CBS and Rather Admit Mistakes in Bush Documents

Vexler writes "The word this afternoon from CBS regarding the authenticity of the national guard memos of President Bush is that they cannot be trusted, confirming what several document experts had already suggested. In Dan Rather apologized for a 'mistake in judgment.' I have to wonder though: What would be the price CBS (or CNN, during the 2000 presidential election in which the final tally from Florida was changed several times before they realized that a recount may be needed) would pay for 'mistakes' of this type? What are some of your thoughts regarding 'moderating' (think /.) a news agency when it admits that more than just an honest mistake has been committed in its reporting?" There is still one big question remaining unanswered, too: who forged the memos? Where did they come from? Burkett, the man who provided them to CBS, won't say where he got them.

Comments

Re:Who did this damage more?

[QuantumRiff]

keep in mind this is 60 minutes.. remember their huge, explosive, damaging piece of work about side straddle gas tanks on pickups? Cause mountains of damage when they showed a video of a car ramming the rear side of the pickup, and the pickup exploded. Of course, later, people found out that the pickup had incendiary's to make sure to set the gas on fire!!!.. so then CBS was laughed at. Of course it was a real issue, they did sometimes go boom, but adding electronic sparklers to the car to make sure it did sure ruined any journalistic integrity they have in my view..

Re:How Soon Does The News Have to Be Out?

[BrookHarty]

Rather, on the other hand, had time to check, and didn't do his job.

I find the whole thing very amusing. Dan Rather did check, but he didnt test the papers for fraud. I expected Bush or the White house to come out with a better response than "They seem fake..." Like providing the real documents, nope....

It's amusing, they tried to get Clinton on anything, finally after nothing worked, they investigated his sex life.

But on the other hand.

Bush's service records show gaps, people know he was an avid partier and drug user, he admitted it. Every business he started Failed. He was funded by the Bin ladens. His daughter sold drugs in re-hab, was never arrested. He used faulty intelligence to start a war. (Lie?) The list goes on...

Also, with all the attacks on the president in office, the 911 report showed Clinton was too busy defending himself with all the republican attacks. Nice job. And now the republicans say, doesn't matter who is president, you should support your president.... Nice 180 there.

The newest spin for today, Rathergate.

Business as usual.

-
Commies had Pravda, Republicans have FOX TV

Re:How Soon Does The News Have to Be Out?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Wow. You just kinda vomited all over the keyboard there, didn't ya? I know you're probably so furious about the coming landslide that you can barely see straight, but could you maybe put just a little effort into at least concocting the appearance that your post is in some way topical or relevant?

Re:There's no libel here

[angst_ridden_hipster]

OK. I hate the partisan game that gets played. I usually try to stay out of it. I'm not always successful.

Here's a case where I'm not.

Yellowcake uranium from pre-Gulf War I does not qualify as a WMD, as used in the justification for Gulf War II.

It's pretty clear from the current evidence that the only countries possessing stocks of WMDs are:
Britain, China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, United States. It would be plausible to add Iran and North Korea to that list, although in all likelihood neither country is quite there yet. North Korea is reputed to be further along in their development. South Africa evidently had the bomb, but claims to have dismantled their stockpile of six devices. Several foremer-Soviet republics (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine) gave their nukes back to Russia, or destroyed them, or sold them to AlQaida, depending on which reports you believe.

(Sources for above assertions available upon suitably impressive challenge. Otherwise, I'll just play the "Hell, this is Slashdot; I don't need no stinkin' facts!" card.)

let's get this straight...

[kevin lyda]

someone when before the american people and presented false information as factual. and people feel that once that information is proven false, that the person who presented it should at least apologise and at most should resign.

ok. i can agree with that. so after we're done going after rather for lying about bush's guard service, can we then go after bush for lying about, you know, sending the country to war in iraq. i know starting a war isn't as important as trying to figure out if the son of a rich and powerful politician got preferential treatment during a draft (like that would ever happen), but it seems like something we could, at some point possibly, give a little look over...

i know, i know, i'm a commie anti-american islamic terrorist atheist liberal. dunno what i was thinking. please go back to destroying my country. i'll just sit over here and mourn her demise.