation to examine the process by which the report was prepared. The results of that investigation will be made public.
This was an error made in good faith as we tried to carry on the CBS News tradition of asking tough questions and investigating reports, but it was a mistake.
Content and authenticity are two entirely different aspects. If you are unable to discern as much, then you are either illiterate or stupid or both.I don't see where CBS has backed away from the content of the story?
Originally posted by: beyoku
hast the been a repost yet?
Rathergate.com was created on 09/10, one week before CBS "realised" their mistake. Registered by Mike Krempasky, who recently disclosed, that he is the political director for American Target Advertising, a Virginia firm run by Richard Viguerie, the conservative strategist widely credited with inventing political direct mail and helping Ronald Reagan and numerous other Republicans get elected.
http://inn.globalfreepress.com...rticle.php?storyid=807
The owner of rathergate.com gives a small post at the bottom.
Any thoughts?
Originally posted by: burnedout
Content and authenticity are two entirely different aspects. If you are unable to discern as much, then you are either illiterate or stupid or both.I don't see where CBS has backed away from the content of the story?