Slashdot Mirror
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.
60 Minutes didn't even think that telling us that Indian programmers are getting our jobs because they are *better* with their IIT degrees than we are with 10-20 years of experience was insulting. I think CBS can readily be dismissed as an actual news source- and was a long time ago by anybody watching these things. So no- I don't think whoever gave the documents to Burkett would have thought that their forgery would have been caught so quickly.
If it was the Republicans, then not only does it not pass the smell test- it means that Rove & Crew are so smart, so underhanded, that Kerry might as well concede the election today.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The story was well researched, includes a lot of interviews
No, it wasn't, and what interviews? Ben Barnes? (Kerry campaign Vice Chair and number three fund-raiser) Bill Burkett? (Democratic activist with a personal animus towards Bush who has retracted some of his past accusations). Hodges? (who claims they misrepresented what he said - given their misrepresentation of the document experts that is only too believable).
The only credible testimony is the secretary who wasn't interviewed during the "five years of research" and the original story but only came up after a local paper researched it for maybe a week. Even in her case CBS ignores any evidence (such as her own partisanship or the fact that she was a pool, not a private secretary) that undermines their predetermined storyline.
On the other side of the ledger is the interviews they chose not to include in their report. Killian's family, several of Bush's fellow pilots as well as Staudt. Certainly their testimony is just as liable to be suspect due to partisanship, personal friendships etc. But it seems more than fair to call such a report "one sided" or even "biased". The story of Bush's status as a "fortunate son" is a LOT more ambiguous than the CBS/DNC account.
Finally, i don't think that a major news organization pushing forged documents in an attempt to influence an election is a insignificant "shiny toy." I'm sure if ABC News and the Wall Street Journal pushed a major story blasting Kerry based on crudely forged documents from an "unimpeachable" source that turned out to be John O'Neill and the testimony of a Bush fundraising "Ranger" you would think it was an important issue - even if they found a secretary to confirm the documents as "fake, but accurate" (and as an aside mentioned that Kerry was a "flip-flopper" she just didn't trust)